User talk:Hohns3

Welcome!

Hello, Hohns3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Bhadani 14:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Hochmittelalter.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Hochmittelalter.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of WWII

Hohns3, I wonder if you realize that much of what you write is Nazi spin, e.g. trying to pin the war on Britain, saying there was "disorder" in Czechoslovakia that led to the German invasion, saying that Hitler wanted a deal on Danzig and the Polish corridor "Germany looked to broker a deal with Poland.", deleting any reference to German coercion re:Anschluss. You mark lots of stuff I write as POV, but I have to wonder about you. Do you really believe this crap? Haber 23:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "spin", which you humbly acknowledge as "crap", will become more prominent in historeography as the war becomes more of a distant memory and less effected by Allied propaganda. As with most things in life, neither side told the absolute truth, which lay somewhere in between. Only when one approaches different viewpoints and angles does the narrative completely make sense, unless we digress to the notion that the world is black and white and become calvinists in regard to good and evil, the reliable side and the fabricator. In modern times, the propagandist is never in the clear, nor is the straight-shooter. We have learned to question. Regarding the Iraq and US or Lebanon and Israel situations, we could just as easily assume the same. The points I illustrated were valid in the article: Britain's break in behavior, the Anschluss' lack of a relation to the outbreak of war, the situation between Germany and Poland, the Sudeten minority's lack of minority rights within Czechoslovakia, Czechoslovakia's inner tension, etc. Today we not only get the opposite POV of an event, but due to a distrust in the upper hierachy due to events such yes, the Holocaust or even Watergate, many times the third party view is endorsed over that of the governments. Times sure have changed, but if we reallly want to understand the past, we would be wise to apply these same standards. --Hohns3 02:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we have a responsibility to question authority, but disagree with your methods. One does not arrive at the truth by simply blending the opinions of more than one authority. This style of reasoning has been discredited since the Enlightenment (though it is making a scary comeback). One looks at the facts, and forms an opinion only after understanding the facts. This "he said/she said" business is ok for the six o'clock news, but it's irrational and it inevitably slants toward the side with the more extreme claims. e.g. A says 1, B says 10. You say 5, but the truth is 2. Parroting the lies out of Goebbels' office without stopping to think whether there is any factual basis for them, and deleting relevant facts that we do know are true, is not likely to lead to NPOV. Haber 03:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good example, but who knows that truth is 2? You speak of the rhetoric of Goebbels, but what about your own rhetoric of "knowing the truth"? How do you, or anyone else know what really happened regarding any incident, not just World War II? We can only make educated guesses, nothing more. However, Allied propaganda has been taken as "truth" and repeated as such for so long. Old habits are hard to break, especially when they are introduced to the mainstream for the explicit purpose of not leaving our collective conscious (their version justifies everything they did, from bombing Germany into the stone age to getting involved in the war in the first place. War is a climaxed power struggle, though sometimes more, sometimes less.)

Say one side's pov is a 1 and the other an extreme of 10; each end (1 and 10) represents an absolute acceptance of that side's pov. Because there are too many inconsistencies in the Allied version, if we allow ourselves to take a chance and consider other views, you may start to realize that not everything the Germans had (or have) to say was "crap" - In fact, far from it. And with that, the answer starts to look more like a 4 instead of a 2, if a 1 represents the Anglo-Amer. pov. I think World War II has remained in the 1.5 range for quite a long time. (again, if 1 represents total acceptance of Ango-American World War II point of view).

Perhaps in this new era there will be less of "winner writing history" because it seems anyone can write it and we are free to form our own version based on the conclusion we reach after reading all samples (of course, if the internet becomes consolidated under corporate control, this will not be the case).

I don't want to go on a rant here, but I think I should mention something else: I've read some real whoppers that passed as scholarship regarding the war, but because they promote the "right" view, they recieve mainstream publishing. "Revisionism" isn't always revisionism, but to give you an example of bias, a colleague of mine has a (Russian) friend who has tried to publish Suvorov's "Icebreakers" in English and bring it to the states, to no avail. The book runs at $500 in English, less than $20 in its original Russian form. I don't necessarily agree with Suvorov's conclusions, but where is the open forum to at least read what he has to say and form our conclusion by how well he supports his thesis through documentation others overlook? Fair? This shows the bias in publishing that has made it very difficult to challenge the absurdity of a 1, even if not everything lines up.

"without stopping to think whether there is any factual basis for them, and deleting relevant facts that we do know are true..." after reading your revision, i think that pertains more to you than myself.--Hohns3 06:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have time to get into it with you, but just believe me there is such a thing as truth. Sure, it's a human idea, limited by our senses, but on a practical level, we know a lot of things. Even complicated subjects can often be broken down into smaller, less contentious points of agreement. That's what I try to do here. I think that what disturbs you is that when the excuses are stripped away, the side with the exaggerated claims tends to look bad.

As for the conspiracy theory... I don't know what to tell you. You must be aware that in the United States, people are free to publish whatever they want. We have Mein Kampf sitting in bookstores. If it makes money, a publisher will pick it up. My guess is that the publisher your friend talked to didn't want to take a chance on an obscure old foreign book with a very limited audience. If your friend wants it that bad, he should self-publish it.

-Haber 01:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm not sure I agree with you. I have studied the war and other related historical topics for most of my life and, I'll admit, went through some stages where I felt pretty strongly about one theory or two. The problem is so many of them draw from a relatively deep fact pool, yet they sometimes contradict one another in their abrupt conclusions. BUT perhaps we are not in disagreement afterall, because I believe the truth does exist, I'm not sure if I was clear about that. Whether we stumble upon it and are able to identify it as such is another matter. The only way we can gauge such factuality is collecting various evidence that leads us close enough that we feel comfortable to say "this is what happened" even though, there is always the possibility that we were completely off-base.--Hohns3 07:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Haber 00:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NaziGaue.png

1943 territorial additions

This map should be changed to include further 1943 additions. In October 1943 Germany annexed the north Italian regions around Udine, Ljubljana, Istria and the adjacent Dalmatian islands, which became the Adriatic Littoral (Adriatisches Kustenland) administered by the Gau of Carinthia; South Tyrol was also added, becoming the Pre-Alpine Region (Alpenvorland) administered by the Gau of Tyrol-Vorarlberg. These additions at Italian expense were the last territorial changes to Nazi Germany before the end of the war. For more information see Magosci, Robert Paul. Historical Atlas of Central Europe. ISBN 0-295-98193-0 (pages 181, map on page 182). Also, look at this map: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/194145fc.gif (lower left corner)

Hi... and the War

Re your comments. The "spin", which you humbly acknowledge as "crap", will become more prominent in historeography as the war becomes more of a distant memory and less effected by Allied propaganda. As with most things in life, neither side told the absolute truth, which lay somewhere in between. Only when one approaches different viewpoints and angles does the narrative completely make sense, unless we digress to the notion that the world is black and white and become calvinists in regard to good and evil, the reliable side and the fabricator. In modern times, the propagandist is never in the clear, nor is the straight-shooter. We have learned to question. Regarding the Iraq and US or Lebanon and Israel situations, we could just as easily assume the same. The points I illustrated were valid in the article: Britain's break in behavior, the Anschluss' lack of a relation to the outbreak of war, the situation between Germany and Poland, the Sudeten minority's lack of minority rights within Czechoslovakia, Czechoslovakia's inner tension, etc. Today we not only get the opposite POV of an event, but due to a distrust in the upper hierachy due to events such yes, the Holocaust or even Watergate, many times the third party view is endorsed over that of the governments. Times sure have changed, but if we reallly want to understand the past, we would be wise to apply these same standards. --Hohns3 02:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I really liked what you said here. It is what I was trying to get at, when I was questioning the overview of the WW2 article on the discussion page. History does actually brings things into perspective as the event become more and more distant. Look at the Napoleon wars. Napoleon was demonized just after that war. Now the image of him is more correct, i.e., partially responsible escalating a war, but at the same time showing heroic qualities. Wallie 07:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Enjoy your holiday. I'm sure the article will still be there when you get back. Don't worry. I'll try not to let it get out of hand. Wallie 23:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as you get back, can you please please vote quickly on the poll on the WW2 page, as Haber, Nixer and co are trying to put their own pet theories. Wallie 20:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am back...have been back...but I've lost my appreciation for Wikipedia. Its like working for a news editor who keeps chopping your story...except in Wiki's case, no salary to compensate for those hours of composition which end up being deleted on a whim; obviously not the site for people who take pride in their work. Pass, I have better things to do with my time.--Hohns3 02:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hochmittelalter.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hochmittelalter.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]