Talk:Andreas Hillgruber

Palmer

I have found this statement to be dubious:

• Russian sources acknowledge the mass rapes, but reflecting the prevalence of Yellow Peril stereotypes in Russia insist that most of the rapes were committed by Soviet Asian peoples serving in the second-line units, not by soldiers in the first-line units, who were usually ethnic Russians.

References

Palmer's book appears not to be WP:RS on this topic as it covers a different timeframe (1919) and a different subject matter. From Amazon write-up:

• In the history of the modern world, there have been few characters more sinister, sadistic, and deeply demented than Baron Ungern-Sternberg. An anti-Semitic fanatic whose penchant for Eastern mysticism and hatred of communists foreshadowed the Nazi scourge that would soon overtake Europe, Ungern- Sternberg conquered Mongolia in 1919 with a ragtag force of White Russians, Siberians, Japanese, and native Mongolians. In The Bloody White Baron, historian and travel writer James Palmer vividly re-creates Ungern-Sternberg's spiral into ever-darker obsessions, while also providing a rare look at the religion and culture of the unfortunate Mongolians he briefly ruled.

I would like to reword this to "Russian sources acknowledge the mass rapes" or something similar. Please let me know if there are objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I will go ahead and remove altogether, as I see no value in this sentence. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You are quite right that the book is about General Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, but the footnote I cited was on the topic. What Palmer wrote was about the image of Mongols in the modern world and mentioned the following: "Central Asian and Mongolian soldiers were also widely blamed by other Russian soldiers for the rapes committed by the Red Army in 1945, in supposed contrast to the heroic-and ethnically Russian-frontline soldiers". True, Palmer's book is not about the subject of the Red Army into Germany in 1945, but the footnote is. With no objections, it would be acceptable if were I to restore the sentence. I didn't owe this page, but I done quite a bit of work here, so I am a little protective of an article that is an example of my best work around here.--A.S. Brown (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Top much apologia, too little substantial treatment

Most of the article is reasonably well made. Hoever, this cannot be said of the Historikerstreit section, in which every effort is made to defend the subjects positions, even the most untenable, distasteful and a-historical, while alle criticism is explained away, selectively represented and slanted. For instance, it is strongly and falsely implied that his extremely favorable view of the Wehrmacht was only opposed by Marxist/hard left historians of little standing which is outrageously false. This section, in its current form, is unreasonably POV, unencyclopaedic and entirely divorced from the actual way IT is viewed by professional historians. This article cannot and must not be an apologium for its subject, and the outrageous bias I refer tot above must be dealt with. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)