posted 03-30-2008 10:55 PM               

The Rocket and the Reich: Half-Truths Are Not History

by Marsha Freeman

The Rocket and the Reich: Peenemünde and the Coming of the Ballistic Missile Era
Michael J. Neufeld
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995
Hardcover, 367 pages $25.00

In November 1992, when I was completing, the research for my book, How We Got to the Moon: The Story of the German Space Pioneers, I called the history division of the Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., to inquire about research material. Michael Neufeld took my call.

Neufeld told me that he was working on a book covering a similar topic, and that it would be published in 1994. Do not refer to the Germans as "rocket scientists," he advised. Very few, if any, were really "scientists," he said, because they did not have Ph.D.s in anything - a point I thought was quite peculiar for him to stress.

Neufeld reported that he had done a lot of research using original documents, and that his book would prove that rocket pioneer Arthur Rudolph was promoting the use of slave labor in the rocket program, although Rudolph had always denied it. (Rudolph was production manager of the V-2 rocket program in Germany and manager of the Saturn V rocket that took American astronauts to the Moon.)

There was no evidence that Rudolph was responsible for the use of slave labor in the rocket program, I replied, even though the U.S. Justice Department had coerced him into the leaving the United States by threatening him with a trial they said would prove he was guilty of war crimes. Indeed, after a thorough investigation, the West German government had cleared Rudolph of any charges and granted him German citizenship. Surely the German government would have access to any documents Michael Neufeld would, I thought.

When I mentioned some of the scientists and others in the United States who had looked into the charges against Rudolph and found them to be unsubstantiated, Neufeld dismissed such people as "LaRouchites."

After I disagreed with his statement that "Arthur Rudolph has not yet paid back enough to society" for all the horrible things he had done, we ended our conversation. It was clear that Michael Neufeld had no interest in writing history but, rather, that he had decided the German space pioneers were guilty when he started his research.

Revising History

One year later, in October 1993, Michael Neufeld gave a presentation in Washington at a history symposium. In his talk, Neufeld attacked, and said he would finish off, once and for all, what he called the "Huntsville school of historiography."

By this he meant the histories of the German space pioneers written by the pioneers themselves or the histories written about them from personal interviews. These histories, Neufeld claimed, have whitewashed the rocket pioneers' real motives and role in the horrors of World War II.

There has been an "official mythology" created about Wernher von Braun, he stated. The World War II Peenemünde research facility was a "military project which had nothing to do with space," no matter what the Germans might have said to the contrary after the war, Neufeld asserted. He dismissed the experiments in the 1920s by the fledgling amateur rocket societies in Germany (some of the best of whose members ended up at Peenemünde) as a romantic fad and the result of the German "authoritarian personality."

Neufeld also described what has been written in the past as "a partisan brand of history," which came out of "space advocacy" instead of being "objective." It has been written as part of "selling the space program," he said, as if this were comparable to selling poisoned candy to small children. It seems that Neufield has never understood what produced a generation of young people in Germany committed to "space advocacy." Therefore, he does not understand that this commitment to space is what the German space pioneers saw as defining their lives, no matter what their particular circumstances might have been over the course of 50 years.

Although Neufeld cites one good source in his bibliography on this subject, he clearly has refused to understand the differences between being involved in a war mobilization in the United States in the 1940s, and living under a Nazi totalitarian dictatorship that threw its own people into concentration camps if they did not follow orders. Yet, he expects that Wernher von Braun or Arthur Rudolph should have been able to challenge the authority of, at various times, Albert Speer's Armaments Ministry, the German Army high command, Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and the SS.

Michael Neufeld's book is no effort to search for the truth. Quotes are taken out of context and half-truths are told instead of the full story, a situation that cannot be compensated for by having hundreds of footnotes.

Neufeld's piece of "evidence" that it was Arthur Rudolph and not the SS that first ordered the "slave labor" for the rocket program is a memorandum written by Arthur Rudolph in April 1943, after Albert Speer's Armaments Ministry had demanded that thousands of V-2 rockets be manufactured each month without any more German workers provided to man the factories.

Foreign labor - both forced and voluntary and especially prisoners of war was being used throughout the German armaments industry at that time. By using the term "slave labor" to describe the production factories Rudolph was responsible for setting up, Neufeld dishonestly implies that the rocket program's leaders were requesting the use of inmates to be worked and starved to death in concentration camp "factories" such as Auschwitz.

Neufeld says directly that the use of "slave labor" was first proposed by Arthur Rudolph and the Army command at Peenemünde, not at the underground V-2 factory tunnels run by the SS at Mittelwerk, which is what the rocket pioneers claim. Yet Neufeld knows full well that the armaments production plants run by the army had a different purpose and bore little resemblence to the actual slave labor liquidation "factories" run at the camps by the SS.

Actually, in those parts of the April 16, 1943, memo that Neufeld neglects to quote, Arthur Rudolph describes how the Heinkel aircraft factory that he had visited had retrained the workers who were not as highly skilled as they had requested, how the workers had a 54hour week with time off on Saturday and Sunday, and how the foreign workers were offered bonuses for achievement to supplement the paltry wages dispensed by the SS. This was not exactly Auschwitz.

On the other hand, in the production program of the V-2 rocket in underground tunnels run by the SS following the August 1943 British air raid on Peenemünde, labor was considered expendable and concentration camp victims were killed wholesale through brutal physical labor, starvation, and disease.

Michael Neufeld's book contains 288 pages of text (and 40 pages of footnotes), of which 6 pages deal with the use of "slave labor" in the rocket program. The majority of the book consists of imputing motives to people in the rocket program, for which there is no documentation. In addition, there are chapters of technical detail; some of these are interesting and others have been better described by the participants themselves.

To adequately respond to each of Neufeld's false assertions would require an entire book. To understand who the German space pioneers are, where they came from historically, what motivated them, and what they accomplished, as a start I recommend that readers look at my own work, How We Got to the Moon: The Story of the German Space Pioneers.

posted 03-30-2008 11:34 PM            

For those who are interested in who Marsha Freeman is so that they can understand her claims and the above postings some more, they may wish to look at the Wikipedia posting for "National Caucus of Labor Committees" (under which Freeman is named) and then also on "Lyndon LaRouche." Searching "lyndon larouche peenemunde" on Google brings up other interesting links, including more references to Freeman.

While, of course, all information online (including the carefully-monitored Wikipedia) should be treated with a measure of wariness, I feel that the anonymous poster who is alleging extreme bias in the publications of others (rightly or wrongly) appears to be trying to back up their argument by using sources with links to groups that are anything but unbiased in this debate. And sources that, on many occasions, have espoused views identical to the ones listed above.

The fact that the anonymous poster has chosen not to reveal these links of the people they cite, and any links that they themselves might have, means that, in my opinion:

- I can't trust anything that they have posted here, and

posted 03-30-2008 11:53 PM               

As for the other review, Professor Freeman Dyson is an eminent professor of physics who I have spoken with about this very topic. His review was published in the NY Times.

Dr Ernst Stuhlinger was one of the original German rocket team members who received his PhD at the age of 23.

As for me, I am a physicist with a PhD in mathematical physics and work for NASA. Outside of my friendship with Marsha Freeman, I have no contacts whatsoever with LaRouche or any other group for that matter. In fact, I don't even know what FEF is.

Is there anyone I missed?

posted 03-31-2008 12:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by cowboy399:
I'm not exactly sure what that has to do with anything.

---

When you do, I will be sure you will understand why using Freeman as a source to suggest bias in others (regardless of whether that bias in fact exists) is guaranteed to be extremely unpersuasive to a large number of people.

posted 03-31-2008 12:12 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cowboy399:
To understand who the German space pioneers are, where they came from historically, what motivated them, and what they accomplished, as a start I recommend that readers look at my own work, How We Got to the Moon: The Story of the German Space Pioneers.

---

posted 03-31-2008 12:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by cowboy399:
I really don't see the problem.

---

You certainly have chosen some very interesting bedfellows here when making your case.

Which, I am afraid, cause me to doubt your statements regarding biased viewpoints and those with solid historical backing. And as such, I have to view your review of this book in such a light.

posted 03-31-2008 09:07 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cowboy399:
With all due respect I don't think you know what you are talking about. I heard the things he said to me - you didn't so you have no idea what vile (and libelous) statements he made to me completely out of the blue, even after I told him I wasn't interested in hearing about his disputes with other people. With regard to my qualifications, it would appear they are higher than yours, considering you haven't read anything by Neufeld at all. It would seem you are arguing about a topic you know absolutely nothing about.

---

I was also at the Huntsville event. In fact, I was one of the speakers, and I did not hear anything of the sort that you reported.

posted 03-31-2008 12:55 PM               

With regard to the Huntsville event, are you sure you attended the same one I did? I have a program and your name isn't in it. The event I attended was on Feb 1-Feb 2 at the Davidson Center. In any event, I never said there was a talk about Neufeld. What I was told was from going around and asking questions. If you asked the same questions to the right people I am sure you would have no problem verifying what I say.

posted 03-31-2008 01:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cowboy399:
Thanks for the input. To clarify my previous statements, I wasn't talking to Neufeld about von Braun. I was talking to him about Ernst Stuhlinger, Arthur Rudolph, and other rocket team members and their supporters. I was doing research for an article about Rudolph and asking him to clarify his statements in his old book and how they reconciled with what Rudolph's supporters were saying and the evidence they found. What transpired is something I would rather not repeat here.

---

1. You're engaging in hit and run tactics and it is quite unseemly. You are posting anonymously, making vague claims that you cannot back up. I am replying that, based upon my long association with Neufeld, what you have said does not ring true. I know him, I don't know you. I clearly don't believe you.

2. I was at the Huntsville event on January 31. I was an invited speaker. I even wrote about it.

   You are referring to the two-day AIAA conference. I attended that, but was not a speaker. I did, however, write about the Davison Center and took pictures.

3. If you don't want to use your name on the Internet, then that's your right, and I understand why people don't want to do that. But if you're going to claim that you had personal conversations with somebody and attack them based upon those personal conversations, then you should use your name. Otherwise, we can all assume that you're simply making things up.

posted 03-31-2008 04:13 PM            

"cowboy399," through your postings here and the information you provided, I have managed to definitively establish who you are.

I am familiar with your prior musings on the subject of the Peenemünders, and I am not only unsurprised that you disagree with Neufeld's interpretation of evidence, I am also unsurprised that, even if he was the nicest person in the world (which he may well be), any debate and discussion he might have with you would not go in a direction that you would like. I would understand if he had chosen not to speak to you at all.

Your public viewpoints on, for example, how those connected to the space program and suspected of Nazi war crimes were bullied, threatened, intimidated and coerced by the US Government with forged and falsified evidence is, of course, a viewpoint that you are free to hold, especially if you believe you have found evidence that somehow every other respected historian missed, that dramatically revises prior known evidence.

You, should, however, understand that such viewpoints are considered extremist by some, and the very least "strongly biased."

Therefore, to anonymously post here as if you are an unbiased, impartial reader and accuse others of strong bias is, frankly, dishonest.

And, personally, a conspiracy-theory can of worms that I would really rather we didn't see on collectSPACE. (or, in your case, a can of soup...)

posted 03-31-2008 09:08 PM            

And fascinating to note that, in the time since I posted my prior message and this one, you have chosen to hastily remove a number of online postings you made in other online venues where you made exactly the claims I specified.

Which gives a rather interesting twist to your thoughts about honesty - does it not?

I'm sure that you will understand, therefore, that I give your thoughts (about myself, and the subject at hand) an appropriate amount of respect and consideration.

It certainly provides me (and I am guessing all others here) with an extremely illuminating look into how much we should regard your opinions of Michael Neufeld's book. Which is what we are discussing here, not other historical issues.

posted 04-01-2008 08:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cowboy399:
Nobody is beyond criticism.

---

That said, criticism without reason or defense is simply a rant, which serves no common good.

The problem with your criticism of Neufeld is two-fold:

1. You are lodging criticism over Neufeld's "Von Braun" based primarily on his prior work. It is not clear if you have even read "Von Braun" as most of your comments are based on "The Rocket and Reich" and what you do cite of the new title, you base on what others have written (e.g. Freeman Dyson).

2. You charge Neufeld with bias without acknowledging your own influences. You are asking others to consider biases to be a serious concern but only for the subject of your criticism - not the source of your criticism - which is a lopsided argument.

posted 04-01-2008 09:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by cowboy399:
...use stalking techniques to discover someone's identity (to do god knows what)

---

If that is the case, I would never wish someone to be feeling that.

Let me therefore comprehensively put any such fears your imagination may be creating to rest once and for all.

You yourself posted on this forum that you are a "a physicist with a PhD in mathematical physics and work for NASA." You went on to list friends, colleagues, contacts, and to repeat opinions that you had posted in other public forums and mention that you have espoused to other space historians. In short, you did not stay particularly anonymous.

As someone with an interest in space history, this information about yourself that you posted here (presumably entirely of your own accord, with no coercion whatsoever that I know of) made me guess very quickly who you probably were.

Then, a 2-3 minute web search for other writings that you (presumably, again, freely and of your own accord) had placed on the internet about the same subject confirmed my guess beyond any doubt. The search was made solely to establish that you were, in fact, an already known individual with extremely strong views on the subject being discussed, which has a direct bearing on understanding your opinions of Neufeld's book and the "bias" you claim he has.

Then, you should note, I have subsequently been very careful not to reveal your name here, as you have wished, even when it made it harder for me to fully discuss your thoughts on Neufeld's book.

Believe me, I would have liked nothing more than to quote some of your other writings on this thread, which would have been excellent proof (if more proof were needed) of your true feelings regarding the historical events that Neufeld has written about. Considering your anonymous attack on his character, I probably could have even argued it was morally just to do so.

However, I have not. I have witheld your name, just as you wish.

So, as any rational person would understand, it is completely evident that nothing underhanded and shadowy is happening here with personal information - other than in your own imagination.

In fact, as you can see from the above, I have disclosed less about you here that you yourself have chosen to freely disclose online on a number of opportunities.

So if you were truly and genuinely concerned, do not be. No stalking, conspiracies, and whatever else you may have been imagining are happening to you here.

My suggestion would be, if you like complete anonymity and privacy, exercise that right.

Perhaps, to protect it against your imagined fears beyond any shadow of doubt, you might choose to end publicly airing opinions on Neufeld and the Peenemünders in venues that thousands of people read and millions can access with the click of a mouse.

posted 04-01-2008 11:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cowboy399:
There is a slim chance that you are genuinely concerned here that you have been the victim of some conspiracy-esque "stalking techniques," as you state, and that shadowy people will now do something nefarious and underhanded with that knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Believe me, I would have liked nothing more than to quote some of your other writings on this thread, which would have been excellent proof (if more proof were needed) of your true feelings regarding the historical events that Neufeld has written about. Considering your anonymous attack on his character, I probably could have even argued it was morally just to do so.

---

posted 04-02-2008 01:47 PM               

Many members of this forum, including those in opposition to the opinions expressed by "Cowboy399" (whose identity I haven't bothered to tease out), make no effort to hide their identity. Many include their names in their username or else have no qualms discussing who they are in the appropriate context. This is highly relevant because it allows those of us who read and contribute here to give the proper weight and consideration to their postings based on their reputation here and elsewhere. With neither a prior body of work on CS nor with publicly acknowledged credentials, we who have yet to jump into this fight have little recourse but to assume that Cowboy 399's polemical postings are the product of what is commonly known as a "troll." Usually such beasts are ignored, but since the implication by him and others that he is credentialed in some fashion, notable members of this community have sought to engage him for one reason or another (the defense of a reputable scholar is one such noble cause).

This is my verbose way of saying that if you (Cowboy399) are unwilling to demonstrate that you're little more than a troll, you open yourself for whatever criticisms are leveled at you and your assertions (valid or not).

As a professional historian, I will state definitively that your credentials, biases, and associations as a critic are fair game for others in such a debate, as much as the original author's. If a reviewer of a book on the history of Amerian economics was known to adhere to Marxism, would that not influence how you approached that review? The informal nature of this board makes this point no less relevant.

posted 04-02-2008 07:25 PM               

Kevin and Francis and Robert get it right, IMHO, and I won't repeat their good points.

Let me instead take one of Cowboy's central statements:

"I have talked to Neufeld personally and I can tell you regardless of whatever way he presents himself in his writings, at a personal level his bias is very extreme - shocking in fact. His mission in life is to expose the German rocket team as war criminals, and if he has to say some nice things about them in his books to get a wider readership, that's what he will do."

Hmm. Accusations of bias and malign motive. Offered without proof other than anonymous say-so--an egregious red herring because it appeals to authority (the accuser's) but prevents us from determining how he wields that authority. A win-win for him. He gets his accusation and anonymity both. A lose-lose for the rest of us, accustomed to a little more transparency and evidence here.

Here's what biographers do, working with the inevitable baggage of some bias and motive and other human impedimenta: Here's what Neufeld did. He left for all to read and check--wait, let me count them--82 pages of endnotes and source notes. Eighty-two pages.

Cowboy says checking all this is long and tedious. I'll say. How about I raise you one and say, long, tedious, and scholarship!

This, then, is the answer for those of you struggling with this problem of two competing opinions: cowboy's and Neufeld's. It seems to me one doesn't merely give up in the face of conflict, say "A pox on their houses!" split the difference, and end up with the truth. What one does is read the conflicting accounts, compare the evidence, weigh the arguments, sift through bias and motive, if detectable (we all have biases), and decide whom to believe, or largely believe. And in conducting this deeply personal intellectual exercise, we bring our own biases and motives to bear!

Anyway, in the absence of a countervailing published account, in the absence of coherent argument, in the absence of respectable documentation, I'm afraid all cowboy has is his opinion.

posted 04-02-2008 08:33 PM               

Furthermore, there is no relationship between the number of footnotes and the level of one's bias. If you don't believe me you should read Linda Hunts "Secret Agenda" which is universally accepted as a biased work - yet it contains hundreds of footnotes. I would argue that oversourcing sometimes points to one trying to cover up a weak argument.

posted 04-02-2008 11:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cowboy399:
...then try to stalk me

---

I am privy to your identity and I give you my word that I did not provide it to anyone else, but to be honest, even if I did not know your name, it would have been rather simple to deduce who you were (at least up until the point that you removed some of your other opinions from other areas online).

You wrote that the "internet is all about anonymity" but its also all about identity. Like an elephant, the internet never forgets and courtesy the Wayback machine, Usenet archives, Google cache and other collections of past and present websites, even those who choose to post under pseudonyms can often be unmasked in just a few clicks. This isn't stalking, it's web surfing.

So, if you charge stalking in a case that is clearly not, what am I and others to make of your charge of bias? Is Neufeld really biased or does he simply have a personal opinion (as has everyone)?

posted 04-02-2008 11:41 PM               

PS - my wife says I have to come to bed...

posted 04-03-2008 02:53 AM               

You say that the Internet was for anonymity. Who says so? Do you want me to show you sites where respectable academics present their ideas with full name, title and scientific apparatus? That's how other Ph. D. do it. Of course, I also know 10 year olds who claim "Mum, I have closed my eyes, you cannot see me." That is fine for ten year olds. Obvious question: how do 10 year olds obtain a Ph. D.?

There is another question I wanted to ask you in this debate on "To Heaven from Hell", as one could appropriately dub the career of the Peenemündians who started out with the Nazi regime and ended up flying Saturns to the Moon. Have you visited the Mittelbau-Dora memorial at the Kohnstein near Nordhausen where the crime took place? Have you spoken to survivors of Mittelbau-Dora? Or do you have at least -- following minimum academic standards -- read their memoirs? Some? Any? I think fairness should ask for that. You tell me, and I tell you bias or not.

Of course, you can go on camouflaging who you are, you can continue to avoid a fact based discussion and academic criteria, and you can of course tell me you don't care about the victims of Herr Rudolph and his friends from the SS.

posted 04-03-2008 12:10 PM               

I actually think Neufeld has a vast knowledge of many events that occurred during WW2 - I just think some of what he says is slanted, and I think he has an agenda. That's my opinion. We can't all agree on things.

With regard to anonymity, I see you know very little about the internet,

Anonymity on the Internet

Most commentary on the Internet is essentially done anonymously, using unidentifiable pseudonyms. While these names can take on an identity of their own, they are frequently separated from and anonymous from the actual author, creating more freedom of expression, and less accountability Wikipedia is written mostly by authors using either an unidentifiable pseudonym or an IP identifier, although a few have used an identified pseudonym or their real name.

Wikipedia

posted 04-03-2008 01:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by eurospace:
It is quite amazing, Dr. Cowboy: you got four eminent historians and book authors here who responded to your mail and invited you to accept a debate on academic level. I feel that is an honour.

---

Kevin Rusnak: (acknowledged and respected space history researcher for NASA's official history projects): "what you say about me is completely ridiculous"

Dwayne Day (acknowledged and respected space history writer): "a major space writer try to shout me down. In any event, I never said. If you asked the same questions to the right people I am sure you would have no problem."

Kris Stoever (acknowledged and respected New York Times Bestselling space history author): "there is no reason for me to come up with competing material containing the same level of scholarship"

Jürgen Esders, (European Union official, acknowledged and respected space journalist with much writing experience about the Peenemünders): "what you say is irrelevant. I see you know very little about the internet"

Robert Pearlman (moderator, acknowledged and respected space author and journalist): "the moderator step in and try and discredit me."

Dr. Michael Neufeld (former curator of World War II history at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum (in particular, the collection of German World War II missiles), current chair of the Space History Division at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum): "bias is very extreme - shocking in fact. built his ruining the reputation of others"

Chris (interest in space history): "I don't think you know what you are talking about"

Myself: (co-author of two space history books and many space magazine articles): "Perhaps you should do a little more reading. gross misrepresentation of my views, which says more about your honesty - not mine. It's you who are dishonest. what you were trying to do is invade my privacy, which I find deplorable. use stalking techniques to discover someone's identity (to do god knows what). try to stalk me. carelessly read what I wrote and misrepresented what I said. continually tried to portray me as some kind of extremist with his misrepresentation of my words and my politics"

Everyone here on collectSPACE (I am guessing): "You guys sure are trying pretty hard to discredit a critic -- rake someone through the coals. use guilt by association to shout down critics -- I kind of feel like this forum is bit like communist China"

posted 04-04-2008 09:32 AM               

Neufeld's book will be published as a paperback in mid-November by Random House.

That should also make it accessible for those with a limited budget.

Michael J. Neufeld was also the editor for the English version of one of the memoirs of a survivor of the Mittelbau Dora concentration camp, Yves Béon.

Planet Dora: A Memoir of the Holocaust and the Birth of the Space Age

• Paperback: 288 pages
  
• Publisher: Westview Pr (Trd Pap) (May 1998)
  
• Language: English
  
• ISBN-10: 0813334926
  
• ISBN-13: 978-0813334929