Talk:Walter Kuhn

The "SS Black" quote and some other issues

Is this quote really necessary for the article? No source says that Kuhn was in the SS, just this metaphorical passage. Expanding on this: the info on Kuhn in the "Himmler's Crusade" book is cited entirely to Burleigh, who never says: 1) the Kuhn was "responsible" for resettlement of Germans or 2) that he was in the SS. I don't think that the information provided by "Himmler's Crusade" can be seen as reliable on this point: he (like many of the other critical mentions of Kuhn's roll in the war that have been added here) mentions Kuhn on a single page and doesn't appear to have done any research on him himself besides summarizing what it is already found in Burleigh's "Germany turns eastwards" (and in this case, the summary is clearly defective, as anyone can see who compares what "Himmler's Crusade" says about Kuhn to Burleigh).

I do not mean to minimize Kuhn's guilt for his activities, but I question why we need to pile quote upon quote about how bad he was from scholars who mention him in only passing, often merely as one in a group of scholars.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

For some more examples: the criticism by Lis mentions Kuhn in a long list of German scholars of Ostforschung and doesn't seem to be about him as an individual at all. Perhaps it would go better in an article about Ostforschung. Snippet view doesn't let me see enough of the other criticism by the other Polish scholar at the end of the article to know whether he's talking about Kuhn as an individual or not. The Demshuk statement about "exchanging Heimat for Hitler" is obviously Demshuk's opinion and should be quoted directly if we include it at all.

And another example: why does it matter that he "favorably reviewed" a racist book in the 1940s? It doesn't strike me as notable, given that the book isn't.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I've ordered some more books/articles that deal with Kuhn more specifically. Already added to the works cited, the book by Chu is available in preview on Google Books, but I'd like the larger context before I start adding from it.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

While we're at this, I don't think we need to have the World War II section have separate sections for everything Kuhn ever did. It appears to be an attempt to highlight certain aspects of his career as opposed to others.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Involvement in Ethnic Cleansing

I'm moving the following here until it can be properly discussed:

Michael Burleigh describes Kuhn as one of Nazi hack academics but also one of the "finest (historical) minds" whose expertise was used for ethnic cleansing plans carried by Nazi Germany. Christopher Hale remarks that in 1939–1940 Kuhn "exchanged his Wandervogel outfit of SS black" and became responsible for resettlement policy in Nazi occupied parts of Ukraine. In the winter of 1940 he assisted in settlement Volhynia Germans into homes of Poles who had been ethnically cleansed by Nazis.

The rather emotionally-laden version of this information cited to Breuilly is now covered by Michelsen in the section on Kuhn's work advising the SS (he advised in the settlement of Germans in Lodz in 1940). I've explained the problems with Christopher Hale in some detail above and have received no answer. The Burleigh quote serves no other purpose than to call Kuhn a hack academic. The cited pages in this book (The Third Reich: A New History) by Burleigh offer no information on what Kuhn did and mention him with several other scholars. It's also a popular book and therefore of less value than the scholarly books cited elsewhere in the article. Hale does have footnotes but I doubt how scholarly the book is.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I got my hand on the information cited to Breuilly. It is not by Breuilly, but by Michael Burleigh in a chapter in a collection edited by Breuilly. What it says is: "From the winter of 1940, Walter Kuhn and Kurt Lück, by now an SS-Hauptsturmbahnführer, were active in repatriating Volhynian Germans, who themselves were racially 'screened', to villages from which the indigenous Polish inhabitants had been forcibly deported to the Generalgouvernement." (p. 138). On the basis of this information, I'll re-add the information that they were settling Germans in houses from which Poles had been deported.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a reliable author and a reliable scholarly source on Nazi Kuhn's involvement in ethnic cleansing. I see no arguments questioning the reliability of the sources besides personal views. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The source is a popular book without footnotes, even though it's by a very reputable scholar. It mentions Kuhn in a list of names and includes no information about him in particular. Himmler's Crusade is by Christopher Hale, who is not an expert. Kuhn himself was not involved in removing any Poles or Jews, unless you take ethnic cleansing to mean "advised moving Germans". That he (and like thirty other scholars in one memorandum) advocated for ethnic cleansing in his role as advisor is true.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

This review (the only one on Jstor) mentions that Hale's book is marred by numerous factual errors:

This book would have benefited from a more thorough fact checking, as the text is marred here and there by errors of fact. Although many are relatively minor in the sense that they do not bear directly on Hale's thesis, and in no way detract from the overall quality of the work, they do call into question the accuracy of other less well-known details. For example, the Swastika flag became the national flag of Germany in 1935, not 1933; Herman Goering's notorious comment about reaching for his revolver when he heard the word "culture" was probably not intended to mean that "culture justified conquest"; Himmler, with his degree in agronomy, was of course not " [b]y far the best educated of the Nazi leaders"; the name R. Walther Darré appears consistently without the first initial; the term Wehrmacht refers to the German armed forces as of 1935, not during the First World War or before; historians generally do not attribute the founding of the First Reich to Frederick Barbarossa in the twelfth century; and the description of the German revolution of 1918 more accurately describes the Russian revolutions of 1917—the German troops in the line did not mutiny, and it is incorrect to state that prior to the signing of the 1918 armistice, front-line German soldiers "simply dropped their rifles, picked up their kit bags, and walked home."

Obviously noone says that about Burleigh's book, but the reviews do note that it is intended for a mass audience, and my point that it does not actually contain any information about Kuhn stands.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I have restored section on antisemitism

This is important and deserves a seperate section. I also note that there are no scholars who dispute this and as such there is no need to attribute these statements.We already have authors in the source section--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how it's any different from any of the other criticisms of Kuhn's pre-war work, which already include criticisms of his ethnocentrism etc. It all goes together in one place in my opinion. For now I'm at least making it a subsection of the pre-war section until we can read an agreement on this (and if we're lucky someone else might chime in).

I'd also appreciate it if you would respond to my points in the section above.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this edit ([1]), would someone tell me when this was part of the lead and who removed it?(KIENGIR (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC))

It was never part of the lead. At one point Mymoloboaccount had "nationalist historian" up there, but never Nazi.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank You, I had the same result but wanted to be sure. (addendum, I've found the time of the creation of the article "was a Nazi party member", but that is as well not identical).(KIENGIR (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC))

NPOV Board

Given MyMoloboAccount's failure to engage with any arguments I've made here and instistance on over emphasizing Kuhn's nazi connections despite his long and prestigious postwar career, I will be taking this to the NPOV board.--Ermenrich (talk)

Unfortunately the whole thing went to that phase like in every pharagraph it should be emphasized expressis verbis what a big Nazi he was, just because he have some works that are accepted accurate and other modern works are based on it. (btw, I checked pages of prominent Nazis, but none there was listed in the lead as a qualifier/profession like simply just "Nazi", but "member of the Nazi party", "x of y during the Nazi Era", "z (position) of Nazi Germany", and similars etc. considering here in the lead it is alread described that "In 1940, he joined the Nazi party", just an addendum to my question in the earlier pharagraph...)(KIENGIR (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)ˇ)

Discussion can be found here.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinwinkler Alexander-no mention of his strong criticism

I find it surprising that this author is used and yet his statement about Kuhn pursuing closely vision of Nazi racial utopia is missing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's something that I was planning to fix, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Pinwinkler really doesn't like Kuhn it's true. I think the reason why I haven't gotten around to it is that there's already a lot of criticism of his pre-war work in the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

"Despite many criticisms of this same work, the Polish historian Gerard Labuda stated he had to bow his head to Kuhn's achievement"-this statement isn't sourced to Labuda-but to Rhode who was also self declared nationalist and ex-Nazi

"Despite many criticisms of this same work, the Polish historian Gerard Labuda stated he had to bow his head to Kuhn's achievement"-this statement isn't sourced to Labuda-but to Rhode who was also self declared nationalist and ex-Nazi, as such I would like to see stronger source that claims by Rhode.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

See Gerard Labuda im Przegląd Zachodni, 1957, 13.5, pp. 158-164. I'm ordering it myself.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I found falsification of the source in the article

The current article stated "promoting the issue of the German minority as a major concern for scholars in Germany." The author in question(Haar) clearly writes it was coordination of secret activities by revisionist groups within Poland on behalf of Third Reich.Who inserted this text?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Please quote the text in question where Haar says this. And what do you mean by "secret activities". What kind of secret activities? That's so vague as to mean just about anything.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you insert this text ? And yes Haar clearly writes these were secret activities-are you disputing him ? Based on what sources?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Haar says Walter Kuhn gehoerte zu den wenigen Spezialisten des VDA, die sowohl mit der deutschen Volksgruppenfuehrung regelmaessig in Kontakt standen als auch die notwendigen Verfahren beherrschten, um die systematische Erfassung des "Deutschtums" in Oberschlesien und der Biala zu gewaehrleisten (p. 272). At one point he says he that Kontakt between Kuhn and Otto Ulitz was "konspirativ" (p. 273). On p. 274 he says Walter Kuhns Arbeitsvorschlag veranlasste die Nord- und Ostdeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, die Erfassung der deutschen Minderheit in Polen nicht mehr sekundaeres, sondern als primaeres Forschungsfeld zu betrachten.Where do you see any distortion in the text I wrote there? As far as I can tell everything I wrote was correct, and there's nothing that I see in Haar about it being "against Poland" or can you provide a quote please? Or "revisionist groups" for that matter.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Dude, you need to actually read the article. What you've changed the text to be about is already covered here: Kuhn also secretly worked for German foreign intelligence to verify the population numbers on the German minority in Poland given by the Polish government.[14 (Haar, p. 272)]. You can add that he was coordinating there, this section was about something different as you can see from the quotes I've given.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

alter Kuhn fungierte dabei neben Kurt Luck, AlfredLattermann und Viktor Kauder als Kontaktmann zwischen Hans Steinacher auf der einen und Otto Ulitz auf der anderen Seite. Ulitz war der Lieter des "Deutschen Volksbundes" in Kattowitz, der die geheime revisionpolitik der Reichsregierung in Polen koordinierte I have read both the article and Ingo Haar. Ingo Haar mentions cooperation with Nazi intelligence in seperate paragraph below the one I mentioned. The work with pro-Nazi German minority organizations in pre-war Poland is in a seperate paragraph and has a completely different meaning from what was put in the article.While the part you mention above is in the text, the fact that he was working with minority groups aiming at pursuing Reich revisionist policy against Poland was not mentioned in the article and distorted character of his work in Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. You've taken a multi-page citation and effectively made it a one page citation. While you could argue that your version includes more important information (I admit I simply didn't see Kuhn's name in the middle of that paragraph) my version is hardly a "falsification", it accurately states what I was summarizing. And the way you've stated it in the article makes it look more nefarious than Haar actually states: you don't say what the "secret activities" are (essentially ethnographic work, as borne out by what I was summarizing over the next few pages) for one thing.--Ermenrich (talk)

You should be careful accusing editors of falsification of sources, Molobo. This isn't it. François Robere (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Molobo's version is incorrect, when I look at it again. It says (in English): Walter Kuhn acted in this together with Kurt Luck, Alfred Lattermann and Viktor Kauder as contact person between Hans Steinacher on the one side and Otto Ulitz on the other. Ulitz was the elader of the "German People's Union" in Katowice, which coordinated the secret revisionist politics of the Reich government in Poland." It does not say anything about "revisionist scholars" (Ulitz was a politician, as anyone can verify from Haar and who is already mentioned in the article). I have readded what exactly Kuhn did: ethnographic work and promoting the interests of the German minority to the VDA, a (Nazi) scholarly organization studying "Volksdeutsche". This is per the quotes that I had already provided.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A few polish sources I'd like help with

@Piotrus:, could you please help me verify what the following Polish language sources say about Kuhn:

• Rodowód Piastów śląskich: Piastowie wrocławscy, legnicko-brzescy, świdniccy, ziębiccy, głogowscy, żagańscy, oleśniccy, opolscy, cieszyńscy i oświęcimscy Kazimierz Jasiński Wydawnictwo Avalon, 2007, page 15: Historian Kazimierz Jasinski names Kuhn as "Silesian regionalist" historian, full of anti-Polish prejudice
• Ideologia i poznanie: społeczne funkcje mediewistyki śląskiej po 1945 roku Marek Cetwiński Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna w Częstochowie, 1993, page 24. Historian Marek Cetwiński writes that Kuhn till end of his life remained a "propagandist", who treated history as a servant
• Polityka Republiki Federalnej Niemiec wobec polskiej ludności rodzimej na Ṡląsku w latach 1949-1990/91 Michał Lis Wydawnictwo Instytutu Śląskiego w Opolu, 1992 page 20 Michal Lis writes that Kuhn and other Ostforschung scholars in post-war West Germany continued to propagate historical and sociological myths aimed at undermining and questioning the Polish identity of the population of Upper Silesia
• Kartografia historyczna Ślaka XVIII-XX wieku page 102 Dariusz Przybytek Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2002: Dariusz Przybytek names an atlas Atlas zur Geschichte der deutschen Ostsiedlung by Walter Kuhn and Willifried Krallert about German Ostsiedlung as having a "propagandic character"
• Kaszubi na Pomorzu Zachodnim na przestrzeni wieków Zygmunt Szultka Pomerania 49 page 29 October 2015 Zygmunt Szultka writes that Kuhn made unbelievable errors in his work such as estimating growth of German population in Pomerania to be 10% per year in the time period of 1200-1300, which according to Szultka aren't even worthy of debate
• Kwartalnik historyczny, Tom 84,Wydania 1-2 page 425 Towarzystwo Historyczne, 1977: However, the author[who?] of a review of Kuhn's atlas ""Die mittelalterliche deutsche Ostsiedlung", in Putzger[clarification needed] states that it is a typical example of biased interpratation of historical events for use of political propaganda with the aim of giving Germans "moral right" to take over and Germanize territories of other nations, including Poland.
• Biblioteki mniejszości niemieckiej w II Rzeczypospolitej Zdzisław Gębołyś, Uniwersytet Śląski, Katowice 2014, page 33 His works from this period are described by Zdzisław Gębołyś as belonging to genre that was one-sided favouring the German point of view, were tendentious and often used simplifications

And

• Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis: Antiquitas - page 241 1993 „Grupę Szkoleniową" (tworzyli ją ponadto Helmut Haberhorn, Walter Kuhn i Herbert Czarnecki). Jej zadaniem było organizowanie tzw. „Schulungsabend", na których omawiano m. in. „technikę pracy informacyjno-wywiadowczej
• Do swej działalności wywiadowczej SD włączyła kadrę naukową instytutów i wyższych uczelni, zajmujących się badaniami Wschodu ... Szczególnie intensywną działalność rozwijał Walter Kuhn, zamieszkały do 1936 r. w Bielsku. SS, czarna gwardia Hitlera - page 229 Karol Grünberg - 1984
• Studia nad faszyzmem i zbrodniami hitlerowskimi, Wydanie 16, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, page 241, 1993
• Przegląd zachodni, Tom 50,Wydania 1-2 Instytut Zachodni, page 80, 1994 Centralą irredenty niemieckiej w województwie poznańskim był lokal Niemieckiego Konsulatu Generalnego w Poznaniu, w którym 23 II 1939 r. powołano tzw. grupę szkoleniową pod kierownictwem Richarda Blocha (tworzyli ją ponadto Helmut Haberhorn, Walther Kuhn i Herbert Czarnecki)

For the following text: In 1939 Kuhn was involved in preparing German diversion attempts in Poland,[38]as well as espionage operations.[39][verification needed][40][41].

I have little doubt that Kuhn is mentioned in these works, in some cases I can see that from google snippet view. What I'd like to know is: 1) what is the context of the criticism (i.e: I already know that Jasinski is mentioning Kuhn sort of in passing, but I don't know about what besides that he's mentioned as a German scholar like Peter Moraw (who is not a Nazi)); 2) does the scholar say anything positive about Kuhn elsewhere; 3) does the scholar mention Kuhn at all elsewhere/is he cited for statements of fact anywhere in these texts?

I realize you probably have plenty of other things you'd like to be doing, so thank you very much for your help on the matter.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Ouch. If they are not online, there's not much I can do, as I live in Korea and the chances of a Polish book local library as null :> Let's start:

• Rodowód Piastów śląskich [2] snippet view, page 15 states "pelen antypolskich uprzedzen slaski regionalista Walter Kuhn" - so 100% correct
• Ideologia i poznanie: [3] snippet view, Kuhn is discussed on this page and many others, but I can't read enough to confirm
• Polityka Republiki Federalnej Niemiec [4] snippet, discussed on that page: "pominenci zachodniemieckie O...." yep, the quote exactly matches
• Kartografia historyczna Ślaka https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=SgJYAAAAMAAJ&dq=kartografia+historyczna+%C5%9Alaka+XVIII-XX+wieku+page&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Atlas+zur+Geschichte+der+deutschen+Ostsiedlung - snippet view again, but the quote matches to the top right page exactly
• Kaszubi na Pomorzu Zachodnim na przestrzeni wieków - can't find it online
• Kwartalnik historyczny volume 84 - can't find it online
• Biblioteki mniejszości niemieckiej w II Rzeczypospolitej - can't find it online

So far, it's all correct in the works I could access, do you want me to check all others? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, yeah the sources not being easily available, online or elsewhere is sort of the problem. But I think you've confirmed enough. If you can find them I wouldn't mind if you looked at the rest, but the ones you've found have been legit so far so I think I'm satisfied, even if ideally I'd like more context.

And thank you for your help!--Ermenrich (talk)

Intelligence work

This section needs better verification. It currently reads:

In 1939 Kuhn was involved in preparing German diversion attempts in Poland,as well as espionage operations.

The Polish quotations when translated by google read:

1. Centralą irredenty niemieckiej w województwie poznańskim był lokal Niemieckiego Konsulatu Generalnego w Poznaniu, w którym 23 II 1939 r. powołano tzw. grupę szkoleniową pod kierownictwem Richarda Blocha (tworzyli ją ponadto Helmut Haberhorn, Walther Kuhn i Herbert Czarnecki) The headquarters of the German irredenta in the Poznań Province was the premises of the German Consulate General in Poznań, where on February 23, 1939 the so-called a training group headed by Richard Bloch (it was also made up of Helmut Haberhorn, Walther Kuhn and Herbert Czarnecki).
2. Do swej działalności wywiadowczej SD włączyła kadrę naukową instytutów i wyższych uczelni, zajmujących się badaniami Wschodu ... Szczególnie intensywną działalność rozwijał Walter Kuhn, zamieszkały do 1936 r. w Bielsku. SD has included in its intelligence activities the academic staff of institutes and universities dealing with research in the East ... Walter Kuhn, who lived in Bielsko until 1936, developed particularly intense activity.
3. „Grupę Szkoleniową" (tworzyli ją ponadto Helmut Haberhorn, Walter Kuhn i Herbert Czarnecki). Jej zadaniem było organizowanie tzw. „Schulungsabend", na których omawiano m. in. „technikę pracy informacyjno-wywiadowczej. "Training Group" (it was also created by Helmut Haberhorn, Walter Kuhn and Herbert Czarnecki). Its task was to organize the so-called "Schulungsabend", which discussed, among others "Information and intelligence work technique

None of this says anything about German diversion attempts in Poland. It doesn't even really say anything about espionage operations, except perhaps in one extremely unspecific sentence. At most, assuming these are WP:RS, it shows that Kuhn worked for the Sicherheitsdienst - which other sources say he did, but as an advisor on "repatriating" Volhynian Germans during the war, not before. And as so often, I have had trouble locating the sources for this. One is cited to Przegląd zachodni, Tom 50,Wydania 1-2 Instytut Zachodni, page 80, but looking at the (admittedly rather confusingly arranged) contents from that journal for that year [5], it is difficult to see any article that would discuss German espionage. I would also note that the Western Institute has been accused of having an anti-German bias. The second citation Studia nad faszyzmem i zbrodniami hitlerowskimi, Wydanie 16, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, page 241, 1993 (with the verification tag) has no preview online, but I'll note Google Books finds the journal volume of that number from 1974, not 1993 [6]. The third, SS, czarna gwardia Hitlera - page 229 Karol Grünberg - 1984 appears specifically to be about the time before Kuhn moved to Germany when he was in contact with the Deutsches Auslandsinstitut in Stuttgart (see [7]). The fourth source, cited as Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis: Antiquitas - page 241 1993, can be found here [8]: it fails to say when Kuhn conducted this work.

MyMoloboaccount, can you find any source in English or German that corroborates these claims? No other source, including those who rather extensively cover Kuhn's activities during the war, says anything about him having created "diversionary attempts" or "espionage" (and it's hard to see how he could have been part of an espionage group in Ponznan in February 1939, given that he lived in Breslau in Germany). Even more suspicious: these sources are all from the before 1994. Given that scholarship on Kuhn as a Nazi has increased since his death, one would expect that this would be mentioned frequently.

At the very least, there's no way this deserves its own section. It could be mentioned as a single sentence in the Politics subsection. But I think that, unless it can be corroborated by Haar, Burleigh, Demshuk, Muehle, Fielitz, etc. it should be removed from the article. Surely scholars working in languages besides Polish would know about this.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

On some further sleuthing, it looks like Studia nad faszyzmem i zbrodniami hitlerowskimi, Wydanie 16, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, page 241, 1993 and Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis: Antiquitas - page 241 1993 are the same thing, look at the title page at google books [9]. I still can't locate the article it was in though.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Given these concerns, unless they are addressed, I will removing the text and section in question in the next few days.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I have provided required scholarly works by respectable historians along with translations. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

That text is a major improvement, but it remains odd that no non-Polish source mentions this.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Specific question

"He has been critized by number of scholars for propagandic, pro-German, character of his works and maps he created.He ret"

This has been added earlier, however this edit ([10]) prompted me ask it now how accurate may be this summarization. Especially works vs. maps?(KIENGIR (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC))

The best source for summarizing Kuhn's reception is probably Weczerka, who I've used to summarize here [11]. The most significant quote:

Kuhns siedlungshistorische Erkenntnisse haben nicht nur in Deutschland Anerkennung gefunden, sondern - mit gewissen, z.T. berechtigten Einschränkungen auch in Polen. Man war sogar in westlichen Ländern wie Irland und Kanada aus komparativen Gründen an Kuhns "Geschichte der deutschen Ostsiedlung in der Neuzeit" interessiert, und Charles Higounet aus Bordeaux, der als Gastprofessor in Hamburg weilte und sich mit Walter Kuhn anfreundete, dankte im Vorwort seines Buches "Die deutsche Ostsiedlung im Mittelalter (1986) Kuhn für die Vermittlung neuer Einsichten.

As for Kuhn's maps, I'm not sure. Weczerka criticizes the way Kuhn handles the Kashubians, Sorbs, and Masurians in "Atlas zur Geschichte der deutschen Ostsiedlung" (1958) as essentially Germans, but Weczerka never says that Kuhn's maps were bad per se. A number of the recensions in the article praise them. Molobo has found a few Polish scholars who criticize them, but Weczerka already says that Kuhn's work was received more criticially in Poland.

In short, I don't think the criticism in the lead is accurate. While it's true that Kuhn's work, in the fifties in particular, did receive criticism for a nationalist bent - anyone can see that's true from at least three recensions I've added - it does not appear to have been the dominate way his work was received. At the NPOV board I've listed like 15 recent books/articles citing him and they are either positive or neutral. It's possible that some more sleuthing might dig up something.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Then please remove or rephrase it until any further is not concluded, if the latter at least summarizing in a manner that is represented in the core (I saw in the recent edits the criticism - along it's negative/positive connotations as well next to your diff)(KIENGIR (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC))

I've edited the lead. Any suggestions?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems better, of course if any further may prompt us to alter it in any way, proceed.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC))

Questionable text (removed from article)

His publications in „Deutsche Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift in Polen" with other German scholars were aimed at proving German character of Western Poland and alleged superiority of German culture over Slavic and Polish cultures

Molobo, you can't just include this statement without any context in the article. It is referring to publications made while Kuhn was in Poland, not right before WWII, for one thing, and this needs to be attributed to an author. As it's impossible the fix this text the way that you've cited it, I've moved it here so that you can at least provide a proper citation including at least: 1) name of author of article 2) name of article 3) page numbers of article 4) journal volume. I can't verify it otherwise.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Is the following notable?

I don't think the following is notable

Also in 1941, Kuhn positively reviewed a publication called Race, Nation and Heritage in Silesia.

The publication (actually a series of publications) is not notable at all. Is there some compelling reason to include this? We don't even mention who the publication was by (edited by Ilse Schwidetzky and someone named Eickstedt). Walter Kuhn reviewed hundreds of books over his career. There is no reason I can think of why this one is special except that the title is being used to awaken certain associations without actually stating what they are.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Rhode

I note that throughout the text a source is used that is former Nazi and nationalist activist Gotthold Rhode-this isn't a reliable source for information about another Nazis activist and his views.I note that there are several controversial statements like Rhode claiming Polish scholars bowing their heads to Nazi Kuhne.As such I will remove it, there are surely more modern and reliable sources on Kuhn than another former Nazi.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I will source it to Labuda himself then. I haven't found the "bow head" quote yet in the 6 page review of Kuhn's Geschichte der Ostsiedlung, but I have found:

Badania W. Kuhna nad dziejami koloizacji niemieckiej w Europie środkowej zasługują na baczną uwagę historyków poskich. Autor ten bowiem zapowiada dalsze tomy, które mają oświetlić to zagadnienie aż do czasów najnowszych. Nacze uwagi krytyczne i nasze wyrazy uzanania wykrazują jednak dość jasno, że na historykach polskich sposzywa obowiązek gruntowniejszego zagęcia się dziejami napływu i odpływu żywiołu niemieckiego na ziemie słowiańskie na wschód od Łaby i Odry. Nie oznacza to ani dyskwalífikacji dzieła niemieckiego uczonego, ani votum nieufności dla jego metody i obiektywizmu (niezależnie od stopnia sporności wielu kwestii). Powyższy postulat wynika przede wszystkim stąd, że historyk niemieckiego, natomiast historyk polski jako część dziejów społeczeństwa polskiego. Tylko przez konfrontację ustalonych na tej drodze faktów z powyższymi założeniami mogą się oni nauczyć wzajemnego szacunku dla swoich wysiłków i rozwinąć płodną naukowo dyskusję.

Google translates this as:

W. Kuhn's research on the history of German colonization in Central Europe deserves close attention of Polish historians. This author announces further volumes that are to illuminate this issue up to the present day. Some critical remarks and our expressions of appreciation, however, make it quite clear that the Polish historians have an obligation to deepen the history of the inflow and outflow of the German element into the Slavic lands east of the Elbe and Oder. This does not mean a disqualification of the work of the German scholar, nor a vote of distrust of his method and objectivity (regardless of the degree of dispute over many issues). The above postulate results primarily from the fact that the German historian, while the Polish historian as part of the history of Polish society. Only by confronting the facts established on this path with the above assumptions can they learn mutual respect for their efforts and develop a scientifically prolific discussion.

. It's clear that he respects Kuhn as a scholar even if he has criticisms.

This is the last paragraph given in full, of Labuda's review of Kuhn in Przeglad zachodni, 1959, pp. 158-164 (here p. 164).--Ermenrich (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Since it seems that the quote was made up by Nazi Rhode, I will remove it, along with other praises by this well known Nazi activist where necessary.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of starting this again: why exactly would he make it up? Rhode's obit is published in a reputable journal. Your argument that Rhode was a former Nazi and therefore can't be a reliable source doesn't really make sense. It's not like no one else checked his work before it was published. Anyway, you're asking me to scower through a 10-page non-searchable PDF file in Polish, a language I do not speak, for this exact reference when it's already clear from above that Labuda respected Kuhn, so why exactly should we be doubtful that he said it?--Ermenrich (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Norbert Angermann?

A number of the positive statements about Kuhn come from Norbert Angermann, but the links in this article and that one are all dead. Since they are some of the subject of longstanding contention, I think these should be edited out — BCorr|Брайен 23:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ve found the current url. I’ll update the link - there’s no reason to edit it out.—-Ermenrich (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I've updated it the link. The only statements I see cited to Angermann that might be considered controversial are his assessments of Kuhn's importance. However, Angermann is an important historian in his own right, so I don't see any reason not to include him when we include various other scholar's assessments. Most of the information is just on Kuhn's life. Some of it could (and is) cited to other sources as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you — this is not my area at all, and I appreciate your effort! Could you do the same with the Angermann article, please? All the links there are dead, which is what led me to start this section BCorr|Брайен 00:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean the links at the bottom of the page? I'll try to see what I can do.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)