Document in the book "Where the iron crosses grow" R.Forczyk

[history1]

[...]
IMHO, an author who can't read, evaluate and cross-check primary sources of the subject he is writing about, because he doesn't speak the language, cannot qualify as an expert. And neither does his service in the US Army.

I can only fully agree!

I n his bibliography he mentions Carell's 'Hitler Moves East' (completly outdated and unreliable) and two books by Franz Kurowski (400 books in app. 50 years, mostly popular 'Landser'-like books about WW2).

ROFL

[Rob - wssob2]

None of his books are scholarly works, they all are 'popular military history entertainment', AFAIK all published by Osprey.

I disagree with your definition of "scholarly"

For example - I've read Rising '44 by Norman Davies and Forczyk's book on the Warsaw Uprising. Yes Forczyk's book is by comparison a precis (i.e. abstract or summary) by comparison but that in itself does not make it un-scholarly. In fact, the abbreviated format (which is basically Osprey's specialty) can be great - and even better way - to get the gist of a complicated event. The maps in Forczyk's Warsaw book are brilliantly done, and do a better job of illustrating the swing/scope of battle than Davis' text. (as the cliche says, "a picture is worth a thousand words")

Your comments seem indicative of a knee-jerk response.

IMHO, an author who can't read, evaluate and cross-check primary sources of the subject he is writing about

He has both a Notes and Bibliography in the Where the Iron Crosses Grow, which includes specific mention of research in the Wehrmacht (German Eleventh Army, et. al.) primary source records at NARA. There is also a bibliography.

because he doesn't speak the language, cannot qualify as an expert.

So we'll use one mistake in a caption on one page of a 300 page book to confirm that Forczyk doesn't speak German? That seems a little hasty.

And neither does his service in the US Army.

While I agree that military service is not a must have preresquisite for a military historian (witness John Keegan) I think its safe to say that a person whose career involved commanding armor units probably knows something about military tactics and strategy from a professional perspective.

[Rob - wssob2]

Seems you aren´t even aware of the discrepancy in your statement, rob?

Do you have a problem with rounding up? 18 is closer to 20 than it is to 10, or 0.

BTW, I don´t care how many academic degrees someone has or if he served in the US army.

Well, if academic credentials and professional career don't provide a level of expertise, I don't know what does.

We know about US troops who frivolously murdered journalists in Iraq because they were not able or willed to correctly identifiy what they were holding in their hands.

And what does your off-topic flame bait have to do with Forczyk's credentials?

Being an american "war hero" like many consider Jim Gilliland because he killed enemies doesnt count as qualification.

Perhaps you are exhibiting some bias?

More likely the behaviour of the author is arguable, calling someone in public "a holocaust denier"

In the context of the Amazon thread, reviewer RMatz stated

I can't write much about the book then about an incredible error I found online (due to this fact I give only 1 star but NOT as rating of the book but due the fact that I'm forced to give stars):
Quote from the book
"Part of the daily log from a German security unit in the Crimea, for March 17, 1942. Note the numerous notations for “Juden Akten” or Jewish Action, indicating liquidation operations against local civilians. The banality of evil is quite evident on this piece of bureaucratic memorabilia, with the most interesting touch being that the Germans actually used a stamp for ethnic-cleansing activities. (NARA)"
Seems the author didn't care much about the truth then writing about the evil germans!
[...]
The letters "J" and "Z" are unmistakable in Süterlin script!

to which Forczyk responded:

Perhaps you are correct about the translation, but it's clear that you didn't read the book and didn't look at the original records at NARA. You simply trolled this from another on-line forum.

The original records are from a German security unit whose leader was later convicted of crimes against humanity in the Ukraine and the Crimea. The log of this unit is littered with references of partisans eliminated in this town and that. FYI, German records didn't refer to Jews as Jews, but as "partisans" or "Bolsheviks". The entire language of the Holocaust was cloaked in euphemisms, including innocuous stuff like "To the Files" (where course records of executions were not going), which is why Holocaust deniers like yourself can suggest that the Germans were not guilty of genocide.

While Forczyk's response is perhaps not polite enough for some people, it is clear from RMatz's statement that he didn't read the book, but only found the photo and caption online - which Forczyk takes issues with (and rightly so - one shouldn't write a book review unless one has read the book)

I think the "evil Germans" comment by RMatz provoked the "which is why Holocaust deniers like yourself" response.

[siwiec]

While Forczyk's response is perhaps not polite enough for some people

I would say not scholarly enough. His ad hoc explanation about "to the files" being an euphemism is rather hilarious.

[Rob - wssob2]

I would say not scholarly enough. His ad hoc explanation about "to the files" being an euphemism is rather hilarious.

Only to those desparately eager to discredit him. Amazon thread discussions aren't exactly a hotbed of informed scholarly debate.

Siwic - why do you rake Forczyk over the coals but don't call to task RMatz - who

1) Is reviewing a book he didn't read and

2) Inorrectly identifying a German-language font

Maybe RMatz doesnt speak German either....

[siwiec]

Siwic - why do you rake Forczyk over the coals but don't call to task RMatz

I'll promise to do that next time I stumble into a book written by RMatz.

[Rob - wssob2]

I'll promise to do that next time I stumble into a book written by RMatz.

Take you time, as apparently for as far as we know he neither writes nor reads them

[Reichskriegsgericht]

He has both a Notes and Bibliography in the Where the Iron Crosses Grow, which includes specific mention of research in the Wehrmacht (German Eleventh Army, et. al.) primary source records at NARA. There is also a bibliography.

So we'll use one mistake in a caption on one page of a 300 page book to confirm that Forczyk doesn't speak German? That seems a little hasty.

A few weeks ago I couldn't find any information regarding his knowledge of foreign languages. Now you find some on his Linkedin page, where he states he is fluent in Japanese and knows basic German. That's enough to buy a Schnitzel as a tourist, but definitely not enough to write books about the Eastern front. And it makes me wonder, why he doesn't use his Japanese to write about the War in the Pacific.

My guess: Osprey needed someone to cover the Eastern front and he seemed to be the right man.

Notes and a bibliography? That doesn't mean he actually read and understood what he cites. With no knowledge of Russian and basic knowledge of German!!! Come on....

[history1]

Seems you aren´t even aware of the discrepancy in your statement, rob?

Do you have a problem with rounding up? 18 is closer to 20 than it is to 10, or 0.

Rounding up? I call it the inaccuracy of some Americans, one claiming that he´s presenting a file about "Judenakten" while it´s "Zu den Akten" and the other claiming that Forczyk served 20 years in the US army instead 18 which he himself is quoting!
Guess you like to give false informations if they are for your benefit.

We know about US troops who frivolously murdered journalists in Iraq because they were not able or willed to correctly identifiy what they were holding in their hands.

And what does your off-topic flame bait have to do with Forczyk's credentials?

And what does Forczyks military service has to do with this thread? Who brought that in, me or you?

More likely the behaviour of the author is arguable, calling someone in public "a holocaust denier"

In the context of the Amazon thread, reviewer RMatz stated

I can't write much about the book then about an incredible error I found online (due to this fact I give only 1 star but NOT as rating of the book but due the fact that I'm forced to give stars):
Quote from the book
"Part of the daily log from a German security unit in the Crimea, for March 17, 1942. Note the numerous notations for “Juden Akten” or Jewish Action, indicating liquidation operations against local civilians. The banality of evil is quite evident on this piece of bureaucratic memorabilia, with the most interesting touch being that the Germans actually used a stamp for ethnic-cleansing activities. (NARA)"
Seems the author didn't care much about the truth then writing about the evil germans!
[...]

to which Forczyk responded:

Perhaps you are correct about the translation,[...]
FYI, German records didn't refer to Jews as Jews, but as "partisans" or "Bolsheviks". The entire language of the Holocaust was cloaked in euphemisms, including innocuous stuff like "To the Files" (where course records of executions were not going), which is why Holocaust deniers like yourself can suggest that the Germans were not guilty of genocide.

Forczyk isn´t only questioning my translation he also is downplaying his error calling it "innocuous stuff". But he did push the "evil German" - expresson very hard when he wrote in his book the caption and himself writes

The banality of evil is quite evident on this piece of bureaucratic memorabilia[/b], with the most interesting touch being that the Germans actually used a stamp for ethnic-cleansing activities

But not only that,he got also prooved wrong with his claim "FYI, German records didn't refer to Jews as Jews""
My response was

There are lots of documents where Jews are called jews even on documents dealing with their elimination, eg. "Verbrechen der Wehrmacht, page 554, entry from October 29th 1941 -report from the 1. Batailon of the Infantry Regiment 724:
"werden [...] die am 18.10. verhaftenen Kommunisten und Juden [...] hinter dem Beutelager erschossen =
the communists and jews arrested on october 18th got killed behind the pillage depot".

I nowhere wrote that the Germans were not guilty of genocide of which this author is accusing me as "holocaust denier"!

While Forczyk's response is perhaps not polite enough for some people, [...]

Not polite? This man comited a crime with his defamation and you are calling it "not polite"??
Wake up before it´s to late, but it´s seems its already to late.

[Rob - wssob2]

Hi History 1,

Rounding up? I call it the inaccuracy of some Americans,

Forczyk on his Amazon page describes himself as "Retired after 20 years as an armor and military intelligence officer." Look it up.

I wrote 20, Random House Publishers wrote 18 - and the HTML page was probably written a couple years ago.

Let's put this to bed. It's a dumb thing to argue about, and your overplaying your hand.

And what does Forczyks military service has to do with this thread? Who brought that in, me or you?

It helps establish his expertise. A professional war fighter knows something about war.

Your mention of Iraq and anti-American sentiment in general has nothing to do with Forczyk's worth as a historian.

Forczyk isn´t only questioning my translation he also is downplaying his error calling it "innocuous stuff".

You have pointed that there is one factual error on one page of his book Where the Iron Crosses Grow

But you have not pointed out if this one error is part of a larger pattern.

Which, of course, you can't do, you haven't read the book.

But not only that,he got also prooved wrong with his claim "FYI, German records didn't refer to Jews as Jews""

Forczyk is correct in pointing out that on the Eastern Front, euphemisms such as "bandits" or "plunderers" were words used instead of "Jews" in official Wehrmacht and SS documentation. This is Holocaust History 101. What he wrote isn't even remotely controversial.

You are perhaps correct in pointing out that on occasion, Wehrmacht and SS documentation did use the word "Jews" - but your point does not prove his point wrong.

I nowhere wrote that the Germans were not guilty of genocide

No, but you did infer that his book was promoting the myth of "evil Germans" - something Holocaust deniers often claim.

Not polite? This man comited a crime with his defamation

Are you referring to some sort of cyber defamation?

Clearly you a) don't know much about American free speech law and b) you are way too sensitive to particpate in amazon.com forum discussions.

You also should read the books you review. Your credibility is shot, regardless if its "Juden Aktion" or "Zu den Akten"

[Rob - wssob2]

A few weeks ago I couldn't find any information regarding his knowledge of foreign languages. Now you find some on his Linkedin page, where he states he is fluent in Japanese and knows basic German.

That's creepy that you're stalking in LI profile.

Knowing some basic German is better than knowing no German at all, correct?

That's enough to buy a Schnitzel as a tourist, but definitely not enough to write books about the Eastern front.

I didn't know aspiring writers on the Eastern Front had to get their German Language Proficiency Certification from Reichskriegsgericht (that's "Empire War Law - or maybe I translated it incorrectly...)

What I find amazing about Holocaust deniers/naysayers/mitigators/naysayers/ Third Reich apologists/SS fanbois is the perennial critique that X historian/writer doesn't know German.

My guess: Osprey needed someone to cover the Eastern front and he seemed to be the right man.

And apparently he is, as they keep hiring him.

Notes and a bibliography? That doesn't mean he actually read and understood what he cites.

Oh boy, I suppose then he got the books off the internet then.

With no knowledge of Russian and basic knowledge of German!!! Come on....

The goal posts have been moved - henceforth all aspiring writers on the Eastern Front need to get both their German AND Russian Language Proficiency Certification from Reichskriegsgericht prior to publishing content Otherwise, it is strictly verboten.

Reichskriegsgericht , I'd prefer to see you read Forczyk's book and find 24 additional errata about the Holocaust in the Crimea in addition to the Zu den Akten comment to establish a pattern. Find a few dozen more errors, and you have yourself a case that Forczk's scholarship is unreliable.

[Reichskriegsgericht]

That's creepy that you're stalking in LI profile.

Wow, now you're losing it, running out of arguments and falling back on personal insults. I won't waste my time with any further dispute. EOD

[Marcus]

Everyone, drop the personal and political commentary and get back on topic.

A post containing little but political commentary about present day US was removed.

/Marcus

[history1]

Everyone, drop the personal and political commentary and get back on topic.

A post containing little but political commentary about present day US was removed.

/Marcus

There was one single sentence in the whole post concerning the nowadays US policy I uploaded today in the morning! There was NO need to delete the entire post as it clearly refered to the book or Dr. Forczyk.

Time to think about if it´s worth to post here any longer when you delete whatever you want.

[Marcus]

Everyone, drop the personal and political commentary and get back on topic.

A post containing little but political commentary about present day US was removed.

/Marcus

There was one single sentence in the whole post concerning the nowadays US policy I uploaded today in the morning! There was NO need to delete the entire post as it clearly refered to the book or Dr. Forczyk.

Time to think about if it´s worth to post here any longer when you delete whatever you want.

You opened your post commenting on allegations of war crimes of the present day US forces and ended it complaining about the treatment of suspects by the US police and the views of the US public. That is not "one single sentence".
You know present day politics is off topic in this forum so it should come as no surprise that the post was removed.
I can send you the rest of your post if you want to repost it.

/Marcus