American & French (post) War Crimes

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Dan
Financial supporter
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 03 Oct 2002 02:25

You've read his refutation of Bacque, as have other deniers. Using the ideas of others is common. Whether he attributed this example of not I'm looking forward to checking once you provide the cite.
You are very much mistaken, Charles. I have never read, or intend to read, Bacque, who seems, from what I have learned on this board, to be sensationalistic. I really have no great interest in WW2, except as it relates to current politics, and the general history of Chrisendom.

What the man did in the paragraphs quoted, was what Ellie Weisel did with the painting of the photograph of the German spies rightfully executed by the Americans and portraying it as Germans killing inocent Jews.

I despise this, and the mentality of those who defend it.

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Post by Charles Bunch » 03 Oct 2002 04:13

Dan wrote:
You've read his refutation of Bacque, as have other deniers. Using the ideas of others is common. Whether he attributed this example of not I'm looking forward to checking once you provide the cite.
You are very much mistaken, Charles. I have never read, or intend to read, Bacque, who seems, from what I have learned on this board, to be sensationalistic.


I didn't say you had read Bacque. But his charges have been offered by deniers for years. And for years the Ambrose sponsored conference of scholars has been offered in rebuttal. Both of these have appeared on this very group on more than one occasion in just a matter of months. It is this argument that I can't imagine you have missed on this board.
I really have no great interest in WW2, except as it relates to current politics, and the general history of Chrisendom.

What the man did in the paragraphs quoted, was what Ellie Weisel did with the painting of the photograph of the German spies rightfully executed by the Americans and portraying it as Germans killing inocent Jews.
I don't know what you're referring to. I do know I doubt your charge that Ambrose did not attribute the quote you posted. And I note you ignored the request to provide a citation. Therefore I ask the following questions.

Where did you come across the information on the two quotes?

Do you have a copy of the Ambrose book in which it appears?

Have you ever read the book?

If not, how do you know that Ambrose didn't provide attribution?

Dan
Financial supporter
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 03 Oct 2002 04:14

The allegations against Ambrose and Goodwin are more serious and more infrequent; the American Historical Association has given full review to just 14 plagiarism cases since 1993. “The profession polices itself,” Foner says. “We’re all interested readers.”
Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, in 1996
Goodwin acknowledged recently that “The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys,” released in 1987, contained sentences that closely resembled prose from three other books. She settled privately with one of the authors soon after publication.
At least five books by Ambrose, a retired history professor, have been cited for material lifted from other sources. The historian has both apologized and defended himself, saying he footnoted the passages in question, a policy most of his peers consider inadequate
.
Fame at first protected Ambrose. Thomas Childers, a University of Pennsylvania professor who thought Ambrose’s “The Wild Blue” lifted passages from Childers’ “Wings of Morning,” was at first hesitant to take on someone so well known.
But once his suspicions were confirmed earlier this month, Childers spoke up. He said he was “surprised and disappointed,” condemned Ambrose for his “chutzpah” and dropped the historian’s “Band of Brothers” from his class syllabus.


For those who don't know, Goodwin is a liberal bitch, who naturally is a major talking head in the American media.

Dan
Financial supporter
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 03 Oct 2002 04:26

I didn't say you had read Bacque
This is correct. You said
You've read his refutation of Bacque, as have other deniers.
No, I have not. I disagree with Tony. He said you have nothing to add. I say, you have lots to add, mostly stupid slander, and idiotic statements such as defending the plagiarizm of Ambrose, spreading Soap Libel, and making dumb ass statements such as antiSemitism is the oldest form of hatred in the world. Having said that, I have learned much from you.

If you call me a denier, I have a right to call you a stupid, brainwashed butt-kisser. But I would rather not, so please keep you offinsive epithets to yourself.

No I have not read whoever's refutation of Bacque. I have no interest in doing so. I provided two paragraphs where any thinking people following this thread can see that Ambrose engaged in copying the thoughts of others. If he indeed provided a citation, which I doubt, he was equally guilty, because he didn't quote properly. He changed the words slightly, which he didn't have the right to do if he cited properly.

Dan
Financial supporter
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 03 Oct 2002 04:32

In scholarly writing, it is important to acknowledge sources of information. This is done by various methods of citation, a common one being the one recommended by the Modern Language Association, or MLA. MLA style has evolved over the years. Anyone who ever wrote a paper that required footnotes at the bottom of the page will be (pleasantly) surprised to learn that MLA style is now simpler than it used to be.

Any paper using information from other sources will include a mixture of quotations and paraphrasing. Whenever you use another author's exact words, you must put them in quotation marks. If you are not quoting their exact words, you need to be very careful not to paraphrase too closely.

A recent article from the Chronicle of Higher Education discusses accusations of improper citation, paraphrasing, and plagiarism against popular historian Steven Ambrose. Ambrose is accused of including passages from several other authors' works, without quotation marks, that are unacceptably close to direct quotes. For example, the article notes the following passage:

Thomas Childers´s Wings of Morning (Addison Wesley, 1995) Steven Ambrose's The Wild Blue (Simon & Schuster, 2001)
Up, up, up, groping through the clouds for what seemed like an eternity. ... No amount of practice could have prepared them for what they encountered. B-24s, glittering like mica, were popping out of the clouds all over the sky. Up, up, up he went, until he got above the clouds. No amount of practice could have prepared the pilot and crew for what they encountered -- B-24s, glittering like mica, were popping out of the clouds over here, over there, everywhere.

According to the Chronicle article, "Mr. Ambrose listed the other author's book in his bibliography but did not credit the author for writing key phrases that appeared in his text" (Flores and Hebel A16).
I don't know what you're referring to. I do know I doubt your charge that Ambrose did not attribute the quote you posted. And I note you ignored the request to provide a citation. Therefore I ask the following questions.

Where did you come across the information on the two quotes?

http://library.sfcc.spokane.cc.wa.us/gu ... astyle.stm

Alexx
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: 17 Jun 2002 20:36
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by Alexx » 03 Oct 2002 07:05

This thread have grown so much since I last was here that you loose perspective of the issues involved. I had planned to post a big piece and whack it in Robertos head. Well he would probably duck. So I settle for a more modest one.
I wrote:
But back to this book. The changing of the status of the surrended German soldiers from prisoners of war to disarmed enemy forces. And thus not having to fulfill the Geneva Convention regarding treatment,feading and medical aid. Is highly suspicious and a absolut scandal. More information about this affair is needed.
Charles Bunch wrote:
There is nothing suspicious about it, since it was explained at the time. There was insufficient food to feed all the millions under the allies care at the level the Geneva Convention mandated for POWs. The decision was made to distribute scarce food on an equal basis, rather than
favor the POWs at the expense of German civilians and millions of other displaced persons who needed care. Not wanting this technical, but obviously fair, violation of the Geneva Convention to be seen as an act of disrespect for the Convention, the status was changed. All of this was done openly
I do not find this argument valid. I am not an expert on the Geneva-convention.But surely it contains more than just the level of food-rations.
So, because the allies couldn't give the prisoners the right level of food they decided to take away all the other rights as well. Things like shelter, medical aid and acces to outside contacts like the Red Cross.
The argument would go like this: "We cannot feed you properly, and we don't want to violate the Geneva -convention. So we take away all your rights as POW's. What do you say about that ?" 8O

Suggestion to Marcus to make this excellent forum even better, a section with information concerning the rules of warfare, Haag and Geneva-convention etc.

Roberto wrote:
Why, has Bacque sunk so low that he needs a “Revisionist” forum to make himself heard?
If Mr Bacque has sunk so low that he needs a rev-site to make himself heard. That would be an indication that his works are being surpressed as the first poster suggested.

Regards Alexx :)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 03 Oct 2002 10:30

Alexx wrote:This thread have grown so much since I last was here that you loose perspective of the issues involved. I had planned to post a big piece and whack it in Robertos head.
Wow, another (?) true believer who hates me.

But if wants to whack anything in my head, he'll have to get up earlier.
Alexx wrote:Well he would probably duck.
I never do that, my dear boy.

I like to take the believer's nonsense and slap it in his face.

So let's see what you got, other than a big mouth.
Roberto wrote:Why, has Bacque sunk so low that he needs a “Revisionist” forum to make himself heard?
Alexx wrote:If Mr Bacque has sunk so low that he needs a rev-site to make himself heard. That would be an indication that his works are being surpressed as the first poster suggested.
Supressed where and by whom?

For all I know, Bacque's screeds can be openly sold and bought everywhere. At least the first of them was translated into several languages (including Portuguese, in which I read it) and a worldwide bestseller.

"Supressed" is a rather silly term for the founded academic criticism of his nonsense that Bacque has conveniently chosen to ignore.

And then, why should he have cared about it?

There are enough suckers around who will continue to devour his sensational "revelations" just as eagerly and uncritically as certain people devour any other nonsense featured on or advised by "Revisionist" web sites.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 03 Oct 2002 10:34

Dan wrote:What the man did in the paragraphs quoted, was what Ellie Weisel did with the painting of the photograph of the German spies rightfully executed by the Americans and portraying it as Germans killing inocent Jews.
Sorry to interrupt, but wasn't that Wiesenthal?

A rather tasteless thing to do indeed.

Especially considering that the reality of Mauthausen concentration camp provided enough gruesome models to make such "plagiarism" unnecessary.

Alexx
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: 17 Jun 2002 20:36
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by Alexx » 03 Oct 2002 12:14

I do apologize Roberto. It was only meant as an innocent joke. And I certainly don't hate you Roberto. Without your posts, this would be a much less interesting forum.

Back to the issue:In James Bacque's book "Crimes and Mercies" page 41

"As soon as Germany surrended on 8 may 1945, the American Military Governer, General Eisenhower,sent out an 'urgent courier' throughout the huge area he commanded, making it a crime punishable by death For German civilians to feed prisoners."

On page 42-43 we see facsimiles of the orders. "... under no circumstances may foodsupplies be assembled among the local inhabitants in order to deliver them to the prisoners of war. Those who violate this command and nevertheless try to circumvent this blockade to allow something to come to the prisoners place themselves in danger of being shot..."

The orders were posted in English, German and Polish. I don't regard this as proven facts yet. But surely, it must be worth a independent investigation at least.

Regards Alexx :)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 03 Oct 2002 12:23

Alexx wrote:I do apologize Roberto. It was only meant as an innocent joke. And I certainly don't hate you Roberto. Without your posts, this would be a much less interesting forum.

Back to the issue:In James Bacque's book "Crimes and Mercies" page 41

"As soon as Germany surrended on 8 may 1945, the American Military Governer, General Eisenhower,sent out an 'urgent courier' throughout the huge area he commanded, making it a crime punishable by death For German civilians to feed prisoners."

On page 42-43 we see facsimiles of the orders. "... under no circumstances may foodsupplies be assembled among the local inhabitants in order to deliver them to the prisoners of war. Those who violate this command and nevertheless try to circumvent this blockade to allow something to come to the prisoners place themselves in danger of being shot..."

The orders were posted in English, German and Polish. I don't regard this as proven facts yet. But surely, it must be worth a independent investigation at least.

Regards Alexx :)
Bacque has some points, which have been conceded by his critics.

I would, for instance, consider the decision to deprive German prisoners of war of their status a violation of the Geneva Convention, for obvious reasons: if it were left up to the custodian power who it wishes to treat as a prisoner of war and who not, the convention would be meaningless.

It’s just that his death toll figures are as spectacular as they are unsubstantiated and absurd, and thus destroy the man’s credibility.

The text of the applicable conventions can be read under the following links:

Hague Convention regarding the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

Geneva Convention Between the United States of America and Other Powers, Relating to Prisoners of War; July 27, 1929

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Post by Charles Bunch » 03 Oct 2002 13:50

Dan wrote:
I didn't say you had read Bacque
This is correct.
So you were incorrect in your statement, as you are in most of what you write in this post.
You said
You've read his refutation of Bacque, as have other deniers.
No, I have not.
I find that hard to believe.
I disagree with Tony. He said you have nothing to add. I say, you have lots to add, mostly stupid slander, and idiotic statements such as defending the plagiarizm of Ambrose
,

I have not defended any such thing. This is the kind of deliberate distortion which you engage in whenever you attempt a conversation with anyone. Either that, or you are incapable of any type of nuanced understanding.
spreading Soap Libel,
Another lie. Our discussions about soap destroyed the distortions of deniers who purposely conflate the German rumors of "Jewish Soap" at Auschwitz with the soap experimentations at the Danzig Anatomical Institute.. And it demonstrated that evidence exists for soap experimentation at Danzig, evidence which you predictably denied by claiming witnesses lied and that an advanced medical institute would necessarily have a recipe for soap.
and making dumb ass statements such as antiSemitism is the oldest form of hatred in the world. Having said that, I have learned much from you.
As usual you possess a child's understanding of a conversation. Don't saddle me with the responsibility to teach _you_ anything. I'll settle for exposing your nonsense.
If you call me a denier, I have a right to call you a stupid, brainwashed butt-kisser. But I would rather not, so please keep you offinsive epithets to yourself.
You're a denier.
No I have not read whoever's refutation of Bacque. I have no interest in doing so. I provided two paragraphs where any thinking people following this thread can see that Ambrose engaged in copying the thoughts of others.
And thinking people will recognize that intentionality and attribution are the keys to the issue of plagiarism. That's what we are attempting to ascertain, but that might involve something less than mouthing off. Using the thoughts of others is done by everyone. How you use them, and whether you note such use is necessary. A number of thoughtful essays from various academics have been written on the Ambrose affair. The issues are a little more complex than you are willing or able to acknowledge.

Dan
Financial supporter
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 03 Oct 2002 13:58

Roberto wrote:
Dan wrote:What the man did in the paragraphs quoted, was what Ellie Weisel did with the painting of the photograph of the German spies rightfully executed by the Americans and portraying it as Germans killing inocent Jews.
Sorry to interrupt, but wasn't that Wiesenthal?

A rather tasteless thing to do indeed.

Especially considering that the reality of Mauthausen concentration camp provided enough gruesome models to make such "plagiarism" unnecessary.
I think you're right, it's been posted here so often that it should be in the archives. I agree with the rest of the post, also. Even if there weren't underground death-swimming pools, it was bad enough.

Dan
Financial supporter
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 03 Oct 2002 14:28

You said
You've read his refutation of Bacque, as have other deniers.
No, I have not.

I find that hard to believe.
Because your world-view requires putting people into catagories.
I disagree with Tony. He said you have nothing to add. I say, you have lots to add, mostly stupid slander, and idiotic statements such as defending the plagiarizm of Ambrose

I have not defended any such thing. This is the kind of deliberate distortion which you engage in whenever you attempt a conversation with anyone. Either that, or you are incapable of any type of nuanced understanding.
I distort things deliberately every time I attempt a conversation. Isn't that a radical statement, even for a slick lawyer?


spreading Soap Libel,
Another lie. Our discussions about soap destroyed the distortions of deniers who purposely conflate the German rumors of "Jewish Soap" at Auschwitz with the soap experimentations at the Danzig Anatomical Institute.. And it demonstrated that evidence exists for soap experimentation at Danzig, evidence which you predictably denied by claiming witnesses lied and that an advanced medical institute would necessarily have a recipe for soap.
This went from "credible evidence" on your part, complete with the baying and sneering from you against people who disagree with one of your cherished beliefs, to just "evidence". We are still waiting on Hans to provide us the reason that German courts found there to have been no human soap made at the Institute. Yet, given my past history of claiming things like there were no people killed with Zyklon at Auschwitz, I suppose it fair to say I "predictably denied". I have now changed my thinking on this and concede there is credible evidence that many people were gassed in at least two converted barns located in the area of the camp. It is also fair to say you predictably defend the making of human soap, which shows, to my mind the basically religious nature of your views.

and making dumb ass statements such as antiSemitism is the oldest form of hatred in the world. Having said that, I have learned much from you.
As usual you possess a child's understanding of a conversation. Don't saddle me with the responsibility to teach _you_ anything. I'll settle for exposing your nonsense.
I would never asked to be tutored by you. I find you unprincipled, elitist and hoity-toity. You have provide much usefull information in the past, though it's typically to spice up a torrent of ridicule.
If you call me a denier, I have a right to call you a stupid, brainwashed butt-kisser. But I would rather not, so please keep you offinsive epithets to yourself.
You're a denier.
Drum rolls......
No I have not read whoever's refutation of Bacque. I have no interest in doing so. I provided two paragraphs where any thinking people following this thread can see that Ambrose engaged in copying the thoughts of others.
And thinking people will recognize that intentionality and attribution are the keys to the issue of plagiarism. That's what we are attempting to ascertain, but that might involve something less than mouthing off. Using the thoughts of others is done by everyone. How you use them, and whether you note such use is necessary. A number of thoughtful essays from various academics have been written on the Ambrose affair. The issues are a little more complex than you are willing or able to acknowledge.
I started by simply providing an example that was much discussed earier on the board. And you predictably assumed I was attempting to deny the holocaust :lol:

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Oct 2002 15:14

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:Ambrose can put that in his pipe and smoke it.
Smith seems to have become increasingly embittered over the last two years:
Well, I do get annoyed when I see his pious mug on the History Channel or PBS anymore, which is often, and the plagiarism controversy has not endeared me to him either.
:)
I guess that’s because he’s not one of Smith’s gurus.

If he were, not even demonstrable lies and falsehoods (such as using numerous pseudonyms to invoke fake “authorities”) would matter to Smith.
I can't say that I have any gurus, Roberto, but I like the books that David Irving has written, who has been subjected to much more scrutiny than Ambrose, an oft-celebrated academic, trotted out everytime the USA needs a cheering circus for some reason. And as an academic rather than a popular historian he should be held to a higher standard anyway. In any case, Ambrose certainly doesn't have to write under pseudonyms to prevent his arrest for Thoughtcrime, your beef with Germar Rudolf, who is in exile from Germany for daring to look through the telescope.
:wink:

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Oct 2002 15:25

Roberto wrote:Bacque has some points, which have been conceded by his critics.

I would, for instance, consider the decision to deprive German prisoners of war of their status a violation of the Geneva Convention, for obvious reasons: if it were left up to the custodian power who it wishes to treat as a prisoner of war and who not, the convention would be meaningless.
Hmmm, this is basically what I have said about Bacque and yet Roberto howls and brings up impedimentia about "Revisionist gurus" and whatnot. Interesting.
:)

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”