James Baque and Alfred DeZeyas

code yellow · Postby **code yellow** » 1 decade 9 years ago (Tue Dec 09, 2003 10:52 am)

OK you guys,if you can give me some helpful insight as to why James Baque's book should be disgarded from revisionist argument,please let me know.

Postby **Moderator** » 1 decade 9 years ago (Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:19 am)

I'm afraid it is you who must make the case for this book, you started the thread. And please be sure it relates to the 'holocaust' story....or out it goes.

Thanks, Moderator

code yellow · Postby **code yellow** » 1 decade 9 years ago (Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:28 am)

Moderator wrote:I'm afraid it is you who must make the case for this book, you started the thread. And please be sure it relates to the 'holocaust' story....or out it goes.

Thanks, Moderator

OOPS! You're absolutely right.I wont have time till this afternoon,as I have to shuffle off to work,but as soon as I get back I will pull the book out and supply all the info everyone needs.I am just afraid that I read all this stuff,beleaving it,only to find that there are bogus aspects to it.

J William · Postby **J William** » 1 decade 9 years ago (Tue Dec 09, 2003 12:36 pm)

From another thread-

If you have the book handy, perhaps you could share with us its documentary evidence and we can respond in turn.

There are 30 pages of notes, one page of archive sources and two and one-half pages of Bibliographies listed in Bacque's book "Other Losses".
I would only wish that the gas chamber question would have so many documentary sources. Certainly the charges contained in Barque's book should be held to high standards of proof. I will skim through the book and post some items and the source given for the item.

Sailor · Postby **Sailor** » 1 decade 9 years ago (Tue Dec 09, 2003 2:47 pm)

hebden wrote:Do you own a copy of Other Losses, by Mr. Bacque? We haven't read it, but we've seen a book, Eisenhower And The German POWs - Facts Against Falsehood, which attempts to pull it to pieces.

If you have the book handy, perhaps you could share with us its documentary evidence and we can respond in turn.

Our gut feeling is that Mr. Bacque's book will have to be dropped from the Revisionist canon.

Maybe Baque's 1.25 million of dead German POW's in US camps is somewhat of the same quality as the Jewish 6 million number?

fge

Kilroy · Postby **Kilroy** » 1 decade 9 years ago (Tue Dec 09, 2003 2:58 pm)

But Bacque doesn't allege mass murder in a way which defies laws of science as do the holocaust legend believers, a distinct difference.
kilroy

J William · Postby **J William** » 1 decade 9 years ago (Tue Dec 09, 2003 4:04 pm)

Maybe Baque's 1.25 million of dead German POW's in US camps is somewhat of the same quality as the Jewish 6 million number?

I am not aware that there is a claim by Barque of 1.25 million dead German POWs, or for that matter a claim of 1.25 million former military personnel deaths in the Allied camps. I state it this way because most of the German Army interned personnel where not classed as POWs. Rember Eisenhower stripped all surrenderees after a certain date of their Geneva Convention protection by reclassifing them as DEFs (disarmed enemy forces), a war crime in itself.

The numers claimed by Barque are upfront in his Introduction.

from page 2

...It is beyond doubt that enormous numbers of men of all ages , plus some women and children, died of exposure, unsanitary conditions, disease and starvation in the American and French camps in Germany starting in April 1945, just before the end of the war in Europe. The victims undoubtedly number over 800,000, almost certainly over 900,000 and quite likely over a million....

Hebden · Postby **Hebden** » 1 decade 9 years ago (Tue Dec 09, 2003 5:35 pm)

Sailor wrote:
hebden wrote:Maybe Baque's 1.25 million of dead German POW's in US camps is somewhat of the same quality as the Jewish 6 million number?

fge

Even worse, we fear. The figure could be a twentyfold exaggeration!

On a general note, we have already seen the spelling Baque and Barque. Bacque is correct. Let's start as we mean to go on.

Sailor · Postby **Sailor** » 1 decade 9 years ago (Tue Dec 09, 2003 7:12 pm)

Hebden wrote: Even worse, we fear. The figure could be a twentyfold exaggeration!

On a general note, we have already seen the spelling Baque and Barque. Bacque is correct. Let's start as we mean to go on.

I am quite sure, that investigations of any alleged wrongdoings by the good boys, the Allies, will not be hindered by any laws or suppressed with police force.

fge

code yellow · Postby **code yellow** » 1 decade 9 years ago (Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:03 pm)

OK,here we go.According to Bacque's CRIMES AND MERCIES,more than nine million Germans,soilders and civillians died as a result of allied starvation and expulsion policies in the first five years after the WW2.The back of the book,of course is filled with notes and sources.How is one supposed to tell weather these source figures are correct or not?Do you merely come up with two different versions,claiming the other is exagerated,and pick the one that suits your cause best?I just feel compelled to ask something out of no disrespect at all,but do you suppose there are some who would deny Bacque's writtings because it exposes American attrocities,but at the same time doubting the holocaust because of it's lies?In other words,is there a personal bias behind refuting Bacque's findings?If so,it seams to me that would be defeating the whole purpose of this forum.

Hebden · Postby **Hebden** » 1 decade 9 years ago (Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:01 pm)

code yellow wrote::wink: OK,here we go.According to Bacque's CRIMES AND MERCIES,more than nine million Germans,soilders and civillians died as a result of allied starvation and expulsion policies in the first five years after the WW2.The back of the book,of course is filled with notes and sources.

Crimes and Mercies is a book we have read, but, for the present, we are interested with Other Losses. Please proceed to present the documentary evidence.