What do you guys think of this book? I've read part of it and it seems as though it has solid base. Plagiarizers such as Stephen Ambrose disagree with it however.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses
>Other Losses is a 1989 book by Canadian writer James Bacque, in which Bacque alleges that U.S. General Dwight Eisenhower intentionally caused the deaths by starvation or exposure of around a million German prisoners of war held in Western internment camps briefly after the Second World War. Other Losses charges that hundreds of thousands of German prisoners that had fled the Eastern front were designated as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" in order to avoid recognition under the third Geneva Convention, for the purpose of carrying out their deaths through disease or slow starvation. Other Losses cites documents in the U.S. National Archives and interviews with people who stated they witnessed the events. The book claims that there was a "method of genocide" in the banning of Red Cross inspectors, the returning of food aid, the policy regarding shelter building, and soldier ration policy.
I'm especially interested to hear the opinions of Germanbros, considering they are ones most affected.
>Other historians, including the former senior historian of the United States Army Center of Military History, Colonel Ernest F. Fisher, who was involved in the 1945 investigations into the allegations of misconduct by U.S. troops in Germany and who wrote the book's foreword, argues that the claims are accurate.
>Other Losses claims that nearly one million German prisoners died while being held by United States and French forces at the end of World War II. Specifically, it claims: "The victims undoubtedly number over 800,000, almost certainly over 900,000 and quite likely over a million. Their deaths were knowingly caused by army officers who had sufficient resources to keep the prisoners alive."[1]
I doubt this. Not to say that Germans didn't die while in transit camps after the War, but an organized starvation of POWs is not feasable imo.
>>71131051
This is so depressing, it's really hard to hear. This book isn't the only source to state this though.
>>71132644
Why not? Many civilians died as the infrastructure was destroyed along with many ways of farming.
>>71133663
Yea but these are products of war, not an organized agenda to starve Prisoners of War after the surrender.
>>71134032
You could argue that the intense hatred for the German soldiers and the desire for a kind of revenge was also a product of war. Eisenhower hated the Germans very much, and the only general who felt sympathy for them was Patton... who also died.
>>71134032
That depends on evidence and you'd have to check the books arguments well to argue what happened either way.
The U.S openly admits that they kill people in wartime that were wrongful deaths, and pay people who have a claim. But the 'wrongful' death doesn't apply if its warfare, only if its a mistake or adjacent to war activities. So its really dodgy as to whether they actually will say they were responsible or not.
>>71134032
a war the allies started to destroy germany, thats a genocide
>>71134032
not to mention they had ample food to spare, they just didnt want to share it with gemans for fear of moral problems back home. they couldhave avoided the deaths but chose not to
>>71134241
Perhaps in the First World War. Not the Second.
With a large part of the prisoner pool pent up in the USSR (where they were being starved and killed) I think it was the objective of the military to quickly de-nazify and process the prisoners to return them to the workforce so that the Allies wouldn't be tasked with feeding all of Europe AND Germany after the war. This was the case, a large portion of the prisoners were released by August 1945
>>71131051
This is also mentioned in the book After The Reich which my library carries which lends some validity to it.
>Under no circumstances may food supplies be assembled among the local inhabitants in order to deliver them to 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. —General Eisenhower, 1945.[5]
The Rhine Meadows Death Camps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fXQwc_Wz1c
Eisenhower was also rumored to have been part Jewish. His nickname at West Point was "Swedish Jew" because of his father's Jewish heritage. This source is very detailed, and has lots of info on his genocide of Germans..
http://fathersmanifesto.net/eisenhower.htm
>West Point was very conscious of any ' Non-White' candidates. It was obvious from Eisenhower's appearance that he was carrying another race's blood. The headmaster quizzed him and he admitted he had Jewish ancestors. His father was a Swedish Jew who married a Swedish gentile woman.
>During World War II when Col. Eisenhower was working for Gen. Douglas McArthur in the South Pacific, McArthur protested to his superiors in Washington (DC) that Eisenhower was incompetent and that he did not want Eisenhower on his staff. In 1943, Washington not only transferred Col. Eisenhower to Europe but promoted him over more than 30 more experienced senior officers to five star general and placed him in charge of all the US forces in Europe.
>Bernard Baruch was behind Eisenhower. His military promotions on the eve of WWII and during the war are curious to say the least. Zionists found an Army officer who had been a military failure until Bernard Baruch promoted him to General. His actions and responsibilities during and after the war: direct, personal negotiations with Stalin on the placements of the armies (and the surrender of territory won by Americans, with the ceding of that territory to the Russians).
>It was actually the Germans that were genocided all along, but those filthy kikes covered it up with their fake holohoax!
It's hilarious how desperate certain fringe groups are to create historical plot-twists.
>>71136002
>50 shekels have been deposited in your account, thank you for doing your part to fight anti-semitism
A million sounds like a lot. How many troops did the Germans have in total? How many became prisoners?
>>71136817
1.5 million about
