[Howard Jarvis Admirer]

““I am defending people who fought the communists who butchered millions of people in the gulags.”

You are defending those that butchered Americans at Malmedy.”

Historical reality - the Russians did not agree to abide by the Geneva conventions and the German soldiers knew they were likely to be killed if captured by the Soviets. German soldiers transferred from the Russian front were likely to not give quarter as they were not used to getting quarter from the communists.

All armies commit atrocities - I am sure My Lai and Abu Ghraib are familiar to you as U.S. war crimes. Here is another: a book called “Other Losses” describes the deaths of approximately one million Germans in what was called, Eisenhower’s death camps.

Here is a review of the book “Other Losses” for you, “By Jorg Gunnderson -

(Updated edition with shocking new evidence.) The sensational study of what Canadian author Bacque calls “Eisenhower’s Death Camps,” the hellish holding pens in which hundreds of thousands of German prisoners, wrongfully deprived of their lawful rights as prisoners of war, died in the months following World War II. Endorsed by the former Senior Historian, U.S. Army, Col. Ernest Fisher, the revelations in Other Losses make Andersonville — and Dachau and Buchenwald — seem like playpens by comparison . . . .”

By the way, the communists liked to define a “war criminal” as one who fought communism - interesting that you seem to support the communist point of view.

[spanalot]

“the deaths of approximately one million Germans in what was called, Eisenhower’s death camps”

Is that an accurate death toll?

[Madame Dufarge]

Our second conclusion was that when scholars do the necessary research, they will find Mr. Bacque's work to be worse than worthless. It is seriously - nay, spectacularly - flawed in its most fundamental aspects. Mr. Bacque misuses documents; he misreads documents; he ignores contrary evidence; his statistical methodology is hopelessly compromised; he makes no attempt to look at comparative contexts; he puts words into the mouth of his principal source; he ignores a readily available and absolutely critical source that decisively deals with his central accusation; and, as a consequence of these and and other shortcomings, he reaches conclusions and makes charges that are demonstrably absurd.

Other Losses review by Stephen Ambrose