James Bacque's "Other Losses" Eisenhower's Death C

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
JLEES
Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 26 Apr 2002, 05:01
Location: Michigan, USA

James Bacque's "Other Losses" Eisenhower's Death C

#1

Post by JLEES » 15 Jun 2005, 01:49

Over the past few months I've read several times about James Bacque new book. In fact, one writer on this forum has said in a locked string that Bacque's book "OTHER LOSSES" reportedly states that under Eisenhower's orders 1 million German prisoners were killed by starvation and exposure in 1945-46. Yet, when looking at the reports on his book it states that 1 1/2 million German POWs died in French, Soviet and USA POW camps after the war. In the past I've read that 1 in 3 German POWs that surrendered in 1945 died in Soviet captivity and this alone can account for 1 1/2 million German troops. This was not under Eisenhower's orders; there is a difference. Nevertheless, after doing some basic research I've uncovered some reviews of Basque's book and it has not been complimentary.

For example, Stephan Ambrose who wrote about the book has blasted it and wrote a few comments that people should read before they choose to continue quoting it:

"If there were a million dead, where are the bodies? Did Eisenhower have such vast power that he could order starvation on a mass scale and keep it a secret? Was the undoubted suffering in the camps, especially the transit camps along the Rhine, the result of Eisenhower's policy or the result of the chaotic conditions that prevailed in Europe in the spring and summer of 1945?"

"Mr. Bacque, a Canadian novelist with no previous historical research or writing experience"

Although Ambrose admits that German POWs were abused he goes on to say, "when scholars do the necessary research, they will find Mr. Bacque's work to be worse than worthless. It is seriously - nay, spectacularly - flawed in its most fundamental aspects. Mr. Bacque misuses documents; he misreads documents; he ignores contrary evidence; his statistical methodology is hopelessly compromised; he makes no attempt to look at comparative contexts; he puts words into the mouth of his principal source; he ignores a readily available and absolutely critical source that decisively deals with his central accusation; and, as a consequence of these and other shortcomings, he reaches conclusions and makes charges that are demonstrably absurd. "

He goes on to say that Bacque's "book itself - raises a larger issue: how are readers who are not experts to judge a work that makes new, startling, indeed outrageous, claims? Without the knowledge or the time to investigate, how are they to know if an author has finally revealed the truth "after a long night of lies..."

Then writing about the issue of denaziification Ambrose writes, "Mr. Bacque completely misunderstands Eisenhower's position and activity in the occupation. He puts full responsibility on Eisenhower for every policy decision, never recognizing that he had superiors from whom he took policy directives and orders - specifically, the Army Chief of Staff, the European Advisory Commission, acting in the name and with the authority of the British, Soviet and American Governments, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combined Chiefs of Staff, that is, the American Joint Chiefs and the British Chiefs of Staff; and the heads of the British and American Governments."

It also appears that Bacque was selective in reporting the facts about the food situation in 1945. Fort example Ambrose stated that "Mr. Bacque says that the prisoners were receiving 1,550 calories a day, and he contends that such a ration means slow starvation. He apparently never looked at what civilians were getting, in Germany or in the liberated countries. In Paris in 1945, the calorie level was 1,550 for civilians. It was only slightly higher in Britain, where rationing continued. It was much lower in Russia, where rationing also continued. As noted, the official ration for German civilians was 1,550, but often not met. In Vienna in the summer of 1945 the official ration sometimes fell to 500."

And the most damning figure on 1 million dead German POWs....Ambrose states, "With regard to another of Mr. Bacque's conclusions, he arrives at his sensational figure of one million dead through a system of analysis that has left almost everyone who has tried to check his statistics and methods befuddled. He did make one mistake because of a typing error by a clerk. He saw a figure of 70,000 prisoners in an Army medical report and then calculated the total death rate for all prisoners in American hands on the basis of that number and the 21,000 deaths also mentioned in the report. That is, he arrived at his most basic conclusion, a death rate in all camps of 30 percent, by dividing the 21,000 deaths by the 70,000 prisoners. However, the 70,000 figure should have been 10 times higher. All other figures in the document make it clear that the correct number of prisoners was 700,000. This would make the death rate not 30 percent but 3 percent...In fact, as Albert Cowdrey of the Department of the Army's Center of Military History reported to the conference, the overall death rate among German prisoners was 1 percent."

Although Ambrose does admit there were atrocities committed by US soldiers, it was nothing on the scale of what this author is attempting to claim. In fact, Ambrose writes, "In short, Mr. Bacque is wrong on every major charge and nearly all his minor ones. Eisenhower was not a Hitler, he did not run death camps, German prisoners did not die by the hundreds of thousands, there was a severe food shortage in 1945, there was nothing sinister or secret about the "disarmed enemy forces" designation or about the column "other losses." Mr. Bacque's "missing million" were old men and young boys in the militia."

My question is why are people allowed to make these claims and few challenge them? It's obvious Bacque is distorting history to make anti-American modern political points and is getting bashed by skilled historians who know how to do legitimate research. But, why not on this site? Has this book been challenged by others on this site until now? If no, why not?

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/b/bac ... e-001.html
James

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#2

Post by David Thompson » 15 Jun 2005, 02:15

JLEES -- You asked:
My question is why are people allowed to make these claims and few challenge them? It's obvious Bacque is distorting history to make anti-American modern political points and is getting bashed by skilled historians who know how to do legitimate research. But, why not on this site? Has this book been challenged by others on this site until now? If no, why not?


Bacque's books have been repeatedly raised, and repeatedly trashed, in the H&WC section of the forum. The most recent thread sputtered out about two weeks ago:

Mal-treatment of German POWs
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=78538

A name search for "Bacque" in this section of the forum shows 32 threads in which his theories are raised for discussion. These are the main ones:

Eisenhower's guilt?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=10112
50,000 Germans died in US captivity in one small area??
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=12779
James Bacque's work on the deliberate starvation
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=49317
USA dismissed Switzerland as protecting power of German POWS
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=48193
Guess who’s Bacque
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=43792
One million German POWs killed by US/UK?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=27723
Chock Full of Death; German POWs by James Baque
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=17360
Last edited by David Thompson on 15 Jun 2005, 02:27, edited 1 time in total.


Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#3

Post by Dan » 15 Jun 2005, 02:22

But, why not on this site? Has this book been challenged by others on this site until now? If no, why not?


Yes, and anyone who's been looking in at least a couple times a week on this forum has basically come to a conclusion somewhere in the direction of Ambrose. It frankly suprises me that a long time member such as yourself asked the question that you did.

JLEES
Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 26 Apr 2002, 05:01
Location: Michigan, USA

The Book

#4

Post by JLEES » 15 Jun 2005, 03:39

Dan and other readers,
You are correct! I should have done a basic search on this forum before making that statement. In fact, I came across a comment about this book on another forum that caused my posting, but have seen it used as a source before on this site and have now read about this book's comments on this site too. For this error I must apologize.

Nevertheless, it still amazes me this book is quoted often as a valid source, but appears to be nothing more than anti-American propaganda.
James

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

#5

Post by Panzermahn » 15 Jun 2005, 09:01

"Mr. Bacque, a Canadian novelist with no previous historical research or writing experience"
I am perturbed by Mr. Ambrose's scathing attacks on Mr. Bacque, in which Mr. Ambrose isn't an impartial author himself 8O

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#6

Post by David Thompson » 15 Jun 2005, 09:21

Panzermahn -- You said:
I am perturbed by Mr. Ambrose's scathing attacks on Mr. Bacque, in which Mr. Ambrose isn't an impartial author himself
In this thread, the topic is Bacque and the accuracy of his work. If you can show that Bacque is right and Ambrose's (and many others') criticism of Bacque is wrong, step right up. There are some scholarly German reports mentioned at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 238#709238 which also disagree with Bacque, and which have nothing to do with Ambrose. Refute them if you can.

If, however, you want to change the subject to a discussion of Ambrose, post to one of the threads where that's the topic.

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

#7

Post by Marcus » 15 Jun 2005, 17:24

A post by Panzermahn where he continued to talk about Ambrose despite the post by David above was removed.

/Marcus

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”