"Hofschroer court case" Topic

Began on Monday; latest news:
link

That doesn't make nice reading.

His defence seems a little unbelievable.

I am only surprised that he has not included the Duke of Wellington in his list of those who are persecuting him.

If his defence looks anything like the kind of looniness his sockpuppets have been posting on the internet for years, he's had it.

As for

the family was making a legal agreement over the proceeds of the sale of an Austrian house Peter Hofschroer had transferred to him and his sister in trust to avoid liabilities after the 60-year-old ran up a £30,000.00 GBP legal bill through losing a civil court case

- presumably that was to dodge paying £10,000.00 GBP in settlement of having libelled John Hussey. Or was it to dodge paying the costs of the case he lost against the Police Complaints Commission ( link ), where he called an investigator a pervert and a criminal, posted her picture without permission, and had a harassment injunction placed on him?

"of no fixed address…"…..interesting…..

I liked his book

Bizarrely it turns out he had been living about three streets away from me! The whole thing is somewhat unsettling…

He and his supporters are certainly in need of a tinfoil feldmutz, that's for sure.

Just maybe his paranoid view extends to his history analysis.

+1 Vistogames

Wow, I didn't realize this was happening.

+1 to Aberrant for 'I am only surprised that he has not included the Duke of Wellington in his list of those who are persecuting him.' Made me laugh out loud at work.

Vince nailed it.

Teesside Crown Court….instantly recognised it (I stress because I work in The Boro, not because I am a regular there)

This is tragic. You do not have to like what he said or how he said it, but he did contribute much to the bibliography of the Prussian role in 1815. I have several of his books and always felt that there might be many a valid point, even if there did seem an element of paranoia against British historians and DoW.

Possible mental illness of this degree is a subject for profound regret, if not sympathy because of the nature of the alleged offences that resulted. Let us be very careful until a verdict is reached….so far these are allegations I gather. Innocent until etc

How pleasantly ironic that the word "schadenfreude" is of Prussian origin.

@ deadhead

I have long thought that the sockpuppet accounts insulting British Army soldiers on ARRSE ("Sorry to hear the treatment is not working. Have you tried doubling the dose?"; "You are so ignorant you must be a squaddie. Just back from Afghanistan are you? How many children did you rape there?"; – sound familiar? – link, insulting other posters on TMP, the loony blog accusations of police corruption, the loony blog accusations against his own brother, the insults and subsequent libel defeats at the hands of John Hussey, and the generally potty partiality of the analysis of 1815 were all mainfestations of the same thing.

So yes, regrettable MH issues here.

I recall he said another author was mentally ill, the pot calling the kettle. ..

I thought his 'Wellington's Smallest Victory' an excellent book. Gloating over the author's private misfortunes, even if they are of his own making, is somewhat distasteful I find.

I might be inclined to agree, had this thoroughly unpleasant individual and his equally-unpleasant supporters not engaged in howling campaigns of denunciation and harassment against anyone who they even remotely suspected of being against them.

Be careful. This is all subject to a court case and he is innocent, until proven guilty. If so, he is a mentally ill individual (which we must usually forgive and treat, if possible) but seemingly also accused of crimes which society finds totally unacceptable and unforgivable.

Dangerous ground this…….wait for the verdict.

Verdict, guilty, innocent, mentally ill, sane – I don't see much what this has to do with the Napoleonic period and Peter Hofschrφer's writings ;-)

In my eyes, Peter Hofschrφer's merit lies in having translated a lot of German language material into English for the first time. As he separates citations of the German sources from his interpretations, the non-German-speaking readers are able to make up their own mind whether to follow his conclusions or not.

Which is slightly undermined by his sockpuppets allegations against the Royal Military Police who claimed that they were involved in his detention in Germany. The German police actually called them in to translate. Perhaps Hoffy's German isn't that good.

"of no fixed address…"…..interesting…,

Slightly inaccurate too, HMP Hull doesn't move about much and that's where he's been.

I don't think a prison counts as a fixed abode….

As one who was accused of insanity by Hoffie, on the basis of disagreeing with him, I do feel some sympathy for his plight, although I an absolutely no doubt whatsoever it is entirely as a result of his own arrogance. I see now that his immeadiate recourse to labelling his opponents as insane was not just something he'd picked up from the DDR school of argument, but something much closer to home….

I am actually more worried by the suggestion that his German is not that good. I always knew his conclusions and analysis was worthless, but I had assumed his translation of German sources was worth his 2 books taking up space on my library shelf…

Did he also go on the ARRSE and insult servicemen?

@ Edwulf

Yes he did. He called them child rapists and scum. He posted as "Grandma B" and as "Bonnie Clyde". His posts are here:

link
link

Jesus.
Even crazier there than on here.
What a frothing lunatic. I hope he gets the help he needs in whatever care home he gets put in.

This is sad news, but not surprising. I remember the first time I came across him was on The Napoleon Series Forums back in the mid 90's. I'm always wary of people with extreme views from either end of any particular argument and in Peter's case these extreme views were expressed at times with real vehemence and ferocity.

Add all this to controversy around David Hamilton-Williams and it makes one wonder whether 1815 Campaign revisionist historians aren't operating under some sort of curse!?

First Bluecher and now Hoffy…

Now where is that elephant again?!

These are all allegations until proven, and as noted above, as he has been remanded in prison for some time, he is 'of no fixed address'.

It all seems to be a a horrible mess, rather sad, and I shall await the outcome with interest.

UK contributors to this thread might wish to ponder the implications of the 1981 Contempt of Court Act and the Attorney Generals guidance on when it might be invoked in the context of internet discussions about active court cases. Particularly given the litigious inclinations of some of the participants.

Whereas all I said was I liked his book(s). I felt they have opened up an avenue o support for wider participation at Waterloo than previous British readers may have been inclined to be aware of.

His private affairs are a sad matter for him and the courts. I shall continue to think of TMP as a place for discussion of wargames related miniatures and the related guff

I liked his book(s). I felt they have opened up an avenue o support for wider participation at Waterloo than previous British readers may have been inclined to be aware of.

I have been asking for at least 10 years for citations of three or four British authors who assert that Waterloo was primarily a British victory, or even primarily an Anglo-allied victory. I'm still waiting, and no, no such text is cited in Hoffy's bibliographies, either.

It's a total straw man. It doesn't exist anywhere in the literature. Put simply,

- anyone, who reads
- any book by
- any author

on Waterloo will come away with the clear understanding that Wellington and Blucher intended to fight Napoleon only if they could combine to do so. Blucher needed Wellington to arrive at Ligny like Wellington needed the Prussians to arrive at Waterloo and like Blucher needed Wellington to hold on until he got there. His army's battlefield performance in 1813-14 without either a huge numbers advantage or Russian or Austrian assistance would have made this abundantly clear to both commanders.

When either army fought alone, they either struggled to hold on (Quatre Bras, and Mont St Jean after about 5pm) or they got thrashed (Ligny, Wavre).

The problems with Hoffy's analysis that he can't refute and to which he responds with abuse are twofold.

1/ He has come up with no better basis for ascribing victory credit than headcount: there were more Germans, so Germans must have won it. Leaving aside what a "German" even was in 1815, taking that approach means that Rommel's WW2 victories at Gazala, Mersa Matruh and Kasserine Pass were actually Italian victories, and Washington's victory at Yorktown likewise was actually a French victory (when you include the Frenchmen who crewed the mission-critical warships).

2/ He carefully overlooks whose army actually defeated most French troops in the key battle (Wellington's), whose army's contribution consisted entirely of victories (Wellington's), and whose entirely of defeats (Blucher's).

Neither of these should be contentious – they are self evident from the actual text and beyond argument – but to point them out to Peter gets you insulted, told you are insane and accused of not having read the books. While I agree that the access to detail about the Prussian perspective is sometimes useful, the analysis and inferences are at best ill-considered and in the main of nugatory value. They have served, mainly, to misdirect aspiring Wikipedia editors.

This is all very sad and frightening. Having known him for many years, one thing I can attest is that his command of the German language is excellent.

"UK contributors to this thread might wish to ponder the implications of the 1981 Contempt of Court Act and the Attorney Generals guidance on when it might be invoked in the context of internet discussions about active court cases. Particularly given the litigious inclinations of some of the participants."

To support this, I was approached by lawyers of one side during the libel case to make a statement because I had posted a comment in a thread on the Napoleonic Series which had turned into a slanging match. Shows that discussions groups can get used as evidence.

So was I Swamster, so was I …

Nobody here has commented on his presumed guilt or innocence. Simply commented that he's in court (proven), that he and his supporters have engaged in howling internet harassment of their opponents (proven), have been convicted of harassment (proven) and that in the opinion of many, he's a bit of a (which isn't actionable).

I was approached by lawyers of one side during the libel case to make a statement

I would think one of the parties to the action would have pointed them your way?

Libel is about public reputation, so unless the damage done by a libel is self-evident, someone saying they've been libelled would probably have to come up with evidence of harm having been done to to their reputation.

Conversely, someone defending a claim of libel would presumably want to show that there had not been such harm.

The obvious place to look for views in support of either contention would be on the fora where the row had originated. You'd want people to say on the record that they thought less of you, or thought no less of you, depending on who was making the approach.

That seems not to be the nature of this criminal case, although of course I know nothing more about it than what's in the press.

Absolutely right 4th Cuirassier – TARGET!

Man oh man, where were you back in the day when I was left on my own on this forum to try to point out that Hoffie wasn't saying anything new!

(I was using Sparker back in those days, got my account locked for my trouble hence my current monicker. Still, he who laughs last laughs longest, eh!)

Peter Hofschroer trial: Police and my brother framed me, he claims

link

Phil the 4th. I grew up with Blandfords and similar so my knowledge of Prussian or even DB involvement was limited. So the modern age of publications has been interesting to me. You, well you obviously know far more than me, but for me, I have enjoyed the in depth modern books and the coverage they provide to me. Me.

Thanks

Marc

Having been on the receiving end of Hofschroer's bile, all I can say is ἐπιχαιρεκακία, or if you prefer, schadenfreude.

Peter Anthony Hofschroer, 60, who specialises in the Napoleonic Wars, denied that he had used a Prussian regiment name for an account on a website of indecent images…He claimed he was the victim of a conspiracy between a fellow military historian who won defamatory damages in a court case against him, the judge in that case and a Duke; and that he had evidence of senior people linked to North Yorkshire Police engaging in al fresco sex with Jimmy Savile on the North York Moors.

link

Looks to have been adjourned until Monday

Trial (Part Heard) – Resume – 10:37
Trial (Part Heard) – Case adjourned until 10:50 – 10:42
Trial (Part Heard) – Witness Number 7 Continues – 10:57
Trial (Part Heard) – Case adjourned until 11:50 – 11:38
Trial (Part Heard) – No Event – 11:58
Trial (Part Heard) – Case adjourned until 14:10 – 12:56
Trial (Part Heard) – No Event – 14:15
Trial (Part Heard) – Prosecution Closing Speech – 14:45
Trial (Part Heard) – PETER ANTHONY HOFSCHROER; Defence Closing Speech – 15:06
Trial (Part Heard) – Case adjourned until 10:30 – 15:40

link

You got your account locked for being an utter ****…

No he didn't. What a thing to say.

Agree-good posting.

While he does seem to have a evil streak against detractors I have a few books of his I go to regularly.
But personally have nothing against him.

Like others on this site, I was the subject of virulent attacks by Peter and some of his defenders after I challenged his use of evidence concerning the timing of General Zieten's message to Wellington on the 15 June 1815 in an article published in the journal First Empire in 2005. When I tried to debate matters of substance, all I received in return was Peter's allegation that I was only criticizing him because I was leaving my job as the chief historian at NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe and needed the support of Peter's critics to get a new job with the company that was taking over management of the Waterloo battlefield. Needless to say there was no truth in that allegation; I finally retired from NATO last summer – 10 years after I was allegedly looking for a new post – upon reaching the maximum age for NATO civil servants. Peter and I started off as friends in the mid-1990s, sharing source material through frequent correspondence, for which I remain grateful, and I even invited him to give a lecture on his research to the SHAPE Military History Society in 1998, at which time he was a guest at my house for dinner. Our parting of the ways came later on, after I started reading the German sources and objected to his allegations that the Prussian historian Julius von Pflugk-Harttung supported Peter's views on the arrival time for Zieten's message to Wellington when in fact the opposite was the case. I also discovered that his citation of a key piece of Peter's evidence concerning the timing of the message did not come from a "journal" by Zieten (thus presumably from 1815) but instead from a ridiculously inaccurate autobiography written in 1839. I then published my research in 2005 and the attacks against me on various Napoleonic websites began. And when my translation of Clausewitz's history of the campaign of 1815 (On Waterloo: Clausewitz, Wellington and the Campaign of 1815) appeared in 2010, a "John Elton" (a name that sounded a lot like the deceased Napoleonic historian John Elting) immediately published a review on amazon.com giving it one star and calling it a "cobbled-together rip-off" of Hofschroer's book On Wellington: A Critique of Waterloo, even though my book had been published on the internet before that one appeared in print. I noted that this reviewer's other amazon reviews consisted of 5-star hymns of praise for all of Hofschroer's works using wording that was quite familiar to me from past internet encounters, so I asked amazon to check if this reviewer's ISP was the same as that of Peter Hofschroer's. They would neither confirm nor deny this but removed all reviews by "John Elton". So it is accurate to say that Peter and I are no longer friends, but I am still saddened to read of the current turn of events. I had read of the charges against him last year but had not followed the story since then. Like other posters, I have nothing to say about the facts of the case and will simply await the results of the British justice system. I can, however, respond to some of the other comments in this thread concerning Peter's ability to translate German into English. His translations are good, and I said so in a review I published of volume 2 of his book in The Age of Napoleon many years ago. He deserves credit for making available to English-speaking readers many important German sources, particularly the unit-level accounts. But he is at times very selective in his translations, leaving out anything that contradicts his theories about Wellington, even in the paragraph he is quoting, which means that those who do not read German do not get the whole picture.

This is an extremely well measured response to this posting. The whole thing seems tragic to me….

Guilty on all 16 counts. Two and a half years and on the sex offenders register for life.
link

Looks like he's been found guilty and sentenced to 30 months.
link

Sorry, I was beaten to the punch there….. nothing to see here

As he's been in custody for 19 months I guess he will be out soon.

I am not surprised to hear he has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act.