Attack the messenger instead of the message
Irony is obviously not your strong suit.
ChristopherPerrien wrote:Anything written today in Germany by a German citizen dealing with such WWII aspects as German General's collective responsibility for, or knowledge of, the Holocaust/Final Solution, is written under a "tinge" of government duress and fear. There is both an enforced and a subliminal biasness implicit to any WWII historical work that comes out of Germany today.
Or how would you describe what you wrote above other than attacking the messenger, instead of the message. If it comes from Germany, no matter what it is, it is suspect. How about dealing with the content first, before moving on to summary dismissal of the message just because it was written by a German and published in Germany. I notice also that you repeat this opinion but you are obviously unwilling or incapable of providing any support for it. As I said, sad.
Back on topic. I would not get too hung up about the newspaper article - my views are pretty much in the same line as David's. I see the article as a useful starter to the debate, but the debate itself should focus on actual evidence, such as the orders I have provided, or the transcripts Nick has provided, or indeed on what is written in the book. FWIW, I do not think anybody here buys the idea that German generals collectively knew the extent of the Holocaust. Otherwise some of the transcript excerpts here would not make sense. If they all knew it, why would they discuss it in the way they did?
For me this discussion is not about collective knowledge, it is about the fact that the Wehrmacht generals for 50 years and with quite a few of the public to this day, more or less got away with "we did not know anything
". A lie used by Manstein in Nuremberg, and others elsewhere. The evidence is there that it is a lie, it is in the transcripts, it is in the orders signed by these generals. To point out that it is a lie and that some of them knew something, and some may have known quite a lot, and that some were actively involved in it, promoting it, is by far not the same as claiming that everybody knew everything and was responsible. I think collective responsibility is a non-issue, except for tonyh and CP, who both need this particular canard so that they have something to rail against.
As for the idea that only numbers prove things, that is not one shared by a vast number of researchers all over the world, including me when I did that kind of work. If that is your personal preference, good on you. But do not expect that this means it is a law of nature that only numerical analysis can provide final proof of things.
All the best