Talk:Jörg Friedrich (author)

Introductory paragraph

The first part of the article is a mess. Could someone take care of the grammar, get the sentences straight and erase parts which are not important or just confusing? Does it matter what some English conservatives call Friedrich (trotzkist or whatever)? Who is the Chancellor Friedrich is connected to? Does it matter that he's "well connected"? 71.247.157.179 05:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"independent historian"

We have to explain what that means. Anybody a clue? Not affiliated with any academic research center? Not fully accepted within the academic community? Publishing where? 71.247.157.179 05:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"A historian without a university paycheck" <http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2008/NewsletterJanuary2008Long.html>BGinOC (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Nato General

Here is the next one: " with a former NATO General and friend of Friedrich's accusing Churchill of war crimes" Does anyone know the name of the General? Philip Baird Shearer 09:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

German Chancellor

Gerhard Schröder is not a former German Chancellor, but the current one. Could whoever wrote this amend it to say whatever it ought to say? That is, was it a former German Chancellor (Helmut Kohl?) or Schröder? Saforrest 12:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Kohl of course. Thanks for picking that up. Some kind of mental auto-completion / auto-correct automatically completes German Chancellor with Schroeder. Now I've evem put in a correct reference to make up for it. Mozzerati 18:56, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Revisions (by User:Tobias R)

comments from Tobias with response

Let me explain the additions and removals I have made:

• "Trotskyist": Friedrich was a member of the APO, which contained a hodge-podge of leftist positions, but I have not found one German source describing him as Trotskyist, so I omitted that.

he was described as "Trotskyist" in the Guardian; that is perfectly acceptable as a source even if German sources do not cover this issue. I suggest providing a contrary source. Given that it's single sourced right now, I have, however, rephrased.

Trotskyist simply is not a political label which is used in Germany for the time period in question. That he has been occasionally called one is closer to the truth.

• "Revisionist": Neither did Friedrich style himself as a revisionist, and he most certainly has not marketed his work under this "guise".

Harding: "Friedrich admits he is a revisionist"

his works certainly appear revisionist; however, there may be many reasons why he does not publicise that connection.

I have in no German source seen any indication that Friedrich describes himself as "revisionist", nor that he "accepted that label". Nor did he do so personally when talking at a meeting at our college.

• Focus on Dresden: This seems to be assumed by the original author, but Friedrich's books cover the whole of the bombing campaign, not just Dresden. "Brandstätten" definitely is not limited to photographs of Dresden.

• Whilst Dresden may not be the only focus of his books, his media interviews in which he has suggested that Dresden was a war crime are one of the most important aspects of his views in this area. This makes it a crucial subject. Whilst other cities such as Hamburg have always been more clearly understood as "military" targets, Dresden has often been typed as a cultural capital. This makes controversy over Dresden of special import and worthy of specific attention.
• Friederich himself says "Dresden symbolisiert den Luftkrieg" (Dresden symbolizes the air war), which makes it crucial in undestanding his own views of the war.

Really, people: Read the damn books. Don't talk about something you simply have no idea of. Dresden is not a central point. In fact, in the interview cited Friedrich states: "Dresden symbolizes aerial war, *but*...." and he goes on to explain that it was merely one point in an extended military campaign.

• General NPOV issues: Several criticisms of Friedrich were presented as fact, others had nothing to do with his work specifically but were aimed at a discussion of the issue of air warfare in general (which is not the topic of Friedrich's books), and still others were factually nonsensical (German actions in Russia having effect on the decisions made by the British and German militaries in 1940 and early 1941?).

The bombing of Dresden was part of an action specifically requested by the Soviet authorities and part of Britain's attempt to demonstrate that it was actually fighting the war at a time when the Soviets were bearing the brunt of the land war. This directly causally links the two events. However, the issue at point is the moral context of the time. Germany and Japan had specifically stopped the adoption of Geneva conventions against aerial bombardment prior to the war, followed by heavy strategic bombing attacks in their successful attack on Poland. This can be seen to have had two effects.

• Germany (it's unfortuate at this point that we are also talking about innocent civilians in the abstract, but so be it) had abandoned any moral claim to protection against attacks on civilians.
• Success through aerial attacks in the defeat of Poland seemed to suggest that it was a valuable strategy. Disentagling it from other, more valid parts of blitzkrieg, such as cryptography and concentrated attacks by combined forces, is something we can only do now with the benefit of hindsight.
• A key point in Friedrich's case against Churchill is the claim that bombing of civilians in the Second World War was initiated by Germany. However, the war was initiated against Poland, and Britain's entry into the war was specifically to defend Poland. Early attacks against civilians in Poland are of relevance to Britain's decisions about such attacks against Germany. Mozzerati 22:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Friedrich does not have a "case against Churchill". Neither is he in the least concerned with the wider context of the war. He writes on the strategic decision-making in Britain, on the technical side of bombing warfare, but mostly about the experience of those who were victims of the attacks. Read the book, for god's sake.

I have also tried to make the language more neutral (Kohl certainly didn't "tell" Friedrich to publish anything. It's not like he is his boss or something :) .)

I have changed this to "convinced" based on the original source

I have changed this to the more syntactically correct "persuaded."

• Added information: I added some points regarding Friedrich's bio and some more points of criticism raised against his work in Germany.

I have found a reference (html) for a Jörg Friedrich as an actor. There's no way to tell if it's the same man, however. I'm going to search for more to try to restore your text.

With several online bios claiming he was an actor, I would assume so.

• Typos: Misspelling of "Brand" as "Brandt" (unless Friedrich has a biography of Willy Brandt in the works ;)) and some others.

Tobias R 11:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks for your correction Mozzerati 21:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

'From an edit commment "I've read the interview in "Der Tagesspiegel" now. Nowhere does Naumann directly 'accuse Churchill of war crimes.'"

I've now found the original article online original article and linked it in. Friederich makes the suggestion that not only could Dresden be seen as a crime but the entire conduct of the war a criminal enterprise ("handelt es sich nicht um ein Kriegsverbrechen, sondern – wenn ich Ihrer Logik folge – um eine verbrecherische Kriegführung"). Naumann does not respond clearly to this but rather says he wouldn't personally have done it ("Ich kann dazu nur sagen, dass ich meinen Namen niemals dazu hergeben würde, einen solchen Angriff in die Wege zu leiten."), but when Friederich pushes further: for moral or legal reasons ("Aus rechtlichen oder aus moralischen Gründen?), Naumann responds "Aus beiden" - both.

Since all laws other than the laws of war are suspended during a war, the only reasonable meaning is that he believes the bombing would be likely to have been a war crime. Mozzerati 22:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (and 12:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

From Naumann's POV, this is obvious. Under current German military law, any military action against civilian targets is a war crime. Doesn't say anything about whether it was then.

I can't help thinking that terms like "Trotskyist", "revisionist" and "leftist" are all entirely subjective and at least partially prejudicial. They are not really very helpful in an objective article.Flanker235 (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

specific unsourced edits

Here are some edits for Tobias which still need sources. They are removed but should be added back as we find sources covering these topics. I believe most of this below is true, and I've found German tabloid sources for some of them but no reputable source yet.

• worked as an actor, director and script writer
• [after the Vietnam war] worked as a journalist
• Among others, he contributed to Yad Vashem's Encyclopedia of the Holocaust
• helped the former deputy chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, Robert Kempner, write his autobiography.
• Jörg Friedrich currently resides in Berlin.
• Another point of criticism is his portrayal of Nazi vengeance acts against Jews, which some see as an attempt to blame parts of the Holocaust on the Allied bombing campagin. - I saw a source for this in one of the book reviews, I think.
• The 2002 publication of "Der Brand" spawned a new discussion of the topic in Germany, and several new works—some espousing Friedrich's approach, others being critical of his scholarship and his views—have appeared. Sort of clearly true, but we should really add specific names of books.

specific problem edits

There are some edits Tobias made which cannot really stand

• Friedrich has repeatedly denied that such an intent exists and has explicitly stated that he does not mean to compare the bombing campaign to the Holocaust, as he has been accused of by some critics.

This is literally true but is seriously misleading, which is why nothing similar to it appears alone in any reputable source. Words such as "einsatzgruppen" and "gas chamber" have only one meaning in the postwar world, along with words like Shoa and Holocaust. When Friedrich uses these words (einzatsgruppen == RAF pilots; gas-chamber == basement where civilians died of carbon monoxide poisoning from the fumes from the burning buildings), he does directly and clearly make a comparison. Any denial of this link points in a direction which leads towards holocaust denial. That these relations are made is clear; his failure to clearly apologise for any misunderstandings of his words is telling. The article as it stands is very far from what should be said about him.

The appropriate Wikipedia policy for this is the requirement to cite reputable secondary, not primary, sources. Statements about a person by that person should be included from a context where they have been reported by others and any subtexts or misdirection have been analysed. Some of the German reviews of his books do exactly this and are very instructive.

Mozzerati 12:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

So, it is irrelevant in your eyes if the word "Gaskammer" = "Gas Chamber" does not appear in the book? And likewise irrelevant that the word "Einsatzgruppe" is still used in a generic sense in German (or is the local fire brigade were I live an SS unit in disguise?) Again, you seem to have no idea of what you are talking about. And what about the insinuation that Friedrich would deny the Holocaust if he was allowed to. What are your sources for that, now?

The whole article is simply one big slander without any serious sources except personal opinion, and then you ask for negative evidence when someone removes the most crass nonsense?

The "secondary over primary sources" is patently ridiculous. If a newspaper claims "F. considers himself XY", that is more believable than he himself stating, "I consider myself XY" in an interview? Furthermore, you are being exceedingly selective with sources—the positive reviews of Der Brand or even the positive aspects entirely missing. Nor are there any sources for many statements ("well connected in military circles"? "Relativism"?)

I rather suspected this right from the start and I am in no mood for an edit-war... shouldn't have even edited the spelling, but left the article as the biased misspelled mess that it was. Suffice to say, the article as it now stands is a political pamphlet, not an encyclopedia article. And what's most ironic, it doesn't really address the most important point of criticism against Der Brand: its sloppiness in regard to scholarship and research.82.83.221.106 14:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

An interesting book would be an analysis of the reaction to an author branching out from one narrow perspective. When Jorg wrote about what bad guys the Nazis were, his Wiki article would have gushed praise. Now that he has written a couple of books reevaluating the actions of the good guys, his Wiki article approaches Irving's in venom. (You should tighten up the prose in the article; there are a couple of places where the article says exactly the opposite of an earlier, lamentable section.) Being called a "revisionist" and/or "denier" because he has researched WW2 a little deeper than Wiki feels comfortable with—oohhh, nasty man. (What level of subservience do Wiki-ish folks want—total? And to what?)159.105.80.141 19:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I altered the sentence in which it was claimed that Friedrich accepted being called a revisionist historian. Firstly, the sentence was syntactically and semantically a mess. Secondly, it is deeply unfair to claim that Friedrich would accept being called a revisionist historian in the current sense of that term (i.e., Irvin = revisionist historian). When Friedrich was asked whether he did not fear to be called a revisionist historian, he answered that every historian has to be a revisionist. It was clear that in that general sense he would accept being called a revisionist historian. If one cares to be fair and unbiased, it is obvious that Friedrich by no means accepted "revisionist historian" in its usual polemical definition as a label for himself. His answer implicitly drew attention to the fact that "revisionist historian" is indeed not a very intelligent coinage. A mediaevelist who would present a new picture of Charlemagne as a rather mediocre and incompetent ruler would revise conventional wisdom about the emperor and thus be a "revisionist historian". By disregarding the context in which Friedrich "accepted" being called a revisionist and by silently (and, I suspect, intentionally) misinterpreting his statement, the phrase in the sentence was apt to place Friedrich on the same level as someone like Irving. That is wrong and very unfair; I therefore deleted the phrase.141.91.129.5 10:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

J.M. Spaight [i]Bombing Vindicated[/i]

A lot of what is claimed about this book is untrue. Spaight claims (correctly) the opposite of everything that is claimed here. I'll remove these comments.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Compare this article to the one on Friedrich in Wikipedia.de ...

... and you will understand the difference between a competent and balanced article (that is in no way overly sympathetic to Friedrich!) and a lousy piece of malicious maligning. It's outrageous how Friedrich's work is reduced to the single topic of "Der Brand", as if "Freispruch für die Nazi-Justiz" and "Das Gesetz des Krieges" had never existed. In a meager two-line footnote, "Das Gesetz des Krieges" is falsely portrayed as being a criticsm of the Nürnberg trials, while in fact it is a scathing accusation of the immoral Wehrmacht high command and its support for the Nazi extermination politics in Eastern Europe. Also, Friedrich is simultaneously accused of being both a "left-wing Trotzkist" and "revisionist" (i.e. a Neo-Nazi) without quoting any reliable source. Obviously, some people in Britain have a strong desire to besmirch Friedrich's reputation in an effort to palliate the harrowing effects of the Anglo-Saxon area bombing campaigns from Dresden and Hiroshima over Hanoi to Baghdad and Afghanistan. Incidentally, I don't like Friedrich's polemical and sometimes even arrogant style, and many of his theses are rightly disputed, but at least I have read most of his books, so I know what I am talking about, and I'm not relying on Fleet Street for information. Reibeisen 23:03, 11 Oktober 2007 (MEZ)

Extremely POV

The attempt to discredit a respected historian's work merely because a) He describes historical events from the perspective of those human beings who were affected by them, and b) Because he raises the specter of the Allies having possibly done something wrong in the campaign against Nazi Germany is symptomatic of an all-or-nothing, black-and-white view of history that has no place in rational discourse. Put another way, the first victim of war is truth.

I've read "The Fire" (Hello! It's been out in English for more than a year!) and while I think there are many organizational flaws in the work and also some questionable translations and terminology, its accounts of what actually happened on the ground in scores of German cities bears reading for all who question the morality of weapons of mass destruction, which the Allied bombers certainly were.

Nowhere does Friedrich remotely suggest that Nazi Germany was not the aggressor and prime culprit in WWII and its associated horrors. What he does argue, and this only indirectly, is that indiscriminate bombing of civilian centers inevitably kills many human beings -- and destroys much cultural infrastructure -- without necessarily furthering the supposed legitimate military/political objective. This brings to mind Robert McNamara's conclusion about the bombing of North Vietnam: That the means, and the destruction, were out of proportion to the miltary/political objective.

To tar and feather Friedrich with the term "revisionist" seems to imply that historical accounts should never be revised, and that whatever the most widely accepted view is must be inviolate. Nothing more intellectually dishonest can be imagined.

Sca (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks like a smearjob to me. I mean a section on "other related historians" which talks mostly about David Irving? I would like to know if any of the cited sources actually describe Irving and Freidrich as "related," or if that is just some Wikipedian working in some original-research FUD. <eleland/talkedits> 02:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

On p.61 of Der Brand (tr. The Fire, Columbia University Press, 2006), writing about Britain and Germany in 1940, Friedrich says, 'Because he could do nothing right, Churchill considered whether Hitler could possibly do something wrong: "to attempt invasion... even if he decided against it now and went eastwards; and he would not succeed." [Note the quotation has been edited to the point of grammatical meaninglessness.] Both countries were in limbo, fighting a war of attrition. They could and should have stopped the war, but instead, each waited for the other side to make a mistake.'

That is the neo-Nazi doctrine of 'moral equivalence'. Friedrich attempts to blame Winston Churchill for Adolf Hitler's war of aggression. Couldn't be clearer. The only way Britain could have 'stopped the war' in 1940 would have been to surrender to the Fuhrer's will, and this is necessarily what Friedrich is therefore advocating. As for referring to RAF Bomber Command crews as 'Einsatzgruppen'... He's hardly trying to hide where he's coming from.Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Transferred text

Part I

The article said: However, the discussion surrounding his books on the allied bombing campaign has led to a reappraisal of his position and a re-examination of his earlier books. His criticism of post-war Germany and denazification, which have previously been understood as being a criticism of power-politics and the selective prosecution of those not useful to the new administration can now be seen as a direct criticism of interference in German national sovereignty:

"Jörg Friedrich describes the denazification program as a form of political purge with no basis in international law. The Hague rules of land warfare do not authorize an occupier to undertake any such interference in the enemy's domestic affairs."

Once taken in this light, alongside Friedrich's recent admission that he is a "revisionist historian", Friedrich's modern books and the choices and omissions he has made in them have been seen to take on a rather different meaning.

Most of the claims of these paragraphs are unsourced, constituting original research aiming at passing judgment. See also the many complaints above. -- Zz (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Part II

The article further stated: By choosing as his standard of comparison for Dresden the bombing of London, Friedrich avoids covering the topics of Stalingrad, where 40,000 Soviet civilians are known to have been killed in one day of German bombing, Leningrad where approximately a million Soviet civilians were killed or with Warsaw where, 200,000 Polish civilians were killed in the Warsaw Uprising, often in ground based attacks which used a similar mixture of explosive and incendiary weapons to those used by the allies in Germany, but, by contrast to Dresden, where general areas were targeted, also involved deliberate and selective targeting of clearly marked hospitals with dive bombers and ground forces.

This is an attempt at giving a historical base for the evaluation -- or rather judgment -- of Friedrich's work. In the form presented, however, it is original research and has no place in Wikipedia. It has been marked for two years without action. -- Zz (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Part III

The article also used weasel words without any for placing him close to Irving: Comparisons between the bombing of Dresden and the extermination of the Jews in the second world war were first made popular through the work of the holocaust denier David Irving. Whilst Jörg Friedrich, who always operates within German law, where holocaust denial as carried out by Irving would be illegal, has not directly made that comparison. He has described the death of civilians killed by carbon monoxide poisoning in their cellars as "gassing", the attacks in general as a "massacre" and claimed that the attacks of 1945 had little or no military value.

Irving was the first person to claim a death toll of over 100,000 for the bombing of Dresden, which even he was later forced to withdraw. Jörg Friedrich has never made such extreme claims. His claim of 40,000 is around the current best estimates of 25,000 to 35,000 (see Bombing of Dresden).

See the comments by others above, "smear campaign". All the text is trying to imply evil on behalf of Friedrich - "always operating within German law", "has not directly made that comparison" - implies that he has an agenda that reaching beyond, and the juxtaposition with Irving tells us where... It is telling that texts like these can stay on Wikipedia for so long. -- Zz (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Self acknowledged revisionist historian?

The article stated: now considered by some critics as a revisionist historian, a label which he has acknowledged. This claim is sourced. However, it appears in only one newspaper without quoting Friedrich on it. That is hardly sufficient evidence in the case of a historian who has got as much coverage as Friedrich. For one, acknowledging something implies that he faced with the claim (in which form exactly?) and Friedrich accepting it. For another, it is strange to have single souced claim of that kind in the lead of the article. -- Zz (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The source, a newspaper article, was in no way sufficient to make such a claim. It did not contain an exact quote and only briefly referred to it in the end of the article, without describing the context of the alleged statement. It should be noted that most historians engage in "revisionism", the primary meaning of which is "the critical re-examination of presumed historical facts and existing historiography". Ulrichaho (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Such a position...

The article wrote: Such a position is impossible to justify and ignores the previous examples of the Luftwaffe's targeting of civilians. The Germans had bombed civilians during the Spanish Civil War, notably at Guernica. During the Second World War they had deliberately targeted columns of French refugees caught up in the civilian exodus from the battle zone. In the bombing of Rotterdam, no attempt was made to hit military targets. No source is given, and it is the opinion of the contributor. -- Zz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC).

Jörg Friedrich

Jörg Friedrich is born 17. 8. 1944 Essen/Germany. He is German. Please look Wikepedia de — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fibe101 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am so sorry ...

Yes, there were many unspeakable atrocities committed by Germans during their wars. You should see: fighting such an enemy doesn't mean to acquire his methods but to avoid any of those seemingly most despicable acts brought to oneself. Beating an unjust and unfair enemy with just and fair methods and keeping the moral high-ground should be essential in the process of a righteous war. - But of course that's not what war is about.

To your article: Jörg Friedrich claims that analyzing the firestorm in London led to a method to induce such firestorms taking into account the ratio of incendiary and explosive bombs as well as the housing situation on the ground. Areas to create a firestorm had to be tightly inhabited with narrow streets with high (a few storeys) and flammable buildings (to bundle the airflow and create a horizontal chimney-effect). So you start bombing the middle of the target area to create a larger fire which is drawing in its surrounding air. Further bomb the outskirts of the area and those smaller fires will spread guided by the airflow created by the fire in the center. This leads to several conclusions: it works only on certain urban areas, it didn't work on Berlin because there was too much space between the buildings and its not working on industrial areas with modern buildings and even wider space. The effect on people taking shelter in their cellars could be lack of oxygen, excess of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide or to be cooked like in an airflow oven. In a sort-of documentary (it was a "themed evening") Jörg Friedrich stated, what he was most puzzled about was that there were mostly older people, children and wounded - all the others would have been in the trenches were they thought they could make a difference (or fled to the countryside of course). And they even presented a few whiny RAF pilots stating "we had our orders" and "when we were done we had time to look at the ground and thought about the people" - oh man grow some testicles. So, yes, the main target of the firestorms had to be the life and housing of civilians. And yes, a wee bit smiting can be oh so comforting for ones soul. And of course those old and young were as responsible for enabling Hitler to do what he did and had daughters who bred sons who raped and bombed and killed and robbed. Oh wait... the young couldn't - oh so what... it hit one of us so it should be a thousand off the others if there could only be found a solution for all of them because the enemy hides everywhere...

Sorry for that rant. Feel free to delete it (unnecessarily said). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.43.140.170 (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jörg Friedrich (author). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050524113718/http://www.chicagotribune.com:80/news/nationworld/chi-0303070303mar07,1,20636.story?ctrack=1&cset=true to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0303070303mar07,1,20636.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Jörg Friedrich (author). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310082103/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/GENOCIDE/reviewsw159.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsw159.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310082103/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/GENOCIDE/reviewsw159.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsw159.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0303070303mar07,1,20636.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050108232950/http://quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=592 to http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=592
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050108232950/http://quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=592 to http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=592
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0303070303mar07,1,20636.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0303070303mar07,1,20636.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310082103/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/GENOCIDE/reviewsw159.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsw159.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310082103/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/GENOCIDE/reviewsw159.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsw159.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310082103/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/GENOCIDE/reviewsw159.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsw159.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)