James Bacque: "1 million POW's murdered by the US"

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Germanica
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 06 Jun 2003 21:59
Location: England, UK

Post by Germanica » 28 Jul 2003 16:22

alsaco wrote:Germanica, you are right, revisionnism is the tool of historians.

But revisionnism adds new facts from discoveries, new ways of considering a situation, new documents stating things. It brings progress toward truth, but works only step by step.

What some people call revisionism is however negationnism. In this case the objective is to prove a concept to support an ideology. The negationnist does not wish to establish the truth, he discusses a fact at the light of prefabricated objectives.
The method is to deny one factor, and conclude that the main fact has to be negated because the factor can be false.

To refute a massacre, you do not deny the killing, but accumulate presomptions allowing to say that the killers did not kill. The graves are there, but the corpses are not killed people, but sick deaths.
Or the absence of graveyards shows that the victims have ressuscited, and the einsatzgruppen were just looters, arrived in an empty village.

Negationnists have to prove, historians have to find.
Negationnists demonstrate and affirm, historians revise, correct, complete to approach a possible truth

And in fact, historians cannot span the entire historical spectrum. They must accept to many details. Only negationnist can affirm an ideological system to explain history, past and future in the same time.
Alsaco, I hear what you are saying, negationism and revisionism are two seperate schools of thought, but simply because someone may miss a point or two does not mean they are rejecting historical fact. No one person can obtain all the knowlege concerning World War II.

For example, in the thread concerning the "Definition of a Holocaust Denier", I was attempting to place possible, alternative reasons for the conditions found at KL Bergen-Belsen as the British forces arrived. These included the logistical and communicational breakdowns within Germany, the neutralisation of German rail/road networks, and the destruction of German industry - all of which was outside of the control of Kommandant Josef Kramer.
This does not mean that I rejected the fact that many, many inmates died whilst interned at Belsen. However, if you read my post, you'll see that I only just missed the criteria for a denier.
Even quoting from the IHR seems to automatically constitute denial.

Regards,
Germanica
Last edited by Germanica on 28 Jul 2003 16:28, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Germanica
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 06 Jun 2003 21:59
Location: England, UK

Post by Germanica » 28 Jul 2003 16:28

Galicia wrote:Germanica,

But when Revisionism is taken to the extreme to the point where Historical fact is now denied by certain historians, one wonders what people will deny. For example:

I am currently in a fight with Oleg as to the historical accuracy of the Ukrainian Famine, which did occour from 1930-1932 as proved by irrefutable journalistic accounts, eyewitness testimony, and official Soviet biographies. There are unlimited corpses, testimonies, etc. but unless he sees a hardcopy document, like a good historian would demand, he will refuse to believe my accounts.

The danger is when the documents, sites, testimonies, etc, are all there, but people now refuse to believe regardless of how much information is presented to them.

I am all for the revision of historical events, PROVIDED there is sufficient historical evidence for a revision to be neccesary. If there is not, then the current story stays. i.e. the Einsatzgruppen's purpose was only to loot and steal from the local populace.
Galicia, I do not deny that many deaths resulted from internment in the KL/KZ camps in one way or another, and for one reason or another - but that does not (in my opinion) place this historical occurance beyond re-investigation. I also do not deny that some forms of revisionism can go so far as to appear similar to propaganda...

Regards,
Germanica

User avatar
Galicia
Member
Posts: 349
Joined: 17 Nov 2002 18:17
Location: USA/UK

Post by Galicia » 28 Jul 2003 19:09

Sir,

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm stating a general opinion.

User avatar
TheKurgan
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 22:01
Location: Sarnia, Ontario

Between Bacque and what actually happened (maybe)

Post by TheKurgan » 21 Dec 2004 03:33

No hard facts here, folks, not yet (I'm not through digging)...

These are merely observations.

There are two ends of the spectrum in the debate over whether there actually was a state sanctioned starvation of German POW's/DEF's immediately after WWII.

At one end of the spectrum is Bacque, who claims that between 1 and 1.7 million Germans were starved to death by Eisenhower's policies.

At the other end is the Allied claim that 4500-5000 German POW's died.

I find both ludicrous, the former because as has already been said, Where are the bodies? The latter because statiscially, that many dying is insignificant.

I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Accusations of document tampering/destruction cloud the issue further, because, if true, it would make the US/Eisenhower more culpable. If not true, it throws red herrings into the mix.

Somewhere, there have to be records (and I intend to find them...ALL of them) about how many Germans never came home, and how many actually died in opposing prison camps (those camps NOT run by Americans). At that point, it becomes simple math.

I know there are figures around, 1 million this, and 517000 that, and KGB records this, and German/American records that.

As so many have pointed out, there is no way to sift through it all unless one gets exact records.

In any event, I have a long road ahead of me. The two extremes are: Either I'm going to find nothing (which I doubt), or I'm going to find something so sinister I'll have to buck the "official version" all the way through (more likely, but I still doubt it). Again, the reality is very likely in the middle.

Charles.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23660
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 21 Dec 2004 03:59

TheKurgan -- You said:
At the other end is the Allied claim that 4500-5000 German POW's died.
I've never seen a figure that low. Where did you get it?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23660
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 21 Dec 2004 04:52

For our readers, from the New York Times (dates in the jpg captions):
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23660
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 21 Dec 2004 04:58

Part 2:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23660
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 21 Dec 2004 05:00

Part 3:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004 20:54
Location: Arlington, TX

Post by WalterS » 21 Dec 2004 05:00

No hard facts here, folks,
Of course not. Facts get in your way.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23660
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 21 Dec 2004 05:01

Part 4:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
TheKurgan
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 22:01
Location: Sarnia, Ontario

Post by TheKurgan » 21 Dec 2004 05:16

David Thompson wrote:TheKurgan -- You said:
At the other end is the Allied claim that 4500-5000 German POW's died.
I've never seen a figure that low. Where did you get it?
Here is the link, and I'll cut and paste the appropriate text, as well.

http://hnn.us/articles/1266.html

"Ambrose's book reports that the death total of 4,537 constitutes a loss ratio of 0.1%, while neglecting to report the time period. This is one of their typical evasions, which usually obscure the picture. We can partly rectify it here."

It's true that Ambrose's record cannot be trusted, but this is the Allied figure...

I'm searching for other cites. Additionally, posters early on in this thread cited the same figure (most of them were by a guy named Caldric).

Charles.
Last edited by TheKurgan on 21 Dec 2004 05:24, edited 1 time in total.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23660
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 21 Dec 2004 05:21

Try this: http://www.history.hqusareur.army.mil/A ... pation.htm

As for the quote from Ambrose, I'd like to see it in context.
Last edited by David Thompson on 21 Dec 2004 05:24, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheKurgan
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 22:01
Location: Sarnia, Ontario

Post by TheKurgan » 21 Dec 2004 05:22

WalterS wrote:
No hard facts here, folks,
Of course not. Facts get in your way.
That's why I clarified the post as NOT being factual. I will post facts when I get the cites to back them up.

The problem with researching this topic is that there is so much bunk around at websites that promote denial and incorrect revisionism. It is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. I'll find it, though, and post the stuff when, as I said, I have the proper cites.


Charles

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004 20:54
Location: Arlington, TX

Post by WalterS » 21 Dec 2004 05:28

The problem with researching this topic is that there is so much bunk around at websites that promote denial and incorrect revisionism
.

As opposed to "correct" revisionism?

You are right that there's a lot of websites promoting bunk, and that bunk seems to be showing up in your posts.

User avatar
TheKurgan
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 22:01
Location: Sarnia, Ontario

The reason why there have been no searches for mass graves.

Post by TheKurgan » 21 Dec 2004 07:20

I was doing some research on the possibility of mass graves at the site of the Rheinland Field camps where Bacque said that all the death took place. No serious search has ever taken place.

Only one guy (Otto Schmitt), but he was stopped by bureaucracy.

Want to know why there have never been any excavations on the sites of the camps?

Because the camps are classified as historical landmarks (with memorials there), and it is illegal in the Rheinland to have excavations on land so designated (to the tune of a 250 thousand Mark fine (which would be Euros now)). Here is the original text

Eine Abordnung der Kreisverwaltung Bad Kreuznach überbringt ein Schreiben, in welchem mitgeteilt wird, daß das Gelände unter Denkmalschutz stehe und daß daher auf Anordnung des Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege in Mainz Grabungen bei Androhung von 250 000 DM Geldstrafe verboten seien.

The website is http://www.rheinwiesenlager.de/Toten.htm


The complete translation is:

A delegation from the Circuit Administration of Bad Kreuznach delivered a written notice, which shared the following: The lands that are protected by Memorial status (literally Memorial security) and that are under the disposition State Department of Memorial Care (akin to the Department of the Interior, are forbidden to be excavated under penalty of a 250 000 Deutschmark fine.

This was 1986. Schmitt fought this in court several times, and lost, the prevailing attitude being "For God's sake, let the dead rest!"

Ain't bureaucracy grand?

Charles

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”