Bacque's book was torn apart by just about every mainstream historian that specializes in WW2. Bacque is a novelist with no historical research background and virtually all of his claims and charges were dismissed.
What no one denies is that in the first month or two after the war there was a lot of chaos and the German POW's were subjected to very poor treatment in all of the camps run by the Western Allies. However, there was nothing approaching a systemic plan to eliminate German prisoners. What is true is that Eisenhower grossly underestimated the numbers of prisoners, civilians, freed concentration camp survivors and civilian refugees that he was going to have to feed. All of Europe was essentially placed on rations for the first couple years after the war until the food situation stabilized.
The German government itself places the total losses in Western Allied camps on the order of ~60k, or 1% of the total prisoners taken. Those same documents also detail the suffering at some of those camps and in particular the horrendous treatment by the French against the German prisoners. There is certainly room for an apology and discussion, but nothing rises to the level of what Bacque is claiming.
Here are some of his factual mistakes and the counters to them:
1. The book claims that there were a "Missing Million" based on the difference in two reports both issued on June 2, 1945. The problem is Bacque either ignored or failed to realize that these reports listed different numbers. The first report gave the total number of prisoners held by the US in the entirety of the ETO as 2,870,400. The second listed only US prisoners held in COMZ, a single area of the ETO, as being 1,836,000. This is where the "missing million" comes from, but Bacque ignored the fact that BOTH reports contain the total number of prisoners held in the ETO by all Allied nations as 3,193,747. There was never any "missing million" and the fact Bacque missed this information in the reports and what the reports themselves were talking about opens him up for a lot of speculation on the rest of his assertions.
2. The "Other Losses" refers to a column in the weekly reports of the US Provost Marshal for the various sectors of the ETO. What Bacque failed to realize is that the reports denote EXACTLY what those losses were. Deaths among the prisoners were counted as deaths in the columns with the exact reasons given when known. The "Other Losses" column referred to movement of prisoners between zones and camps. In fact the numbers all corrobarate between the various camps and zones. One report will say 100k in "Other Losses" and the footnote will say 80k moved to Camp X and 20k moved to Camp Y. Well lo and behold, the numbers at Camp X and Camp Y increased by those amounts in their census. The numbers vary in those columns from zero to 189,000, the assertion that they were hidden deaths is ridiculous.
Bacque also ignored the largest contributor to "Other Losses" as being the well documented release of Volksstrum especially young boys and old men too feable to fight. These men were often simply recorded and then sent home without any official discharge or process as they were no threat to the allied forces. This is simply one of the many examples of humane treatment by the US towards German prisoners.
3. His assertions of large scale deaths in French custody are also highly speculative. While the total deaths are most likely higher than the official numbers, Bacque routinely ignores the facts of the French camps and the detailed records that were maintained by the French. In fact he sites a French "Other Losses" column again without reading the footnotes that detail that those included were released Volksstrum, women and the sick. He also ignores well documneted US efforts to provide food to the prisoners in the French camps who were on starvation rations, even in 1946.
4. His entire premise is hinged on the belief that the "missing million" originated as soldiers who fled the Soviets, but that the Soviets had inflated the counts, so the western allies decided to dispatch with the difference. The problem is the Soviets took incredibly accurate records and there are no missing soldiers. Post war census' taken of POW's by the Germans themselves confirm the actual totals and match up very well with the numbers reported by the Soviets and western allies. Bacque even misquoted Adenauer and claimed he thought the missing numbers were in the west. What Adenauer said during a meeting discussing a TASS report was whether or not the "missing" POW's from the Soviet records might be accounted for in the western numbers. The answer given at the meeting was certainly not. The whole point of the meeting was to ascertain German POW's still in Soviet custody or who died in Soviet custody. This is yet another example of Bacque picking and choosing his facts and ignoring contrary evidence in his own sources.
5. The camps in question were all contained along a very narrow stretch of 200km along the Rhine river. For the deaths to have occurred at the rate Bacque claims the Allies would have had to dispose of the bodies. Bacque claims this was done in buial details, not by burning. In order for that to be true there would be more than a corpse per every foot in the area where the camps were located. Yet, despite extensive post war development not a single mass grave has ever been uncovered in that area, let alone a body that wasn't known about. You can't just make a million bodies disappear, ask the Nazi's about that one.
6. Bacque twisted many of the oral histories that he used as evidence of what he was asserting. Many of the people he "quoted" have since come out and stated that they said nothing of the sort.
Overall, while there was certainly mistreatment and it is something worthy of discussion, exploration and perhaps even apology, the claims made by Bacque are utterly false. The official percentages of POW deaths are as follows:
Russians held by Germans: 57.5%
Germans held by Russians: 35.8%
Americans held by Japanese: 33.0%
Germans held by Eastern Europeans: 32.9%
British held by Japanese: 24.8%
British held by Germans: 3.5%
Germans held by French: 2.58%
Germans held by Americans: 0.15%
Germans held by British: 0.03%
As anyone can clearly see, the story of mistreatment of prisoners lies in the war between the Soviets and Germans against each other and the Japanese.