Editing Other Losses (section)

=== Methodology ===
Cowdrey stated that Bacque's methodology for determining just the "Other Losses" figures was also "slipshod", with Bacque filling gaps in the records where no "other losses" were recorded by "comput[ing] the number of deaths by applying the death rate given in Army statistics for another period to the known number of prisoners at hand."<ref name="cowdrey85">{{Harvnb|Cowdrey|1992|p=85}}</ref> Cowdrey states that the "rate given in Army statistics" turned out to be a "rate invented by Bacque himself."<ref name="cowdrey85"/> Cowdrey states that, with regard to Bacque's attempt to analyze a U.S. Army hospital record document, Bacque not only missed an obvious typo throwing his calculations off by 10, but he also badly erred in the math used to tabulate purported death rates of 30%, which he attempts to use to support his claim that the "other losses" column in the weekly army reports reflects a body count.<ref name="cowdrey89">{{Harvnb|Cowdrey|1992|p=89}}</ref> Cowdrey concludes that "the mathematical blunders of ''Other Losses'' are elementary. One turns from them feeling only embarrassment for the author who naively grounds his thesis upon them."<ref name="cowdrey90">{{Harvnb|Cowdrey|1992|p=90}}</ref>

Historian Rolf Steininger stated that Bacque's claim that the failure to publish the 1960s and 1970s German Maschke Commission finding death figures to be a "cover up" contradicts that the entire 22 volume series was actually published in 1972 without any restrictions, to which only an oblique reference is made in an ''Other Losses'' endnote.<ref name="steininger174">{{Harvnb|Steininger|1992|p=174}}</ref> Steininger says that "Bacque himself is one of the mythmakers" and that, when Bacque attacks the Maschke Commission scholars as "client-academics", "he oversteps the bounds of mythmaking and enters the territory of libel."<ref name="steininger174"/> Historian Gunter Bischof states that it is simply "outrageous to dismiss this vast and impressive body of scholarship as being designed to produce 'soothing conclusions' for the German public, as Bacque puts it."<ref name="Bischof203">{{Harvnb|Bischof|1992|p=203}}</ref>

Bischof said that while "most scholarly reviewers of Bacque's book have pointed out that Bacque fails to establish the proper historical context", "worse, the historical records that Bacque did use are amateurishly misrepresented and often misleading or wrong. Once Bacque's endnotes are checked, frequent misreadings of documents are easily discernible."<ref name="Bischof204">{{Harvnb|Bischof|1992|p=204}}</ref> As an example, Bischof states that Bacque charged that General Mark Clark's raising of caloric intake in the Ebensee camp was "trying to exculpate himself before history" of Eisenhower's scheme to exterminate Germans.<ref name="Bischof204"/> Bischof states that Bacque fails to tell his readers, first, that Ebensee was not even an Allied prisoner of war camp, but a camp for displaced persons that was actually housing Polish Jews liberated from a nearby concentration camp, second, that Clark raised the caloric intake levels in response to a report critical of the treatment of liberated Jews that had just been released and, third, that Eisenhower soon thereafter also raised the levels for his Jewish displaced persons in camps run by Eisenhower.<ref name="Bischof208">{{Harvnb|Bischof|1992|p=208}}</ref>