soc.history.war.world-war-ii

Andrew Clark wrote:
> "Louis C" wrote
>
> > None are concerned with genocide. Is Patricia Grimsted your source for
> > that comment?
>
> Of rather more interest is why someone like yourself was not even aware of
> this perfectly well-known fact about German archival practices.

I'll decide on what is of rather more interest to me, thanks.

You made a claim. I asked for a reference. You provided none but
mentioned three names. I was trying to narrow things down by at least
pinning down the author that you would have used as your source, but
apparently even this is too much asking.

So let me repeat: could we please get the exact references of the
articles you mentioned?

And now as to the question which is of rather more interest to you,
why should "someone like myself", whatever that's supposed to mean, be
current about the debates on German archives?

> All this and the other elementary remarks that I cut prove is that, once
> again, you aren't nearly so well-informed as you think you are and are very
> reluctant to expand your knowledge beyond your comfort zone.

So let's see.

You asked our opinion of whether German records that were being used
in this discussion had been intentionally edited.

Instead of claiming to be as well-informed as you write I think I am,
I first noted that I had never done archival research in Germany,
though from my own experience in other archives the answer to your
question was "it's very unlikely" and "it would require an absolutely
huge amount of work".

I am quite confident about the amount of work that such an undertaking
would require, which makes it unlikely. At least you got a partial
answer, including where I was drawing the information from.

Now I'll gladly expand my knowledge but for that it's going to take
more than "so and so extensively wrote on the topic" mixed with no
replies to my questions. Much as I might be well-informed about some
things, I regret to admit that my mind-reading skills are nonexistent.

> It is illogical
> and astonishing to newcomers to the field that Nazi bureaucracy was as
> tortuous and self-destructively competitive as it actually was, but that
> fact is equally true.

No doubt.

My point isn't that Nazy bureaucracy would never have thought of
altering the historical record, it is that to change the strength
returns in military records requires a lot of work because the figures
are mirrored in other records and used as a basis for lots of
different calculations so they need all be altered.

This is like the fact that if you want to make a credible job of
creating a false picture using Photoshop or similar software, you need
to put a lot of work into it or your alteration will be noticed
immediately.

> > I'd like to read more details about that before I'm ready to
> > extrapolate this process to Kursk.
>
> So would I, which is why I *asked* whether the early war revisionism
> extended to the Kursk period.

What I would like to read more details about is Bartov's exact claim.

So far, all I have is your saying that Bartov wrote a piece about
tampering with German Army records.

> But it appears that none of those so happy to
> prate in this group about German archives even knew about the revisionism
> and prefer to deny the possibility that they may not know everything rather
> than actually expanding their knowledge.

Well, then how about expanding my knowledge and provide me with the
reference for the Bartov article which I've asked you for the last 3
posts now?


LC