Talk:Hannes Heer

It appears to me that this article may not be neutral. It only deals with criticism of Heer and exaggerates the impact of several rather minor criminal charges against him. As this page is still clearly in its infancy, there's a good chance that someone may balance out this negative content but if it stays as it is, I see little more than an attack on him. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

These accusations are unfounded. This is a perfectly encyclopedic, well-sourced and neutral article. When writing an article on a widely discredited historian, it's unavoidable to include criticism (the article on David Irving also includes a lot of criticism). He is chiefly known for an exhibition that received massive criticism for lacking in scientific method, being politically motivated and deliberately misleading, and that was withdrawn for these reasons. It's also relevant that he is a convicted felon with a long record of extremist political activities. You are however correct that the article is work in progress. HistOlff (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Fieldday-sunday. This artice is very misleading and solely contains criticism. The article should for example mention the Carl-von-Ossietzky-Medaille Heer recieved in 1997. The "long record of extremist political activities" is an exaggeration: Back in the seventies almost every intellectual in Germany brought a "long record of extremist political activities" upon himself. Just think of Joschka Fischer (Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany) and many others who make the elite today . Any article might/should contain criticism but your article suggests that Heer is a criminal and all his career contains is an failed exhibition.(babay2000) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babay2000 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Widely discredited historian" - by who?

E.g. by Bogdan Musial, which is also mentioned in the article. The commission to investigate that 'exhibition' mentions some 'mistakes', but further tried to withe-wash it. --105.0.4.217 (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Heer's exhibition lives on -- and prior to my edits, there's been no mention of the 2001-present exhibition in the article. Just because a German military historian (with a vested interest in preserving the Wehrmacht's 'clean' image) criticizes the exhibit, does not make Heer's work less valid. (Re: "Military historian Rolf-Dieter Müller, Scientific Director of the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office, stated that the exhibition was deliberately misleading[6].")

Presenting the exhibit as "attributing Allied crimes to the Wehrmacht" is untrue; Wehrmacht's war crimes during the war with the Soviet Union are indisputed. The exhibit's current web site states: "The exhibition Crimes of the German Wehrmacht: Dimensions of a War of Annihilation, 1941—1944 documents the participation of the Wehrmacht in crimes committed during World War II, taking as its starting point contemporary international humanitarian law and the laws and customs of war. The exhibition documents six dimensions of this war of annihilation: the genocide perpetrated against Soviet Jews, the mass death of Soviet prisoners of war, starvation as a strategy of war, the war against partisans, and reprisals and executions of hostages." http://www.verbrechen-der-wehrmacht.de/docs/e_ausstellung/p_ausstellung.htm Bigwhitehat (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Apology

Did he ever issue an apology for his fraudulent exhibition and deceit that smeared the Wehrmacht? --41.150.16.60 (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

May 2020 edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "rm non-defining categories; see WP:CATDEF". --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

" Hitler war's"

The title is German, a translation would help.Xx236 (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)