Did Buchanan Plagiarize this World War I Blockade Map? You be the judge.

In Patrick J. Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler, and the "Unnecessary War", he uses a map (Buchanan, p. 78) to show the food riots in Germany during World War I of which he incorrectly blames Winston Churchill as the cause. There is another map (Gilbert, p. 77) in a book by Martin Gilbert that appears very similar.

Similarities

• Similar topic: "Starvation Blockade" and "Food Riots"
• Exact same region focus
• Same keys on the lower right-hand side: Number of deaths and dots representing food riots

Buchanan's map is first. Gilbert's map is second.



References
Buchanan, Patrick J. Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War". New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2008.

Gilbert, Martin. The Routledge Atlas of the First World War, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2002.

Personally, I picked the middle ground option. The reason being is that Buchanan references Martin Gilbert throughout the entire book. Also, while the maps are very similar and Buchanan even uses Gilbert's death estimates, there are several differences. It would be tough to create a map representing the blockade of Germany during World War I without being similar to other maps already created.

That said, it is clear that this map was inspiration for Buchanan, or his mapmaker, and he should have cited Gilbert at least on the death estimates.

More sloppiness. Who does it say that map is copyright by? The first one?

If it's not Martin Gilbert, that's BS. The maps are identical. The only difference is the font and the addition of the out-of-context quote.

Jeffrey L. Ward

This is the copyright on all the maps throughout the book.

Martin Gilbert did not invent a map of Germany. Just because Buchanan communicates some of the same ideas as a previous author concerning the blockade of Germany that starved hundreds of thousands of people, doesn't mean he's plagiarising.

I hope you have better criticism than this on Buchanan's book.

No, he didn't invent a map of Germany. But he provided the layout, the framing of the boxes, the numbers and figures and the rest. Here's a quick definition of plagiarism from google:

"Passing off someone else's work as your own, whether word for word or merely the creative ideas. This can amount to copyright infringement if permission has not been obtained from the copyright owner for use of the expressive elements of the work. Even if permission is granted, putting your name on someone else's work is still plagiarism and is unethical within artistic, scientific, academic and political communities."

It seems pretty clear here that by including that map without giving it attribution - especially adding the copyright of another person who clearly didn't do the research - is highly questionable.

I mean, c'mon. Even the layout of the BOXES on the page is the same.

You might as well try and argue that Hitler wasn't responsible for killing 6 million jews because he never actually signed an order authorizing it.

I would question where Mr. Ward got the idea for the map from as it is probable Buchanan didn't even look at the maps much prior to publication. That being said, the maps data is very similar, and it may be that both maps got their data from the same source material...probably likely in fact. Interestingly, Buchanan's leaves a city off that Gilbert's has on his. My assessment, from a guy who takes other people's information and makes it his own all the time, is that Buchanan (Ward) based his map off of the Gilbert one and thought he changed it enough to not draw much comparison. Why do I say that? Because the boxes. The box layout is way too similar in size, composition, and location without the one being inspired by the other.

Which city did he leave off? I've looked at city 3 times over and I can't find it.

Hammersbooch, south of Hamburg.

He also calls Frankfurt just Frankfurt rather than Frankfurt am Main.

I voted no, their are enough differences for sure that it wouldn't be plagiarism. Are their lots of similarities? Sure, especially when it comes to the info boxes and data, however since those are unchangeable numbers that wouldn't hold up in court. Whoever made the map probably used it for reference, but their would be no real way to prove it. The final reason is quality, lets be honest here, the first map is quite nice, while the second looks like something a grade school history student would draw.

Im gonna go the middle-ground with this one. As someone pointed out he references Gilbert throughout the book. Therefore, even if this is an instance of plagiarism its unintentional. The point being that the map does require a reference because it is a blatant copy of a historical document, but even if it lacks one there isn't "thievery afoot".

This isn't as bad as the other map, but it was definitely inspired/copied from the Gilbert map. The missing city is funny.

I voted yes.


Its still a form of the plage! I mean come on, 14 years go by and this guy puts out a book with a map that is damn near identical EVEN DOWN TO THE NUMBERS minus a few things so minor you can hardly notice it without taking a real good look. He should have given credit to the other person that made the map first. Hell maybe he did and we didn't see it or hear about it. Honestly how you found those 2 maps is unreal IMO.


I'm also HIGHLY upset you haven't read my 101st Airborne books by Donald R. Burgett yet after like, 3 years of me telling you to get them THey are cheap in paperback like 7$ per. Hell I'll ship you my copies.