Mr Wear attempts to carry out a hit job on Eisenhower. I have not read the book by Mr Smith, but I have no reason to doubt his research on the personal life of the ex President and commander of western Allied forces in the latter years of WW2. The problem arises when Mr Wear starts to add in his own myths taken from the dark regions of the Internet.
Suggestions To Improve Eisenhower in War and Peace
My suggestion would be to keep away from the book. I doubt Mr Smith will be taking Mr Wear’s “advice” any time soon though.
“General Patton’s death, however, was almost certainly not due to a “freak automobile accident.” American espionage agent Douglas Bazata claims he was given the order to assassinate Patton by the Office of Strategic Services. Bazata says he shot Patton during a planned auto wreck of Patton’s vehicle on December 9, 1945. Patton later died in a hospital on December 21, 1945, under very suspicious circumstances.”
Pure conspiracy theory. A thorough debunking of the “Patton was murdered” myth can be found here:
“More importantly, Smith fails to address allegations that Eisenhower as head of Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) oversaw the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of German POWs after World War II. This Allied atrocity was first publicly exposed in 1989 in the book Other Losses by James Bacque.”
I think Mr Wear means ALLEGATION. This allegation has been thoroughly debunked. The “Other Losses” referred to by James Bacque were primarily nothing more than released members of the Volkssturm. Eisenhower was the man at the top, but even he did not have the authority to demand the murder or around a million German POWs.
“Note: These images are of defeated & disarmed Germans after the war ended.”
Mr Wear produces 4 photographs from a film clip showing tortured dead “Germans” on the ground. There is no evidence at all that these pictures were taken in the Rhine camp enclosures in 1945. If anybody can confirm the authenticity of these photo I would be grateful.
Mr Wear then presents us with a list of people who witnessed the horrific conditions of the Rhine camps. None of these made claims for the deaths that would be required to fulfill Bacque’s approx 1 million figure dead in American and French camps.
“Why do establishment historians ignore Bacque’s well-documented evidence?”
You mean like:
All participants in the book that debunked Bacque’s theories. “Eisenhower and the German POWs”.
What is surprising is the fact that Mr Wear is well aware of this book. Why did he feel the need to ignore it?
“This is unacceptable to establishment historians, so they ignore Bacque’s evidence.”