Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by YMB29 (talk | contribs) at 16:56, 5 February 2015 (→Bad advocacy source). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Accuracy regarding details of geography

I've read this book, or rather parts of it, as it was mentioned as source for the page on the Battle of Halbe. I was wondering wether I was the only one who thought that it might not be the best source to use for details of geography. My special issue is the use of "Spree forest", implying same as the place where the pocket, and consequently battle of Halbe took place (don't think so), but considering the errata and addenda on Beevor's homepage and possibility of further glitches in the book, it would seem to me to be prudent to cross-check any reference to locations, areas, places etc. before using. I do not question the book as such as a source in general, only under the aforementioned conditions. The book itself seems to concern itself rather with human detail than with precise representation of geographic minutiae, so - just wondering. --KapHorn (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Added Beevor's stance in Criticism

I added on his stance towards the victim debate in criticism section.--Molobo (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Russian

Yes, I am Russian. Yes, I don't like this book. It is not reason for deleting my words, because I made references on authoritative sources. If my part was written on poor English grammar, you can improve it. Thanks. Sceler (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Very poor English grammar, my Russian friend. It is very difficult to correct when I have no idea what the hell is being said... In Soviet Russia, grammar correct you! Signed-Markymark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.240.12 (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Self Serving Criticism

The entire Criticism section is self serving. It gives unsubstantial criticisms about the book then tears them down and then gives high praise to the author from himself and his British colleagues. For instance it quotes Rzheshevsky review of the book and then at best implies that hes a liar by quoting the BBC article that he "admitted" hes "only read excerpts." However there is no indication that the review was written before the BBC article was written. Rzheshevsky quotes pages in his review so he must of at least read more then "excerpts." Also in the BBC article Rzheshevsky remarks are clearly referring to past scholarship on mass rapes, not Beevors book. The BBC article remarks that he "admitted he had only read excerpts and had not seen the book's source notes" are made in such a sleazy and unprofessional manner (which this article quotes verbatim) that I dont believe it is appropriate for a encyclopedia. If that piece of state propaganda wasnt crude enough they even show an image of Antony Beevor looking inspirationally into the distance like some socialist realist cartoon with the note "Antony Beevor has stirred up a hornets' nest". This section should be re edited to include actual criticisms of the book or be changed to just include the Russian ambassadors remarks, or (i think) deleted outright.

Justification of war crimes?

What is the basis for Beevor's claim that "German women were part of a society that supported Hitler and are thus unable to identify themselves as victims in the same way as Jews, Poles and Russians"? Is that not saying that war crimes against German women were justified? And since the Russians were "part of a society that supported Stalin" - who was worse than Hitler - were they not also "unable to identify themselves as victims"? I would be interested if anyone is aware of any discussion of this point.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Bad advocacy source

• Senyavskaya: "Одним из самых распространенных антироссийских мифов на Западе сегодня является тема массовых изнасилований, якобы совершенных Красной Армией в 1945 г. в Европе." and so on... Are you kidding? She belongs to WP:FRINGE. My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Just checked it again. Yes, this is a highly biased source at best. It was openly written to prove the point/disprove opponents, rather than to research the subject. One of tricks by this author: she selectively cites memories by Soviet veterans published during the censorship, when the subject was officially forbidden. Newer published memoirs show a very different picture, such as here by Leonid Ryabichev (starting from "Назад в Восточную Пруссию, февраль 1945 года"). My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This is just your biased opinion. She does not just use memoirs.

Senyavskaya has been cited in many English language sources about WWII. -YMB29 (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but she is guilty of historical forgery. Any references to her must be excluded, especially when she criticizes other researchers (like here), which therefore counts as a BLP violation. My very best wishes (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Guilty of forgery base don a blog by a amateur historian? -YMB29 (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

could you please help me to where are examples of the 'many English language sources' she has been cited in? Sayerslle (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Here: -YMB29 (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)