5
   

Some days, reading Stormfront is lots of fun.

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 10:31 am
@panzade,
panzade wrote:

Bacque's research is a misnomer. Steven Ambrose, who had his own problems, weighs in on Bacque's research in this NY Times review.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/b/bacque-james/ambrose-001.html

I like this part the best:

Stephen Ambrose wrote:
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.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 11:18 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

I like this part the best:

Stephen Ambrose wrote:
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.



That explains why only "select" websites use Bacque's book as a source.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 11:46 am
@joefromchicago,
Having reviewed some more I have to, at the least, partially retract some of the information that has been put forward. But the fellow that you and Panzade put forward is not quite all that you might think.

Quote:

Stephen Ambrose

...

Plagiarism controversy
In 2002, Ambrose was accused of plagiarizing several passages in his book The Wild Blue by Sally Richardson and others.[17][18] Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard reported that Ambrose had taken passages from Wings of Morning: The Story of the Last American Bomber Shot Down over Germany in World War II by Thomas Childers, a history professor at the University of Pennsylvania.[19] Ambrose had footnoted sources, but had not enclosed in quotation marks, numerous passages from Childers' book.[18][20] Ambrose and his publisher, Simon and Schuster, released an apology as a result.[citation needed]

Ambrose asserted that only a few sentences in all his numerous books were the work of other authors. He offered this defense:
I tell stories. I don't discuss my documents. I discuss the story. It almost gets to the point where, how much is the reader going to take? I am not writing a Ph.D. dissertation.
I wish I had put the quotation marks in, but I didn't. I am not out there stealing other people's writings. If I am writing up a passage and it is a story I went to tell and this story fits and a part of it is from other people's writing, I just type it up that way and put it in a footnote. I just want to know where the hell it came from.[18]

A Forbes investigation of his work found cases of plagiarism involving passages in at least six books, with a similar pattern going all the way back to his doctoral thesis.[21] The History News Network lists seven of Ambrose's works--The Wild Blue, Undaunted Courage, Nothing Like It In the World, Nixon: Ruin and Recovery, Citizen Soldiers, The Supreme Commander, and Crazy Horse and Custer--that copied twelve authors.[20]

[edit]Factual errors and disputed characterizations

Veterans of troop carrier units who transported paratroopers in the American airborne landings in Normandy have severely criticized Ambrose for portraying them as unqualified and cowardly in several of his works, including Band of Brothers and D-Day.[citation needed] Among the numerous errors he asserts in an open letter posted on the War Chronicle website, Randy Hils notes that Ambrose did not interview a single troop carrier pilot. This becomes highly relevant in light of Ambrose's assertion that the pilots sped up while the paratroopers were trying to jump. Hils hypothesizes that if Ambrose's only sources were inexpert witnesses whose only indication of airspeed were the sound of the engines, the maneuver of using the propellers as an airbrake would have sounded like power being applied.[22]

Two Ambrose accounts in D-Day of alleged cowardice by British coxswains have also been challenged as inaccurate. One, in which Sgt. Willard Northfleet is portrayed as drawing his gun on a coxswain when he tried to offload the men 400 yards from shore[23], is corroborated by Sgt. John Slaughter (who was on the boat) in a C-SPAN video recording veterans' D-Day experiences[24]. It was disputed by Kevan Elsby, however[25], on the basis of a contemporary debriefing which stated that "Four hundred yards frm shore the British coxain insisted that he could take the craft no farther so the men must swin for it. He started to lower the ramp but Platoon Sgt. Willard R. Norfleet blocked the mechanism and insisted that the boat was going farther."[26] The other, in which Capt. Ettore Zappacosta was portrayed as drawing his gun on a coxswain to make him go in when he protested he could not see the landmarks, was challenged by Pvt. Bob Sales as untrue.[27] Both Ambrose and Sales assert that Sales was the only survivor from that landing craft.[28]

A number of journal reviews sharply criticized the research and fact checking of Nothing Like It in the World: The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad, 1863-1869, Ambrose's non-academic popular history published in August, 2000, about the construction of the Pacific Railroad between Council Bluffs, Iowa and the San Francisco Bay at Alameda. Reviewer Walter Nugent observed that it contained "annoying slips" such as mislabeled maps, inaccurate dates, geographical errors, and misidentified word origins,[29] while Don L. Hofsommer agreed that the book "confuses facts" and that "The research might best be characterized as 'once over lightly'."[30]

A front page article published in The Sacramento (CA) Bee on January 1, 2001, entitled "Area Historians Rail Against Inaccuracies in Book,"[31] listed more than sixty instances identified as "significant errors, misstatements, and made-up quotes" in the book documented in a December, 2000, fact checking paper compiled by three long time Western railroad researchers who specialize in the history of the Pacific Railroad,[32][20][33] while on January 11, 2001, Washington Post columnist Lloyd Grove reported in his column, The Reliable Source, that a co-worker had found a "serious historical error" in the same book that "a chastened Ambrose" promised to correct in future editions.[34]

[edit]The Eisenhower controversy
Two of Ambrose's statements regarding his interaction with President Eisenhower have been proven false: that Eisenhower initiated the biography project and that he spent "hundreds of hours" with the former president in preparation of the manuscript.

Ambrose often claimed that he was solicited by Eisenhower after the former president had read and admired Ambrose's life of General Henry Halleck. But Tim Rives, Deputy Director of the Eisenhower Presidential Center, says it was Ambrose who contacted Eisenhower and suggested the project,[35][36] as shown by a letter from Ambrose found in the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum.

After Eisenhower's death in 1969, Ambrose made repeated claims to have had a unique and extraordinarily close relationship with him over the final five years of the former President's life. In an extensive 1998 interview, for instance, Ambrose stated that he spent "a lot of time with Ike, really a lot, hundreds and hundreds of hours" interviewing Eisenhower on a wide range of subjects, and that he had been with him "on a daily basis for a couple years" before his death "doing interviews and talking about his life."[4]

Rives has stated, however, that a number of the interview dates Ambrose cites in his 1970 book, The Supreme Commander, cannot be reconciled with Eisenhower's personal schedule. The former president's diary and telephone show that the pair met only three times, for a total of less than five hours.[35][13] Later, Ambrose was less specific when citing dates of interviews with Eisenhower.[35][36]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Ambrose


This article from Wikipedia is more balanced, overall, than the vacillations that seem too much a part of Stephen Ambrose.

From the article, many historians have analysed the data in Other Losses and have come to the conclusion that the book is deeply flawed, not necessarily in its overall premise but in its numbers and in its pointing the finger solely at Eisenhower.

Quote:

James Bacque

...

Eisenhower biographer Stephen Ambrose, who helped edit Other Losses, wrote I quarrel with many of your interpretations, [but] I am not arguing with the basic truth of your discovery and acknowledged that Bacque had made a "major historical discovery", in the sense that very little attention had hitherto been paid to the treatment of German POWs in Allied hands. He acknowledged he did not now support Bacque's conclusions, but said at the American Military Institute's Annual Meeting in March, 1990: "Bacque has done some research and uncovered an important story that I, and other American historians, missed altogether in work on Eisenhower and the conclusion of the war. When those millions of Wehrmacht soldiers came into captivity at the end of the war, many of them were deliberately and brutally mistreated. There is no denying this. There are men in this audience who were victims of this mistreatment. It is a story that has been kept quiet.[5]

However, in a 1991 New York Times book review[6] , Ambrose also claimed 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 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[7], 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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bacque




JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 11:50 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
you can stop right there

Peter Worthington, one of the yappiest right wing columnists ever tolerated in Toronto. He was a source of his own noisy opinions. No more, no less.


That's one of the odd part of this, ehBeth. Why would a right winger be interested in knocking another right winger off his perch.

Are you suggesting that in this situation, for this event, that "[H]e was a source of his own noisy opinions. No more, no less", or are you stating that as a generality?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 11:58 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Having reviewed some more I have to, at the least, partially retract some of the information that has been put forward. But the fellow that you and Panzade put forward is not quite all that you might think.

I'm well aware of the problems that Ambrose had with plagiarism charges. But there's a vast difference between lifting a few passages from other authors without attribution and the kind of sloppy and intentionally misleading work that Bacque did. And you've made it painfully clear that you're not the one who can be counted on to make the distinction.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 12:06 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
I'm well aware of the problems that Ambrose had with plagiarism charges. But there's a vast difference between lifting a few passages from other authors without attribution and the kind of sloppy and intentionally misleading work that Bacque did. And you've made it painfully clear that you're not the one who can be counted on to make the distinction.


I did make the distinction, Joe, when I did further research. And I came back here and admitted as much.

What Ambrose has done went far beyond what you've put forward here, and you tell us that you are fully aware of the issue. Now who is making what distinction painfully clear?

The article that I came across that discussed this further is not the one I intended. It was this one:

Other Losses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 01:34 pm
@JTT,
You can try as hard as you can to make this about Stephen Ambrose, but it isn't. It's about your inability to tell the difference between the truth and a preposterous confabulation enthusiastically embraced by Nazi apologists.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 02:45 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
You can try as hard as you can to make this about Stephen Ambrose, but it isn't. It's about your inability to tell the difference between the truth and a preposterous confabulation enthusiastically embraced by Nazi apologists.


You're right, it isn't about Stephen Ambrose, at this particular point, it's about you. You cherry picked a highly misleading paragraph and you continue it here. Ambrose was a liar and you led the discussion away from that very issue, when you apparently, by your own partial admission, knew full well.

I've admitted my mistake and I'll do so again here. It seems from the available evidence that the numbers of dead POWs and the idea that Eisenhower was at fault for those deaths are in error.

There was lots of information pointing out the apparent flaws in Other Losses, so why did you go for the liar? Ambrose first liked the book and found it believable. He found that Bacque's basic premise was okay but he challenged the methodology, whether this was at the outset or when he became part of the panel discussing the book is not clear.



Quote:
Eisenhower biographer Stephen Ambrose, who helped edit Other Losses, wrote "I quarrel with many of your interpretations, [but] I am not arguing with the basic truth of your discovery" and acknowledged that Bacque had made a "major historical discovery", in the sense that very little attention had hitherto been paid to the treatment of German POWs in Allied hands. He acknowledged he did not now support Bacque's conclusions, but said at the American Military Institute's Annual Meeting in March, 1990:

"Bacque has done some research and uncovered an important story that I, and other American historians, missed altogether in work on Eisenhower and the conclusion of the war. When those millions of Wehrmacht soldiers came into captivity at the end of the war, many of them were deliberately and brutally mistreated. There is no denying this. There are men in this audience who were victims of this mistreatment. It is a story that has been kept quiet."[5]

URL: http://able2know.org/reply/post-4304461


Not such a "preposterous confabulation".
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 03:15 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
I've admitted my mistake and I'll do so again here. It seems from the available evidence that the numbers of dead POWs and the idea that Eisenhower was at fault for those deaths are in error.

Then we are done here.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 03:59 pm
@joefromchicago,
not so fast, what about all those dead hookers they found in eisenhower's crawl space

i'm sure i read something about it on some blog or other
www.shitimadeup.wordspot.com
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 04:19 pm
@djjd62,
Eisenhower was a communist sympathizer. Robert Welch proved it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 01:47:53