Talk:Other Losses

Is this article about Baque?

Is this article about the alleged abuse of German POWs or about some douchbag french canadian novelist (note: not historian) that no one has ever heard of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.88.111 (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone Abused POWs

My grandfather personally witnessed the British shooting a captured, disarmed soldier for picking up a cigarette. However, his stay in England as a POW was otherwise uneventful (although much longer than it should have been). A coworker of mine who was stationed in Germany (I am American, BTW) once told me a story about an old bus driver he knew on base who used to toss a cigarette butt between two German POWS just to see them fight over it. According to him, this guy once saw a POW stab another to death in such a fight- this to demonstrate what animals the Germans are. So Americans still have their issues about the war, still to this day. All that hatred has to go somewhere. People need to feel they have something over you. The victors write the history books. What I have to say, well, that's just some family heirloom or an old wives' tale.

Still, you would think that the horrible conditions in the Soviet-sector German refugee camps would make it into some American book somewhere. You would think that 1000 German children starving to death _per day_ would attract somebody's attention. You would think that the French policy of randomly killing German boys (some as young as 8 or 9 years of age- they were deathly afraid of ex-NAPOLA and AHS students) would warrant some kind of outcry by even the West German government. But no. The Germans were always too interested in making nice with everybody and still are; a completely misguided, obescient, and sickening worldview on their part.

If America had been exposed to anything like this, we would still be waging WW2 until the last of us were dead. Maybe that's why people are still so suspicious of the Germans, one because of a secret fear of reprisal, but also out of loathing for a people who could take such outlandish abuse lying down. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-Nazi in any way, but there are certain things that people simply shouldn't swallow... if you do, it reflects badly on you.

Who cares about the Nazis?

My grandfather was in the first infantry division to meet the Russian forces in Germany. He said it made him feel proud that Germans civilians were trying to reach US troops to surrender, rather than be left to the Russians. His unit was processing so many POWs and civilians that the Russians advanced farther than the US commanders had wanted. He said the surrenders were slowing them down way more than any German opposition. Clearly there were a ton of POWs to deal with. After the German surrender, his unit did house-to-house searches for weapons. He said they had to confiscate any guns, including antiques and hunting rifles, and destroy them. After that, they did security patrols. He said during the winter food shortage was a big problem. He said they had extra food but were ordered not to give it to civilians, but he said they sometimes gave out the MREs they didn't like anyway. He said the there were lots of families with lots of kids, and the poor families before had relied on hunting. He said he used to go hunting and leave the game on the porches of families he thought needed food. He said if *they* had been caught, they were supposed to be shot, but would have probably just been disciplined. So, from my grandfather's account, there was a order that anyone providing food to German civilians would be shot. But he couldn't have done what he did without some help or at least indifference of some sort from other solders... you can't shoot a deer, drag it into town, and dump it on a doorstep without anyone knowing. I know every unit and every place in German was probably different, and just because his superiors probably ignored what he and some other solders were doing doesn't mean it was the same everywhere else. But, he did say he thought there was some unreasonable desire from higher up to make Germans civilians suffer from hunger.

Was there a point to all this babbling? If there's something in the article that needs improvement, describe it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.223.98 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite see how this could be described as "babbling". Thank you for your thoughtful and self-critical contribution, it's appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.154.5 (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

One point; it is demonstrably untrue to say that 'victors write the history books'. This is one of those cheap-cynical, third-hand ideas that get tossed about and repeated by the unthinking. It should be clear that *everyone* writes history books. It is just that in unfree countries, only one side is heard. But that does not have to be the winning side, if the unfree govt. lost the war in question. 76.2.154.213 (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Senator Capehart

I pulled this from an old Wikipedia entry on Capehart.

Homer E. Capehart From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Revision as of 08:46, 31 July 2002; view current revision ← Older revision | Newer revision →

Senator Homer E. Capehart of Indiana addressed the United States Senate February 5, 1946 concerning this United States administration, which has been carrying on the deliberate policy of mass starvation (of Germans)without any distinction between the innocent and the helpless and the guilty alike."...

The senator said in part:

"The fact can no longer be suppressed, namely, the fact that is has been and continues to be, the deliberate policy of a confidential and conspiratorial clique within the policy-making circles of this government to draw and quarter a nation now reduced to abject misery...'In this process this clique, like a pack of hyenas struggling over the bloody entrails of a corpse, and inspired by a sadistic and fanatic hatred, are determined to destroy the German nation and the German people, no matter what the consequences."... "At Potsdam the representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Socialist Republics solemnly signed the following declaration of principles and purposes: "It is not the intention of the Allies to destroy or enslave the German people."

"Mr. President, the cynical and savage repudiation of these solemn declarations which has resulted in a major catastrophe, cannot be explained in terms of ignorance or incompetence. This repudiation, not only of the Potsdam Declaration, but also of every law of God and men, has been deliberately engineered with such a malevolent cunning, and with such diabolic skill, that the American people themselves have been caught in an international death trap."...

For nine months now this administration has been carrying on a deliberate policy of mass starvation without any distinction between the innocent and the helpless and the guilty alike."...

The first issue has been and continues to be merely humanitarian. This vicious clique within this administration that has been responsible for the policies and practices which have made a madhouse of central Europe has not only betrayed our American principles, but they have betrayed the GI's who have suffered and died, and they continue to betray the American GIs who have to continue their dirty work for them."...

"The second issue that is involved is the effect this tragedy in Germany has already had on the other European countries. Those who have been responsible for this deliberate destruction of the German state and this crimimal mass starvation of the German people have been so zealous in their hatred that all other interests and concerns have been subordinated to this one obsession of revenge. In order to accomplish this it mattered not if the liberated countries in Europe suffered and starved. To this point this clique of conspirators have addressed themselves:'Germany is to be destroyed. What happens to other countries of Europe in the process is of secondary importance."

Senator Homer. E Caphart of Indiana's remarks were interspersed with a mass of supporting evidence.

Conspiracy-minded isolationist(at that time) Senator making wild charges about the Administrations motives to damage it - a lot of this 'supporting evidence' is found in bios of the Senator, and turns out to be accounts of incidents in occupied Germay. Not a sign of any evidence for Capehart's charges as to motivation. Why not put in references to some of this stuff, so readers can see what is involved? 76.2.154.213 (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Morgenthau Plan

I think this page would benefit from being put in context. The pages:

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

and the

Morgenthau Plan

Should give an idea of what else whas going on at the time, and where Eisenhower might have gotten his ideas, if indeed he was the criminal some people claim.

I realy don't know how to enter the links in the article though. Maybe it needs a section "further reading"?

Eisenhower and Morgenthau Plan

The Morgenthau Plan was a plan for the occupation of Germany after her surrender. It advocated partitioning of Germany into two nations, annexation of her main natural resources, the destruction of all heavy industry and mining, the conversion of the new "east" and "south" -german nations into primarily agricultural with some light industry. In his book Germany is Our Problem Morgenthau outlines his plan, including the part that Germans be utilised for forced labor outside its borders as reparations.

Eisenhower seems to have approved of this plan to the extent that he released 1000 free copies to his military officials in occupied Germany.

Dietrich is refering to a Stephen Ambrose book for Eisenhowers free release of a thousand copies of the Morgenthau Plan to the military officials in occupied Germany. John Dietrich. The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (2002) pg. 27.

Eisenhower later insisted that the free distribution did not "constitude approval or disapproval of the views expressed.". Ambrose concludes that "There can be little doubt, however, that at the time, Eisenhower definitively did approve, just as there can be little doubt that in the August 1944 conversation Eisenhower gave Morgenthau at least some of his ideas on the treatment of Germany."

Dietrich references the following: Stephen Ambrose, Eisenhower: Soldier, General of the Army, President-Elect, p.422.

Stor stark7 16:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Reality of Eisenhower and American Policy

I removed the following: This was mainly because Ike was a political general and not a fighting man himself during the war, therefore didn't understand the link between soldiers on the battle field that his fighting generals did. He was merely carrying out the policies of the US Government without regard to Geneva protocol, especially with regards to the up and coming Nuremberg Trials and the treatment of many officers who would testify.

It is a personal conclusion that is not warrented by anything in the article or referenced. My reason for his hostility to German POWs, seeing the death camps, has been widely documented.Arodb 20:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that it ignores that Eisenhower already had 30 years in the military before the war started -in the infantry, tanks during WWI, etc. Rmhermen 00:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Marked as POV

The heading of the article begins not with a review of Eisenhower and German POWs, but with a summary of the allegations issued by one extremely controversial author. Bacque's views may deserve a discussion on Wikipedia, but the overview of this article should lay out the broad outline of the debate, not present one side and relegate the well-supported majority position to a section after the table of contents.

This is hardly the only problem with this article; I'll be documenting the rest, and hopefully rewriting a great deal of it, in the coming weeks. But for the time being, the article's structure is totally non-NPOV in that it gives undue space and prominence to one historical position.

Please sign any responses to this comment.

Rocketfairy 02:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-write the intro paragraph, then. Put the Bacque info in a subsection. I also don't think that belongs in the intro either. Anyway, you were flagging the entire article as POV, not the section.Ernham 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the directions; in the meanwhile, there is an outstanding POV dispute about the article (I note you still haven't answered any of my concerns about framing), and Template:POV-check makes it clear that Template:POV is the appropriate tag for an article with such a dispute.

To recap my issues: The article starts not with an overall discussion of the subject and the supported points of view, but with "allegations". If it is a page about Bacque's views, it should be retitled; if it is a page about Eisenhower and German POWs, it should be comprehensive and not given such staggeringly unequal prominence to one point of view. Yes, the article should be edited; in the meanwhile, the POV tag helps put readers and editors on notice that the page needs work. Rocketfairy 03:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't like the intro paragraph? Change it. I tire of playing these games with you and sounding like a broken record. The wiki has both POVs, the intro is poorly written and predominantly deals with one side of the POVs. So fix it. Puttin POV on the wiki does not fix it.Ernham 21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A POV tag -- indicating a dispute, since there obviously is one -- is appropriate in the interim, while I edit the intro. The intro (probably the most widely read part of the article) gives undue prominence and weight to the minority position, and virtually none to the majority, contra WP:WEIGHT.

If you don't like the POV tag, resolve the POV dispute. --Rocketfairy 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong title

The article should be renamed:

• Eisenhauer represented USA. He wasn't the king of Germany.
• What happened to the POWs? and according to the title.

Xx236 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially since the content on the page includes forced labor and food policy issues that extend well beyond Eisenhower. Perhaps the specific charges against Ike should be on their own page, with overall charges against against the allies on another page. Gomm 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this was a headache maker. There are both merits and demerits to your argument. My main concern is that all things are interconnected in various ways.

Take the forced labor issues. Bacque charged that a large number of those transferred to France for forced labor died in French hands. Therefore we need a section explaining the forced labor. The Eisenhower connection is that he was involved in forced labor as regards the transfer of forced labor to France.

Or take the food issue. Bacque charged that the prisoners in the camps run by Eisenhower were deliberately starved by Eisenhower. Ambrose responded that there was a global food shortage, and that anyway the prisoners were given the same rations as were given to German civilians. Therefore it is important to have a section on food policy in occupied Germany.

My take is that we do not need any splitting up, but rather a restructure of the article. I've been planning to do it for a long time, but it just feels overwhelming, and might actually require reading both Bacques book, and Ambroses Eisenhower center proceedings to have a clear idea of what is the best structure. My feeling is that what is lacking is a clear understanding of what specific points Bacque charged and what Ambroses defence was for each. The article should start with that intro to the dispute together with what appears to be current consensus, then each Bacque charge right next to Ambrose rebuttal and also include a section with undisputed context information for each sub-topic they battled about.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I too have considered how this article may be better structured, but (like you) find it a bit overwhelming. If you have not yet done so, I would strongly urge to you read Bacque's book - I have, and discovered that there is much evidence to support his claims. I would also caution against giving Ambrose's comments too much credibility in this article; his reputation as a reliable historian is now somewhat questionable, and he did admit that he was not well versed in this particular topic. Logicman1966 (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

"German infant mortality rate was twice that of other nations in Western Europe until the close of 1948" And what was the infant mortality rate in nations destroyed by Germany in Eastern Europe ? It would be interesting to know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.27.70.170 (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

The article should be renamed

Allegations of James Bacque regarding Eisenhower and German POWs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.70.170 (talk)

Agreed--or merged with James Bacque. --Rocketfairy 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: Bacque brought topics to the surface that "reputable" historians failed to address either through sheer incompetence, or more likely because of cowardice, i.e. fear that it might harm their career to touch such an emotional/controversial subject. That Bacque, presumably, overestimated the number casualties does not detract from the fact that U.S. treatment of POW's is a notable enough topic that it merits space here as its own topic. I think the name is just fine. --Stor stark7 ^Talk 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No doubt there's a need for a general page on the topic, but this page doesn't provide a general overview; it is about Bacque's theories, as well as mainstream reactions to them. As before, it (including everything in the intro) is about his theories, not about the topic overall. Either the article should be reframed to conform with WP:WEIGHT or its actual topic should be clarified. --Rocketfairy 01:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The article would benefit from being restructured, true. As it is, the only Bacque related text is in the short intro, while there is a large "Defence of Eisenhower subsection further down. The rest of the article is taken from other scholarly sources and just describes the situation. My suggestion is that we create a "controversy" subsection where we state Bacques and Ambroses positions, and only mention Bacque in the intro as the one who forced the topic to the surface. The rest of the intro should be devoted to what is actually established and was never challenged by Abbrose (I think), e.g. the U.S. refusal to allow the Red Cross to visit the camps, the use of the Soldiers for forced labor, relabeling them as Disarmed Enemy Forces in order to circumvent the Geneva conventions, much higher mortality rates amongst U.S. captives than amongst British captives etc. I still think Eisenhower's name should be included in the title, since as far as I can tell he basically had the final say on topics such as whether German soldiers should be handed over to the French and Russians. Since much of Ambroses refutal of Bacques cassualty figures rests on the food situation, apparently not touching the other deprivations, I think having a section on the general German food situation is also important. Reading the headings of the letters in response to Ambroses review of Bacque was interesting by the way [1]--Stor stark7 ^Talk 14:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only Bacque !

This article implies that Bacque (and perhaps one or two others) is the only person making these claims against Eisenhower - this is incorrect. I am currently undertaking further research on this topic, and can already add the following people to the list :

1. Martin Brech – he wrote the book “In Eisenhower's Death Camps: A U.S. Prison Guard's Story”, in which he describes his personal experiences in Germany after the war.

2. Colonel Ernest F. Fisher, 101st Airborne Division, Senior Historian, United States Army – he wrote "Starting in April 1945, the United States Army and the French Army casually annihilated one million [German] men, most of them in American camps . . . Eisenhower's hatred, passed through the lens of a compliant military bureaucracy, produced the horror of death camps unequalled by anything in American history . . . an enormous war crime."

3. General Robert Littlejohn - in a memorandum, he informed Eisenhower that 1,550,000 Germans who were supposed to be receiving U.S. army rations were getting nothing.

4. Colonel James Mason and Colonel Charles Beasley, U.S. Army Medical Corps – they published a paper on the US prison camps in 1950, including the following description : "Huddled close together for warmth, behind the barbed wire was a most awesome sight; nearly 100,000 haggard, apathetic, dirty, gaunt, blank-staring men clad in dirty gray uniforms, and standing ankle deep in mud."

5. Max Huber, head of the International Red Cross – he wrote a letter to the U.S. State Department describing American interference in efforts to save starving Germans. Some months later he received a response, falsely claiming that giving Red Cross food to enemy personnel was forbidden.

6. Jean-Pierre Pradervand, head of the International Red Cross delegations in France - in late 1945 he told Henry W. Dunning (an American Red Cross official) that conditions in the French camps were worse, in many instances, than anything seen in the former Nazi camps.

And the list is still growing...

It is quite disgraceful that there appears to be an on-going deliberate attempt to cover up the atrocities committed by the US army in Germany after the war. I welcome further discussion, after which I intend to add the above material (and more) to the article.Logicman1966 12:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

---

This article is complete BS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.129.54 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Freedom of Information - UK sources

[British sources on starvation of Germans http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/apr/03/uk.freedomofinformation] What Allies in UK hid from the public for many decades, some evidence nevertheless remains

Also read wikipedia Bad Nenndorf. British were courtmarshalled for this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.201.57 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Handing prisoners between allies

See also Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II/Archive 4#Niall_Ferguson

I have removed this sentence: "Violating the Geneva Convention of 1929, large numbers of German prisoners were transferred between the Allies." Because it is not true that it violated Geneva Convention (1929). Article 12 paragraph 2 was added to the Third_Geneva_Convention (1949) to cover this case see the ICRC commentary on the 12 Article paragraph 2 "The Conference of Government Experts gave immediate support to the proposal to prohibit any transfer of prisoners of war from a Power which was a party to the Convention to one which was not" (and if it had been in force during 1945 would have prohibited transfer from the Western Allies to the USSR which was not a signatory to the 1929 Geneva Convention). But the new article explicitly allows for the transfer between allies who are also signatories of the Geneva conventions. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Diction

"offers by Western European nations to trade food for desperately needed German coal and machinery were rejected. Neither the Italians nor the Dutch could sell the vegetables that they had previously sold in Germany, with the consequence that the Dutch had to destroy considerable proportions of their crop. Denmark offered 150 tons of lard a month; Turkey offered hazelnuts"

Turkey isn't a Western European nation. It isn't even a European nation.

194.46.229.92 (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

---Turkey isn't a European nation? That's up for debate, and there is no clear right or wrong side on that debate. However, excluding Turkey completely from Europe is problematic. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.83.239 (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A short obseration

I read "Other Losses" here in Canada immediately after publication. I remembering well my own childhood experiences in the British zone with lack of food in the post-war years. Raising livestock for protein was stictly 'verboten' and harshly punished with harsh penalties. We survived on the Canadian chocolate rations that my mother took in barter payment from Canadian military personnel. I watched playmates be deformed with rickets from near starvation.

When the book broke I asked my father -- a Luftwaffe squadron leader and base commander who served in northern Norway -- what had happened at the end of the war to his squadron. Not knowing anything about James Baque's book, he told me that he managed to fly his entire command down to Denmark for the surrender. There they were separated and shipped to the allied POW and DEF camps depending on where they had come from. After he was finally released from a British camp with some ration cards he regrouped the family near Oldenburg. He then tried hard to find his comrades. Having lost only a handful of people who served on the base during the war itself, it bothered him bitterly to the end of his life that, almost half of those he surrendered alive in Denmark in 1945 never made it home. Tracing them with the help of those that did survive, he knows that most of those that went into the US DEF camps (which I believe were in the Rhineland area) were sent into slave labour service in France and handed over to Soviets in the eastern zone never to be heard from again.

I can't attest to the veracity of the claims of Baque's book, only report what my father told me. 64.56.235.32 (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC) GMS

You can read some comments to Ambroses NYT review of Baqcues book here[2], some of them would seem to confirm at least part of Bacques claims.

As for Denmark, soldiers were not the only ones to get the short end of the stick there. A Legacy of Dead German Children, and [3], [4].

As to the slave labor, this documentary snippet shows an example of it [5], if you know Norwegian you learn from the narrator that after having made them clear a field the British soldiers then forced the Germans to walk back and forth over it to detonate any remaining blinds, often with their feet.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 14:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To Say This Article is a Mess Would Be A Huge Understatement

Just to start with, it's incredibly oddly titled "Eisenhower and German POWs", while much of the article has nothing to do with German POWs. And it actually goes downhill from there. I think the title was an attempt to capture the title of Ambrose's book "Eisenhower and the German POWs", though that would make it even more odd for a Wikipedia article title.

Literally almost all of a large section of the article purporting to chronicle the entirety of food policy history in post-war Allied Germany essentially just parroted an essay by a Canadian named Richard Dominic that was originally from his PHd dissertation. It was thrown in as a chapter in a book published in 2003, the best source of which is a link to a Word document on some guy's website. Maybe he threw it up into Google Books, too. Moreover, this section of the article contained even citation errors from this virtually unknown essay.

Regarding the entire article, rather than the facts being added to various other Wikipedia articles about post-war Germany, this article appears to just throw together a few scholars claims of some sort of War Crimes violations related to overall conditions in post-war Germany, with a humorously tiny "Defense of Eisenhower" section thrown in at the bottom perhaps in some sort of odd attempt to add "balance". As if this were the place for some sort of debate.

In short, the existence of this article is about as appropriate for an encyclopedia (i.e., Wikipedia) as an internet bulletin board post from an argument on post-war Germany.

It should almost certainly be deleted, with its contents merged into the appropriate articles on the many actual Encyclopedic subjects on post-war Germany, and any discussions of controversy added there where appropriate.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I can't really decipher what the book is about due to all of the other references discrediting "Other Losses". It makes it very hard to find out what is in the book and what isn't. A good start in my humble opinion would be to break the article up as previously suggested, leaving the information about what the book is about as it is, and then adding a section underneath with critics views...MrAnderson7 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just did that. I didn't even realize it, but there wasn't even a section discusses the claims of Other Losses. There was sort of a weird section with information about the Morgenthau plan, etc.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to section - Reliability of Bacque's claims

I propose making 2 changes to this section :

1. significantly prune down the length of the quote from Ambrose; much of it is fluff and does not add value to the article. He was not considered an expert on this subject, and as an aside, his credibility is somewhat questionable.

2. break the section into 2 parts, eg. "evidence supporting Bacque's claims", and "evidence contradicting Bacque's claims". At the moment it's all jumbled together. On that note, we also need a separate section that properly summarises Bacque's claims.

Any objections to these changes? Logicman1966 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there really any historians who support Bacque's claims? The impression I have at the moment is there aren't. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Although you would not know it from the article, historians who reject Bacque's claims appear to be a minority and many of the critics are not historians. Colonel Ernest Fisher who was a senior historian at the US Army Center for Military History in Washington contributed much of the research and supports the claims as do many notable war historians (Tolstoy, Hoffmann, De Zayas etc). In fact the main critic of the book Stephen Ambrose also intially supported the claims and admits he hasn't done any research on the subject himself but relies on other critics. A big plus for the book is that the claims in the book, made by Bacque in regards to prisoners in Soviet custody, were confirmed when the KGB released it's files after the book was published. Of course that doesn't mean Bacque's other claims are proven. Wayne (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to qualify what I said. Historians largely accept Bacque's claims. The numbers in those claims are disputed which would still be the case if he had said only a few thousand died. Bacque makes no claim the numbers are exact, they are his estimates and as valid as any made by his critics until research can prove otherwise. Wayne (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is just utterly false in virtually every regard, and that you stated "as do many notable war historians" followed by Nikolai Dmitrievich Tolstoy-Miloslavsky and Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, well, that pretty much says it all. Back int he world of real historians, what they support is the idea that that conditions were extremely harsh, especially in the the Rheinwiesenlager. But this was known, oh, 40 years ago, and laid out in a much more professional manner than Bacque. In terms of:

• Bacque's overlal death count: zero credible historians.
• Bacque's analysis of the "other losses" column in the weekly reports: zero credible historians
• Bacque's charge that Eisenhower was behind the non-GC designation (DEF for U.S.) for some nefarious purpose: zero credible historians
• Bacque's charge that anything remotely like a massive holocaust like this could have occurred just in terms of hiding the bodies, let alone the massive cover up that it would have required: zero credible historians.

The cold hard reality in terms of academic reputation now is that James Bacque is a novelist who dabbled in historical waters, sold a bunch of books initially and then was so eviscerated by the historians that examined his work, that he's essentially viewed as a historical clown to whom serious historians no longer even pay attention.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No Mosedschurte, it is you who are wrong. "zero credible historians"? - what about Colonel Ernest Fisher? He was for many years a senior historian with the United States Army Center for Military History in Washington; he completely endorses Bacque's claims. If you had actually read the book 'Other Losses' you would know that it containes an extensive list of references, many of them official US Army documents or statements from witnesses. Your so-called 'serious historians' are notorious for simply parroting what their colleagues say, and for maintaining the status quo by sticking to previously accepted versions of history. Logicman1966 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The article relies too much on the New Orleans conference. It should be pared down quite a bit. Other historians views should get more coverage. What is overlooked is that Ambrose, as director of the Eisenhower museum, has a conflict of interest as do many historians from the U.S. I know from bitter personal experience (from writing a mini bio on MacArthur) that American historians don't want to hear anything negative about Americans. Bacque's follow up book repeats the claims yet is generally accepted by historians as it provides considerably more evidence in support although he is still accused of exaggerating the numbers. For example many POWs are recorded as transfered to hospitals yet the hospitals own detailed records have no record of their arrival. In mid 1945 the total of POWs in U.S. camps was arbitrarily reduced by 1 million. Bretzenheim camp is just one example of why..when it was turned over to the French, U.S. records listed 210,000 inmates, the French counted only 170,000 so the number was altered without any records existing of the fate of the missing 40,000. Bacque may be exagerating but no one else, including his critics, are doing any research to find the correct numbers. Wayne (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: "has a conflict of interest as do many historians from the U.S. I know from bitter personal experience (from writing a mini bio on MacArthur) that American historians don't want to hear anything negative about Americans."

You've seriously got to be kidding. And the claim that " Bacque's follow up book repeats the claims yet is generally accepted by historians" is a serious laugh. How on Earth can you with a straight face claim that it is "generally accepted by historians" that the "other losses" column in U.S. army weekly reports was actually a "body count" of the death of nearly one million soldiers covered up by the entirety of the U.S. and British staffs and administrative armies, German soldiers and media, etc. with no bodies and the like. Where is this flood of like-minded historians making these claims of about the "other losses" columns and figuring out where the bodies must be hidden?

Check that. I just noticed your 9/11 conspiracy article edits. This conversation clearly isn't going anywhere.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you had "noticed my 9/11 conspiracy article edits" a little more closely you would have noticed that almost all my edits are still in the article. Also you need to read what people write. I said the numbers were disputed which shoots down most of your diatribe. You are not American are you? Wayne (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of section 'treatment of prisoners'

Mosedschurte, I notice that you have deleted the section 'treatment of prisoners' which I added only a few hours ago. Why did you do that? Yes, you did move much of the material to other sections, but it's not as clear any more. This is an important topic that I believe deserves its own section. Indeed, I was just about to add more material to it.

Of more concern, a number of statements such as - "The US camps consisted of open fields surrounded by barbed wire; no shelter of any kind was provided. The prisoners slept on the ground in the open, even though the US army had plenty of surplus tents." have disappeared altogether. Why? Again, this is important stuff, because it is further evidence against the ridiculously low 'official' US Army death rate in the camps.

Please discuss further, otherwise I will put the material back in. Logicman1966 (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. The text you added was moved to prisoner deaths section of the Other Losses claims seciton, where the other text directly addressing that issue was, for the simple reason that the conditions therein was the purported reason that those prisoners died.Mosedschurte (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Villa as a source

I have started to examine more closely the claims made by Villa, and notice that he often distorts/misrepresents what Bacque actually said. I must conclude that either [a] he is sloppy and careless in attention to detail, or [b] has a deliberate agenda to discredit Bacque. Either way, I call into question Villa's value as a source. I am going to go through the whole article and carefully check each of Villa's claims, and correct those that are wrong. Logicman1966 (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you're questioning an actual professor of history at the University of Ottawa specializing in World War II history who has won multiple historical book prizes and the AHA's Birdsall prize regarding a book by a amateur-historian novelist alleging a mass conspiracy behind the secret holocaust-like death of one million Germans? There's a new one. And guess what, you won't be "correcting" anything Villa says, as that's the source, and we'll be going to ANI if you think you can replace the source's words with your own. That's reality.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Good God, I just looked at your "edit" and you inserted the phrase that "However, this is a complete misinterpretation of what Bacque actually says; on the subject of myths, Bacque states 'the vast crimes of the gulags were hidden behind Stalin's smiling portait painted six storeys high'", which not only was utterly bizarre and entirely mischaracterized Villa's statement, but it had absolutely nothing to do with anything in the paragraph.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't bother to properly check what I wrote; I DID NOT mischaracterise Villa's statement, what I am saying is that Villa has misquoted Bacque. Let's be very clear here - Villa claims that Bacque said that the gulags were a myth invented by the US. But Bacque has NEVER SAID such a thing. The quote I added to the article is taken directly from Other Losses; that is what he actually says about gulags and myths.

That Villa is a professor of history is immaterial; if he misrepresents what somebody says, then he's wrong. I AM NOT replacing the source's words with my own, I am providing a quote directly from Bacque to demonstrate that Villa misrepresented him (not the only time, either). Do you agree that Villa got it wrong? Logicman1966 (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not that their existence was a myth, but that their scale was myth as part of the alleged cover up of the conspiracy. And by inserting your own interpretation that he's wrong, you would have been, of course, injecting your own interpretation into a Wikipedia article. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I note that you have made a subtle change to the text ("the Soviet gulags were a myth" → "the scale of Soviet gulags were a myth"). That's better, but still not right. At least you have conceded that the original text was WRONG, that was my objective. The quote from Bacque that I added (which you now deleted) is the ONLY reference to gulags and myths in the entire book. If you are saying that Bacque claims the size/number of gulags was EXAGGERATED (better wording of that sentence), where does he say this? What he does say is that the US tried to blame a disproportionally large number of German POW deaths on the Soviets. Logicman1966 (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it's not me saying it, it's Villa. Second, if we were to jump in with our own versions of mischaracterizations into this article, the "Claims of Other Losses" section would literally be chock full of links to the things Bacque has mischaracterized, some of which are in the criticism section. Rather, we're just leaving it with Bacque's claims. If you'd like to add related information in the "Related Information" section, feel free, but do not mischaracterize Villa's claims.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)