Talk:Antony Beevor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled

Somebody seems to have confused the title (on this page and several others) of Beevor's Berlin book with a recent German film detailing the same events. The former is The Fall of Berlin, 1945, and the latter is titled Downfall. -- Fletcher Moore, 9.26.05

Beevor's website [1] clearly says the title of the book is Berlin - The Downfall 1945 -
Johnbull 23:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Be that as it may, my copy is entitled The Fall of Berlin 1945. You can also see on Amazon [2] that this title does see at least some use. I don't know what the cause of the discrepancy is, but I will edit the article to reflect the fact that the book has two different titles. SS451 21:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation is simple: the UK and US editions have different titles, which is not uncommon. I've edited the notes to reflect that. Ragout 03:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beevor's educational qualifications

I have to ask this question, as it isn't mentioned anywhere else; has Beevor got any qualifications in history? It says he went too Winchester, which is an English secondary school, then to Sandhurst, which is the training college where every British army officer cadet goes to be trained how to be an officer. Passing oput from Sandhurst does not give one an academic qualification.

It also says he's 'professor of history' at Birkbeck College, without saying how he became a professor.

It would be really useful to know what qualifications Beevor actually has, as there are serious doubts expressed on here as to the objectivity and credibility of his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.234.204 (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No serious historian or student has any doubts about the objectivity and credibility of Beevor's work. The doubts you refer to are expressed by people who are prejudiced and cannot accept Beevor's considered and well-written works Kentish 2034, 18 August 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.26.95 (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not mention any academic qualifications. Having been an officer seems to qualify him to lecture and write on military matters. Besides, everyone has the right to write books on matters he chooses. Ontologix (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, anyone has that right, but publishing a book on science doesn't make you a scientist, just like publishing your own personal narrative of history, in no way makes you a historian. Beevor is not actually a historian, he is a populist author. And there are several publications that mention how he gets a lot of things wrong. For example Beevor, published an article in the Guardian saying why Putin should be at Auschwitz, in it he claims that the Soviets did not even mention jews at Majdanek.[1] But Beevor, not being a historian, and not actually reading sources that doesn't suit him, failed to spot, that they actually did. [2] Though people who feature Beevor, is more or less pretending he is a historian, and any criticism comes from Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlGGHamilton (talk • contribs) 10:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/20/vladimir-putin-auschwitz-memorial-ceremony-soviet-union-liberating-camps
  2. ^ https://www.academia.edu/10326818/_Too_gruesome_to_be_fully_taken_in_Konstantin_Simonov_s_The_Extermination_Camp_as_Holocaust_Literature

Reliability of Beevor

Beevor's book Berlin: the Downfall 1945 has proven controversial among the Russians, who deny the allegation of mass rape of German women by Soviet soldiers with disdain. I, rediska (let that be my nick), have surfed the web in search of serious reviews for Beevor's books, but haven't found any satisfactory results. If someone here is familiar with the topic and knowledgeable enough to give a fair and unbiased evaluation of the reliability of Beevor's information, I'd be grateful. Please, do not assume that he is correct or incorrect, do not assume that "the Russian troops hated Germans, so of course they took revenge", do not assume that "it's impossible, because according to regulations, a Russian soldier would be immediatly shot for plundering". Simply stick to the evidence, don't comment on what is a crime against the memmory of the soldiers/rape victims. Thank you.

I did read his book on the Fall of Berlin about three years ago. On a casual reading, I thought that the book was even handed and also well documented. However, I did not perform a deep investigation into the footnotes. The documentation of mass rape committed by the Red Army is documented by other well respected authors. Mr. Beevor does take the time to explain the psychology of the reasons behind this, without excusing it. He also makes the effort to document the fact that much of the Red Army did comport itself professionally despite horrendous fighting conditions. Just my 2 cents. Ber06122 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Beevor is certainly not the only military historian to mention the crimes committed by Soviet soldiers during their advances in 1944-45. Max Hastings and Cornelius Ryan have also covered this aspect of the war in detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.98.253 (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact, that the lie has been repeated many times by different authors ( using each other as a reference ) doesn't make it truth. Antony Beevor doesn't have any facts supporting his allegations about those mass raping. Neither statistics, nor any official documents. He is just using vague terms like "by estimation of hospitals" Which hospitals? Where are those estimations? Furthermore if you are writing some exaggerated nonsense, you have better chances to sell your books to wider audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.133.17.10 (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass rapes and atrocities were committed by the Red Army. Beevor's sources are Russian and the evidence is there for anyone wishing to corroborate. These facts; every serious historian acknowledges it. Kentish 20:37 18 August 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.13 (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't talk here on behalf of "every serous historian". All you said is nothing more than propaganda, and similarly there's no real evidence of "mass rapes commited by the Red Army" besides poorly sourced Cold War propaganda books. The problem with Beevor is (at the very least) that he jumps on global conclusions far too quickly, based upon cherrypicked sources about some individual incidents. Anything contradicting his agenda is disregarded. Every interpretation of events is one-sided. When mythmaker notes a number of abortions going up in 1945 he immediately screams "mass rape!!1!11" Now, when serious historian looks into the case, he remembers that abortions were criminal offence in Nazi Germany with the only exception made for the women raped by the 'racially inferior', so about the only way to get a legal abortion was to blame some rampaging untermensch for any unwanted pregnancy (and when you have millions of displaced persons roaming the roads you don't need any dedicated army of rapists to get a lot of them). Then serious historian at least mentions this possibility in his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.214.41 (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Beevor has consulted Russian sources; these are alll referenced in his book if you bother to read it. All the evidence confirms that Russian soldiers conducted mass rape and murder on a scale equivalent to the Nazis. Your propaganda and prejudice is obvious. Any serious historian knows that the atrocities conducted by Soviet soldiers has to be accepted. Kentish 26 Dec 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.62.161 (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List that 'sources', then, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.78.166.195 (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to. The sources are listed by Beevor in his books. These sources include access to Russian archives. All the credible sources are there to highlight the abuses conducted by Soviet troops. Kentish 15:06, 8th August 2021

Someone gave me his book about Olga Chekhova to read. I grew up in West Berlin from 1948 to 1966 and found that not everything he writes tallies with what I heard from my elders' generation. He muses at some stage how Chekhova moved into West Berlin during the Airlift without trouble and he interpreted that as her having links to Soviet spooks. My parents did exactly that. Small stuff was brought by train from Plauen (where my father had been sent), other stuff was put on a small truck and the guards were bribed. Easy peasy. The scientific literature my father sent to a student he'd been friendly with at the East Berlin University. He too was a physicist and had elected to go to the Humboldt University when the American group with Qian Xuesen started to coerce physicists in Stuttgart to go to the States. He didn't stay there, though. Bribing guards is the oldest of methods. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:B887:B0DA:2FC9:E70C (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stalingrad Not Co-Authored

I deleted a reference to Beevor's nonfiction book Stalingrad as being co-authored by his wife, Artemis Cooper (her name did not appear on the page). I have a copy of the book in front of me--although the copyright page does list both their names, there is no other indication that she was a co-author. Indeed, in the preface Beevor refers to her as his "editor of first resort," but makes no mention of co-authorship. Based on that, I think this is simply an error, so it is now gone. SS451 17:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, as a copyright notice indicates the owner of the work, not the author. UK authors tend to form a legal partnership with their spouse to own the works. Gdt (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Beevor

Antony Beevor's writing is unreliable historically inaccurate garbage. A lot of it is non-fiction. He exaggerates, generalizes, and makes things up. I believe he does this to make his books more popular with readers who don't know much about WW2 and believe all his writings, which makes his books sell better.

Well, that's your opinion, and I suppose you're entitled to it. This kind of thing really doesn't belong on a Wikipedia talk page, though. This page is for discussing how to improve this article. SS451 21:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not enough of a historian to say how much of Beevor's writings are accurate. But I read Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege, and found most of it to be in poor taste, and bordering on racism. At least half the book is devoted to Soviet atrocities, the Germans who were encircled are portrayed as innocent victims, and the reader is supposed to ignore the fact that it was the Germans who launched an unprovoked invasion of the Soviet Union with intent of killing or enslaving the entire population, not the other way around. Even the title of the book should raise suspicion. For whom was the siege "fateful"?

As far as I know, his book wasn't titled 'The Fateful Siege'. Are you sure you're not reading another book? Duncan Frost 13:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.amazon.com/Stalingrad-Fateful-1942-1943-Antony-Beevor/dp/0140284583 - It appears the book's title was added to for some markets. The reader is not supposed to ignore the German invasion, because the book discusses it in depth (the book begins before the invasion). But of course, seeing as you've read the book, you know this. Geoff B 16:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beevor's works are well - researched and accurate. Most of his detractors are not even historians but prejudiced and small minded bigots. Before any one criticises him, they need to study Russian archives, which will confirm the mass raping and murder by the Red Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.13 (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

The main page seems to have lots of information about the authors lies and anti soviet bias, but without quote's or citation I feel the page should be changed? Adamshappy

I deleted the reference to Beevor as controversial, since no source was cited for that claim. I deleted the description of him as a publicist with strong anti-Soviet bias also--this language is simply PoV, and cannot be in a Wikipedia article. I also deleted what was, to my knowledge, a complete inaccurate version of the claims he makes in his books regarding the rape of German women by Red Army soldiers. If the person who inserted this can find a citation as to where Beevor claims the nearly all German women were raped, it can go back in, but I don't think such a citation exists, because it's not a claims he has made.

If you think Beevor is dishonest, you need to find actual examples of that, not lie about what he actually says in order to make him appear dishonest. SS451 06:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that the reference to Beevor as "controversial" is back on the main page again (first sentence). I agree, I read that comment and failed to find anything really controversial about him in the article. Needs to be supported or deleted. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 72.87.187.236 (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Example

Foer example: [3] - critical comment to Beevor's book by O.A. Rzhevsky, Doctor of History, chairman of War History and Geopolitics department of Institute of General History of Russian Academy of Sciences, Presitent of Russian Association of hastorians of the WWII.

В центре внимания книги не по объёму, а по значению — действительно зверства советских солдат и офицеров по отношению к немецкому населению, возвращение образа «азиатских орд», который вбивала в головы немцев нацистская пропаганда, а затем небольшая группа историков-неофашистов, от которых давно отвернулись в Германии. Ключевой вывод книги, вокруг которого автор ведёт рассуждения о зверствах советских войск и особенно насилиях над немецкими женщинами, содержится в следующем пассаже: «Образ солдат с горящими факелами над лицами женщин, укрывшихся в бункере, выбирающих себе жертвы, характерен для всех советских армий, действовавших в Берлинской операции (с. 326)

The central theme of this book, not by volume, but by significance, is factually, brutal atrocities of Soviet soldiers and officers to German population, resurrecting the image of "Asian hordes", which hummered into heads of Germans the Nazi propaganda, and later a small group of historians-neonazis, which were ostrcized in Germany long time ago. The clue conclusion of the book, about which the author makes his reasonings about brutal atrocities of Soviet military and, especially, rapes of German women, is contained in the following sentence: "Image of soldiers with firing torches over faces of women hid themselves in a bunker, selecting victims, is typical for all the Soviet armies, acting in the Berlin operation (p.326)"

The citation of Beevor is a back-translation, so it may be not exact.--Nixer 07:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling him a publicist of strong anti-Soviet bias is still PoV language. It cannot be in this article, period. And the quotation you inserted was inappropriately long, did not belong in the introduction section, and had several serious spelling errors. The translation is of fairly poor quality. If you want to find a better translation and create a new "criticism" section, that would be all right, but this one quotation from a critical scholar definitely does not belong in the introduction section.
Please correct the mistakes you've find. Dont delete.--Nixer 05:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the section you inserted is simply too low quality to be included in the article. I don't speak the language that the article was originally written in, so I cannot fix it. If you can improve the quality of the translation, it would be fine to re-insert it into the article, although the quote should be abridged. If not, we can simply note that some have criticized his scholarship or accused him of taking too negative a tone towards Soviet soldiers in Germany. SS451 05:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you see grammatical mistakes, please point them. Otherwise your claims does not make sence.--Nixer 05:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"[I]s factally" shouldn't be set off by commas. "[T]o German population" needs an article, and in any event the phrase doesn't work--it's missing a verb (possibly "atrocities committed by Soviet soldiers and officers against the German population"?). This whole first sentence is, in fact, a serious run-on. "[H]ummered" isn't a word. "[h]istorians-neonazis" needs to be separated--you can't just hyphenate two nouns and come out with one coherent word. "The clue conclusion" is nonsensical. "[T]he author makes his reasoning" doesn't work either--should probably be "The author's argument is based on," or something along those lines anyway. The actual quote from Beevor's book is "The pattern, with soldiers flashing torches in the faces of women huddled in the bunkers to select their victims, appears to have been common to all the Soviet armies involved in the Berlin operation."
Moreover, the Beevor quote itself is being taken out of context, and it seems at least possible that the passage from the critical article is too (although I have no way of knowing). Again, this and the criticism from the Russian ambassador should be placed in a separate "Criticism" section and not in the introduction. SS451 05:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This will be very useful.--Nixer 05:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you re-insert a better translation of that quote and include some other sources criticizing Beevor's work, I think it would be all right to re-inset "controversial" in the introductory sentence. Currently, there is still not enough support. SS451 05:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already presented two sources: Russian scientist and Russian ambassador in the UK. It was official protest of Russian embassy--Nixer 05:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't understand that the second quote was separate from the first. A separate "Criticism" section would be appropriate in this case. The quote from the critical article can't be included unless you can find or create a better translation; you should probably just include a sentence indicating that that author has criticized Beevor. I think it's possible to fix the quote from the ambassador up. With those changes, it would be ok to re-insert the word "controversial" in the first sentence, but "publicist of strong anti-Soviet bias" is POV and shouldn't be included regardless of what you include in the criticism section. SS451 05:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please point the mistakes of the translation. Otherwise the you accusations are pointless.--Nixer 05:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I speak Russian, I can assure you, that the translation is indeed rife with errors. Some things just aren't utterable in English. I have some suggestions. 1st sentence: change "significance" to "meaning", change "is factually" to "are indeed the (no comma)", change "of Soviet" to "commited by Soviet", change "to German" to "against the German". Change "resurrecting the image of "Asian hordes", which hummered into heads of Germans the Nazi propaganda, and later a small group of historians-neonazis, which were ostrcized in Germany long time ago." to "the resurrection of the image of the "Asian hordes", which was being hammered into the the heads of Germans by Nazi propaganda, and later by a small group of neonazi historians, from whom [people] in Germany turned away from long ago."

Change "The clue conclusion of the book" to "The key conclusion of the book" or "The main conclusion of the book". Change "about which" to "around which". Change "makes his reasonings" to "leads discussion" - that's the best I could come up with. Change "Image of" to the "The image of", change "typical" to "characteristic of". Xanon

The central theme of this book, not by volume, but by meaning, are indeed brutal atrocities commited by Soviet soldiers and officers against German population the resurrection of the image of the "Asian hordes", which was being hammered into the the heads of Germans by Nazi propaganda, and later by a small group of neonazi historians, from whom [people] in Germany turned away from long ago. The key conclusion of the book, around which the author leads discussion about brutal atrocities of Soviet military and, especially, rapes of German women, is contained in the following sentence: "The image of soldiers with firing torches over faces of women hid themselves in a bunker, selecting victims, is characteristic of all the Soviet armies, acting in the Berlin operation (p.326)"--Nixer 19:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a comma after "population". "The image of soldiers with firing torches over faces of women hiding themselves in a bunker, selecting victims, is characteristic of all the Soviet armies in the Berlin operation" I made some more minor changes, I think it looks better now. Can we have a native English speaker's opinion on the subject?

":The central theme of this book, not by volume, but by meaning, are indeed brutal atrocities commited by Soviet soldiers and officers against German population, the resurrection of the image of the "Asian hordes", which was being hammered into the the heads of Germans by Nazi propaganda, and later by a small group of neonazi historians, from whom [people] of Germany turned away long ago. The key conclusion of the book, around which the author centers the discussion about brutal atrocities of Soviet military and, especially, rapes of German women, is contained in the following sentence: "The image of soldiers with burning torches over the faces of women hiding themselves in a bunker, selecting victims, is characteristic of all the Soviet armies in the Berlin operation".

Nixer, I doubt Beevor is really anti-Soviet, its probably just that he takes a more critical approach than Soviet historians, who prefer hailing the heroism of the soviet soldiers. What he described is, IMHO, characteristic not just of Soviet soldiers in Berlin, but pretty much of any army in any conquered territory.Xanon

I disagree with you. How would you like "the image of Britich soldiers searching for victims with torches over faces of women hid themselves in a bunker was typical for British army"?--Nixer 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it stings to hear something like that. However, if I am not mistaken, Beevor does mention that the British soldiers did plenty of raping themselves in Italy. Xanon

Having read both Stalingrad and Berlin, I must say that Beevor does relativise the reports. According to Berlin, it mostly were the second-line troops who commited atrocities, not the soldiers who were in actual combat duty. Also, Beevor makes repeated statements about the front-line troops and how gallant they were. Superknijn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.164.19 (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Beevor does say in the preface to Berlin:

Extremes of human suffering and even degredation can bring out the best as well as the worst in human nature. Human behaviour to a large extent mirrors the unpredictability of life or death. Many Soviet troops, especially in frontline formations, unlike those who came behind, often behaved with great kindness to German civilians. (p.xxxv Penguin Viking hardback edition) Ivankinsman (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti German bias

I have read elsewhere that Beevor considers the attacks on the German population and the atrocities committed against them were deserved by them.

I was very disturbed by this. Does the man really believe that the women, children and elderly people who perished at the hands of the Allied forces in 1945 in Dresden, at Nemmersdorf and in the sinking of the 'Wilhelm Gustloff' deserved their fate? Is this the kind of person he is?

I think he really believes that. In all of his books that I have read, he if just not shows hatred against Germans but at least writes 'from point of view of enemies of Germany'. Also he gives impression of being pro-leftist, which I think is quite unusual with ex-British officers.

Place of birth

Shouldn't place of birth be included in the basic introduction of the author? At least in the bio? --Esalen 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

It seems to me that the criticism almost all centrers around his writing about rape by the Red Army. I have (re)added comment to this effect, with sources, which is not POV but factua - this IS the criticism.

I have also given some sourced background on just why this is a sensitive subject likely to attract acrimony. The Germany are particularly sensitive about claiming to be victims, and the Russians particularly sensitive about the heroic Red Army, which means that this topic has been a taboo on both sides.

If you're going to cite a book, then you must cite the book itself, author, ISBN and page number, etc, not a review of the book. Additionally, if a source that was cited earlier supports a statement made later in the article, then that source must be cited again. You can't just leave it unsourced. Geoff B 20:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beevor has recounted the historically true story of widespread "revenge" rapes and murder by Soviets. This is not bias, but fact. What is bias is the suggestion - by Beevor amongst others - that German women deserved to be raped, and were not victims, i.e. "Beevor has stated that German women were part of a society that supported Hitler and thus cannot be seen as victims in the same way as Jews, Poles and Russians". Is there are reliable source that quotes Beevor making this extreme claim?203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note "cannot be seen as victims in the same way as Jews, Poles and Russians" does not, not at all!, imply that they were not victims at all. --2001:A61:20FC:C01:E406:DC0B:17E9:B90B (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC) (German)[reply]

New Table

I have put his books into a table to make it look more professional and presentable.

talk) 19:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

It should be added that for all his work he made a definitive statement.

That he is very critical of portaying Germans as victims. [4]

Q:Despite all of this can Germans speak for themselfs they were victims of the war ?

Beevor:Germans were victims of the war they themselfs started. Raped German women were part of society that overwhelmingly supported Hitler and wanted the war. The entry of Red Army was consequence of that. That is why Germans can't say for themselfs that they are the same victims of war like Jews, Poles or Russians.

I think that do to use of his work to depict German fate due to lost war, his opinion regardng the overall matter should be in the article and I will input it in neutral way. Of course I am open to debate how the final form should look like.--Molobo (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

There are some pictures of him taken in Oslo this afternoon here: Commons:Category:Antony_Beevor. --Bep (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self Serving Criticism

This is something I wrote for the talk page of the Berlin: The Downfall 1945 wikipedia article. It was ignored there but since the "Criticism" section of Beevors wikipedia page is a word for word copy (with some minor alterations as a result of editors tweaking it a bit over the years) I think its relevant here too.

"The entire Criticism section is self serving. It gives unsubstantial criticisms about the book then tears them down and then gives high praise to the author from himself and his British colleagues. For instance it quotes Rzheshevsky review of the book and then at best implies that hes a liar by quoting the BBC article that he "admitted" hes "only read excerpts." However there is no indication that the review was written before the BBC article was written. Rzheshevsky quotes pages in his review so he must of at least read more then "excerpts." Also in the BBC article Rzheshevsky remarks are clearly referring to past scholarship on mass rapes, not Beevors book. The BBC article remarks that he "admitted he had only read excerpts and had not seen the book's source notes" are made in such a sleazy and unprofessional manner (which this article quotes verbatim) that I dont believe it is appropriate for a encyclopedia. If that piece of state propaganda wasnt crude enough they even show an image of Antony Beevor looking inspirationally into the distance like some socialist realist cartoon with the note "Antony Beevor has stirred up a hornets' nest". This section should be re edited to include actual criticisms of the book or be changed to just include the Russian ambassadors remarks, or (i think) deleted outright."

Basically if you look at the sources O.A. Rzheshevsky is nothing more then a straw-man (it doesnt even mention his arguments just his avocation of Nazi propaganda) followed by Beevor self-righteously defending himself and his British colleague joining in. If this is too be a "Criticism" section then it should feature some actual criticism, otherwise it just Beevor boasting his own ego. If one wants to make a section on allegations of mass rapes on the eastern front (if this is a significant part of Beevors scholarship) then do so. But this is no proper "Criticism" section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antony Beevor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antony_Beevor&oldid=1220015381"