German POWs

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

IKE THE PIKE...

#31

Post by Scott Smith » 15 Mar 2002, 19:54

Charles wrote:
Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
Both would likely have a vested interest in a certain outcome, of course. Pretty simple, really.

It cannot be denied that Ambrose is America's darling Apple Pie historian, and for him, Ike is as "apple pie" as apple-pie can get without smelling too fishy.
:) :)

Image

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#32

Post by Roberto » 15 Mar 2002, 20:27

Scott Smith wrote:Charles wrote:
Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
Both would likely have a vested interest in a certain outcome, of course. Pretty simple, really.

It cannot be denied that Ambrose is America's darling Apple Pie historian, and for him, Ike is as "apple pie" as apple-pie can get without smelling too fishy.
:) :)

Image

The difference between Ambrose and Tobin most probably lies in the extent to which one and the other are willing to resort to distortion and misrepresentation of the historical record in the name of the "vested interest" they represent. While Ambrose is not exactly my favorite historian, I think he's far more unlikey than Tobin to do so for two very simple reasons, personal integrity aside: He has the facts on his side and a reputation to watch. The dynamics of peer control are always at work.

Here's an interesting message of Smith's from the early days of this forum. It was posted at a time when we had just met and I still thought he was a "thinking American" (I later realized that the capacity for thinking he otherwise has leaves him alone when it comes to matters of Faith):
Hi all,
I ran across this review of Other Losses and I thought it was interesting because of Ambrose's comments, which here seem pretty reasonable. He seems to distance himself a little from the typical we-wore-the-white-hats-so-whatever-we-did-to-them-was-okay argument.

Thanks,
Scott
************************************************************

Source: Time, Oct 2, 1989 v134 n14 p19(1).

Title: Ike's revenge? A new book alleges deliberate U.S. mistreatment of
POWs.

Full Text COPYRIGHT Time Inc. 1989

Along the Rhine in 1945, barbed-wire fences enclosed tightly packed masses of German prisoners of war. Without tents, they dug crude foxholes and hoarded scraps of cardboard against the bitter spring weather. Without food or water, some resorted to eating grass and drinking their urine. Many died of dysentery, pneumonia, exhaustion, brought on by the cruel neglect of their American captors.

So alleges Toronto author James Bacque in Other Losses (Stoddart Publishing), a controversial Canadian best seller that claims at least 960,000 German soldiers died in U.S. and French army camps in the final months of World War II and afterward. They were victims of deliberate neglect, says Bacque, because Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower withheld sustenance from a despised enemy.

The U.S. Army Center of Military History has issued a terse statement that it "does not accept" this interpretation, although historians at the center have read only excerpts. The Army has not commented.

Bacque, 60, whose past works have all been novels, points to a March 10, 1945, message from Eisenhower proposing that German prisoners be deemed "disarmed enemy forces" rather than prisoners of war, since providing the level of rations assured for POWs by the Geneva Convention "would prove far beyond the capacity of the Allies." Ike's request was granted, and adequate food, water and shelter were withheld from the prisoners. Alone among the Western Allies, the U.S. refused to permit Red Cross inspections of its 200 camps.

Bacque's recounting of those policy decisions may hold up to historical scrutiny better than his statistics. His evidence on the death toll in American camps comes from fragmentary, often contradictory Army records. Says historian Arthur L. Smith of California State University, Los Angeles, who has written about German soldiers in the postwar years: "How do you get rid of a million bodies?" Eisenhower biographer Stephen Ambrose also disagrees with Bacque on several key points. Nevertheless, he says, "we as Americans can't duck the fact that terrible things happened. And they happened at the end of a war we fought for decency and freedom, and they are not excusable."
The above was transcribed from Smith's post # 160
(1/9/01 12:50:56 pm) on the thread

Other Losses
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... D=69.topic


Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

Re: German POWs

#33

Post by Charles Bunch » 15 Mar 2002, 23:40

>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?


>Both would likely have a vested interest in a certain outcome, of course. Pretty simple, really.

Nonsense. What vested interest would a panel of scholars have to do anything other than find the truth?

>It cannot be denied that Ambrose is America's darling Apple Pie historian, and for him, Ike is as "apple pie" as apple-pie can get without smelling too fishy.

More nonsense. Ambrose acknowledged certain conduct raised by Bacque. You confuse certain biases historians might have with the willingness to lie about the facts. Deniers such as Tobin at the Adelaide Institute, and Bacque in his book are willing to do that. Ambrose and his conference panel highlighted those lies and offered evidence to support their conclusions. Ambrose's abilities as an historian are irrelevant to that process.

User avatar
ZARATHUSTRA
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 17:02

Ike's death camps

#34

Post by ZARATHUSTRA » 16 Mar 2002, 03:12

I remember a few years back when Stephen Ambrose was being interviewed on a local radio show, a caller asked him his opionion on Bacque's book. I remember Ambrose answering that he had read the book, and that most of Bacque's information was correct other than the death total, which he estimated was only about 75,000. This completely shocked the radio host who asked a few other questions dismayed at what he had just heard.

Now I don't have any proof that he said it, other than what I just said, but I remember it was the reason I bought Bacque's book.
"Your enemy shall ye seek; your war shall ye wage, and for the sake of your thoughts! And if your thoughts succumb, your uprightness shall still shout triumph thereby!"

julian
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 08:54

But wait Charles there's more

#35

Post by julian » 16 Mar 2002, 05:10

I'm not surprised at all your considered answer to evidence of your own perfidity is the eloquent 'No', is the 'does not compute' message flashing up again, don't worry, just shut down and reboot, I'm sure there are no essential files existent that woud be lost in the process. But hey Charles have a squiz at this, being as you are, deeply concerned about lies, deceits and fabrications, I thought I would assist in discovering some more words of wisdom from the Bunchmeister

heres what you wrote on the 21/02 at 6.53am

"There's no need for me to identify anything, you made the mistake, and now you've corrected it. Let's move on to your next mistake."

complimented by this ode to your sanctity on the same day

"The total lack of evidence. I know that's not how you approach history, but I'm old fashioned."

There it is, Charles has identified more shonky thinking, and here he has demonstrated such traits practically

"You wrote on the 13th at 5.28pm:

"To date, virtually everything you've claimed about the POW issue is contradicted by the facts, or is a deliberate distortion of them. "

Let me refresh your memory with evidence of my distortion's, here's what I wrote on the 12th at 2.18pm:

" Of course it is ludicrous to suggest that millions died in western captivity or even eastern given this plausible theory, that would stretch the credulity somewhat, and I can't quite percieve Eisenhower as a mass-murderer as such is implied by Bacque. And I do believe that if such an enormous crime occurred notice would have been served by the usual mob of anti-american groups, I suppose that if the conspiracy theorists can have their XFiles, they can add this to the collection"

So, if the above is an example of distortion and contradicted by the facts, does that mean that I have misunderstood what you are arguing, are you in fact attempting to prove that Eisenhower was a war criminal and Baque's right? Indeed, are you aware at all of what you are endeavouring to say? "

But Charles is not one to be bothered by the truth or let a good falsehood prevent him from proclaiming his virtue. Look he would have you believe this, written on the 28/02 at 4.36

"That's the kind of trouble you get in when you substitute supposing for thinking."

Incredible, and here is Charles demonstrating that very concept,

"Lets just pluck one Buncherism out for starters, here you write on the 13th at 5.28pm:

" The refutation of Bacque's lies, which you traffic with no concern for truth"

Now here's what I wrote a day before on the 12th at 2.18pm:

" Of course it is ludicrous to suggest that millions died in western captivity or even eastern given this plausible theory, that would stretch the credulity somewhat, and I can't quite percieve Eisenhower as a mass-murderer as such is implied by Bacque"

Yes, very obvious isn't it, that I traffic the lie's of Bacques, obvious that is, if your desire to score a point outweighs your ethical concern, but of course Charles I admit you haven't truncated any quote, but merely invented one, but thats just the beginning of your pernacious claims. Take a squiz at this

You wrote on the 14th at 3.13pm:

" Bacque has nothing to do with Mr. Tobin of the Adelaide Institute. You posed Tobin"

So apparently, I'm trafficking Baques lies one moment, than when such proves inconvienent for your arguments, I'm posing Tobin? Hmm, you must have a fabulous imagination, sort of provides a balance for your paucity of truth, but wait, there's more fine examples of a vivid imagination at work "

Yes Charles I am very impressed the way your glib statements bare no relevance to your performance, it must have been no mean feat to totally repudiate every pithy maxim you espouse, but wait, thats not all here is another of Bunch's homilies on truth, justice and having your hand on it
written on 28/02 at 3.30pm

"You don't get to define the event any way you want so you can then claim you're not denying it."

or cop this one written on the same day

"Historical truth is not an opinion, but something established by evidence"

"They are contestable only by people who deny evidence because they wish to disbelieve "

Is there another Charles Bunch, one just as Breathtakingly stupid, whose pronouncements are evidently orated from one end while the other inverts them, see here Charles are more lies, fabrications, distortions and works of a vivid imagination than you can poke a stick at

"You wrote on the 13th at 5.28pm:

"To date, virtually everything you've claimed about the POW issue is contradicted by the facts, or is a deliberate distortion of them. "

Let me refresh your memory with evidence of my distortion's, here's what I wrote on the 12th at 2.18pm:

" Of course it is ludicrous to suggest that millions died in western captivity or even eastern given this plausible theory, that would stretch the credulity somewhat, and I can't quite percieve Eisenhower as a mass-murderer as such is implied by Bacque. And I do believe that if such an enormous crime occurred notice would have been served by the usual mob of anti-american groups, I suppose that if the conspiracy theorists can have their XFiles, they can add this to the collection"

So, if the above is an example of distortion and contradicted by the facts, does that mean that I have misunderstood what you are arguing, are you in fact attempting to prove that Eisenhower was a war criminal and Baque's right? Indeed, are you aware at all of what you are endeavouring to say? And what to make of this,
you wrote on the 12th at 9.28pm:

large enough for you, do you think you can bring yourself to read it now, but here Charles, let me demonstrate another of your choice offerings and my reply

Lets just pluck one Buncherism out for starters, here you write on the 13th at 5.28pm:

" The refutation of Bacque's lies, which you traffic with no concern for truth"

Now here's what I wrote a day before on the 12th at 2.18pm:

" Of course it is ludicrous to suggest that millions died in western captivity or even eastern given this plausible theory, that would stretch the credulity somewhat, and I can't quite percieve Eisenhower as a mass-murderer as such is implied by Bacque"

Yes, very obvious isn't it, that I traffic the lie's of Bacques, obvious that is, if your desire to score a point outweighs your ethical concern, but of course Charles I admit you haven't truncated any quote, but merely invented one, but thats just the beginning of your pernacious claims. Take a squiz at this

You wrote on the 14th at 3.13pm:

" Bacque has nothing to do with Mr. Tobin of the Adelaide Institute. You posed Tobin"

So apparently, I'm trafficking Baques lies one moment, than when such proves inconvienent for your arguments, I'm posing Tobin? Hmm, you must have a fabulous imagination, sort of provides a balance for your paucity of truth, but wait, there's more fine examples of a vivid imagination at work "

But Charles how could anyone take you seriously?? I mean, you loudly proclaim dishonesty, pretend that you are virtuous and pontificate ad nauseam, but in reality you resemble a person who has received vast emotional scarring, you retreat into a tiny world of your own devising and vainly swat away at anything that would threaten to unbalance your perception of yourself. But since you obviously have an idee fixe in regard to the Adelaide Institute, you could be the hero of many(and of course to yourself) by destroying it once and for all, this I feel could be best accomplished by you in fact, joining the institute, and on the proviso that you exert all your turgid talents on behalf of the said institute, I'm sure that within a week it will have gone down the tubes.

Cheers Chump
Last edited by julian on 16 Mar 2002, 05:53, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Other Losses...

#36

Post by Scott Smith » 16 Mar 2002, 05:30

Wow, time flies! Thanks for posting that, Roberto. This is from my Scott Smith post no. 39 from last year that I think sums-up my opinion on this subject:
I do not know if Bacque’s claims are accurate or not. But I do think that his thesis is essentially correct. German POWs were reclassified and held as political prisoners and used for forced labor by all parties for long after the war instead of being sent home. Human war-reparations for losing a war, a warcrime by any other name. In essence, German soldiers went home not with honor but as paroled criminals, whether they were actually guilty of questionable behavior or not. They fought for the wrong side and they lost.
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... D=69.topic

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Other Losses...

#37

Post by Roberto » 16 Mar 2002, 21:44

Scott Smith wrote:Wow, time flies! Thanks for posting that, Roberto. This is from my Scott Smith post no. 39 from last year that I think sums-up my opinion on this subject:
I do not know if Bacque’s claims are accurate or not. But I do think that his thesis is essentially correct. German POWs were reclassified and held as political prisoners and used for forced labor by all parties for long after the war instead of being sent home. Human war-reparations for losing a war, a warcrime by any other name. In essence, German soldiers went home not with honor but as paroled criminals, whether they were actually guilty of questionable behavior or not. They fought for the wrong side and they lost.
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... D=69.topic
1. I like the “questionable behavior” stuff. Does that include the murder of unarmed non-combatants?

2. Of course only a fraction of the Wehrmacht’s soldiers were guilty of such crimes (about 5 % of servicemen in the Soviet Union and in Italy, according to German historian Rolf-Dieter Müller, and an infinitesimal fraction in the Western European countries, where very few if any war crimes were committed by troops of the Wehrmacht).

3. How many, now, were “held as political prisoners and used for forced labor by all parties for long after the war”? A minority, and that especially in the Soviet Union, which at some time in the late 1940’s extended the definition of “war crimes” so as to retain a sizable number of prisoners of war as labor force. It would be interesting to see some statistics as to how many of the ca. 11 million German soldiers who went into captivity were released by the various custodian states at what time. I wonder if Smith or someone else could provide such statistics, so that we may see to what extent they support Smith’s contentions.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

SS Graves? But what about Buchenwald!

#38

Post by Scott Smith » 16 Mar 2002, 22:57

I wonder if Smith or someone else could provide such statistics, so that we may see to what extent they support Smith’s contentions.
It would be out of my specific area of interest to do so unless I located secondary sources for you. But my point is that the regime was declared criminal and treatment was meted out to German POWs accordingly, especially after no Allied POWs were any longer held.

That "criminal" legacy is not easy to shake. It is, in fact, reinforced by Hollywood and, as I have pointed out many times before, the modern-day Germans are so desperate that the rest of us do not see them as stereotypical Nazis that they abuse their own veterans, especially the SS, IMHO.

The Bitburg saga in 1985 comes to mind. Now that the Cold War is over, an American President honoring German WWII war-dead would be unthinkable. Even then, Reagan had to endure a long, sad lecture from Elie Wiesel, and the White House press corps emphatically stressed that there were only a few SS in the cemetery, and these were on the other side. Now, there's a "moral equivalency" for you. :roll: :roll:

Btw, Roberto, how come your text prints out figures instead of apostrophes? No big deal but can't you at least check it and fix it?
:)

StandartenfuehrerSS
Banned
Posts: 76
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 16:30
Location: Netherlands

Re: SS Graves? But what about Buchenwald!

#39

Post by StandartenfuehrerSS » 17 Mar 2002, 00:36

'The Bitburg saga in 1985 comes to mind. Now that the Cold War is over, an American President honoring German WWII war-dead would be unthinkable. Even then, Reagan had to endure a long, sad lecture from Elie Wiesel, and the White House press corps emphatically stressed that there were only a few SS in the cemetery, and these were on the other side. 4

I certainly remember that. I doubt most Americans even heard of the Schutzstaffel before May 1985. Reagan's visit would have gone by unnoticed if it wasn't for a, once again, outraged jewish community. Reagan was invited that day to visit a former concentration camp, I believe it was Dachau, but chose to ignore that stereotype invitation and went to pay his respects to German soldiers. An American president visiting a Soldatenfriedhof, I am still stunned. Because there were SS graves there as well, the whole controversy was suddenly (and deliberatly) artificially generated. I remember Reagan saying something along the lines of "they were victims, just like the concentration camp victims". Since Reagan's vist was because of the 40th 'anniversary' of the end of war, I think it was only fair that he chose to visit wargraves for once, instead of hearing the holocaust tralala for an hour again. I am not sure wether he knew that there were SS graves at Bitberg or not, and he probabely did not, but the fact that he remains one of the few statemen to vist German wargraves is something that I still can't understand.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

BITBURG

#40

Post by Scott Smith » 17 Mar 2002, 01:08

Yes, the press made a big deal that there were 59 young Waffen-SS soldiers buried there. And I understand that snot-nosed Leftist students were demonstrating against it in Germany. Personally, I think it was one of the best things Reagan ever did. :? :?

Image

julian
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 08:54

yes Reagan has been very underrated as a President

#41

Post by julian » 17 Mar 2002, 04:01

I feel that on a list of great American presidents, Reagan would rightfully claim a position near the top. It has become very fashionable for members of the left leaning media to lampoon the memory of Reagan, yet the energy and time directed towards such atavistic endeavours belies the proclaimed contempt. Unlike Clinton, Reagan at least presided over a coherent foreign policy, and through the continuation of a war, by other means than direct confrontation, with the Soviet Union, Regan's administration played a large role in the demise of the Soviet Union. His administration had the courage to reverse the pernacious doctrine of Kissenger towards the Eastern bloc countries, that of 'real poltik' which accepted the existence of the Soviet Union and its proxies as no worse than in fact America itself. While speeches of Reagan's, such as the one where the famous reference to the Soviet Union "the evil empire' was made, have been derided, they were in fact evidence of the determination by the Reagan adminstration to bring the cold war to a close through the targeting of the what could only be construed as a regime of 'evil', evil towards its own citizens and evil in its actions towards the western world. Thus it can be considered that one of Reagan's foemost triumphs was engineering the reevaluation of the approach towards the Soviet Union.

Regards

Julian

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

post

#42

Post by Dan » 17 Mar 2002, 04:31

Good post. The Germans left the USSR a wasteland, and the USA under Reagan finished it off.

When that guy dies, there is going to be the biggest funeral in the world, and an expression of American nationalism that no one's ever seen.

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

Re: Ike's death camps

#43

Post by Charles Bunch » 17 Mar 2002, 04:45

>I remember a few years back when Stephen Ambrose was being interviewed on a local radio show, a caller asked him his opionion on Bacque's book. I remember Ambrose answering that he had read the book, and that most of Bacque's information was correct other than the death total, which he estimated was only about 75,000.

I'm sorry, you're recollection of what Ambrose said is contradicted by what he and scholars have said and written about German POWs. There is very little that Bacque wrote which is supported by the historical record.

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

Re: But wait Charles there's more

#44

Post by Charles Bunch » 17 Mar 2002, 04:56

>>>>>>What quotes have I invented, I thought making spurious accusations was part of the Revisionists repitoire, if you can point out one quote, I will pay you 100 dollars into an account of your choice if you don't then quite simply you are both unethical and a liar.

>>>>>You wrote: ". Perchance in response to your pedantic 'professional historians know more' I may direct your attention to Schliemann,..."

>>>>>I didn't say professional historians know more, that was your mischaracteriztation.

>>>>>You followed that little bit of dishonesty by providing a truncated quote which attempted to support this same spurious notion.

>>>>>I note you are still running from the question.

>>>>>Perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute? Or were you just running in neutral?

>>>>I would suppose that you had noticed the difference between a sumnation of your alleged views as per your farcial example of a false quote and a actual quote, this you should be able to percieve given the energy, when it is preceeded by 'wrote', 'said' etc.

>>>Rubbish, you attempted to put a quote in my mouth, as I said.

>>>>How unfair, did I truncate your sentence,

>>>Yes you did, changing the meaning of what was said in the process.

>>>Very dishonest of you. But then you don't seem to mind.

>>>>I can see how this would upset as it highlights the word 'professional' that you appended to your 'based on facts' as if every second word that you write has no more relevance than a punctuation mark.

>>>Any person of normal intelligence would be upset since it changes the meaning from focusing on "professional historians" to "professional historians who base their opinions on facts".

>>>But as those same people can see, you've no explanation for your dishonesty.

>>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?

>>>Or would you prefer to run from this statement for some reason?

>>to the rest???

>>> But then I'm not surprised, being unable to comprehend anything actually difficult to rebut is a standard debating technique of the weak minded, where perchance did all my meticulous references to your tenuous hold on the truth go, through one ear and out the other?

>>This must account for your timidity in addressing the question I've been asking you for a number of posts now.

> >>And for the 'words in your mouth' why, I assumed you would be pleased to be able to utter something intelligent for a change.

>>Look, you have fabricated a quote, putting words in my mouth I did not say, and distorted a sentence to specifically make it appear to have supported a spurious notion of yours. Whether your motives are lack of intelligence I'm not prepared to say.

>>What I am prepared to say is that you seem curiously ashamed of the comment you made regarding the historian Ambrose and the Adelaide Institute. Why is that?

>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?

>>Conversely, you could continue with your feckless commentary, confirming that you really have nothing worthwhile to say.


>Have at look at this:

No.

>See Charles, above are lies, deceit, and just plain fabrication, if this seems childish its because you have the integrity of a toddler, in fact if I can convince my five year old nephew to have a shot, there is no firm bet that he won't get it over you.

Coming from a person who fabricates quotes and shamelessly distorts others by deliberately leaving off the end of a sentence, your words are as hollow as your arguments.

>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?

>>I'm not surprised at all your considered answer to evidence of your own perfidity is the eloquent 'No', is the 'does not compute' message flashing up again, don't worry, just shut down and reboot, I'm sure there are no essential files existent that woud be lost in the process.

Of course the perfidity is yours, Julian!!

I'm not surprised at your fear of answering a question of much longer standing than yours!!

Perhaps you'd like to tell us why your afraid to defend the statements you've made.

Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?

While you're at it, please explain why you fabricated a quote in my name and truncated a sentence which resulted in a false communication of my opinion.

I suppose you hope readers are not paying attention to your avoidance of your statements, but rest assured I'm here to remind them!!

julian
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 08:54

remind away

#45

Post by julian » 17 Mar 2002, 05:46

:D
Last edited by julian on 17 Mar 2002, 05:48, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”