Talk:Harry Elmer Barnes

Untitled

I have never written anything on this website so apologise if I am doing something wrong, but I am shocked and surprised that the entry for Harry Elmer Barnes does not discuss in detail his Holocaust theories. It is not just Lipsadt - But on the subject of Lipstadt - The British courts ruled in her favour in the Irving trial - She is quite highly regarded. See also Gill Seidel - The Holocaust Denial - Antisemitism, Racism & The New Right -Published by Beyond the Pale Collective (Leeds 1986) - Also mentions Barnes. This encyclopaedia entry is a disgace if it does not cover in detail Holocaust Revisionism and Barnes's praise for Rassinier etc.

Mikey

This article is full of Libelous misrepresentations. A much better overview of Barnes views can be garnered from reading the following article: http://ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p205_Barnes.html

It was republished posthumously in the Journal of Historical Review, but Barnes didn't write it for that journal. I saw no evidence of the kind of anti-Semitism or Hitler Worship this (Lipstadt based) article implies. Instead, I saw a pacifist desire to question the motives of governments.

From reading the article, it is clear that Barnes was concerned with intellectual imperialism emanating from dominant institutions. This is not at all unwarranted. The 1946 report of the Rockefeller foundation stated:

"The Committee on Studies of the Council on Foreign Relations is concerned that the debunking journalistic campaign following World War I should not be repeated and believes that the American public deserves a clear competent statement of our basic aims and activities during the second World War."

See, for more on that, the following: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3684225/Reece-Committee-Hearings-TaxExempt-Foundations-1953-Part-4-of-4

In other words, there were powerful interests pushing for a view of World War II that made the Anglo-American establishment look unimpeachable.* Harry Elmer Barnes was exactly the sort of individual they had in mind.

• Incidentally, many of these people (including Warburg) also had no qualms about funding the Nazis: http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

I think much of this wikipedia article shows the unfortunate desire among much of the "learned" public (those who write these articles -who seem to be more erudite than most), to discard scientific methodology when it comes to historical argument, in favor of dominant ideologies. Use of thought stopping cliches like "conspiracy theorist" is an example of this. And to those who attack Barnes because, as a part of his broader part of his investigation of World War II, he began to question the holocaust, I suggest reading this article from 1919. I think they will find it very interesting: http://www.archive.org/details/TheCrucifixionOfTheJewsMustStop

Lipstadt is not an historian, she is a professor of Jewish studies, and a polemical zionist agitator. It is clear from reading her book that she lumps any historical revisionism concerning the world wars - e.g., controversies regarding WWI German War Guilt, controversies regarding FDR's knowledge of pearl harbor, etc., mention of allied atrocities like operation keelhaul, etc., in the same box as holocaust denial.

Lipstadt is a propagandist who wants dominant ideologies supporting Zionist and anglo-American imperialism to be unquestioned and for opponents or questioners of those ideologies to be unconditionally smeared, abused, discredited, marginalized, and attacked (possibly persecuted). She castigates her opponents as deranged anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, yet, like all fiction writers, she wants us to believe in a world of good vs. evil, where the Nazis were literal demons and the allies were literal angels.

Lipstadt is not an expert on Harry Elmer Barnes - a much better biographical source is Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader

Issues

Jacrosse, you are right - I have also not been using Talk, and people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, so lets start now. I have tried to compromise with you (agreeing to delete the Lipstadt quote about Barnes, etc.) but you are still systematically removing relevant information if it is at all negative about Barnes - the Ben Austin piece is directly about Barnes's role in Holocaust denial. Also, I am not sure why you deleted the name and dates of the journal articles you posted, which seem relevant. Finally, the Murray N. Rothbard piece is a stretch - it is a defense of revisionism, but it is not a defense of Barnes's views on the Holocaust, yet it comes after a sentence reading However, supporters of Barnes contend Lipstadt's methods to be heavy handed and the charge of holocaust denial to be a red herring, namely as a means of smearing any historian who takes a critical look at American involvement in World War II or any other war. That is pretty strong language, and pretty specific ("Lipstadt's methods [are] heavy handed" and holocaust denial as a "red herring") and they have no support at all in the Rockwell piece, especially as Lipstadt wrote her works two decades after the Rothbard essay.

I am going to restore the Austin link, but leave the Rockwell piece in for now, until we discuss it. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Revisionism and Barnes' legacy more specifically covers a lot more than just the Holocaust, but I suppose it can't quite penetrate your skull that anything should.--Jacrosse 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:Civility, please. I apologize if you have found my former comments at all abrasive (the constraints of communicating through the short edit summaries makes me seem curter than I aimed for), but there is no reason to insult me. You are also misunderstanding my object: I am not attacking historical revisionism in general, and I realize there is more to Barnes than the Holocaust, but his denial of the Holocaust is a part of his legacy, as witness by William Carto's Barnes Review, among other things, and your attempts to purge any mention of this is disturbing. Besides, in addition to insulting me, you have yet to answer my questions: 1) Why did you delete the dates and journal names from the external links? 2) How does the Rothbard piece written in the 1970s support in any way the sentence that says "Lipstadt's methods [are] heavy handed" and holocaust denial as a "red herring"? You want to defend Barnes, I understand that, but some civility and discussion would be appreciated. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You have not responded, but you continue to delete all mention of Holocaust denial in exterior links, and you are still deleting the dates and journal names from the external links - why? Also, again, how does the Rothbard piece written in the 1970s support in any way the sentence that says "Lipstadt's methods [are] heavy handed" and Holocaust denial as a "red herring"? I have not made changes to the material you added, despite the fact that you are not answering my questions and continue to make changes to material I added. Perhaps an RfC is appropriate? --Goodoldpolonius2 19:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I repeat what I said before, the link you provided has only the most minimal discussion of Barnes, and the added information for the other links is superfluous and is not normal for external links.--Jacrosse 22:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is frustrating: 1) the link does talk directly about Barnes's role in Holocaust denial, you are just deleting it because you don't like anything critical of Barnes 2) many articles do include the information about the source, especially for journal articles, and why would we delete it? and 3) you still haven't answered about Rothbard. I have asked these questions multiple times, but you just keep unilaterally changing the article. I am going to restore (again) the missing bibliographic information and (as I discussed two weeks ago) delete the Rothbard link because it says nothing about Lipstadt or Holocaust denial or red herrings or anything else. I assume you will object, but you are unwilling to discuss, so I am not sure what to do. Are you okay with taking this to mediation, perhaps? --Goodoldpolonius2 17:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

David Irving reference

I have removed the statement, "Further, self-styled "revisionists" such as David Irving have attempted to claim Barnes for their pro-Nazi historiography, but have been generally unsuccessful," as that is an inaccurate description of Irving's agenda. - Proof Reader (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone flesh out his holocaust denial beliefs, wrtings, etc. The Holocaust Denial wiki article links to him but then the trail pretty much dies. Oddly, I can hardly stop laughing, this artical claims he is/was a prominent historian - so jp* jg* sl* etc we have our first "real" historian who has "reliable"sources who thinks the holocaust is bunkum, praises be to wiki. My other real question is how does he have such supporters who keep editing out any harsh criticisms of him - he must have served the cause well at one time or place.159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of balance

It is ironic that the past comments on this talk page regard the article as too pro-Barnes, considering how anti-Barnes it is now. It seems this is largely because the article relies almost solely upon a single source: Deborah Lipstadt's Denying the Holocaust. While Barnes's Holocaust denial should not be downplayed, this certainly has the effect of emphasizing the least credible portion of his historical work. Indeed, Lipstadt seems hostile even to Barnes's earlier work. For example, citing Lipstadt, the article claims "In the 1920s, Barnes was noted as a vehement advocate that Germany had borne no responsibility for the outbreak of war in 1914, and had instead been the victim of Allied aggression."—this is not an accurate description of Barnes's position, who believed in mixed-guilt for the war (though he thought France and Russia were primarily to blame, he did not believe Germany bore "no responsibility"). All in all, the article paints Barnes as unreasonably pro-German, even in his World War I research, which was highly regarded at the time and supported by numerous other credible scholars (e.g., Charles A. Beard).

Lipstadt's book tries to trace back Barnes's late-in-life Holocaust denial into his earlier works, discrediting work published decades before World War II. It must be conceded this view is unbalanced and POV, even if correct. This lack of balance and neutrality regarding Barnes's non-Holocaust historical work is, I think, the greatest flaw of this article. --darolew (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. This article is currently a complete mess that seems to portray Barnes was unreliable and discredited from the beginning rather than his denial of the Holocaust being a late-in-life aberration of an otherwise highly regarded historian. The article even had a header falsely claiming Barnes was a Nazi sympathizer during World War II, which I just changed. Lipstadt is also highly regarded but her views on Barnes are the views of one person, should be regarded as fringe, and giving them more than a single mention in this article is giving them undue weight. We should also have views on Barnes of others, such as Murray Rothbard. 71.176.164.142 (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Objectivity

Articles of this nature will not do Wikipedia any favors. Readers expect objective language which does not set out to lead the reader by the nose..

Even if you do not agree with someone's views, you should still defend the right for those views to be expressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matabele bill (talk • contribs) 10:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that the intent of Barnes' work on the First World War is misrepresented with a healthy layer of innuendo thrown on top. He was as critical of German diplomatic blundering as he was of anything else that led up to the war. It is clear that the article expresses an agenda to present him as a fringe historian and an agent of German propaganda, while his work on WWI was courageously objective in the face of the de rigeur narrative of German war guilt used to justify the Treaty of Versailles. Barnes' view of Russia and France having the most aggressive intentions at the outbreak of the war, predicated on their ability to draw in Britain, has drawn support from more recent works including Christopher Clark's The Sleepwalkers (2013). His accounts of the machinations by the British, influential Anglophiles in the US, and war profiteers, to violate neutrality, tolerate British violations of international law on the high seas, and eventually draw the US into the war, have been corroborated by later works such as Colin Simpson's Lusitania (1972). There is still pushback from proponents of the "official" narratives of WWI, but it is at least possible to question them without being regarded as a heretic. Barnes' contemporary proponents of those narratives were certainly in no position to complain about historical propaganda, especially from someone as professional as Barnes was at that time. The article's view of Barnes' work on WWI is something of a throwback to the era in which his work was produced. A full account of the treatment of Barnes during the pre-WWII period might provide an explanation for the bitterness that affected his later work. 75.111.20.66 (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

For a similar reason, I've removed a WP:UNDUE tag from several years ago. Frizzmaz (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Too much quoting from Barnes

While Lipstadt is used, it is only as a source to quote Barnes' own words. There is too much of that; there need to be more sources that either put his work in context (how were other historians or journalists responding at the time), which is finally done near the end, or respond to his points. More historians have written recently about the many deaths and destruction from Allied bombing and about the human cost of the expulsion of ethnic Germans from eastern Europe - not drawing the same conclusions that he did, but acknowledging that these were abuses. He repeated himself over and over according to the quotes here, but this article should not have all these quotes for the same thing he said in 1955, 1961, and 1962, or example, when he does not add anything to the thought. Not enough assessment by others of his thought.Parkwells (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. In recent edits I reduced some of the repetitive WP:OVERQUOTING of Barnes. The context from RS must be emphasized more. Llll5032 (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility

"But by the 1950s, he lost credibility by his practice of Holocaust denial." Now that's not exactly what can be deducted from the source. It's rather a loss in popularity within certain circle, then loss of credibility. --197.228.40.14 (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Works

I was surprised to see this extensive list of "works" including several that were published years after his death in 1968. Are all of these books his works or do they include books that discuss Barnes? If so, they should be separated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Books not read

In read in the introduction, that Barnes had lost his credibility because his role in the holocaust denial movement. Thats right in this case. But the source does not say this. In the book „Goddard 1968" is on no page Barnes role disputed as a holocaust denier. People, who change pieces of text in an article should have read the sources, with which they editing. The book Goddard is written from friends after Barnes death and devoted to him. --Orik (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The reference was added in this edit on 16 October 2013 by @Rjensen:, who is an historian, so I presume he is aware of the contents of the book. I've pinged him, so let's see if he has a comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I had it misdated--he was a pariah in 1940s and 1950s before he became a Holocaust denier. See Peter Novick (1988). That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession. Cambridge UP. p. 309. Rjensen (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Harry Elmer Barnes ignored basic facts about the First World War because they did not fit his thesis.

In 1914 Germany invaded Belgium without cause (which is why the United Kingdom declared war upon Germany), and the German Declaration of War upon France in 1914 was a series of false statements (to be blunt the German Declaration of War upon France in 1914 was a series of lies) - Harry Elmer Barnes essentially ignored these basic facts, so his wildly inaccurate account of the Second World War stems from his wildly inaccurate account of the First World War.2A02:C7C:E085:8D00:11F0:569:CA20:A639 (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)