Talk:Schieder commission

/Archive 1

Planning to rename the article

After a long period of inactivity I am going to work on this article again, at least to the point that the article tags can be removed. One POV issue is the title. The commission existed to write a book, from which it derives its notability, and which must be described to gain a full understanding of the commission. I don't think there should be separate articles on the book and on the commission, and the book's title appears to be a more inclusive title for this article. As far as I can tell the commission did not have a name anyway. The term "Schieder commission" occasionally occurs in the literature, but not systematically. By contrast, the book has a well-defined title. If nobody objects, I am going to rename this article to Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern-Central Europe. (A convenient redirect from Schieder commission will of course remain.) Hans Adler 22:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If this is still being considered, I think a proper RM would be the way to go.VolunteerMarek 16:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the lead has been rewritten to "Documents" over a year ago, which as far as I can tell hasn't raised any objections, I would most likely support such a RM, unless any valid arguments to the contrary are made. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem that I see is that "Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern-Central Europe" could refer to any number of documents but this article is about a specific set of documents, and the commission which compiled them. One possibility is to keep this under Schieder commission but have a separate article on the output itself under "Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern-Central Europe" which gives a general background and then lists volumes, chapter titles, etc.VolunteerMarek 17:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Wastn't the "Documents..." the name of the report prepared by the Commission? I think it usually makes more sense to focus on the report, framing the article around it, with a section dedicated to the authors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, not really. Usually any kind of a "commission" produces some documents. Generally speaking it's pretty rare that a particular commission is named for the documents it produces - whose titles are usually very bureaucratic lawyer speak, and hence make for poor titles. This is true not just here but in most cases (though there are exceptions). Furthermore the focus on this article - as it should be - is as much on the commission itself as on the document it produced itself (which is already spammed throughout god knows how many semi-related articles!). And just on aesthetics alone "Schieder commission" works a lot better than "Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern-Central Europe".VolunteerMarek 04:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I see. Shame Hans has retired, I'd love to hear his replies to this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

This article violates WP:NPOV. For an illustration of longstanding problems I refer to the above sections. To elaborate, some problems shall be outlined below.

The most obvious NPOV-problem of the article is the discussion of some of its authors: Rothfels, Schieder, and Conze in particluar. In reference to these scholars, exerpts from a debate about their involvement with the Nazis are used abundantly to discredit their work. There is

• no mention that the statements about Rothfels, Schieder and Conze during the Nazi era are part of an ongoing debate which had started in the 1990s (cf eg [1][2][3]sources in fn.36)
• utilization only of the most critical positions from this debate (Aly, Haar and others), who declared them deeply involved with the Nazis
• no mention of positions from other historians in this debate (Wehler, Mommsen, Winkler and others), who see them less deeply involved (eg [4][5][6])
• no mention that even the volume where most critical positions were published in its preface explicitly states that Schieder and Conze did in fact move away from their völkisch positions after the war

There are further problems, such as the "de-nationalized serfs"-statement attached to Rothfels, which is not a Rothfels statement but KH Roth's view of the consequences of his interpretation of Rothfels' opinion, with Roth referencing Kehr and even explicitly stating that Rothfels did not phrase it that way, but "only artfully hinted" at it - this is not something one can use as reliable sourcing of Rothfels' position. The article needs restructering. Instead of distributing "them Nazis" all over the article, a dedicated, NPOV section needs to outline the debate so far regarding Conze, Schieder and Rothfels. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why your point 1 is of much relevance, but in fact the article already address that, with "In the immediate post war period the commission was regarded as composed of very accomplished historians; later, however, the assessment of its members changed". 2-3) Show that there are modern historians who defended the work of the commission, and we can consider including them 4) please provide a quote for that, I cannot access it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Piotrus, you have been around wp long enough to know that per NPOV it is not OK to just take the most extreme positions from a debate and dismissing the others. The preface of "German scholars and ethnic cleansing..." utilized in the article explicitely states that "the controversy about the complicity of German historians under National Socialism is by no means over," and in the following lines clearly outlines that the "Ingo Haar and the contributors to this volume" are only one side of the debate - this can not be ignored.

The sentence you cited is part of the problem: "assessments of its members changed" is wrong in its general tone, the debate is exclusively about the pre-war/wartime involvement of Conze, Rothfels and Schieder with the Nazis (which in Rothfels' case had much to do with a false interpretation of a source by Haar)

Your sentence: "Show that there are modern historians who defend the work of the commission" - the Nazi-involvement sentences (and debate) do not concern Schieder's, Conze's and Rothfels' work in the commission, but their (then past) involvement with the Nazis.

How modern historians in fact assess the work of the commission can be seen e.g. in the studies of Beer 1998 and 2004, and the article should basically follow this line. I am not against inclusion of a section discussing the Nazi past of some of the commission's members, outlining the positions held by the debating historians. What I however strongly oppose is googling the most discriminating assertions about some of the commission's members from the recent debate and an un-reflected, out-of-perspective addition behind each mention of their name throughout the article. This has been done from the beginning and has been criticized by multiple editors in the many talk page threads that VM chose to archive after I opened this section. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no point in another discussion by Skapperod on why Nazis are reliable. We already know your POV and you already know that is is not acceptable as per previous attemptsBaron von Galera, [7]. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there's little point in discussing this issue with this editor. The amount of misrepresentation and bias packed into those few paragraphs is simply staggering.

For example, Skapperod quotes the Forward (not the Preface) of the "German Scholars and Ethnic Cleansing Tome" - The preface of "German scholars and ethnic cleansing..." utilized in the article explicitely states that "the controversy about the complicity of German historians under National Socialism is by no means over," and in the following lines clearly outlines that the "Ingo Haar and the contributors to this volume" are only one side of the debate - this can not be ignored. but completely omits the preceding and following sentences. The actual quote is:

the controversy about the complicity of German historians under National Socialism is by no means over. Passionate debates rage even today between those like Heinrich August Winkler who wish to exonerate their mentors...

Funny how Skapperod completely omitted the part about "the other side of the debate", Winkler, and the fact that his interest in this is by no means scholarly. And then:

...and those like Ingo Haar and the contributors to this volume, who through a careful analysis of the sources engage in a critical examination of how historians and humanistic scientists actually functioned under the Nazi dictatorship.

Again, the part which lauds Haar was omitted by Skapperod.

When you have the full context, it's painfully clear that what the source says is that to the extent there is a debate it's because people like Winkler who wish to defend their teacher and serious scholars like Haar who want to approach the subject in a scholarly and critical manner.

Second example, second sentence. Skapperod says: the debate is exclusively (my emphasis -VM) about the pre-war/wartime involvement of Conze, Rothfels and Schieder with the Nazis (which in Rothfels' case had much to do with a false interpretation of a source by Haar) . This is nonsense on several levels. First, the debate is NOT "exclusively" about the pre-war/wartime involvement of Conze, Rothfels and Schieder. Conze's and Schieder's involvement with the Nazis has been well established, documented and discussed. There's hardly anything controversial about it. What WAS (and to some extent still may be) controversial is the attitude of the STUDENTS of Conze and Schieder, as well as the 50's, 60's and 70's West German academic establishment in general, who looked the other way and helped Conze and Schieder cover up their Nazi past. To the extent the debate exists today, it's about the "silence (or cover up) of the sons" rather than the "sins of the fathers" - the latter are well established. (The people who initiated the debate were the "grandsons" and a few of the more conciences bothered sons, like Broszat).

In the same sentence - Skapperod is also purposefully mixing up Conze and Schieder with Rothfels who was a bit of a different case. Rothfels was an ardent German nationalist but he happened to be of Jewish background - so of course he didn't end up actively collaborating with the Nazis (unlike Conze and Schieder). But this Wikipedia article DOES NOT say he did, so I don't know what the point of that is, except just to generally throw mud at Haar.

Next, Skapperod says: What I however strongly oppose is googling the most discriminating assertions about some of the commission's members from the recent debate and an un-reflected, out-of-perspective addition behind each mention of their name throughout the article. - which is just a specious accusation. Nobody just "googled the most discriminating assertions" - the sources cited are key works on the subject and the authors experts precisely on these topics. They are mainstream, respected historians (seriously, trying to portray Haar as some kind of extremism really is out there and speaks for itself). This accusation lacks any substance what so ever.

And then we get to more false claim: This has been done from the beginning and has been criticized by multiple editors in the many talk page threads that VM chose to archive after I opened this section.. It has NOT been done "from the beginning". What happened in the beginning is that Skapperod tried desperately to get this article deleted, gutted, destroyed by any means necessary (!). It has NOT been "criticized by multiple" editors. The arhives show that it was pretty much Skapperod on his POV quest and one other editor who has since been indef banned for all kinds of hi-jinks - that's your "multiple editors" who criticized it right there.

And the reason for the archiving was simple - it was stuff from more than two years ago! I was far more justified in archiving these stale discussions then Skapperod was in jumping in to archive the talk page at "Expulsion of Germans" where this was being discussed [8] - in light of his comments there defending Conze as a "respected historian" that's not too surprising. There Skapperod claimed [9] that according to de.wiki "(Conze) was not regarded to be involved in any evil Nazi stuff until recent research had disovered two sentences of him which follow the Nazi racial ideology" - "recent research"? Riiiiiigghhhhtttt. This stuff's been out since the 80's. "Two sentences of him which follow the Nazi racial ideaology"? Oh really? Is that all that it was? You wouldn't know from that Conze was one of the major intellectuals behind the idea that Poland and "the East" were overpopulated and hence needed to have a good chunk of their population "removed" to make way for German colonists. Somehow he managed to become one of the chief academic proponents of the Lebensraum concept in ... only two sentences!

And there he was gung-go on including sketchy statistics and describing Conze and others as "respected historians" [10] [11]. Like I already said below, these attempts to whitewash Schieder and Conzo, as well as others, is not new, it's an ongoing pattern, it's not based on source and THAT is what is POV. Not discussing their backgrounds.VolunteerMarek 21:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I will refrain from refuting here the allegations directed at me, anyone who is interested may read the links and compare what was actually said there to what VM alleges was said there.

That Iggers in the foreword to the book "German scholars and ethnic cleansing" says that there is an ongoing controversy, and that this book includes only one side of it is on pg. xvi. That Iggers on the same page says that the side of the debate presented in this book is based on "careful analysis of the sources" is understandable, but no reason to exclude the other side. That the motives of a Heinrich August Winkler are not scholary as VM alleges is imho a WP:BLP violation, and that Winkler indeed analyzed the sources very carefully is clear from the debate between Haar and Winkler taking place after this book was published, eg [12].

I might add that putting in perspective the positions about how young Conze and Schieder were involved with the Nazis is only the first step to get this article neutral, I already cited Iggers (who says that they were more deeply involved) saying that they moved away from their völkisch positions after the war, and on pg. xiv-xv emphasizes how "emphatically democratic" etc the next generation was (from the commission's staff he is naming Wehler, but we can safely extend this to Broszat, Booms and the other staff members). Skäpperöd (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I sure HOPE they click those links where you're calling Conze and others of similar nature "respectable historians" or trying to pretend that his Nazi involvement consisted of only "Two sentences of him which follow the Nazi racial ideaology" (whereas in fact he was instrumental in providing intellectual and academic justification to this ideology)

Additionally, the statement about Winkler's motivations is not mine but the source's. So quit trying to game WP:BLP and use it as a stick to win an argument. You're cheapening a very important policy by doing so.

At the end of the day your concerns are either unfounded, amorphous or simply not based on sources. Is there something specific you would like to change or add? I mean aside from trying to remove important well sourced information. If not, then there's no reason for the spurious tag to remain.VolunteerMarek 18:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

These are specious reasons for adding the NPOV tag. All these issues - the background of the major players on the commission - are very relevant to the article topic and are well sourced. This is basically a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT tagging and it is disruptive. The particular context here is that Skapperod has tried to use some of these authors - even going so far as referring to them as "respectable historians" - on other articles, despite their very concerning background.VolunteerMarek 16:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that the "other historians" mentioned by Skapperod, who, according to him, take "a different position" on Conze's and Schieder's involvement with the Nazis were Conze's and Schieder's students.VolunteerMarek 16:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

From the volume linked to by Skapperod:

Yet the ethnic demographic perspective on which both Ostforschung and Westforschung rested was by no means dead. Now Hans Rothfels, Theodor Schieder, Werner Conze, and Thedor Oberlander, in a major compilation sponsored by the West German government, documented the expulsion of the Germans from East without adequately dealing with the context of German genocidal practices that had led to it (my emphasis and that sounds like some Wikipedia articles on the subject as well - VM)

and It is striking, as the essays in this volume point out, that from 1945 until the early 1990s there was complete silence about the criminal activities of the scholars involved in the planning for ethnic cleansing. Their colleagues honored them as committed scholars (...) there was a conscious attempt to shield scholars who had been deeply involved in the Nazi regime

And that's exactly what we've got going here - a conscious attempt to shield scholars who had been deeply involved in the Nazi regime, an attempt to perpetuate this silence about the criminal activities of these scholars and an on going effort in ensuring that the expulsions of the Germans from the East are dealt with without adequately dealing with the context of German genocidal practices that led to it. These are the specious reasons for the NPOV tag. NPOV is the other way <---.VolunteerMarek 17:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:PA, I am not going to accept that last paragraph, please strike that. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism is not attack. That's what the source says and given your past history with regard to this issue [13] [14] [15] what the source says seems to apply.

Unless you can make some constructive and specific proposals about what is supposed to be wrong with the article - rather than just this "I think these guys were swell so any historian that is critical of them is extremist or cherry picked" and address the points I raised (the fact that the defenders of Conze and Schieder are pretty much either real extremists or their students), I'm going to remove the tag. POV =/ IDONTLIKEIT.VolunteerMarek 21:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no debate. Nobody serious or mainstream contests that these people were Nazis and supported German nationalism. Nobody serious or mainstream supports their views. There is no need to change the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is pure character-assassination, virtually nothing is done to refute disputed claims. Btw. With this title, the article has to be first and foremost about the publication and present in summary its content. Then in a later section, critical responses can be worked in. 105.12.1.17 (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Adolf Diestelkamp

Adolf Diestelkamp-belonged to the editorial board. Was he the same person connected with plunder of archives in General Government in Poland during Nazi occupation?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?

How is the Marxist "Der Freitag" a reputable source? --105.12.1.17 (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)