soc.history.war.world-war-ii

On Mar 4, 4:13 am, Louis C wrote:
> No.

To all, let me add to that rather simple statement made by Louis. I
have completed reviewing the article by "Yelton" (David K. Yelton),
about the "Volkssturm" (The Journal of Military History, ""Ein Volk
Steht Auf": The German Volkssturm and Nazi Strategy, 1944-45", (Vol.
64, No. 4, Oct., 2000), pp. 1061-1083), that apparently **may be** the
one Andrew claimed supported his contention regarding the deliberate
alteration of documents by the Nazis? I say "apparently" since to date
he has not bothered to confirm **any** of his 'citations' despite
numerous requests, including one from the newsgroup moderator. It is
actually a very interesting article, but as far as I can tell the
closest it comes to Andrew's contention that the "SS employed a bunch
of statisticians from 1942 specifically to revise and edit the SS
statistical returns from the field" is a footnoted remark regarding
how difficult it is to track the Volkssturm through the German
documents, partly because of the "scattered nature" of those documents
and also because of the "intentional and accidental destruction" of
documents (Footnote 5). I cannot find anything else that by any
stretch of the imagination can be called a description of a systematic
scheme by the Nazis to forge documents, "from the field" or anywhere
else. If any of you would like to try find it yourself, please let me
know, I will be happy to email you a PDF of the article.

Next I bothered to take the time, trouble, and expense (it is sinful
what they charge for parking nowadays) after work to go to my alma
mater so I could access the Oxford Journals (although I have access at
work to JSTOR I do not have a MUSE account). I found what is
apparently the second "article" claimed by Andrew to support his
contention, by "Rossino" (Alexander Rossino), about
"Poland" (Holocaust and Genocide Studies, "Destructive Impulses:
German Soldiers and the Conquest of Poland", (Vol. 11, No. 3, 1997,
pp. 351-366), which AFAIK (seeing as how Andrew refuses to give an
actual citation) is the only article Rossino published there?

Imagine just how surprised I was after completing the article and
finding there is not one single reference to systematic document
tampering in it? Instead, Rossino describes how the Wehrmacht
Propaganda Office made use of common soldier's letters and diary
entries, as well as operational accounts for propaganda purposes as
early as the Polish Campaign. This, as he says gave him the chance in
some cases to compare the wartime published propaganda versions with
the original archived versions he found in a file of XVIII A.K. His
relevant remark, and the one that nearly blew my gasket, was that the,
"extent of revision was less than one would assume and primarily
concerns grammar and syntax" (p. 352). There is **no** other mention
in the article supporting Andrew's contention that the "SS employed a
bunch of statisticians from 1942 specifically to revise and edit the
SS statistical returns from the field" or anywhere else. In this case,
having wasted an hour of my evening, making me late for my dinner, and
spending good money on parking, I decided not to pay for a copy of the
article, so I'm afraid cannot offer it to you as an email. I suppose I
should have, but I'm afraid by that time I was simply hopping mad and
no longer interested in indulging Andrew's antics? But should you
doubt me on this, I suggest you inquire of Stephen Grahame, the
moderator, who has full-time MUSE access, or waste your own time and
go to your local university to access it.

Note also Andrew's attempt to shift his argument, another favorite
tactic of his. After deriding my inability to read his mind regarding
which articles and authors he was referring to, he stated that those
poorly defined "articles" were "mere examples of the many such
articles which point out the commonplace fact that there was
intentional destruction of some Heer archives in the closing phases of
WW2, which you denied had happened at all ("...no such attempt was
made to destroy the Heer or KM documents that had been archived...").
But unfortunately, neither of these "mere examples" (mere?) support
that contention either, nor was that the contention he was making
originally (see above). That is also a good example of yet another
tactic he likes to employ, snipping bits of other posts out of context
and then applying his own meanings to them, "no such attempt" in this
case being the failure of the Heer and Kriegsmarine to execute a
systematic destruction of archived documents as was done by the Ob.L.,
and as opposed to the actions taken by headquarters in the field that
were threatened by capture, which did, as was routine by all armies,
destroy those documents they then held, i.e., documents that were
**not** archived. BTW, the existence of those extensive Heer and
Kriegsmarine archives, as compared to the near nonexistence of a
comparable archival body for the Luftwaffe, is rather compelling
evidence of the different policy followed by them.

Note also Andrew's reliance on the straw man argument. He claims that
Louis and I are "happy to repeatedly state your opinions about such
matters and to vigorously attack my statements as incorrect before you
have even read any of the literature on the matter", which of course
has absolutely nothing to do with any of the comments that Louis or I
have made. When in fact we did no such thing, but rather gave him the
**opinion** that **he** requested; he only became hysterical when
**he** was **asked** for citations so that we **could** "read any of
the literature on the matter" that **he** had referred to (and I would
still like a good lead on this matter, as I said originally, the
subject sounds interesting). Match that with his attempt to divert
attention by repeatedly "prating" on about my "knowledge of German
archival practice", which, as far as I know, is not something that I
ever claimed? I am not an archivist or an archival specialist; I am a
historian who frequently works in archives, which is quite a different
thing. Of course, I could as easily ask him why, if he has such a good
working knowledge of the "literature on the matter" he has found it so
difficult to provide the relevant "mere examples" that "any real
archival specialist" would have?

I have found in the past that Andrew apparently likes to rely on JSTOR
and MUSE for his sources, which is fine, they are excellent sources
for scholarly articles in many fields of study. However, it seems
apparent to me that he counts on the fact that such access is not
generally available to the public and that most readers won't be
bothered to check his sources, to obscure the fact that those articles
sometimes do not really say what he says they do. He has a consistent
track record of claiming sources say things they quite obviously
don't, and other similar chicanery. He also has a consistent pattern
of abusive posts, ad hominem attacks, and other behaviors, when he is
challenged by another poster, which is classically demonstrated in his
latest fits of pique directed at Louis and me.

BTW, **none** of this is an ad hominem attack, since it speaks
directly to facts that are in evidence. I am tired of doing this over
and over again; getting into tussles with him over one point or
another, being given citations by him that he assures all and sundry
are indisputable proof of his claim, then checking those sources, and
finding that they are not what he claimed them to be.