Talk:David L. Hoggan/Archive 1

Ad hominem

Ad hominem seems to be the order of the day - any facts refuting his writing? He may have benn short and ugly ( I'm not sure of either ) but shouldn't the article at least list his ideas. His work on the start of WW2 certainly make more sense than the stuff we leaarn in school. The Allies attacked Germany for attacking Poland long after Russia had taken over half of Poland - at least our forefathers weren't anti-Commies. And this is after they armed Germany so Hitler could defeat Stalin. Hitler must have listened to April Glaspie.

His professor some 20 years later complains/whines that his current work isn't like his old work - he may have learned somthing in 20 years. This is a strange comment in the middle of an article. Have vho beef this up.

As historians learn more - "revionism" - his ideas about the start of WW2 seem less and less "wrong headed" ( an aside - did "historians" really accuse him of being wrong headed without trying to prove it, pretty embarrassing ).

Looking up "unconditional surrender" I started with chapter 10. This is a very good and complete description of events - all documented. Start with a chapter that doesn't rile you up before the parts that do. One of the points of chapter 10 is that noone really cared about the Jews in Europe - not even the Jews in America, certainly not the Zionists. Interseting reading. 159.105.80.141 12:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Nazi?

Professor Kurt Glaser, after examining The Forced War and its critics’ arguments in Der Zweite Weltkrieg und die Kriegsschuldfrage (The Second World War and the Question of War Guilt), found, that while some criticisms had merit,”It is hardly necessary to repeat here that Hoggan was not attacked because he had erred here and there — albeit Some of his errors are material — but because he had committed heresy against the creed of historical Orthodoxy.” .

I removed this section to here because the argument here seems to be that Hoggan's works really have some merit (i.e Germany was the victim of aggression in 1939). The opinion of one professor in and of itself does not prove Hoggan was right.--A.S. Brown 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Even if there is a lot of critics to his famous Book «The Forced War " but there are many people condones that book !and mention these words from a Professor like Kurt Glaser is suitable and fair in this way!

I think the article is written in horrible way to denounce Dr. Hoggan and only stick him to Neo Nazi and Holocaust deniers which is unfair!! His work is brilliant and show power of knowledge. At least we should metnion the Bros and Cons of Him !!!!

However his work never extended to cover the several areas in WWII era even he is knowledgable enough for that!! Perhaps it shows Dr. Hoghan hard working and seriousness to talk or decide about any subject in that sensitive area. To blame the outbreak of war on Hitler or the Allied is serious subject and the fact that Hoggan spent countless nights and hours working with such huge resources shows enough respect and appreciation to the subject of his book.

The famous German writer and historian Armin Mohler declared that [Hoggan] - with His Book "The Forced War " had brought World War II [Revisionism] out of the ghetto” in Germany. I suggest putting back this paragraph in a better way. --Hiens (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Pro-??

" David Leslie Hoggan (March 23, 1923–August 7, 1988) was an American neo-Nazi who gained notoriety by writing a pro-German history of the outbreak of World War II. "

I removed these lines; No Body called him Neo Nazi and if he wrote some idea to support Germany doesn't make him guilty called this way! This is an encyclopedia and the place where we should mention his biography and supporters and critics of his work not to give him bad title. --Hiens (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I realized that many, if not most of the sources given for David Hoggan's (alleged?) views do not reference his own works but instead works about him (for example Deborah Lipsted, a clear opponent). Is this considered the "proper way"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.32.201 (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Deborah Lipsted is an extremist, we must be objective and we should find the middle way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.83.209.178 (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I came here to mention the same (most of the sources given for David Hoggan's (alleged?) views do not reference his own works but instead works about him (for example Deborah Lipsted, a clear opponent)). And I also doubt that this is the "proper way", though it seems to be quite often the case with people that express rather non-conformist views. Deborah Lipsted herself often quotes from works about the people she criticizes, though I do not know if she does that in regard to Hoggan. But if, we have to trust the honesty and accuracy of quite a view people: The author(s) of this article, Deborah Lipsted, the one Deborah Lipsted quoted from etc. Definitely not proper. ERRARE HUMANUM EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.25.178 (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny, all three of you misspell her name the exact same way. Deborah Lipstadt is a generally respected historian. David Hoggan is not. The article does a decent job reflecting the reality of Hoggan's standing in academic history. Biasedbulldog (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A solid part of the criticism against Hoggan comes from 4 pages of one Lucy Dawidowicz - a renown, rabid zionist who is herself criticized for her obvious bias. In these people's eyes, it is rather easy to be an "antisemite". I don't think we should base this big a section, and the usual accusation based on her subjective work. Lipstatdt easily has more credibility. MVictorP (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)