Shocking new book references Feldgrau.com extensively...

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:27 pm

Am trying to remember where the name Edward Davies has come up before recently. Its been nagging me all night. Something is saying one of the soviet apologist threads on AHF earlier in the autumn, will have to take a look

krichter33 · Post by **krichter33** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:37 pm

I got the book a few days ago, read it, and posted a one star review on Amazon.com. Someone, a known Stalin apologist already posted a FIVE star review. So I felt it necessary to balance it out. If you already read the book, go to Amazon.com and post a review. I'm sure the author's wouldn't like the fact that their book is getting many negative reviews.

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:53 pm

Aha! knew I'd come across the name before.

UNITED STATES IN WORLD HISTORY by DAVIES, EDWARD J.
Presents an introductory survey of the history of the United States, from 1790. Part of the Themes in World History series, this book reveals how concepts that originated in American's definition of itself as a nation - concepts such as capitalism, republicanism and race - have had supranational impact across the world.

Agenda Warning!

Cott Tiger · Post by **Cott Tiger** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:15 pm

Krichter33,

You appear to be the first person here to have read the book.

May I ask why you didn't post a review here a few days ago? You were active on here at that time if I remember rightly. Seems rather bizarre to me. Why not post a link to your review at he very least.

A very intrigued,

Andre

Cott Tiger · Post by **Cott Tiger** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:29 pm

John P. Moore wrote:Thanks Jason. I finished reading about 2/3 of the book last night and don't plan to waste any more time reading such drivil. From the hackneyed writing style I find it hard to believe that the authors were university graduates who probably received guidance from a thesis professor. Most high school students could have done a better job of writing. They made just about everyone who had anything positive to say about members of the German WW II military to be some kind of social misfit who must have suffered from adverse experiences or bad influences in childhood. Authors were repeatedly taken to task for failing to remind readers of the criminal acts of the German military and government. They did provide some interesting background on the history of reenacting going back to the time just after the conclusion of the US Civil War. However, they then proceeded to make today's reenactors appear completely foolish with no shortage of examples.

John

John,

Apart from your obvious distaste for the "style" the book is written in could you actually give us some instances as to where the book has got it's facts wrong, or has come to conclusions that are contrary to the evidence.

On the face of it, judging from the reaction from many of our esteemed members here, it would appear that this book is critically flawed.

However, the only two people that have read the book so far have failed to highlight or detail a single factual fault.

Don't get me wrong, I am not in any way shape or form defending the book, as I haven't read the book itself or even a single review on it. I am just becoming a tad perplexed at how it is being so passionately condemned, when not a single person has detailed a factual error.

I am sure this will be corrected in time.

Regards,

Andre

krichter33 · Post by **krichter33** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:29 pm

I'm not much of a poster or reviewer on any website. I usually check these sights out once everyday or so. But I'm pretty busy in university, so my time is limited. I'm so sorry I posted a review on Amazon first rather than here. But if you want to read it go to Amazon.com. I'm sure you know how to find a book on that website. Thanks.

krichter33 · Post by **krichter33** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:41 pm

The main factual errors that apply to this website, are pretty much the errors already mentioned by Jason. The authors contend that Jason worked with Landwehr, and that Mark Rikmenspoel helped with Kumm's history of the Prinz Eugen division. As both authors have stated those allegations are false. The language used in the book is also very condescending. You get the feeling reading the book that the authors believe people with such interests are either Nazis in hiding, or mentally unstable. It's judgmental, yet it doesn't cover any real details. For example, they are upset at the Hartmann biography "The Blond Knight of Germany. because it sounds romantic. Of course the authors can't say really anything negative about Hartmann, except get his kill score wrong, yet they use this as an example of whitewashing the German military. Hartmann of course had no involvement in war crimes, but that's beside the point. Also they talk a lot about such an abundance of literature, such as books by Hans von Luck, Biddermann, Knappe, Rudel, Degrelle, and rather than discuss the actual works, lump them all together as romantic, biased works, and condemn them because of their failure to mention the political or criminal aspects of the Third Reich. Despite the fact that these are just soldier's memoirs, they are used as an excuse to conclude that ALL or most of German postwar literature is dishonest. I hope that helps a little more....

Cott Tiger · Post by **Cott Tiger** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:41 pm

Krichter33,

You were active on this forum two days ago. I just wondered, knowing how serious many people are considering this book, why you didn’t post a copy of your review here or at least post a link to your amazon review. It’s not a personal attack, I just find it very strange.

Rather than make us go looking for your review, would you be so kind to post a copy here, or at least a link? You appear to be the first person to have read it and I am sure everyone here would be very interested to read your comments.

Many thanks,

André

krichter33 · Post by **krichter33** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:42 pm

Hey, Cott check my post above yours,,,

Here's the link....http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Eastern-Fron ... 408&sr=8-1

Cott Tiger · Post by **Cott Tiger** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:50 pm

Krichter33,

Many thanks for the link and your comments. At least we have something to go on now.

Regards,

André

Uncle Joe · Post by **Uncle Joe** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:50 pm

To those not in the know reading those amazon reviews: "Y. Mann from Brooklyn, NY" is AHF´s very own Kunikov aka Yan Mann (born in Russia) who does not miss a single opportunity to praise the Red Army (that only fought "to liberate and free", according to Y. Mann) and Stalin.

krichter33 · Post by **krichter33** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:54 pm

I know it's Kunikov. He praises the book as well on AHF.

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:00 pm

kunikov is Y.Mann? Hmm...cracks knuckles...I'm going to enjoy this.

Andre, if you go back a few pages, you'll find that Jason has already listed at least four and i think a lot more factual inaccuracies in the material about him alone, from the online page sampler.

David N · Post by **David N** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:15 pm

krichter33 wrote:The main factual errors that apply to this website, are pretty much the errors already mentioned by Jason. The authors contend that Jason worked with Landwehr, and that Mark Rikmenspoel helped with Kumm's history of the Prinz Eugen division. As both authors have stated those allegations are false. The language used in the book is also very condescending. You get the feeling reading the book that the authors believe people with such interests are either Nazis in hiding, or mentally unstable. It's judgmental, yet it doesn't cover any real details. For example, they are upset at the Hartmann biography "The Blond Knight of Germany. because it sounds romantic. Of course the authors can't say really anything negative about Hartmann, except get his kill score wrong, yet they use this as an example of whitewashing the German military. Hartmann of course had no involvement in war crimes, but that's beside the point. Also they talk a lot about such an abundance of literature, such as books by Hans von Luck, Biddermann, Knappe, Rudel, Degrelle, and rather than discuss the actual works, lump them all together as romantic, biased works, and condemn them because of their failure to mention the political or criminal aspects of the Third Reich. Despite the fact that these are just soldier's memoirs, they are used as an excuse to conclude that ALL or most of German postwar literature is dishonest. I hope that helps a little more....

This is the information I was asking for in my previous post. Saying that you don't like the style or interpretation will not refute the book. Providing evidence that the authors made false statements about Jason Pipes and Mark Rikmenspoel, does.

Still, the book is a very shoddy work from what I have read. The books by Bidermann and Knappe are very different from those of Rudel and Degrelle. Combined with the factual errors, it isn't worth consideration.

Paddy Keating · Post by **Paddy Keating** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:37 am

It is not easy to sue for libel in the UK. In any case, you would be serving your writ for libel or defamation on CUP's US operation in New York City. You might even win. But it would cost you a lot of money and it would then cost you even more trying to enforce any judgement obtained against the Cambridge University Press and the authors.

You should simply use the means at your disposal. You have a website frequented by many people and hailed as a primary research tool. Get someone good to do a review of this book, refuting its claims, and publish it on the main page of Feldgrau.com, along with photos of the cover and photo-illustrated dustcover-type bios of the authors. Then get it into Google and other search engines. That's far cheaper than going to Law and far more effective than locking horns with those responsible, who are cut from the same cloth as the hardcore of trolls who devote so much time to derailing discussion on this website and others.

Debate in the face of agitprop exercises like this may be satisfying in the short run but it is ultimately futile. If we did not know that Smelser and Davies existed, we might wonder if they were pseudonyms adopted by a couple of the small but highly vocal hardcore of trolls who come here solely for the purposes of derailing any discussion that proposes the sort of perspectives people like Alan Dershowitz, for instance, find intolerable.

These people are protected on most of these websites because they represent the views and interests of quite a powerful movement whose bullyboys have ways of bringing pressure to bear upon webmasters and moderators who do not toe their line. This book by Ron Smelser and Edward J Davies II, targeting this website, Jason Pipes and several other people, for instance, may well be a bullying tactic. It certainly doesn't seem to be a serious academic opus.

It depends on how seriously you take it. You might prefer to take the view, once you've calmed down, that reacting energetically to the book could risk validating it. If I were you, I'd publish a dismissive but short review of it and move on.

PK