Talk:Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II

Sources?

Are there sources for this article? I might be a little hypocritcal here in just asking and wondering if there are without bothering to look myself, but i assume the creator of the article has some, and i've other things to do.jfg284 17:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Basically my sources were the Polish wiki stub and a documentary titled Kobiety łupem wojennym: Wehrmacht i prostytucja (Women as a War Prize: Wehrmacht and Prostitution) aired some time in September in Canal+. Halibutt 20:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Aright, sounds good...maybe link what you can in the article? I'll put a "see also" to Joy Division (World War II), which i stumbled across somewhere (maybe german history stubs?) but in any case, yea.jfg284 20:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC) I'm an idiot, i "stumbled across it" from this article. Apologies. But think, too, about putting a "resources" section citing that docu and all that.jfg284 20:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Proof, again?

Is there any legitimate historical proof (original documents, diaries, ...) for the existance of "german brothels" with polish "comfort women"? It astonishes me that the German Wikipedia, which usually tends to be covering German war crimes in an open and extensive manner does not know about "Soldatenhäuser", all sources happen to be Polish and all Google has to tell about this topic is Wikipedia Clones. As there are currently known and growing sentiments within the Polish Government and media, I'd be not suprised if that part is propaganda.

If no actual proof for forced prostitution is given, that part of the article should be changed. -84.168.6.211 11:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to see other then polish sources. It is true that the Wehrmacht had brothels for its soldiers. But the comfort women thing is dubious. Internet has nothing about it. Only mirrors and the swiss Soldatenhaus. -Tresckow 20:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

one of the alleged "sources" seems to be a book about novels. As with House of Dolls article the only translation is Polish. No Russian, Czech, French, Norwegian, Lithuanian, whatever article exists. -Tresckow 15:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• As the sources are more than dubious, I'd say to axe the part with "forced prostitution" and the respective references until more specific sources can be produced. Linking this topic to Shoah-related litaerature is grotesque, as the forced prostitution of Jewish women (or even consensual acts) were strictly forbidden by the Nuremberg Laws and usually severly punished. Disclaimer: I happen to be German -Hohenberg 12:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to cite that you're German. That's not a COI problem. If you were a national socialist, youd need to provide a disclamer. Or an owner of slave-brothels. Anyways, I agree. If there is no better sourcing, the claims should be removed. -Basejumper 21:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Name change?

During the recent AfD process Dhartung suggested we moved this article elsewhere and that this be better a general article on forced prostitution in Nazi Germany. However, so far it's focused on the forced prostitution and the armed forces rather than forced prostitution in general - and to be frank I'm pretty satisfied with such scope. What would others suggest?

In short, my reasoning is that the phenomenon of German concentration camps' brothels could be better explained elsewhere, in a separate article on Puffs, or whatever the title would be appropriate. However, we could safely broaden the scope of this article and include all in one. What do you think? //Halibutt 03:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Per the AfD discusion I am moving this article to Forced prostitution in Nazi Germany. Do not view this as a final destination for the article and feel free to continue discussion on the matter here, and if a consensus is reached to move to some other name, go ahead and do so. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, to stir up the discussion I'd like to point out that the current title seems the worst option out of all. What do others think? //Halibutt 00:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, given lack of response, I'm moving this article to Forced prostitution in German armed forces for lack of a better title (the one we currently have is out of the blue). //Halibutt 07:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

copied from article for deletion talk

I am copying this discussion from the article for deletion page as I think it is relevant --Jadger 23:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the area that is in contention seems to be sources, let's look at them, shall we?

citations 1 and 2 have come under question on the discussion page, without anyone vouching for them. It seems they are narrative stories and not factual or encyclopedic sources. citations 3 and 4 cite that there were 500 brothels all over Europe, which is not disputed. citation 5 cites that there were brothels in concentration camps run by the Nazis. not disputed either. now, citation 5 cites that there were brothels in concentration camps, but these were for the inmates, not the wehrmacht (obviously, as the wehrmacht did not run concentration camps). This article is on the supposed brothels run by the Nazis to cater to the German soldiers. Now, their are obvious flaws in this supposed claim that is improperly cited. a) the Nazis claimed to be ubermen, but supposedly forced inferior people that Germans were not supposed to mix with to be sex slaves for German soldiers. that make no sense, even the Nazis weren't that big of hypocrites.

--Jadger 07:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

the brothels were for the guards, as I understand it. The Germans did not concern themselves with the sexual needs of inmates. The Nazis even previous to this choose individual Aryan-appearing individuals as sexual partners--and in some cases Aryan-appearing babies or children to be raised as young Nazis. Very few armed forces ever have discriminated among those whom they raped or kidnapped, regardless of theoretical attitudes. DGG 07:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Actually, take a look and research the matter, the brothels were incentives for inmates to work harder (non-Jewish inmated of course, for jews it was still forbidden). For instance, I googled forced prostitution nazi and look at the first link, from spiegel, quite enlightening. [1]

--Jadger 08:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The above article and the references from there indicate the complexity of the phenomenon; the evidence seems to come primarily from Ravensbrück It certainly supports that they were available for some favored inmates--it does not disprove that the guards used them also. I cannot imagine that prison guards in that sort of prison with the general attitudes prevailing there would not have done so. DGG 19:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse with an inmate would have resulted in a court marshal, especially when the guard was on duty, that is standard. why would a guard stay around such a horrible place of death when they are off-duty anyways? but still: saying the guards did without a source actually stating so is OR. We cannot assume that people used a brothel because of their proximity to it. not to mention that I did the google search forced prostitution nazi and there was a plethora of sources, none of which said anything about the guards using the on-camp brothels. --Jadger 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/German_Soldier%27s_House"

end of section copied from article for deletion talk page--Jadger 23:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What a fruitful discussion between Jadger and Jadger... Seriously, is there a purpose you copied your statements here? //Halibutt 07:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

please, civility children. if you will notice, there is also another user in that discussion. Why have the sources that are under criticism not been backed up by you Halibutt? you are the one that wants to use them, while other people are saying they are highly dubious, you arent backing up your claims at all.

-Jadger 18:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I don't know if this link will work but I'll give it a try. [1]

as can be seen by the link, it would be a much better source to go on since:

• it is available to the reader of this article
• it is not being selectively cited to paint this in the most heinous circumstances.
• it is on the whole of prostitution in Nazi Germany, rather than just on select cases like this article totally is.

As you can probably tell, I am in support of a rewrite of this article, because the sources provided previously are either unverifiable or highly dubious. -Jadger 05:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to add info from that source as well. However, take note that the sources we have already are neither unverifiable nor dubious, they are not taken selectively and the fact that this article is on forced prostitution, not on all prostitution. In fact the scope of the original article was even more narrow, but widening to the entire spectrum makes little sense to me. //Halibutt 21:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

well, as you said, this is on one specific subject, so I removed parts of the article that didn't fit, namely that it didnt fit the term Forced prostitution in Nazi Germany (not outside it). I will continue to edit later when I have more time, thank you. -Jadger 07:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I oppose removal of sourced info the way you did. We could argue about the scope of this article, but territories occupied by Germans clearly belong here. //Halibutt 07:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

How's that? this article is titled Forced prostitution in Nazi Germany not Forced Prostitution in occupied territories. Sure it is sourced information, but it does not belong. For instance, we could remove sourced information under similar circumstances from the Poland article that says Charles Manson killed many people and led a cult ^citation but although sourced, it doesnt belong, as it does not deal with the subject at hand.

Exactly one user supported such a name and the closing admin moved it here for some reason, perhaps unknowingly limiting the scope of the article. If you hadn't noticed, there's a naming discussion above. By your example, we could have a voting on whether to have the article at Poland or at Polska. Then comes some guy and moves it to Poles in Polska and then comes Jadger, cutting the article to pieces, leaving only the part relevant to the Poles in Polska. Strange, to say the least. //Halibutt 21:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? I know coherency isn't a wikipedia guideline, but it would help. -Jadger 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose moving the page to the title Forced prostitution by the Nazi state as the current title is ambiguous and implies that prostitutes were in the German army. Secondly the forced prostitution was a product of the Nazi leadership not the German army as exists today; I feel this distinction should be made clearly. simonthebold 12:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The current title is in fact ambiguous. It should be changed to Sexual slavery enforced by Nazi Germany in WWII. --Poeticbent talk 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think sexual slavery is more POV than forced prostitution, but the end is OK. simonthebold 00:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I get your point (about emotive eloquence) however, I have no idea what 'forced prostitution' is? In Wikipedia prostitution is described as a 'commercial sex trade' which would not apply here, because 'forced' is the opposite of 'commercial'. But if you read further down you'll find a mention about women "enslaved by the Imperial Japanese military and forced to work as unpaid prostitutes." That is the closest description so far of what we are dealing with here. --Poeticbent talk 06:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it your're right. Sexual slavery is a more accurate. But I think Sexual enslavement by the Nazi state in WWII might be a better title. simonthebold 13:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazi isn't specific, better is "Nazi Germany" or even just "Germany" since not all of its officials were members of NSDAP --Molobo 12:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. There was more than one Nazi state in WWII. However, the article covers only Nazi German enslavement of women. --Poeticbent talk 15:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

The phrase that the subject was previously "largely taboo" is self-contradictory and verges on being "weasel words". Three of the sources referred to when mentioning "new publications by female researchers" are undated (see Notes 2, 3 & 4) Hugo999 (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent gutting of article by Linksnational

Unless the recent move and total gutting of this well referenced article can be explained. The content should be restored. Much of the new text is completely unreferenced WP:original research. The article appears to have had a POV makeover to show only one view which is not shared universally at all. Polargeo (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's nonsense. Are you able to read the German sources and the orders of the Wehrmacht?

...became prevalent... That's bullshit. It's not comparable to Japan.

The article doesn't regard the difference between Lagerbordell and Wehrmachtbordell. It's mixed up.

There were no rape camps. That's horror-fiction of present time c-movies.

... -Linksnational (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes the article can be improved but moving a long standing article without any discussion and then completely rewriting it was not the way to do it. The article you created German brothels in World War II in doing this was and is essentially a different article. -Polargeo (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Some comments on improvement

Yes the article should be clearer on differentiating sex slaves for inmates of the camps to those for soldiers. However, this does not change the title of the article as we are still talking about sexual enslavement and forced prostitution no matter which group it is. Changing it to "brothels" suggests that these women had a choice and were effectively paid. If in the brothels set up for soldiers the women had a choice and were paid then you are right that is a different article, but only that part. It is clear what Der Spiegel thinks "New Exhibition Documents Forced Prostitution in Concentration Camps" I see the title "forced" which means sexual enslavement. I agree the confusion between enslavement for soldiers and for inmates should be differentiated. Polargeo (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Other sources [2] Polargeo (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem, that you have any idea on the subject.

If in the brothels set up for soldiers the women had a choice and were paid then you are right that is a different article.

Yes, indeed and the sources show.

Changing it to "brothels" suggests that these women had a choice and were effectively paid.

You can't compare it to Japan. The German Wikipedia uses the term brothel: Lagerbordell (camp brothel) and Wehrmachtsbordell (soldier's brothel). The vast majority was not forced. That's a prejudice, disproved by the reliable sources I brought. -- Linksnational (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Der Spiegel article and others give reliable evidence of forced prostitution. So if you want to create a new article on Nazi brothels then please do but don't keep trying to destroy this article be redirecting it there. I don't disagree that this article needs improving but please stop redirecting it to your new prefered article in an attempt to remove all of the content and references. Maybe the majority of prostitution was not forced, that is fine and is clear in your new article but this article is not an article on the majority of prostitution but on sexual enslavement which did happen and has plenty of references. Yes the article needs fixing and there are issues of Lagerbordell (camp brothel) and Wehrmachtsbordell (soldier's brothel) I am happy to spend some time fixing it though but I am not happy to see you remove all of the references of the long standing article and rewrite it according to your own POV. So please stick to editing your new article German brothels in World War II and desist from redirecting this one Polargeo (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You've read one article or the headline. Congratulations. In Germany Der Spiegel is called the rainbow-press for intellectuals. They report, what people want to hear about alleged bad bad Germans in WW II.

The sources I brought are reliable and say, that it can't be called sexual slavery in general.

My suggestion: Split the matter in two articles: Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II into camp brothel (Lagerbordell) and soldier's brothel (Wehrmachtsbordell), so we can differ. -- Linksnational (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II is an artificially created lemma. I do admit: this is typical for the en:WP. The de:WP provides this information in two articles: Wehrmachtsbordell and Lagerbordell. Polargeo agreed, that we have to differ. The current page doesn't. It's all mixed up and therefore it's more confusing than helpful.

The page says: Sexual slavery became prevalent and there were rape camps. That's total bullshit. The source (ARD) doesn't not say that. By the way, the source (ARD) is not scientific and its thesis has been criticized by historians. -- Linksnational (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How shall someone reach a consensus with nobody ready to discuss? Skydeepblue's claim "stop making changes until you reach consensus with everybody" is absurd, if you don't join the discussion. It's a phrase to protect the article in status quo and results in a prohibition to edit. And I proved that this version contains total bullshit, which has to be changed immediately - in favour of wikipedia's reputation. This article is ridiculous. I showed Polargeo, where the article is wrong and he has conceded. Bullshit doesn't become reality by being part of an article for a long time. The article is not based on reliable sources, but on internet rumours, half knowledge and suspicion. I brought sources, which disprove the current version. The German version doesn't say anything else. -- Linksnational (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The brothels were not established "for sexual gratification of German soldiers". There were camp brothels and soldier's brothels. The one of the soldiers were set up to prevent the spreading of diseases. The idea was not a sexual gratification. You can't compare it to the Japanese system of comfort women. -- Linksnational (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a most of what you say you are assuming I somehow agree with all of the text of the original article. However, many of the sources in the original article were good sources it was often the interpretation of them which was wrong. I would still like to fix the article which is about forced prostitution, not brothels. Polargeo (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Rape Camp? LOL

Here's the origin of the rape camp lie: [3]. It doesn't seem, that the author knew, what he was talking about. There is no source confirming that and you will never find such a source, because it is a absolutely wrong allegation. -- Linksnational (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying the article was correct just that "camp brothel" is not the appropriate name to cover forced prostitution and effective sexual slavery in camps. There are plenty of sources on forced prostitution in the camps so I suggest improvement of this aspect of the article. You are more than welcome to set up a separate article about soldiers brothels. Polargeo (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Just to point out that the IP editor -- or Linksnational not logged in -- has changed the lead so that it is no longer comprehensible. I'm hopeful you will be able to work through whatever differences of opinion may exist on this article. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I had noticed. I am inclined to wait a while. It is not possible to work on this at present. Polargeo (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Remove stuff about brothels

Can we please remove the stuff about brothels that Linksnational and the IP have added. This is not an article about brothels. I am more than happy to correct the errors in the original article but I cannot do this when every time I come to the article it has been moved, redirected or completely rewritten off topic. My reference to Der Spiegel was mocked as being to "the rainbow press for intellectuals" I assume Linksnational means it is not right wing enough as the additions he has made appear to be largely sourced from a right wing newspaper. I know the article was full of errors and I wish to correct them but the article I wish to correct has ceased to exist and has been replaced by what is a different topic. The name of the article could eventually be changed but I think Linksnational's articles on brothels should be separate. Polargeo (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Attacking a clearly reliable source like Der Spiegel is unsupportable, I agree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So what do you want to write about? The ugly German raping the world? The prostitution was organized in brothels. There were no rape camps. Even Der Spiegel knows that. And concerning my source: it's a liberal-conservative newspaper, not right wing. Stop that accusations. -- Linksnational (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't assume everyone who disagrees with you has extreme anti-German views. I have spent a lot of time in Germany and really love Germany as a country. I repeat I am not saying there were "rape camps" as was in the original article and this is one of the first things I would have changed. Many of the things you are attacking about the original article I agree with. However, I disagree with trying to turn an article on forced rape into an article on brothels. You obviously have done you best to remove the article and now appear to be trying to remove it by changing the subject, essentially writing a different article under the wrong title. Polargeo (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

appropriate name

Polargeo says that "camp brothel" is not the appropriate name to cover forced prostitution and effective sexual slavery in camps.

Well, the prostitution was organized in camp brothels. Has there been any forced prostitution elsewhere besides brothels? Why not use the term camp brothel and soldier's brothel? Doesn't sound it mean enough? -- Linksnational (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable references on forced prostitution both within and without organised "brothels" it appears you wish to play this down and make it sound not so bad by changing the name to brothel. You then wish to claim that most of it is made up by c movies (despite many sources of the original article being books) and then that Der Spiegel just writes what people want to hear. You insinuate without proof that most of the women in the camp were prostitutes anyway so who cares if they are made to have sex. Even your stuff on the soldier's brothels (which is a different article) has irrelevant bits added to it to make it look as if it was a great thing. For example the bit about French women loving German soldiers because they are cleaner and physically superior. That has no real place in an article on brothels and certainly is a sickenning viewpoint when added randomly to an article on forced prostitution. Typical view of those women should be grateful for the Nazi occupation which has improved their lives. Polargeo (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not play it down, I differ. There are plenty of reliable references, which negate the overall force character. You don't differ. How shall a neutral article be written, if the article's title is already biased? The de:WP also uses the lemmata camp brothel and soldier's brothel. Can it be so wrong then? The lurid title "sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany" - appealing to emotion - would fit The Sun, but not an encyclopedia. You want to make it sound real bad, that's not a scientific approach, that's jaundiced.

The relation to French women played a major role. The idea of soldier's brothels didn't came up until the war against France in 1940. There was a open sexlife, soldier's got infected. The soldier's brothels were set up to prevent diseases, not as sexual gratification. The Wehrmacht wanted to have control. The women were not mistreated in the soldier's brothels. They were paid as they were before. The soldiers had to bring up the money themselves. -- Linksnational (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a very extreme POV source. The place in the paragraph which you have added the information makes it appear to relate to the brothels rather than the reason for creating the brothels. Also I will say again this section as you have added it is not about forced prostitution and should not be in this article as it simply repeats another article that you have created on the soldier's brothels. Polargeo (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As you see in here, I'm using different sources not one.

The section I added, is on the subject. The problem would't exist, if the lemma is chosen right. -- Linksnational (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

sexual enslavement

Sexual Enslavement is not the right title and forced prostitution isn't. For the vast majority the force character is doubtable or negated. -- Linksnational (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not the right title for the article that you are writing. Which is why I would request that you work on your brothel articles and cease trying to delete this article by the "backdoor" Polargeo (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no prostitution besides the camp and soldier's brothels. You're creating a subject by choosing a title, which doesn't reflect the different point of views of historical research. -- Linksnational (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources on forced prostitution. I am most certainly not creating the subject. You have sanitised the article with sentences that are just as dubious as those in the original article but in a different way. I add in well referenced sentences that are true to the reliable source that I use and you just remove them and replace them with your sanitised version. Please don't do this, I am not removing your text unless it is not backed up by a source even when I disagree that it should be in the article. I would appreciate it if you could do the same. As a native English speaker I will also add that your first sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Polargeo (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence doesn't make sense, since the lemma is chosen wrong.

There are plenty of sources on forced prostitution. Right, and there are plenty of sources, which say: some women where set under pressure, but in general the prosititution was not forced. I've read those books, you probably just picked articles from the internet. Also there is no literature talking of sexual enslavement. That title opened the door to the bullshit like "rape camps". Forced prostitution would be a better title than sexual enslavement, but I do still regard it as biased. -- Linksnational (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Camp brothel

Okay I agree this can be redirected to Camp brothel. The article is now a terrible mess and I cannot see how this can be solved with Linksnational pulling one way and me pulling another. Polargeo (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I also think the name should be changed from Camp brothel to Camp brothels in Nazi Germany (or similar) to properly identify the subject of the article. Polargeo (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know any other? The term camp refers to nationalsocialism.

I suggest to make a REDIRECT from forced prostiution to camp brothel and delete this page. -- Linksnational (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no grounds for deletion of this page. This will be a valid redirect and the page history is very important. I suggest you give up any hope of this being deleted and I say this from my extensive experience of deletion debates. Polargeo (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The term camp may refer to national socialsim (nazis) in Germany but in English this is an inadequate title. Polargeo (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The term Nazi is colloquial and was used by propaganda. -- Linksnational (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not in English it isn't. In English German national solicalism of the 1930s and 1940s is Nazism. This is English wikipedia not Nazi-sympathisers-pedia Polargeo (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to say that I will support your redirect (even though I don't agree with it) if the article can be moved to a more descriptive (English wikipedia) title of Camp brothels in Nazi Germany. When I say "or similar" I genuinely mean that. For example if your prefer German concentration camp brothels in World War II then fine but Camp brothel is not sufficiently descriptive as a title for English wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be a short term. German concentration camp brothels in World War II' is too long, German camp brothels in World War II would be better. Camp brothels in Nazi Germany is misleading, the camps were all over Europe. I would prefer redirects from all these terms to camp brothel. -- Linksnational (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Camp brothel" could mean a camp brothel in any camp at any time in history and that is not what this article is about therefore it needs the extra explanation in the title Polargeo (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What about German camp brothels in World War II? -- Linksnational (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay then move "camp brothel" to that title and redirect this article there. Polargeo (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)