Did John Wear Lie about Polish Atrocities?

[Otium]

I do not like lies, and I do not want to be lied to. If someone is going to write an article or a book I want sources that can be followed. Unfortunately I have to point to John Wear and unless proven otherwise, accuse him of not thoroughly checking his sources. I am annoyed that nobody else has done this.

I have a gripe.

John Wear in his book "Germany's War"

Which you can read here for free:https://www.unz.com/book/john_wear__germanys-war/

On pages 145-148 he has discussed the atrocities committed against the German minority in Poland, the exact same section from the book has been copy/pasted into his article published on Inconvenient History (http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391) which has been discussed on this forum already (https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12331&p=93927&). The sources remain the same in either case, so it doesn't matter which you check - the article for convenience is no doubt the easiest although I will also provide links as well in this thread.

I have made a post illustrating legitimate Polish Atrocities (viewtopic.php?f=20&t=9476&p=92850&hilit#p92850), I'm far from declaring they weren't occuring, my goal here is to either be proven wrong, or to cast some dissent on my fellow revisionists who should learn to be more mindful and thorough in what they cite as evidence for a claim.

John Wear, from the Inconvenient History cites a source I found rather odd.

Footnote 54, he cites:

Shadewalt, Hans, Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland, Berlin and New York: German Library of Information, 2nd edition, 1940

Many of us know, as Wear admits, that this source is a German propaganda booklet which has made false claims. Claims I have addressed in my own post which i've already linked above, so it hardly bares going over again. Nevertheless, this is a 1940 booklet which claims that 58,000 Germans were murdered or missing. This number is extremely contentious and has been outright dismissed by the mainstream, so I was a little more than intrigued to read Wear write that:

Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans have been documented in the book Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland. Most of the outside world dismissed this book as nothing more than propaganda used to justify Hitler’s invasion of Poland. However, skeptics failed to notice that forensic pathologists from the International Red Cross and medical and legal observers from the United States verified the findings of these investigations of Polish war crimes. These investigations were also conducted by German police and civil administrations, and not the National Socialist Party or the German military. Moreover, both anti-German and other university-trained researchers have acknowledged that the charges in the book are based entirely on factual evidence.[53]

This is a very serious, and potentially vindicatory claim to make if the evidence does indeed support it. One I'm sure us revisionists would welcome.

Wear's source for this claim is thus:

[53] Roland, Marc, “Poland’s Censored Holocaust,” The Barnes Review in Review: 2008-2010, pp. 132-133.

I was at first rather disappointed to have seen a source I was sure I couldn't check, either because this issue of the Barnes review would've been out of stock, or not available online. Fortunately, the latter was untrue and a scan of these issue is indeed available here: https://www.germanvictims.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Polands-Censored-Holocaust.pdf

Wear pretty much, with some change up of the wording here and there just quotes the Barnes Review booklet. It's fine, but here is where shit gets muddy. Wear relies on this booklet to be the source which gives him justification to cite the "Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland" booklet, which he does indeed cite numerous times in footnotes 53-57. However, the sources used in the Barnes Review booklet are more than suspicious.

We're particularly interested in page 133 of the booklet where the claims are made:

here are the footnotes to this section:

Footnotes 15-18 are what we will preoccupy ourselves with.

I was very dismayed to see that their first citation was to the wikipedia article on Bromberg, this source is a giant pain in the ass because Wikipedia articles are not only unreliable but they're volatile. Citing a wikipedia page wasn't the brightest idea, but nevertheless there's an archive of this page with the footnote that was used for us to checkout: https://web.archive.org/web/20100421033834/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1939)

And there it is, from 2010, an archive where we can see what footnote 24 was. Funnily enough it was to page 230 of Richard Blankes "Orphans of Versailles", a book which refutes the 58,000 figure and does not whatsoever mention any person by the name "Harry Gorgon" or Theodor Bierschenk who supposedly:

stated, after a four-year study entitled Polish Acts of Atrocity Against the German Minority in Poland, that the charges were based entirely on factual evidence[15]

Poland's Censored Holocaust, Pp. 133

The source used by Roland from the Wikipedia article:

Harry Gordon. Orphans of Versailles: the Germans in Western Poland, 1918-1939. p. 230.

and the page from Orphans of Versaille which doesn't confirm his claims:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=80r6Mbnxf8IC&pg=PA230&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

You can search the book yourself to find the names Marc Roland referred to, and still nothing from the book comes up. For example, Theodor Bierschenk is quoted once in the main body of the text on page 238, and Otto Heike whom Roland also refers to appears alongside Bierschenk on page 238 and also on page 47. Both Heike and Bierschenk are sourced throughout the book in footnotes.

For reference, Otto Heike wrote a book entitled "Die Deutsche Minderheit in Polen bis 1939"

and Theodor Bierschenk wrote a book entitled "Die Deutsche Volksgruppe in Polen 1934-39" which you can read here: (https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/deutsch/archiv/bierschenk/dvp00.html)

It's weird because on page 133 Roland claims that Bierschenk wrote a book in 1954 which was titled "Polish Acts of Atrocity Against the German Minority in Poland" but this is a blatant lie, these are the books that Bierschenk wrote:

And only one of them was published in 1954, but not under the title Roland gives us, hell, why did Roland GIVE US an English title in the first place? And a false one at that. The book he's referring to I linked above (https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/deutsch/archiv/bierschenk/dvp00.html) . Perhaps the charges vindicating the 1940 booklet are located there, but I cannot read German so it remains to be seen. Why it needed to be this difficult, I do not know.

Where Marc Roland got the idea to use Wikipedia as a source for a quote from a book he could've just cited seems to be an intentional falsification. One that was intended to make researching the claim more difficult than it needed to be, and, as I will show, this isn't the final time he does this. He falsifies the rest of these sources relating to Polish atrocities as well, and John Wear didn't even bother to check.

The next source from Roland is Alfred-Maurice de Zayas book "The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945". Roland doesn't give a page number, not a good signed, because I also can't find this book online to check it. So this source remains to be investigated.

The last source of interest to us is Roland's quoting of David L. Hoggans book "Das blinde Jahrhundert-Europa-Die verlorene Weltmitte", again, no page number. But this source, unlike his footnote 17, I could check.

The Hoggan book is available online here: https://vdocuments.site/hoggan-david-l-das-blinde-jahrhundert-zweiter-teil-europa.html

Nowhere in this book is Bromberg mentioned, nor are the names associated with the 1940 booklet, notably the man who published it "Hans Schadewaldt". So this source seems like a bogus one too for any information regarding a vindication of the Polish Atrocities booklet.

However, I decided to look at one last place: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/Polish_Atrocities.htm

This is a web page everyone looking for information on Polish Atrocities has come across. Funnily enough this webpage makes the exact same claims that were made by Roland who no doubt parroted them, and after him were parroted by John Wear.

On this page they claim:

** WHAT ABOUT THE NUMBERS? Are these numbers exaggerated? Probably, but not by much, certainly nowhere near as much as the way Poles and Jews exaggerate their numbers of dead. These historical facts were confirmed by the East-German historian Theodor Bierschenk in 1954, and the Social-Democrat journalist Otto Heike in 1955, on the basis of Polish documents. There were 12,857 identified dead in the Bromberg area, leaving a large number of unidentified dead there, and many more dead elsewhere. Both Hoggan (The Forced War) and de Zayas (Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau) basically agree with these conclusions.

This is the exact same alleged sources as Roland except that they quote, without page reference, Hoggans "The Forced War", the English version from 1989. They are kind enough to cite Hoggans book in a pdf and HTML format:

HTML: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/David%20Hoggan-The%20Forced%20War.htm

PDF: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/ ... %20War.pdf

You can read Hoggans "Der Erzwungene Krieg" in original German here: https://archive.org/details/Hoggan1977-DerErzwungeneKrieg perhaps he mentions it in this version?

Yet nowhere in "The Forced War" does Hoggan make any mention whatsoever of the Polish atrocities book or the names associated to it or it's vindication by the scholars Heike and Bierschenk. I cannot check the books of the latter, but when I get a copy of de Zayas book I will no doubt check it if nobody does so before me. However as it stands the evidence as claimed by Marc Roland and used by John Wear seems extremely flimsy.

Hoggan didn't:

note that Polish Acts of Atrocity Against the German Minority in Poland documents these war crimes in a thoroughly professional and credible manner

Roland, Pp. 133

as far as I can tell. Feel free to correct me.

I've gone this far with researching, brought all this to one place, surely someone else here can investigate more and help us all get to the bottom of this, because as it stands the credibility of John Wear doesn't look good on this point at least. We, as revisionists must be more prodigious in the way we go about researching and compiling facts. Otherwise what's the point?

[Hektor]

The subject of "Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans" before and at the beginning of WW2 is even less researched than the genocide of Germans afterwards. Although there is some literature on it, it isn't exactly available and extensive. A lot of the sources are NS-German ones or were written by Germans at the time. So the immediate argument against them will be a political bias of the authors or editors. That's at least what I noted in debates that detractors will point out: "But those are Nazi/German sources". An argument I found rather funny, since they don't apply that standard for sources used in support of "the Holocaust" or "German war crimes".

Whatever happened in Polish controlled areas before and in the beginning of World War Two will be difficult to investigate, since it has been swiped under the carpet of Post-WW2 political correctness. Personally accept that Poles did murder a larger number of ethnic Germans in pogrom-type violence. What the figures and course of action are, is another matter. I just notice how quick that sort of violence will be justified by some people as a "hot-blooded response to the German invasion".

Do I get it correctly that your beef with John Wear is his wrong use of sources for his claims? Did you contact him with regards to this and confront him with his errors?

[Otium]

The subject of "Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans" before and at the beginning of WW2 is even less researched than the genocide of Germans afterwards. Although there is some literature on it, it isn't exactly available and extensive. A lot of the sources are NS-German ones or were written by Germans at the time. So the immediate argument against them will be a political bias of the authors or editors. That's at least what I noted in debates that detractors will point out: "But those are Nazi/German sources". An argument I found rather funny, since they don't apply that standard for sources used in support of "the Holocaust" or "German war crimes".

You're right, the people who criticize this German source are more than happy to use German sources or Soviet sources when it pleases them. Even if those sources are demonstrably wrong they will attempt to take what they can from them and discard the rest. Kurt Gerstein's report comes to mind in this regard.

Whatever happened in Polish controlled areas before and in the beginning of World War Two will be difficult to investigate, since it has been swiped under the carpet of Post-WW2 political correctness. Personally accept that Poles did murder a larger number of ethnic Germans in pogrom-type violence. What the figures and course of action are, is another matter. I just notice how quick that sort of violence will be justified by some people as a "hot-blooded response to the German invasion".

There's still some sources that can be checked, like the De Zayas book or the German book. It's not a closed case, and I agree that it's indisputable pogroms against Germans was committed. Even if the German report lied about the 58,000 number and just combined it with missing persons or added a zero. It doesn't thereby mean the report is wrong on all aspects, a claim that if made, I would reject entirely. After all, the controversy is just about the number, not any individual incidents that haven't been thoroughly researched unfortunately. That's if they go mentioned at all.

I do think that it's untrue that large pogroms were committed on Germans prior to the war, I think it's true that there were many individual incidents, not always violent, that occurred. Blanke in his book isn't shy about admitting that the Poles were ethnically cleansing, discriminating, and violating harassing the German minority, and that Hitler had very good grounds to act on this basis.

Do I get it correctly that your beef with John Wear is his wrong use of sources for his claims? Did you contact him with regards to this and confront him with his errors?

I don't have a beef with John Wear at all.

I think his wrong use of sources is fairly evident, if you could even call it "wrong". It's just a poorly researched source. John has obviously read the Roland article and just cited it, presuming his sources were correct. That's all Wear has done wrong. The real offender is this Roland person, who obviously just read the jrbooksonline website and put that into his article and supplied a bunch of phoney sources. That's the part that confused me the most, why he cited sources, particularly the book by Richard Blankes through a wikipedia article that has no discernible relevancy to the claim he was making. Surely someone in the past 10 years had bothered to check the sources? The fact that this seemingly hasn't been done is also concerning to me. What I did was very basic research, it was nothing special and it took more time to write out my post and order the facts than it did to actually follow the sources. It would've been easier if I didn't have to locate an old version of the wikipedia page.

This is just an example of him not doing rigorous enough research. What concerns me is that if he's done this once, he might have done it many times before and will continue to do so.

I have attempted to contact him in the past, but he's never replied. On this issue, no, I didn't bother contacting him. He has replied on UNZ before, but I don't know if you can privately message on there. I will email him through his website regarding this thread just in case.

[Hektor]

This all just shows you that it isn't enough to read some trusted sources and then write a book about what you just read - trusting that the sources were correct and correctly represented. One needs to check the primary sources for each and every claim being made. Only then you can expect to get to some remotely valid conclusion.

And yeah, one needs to revise Revisionists as well.

Right now my personal wish would be establishing source books on specific subjects and eras. E.g. in this case that would be a "Sourcebook of the Polish-German War". The scope would be anything that relates to the conflict. Any documents, newspaper articles, government announcements photos of relevance to the build-up of the conflict, during the conflicts and of course the aftermath. The same could be done i.e. for the Auschwitz complex as well.

[Otium]

I received an email reply from John Wear, but it didn't help to clarify things at all.

He said:

Thank you for your recent email sent to WearsWar.

My primary source for the Polish atrocities is the book Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland. I purchased this book and quoted directly from it. I also quoted from the book A Terrible Revenge by Alfred-Maurice De Zayas to provide supporting information. The Marc Roland article provides supporting information as to the credibility of these two books.

I also quoted Donald Day from his book Onward Christian Soldiers to show that atrocities were being committed against the German minority prior to Germany's invasion of Poland. Donald Day was a Chicago Tribune correspondent who was on the scene in Poland. I think he is a very credible source. If the Polish government was committing atrocities against the German minority prior to Germany's invasion of Poland, it is reasonable to assume that they would continue to commit atrocities once war started.

David Hoggan in his book The Forced War also cites numerous sources as to atrocities committed against the Polish minority in Poland. These include Rudolf Wiesner, American journalist W.L. White, and newspaper reports that 80,000 German refugees had left Poland for Germany by August 20, 1939. Obviously, if the Polish government was committing atrocities against its German minority prior to the war, it is reasonable that atrocities would continue once war started.

I hope this helps.

John Wear

From this, it's clear to me that Wear didn't read this forum post that I linked him because he repeats in his first paragraph that the Roland article "supports the credibility of these two books". Despite the fact that it's sources are seriously flawed and offer not a shred of evidence in this direction. The article specifically seeks to support the credibility of the German 'Polish Acts of Atrocity' booklet. De Zayas is a fine historian who I have no problem with. Like I said in my OP, if his book on the crimes against the Wehrmacht supports the original German book and Roland failed to cite it by giving a page number, then I'd be satisfied with the article as having just been sourced poorly. It still remains to be seen in this regard, but as it stands the Roland article has no credibility in regards to the claims made about the German booklet.

I think that Donald Day and Hoggan are fine sources as well, the only problem I have is that Roland cited Hoggan from the jrbooksonline website as having supported the credibility of the 'Polish Acts of Atrocity' booklet, evidence for which I cannot find.

In response to Wear, who seems to be implying that he used the Roland article as some sort of supplement, which isn't true. He uses it as his primary source for why the Atrocity booklet has credibility and thus why he repeatedly cites it. Like I said in a previous post, it would be ridiculous to claim the entire booklet is untrue, which uncredulous detractors claim simply because the 58,000 dead number isn't true. But supporting information from historians about this booklet is still valuable in affirming the credibility it does have. Roland wasn't just using De Zayas and Hoggan to verify independent claims made by the report. Which they indeed do - but the claim was that these historians, among others, actually verified the booklet itself. Meaning they discussed it, which in the case of Hoggan and Richard Blankes, there is no evidence for that I could find. Wear himself, using Roland as a source, does the same thing:

Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans have been documented in the book Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland. Most of the outside world dismissed this book as nothing more than propaganda used to justify Hitler’s invasion of Poland. However, skeptics failed to notice that forensic pathologists from the International Red Cross and medical and legal observers from the United States verified the findings of these investigations of Polish war crimes. These investigations were also conducted by German police and civil administrations, and not the National Socialist Party or the German military. Moreover, both anti-German and other university-trained researchers have acknowledged that the charges in the book are based entirely on factual evidence.[53]

John Wear, Why Germany Invaded Poland, Inconvenient History Journal, 2019, Vol. 11 No. 1, See: https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391 Archive: http://archive.fo/RO2iV

I want to emphasize that I think John Wear is a good faith actor, and that he's a fine historian. So perhaps titling the OP "John Wear Lies" was a bit hasty, however, at the time I did feel quite a few different negative emotions around this topic and the irritation of source hunting that yielded little to no returns. Plus, it serves to get people to hopefully read this thread and be more diligent with their sources.

[viewfrompoland]

Hi all, I'm new to this forum and I delayed joining yntil I have read all information I could about a few topics, among others the massacres of ethnic Germans in Poland. To the best of my knowledge even Polish sources conclude there were massacres, they only differ regarding the number of deaths so it seems a historical truth. It is difficult to swallow for a Pole, but it is true.

[Otium]

To the best of my knowledge even Polish sources conclude there were massacres, they only differ regarding the number of deaths so it seems a historical truth. It is difficult to swallow for a Pole, but it is true.

Welcome to the forum!

Could you post about these Polish sources?

[viewfrompoland]

Thank you! First, even when one looks at the Polish wikipedia information, one finds contradictions:

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krwawa_niedziela_(Bydgoszcz)

Even when the theory of Vth column is discussed historians confirm that the victims of Poles were not only the members of the Vth column but also innocent Germans: "Ofiarami wydarzeń bydgoskich z 3 i 4 września byli nie tylko dywersanci, ale też ludzie niewinni. Niektóre relacje wskazują, że mogło dochodzić do egzekucji osób, które zostały wskazane jako dywersanci przez Polaków kierujących się osobistą nienawiścią i zemstą. Mogły się też zdarzać nadużycia, których sprawcami byli pozbawieni dowództwa i kontroli żołnierze z rozbitych oddziałów Armii „Pomorze". And set the number of victims as 254.

But not all Polish historians agree that there was a German Vth column. So two options are discussed, the Vth column and Polish massacre of Germans, for example in this article:

https://historia.org.pl/2013/05/21/mord ... niedzieli/

The historian who claims there was no Vth column is Prof Włodzimierz Jastrzębski who in fact worked at Bydgoszcz (Bromberg) University but was forced to resign, here https://bydgoszcz.naszemiasto.pl/dymisj ... c1-5806465

He admitted that the theories about German Vth column were the result of Polish hatred to Germans and instead there was a Polish Vth column which for example burnt the Evangelical church there without any reason. Another article on the topic, 'Poles not so holy' is here: https://expressbydgoski.pl/polacy-nie-b ... r/11183344

The hatred towars German has been present among Poles for centuries so I think one has to be very careful when rearching for historical truth.

[Otium]

This is a re-post of a post I made on April 22, 2021. It should be included in this thread.

---

In an article written by John Wear he cites an article from The Barnes Review written by a Marc Roland entitled Poland's Censored Holocaust which he uses as justification to cite the German White Book on Polish atrocities Die polnischen Greueltaten an den Volksdeutschen in Polen (Polish atrocities against the ethnic Germans in Poland) because according to Wear:

Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans have been documented in the book Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland. Most of the outside world dismissed this book as nothing more than propaganda used to justify Hitler’s invasion of Poland. However, skeptics failed to notice that forensic pathologists from the International Red Cross and medical and legal observers from the United States verified the findings of these investigations of Polish war crimes. These investigations were also conducted by German police and civil administrations, and not the National Socialist Party or the German military. Moreover, both anti-German and other university-trained researchers have acknowledged that the charges in the book are based entirely on factual evidence.

John Wear, Why Germany Invaded Poland, Journal of Inconvenient History, Vol. 11 (2019). No. 1.

When I read this for the first time I was intrigued to say the least. So I went and checked out Wears citation and looked online for the article by Roland which I found and examined; and alas I was let down, the article I can now say with 90% certainty, is utter bunk, at least concerning the specific claims made about the Polish atrocities. Roland claims:

The report (German white book previously mentioned) was carefully scrutinized after the war by anti-German researchers intent on unmasking it as propaganda. But in 1954, the East German Communist historian Theodor Bierschenk stated, after a four year study entitled Polish Acts of Atrocity Against the German Minority in Poland, that the charges were based entirely on factual evidence. His judgement was challenged the following year by Otto Heike, a West German Social Democrat journalist, who was forced to admit that Bierschenk's conclusions were correct.

Since then, the 1940 report has been similarly verified by the few university-trained researchers who have bothered to examine it for factuality. Foremost among them is the American layer and historian Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, presently professor of international law at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations, formerly a senior lawyer with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. De Zayas goes into great detail about this in his book The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945.

He was seconded by the renowned and meticulous U.S. historian David Leslie Hoggan. Hoggan noted that Polish Acts of Atrocity Against the German Minority in Poland documents these war crimes in a thoroughly professional and credible manner. . .

Marc Roland, Poland's Censored Holocaust, The Barnes Review, March/April 2010.

There's a few things to note.

Theodor Bierschenk never wrote a book entitled Polish Acts of Atrocity Against the German Minority in Poland, as that's merely the name of the German white book from 1940; he actually did write a book that came out in 1954, but it was entitled Die Deutsche Volksgruppe in Polen 1934-39 (The German ethnic group in Poland 1934-39), and Otto Heike wrote a book entitled Die Deutsche Minderheit in Polen 1918-1939 (The German minority in Poland 1918-1939). Unfortunately I cannot check these books to see if what Roland claims is correct, but I won't hold my breath because neither Hoggan nor de Zayas prove to be confirmatory sources either. I found no references in any book by Hoggan, and de Zayas says the exact opposite of what Roland claims:

The evidentiary value of German white books during World War II varies greatiy. Some consist almost exclusively ofsworn witness testimony as compiled by the War Crimes Bureau; these can be said to be fairly reliable, whereas those white books including everything from newspaper articles to Gestapo reports must be taken cumgrano salis (with a grain of salt).

The first two German white books dealing with the war in Poland represent a nadir of bad taste and cheap propaganda. On page 187 of “The Polish Atrocities against the Ethnic Germans in Poland” and on page 283 of the enlarged “Documents of Polish Cruelty” appears a “document” numbered 109 under the loud heading “In the Hell of Bereza-Kartuska.” The editors simply reprinted a newspaper article from the Posener Tageblatt of 27 October 1939—taking it at face value as the credible report of a Mr. Kopiera, the former director ofthe Schicht plant in Warsaw purporting to establish the murder of 158 Germans at the Bereza-Kartuska internment camp.

This “document” was included even though a thorough investigation on the spot had disproved the allegations. In November 1939 a special commission—two military judges, a medical doctor, members of a propaganda company, and two foreign journalists—had been sent to investigate whether twelve to fifteen German pilots had in fact been killed at Bereza-Kartuska. Although the commission’s report appears to have been lost, the files of the Foreign Office show that Gunther Altenburg had sent a representative to join the commission and report back to the Foreign Office. According to his account, the pilots were not executed at all but were sent on a transport to Pinsk. The commission further established that though many ethnic Germans at Bereza-Kartuska had been beaten and otherwise mistreated, only three had been killed. In his report of 6 January 1940, Altenburg summed up: “The conclusions of this official commission do not substantiate the allegation in Document 109 that 158 Germans were murdered at Bereza-Kartuska.

Alfred M. de Zayas, The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau 1939-1945 (Maine: Picton Press, 2000), p. 78.

One shouldn't be fooled into thinking that nobody in the German government had any scruples, because this document was not included in the official English translation of the white book:

In light of this finding several members in the Foreign Office pleaded for the removal of the document. On 10 January 1940 Ambassador Hans Dieckhoff wrote directly on the report: “Now as ever I believe that an official publication should contain only such documents as are absolutely correct. If the atrocities are true, they should be published; if they are not entirely true, then they should not be published.”9 But a day later, Councilor Gunter Lohse of the Press Department contended that it would be too expensive to take the document out of the white book, and anyway, the Foreign Office had already pointed out in a footnote that an official investigation of the case was still in progress. Thus it was decided to keep the objectionable “document” 109 so as not to delay publication of the German-language version of the white book. Lohse did propose taking it out of all foreign-language editions, and in fact it is missing in the English version, titled “Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland,” which was published in New York in the spring of 1940.

Ibid., pp. 78-79.

Yet this was not the only error, of course, the figure of 58,000 dead and missing is not accurate, and de Zayas does not affirm its accuracy, despite what Roland says:

Besides this kind of false information there were more serious manipulations and exaggerations. For instance, the original manuscript version of the white book spoke of 5,437 murdered Germans; the published edition claims 58,000 dead and missing—the “official” figure fabricated by Goebbels for his propaganda machine. In implementing this political falsification, the German Foreign Office had to telegraph its embassies in Washington, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, and elsewhere: “ On page 17, line 10 from the top, insert the figure 58,000 instead of 5,000.”

Ibid., p. 79.

The Germans of course didn't only publish white books about atrocities, but also collections of documents on topics such as the outbreak of the war and the 'Allied intrigue in the low countries' which are taken to be accurate and reliable all in all. De Zaya's doesn't mention these in any case.

It should be noted that Roland in his article isn't wrong for saying that massacres and mistreatment of Germans happened, but that he has seemingly falsified his sources to support a conclusion that cannot be documented is wrong. This can be evidenced by his sloppy citations, lack of page numbers or specifics regarding those he considers an authority on the matter of verifying the German white book, de Zayas included. John Wear is merely guilty of not thoroughly checking his sources, but not of intentional falsification. (necessarily) However, to do the work Wear is doing takes proper research skills and scrutiny. You cannot be trusted if you as a researcher take sources for granted without digging deeper.

As for legitimate atrocities against ethnic Germans in Poland, de Zayas dedicates a whole chapter (c. 13) to it in his book. If you want to read it, I have uploaded a pdf of the full book here.

It should be said that the whole German white book on this issue cannot be dismissed, it undoubtedly contains many examples of Polish misdeeds, but its numbers aren't reliable.

[hermod]

A lot of the sources are NS-German ones or were written by Germans at the time. So the immediate argument against them will be a political bias of the authors or editors. That's at least what I noted in debates that detractors will point out: "But those are Nazi/German sources". An argument I found rather funny, since they don't apply that standard for sources used in support of "the Holocaust" or "German war crimes".

Using detractors' own logic, you could tell them as well "But those are Zionist/Jewish sources" and they would be left with very few exterminationist/antirevisionist books on the 'Holocaust', WWII and the Third Reich as sources for debates. The argument stands on its own feet because Zionist/Jewish historians are of course very partial and biased (to say the least) as far as the 'Holocaust', WWII and the Third Reich are concerned. In fact, there are many more anti-Nazi Germans than anti-Zionist Jews...

Unlike what most people now believe, Nazi sources were far from being unreliable anyway. After WWI, the word 'propaganda' hadn't been discredited by the debunked British propaganda lies in Germany (hence the Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment in Nazi Germany) as it had been in the English-speaking world.

https://postimg.cc/G9cW42QF

[Hektor]

A lot of the sources are NS-German ones or were written by Germans at the time. So the immediate argument against them will be a political bias of the authors or editors. That's at least what I noted in debates that detractors will point out: "But those are Nazi/German sources". An argument I found rather funny, since they don't apply that standard for sources used in support of "the Holocaust" or "German war crimes".

Using detractors' own logic, you could tell them as well "But those are Zionist/Jewish sources" and they would be left with very few exterminationist/antirevisionist books on the 'Holocaust', WWII and the Third Reich as sources for debates. The argument stands on its own feet because Zionist/Jewish historians are of course very partial and biased (to say the least) as far as the 'Holocaust', WWII and the Third Reich are concerned. In fact, there are many more anti-Nazi Germans than anti-Zionist Jews.......

Indeed.
But they are riding on the fact that there has been a poisoning of the well for decades now. So the bias is against 'Nazi sources' and in favor of "Jewish Sources".... From there the argumentative question: "Are you saying all those Holocaust Survivors are lying"... Well, the vast majority doesn't claim to have witnessed industrial style homicidal gassings, so they don't really help you. Just that deportation and detentions are now "proof of the Holocaust".

There is no consistent logic applied by the adherents of the Holocaust. It's all based on emotions and being primed to have a certain type of views via Holocaust Indoctrination from an early age onward.

[hermod]

Indeed.
But they are riding on the fact that there has been a poisoning of the well for decades now. So the bias is against 'Nazi sources' and in favor of "Jewish Sources".... From there the argumentative question: "Are you saying all those Holocaust Survivors are lying"... Well, the vast majority doesn't claim to have witnessed industrial style homicidal gassings, so they don't really help you. Just that deportation and detentions are now "proof of the Holocaust".

Anyway Jewish psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has demonstrated that memories are far from being a reliable source of information. And carte blanche for the theft of another people's homeland (Zionist 'survivors') is a very good motive for lying.

https://postimg.cc/Lq3G9CqM

https://postimg.cc/G9hXWPv6

https://postimg.cc/k6FjBFSq

https://postimg.cc/H8gmX2jx

https://postimg.cc/5YWRwhsP

https://postimg.cc/w39LnJbH

https://postimg.cc/kRdpcKwq

https://postimg.cc/S2rkJLKw

[hermod]

What is a lie in the 1st place???

Herman Rosenblatt

https://postimg.cc/MXqhw1DY

https://postimg.cc/v4phmJSm

[Moderator]

Let's all remember to stay on topic of the OP.
We're drifting, and Otium has politely asked me to mentioned it.
Thanks, M1

[hermod]

Let's all remember to stay on topic of the OP.
We're drifting, and Otium has politely asked me to mentioned it.
Thanks, M1

OK. Duly noted. Thanks for the reminder.