Talk:Forced labor of Germans after World War II

Statement used out of context

I've just removed this from the article:

In discussions between France and the US in early 1947 regarding whether France should begin repatriating its German prisoners it was noted that of the 740,000 handed over by the U.S. to France for forced labor only 450,000 remained; 290,000 had been "stricken off the rolls".

This is taken from a document from the US government asking the French to explain what happened to these POWs. Without the French explanation, it is not usable by itself. Moreover, Wikipedia articles should not be cited to primary sources like this. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hague Conventions and Geneva Convention

I have removed these two statements from the article:

Contrary to Section IV of the Hague Convention of 1907, "The Laws and Customs of War on Land", the SHAEF "counter insurgency manual" included provisions for forced labor and hostage taking (Perry Biddiscombe, "Werwolf!: the history of the National Socialist guerrilla movement, 1944-1946", 1998. p.256).

Article 75 of the Geneva Convention (1929) states that repatriation of prisoners shall be effected with the least possible delay after the conclusion of peace.

I removed the Hague paragraph because there is no section IV in the "The Laws and Customs of War on Land" and further the analysis can not be from a knowledgeable author otherwise there would be mention of the courts decision in the Hostages Trial. It would also be made more complicated because the "The Laws and Customs of War on Land" do not cover Naval or Air force personnel. -- PBS (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed GC 1929 because it is irrelevant, as pointed out in the ICRC commentaries on GCIII and GCIV, GCII was specifically drafted in part to mention the end of hostilities and GCIV also mentions "end of military operations" (a phrase used in 1945 the German surrender documents), because it was relied that peace might not be signed for years after the end of hostilities -- for example the German peace treaty was not signed until 1990 see Two Plus Four Agreement.ICRC commentaries -- PBS (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

PBS. Your logic eludes me. Section IV of the Hague convention (1907), IS "The Laws and Customs of War on Land". I humbly presume by the way, although it should not be needed here, that Perry Biddiscombe is indeed more knowledgeable than you. By the way, this article focus is on forced labor.

PBS. The sentence was directly from the Geneva convention in force at the time. The Geneva Convention IV commentaries are irrelevant. I know you like to debate, although you are quick to call it OR when it suits you. So they changed the wording well after the war when they made the IV. So what, unless you can point us to a proper secondary source telling us exactly why they changed it. Presumably it was to avoid similar post-facto justifications that may have happened after WW-II. By the way, cessation of hostilities between the United States and Germany was proclaimed on 13 December 1946, although this was presumably more to to with getting rid of the "trading with the enemy act" and all other legislation that e.g. hindered GI-German marriages or food shipments to Germany. Active hostilities ended with the German military capitulation in May 1945. In November 1946 the position of the U.S. government, and the interpretation of the GC was already very clear:

Top Secret November 29, 1946

The President, the Secretary of War and I have decided to begin immediately repatriation of POWs in Am custody or transferred to by US liberated nations.

A year and a half have elapsed since the end of active hostilities in Europe

The Geneva POW Convention, both in its letter and spirit, contemplates the repatriation of POWs as soon as possible after the cessation of active hostilities.

Failure to repatriate POWs who are not charged with war crimes or who are not otherwise ineligible for repatriation is indefensible on moral as well as legal grounds.[1]

Perhaps there are those who still try to defend the indefensible, but I don't understand why.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Norman Naimark,in "Twentieth Century Ethnic Cleansing",says that only several thousand perished in the Polish camps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Carine (talk • contribs) 13:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Labor or Labour?

I was browsing the article and noticed that there seems to be quite a lack of consistency in terms of the spelling. The title obviously uses the American spelling, whereas the British spelling is used probably about 2/3 of the time in the actual article text. So, which is it supposed to be, if anything?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The article started out as 'labor', so use AmE spelling for consistency. Ivan Humphrey (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy

I've just removed the material referenced to the book The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy as it does not appear to be a reliable source. The book's publisher Alora Publishing looks like a publisher of WP:FRINGE-type works judging from what it chooses to highlight on its website, and I could not find any reviews of the book in reliable sources, and many of the references to it on the internet are to extremist websites. The author's website is also not typical of that of a neutral historian. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

such as that run by Salomon Morel

Morel run Zgoda camp listed later. I doubt very much that a reader knows Morel's crimes. Xx234 (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible false statistic

The statistic on 200,000 ethnic Germans dying in Soviet run labor camps in Poland cites a source that connects to a dead link. Following up on the paper referenced, there is no mention of Soviet run labor camps or large scale deaths of laborers. This seems like a fabrication. 2601:681:8800:9880:8917:47AC:AAB4:C337 (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've found where this is cited and added a reference, but I agree that it seems high. The article would benefit from other sources here, either to verify this figure further or to provide other estimates if they exist. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Forced" labour vs slave labour

The start of the article could do with a section on the distinction, if any, between forced labour and slave labour. Forced labour *for* the Germans is almost always called slave labour, but the word 'slave' is notably avoided in this article. Given recent global legislative changes regarding modern slavery this euphemistic treatment is probably unsustainable. Fig (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Besides arguing over trivial semantics, what are you even talking about with the last sentence and how does it relate to anything here? Dronebogus (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

“Conclusion”

This is an unfortunate word for the final section title. I realise that this can be a word just for the end, but it is surely generally used as a summing up of an article. 2A00:23C5:31B:9701:31A3:10CD:C800:BE30 (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)