Editing Other Losses (section)

=== The New Orleans panel ===
After the publication of Bacque's book, a panel of eight historians gathered for a symposium in the Eisenhower Center for American Studies<ref>[http://ikecenter.uno.edu/ The Eisenhower Center for American Studies], University of New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.</ref> at the [[University of New Orleans]] from December 7–8, 1990 to review Bacque's work.<ref name="bischamb21">{{Harvnb|Bischof|Ambrose|1992|p=21}}</ref> In the introduction to a book later published containing each panellists' papers, Steven E. Ambrose noted that Bacque is a Canadian novelist with no previous historical research or writing experience. His introduction concludes that "''Other Losses'' is seriously—nay, spectacularly—flawed in its most fundamental aspects."<ref name="bischamb21"/><ref name="bischamb20">{{Harvnb|Bischof|Ambrose|1992|p=20}}</ref> The panel comments that, among its many problems, ''Other Losses'':<ref name="bischamb21"/>
* misuses documents
* misreads documents
* ignores contrary evidence
* employs a statistical methodology that is hopelessly compromised
* made no attempt to see the evidence he has gathered in relation to the broader situation
* made no attempt to perform any comparative context
* puts words into the mouths of the subjects of his oral history
* ignores a readily available and absolutely critical source that decisively dealt with his central accusation

As a consequence of those and other shortcomings, the book "makes charges that are demonstrably absurd."<ref name="bischamb21"/> Panel member Stephen Ambrose later wrote in the ''New York Times'':

{{Quotation| 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 [[Volkssturm]] (People's Militia) released without formal discharge and transfers of POWs to other allies control areas. Maj. [[Rüdiger Overmans|Ruediger Overmans]] of the [[German Office of Military History]] in Freiburg who wrote the final volume of the official German history of the war estimated that the total death by all causes of German prisoners in American hands could not have been greater than 56,000 approximately 1% of the over 5,000,000 German POWs in Allied hands exclusive of the Soviets. Eisenhower's calculations as to how many people he would be required to feed in occupied Germany in 1945-46 were too low and he had been asking for more food shipments since February 1945. He had badly underestimated the number of German soldiers surrendering to the Western Allies; more than five million, instead of the anticipated three million as German soldiers crossed the Elbe River to escape the Russians. So too with German civilians—about 13 million altogether crossing the Elbe to escape the Russians, and the number of slave laborers and displaced persons liberated was almost 8 million instead of the 5 million expected. In short, Eisenhower faced shortages even before he learned that there were at least 17 million more people to feed in Germany than he had expected not to mention all of the other countries in war-ravaged Europe, the Philippines, Okinawa and Japan. All Europe went on rations for the next three years, including [[Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Post-Second World War 1945–1954|Britain]], until the food crisis was over.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ambrose|1991}}</ref> }}

Historians [[Gunter Bischof]] and Brian Loring Villa stated that a research report from the panel "soundly refuted the charges of ''Other Losses'', especially Bacque's fanciful handling of statistics."<ref name="bischof">{{Harvnb|Bischof|Villa|2003}}</ref> The historians further stated:

{{Quotation| It is not necessary to review here Bacque's extravagant statistical claims which are the heart of his conspiracy theory. The eight scholars who gathered in New Orleans and contributed to ''Eisenhower and the German POWs: Facts against Falsehood'' (1992) refuted Bacque's wily misinterpretations of statistics and oral history evidence in detail. Numerous reviews of the book written by the top talent in the military history profession such as John Keegan and Russel Weigley were persuaded by the findings of the book. These findings have since been further solidified by detailed case studies on individual American POW camps in Germany hastily built at the end of the war, like Christof Strauss's exhaustive Heidelberg dissertation on the POW and internment in the Heilbronn camp.

The mountain of evidence has been building that Bacque's charge of the "missing million" supposedly perishing in the American (and French) POW camps in Germany and France is based on completely faulty interpretation of statistical data. There was never any serious disagreement that the German POWs were treated badly by the U.S. Army and suffered egregiously in these camps in the first weeks after the end of the war. That the chaos of the war's end would also produce potentially mismatches and errors in record keeping should surprise no one either. But there was NO AMERICAN POLICY to starve them to death as Bacque asserts and NO COVER UP either after the war. No question about it, there were individual American camp guards who took revenge on German POWs based on their hatred of the Nazis.<ref name="bischof"/> }}

The New Orleans panel's book introduction concluded "[t]hat Bacque is wrong on nearly every major and nearly all his minor charges seem to us to be overwhelmingly obvious. To sum up: Eisenhower was not a Hitler, he did not run death camps, German prisoners did not die by the hundreds of thousands, there was indeed a severe world food shortage in 1945, there was nothing sinister or secret about DEF designation or about the Other Losses column. Bacque's "Missing Million" were old and young boys in the militia dismissed early from the American camps; they were escapees from camps and POWs/DEFs transferred from camp to camp in Germany and Europe for various reasons."<ref name="bischamb23"/>

Villa states that "James Bacque's ''Other Losses'' illustrates what happens when the context surrounding historical persons and important events is lost. The effect to give known facts a twist that seems dramatically new in important ways, but this is means the appearance of originality is a little deceptive. For the most part, Bacque's book is not very original at all. When it seems so, the price is purchased at the price of accuracy."<ref name="villa53">{{Harvnb|Villa|1992|p=53}}</ref> He further stated that "[t]hose parts of Other Losses that might rise above a failing grade in an undergraduate term paper are not new. It has long been known that German prisoners of war suffered terribly at the end of World War II, that they died by the thousands after hostilities ceased in the European theater, and that many were required to work as forced laborers for the victors."<ref name="villa53"/> The main lines of the story have long been known, written up for example in the extensive German "Maschke Commission" between 1962 and 1975.<ref name="villa53"/> Villa states that Bacque only adds two "novel" propositions: first, that the number that died was in the hundreds of thousands, and seconds, that these deaths were the result of deliberate extermination on the part of Eisenhower.<ref name="villa53"/> "The falsity of Bacque's charges can be easily demonstrated once the context, particularly the decision-making environment, is examined."<ref name="villa53"/>

Bischof concludes that just the application of common sense alone refutes many of the most "fantastical charges" of Bacque, such as asking the question "How could a single man order one million men killed without being caught in the heinous act? How could the bodies disappear without one soldier's coming forward in nearly fifty years to relieve his conscience? How could the Americans (almost one-third of whom are by ethnic background German) conspire for so long to cover up such a vast crime?"<ref name="Bischof201">{{Harvnb|Bischof|1992|p=201}}</ref>

In a 1989 ''Time Magazine'' book review, Ambrose did, however, apart from his criticisms of the book, concede that "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."<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070310191329/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958673,00.html Ike's Revenge?] Time Magazine Monday, Oct. 2, 1989</ref>