Why was D day through german eyes used as a source for the D day show?

Hello, so far, it’s the sole issue I’ve found with the programme. I wonder why use it when it seems to be a bogus source. Maybe a pinned comment to correct that should be done.
Thanks for your answers!

Why do you believe that it is a Bogus source?

people on another topic in the forum pointed out it has issues. This thread shows the issue with it to "D-Day Through German Eyes" -- a work of history, or a wehraboo fraud? : ShitWehraboosSay

Here is what Sparty said to a comment on Patreon. Quote "Spartacus answer: Comment on Eckertz: I am aware of the controversy. I do however fall in the same bucket as Robert Kershaw - whatever the source of the quotes, the events are verifiable to a detail that makes it very hard to believe that they are entirely fabricated. For instance: the account from the Merville Battery (which we didn’t use as we had no place) contains an extreme amount of details and a timeline that are completely congruent with the Allied perspective and after action reports to a degree that it is hard to simply discount as a fabrication.

I myself double checked all quotes we used against the after action reports, and Kershaw is right… they fit. No-one has refuted the narratives, while a couple of British historians have cast doubt on who Eckertz is and who these soldiers were. Here’s a few problems with their method for doubt:

  1. They say they can’t find any account of these soldiers and events in the German archives… well, as historians they should know that in early 1945 the RAF bombed and destroyed the Wehrmacht archives. Most service ledgers and the entire collection of after action reports burned. The only thing we have are the comms report of the OKW, since they were stored in another building. There could also be another reason… the names might be altered, which brings me to:

  2. They say they can’t work out who Eckertz Jr. Jr. is and Eckertz Sr. was - while that might trouble some, as a naturalized German I see other possible explanations than fraud - writing about this war in this country is pretty much restricted to critical analysis of Naziism. Anyone who ventures into pure military aspects of the war will be exposed to public attacks and accusations of pro-Nazi sentiments. In this case it would also be attacked as a perfidious way of painting the Wehrmacht soldiers as victims by detailing their suffering, when it is only really socially acceptable and politically correct to depict them as instruments of Nazi terror. While we’re insulated from public attacks by my War Against Humanity account, even we get rumpled noses by many when they realize what we do. If my assumption is correct, that also explains what “Eckertz” hasn’t publicly addressed all of this, because that would be social suicide.

  3. None of the doubters have presented any factual arguments refuting the narratives - only a source criticism. While that is indeed academically problematic, and means that we can’t use the work as source of events, it remains a vivid narrative of the subjective experience of war.

For the avoidance of doubt: we don’t use the quotes as any kind source for specific events, only subjective descriptions of what the experience of the soldiers were, so in our account it’s only relevant as prose. In every instance we quote the book there are documented events with verifiable sources that fit.

In view of the lack of German sources, wether completely real or not, wether prose or recorded account, the subjective description offers an insight into the personal experiences of the German soldier on D-Day."

1 Like

That is not true. The war and the suffering of Germans has been and is used by neo nazis to reach an audience. When one is caught, he is called by the right a victim of political correctness. Paul Carell is still in print in Germany because that has worked well:

1 Like

i do think one should be able to verify who the author is and check his relatives to see if he’s telling the truth or not, because then, no wonder people doubt it (and to be honest, I’d take soldiers account with a grain of salt because they can not have a good view of the situation or a bad hindisight/memory). That depend how one does, one can studie the german military without falling in wehrabooism or going for the clean wehrmacht myth.

1 Like