Talk:Dachau liberation reprisals/Archive 1

2005 comments

A good discussion with lot of information which analyses the incident : [1] --Molobo 17:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

-A cleaned up the article a little bit to correct a few instances of poor grammar.-67.169.170.140 09:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Why would Patton have been involved in any way if the 45th Infantry Division was part of the US Seventh Army? Patch commanded the 7th Army. This makes no sense at all. Patton hadn't commanded the 7th Army since August 1943.

I believe that at this stage Patton had become commander of US ground forces in Germany. Andreas 10:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of contributions by 217.180.64.154

I reverted to remove the comments about who deserved what, as an encyclopedia should not editorialize (NPOV). Whether the local people were collaborators (or perhaps to what extent they were collaborators would be a better way of putting it) is a factual question, and should be explored further. --Hansnesse 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally, it was a massacre

I read the whole article and it was interesting to read the sentence "...US soldiers, shocked at what they discovered in the concentration camp, murdered several (est. 50 - 120 dead, 50 wounded) German soldiers...". I learned a new thing. If you are shocked of something, you can destroy it! An academic article should be neutral. My offer is to delete the "shocked soldiers" part. Deliogul 11:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I definitely concur

--Jadger 23:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a factual statement. There is also a pretty clear connection between what was found at the camp, and the massacre, so the shocked state serves as an explanation - but unlike you I do not read it as an excuse. Other camps were liberated without guards being massacred, even though the servicemen liberating them must have been shocked as well. Nevertheless, it should stay in the article. Andreas 08:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC) --Only a few years late to jump in..but I was surprised to see this. IN the early 1980s, I was talking with a man at dinner - a friend of a friend - an older guy.. who had started talking about his war experience. He was in the group that captured dachau. I was clueless and listened in horror as he explained how he and others were so shocked and horrified by what they saw, they shot the guards. The man shook as he recalled it so many years later. I believed watching him that he was probably in a state of shock. It was clearly a horrifying experience for him, that was visceral, so many years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.126.14 (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

it is not a factual statement, as no one can prove that every GI was indeed shocked/appalled. If it were an explanation, it would explain why they would shoot the German soldiers on site, but they did not shoot them on site, they lined them up and waited for a while, and then shot them. it is pretty obvious it was not some impulsive action like it is attempted to explain it away.

--Jadger 03:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Unlike you (at least it seems so), I never was present at a massacre site, so I can not judge the mental state of the people involved in the liberation, and how it is connected to the massacre. But I always enjoy reading your expert and informed analysis. It teaches me a lot. Andreas 07:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never claimed to have been present, but I am reasonable and I do realize that if someone is shocked by something, they act immediately against it. They do not wait and premeditate the action they will take; A person with arachnophobia does not wait for a spider to get closer to kill it, they will run away or quickly move to squish it. Needless to say, you have started trolling and are trying to take this discussion off-topic so as to prevent your bias and uneducated posts from being fully examined.

--Jadger 14:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you are a psychologist who specialises in what psychological shock/trauma does to people? Well, thanks for the edification. And no, before you wail about how much of an unreasonable POV-pusher and troll I am, this discussion is on topic. That arachnophobia example is ludicrous, by the way, as is your judgment of my contributions to Wikipedia. The only one I can see trolling here is the person who barges in and in their first posts immediately accuses others of being POV pushers, without any regard for the assumption of good faith. That would be you. Andreas 14:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to fall to your antagonism, your petty bullying is rather annoying and pathetic. just a few points though, you have said: "The only one I can see trolling here is the person who barges in and in their first posts immediately accuses others of being POV pushers, without any regard for the assumption of good faith. That would be you." but let me point out that my first comment in this discussion was: "I definitely concur", which is neither trolling or barging in. And unlike you, I provide examples if I do not agree with something, in order to clarify; you on the other hand just say: " That _______ example is ludicrous" without giving any proof or example to the contrary.

P.S. as for "barging in", this is a public area, where anyone can discuss and edit, if you do not like what other people say on a topic, keep the discussion to your personal user page, not the public session where serious discussion is open to all. And as for trolling, let me also provide an example "Unlike you (at least it seems so), I never was present at a massacre site, so I can not judge the mental state of the people involved in the liberation, and how it is connected to the massacre. But I always enjoy reading your expert and informed analysis. It teaches me a lot." in the previous case, extreme sarcasm is being used to try to insult someone.

--Jadger 23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, I am so sorry. It did indeed take you until your second post to accuse me of POV pushing, which is of course the hallmark of serious discussion. Please accept my humble apologies for getting your intent so wrong. As I said before, your informed analysis and expert contributions are invaluable. Andreas 07:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

THis is an old thread but I was shocked (!) to see it. I remember talking to a man many years ago who described this event - he was among those who captured Dachau. We were stiting at a table, in the early 1980s, and he described the feeling of seeing the SS and he said that the shock of it was overwhelming and their only thought was to kill those who had caused this harm. He was shaking - this many years later - and it left an impression on me that I will never forget. I didn't know if his description was accurate but as I later read, it was pretty accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.126.14 (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Link Removal

I removed the link to Scrapbookpages because it is highly tendencious and accepts without any critical analysis the claim by Buechner. If the link is put up again a warning should be noted next to it, informing readers of the nature of the page linked to, instead of an acclaim on its detail.

Some of the points that make me think the removed link has a clear agenda:

• A critical examination of the discrepancy of Buechner's and the other claims is missing
• A list or table of all those killed is missing, this could at least be by massacre site at Dachau that allows me to follow how they arrived at the quite exact figure of 520 in the end, which seems to me to come a bit out of the blue
• An explanation of how we arrive at the quite exact figure of 122 killed by noon?
• How they know the picture with the shovel was taken before, and not after the beating of the SS man?
• How the armed prisoner talking to the SS-Man is ID'd as a 'communist'?
• How between pages the guard to be beaten with a shovel is suddenly to be beaten to death, when on the first page it is explicitly said that it is unknown whether he survived.

By another reader of the page the following points were raised:

• Emphasis most prisoners at Dachau were not Jews but mainly Communists, serious criminals, political criminals.
• Emphasis that gas chambers were never used.
• Emphasis that dead in train cars were caused by Allied strafing and that most dead in camp were from typhus not from execution.
• Emphasis that 45th Div was mainly composed of American Indians (I don't think that's true) singling out Lt Bushyhead as a full blooded Cherokee that accounts for the division's history of savagery from Sicily onward as the red man's delight in killing white men.
• Section on Dachau Malmedy massacre trial that purports all German prisoners were tortured/coerced into admitting guilt.

A link not worth keeping, or if my removal is reverted, a link that should only appear with a health-warning.

Andreas 09:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

to your first point: show other's claims then, the only other claims I have seen are the links at the bottom, which I will discuss below. to your fifth point: he was interned in the camp for being a commmunist, how hard is that to understand? that information was more then likely written on the back of the photo by the original owner of it. That is very commonplace.

Unfounded speculation about the back of the photo and the reason for his imprisonment. I have a number of period photos with nothing written on the back. As for me needing to present other claims - I have done so, e.g. by posting the official US Army report below. Please start contributing by providing reliable info before lecturing me on how to go about this. Andreas 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

to your sixth point: there was more then one guard, and upwards of 40 soldiers were murdered by the inmates, no one ever said it was the same guard.

It obviously escaped you that it is the same picture. Andreas 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

that still doesn't explain your removal of the quote describing what happened at the camp, by a participant, and can and has been verified.

and what of this link:"testimony"

Sorry, how did you 'verify' the quote? Is this the logic of 'It is on a website, so it must be true'? To 'verify' the quote you need to check that Linsberger existed, was a German soldier, and was at Dachau. I am not aware that you, or indeed that website, have done any of this. You either believe it all, or you have your doubts. Believing is not the same as verifying. Andreas 07:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is the divisional history website - you get what you can expect, i.e. not an unbiased account. Andreas 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

it is clearly biased, and is not actually a testimony as much as a glory seeking for the division by the author, claiming that the 42nd never came near the camp and that the members of the group of the 42nd that were met at the gate were grossly incompetent, stating:

"The general’s aide apparently had very poor eyesight. There were about two hundred SS guards and other German troops inside the camp, although at that time they were under custody. He also failed to note the presence of about two hundred men from my battalion, who had arrived about an hour earlier. The composition of the Linden party appears to be correct; except that, for some curious reason, Col. Fellenz does not mention the presence of a lady reporter by the name of Margaret Higgins, who was the solicitous focus of the group being there in the first place. Since I had reported our entry into the camp about an hour earlier, the Linden group already knew that we were there."

this site is just as credible as the one you think should be deleted.

and how about this site: "liberation"

"During the next few days as the burials went forward, the sick and the dying were transferred to hospital facilities, makeshift as they had to be, and food was carefully distributed. `Prescribed' might be the better word, for the starving had to adjust their food intake with medical discipline. Only then did the American command turn to review the files that the Germans, with characteristic meticulousness, had maintained."

It is obvious that this person believes in the stereotype of all Germans as being hardnosed efficiency nuts. Also the factual accuracy of that source is easily disputable, as it describes occurences that were never described in any other source, namely the supposed stitching together of flags

Unfounded speculation. I don't know who Abraham Sachar was, but maybe he was present, or talked to those who were present? Your whole case for inclusion of e.g. the razor story rests on assuming that Linsberger existed and was present at the event. Can you prove it? If you are not prepared to do so, I would suggest you extend a bit of leniency to other sources as well. Would not want to get into POV pushing, after all. Andreas 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

also the opening remarks: "Holocaust-deniers would have you believe that scenes like the one described here simply didn't happen - an assertion so offensive and insulting on its face as to be discarded without consideration..."

that is clearly biased, that whole article is based as an attack on the viewpoint of another person, and is not meant to be factual or to present ideas clearly. instead it is meant simply to insult those it opposes.

--Jadger 16:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, the site is very clear what it is about, it is taking sides openly which distinguishes it positively from the link I removed, which does not come with a clear statement of what it is about. YMMV. Andreas 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion can be cited as sources for Jewish conspiracy theories then? because according to your rationale that is acceptable. but not in the context of it being a conspiracy theory, but an actual factual occurence.

It cannot possibly be used as a reference when it states in the opening paragraph that anyone who doesn't agree with the writer is a Nazi and a Holocaust denier. not very impartial or well researched one must admit. this is an encyclopedia article, not a personal diary were you add links to radicals you agree with.

--Jadger 21:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so Nizkor.org is run by radicals. I don't think I need to know much more about your view of the world. Andreas 07:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry, did not read the whole page before talking on it, your current revision seems most satisfactory.

--Jadger 21:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am so happy to hear that. Approval by you means a lot to me. Andreas 07:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of WolframSievert

Hi

It is not alleged that it took place, it is a fact that a massacre of German POWs took place. There are US Army investigation reports and eyewitness accounts to that effect. What is not clear is how many POWs were killed, and whether the main killing (the execution at the wall) was an intentional war crime or an accident. Here is a transcript of the report as posted by a researcher on a historical discussion forum:

STARTS HEADQUARTERS SEVENTH ARMY Office of the Inspector General, Seventh Army (CP) APO 758, US Army

JMW/iw 8 June 1945

SECRET

SUBJECT: Investigation of Allied Mistreatment of German Guards at Dachau.

TO: Commanding General, Seventh Army (CP), APO 758, US Army.

I. AUTHORITY 1. This investigation was conducted by Lt. Colonel Joseph Whitaker, IGD, Assistant Inspector General, Seventh Army, pursuant to the directive of the Commanding General, Seventh Army, issued by the Chief of Staff 2 May 1945.

II SUBJECT MATTER 2. German guards at the Concentration Camp at Dachau, Germany, were alleged to have been mistreated at the hands of American troops, and such is the subject matter of this report (Exhibit "A")

III FACTS (NOTE: Numbers in parenthesis at ends of paragraphs refer to supporting evidence, a list of which follows the last page of this report.)

3. The German Dachau Internment Camp was overrunn 29 April 1945 by elements of the 3d Bn, 157th Infantry, 45th Infantry Division. A small party of the 42d Division also entered the area from the front at approximately the same time. (1)

4. At the entrance to the back area of the Dachau prison grounds, four German soldiers surrendered to Lt William P Walsh 0-414901, in command of Company "I" 157th Infantry. These prisioners Lt. Walsh ordered into a box car, where he personally shot them. Pvt Albert C. Pruitt, 34573708, Company "I", 157th Infantry, then climbed into the box car where these Germans were on the floor moaning and apparently still alive, and finished them off with his rifle. (2)

5. After entry into the Dachau Camp area, Lt Walsh segregated from surrendered prisoners of war those who were identified as SS Troops. (3)

6. Such segregated prisoners of war were marched into a separate enclosure, lined up against the wall and shot down by American troops, who were acting under the orders of Lt Walsh. A light machine gun, a BAR, carbines and either a pistol or a submachine gun were used. Seventeen of such prisoners of war were killed and others wounded. (4)

7. Lt Jack Bushyhead, 0-1284822, executive officer of Company "I" participated with Lt Walsh in the handling of SS men and during the course of the shooting personally fired his weapon at the prisoners.

8. Lt Daniel F Drain, 0-2006047, acting under the orders of Lt. Walsh, directed men under his command to set up the machine gun which was used, but did not personally fire or give orders to fire. (6)

9. Lt. Howard E. Buechner 0-435481, Battalion Surgeon, visitied the area and saw the bodies after the shooting. He observed that some were still alive, but made no examination to determine whether or not their lives could be saved, and did nothing to aid them. (7)

10. Lt. Drain witnessed physical abuse of prisoners of war by released inmates of the Camp and did nothing to stop it. (Cool

11. After entry into the camp, personnel of the 42d division discovered the presence of guards, presumed to be SS men, in a tower to the left of the main gate of the inmate stockade. This tower was attacked by Tec 3 Henry J. Wells, 39271327, Headquarters Military Intelligence Services, ETO, covered and aided by a party under them by the guards in the tower. A number of Germans were taken prisoner; after they were taken and within a few feet of the tower from which they were taken, they were shot and killed. (9)

12. Considerable confusion exists in the testimony as to the particuars of this shooting; however Wells, German interrogator for the 222d Infantry, states that he had lined these Germans up in double rank preparatory to moving them out; that he saw no threatening gesture; but he shot into them after some other American soldiers, whose identities are unknown, started shooting them. (10)

13. Lt Colonel Fellenz was entering the door of the tower at the time of this shooting, took no part in it, and testified that he could not have stopped it. (11)

14. After the camp was taken and was somewhat settled down, two Germans were shot by inmates who used the service rifle of Pfc Peter J. Demarzo, 42175967, Company "L", 157th Infantry, 45th Division, who was then on guard duty. Although his company commander, Lt. Lawrence R. Steward, Jr, 0-1060658, was informed of such a happening, no investigation has ben made in the company to determine the facts or whether or not such soldier or other members of the guard should receive disciplinary action. (12)

IV DISCUSSION

15. Troops entering this camp area passed the famous train with its cars of dead bodies. Inside the camp other indications of Nazi treatment were evident. The sight of these numerous victims would naturally produce strong mental reaction on the part of both officers and men. Such circumstances are extenuating, but are the only extenuating facts found. (13)

16. Lt Walsh testified that the SS men were segregated in order to properly guard them, and were then fired upon because they started moving towards the guards. However, the dead bodies were located along the wall against which they had been lined up, they were killed along the entire line, although Lt Walsh only claims those on one flank moved, and a number of witnesses testified that it was generally "understood" that these prisoners were to be shot when they were being segregated. These facts contradict the defensive explanation given by Lt Walsh (14)

17. The bodies of the dead Germans in two instances showed severed finger [sic], in other instances crushed skulls. There is no evidence that the SS men were multilated before they were shot. When the Inspector viewed these bodies numerous inmates of the camp had access to yard and grounds where they were; it is probably that they had such access at all times subsequent to the liberation of the camp and possible that the crushed skulls and severed fingers observed by the Inspector resulted from visits of such persons after the shooting. (15)

18. It is obvious that the Americans present when the guards were shot at the tower labored under much excitement. However, Wells could speak German fluently, he knew no shots had been fired at him in his attacj on the tower, he had these prisoners lined up, he saw no threatening gesture or act. It is felt that his shooting into them was entirely unwarrantedl the whole incident smacks of execution similar to the other incidents described in this report (16)

19. The Inspector was unable to indentify other persons who also fired in this killing. The confusion of evidence surrounding the tower incident also extends to the number killed there, and the witnesses gave widely varying estimates. The Inspector counted six bodies in a group at the tower on 3 May 1945, and at least one other body in accounted for as having been washed away in the canal, making a tentative total of seven. (17)

20. It is felt that a distinction should be made between the enlisted men who shot prisoners of war while acting under orders of a responsible officera and those two enlisted men, Pvt Pruitt and Tec 3 Wells, who acted under their own volition.

21. The evidence as to the shooting of two Germans by inmates using the rifle of PFC De Marzo indicates a failure of such soldier in his duties as a sentry, an apparent lack of training and discipline in guard duty on the part of such soldier, his associate and the sergeant of the guard; and neglect on the part of the company commander to make any inquiry or fact finding investigation into the circumstances also reflects upon the administrative functioning of such company (12)

22. Lt. Col Felix L. Sparks, 0-386497, now with Assembly Area Command, was in command of the 3d Battalion, 157th Infantry, during the Dachau operation. There is testimony that at the beginning of this operation he fired his pistol into the body of a German lying on the ground; there is testimony that he was present or nearby when Lt Walsh ordered four prisoners of war into a box car where they were shot; later when Lt Walsh segregated from other prisoners those identified as SS, Lt Colonel Sparks was in the immediate vicinity and according to testimony was the one who stopped the shooting of those segregated. The Inspector was unable to find any confirmation of the statement of one witness that Lt Col Sparks fired his pistol; there is no proof that he had actual knowledge of the box car shooting although nearby; nor that he knew of the segregation of the SS men or the purpose thereof. Because it has been impossible to contact him for his testimony conclusions as to his responsibility are not drawn in this report. (1Cool

V. CONCLUSIONS

23. German soldiers after their surrender as prisoners of war to American troops were summarily shot and killed by such troops.

24. Four of such prisoners of war were shot by Lt William P. Walsh, 0-414901, Hq, 157th Infantry, 45th Division, and by Pvt Albert C. Pruitt, 34573708, Company "I", 157th Infantry, 45th Division.

25. Germans identified as SS were segregated from other prisoners of war, marched into an enclosed yard, lined against the wall, and summarily executed under the personal supervision and orders of Lt Walsh. Seventeen of those segregated were killed.

26. Lt Jack Busheyhead, 0-1284822, Company "I", 157th Infantry, 45th Division, an executive officer to Lt Walsh, assisted such officer, and in addition personally participated in the execution of the seventeen.

27. Lt Daniel F. Drain, 0-2006047, Company "I", 157th Infantry, 45th Division, assisted by directing his men to set up the machine gun used in the execution, knowing the unauthorized purpose to which it was to be put.

28. Lt Drain witnessed abuse of prisoners of war without taking steps to stop or prevent it.

29. Lt Howard E. Buechner, 0-435481, 3d Bn, 157th Infantry, 45th Division, violated his duty both as a physician and a soldier in ignoring the possibility of saving the wounded by still living prisoners who had been shot.

30 Tec 3 Harry J. Wells, 39271327, Headquarters Military Intelligence Services, ETO, wantonly shot and killed prisoners of war in his custody.

31. Inmates shot and killed two guards, using a service rifle which they took from a soldier on guard duty, one Pfc PeterJ. De Marzo, 42175967, Company "L", 157th Infantry, 45th Division. No investigation of the circumstances was made in such soldier's company although his commanding officer, Lt Lawrence R. Steward, Jr., 0-1060658, Company "L", 157th Infantry, 45th Division, was informed of the incident.

VI RECOMMENDATIONS

32. In view of the transfer of the 42d and the 45th divisions, it is recommended that this report be forwarded to the Commanding General, Third Army, for such action as he may deem appropriate.

(signed) Joseph M. Whitaker Lt. Colonel, IGD, Asst. Inspector General, Seventh Army

9 Incl: 9-Ex "A" to "I" incl

APPROVED: (signed) C. K. Leerer Colonel, IGD, Inspector General, Seventh Army

__APPROVED WADE H. HAISLIP Lieutenant General, USA Commanding.

SECRET ENDS

Andreas 06:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Citations

There is a reference section but the references are not cited in the text. Please see the Biscari massacre for an example of pages cited. However the Biscari massacre does not use the Wikipedia:footnotes which would be better still. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes

• The razorblade story - if lucid stories are introduced, they should be referenced. Remarks about photographs on the web are not a reference.
• The Red Cross hospital - it was a military hospital
• The soldiers from the eastern front - they could have come from anywhere
• The part about the civilians - how is that connected to the massacre? It was not uncommon for the liberators of the camps to order local civilians to experience them first hand.

Andreas 15:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with your first point, but it should not be removed, as the usual wikipedia policy is to add a tag
• How do you know it was not a Red Cross Hospital? I have not seen you reference anything that states otherwise. from the same link as below: "On the 9th of April, 1945, the heavily wounded laid down their weapons; they were no longer suited to be put into action. They reported themselves to the head of the hospital, Dr. SCHRÖDER, who sent them to the barracks. Evacuated women and children were present in barrack right next to it. Preparations to be evacuated were made, doctors, staff and caretaking personnel all wore white coats and the German Red Cross-armband."
• again, if you are going to change previously accepted information you should provide a source that states otherwise.

from testimony"Hans LINBERGER was wounded east of Kiev when an AT-gun blew away his left arm and covered his body with shrapnel. It was his fourth wound. After a long stay in the hospital he was posted to the Reserve-Kompanie at Dachau, on the 9th of March 1945."

• the local civilians had to clean up the camp, I think what was meant by the sentence was that the scene of the massacre was cleaned by them as well as the rest of the camp.

--Jadger 22:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but this is not how it works. You provide unsourced information - you can then not expect other users to either accept it or do your research for you. That should be fundamental. That applies to the Red Cross hospital, and all the other info you added. Do your research, then add. Not add, expect others to do your research for you.

• The Linsberger account shows that one of the wounded was wounded in the east. The text inferred that all of them were.

• What you think is meant by the sentence is really not that relevant. I obviously think something different. Therefore, unless a clear link can be established between the civilians and the massacres, I fail to see the relevance.

With that said, I see no other way than to revert your edit. Please conduct your research properly, and then add information. Not the other way round. Andreas 07:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

WAIT WAIT WAIT!!! "all other info u added" I never added that information, that information was already present. you cannot change an article without providing a reputable source, which I did not, you however remove information in an attempt to POV push.

That is patent nonsense. Unsourced information can be removed. Wiki has a verification policy. That information should never have been introduced. Andreas 16:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• what you think is meant by the sentence is not really relevant either then, and so it should remain, as it is only your POV that has reason to delete such a sentence.

Please elucidate on what you think my POV is. I notice you are on a crusade against them, but would submit that you are the one pushing a POV here. Think about it. Andreas 16:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

DO RESEARCH IF YOU ARE GOING TO EDIT AN ARTICLE, DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF NOT RESEARCHING WHEN I HAVE. YOU SIMPLY REMOVE VALUABLE INFORMATION THAT YOU CANNOT DISPROVE BY YOUR OWN RESEARCH, NOW WHAT RESEARCH HAVE YOU DONE? AS FAR AS IT HAS SHOWN, NONE.

you simply say my sources are unsuitable and then remove information on the subject of the article that has nothing to do with my edits.

--Jadger 15:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed unsourced information. Your sources may or may not be unsuitable, how can I know when you provide none? That is not POV push, it is verification push. The only thing that was POV push was that unsourced information, pushing a revisionist POV. If you want to re-add the information that I deleted, please feel free to provide a reliable and reputable source, according to Wiki guidelines, with it. Regards. Andreas 16:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Scrapbookpages Website

In my view the often linked Scrapbookpages Website does not fulfill the requirements of the Wiki policy set out below, because it is not reliable and reputable.

I have explained why that is my view under the point 'Link Removal'.

Andreas 07:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Placting the policy2 tag on this page listed it as an official policy. I am so hardcoding this! -- Heptor _talk 00:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I must admit I have no idea what you are talking about in your last sentence. Andreas 07:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hardcoding means placing the code of a template directly into a page. You didn't have to remove the box[2] once I hardcoded it. -- Heptor _talk 01:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

punishment

Comment constitutes a threat

what happened to those american pigs? they're gang raped by monkeys? seriously, they were at least arrested? i'v never heard about this massacre until just now, and i'm so angry that if i see an american i'm going to slash his head off. disgusting. that's why NOBODY can surrender to americans. and that's why is SO FUNNY when people thru airplanes at americans buildings or american kids kill people at school. no sense of ethic or honor, animals. talk about the punishment of the shooters, martial court or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.203.57.8 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 April 2006

---would you please consider signing your remarks in the future. Of course the Americans were not punished, the victor is the one who writes the history books as Napoleon famously said. you may also want to learn about the "recovered territories" as Poles call them, or the approx. 2 million Germans murdered by the Red army in 1945 Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II Historical_Eastern_Germany Evacuation_of_East_Prussia. It would also be appreciated if you refrain from using such hateful language here, this is a site for serious discussion, not for a personal jihad. Also, it must be mentioned that this is only a small figure compared to other atrocites committed by the allies, for instance, of the 91,000 German soldiers taken captive at Stalingrad, only 6000 returned home. Erich Hartmann was a prisoner for 10 and 1/2 years in a soviet work camp, in direct violation of the most basic human rights, let alone those set out in the UN laws (charter of rights and freedom) and the Geneva convention, although the Ivans had not signed the latter.

--Jadger 03:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest referring to the Soviets as 'the Ivans' also fails the appropriate language test, so maybe you should not start to lecture others until you have figured out proper behaviour yourself? Andreas 08:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ivans is common slang for Russians, and it is acceptable because the meaning is recognized by almost all. you yourself have just verified this by your reply above. Ivan is a common name in Russia, that is why the name is used, much like the anonymous name for someone John Doe which is not offensive, or perhaps any national personification. That is, unless you personally have a feud with a certain someone named Ivan and so have a lesser view of anyone with that name. I would also like to point out that I was not the one advocating the decapitation of someone for simply being from a certain nation.

lol, I just noticed that the first user uses American spelling in his anti-American speech, not proper English (it is honour, not honor)

--Jadger 00:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And you pretend you are on a crusade against POV pushing? You are simply ridiculous - you would not notice a POV if it came and bit you in the arse. Andreas 08:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

unsigned: "i'm so angry that if i see an american i'm going to slash his head off. " Aside from my obvious amusement at this comment, I have to say that I'd probably do the same thing the American pigs did. I'm a pacifist and a conscientious objector, but I have to say that liberating Dachau would probably result in some heavily-armed Jews. Of course, I'm well aware that "Talk" pages aren't for pointless discussions of ethics, but every once in a while I just have to "share" :)

Kalisphoenix 03:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, POV is allowed on the talk page, but attacks and trolling such as what you are doing Andreas is frowned upon. for instance, you do not see me attacking Kalisphoenix and calling him a "pussy hippy dumbass" because of his stance as a conscientious objector.

As for Kalisphoenix saying he would do the same thing, personally I find that simply ridiculous, simply by using Kant's concept of the categorical imperative. His reasoning is a rather failed interpretation of the categorical imperative.

--Jadger 02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Children, children. The purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the article in question. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.

Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into a slanging match. See also: Wikiquette

-- Jibal 23:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

remarks

I saw that some of the editors here are german speaking. You might want to check the german wikipedia's article which is well-founded. The translation of Linberger's (not Linsberger) testimony is imho a copyvio because it has been published in 1964 by an author named Erich Kern.--84.56.13.83 20:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

your link says the article does not exist, has it been deleted?

--Jadger 02:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's easier to ask a question than to enter a search query -- but the latter is more effective and efficient. Searching either google or de.wikipedia.org yields the correct link: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau-Massaker -- Jibal 23:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's right, i just forgot the hyphen in the link. Thank you :-) --84.56.45.188 15:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw, using the interwiki-links might be the easiest way ;-) --84.56.45.188 15:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any major flaws in the article (although my German is not the greatest). Is there anyway someone more proficient then myself in German that can translate it for us on here?

--Jadger 02:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The German article is of much higher quality than this one, and a translation of it should be the basis for this article. Note that it was selected for the German equivalent of 'Good Article' standard (lesenswerte Artikel). Andreas 09:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should strive to make our articles lesenswerte. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Testimony of Hans Linsberger

I put this section up at WP:COPYVIO per the comments on this page. Also removed the "move to Wikisource" tag. Wikisource does not host excerpts and this would very likely be deleted if transwikied. The sort of thing I believe Wikisource would keep is the complete court transcripts. To just pull one piece of testimony from the court documents introduces bias IMHO. Here other views can be presented and summarized on Wikisource there would only be the testimony out of context.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed his testimony details from the article, however his testimony is still available as an external link. As a singular testimony with no other witnesses backing him up on record, I cannot in all good conscience consider him as a reliable witness to the alleged atrocities. Also, the testimony is based on an article published in Berkenkruis in October 1988. Berkenkruis is the magazine of the veterans of the Flemish SS volunteers in World War II, which has problems of WP:RS issues as it is the ONLY primary source of the allegations.--Eqdoktor 09:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, according to the article in the German Wikipedia, the sources of Berkenkruis is a book of Erich Kern (in fact Kernmayr), a former SS Untersturmführer who has written a couple of revisionnist books. He has been the first one the provide the testimony of Linberger. But I don't think this makes him a more reliable source than Berkenkruis. --Lebob-BE 10:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Has POV issues

It seems that the article as it is now gives the impression that there was a massive massacre of German PoWs that day. Felis L. Spark himself testified:

It was the forgoing incident which has given rise to wild claims in various publications that most or all of the German prisoners captured at Dachau were executed. Nothing could be further from the truth. The total number of German guards killed at Dachau during that day most certainly not exceed fifty, with thirty probably being a more accurate figure. The regimental records for that date indicate that over a thousand German prisoners were brought to the regimental collecting point. Since my task force was leading the regimental attack, almost all the prisoners were taken by the task force, including several hundred from Dachau.

There was a massacre, but we need to let only the verified facts speak for themselves. Not emotions - like the above discussions. So far as I can determine, the only POW deaths that can be proven with some certainty are the 12 shot at the wall, and an undetermined number killed by inmates later on. Also we need to look at the veracity of the single witness (SS Captain Lindberger) that seems to be providing the worst of the details. The exculpatory testimonial from Felix L Spark also (like the quotation I provided) needs to be highlighted also in view of the confusion that seems to have occured at the liberation of Dachau.

Regarding the alleged massacre at Webling, the best online source I can find is a web forum debate (not reliable and encyclopedic). It is not sure with verified sources and facts that this is a massacre and not normal casualties as expected in war. If it needs to be listed here, it needs to be backed up with verified sources. Why is it listed here with Dachau? Was this unit based in Dachau? Does it need to be even mentioned at all in this article as it is rather tangent to the Dachau massacre. Even if a massacre occured does it make sense to shoe horn a mention in here? --Eqdoktor 07:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions w/self-published "sourcing"

Recent additions relying on one website (self-published/independent website) do not meet WP:Verify. The material was written in a conversational manner — more appropriate for a talk page discussion. I invite the editor to engage in discussion on this page — and reach consensus with article editors, rather than adding POV statements. — ERcheck (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

These edits are likely related to the 9 March edits by an anon editor, adding the same basic details to List of massacres. — ERcheck (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To the Anon IP editor, please review some of the policies and guidelines for contributing to WP. Most important is to remain civil towards other editors, and work towards a well-sourced article. There is also the tone you have adopted, with comments like 'this is a lie', 'think about it', which are not suitably encyclopedic. Finally, you are reverting quickly enough to be blocked for breaching the 3-revert rule. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this page is subject to an edition conflict initiated by a Anon IP editor, who obviously wants to put in information that is not reliable, I think it's becoming urgent to put this page under protection. The sources cited by the Anon IP editor are the one that are put forward by denialists sites like IHR or Zundelsite. --Lebob-BE 12:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The same information, by some of the same IPs (mainly from New Zealand), was being inserted into the List of massacres. I'll keep an eye on the page ... semi-protection would be then next step. — ERcheck (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Seems to be starting up again. I've s-protected per request. — ERcheck (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The dead in the railroad cars that set the massacre off, I believe were killed by US fighter planes. 159.105.80.141 18:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No evidence could ever be given that the deads in the railcars had been staffed by Allied airplanes. The fact is that they died from starvation a bad treatments.--Lebob-BE 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the train was quite shot up. US eyewitness: "The cars had bullet holes all over them, evidently from strafing on the way to Dachau."[3] --HanzoHattori 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So we have 500 to 600 Germans murdered - but "history" seems to be gradually shifting the killings from the US to the Jews - are the Jews okay with this? At one time it appeared there were photos, witnesses, etc that seem to give some guy Bushyhead sp? a bigger role.159.105.80.141 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

An anon IP had added again the fabled figure of 560 German killed. I have removed it. In fact, the number of German soldiers killed by the US troops does probably not exceed 35. Some other SS might have been killed by the inmates as well. The total number of German killed should not exceed 50 or 60 at most. --Lebob-BE 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A book by Col Buechner gives 520 as the number of murddered German soldiers. The Col was the officer o site I believe. His book came out in the 1980s I believe. 50 to 60 - why are all WW2 numbers either missing the last zero or have one too many?159.105.80.141 14:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Who wrote this article - a quick check of the internet gives at least two eyewitness accounts - published books - from different sources that confirms the 500+ figure. Declassified US Army documents also confirm the number of 500+. Courtmartial reports etc. There is almost nothing in this article that is true, other than the site was Dachau. At least give some links to other sites that can list relevant books, etc. This is a wiki GA article - keep it as is.159.105.80.141 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I told you this statement is false, why don't you listen?

It should be noted that Buechner was unapologetic about the actions committed by the American soldiers

oh rly?

Public outrage would certainly have opposed the prosecution of American heroes for eliminating a group of sadists who so richly deserved to die.

Yeah, completely. --HanzoHattori 04:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

I think they were massacred because the soldiers felt that if those SSmen put under Amrican trial, they would be freed or get small sentences in prison. If they were sure that all the Nazi personnel would receive proper punishment, I think the soldiers would not kill them.--Dojarca (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I like to dissagree, maybe it was anger at what they had seen. At that time would they have known that they would have been prosecuted? We don't know. There are some soldiers in all armies that like to kill, and in this instance where would be semi-immune to death, the life of an enemy combatant would have seemed of little significace, like some view animals. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I guessed I missed the rule that requires Americans to be better people than other nations. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a war crime?

Please somebody tell me how it is a war crime to execute some of the worst criminals in the history of the world? They got what was undoubtedly waiting for them. CJ DUB (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree 100% that every single guard at Dachau deserved to die, it does not change the fact that killing soldiers who attempt to surrender is considered a massacre, and likely a war crime.68.163.249.192 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, how can anyone compare these guards to soldiers ? They were still shooting at the camp inmates when the Americans appeared outside. --Lysy^talk 06:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

2010 and onward

From STRICTLY and EXCLUSIVELY legal point this was a war crime, since in this case as in the event of a suspect in peace time, they "weren't war criminals untill proven guilty"(absurd, I agree, but it wouldn't be the first time that laws are absurd), but from MORAL perspective, I'd command the same had I been in charge of those troops or rather I'd buy these noble soldiers a drink every week for about a year. let me just say that I know someone who had been in dachau, and I agree with her on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.117.122 (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Weren't they found to be "not guilty" ultimately, the US soliders I mean. LOl you can apply your legal logic to the americans too. If there was no case, no trial, how can we say they are guilty of a war crime? If so, this hardly constitites a war crime now does it? CJ DUB (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it from the German wiki-entry that many of the SS-troops who were present at the camp were no more the "original" SS-Totenkopf units who had already fled but an SS-unit from the adjacent brracks who had been told to take over. Commanding officer was a "Untersturmführer" (2nd lieutenant), because all higher ranks had already absconded. Those present might be called the last dumb ones who had not run away (130 of formerly 3600; because a Swiss Red Cross delegate who had arrived had begged them to stay in order to hand over to the Americans). You have a of that 2nd lieutenant here, surely not a darling and probably connected to war crimes in his own right - but still: if you accept a surrender there are rules - that is the idea of law of wars which form the basis of speaking of "war crimes". Ability to stick to that makes the difference between an army and a gang. --Kipala (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

I am unhappy with the term "liberation"; is there a more neutral term we might be using? Capture, seizure, seige are in the article but I feel they apply more to the initial capture and not the subsequent activity. Vice-versa for occupation. Sgwheeler (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the previous description in the article of the gas chambers as 'alleged' (in the sentence describing the area next to the rooms where the hundreds of dead bodies were stacked)?... Generally-accepted historical accounts state that there were gas chamber/s at Dachau and to call the main killing-method and place 'alleged' is, at the very least, disingenuous. Shearonink (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I was curious about what the history has to say about Dachau and I've looked at the available (Reliable Source) documentation from the US Holocaust Museum about Dachau http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005214. Their account does state that in 1942 "the crematorium area was constructed next to the main camp. It included the old crematorium and the new crematorium (Barrack X) with a gas chamber. There is no credible evidence that the gas chamber was used to murder human beings." So, I was half-right and also half-wrong in my statement above re: the gas-chamber/killing-method. There was a gas chamber (though not used to kill people) at the Dachau concentration camp. Shearonink (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Caption of first image in article

Consensus as to changes in Wikipedia articles is "Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making" and one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia itself. Recently differing styles of captions for the first image in Dachau massacre have become apparent. If interested editors wouldn't mind weighing in with what an appropriate and reasoned caption would be for this particular photograph that would be helpful to reach consensus. Please keep in mind Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines as you proceed.
The present caption reads:

Liberation Day - Aftermath of the Dachau hospital shooting

Waffen-SS soldiers are lined up against a wall facing the enemy's guns. (These soldiers, wounded from fighting, had no involvement in what happened in the camp, as they were separate from the Allgemeine SS and SS-TV camp guards.)

Previous captions have been:

Aftermath of the Dachau hospital shooting.

SS troops lined-up against a wall on Dachau concentration camp's day of liberation

and...

Aftermath of the Dachau hospital shooting.

These Waffen-SS soldiers, wounded from fighting, had no involvement in what happened in the camp, as they were separate from the Allgemeine SS and SS-TV camp guards.

and...

Aftermath of the Dachau hospital shooting.

Thank you for your time, Shearonink (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The description should avoid misunderstandings and should be clear. Therefore it's important, to say, that they "had no involvement in what happened in the camp"! Saying only "separate from SS-TV" is quite unclear and could be mistakable. --78.43.104.57 (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the caption should be clear and avoid misunderstandings. The information about the various SS troops (not the camp guards) stationed nearby and/or who were in the camp-hospital is mentioned within some of the references I've looked through today but not within the article itself. If the information can be verified from reliable sources then perhaps it should be added to the article?
Below is another method to convey information for the image caption as it is known in its official designation. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (captions) captions are supposed to be succinct. I think that this proposed style (a Footnoted caption) can contain information about the wrongful deaths but keeps the caption from getting too unwieldy. (Continued below after 'References' section--)

........................................................

US Army photograph, April 29, 1945

Notes

References

• Moody, W. (2003), Hell's Folly, Trafford Publishing, p. 128 (footnote), retrieved September 6, 2010

........................................................

(--Continued here) I'd like some consensus before placing this possible change within the article. Shearonink (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A caption is supposed to be succinct. To keep the caption from its present unwieldy/multi-line state, it has been changed to reflect the bare facts as reflected in the official record. Additionally, the caption has been footnoted to reflect what was written in the army's official records (per U.S. National Archives) and also Col. Sparks subsequent reaction (that the official caption represented a step in the cover-up of the executions). If the status of the varying SS troops found within Dachau is important enough to engender all the previous caption changes, then perhaps those properly-sourced facts should be added to the article by interested editors. Shearonink (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The caption actually reads:

"Dachau Concentration Camp. Shortly after the American troops entered the prison camp at Dachau, furious prisoners singled out their tormentors – the notorious S.S. Guards. As they stood under guard, one of the S.S. made a break which brought forth a volley of fire from the guards. Immediately all but three fell to the ground feigning death. The three seen standing were ordered forward, this brought to ‘life’ all but a few of the cowering group in the background."

Seventh Army, 45th INF DIV, 157th REGT, Dachau, Germany.

T/4 Arland B. Musser.

29 April 1945

By the way, I had scanned the original photo and its reverse (caption) at the NARA, College Park.

Dave

Watson01 (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Watson01 (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Watson01 (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Watson01 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Watson01 - If you provide sourced proof from reliable sources that the caption is what you say it is and that information can be verified (per Wikipedia guidelines, etc.), then of course the (now) properly-sourced caption should be added to the article. One of the capstones of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Shearonink (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete others' Talkpage comments. Please do not delete your own posts. I am now somewhat responding to a comment that is no longer completely present. Nevertheless, my comment still stands. Verifiability not truth. If you have a scan of the photo as well as a scan of the official caption from the National Archives and that caption has not been published in a reliable source, then your information constitutes original research and cannot be added to this Wikipedia article. Shearonink (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Shearonink, I don't know who you are nor your credentials, but I clearly have more resources, Signal Corps photos and U.S. Army records, of the 45th Infantry Division than you do.

So don't tell me that verifiability is more important than truth when I have a scan of SC 208765 from my trip to the NARA.

Dave

Watson01 (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watson01 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stick to discussion of the content, instead of other editors; see Avoiding personal attacks, thanks.  Chzz  ►  22:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Watson01 - Please read the Wikipedia guidelines pertinent to this discussion. Everything I've posted to you about this caption issue is straight from Wikipedia guidelines and not just personal opinions. Here is the Wiki-link for the verifiability & truth statement:

Wikipedia:Verifiability - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

Note...The original intent of the way the Note/Caption proposal was laid-out & asking for comment has been altered by subsequent posts. I have now attempted by placing some text differently on the page to edit it the proposal back to its original appearance and at the same time to also preserve the present/ongoing discussion. No content has been deleted. Shearonink (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment to archived thread

It takes some nerve to bash Americans for killing Nazi SS guards after discovering one of the most sickening outlets of the Holocaust. Whoever wrote the above passage is either a troll with a sick sense of humor or a moron of the highest level. Those SS "soldiers" deserved everything they got and more. Those Americans who liberated the camp should have been given medals for wiping out this scum. I say this incident is justice delivered, not a "massacre." As a matter of fact, the use of that word in the context of SS guards at a concentration camp being killed is a slap in the face to the thousands of victims who suffered at their hands. The discussion page and the article itself is a farce, and probably infested with neo-nazis or pacifist revisionists. 70.105.111.43 (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC) DK

This is an encyclopedia! Wikipedia must not use pont of view to change the facts. The fact is that those American soldiers tortured and killed over a hundred of unarmed people that had already surrendered. If this is not a massacre so tell me what the heck a massacre is. It does not matter if, in your point of view, those people deserved it, because it fits the definition of a massacre and has to be described as so in any serious Encyclopedia. The article is not a "farce", it is talking about something that really happened, and before calling people here as neo-nazis, you should realize that it is you who is suggesting that torturing and killing prisioniers is normal, making me believe that the Nazi rotule fits better in you.Now think this way: imagine that a large German army gets to Dachau during the massacre. Seeing themselves outnumbered and surprised, the americans surrender. Would you say it is "justice delievered" if the German soldiers kill the American ones to avange what happened to their friends? I would like to finish with another retoric question. In many Brazilian jails the inmates rape the ones that were convicted of rape. They say it is "justice delivered" too. But, lets see, if they are raping those man, aren't they rapist themselves? 189.13.119.236 (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read before posting on this talk page

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Both the www.scrapbookpages.com and www.45thinfantrydivision.com are both Self-published sources and problematic for inclusion here. V7-sport (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment but WP:SELFPUB does state that self-published material is allowed in certain cases. In the meantime I am investigating alternative reliable sources to verify the information in question. Shearonink (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did a cursory look and will have at it again this week. V7-sport (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Scrapbookpages is an excellent resource, but not a reliable source for citations in the article I think. This isn't a problem, as the webmaster ALWAYS cites her sources, which we should use. LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Good. That is that the scrapbook page, while a blog, is also well done as it cites sources, seems to have no original research, and is well-written. I'm not sure I have detected any sense of it being "unreliable." We need to be using the sources used by that blogger-- the primary sources, and not the blog itself-- as well done as it is. As a "further reading" item, it would probably be an error not to include it. --cregil (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Highly POV

These were clearly summary executions of war criminals. While I am not prepared to debate the fine points of military law, there is little doubt that the term "massacre" here is a stretch. The SS got what they deserved. This wasn't the Katyn Forest. It's use here demeans the victims of real massacres.68.4.200.35 (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The title has been stable since the article was first written in 2004. Considering title changes states that: "remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense" and "Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged" but if you think that a title change is in order then you'll need to request a title change by following the instructions for controversial title changes. I am not sure what the title of this article could be changed *to*, people were killed (how many is somewhat in dispute), people who were not camp guards and who are not known to have committed crimes at Dachau but who had the supreme misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time....if not a "massacre" then what should this series of acts be called..."Incident" or maybe "Execution", "Slaughter" or "Murder" or "Police action"?... Any word chosen for the title instead of massacre probably would also carry its own emotional baggage. Also, please try to remember that a talk page is a place to discuss improvements to an article, not a forum for general discussion of the subject. Shearonink (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The title is appropriate and the best of any alternatives I can think of. LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(Uninvolved editor) I think the answer to the name of the article is by what title the incident is, historically, most well known.

I will editorialize, here, not in the article but on behalf of the article's editors, so as to suggest that describing the prisoners and bodies found upon nearing the facility, and yet just referring to the German soldiers as "victims" causes a perspective shift which is irony in its sickest form. At least use some modifier, such as, "the victims of the ensuing massacre;" otherwise, this article begs editorializing about how those soldiers "got what they deserved."

Next, the discussion regarding war crimes verses charges being dismissed is not alien from the American perspective. An analogy would be a father beating to death a person who had just stood in to protect the person who was fleeing after having killed the father's children. The father is not likely seen as criminal nor as any threat to society, and so would not likely stand trial for any crime-- and certainly not branded a murderer. Revenge and vigilantly justice is not legal, but sometimes it is morally acceptable.

Motive is a tough matter for this article because it requires presumption of intent which cannot be known. However, the most likely presumption is also certainly correct-- the American soldiers and the prisoner were outraged by what had just been witnessed and just been endured, and in that moral outrage, acted. If the massacre had taken place days after the Nazi prisoners had been taken, the moral issues become cloudy, but under the circumstances discussion of moral issues are invalid unless dealt with from the presumption of motive just described. While the reader is mostly left to make that connection on his or her own, the article mostly distances itself from that connection after the lede-- and that may be a POV violation in and of itself.

At present, the lede does a fair job of setting up the scene to suggest a reasonable cause and effect without being too presumptive, but the "victims" term remains impossible to digest, and the statement "others report that 30–50 soldiers were killed during the camp's capture, only a dozen of those being victims of alleged war crimes." is a muddle and not just because of the word "victim" being used at that point; but because it is not clear that it refers to the distinction between those killed in a skirmish and those killed by prisoners as opposed to those killed by American soldiers after being captured and held. I know it will lengthen the lede but it needs to be done for clarity. --cregil (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

reasons why

can any one find a source that quotes the reasons why the massacre occurred? I know that it was a concentration camp and the soldiers saw horrible things but could we at least put why(needs to be reliable source)--Commander v99 (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As a follow up to the above comment I made for the now lapsed RfC discussion-- motives of one can never be completely known by others. As you mentioned, that we "know it was a concentration camp and the soldiers saw horrible things" is a motive which the reasonable will consider likely-- but the source will always be speculative.

Only the persons doing the killings know what was in their mind at the moment. Anything from extenuating circumstances such as moral outrage to criminal intent due to sociopathy is possible. Juries often must decide which and never know of their accuracy in the verdict; but since the matter was not prosecuted, we do not even have that.

There is that film (I do not recall which) in which the scene is dramatized. A soldier firing a carbine to kill a Nazi SS solider who is found hiding in one of the ovens. He continues to shoot long after the soldier is dead. A fellow soldier tries to get his attention, stops trying, and simply hands the trance-like shooter a new clip. That was not how it was-- but it is telling of how the story is interpreted by many. The story as told from a German SS officer's survivor will almost certainly portray the same event in a very different setting as they will seek to aline what happened with the meaningless loss of a loved one.

And when anyone interprets a story-- it lines up with their own understanding-- and so bias is entered. Of course, that makes editing difficult-- or good editing anyway. I think this article has done a pretty of that difficult work. --cregil (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Page Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: someone moved it from Dachau massacre to Dachau liberation reprisals, leave it like that. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Dachau massacre → April 1945 Dachau reprisal killings – Without insulting anyone's intelligence, there were obviously multiple massacres occurring at Dachau during its years of operation. April 1945 Dachau reprisal killings both clarifies when the killings occurred, and specifically who they were directed against, per both WP:D and WP:CRITERIA. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I understand the rationale, but the proposed title is fairly cumbersome, and I am opposed to the use of gerunds, especially in a title, whenever possible. Nouns should be used. I could support Dachau reprisal massacre. How do the sources define the incident? Boneyard90 (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that the proposal is a little cumbersome. I'm fine with gerunds and support something along the lines of Dachau reprisal killings or Dachau reprisal massacre, depending on what sources use. —  AjaxSmack  20:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think including the date is essential. You have a place with multiple massacres/killings occuring throughout its history, so I think it's important to give a timeframe, although it could be at the end, like Dachau reprisal killings (April 1945). The US Army's investigation into the incident was called "Alleged Mistreatment of German Guards at Dachau", and I also see "U.S. Massacre of Waffen SS". All the sources I saw don't actually have a common name for the killings, referring to them only as part of the "Liberation of Dachau". So I'd strongly support any title that had April 1945, Dachau, Liberation and Guards / SS in it, although I agree that it might be too cumbersome. The phrase Dachau Massacre isn't in any literature, and the article creator appears to have just made it up. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• With regards to Killings vs Massacre, going through the comments section it looks like there's a definite pushback against the word "Massacre". I've done some articles on the Iraq War about US soldiers killing civilians and have found that describing the events as "Killings" or an "Incident" as about as NPOV as you can get. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Why use the word killings? Would not April 1945 Dachau reprisals be adequate, especially as the reprisals were not all killings, but woundings, etc.? While not against renaming this article, I oppose the proposed title. --Bejnar (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Actually, I like Dachau reprisals, April 1945 better. --Bejnar (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I suppose Dachau anti-German reprisals, April 1945 would also work, since it hits the four W's. The bottom line is I really feel the title needs to somehow clearly convey that this wasn't part of the Holocaust. Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Again, way too long. If we're looking for a term that sets it apart from the Holocaust, there's Dachau incident, Dachau liberation massacre, Dachau reprisal. I don't know why the date has to be included in the title. Was there a year when there were other, additional reprisals or liberations? Boneyard90 (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Point taken. I suppose I figured the word 'liberation' was too POV, but after checking other Holocaust-related articles, it seems like a common enough word. How does Dachau liberation reprisals sound? Palm_Dogg (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I could go with that. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I could go with that too. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Moved the article, per consensus. Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - whatever ideal/perfect options there may be Palm dogg's proposal is a definite improvement, the page should never have had this title, given the enormity of real massacres at Dachau compared to a young US soldier letting off his gun in a coal yard. This RM should close with a clear move in Palm dogg's proposal's direction even if not exactly 100% as proposal. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Relisting comment There seems to be consensus to move, but where? --BDD (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Dachau massacre → Dachau liberation reprisals -- Per converesation with Boneyard90, I think this is the best one. Support or Oppose? Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment: As a general note...feelings about this matter run very high, from people who think these acts were justified and from those who think they are not, but I think it is fair to mention, before discussing the possible title-change, that the facts concerning how many people died at Dachau (either as prisoners killed by soldiers of the Third Reich or as German soldiers killed during the American liberation) are not completely verifiable... Some sources claim that the American soldiers killed 50, others much more, others much less. None of the material I have read claims that the only German guards killed were killed by that single American soldier manning the machine gun. So, some statements about the deaths in various sources follow:

1. Sparks says that 12 or so were killed in that particular incident but that no more than 50 total were killed by the American troops.
2. Humanitas International states that 122 German soldiers were killed, most of them Waffen SS combat troops from elsewhere who had been sent to the camp hospital, not the Allgemeine and Death's Head SS guards who had been stationed at Dachau and running the camp in the long-term. (The real Camp Commandant along with 1000 of his long-term guards had deserted the camp the day before the Americans arrived, leaving a lowly Waffen lieutenant in charge.)
3. Buechner claims at least 480 German soldiers were shot or machine-gunned by the Americans with additional deaths occurring when the prisoners turned on their erstwhile captors.
4. A 2001 Boston Globe article states that 28 Germans who had surrendered were killed by the liberating troops.

The facts of how many prisoners held by the Germans died at Dachau before the liberation is generally held to be about 30,000, with the United States Holocaust Museum stating that at least 28,000 people died there as prisoners and That Was Dachau 1933-1945 (Paris: Fondation internationale de Dachau) stating that at least 25,000 died in the main camp and 10,000 died in the Dachau subcamps.

• So, my first point about the matter is this... the exact figures will never be known, the Germans didn't keep perfect records of all the people they murdered (especially any of the Soviet prisoners) and the American liberators, stunned and shocked by the conditions they experienced, did kill people who had apparently surrendered to them. Charges of murder & court-martial were recommended against some of the participants shortly after the killings due to orders of Eisenhower, but George Patton, then serving as Military Governor of Bavaria, is stated to have thrown the investigation's files into the trash. The renewed interest in these killings has come about as WWII-era US Government documents are being declassified, including the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act of 1998.
• My second point is that I don't disagree that the title could be changed, but that all of us need to keep in mind that the wording has to be as neutral as possible. "Dachau" must be in the title - that is clear. The crux of renaming the article would seem to be a choosing between describing the Americans' actions of killing the German Waffen SS soldiers as an "incident", as "killings", as "massacre" or as "reprisals". To me "incident" gives too little import to the acts. "Reprisals" intimates a form of retaliation but these particular deaths were not dealt by the hands of the Nazis' prisoners but at the hands of the camp's liberators, the American soldiers. "Massacre" implies a systemic action (of armed persons acting against the unarmed), but so far as I can tell the American soldiers who killed the German Waffen troops did so mostly as independent acts not on orders from higher-up the chain of command. I do not think that "April 1945" or "1945" needs to be appended to the title-choice, any events of import that happened at Dachau are generally acknowledged to have occurred during the Nazi years in power or during WWII. The exact time of this particular chain of events can be more fully-explained in the lede or the article-text.
• My third point is this...how are this event/these events described in other venues? For instance, we could say that the Malmedy massacre (of 84 American POWs by the Kampfgruppe Peiper) or the Boston Massacre (the killing of 5 civilian colonists by British soldiers and customs officials) should be called something different, but history as it is understood in the present would argue against changing those terms...most general-interest readers trying to look up the 'Boston Massacre', for instance, would not think to look up the 'Boston Incident'. Though, to show the difference a point of view can make, the US National Park Service says the British call it the "Incident on Kings Street" http://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/timeline_of_events.html and the Boston Massacre Historical Society says that before the term "Boston Massacre" came into vogue, the terms "The Bloody Massacre in King Street" and "State Street Massacre" were used. I have attempted to find independent common-usage or majority-usage of the term "Dachau massacre" on the side of historians or in the general culture, but mostly I have been running into Wikipedia mirror-sites that repeat the present title.

So, if I had to choose a title, it would be something along the lines of "Dachau liberation killings", which clearly delineates the timeline of when/what happened by including the word 'liberation' in the title and also delineates that people were killed without diminishing the impact of their deaths and then a re-direct could be left behind from "Dachau massacre" to the new title. If in looking at the WWII literature in general, that the term 'massacre' is more commonly-accepted to describe what happened as the Americans liberated the camp, then I would support a change to "Dachau liberation massacre" in that instance. Shearonink (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Shearonink, you make a lot of good points here, and I wish I could give them the level of response they deserve. I did a lot of similar research before proposing the name change. The bottom line is my main goal was to get the article renamed, and we're essentially arguing over a single word, "Reprisals" vs. "Killings". I think there's a very good argument to be made for "Killings", and would support a move in the future. However, again, I wanted to get this article renamed ASAP and "Reprisals" had the most consensus. Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This page move was done less than a day after being re-listed. (Also, as a technical note, the page move broke the archiving + two subpages - Talk page Archives & Talk page Archives Index - were left behind, so I fixed the archiving & renamed those unconnected subpages.) I still disagree about using the term reprisals in the title, there are imputed shades of meaning by using 'reprisals' instead of 'killings'. 'Reprisals' indicates a level of retaliation, but the Germans had done little directly to the American soldiers. If this article were mostly about the camp inmates turning on their German captors in the middle of the liberation day (as some of them did as indicated in one section of the article), then they would be the ones retaliating, that would be a true 'reprisal'. The majority of this article is not about the inmates, however, it is about the Americans actions on that day.

And there is a huge difference in meanings between single words, that's why we were discussing changing the standalone word massacre to something else that the editorial community thinks is more appropriate. Shearonink (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: This rather abrupt name change which doesn't appear to have much consensus appears to largely ignore WP:COMMONNAME - what is the common name for this event, and what do reliable sources call it? (Hohum ^@) 19:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: That's the problem: there is no common name for it. The US Army's report on it was called the "Alleged Mistreatment of German Guards at Dachau" and that's the closest thing I've seen to an official title. The article creator pulled "Dachau massacre" out of thin air, and any sources I've seen that do use that phrase post-date the article. From what I've seen, the killings appear to be considered part of the liberation of Dachau, not an isolated event. As for an abrupt change, this debate originally lasted ten days, from 13-23 October, including four where no one was commenting at all. I had three additional votes to move it, two of them to its current title, and none opposed. If you guys want to keep debating, I think there could be a better name, just not one that could get consensus. Palm_Dogg (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that the article was relisted and then renamed within a day after being relisted. If the consensus of the community is to rename it from 'massacre' to 'liberation reprisals', then so be it. I still disagree that 'liberation reprisals' is the best title for this article at present, mostly because the majority of text is about the Americans' actions which were clearly not reprisals for any concerted long-term actions against the Americans. If any of the editors who weighed in want to edit the article and include more content about the prisoners' reprisals against SS troops (regardless of if the SS troops were true prison guards or Waffen or whatever), then the present title would better represent its eventual content. I will not do so as I have done as much research on this subject (whatever the Wikipedia title) as I wish to. Shearonink (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Support. Palm Dogg's sense of the editorial consensus & his subsequent page move is fine with me, the new title is certainly an improvement over the old one. Shearonink (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Break 1

• The name "Dachau massacre" is unclear :: events at Dachau (and at other extermination camps) were a long massacre that lasted for years. This argument has run for over a month. After-liberation Dachau reprisal killings? Someone must choose a name without repetitively recycling arguments presented above, and let people mourn their dead in peace. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A change was initially proposed October 13th, re-listed on October 22nd and the article and its associated pages were then moved to a new title on October 23rd. There was no month-long argument, the discussion was over. If there's some technical action to be performed that will actually close the discussion, then feel free. Shearonink (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Psychological state of US troops

Somewhere, most likely in the nearly endless readings I did of the evidence in the Nüremberg Trials, I read interviews with a number of US soldiers who liberated concentration camps. In at least one, I remember the soldier saying that after he saw the treatment that the prisoners had received, he went berserk and killed every German he saw, even though they were surrendering. Would it not make the article more well-rounded to research the academic works on this and discuss the psychological state of the liberators, if only in a paragraph? --Bejnar (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think a discussion of the psychological state of the liberators is greatly needed for context. NipsonAnomimata (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that discuss the psychological states of the American troops who liberated Dachau and who participated in the reprisals, both Bold, revert, discuss cycle and Be bold would seem to apply. Shearonink (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I recently added information from a reliable source about the psychological state of the American troops on approaching and entering the site. It was was moved to a less prominent position in the article. Also left out are accounts by American troops regarding being fired on by German troops both before and after entering the camp, and the arrogant statements made by some of the German troops invovled. If there is support for inclusion of this material in the article I will add it. Currently, the article presents the killings of camp guards with no context in the introduction. Steve Pastor (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Reprisals ?

According to what Definition were these killings a legal or Semi-legal Reprisal ??

They were spontaneous and not ordered by any officers, not mentioning higher officers.

That does not make a reprisal. No one can blame those who were involved, but these were no Reprisals.--84.178.119.103 (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

According to what definition is a Reprisal legal or "Semi-legal"?? (I've never even heard of the latter term.) Have you read the article Reprisal? - Boneyard90 (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

According to all definitions. A reprisal is not a spontantaneous act of violence, but ordererd in a political or military procedural way to enforce a certain behaviour or conduct for good reasons (including the reason of deterrence). Read: http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Reprisal.html, which states that in the US-Military it must be a commanding General who orders it.

In this case the killings were ordered by no one, they were instantly done by angry GIs taking the law in their hands (and therefore immediately stopped when officers noticed them). I do not blame the shots and not the authorities who burked the investigation later(although the SS-Guards being killed most likely were not those SS-Guards, who were responsible for the atrocities and which therefore had fled for wise reasons before the camp was liberated, but newly transferred SS-Conscripts of the last months of war.)The scene must have been too shocking to remain untouched. But a reprisal must fit the definition. "Semi-legal" refers to the possibility, that a reprisal can be illegal from the point of international law, but legal from the view of national military law ( Soldiers who follow orders can not judge in all cases whether these orders are legal, resulting in the effect that they act legally while there commanding general or their government might not.) Only that there were no such orders here.

By the way: The article Reprisal states nothing different, but I give in, it is most likely not the best law article here.--84.178.119.103 (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to Proposed page move in this talkpage's archives for a discussion of how/why the present article title was arrived at. If you think the present title is incorrect/gives the wrong impression, you could propose another page move/title change. Shearonink (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. In that discussion I find good reasons as to why the expression "massacre" was refused, since the true massacre in Dachau took place in the years before the liberation and no specific name for the incident seemingly exists. Nevertheless, "Reprisal" is a legal term which is (and was so in 1945) defined in law of war and national military laws, including the military law of the USA. Using it here to label extralegal and spontaneous killings, done by ordinary infantrymen and immediately stopped by their superiors, is no appropriate use of legal language and it implicates also a responsibility of higher US-Authorities which simply is not existant and gives therefore a wrong historic notion. Since I am no author of the english wikipedia, I will make no formal proposals. But I strongly recommend that the authors of this article make changes themselves. Besides: Although it was an american war crime, I do not think it lets look the american army so bad. It was committed under a moral shock, facing terrible and unimaginable crimes, and the officers did the right thing without hesitating and stopped the executions. There were worse extralegal killings for worse reasons in that dark years, I believe.--84.178.119.103 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you to make edits that you deem appropriate, since you appear to be well versed in the subject material. I'm going to start by adding a link to the reprisal article. Actually, I think the repetition of the title is redundant as the lead sentence. German troops were killed throughout this engagement, which was spread out across an area large enough that there was no little or no contact among the participants; mostly by American troops, but also by prisoners. Steve Pastor (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)