# Talk:Flossenbürg concentration camp

The sick were left behind ( ie Death March)? But any who got sick on the march were shot? This seems odd - concern for prisoners instantly evaporated out on the road. How far was the march? Any citations on any of this. 159.105.80.141 13:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You are presuming that common sense had a bearing on the Holocaust. The sick were left behind to die. Those who fell sick, or whose feeble strength gave out on the march were shot. Darkmind1970 11:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I dont see any references or checkable sources for this page at all.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.48.219 (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 
My great uncle was with the 344th F.A., 90th I.D.; he was there when the camp was liberated. I have sat and listened to him talk of the camp and the later discovery of many of those who had been left behind during the forced march from the camp, some living, some not. The 96th may have been there and taken part as well; however, he never indicated to me that this was the case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.8.174.161 (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC) 

The 90th Infantry Division (United States) is listed in several places in the article as having liberated the camp.  However, the caption on the picture states that the 97th Infantry Division (United States) liberated it.  Both divisions were in the area around 23 April 1945.  So who actually liberated it?  Better yet, does anyone know the actual regiment that stumbled upon the camp? Joshuashearn (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The 90th ID liberated the camp. Sources: Bayerischer Rundfunk (Bavarian Broadcasting), Speech by Federal Minister of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, Renate Schmidt, at 60. anniversary of liberation of Flossenbürg. The files summary also describes the picture: General view of Flossenbürg concentration camp after liberation by the US Army 90th Infantry Division. Greetings --Tafkas (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
In addition: “Liberator Units” --Tafkas (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This is not a very reliable source; the Federal Minister of Family Affairs was no doubt quoting other sources and was not himself present. Ib Melchior's autobiographical account Case by Case: A U.S. Army Counterintelligence Agent in World War II states that the 97th arrived first. CIC agents Larry Myers, Robie Macauley and Anthony Hecht, all of the 97th, corroborated this in their publications. Bob Hacker's post "Knocking the Lock Off the Gate at the Flossenbürg Concentration Camp" describes several other accounts, suggesting that members of the 97th arrived first but did not document this fact. Plaques honoring both the 90th and 97th were placed at the camp gates in 1995. Cmacauley (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flossenbürg concentration camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316140934/http://www.breakoutofthebox.com/AnthonyHecht.htm to http://www.breakoutofthebox.com/AnthonyHecht.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians ... there is some text at the end of one paragraph that reads "444,009,568,900 people didn’t live."
It looks like a typo since there aren't 444+ billion people anywhere - but on a sensitive subject like this I prefer not to edit. Is it a range of the number of people who were killed? i.e. should it be "444,009 to 568,900 people were killed." ..? Was there some other intention?
The text seems to have appeared on 28 March 2018. 
Maikeruberry (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Obvious vandalism, undone now. Cmacauley (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Catrìona for making some good edits on this page, however I respectfully disagree with reducing the list of names of camp inmates and relegating the rest to the infobox. I feel that since Wikipedia is about information, the article should contain more information about the camp's residents, not less. Other information (such as Camp Commandants) can go in an infobox, but I don't see that other articles about concentration camps have put notable inmates there. Not sure what your rationale for doing this is. Cmacauley (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cmacauley: I was basing my edits after the most infamous article of this type, Auschwitz concentration camp, which is a Good Article. Another notable example, Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp complex, does not list survivors in the infobox or in a separate section, but does discuss a very few examples in the "Liberation" section. I did remove some, because if the individual does not have an article or at least a redlink, it's in question whether they are actually notable, and putting a redlink in an infobox isn't helpful. In addition, many of the most notable executed are listed in the text. Personally, I would support porting to a secondary article titled List of prisoners of Flossenbürg concentration camp or similar, on the lines of List of victims and survivors of Auschwitz or List of Mauthausen-Gusen inmates. Catrìona (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the comments by the above contributor that it is a shame to move the list of prisoners who were killed and those who were survived into the infobox.
In my opinion there are two arguments against this:
a) it is inconsistent with Wikipedia pages on other concentration camps
b) the listing in the infobox loses the description about the prisoner, which existed in the previous version, and this seems a shame.
I don't follow the argument about removing names of people for whom there is not an article or a red link (which is only another way of saying that there is currently no article on that person) By listing them with a red link it means that when a page on that person has been created the link will become active.
MrArmstrong2 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@MrArmstrong2: I was not arguing that redlinks or possibly not-notable subjects do not belong in a list, merely that they do not belong in an infobox. I noted above that the highest quality articles on concentration camps had the lists of dead and survivors in a separate article ; what's your opinion on splitting off the list? It could easily be expanded from Category:Flossenbürg concentration camp survivors and Category:People who died in Flossenbürg concentration camp. Catrìona (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: Thanks for your comments. I hadn't previously noticed that the Auswich page had a separate listing for people who died and survived, and maybe some of the other concentration camp pages have similar links. Seems a reasonable approach, and avoids the primary page becoming even longer than it already exists. It would certainly be quite a lot of work to combine the two pages of survivors and non-survivors into a table along with the additional information but, once it's done it's done. Any volunteers? MrArmstrong2 (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flossenbürg concentration camp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 14:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Giving this one a look. —Ed!(talk) 14:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
It is reasonably well written:
Pass External links, dup links and dab links look good. Copyvio detector returns green.
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass Offline references accepted in good faith. Cursory check of Google Books shows references that back up source material here. Two cited web sources checked, and generally back up details cited.
It is broad in its coverage:
Not Yet
"especially "asocial" and "criminal" prisoners" -- It might be worth it to explain what the standard was for this, or what kind of people they were applying this to.
"Background" -- if you could, note other sites selected for similar camps, later in the article it mentions five were established.
I'm not sure this is relevant; the article already states that similar camps were located "near rail junctions and population centers".
"Establishment" -- How many guard and staff were at the camp?
Added information, which is only available during the later years, in the "Expansion" section
"Most of the prisoners at Flossenbürg were classified as criminal, with some "asocial" and a few homosexual prisoners; the criminals quickly took over the prisoner functionary positions." -- Here would be a good place to note the proportion of actual violent criminals. Also the legal status of homosexuality at the time in Germany.
Added explanatory notes of prisoner categories at first mention.
"Expansion" -- Do you know where the Soviet prisoners of war were brought from?
Checked sources. It is not mentioned.
"toured Flossenbürg and praised the increased security measures." -- Any detail on what security measures he's talking about?
Yes, there was a push to improve camp security at the time because of a fear of prisoner uprisings. However, after looking more closely at the source, it seems that Frank only visited the subcamps in the Protectorate, so it doesn't seem relevant enough to include.
Subcamps could also use a map.
See below; which one do you prefer?
The last one is best, I think. —Ed!(talk) 05:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
"but later on it was destined for the monumental German Stadium project and the Nazi party rally grounds in Nuremberg." -- Was any stone actually sent for these? Might indicate where it was incorporated.
Stone was certainly delivered, but none of these Nazi projects was ever completed. Stone was also delivered from other camps such as Mauthausen, so it's hard to say exactly what stone was used where.
Is there any number on the output of aircraft parts here and if it was effective in increasing German aircraft production?
Sadly, I do not have any more information than is in the text. this source has some info about production numbers for other camps, but not Flossenburg.
"The number of guards increased sixfold during 1944, and came to include many older men, members of the Wehrmacht, and five hundred SS women." -- What accounted for this staffing? Manpower shortages?
Yes, fixed.
Infobox mentions a book, this could be added to the prose somewhere or else should be cited.
Meh, just took it out.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass Note a good use of a variety of German and other sources.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass 17 images and videos all tagged PD or CC as appropriate.
Other:
Looking overall, I see a few changes that would enhance the article and meet the requirements. So placing the GAN On Hold pending a few fixes. —Ed!(talk) 16:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

OK. So I've gone ahead and added that last map per the GAN. Based on this, the article has satisfied all the major points I'd made. Based on this, going to Pass the GAN now. Thanks for your work! —Ed!(talk) 03:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Currently this article is in the War crimes of the Wehrmacht category, but I can't find any Wehrmacht war crimes being mentioned in the article. It should probably be moved to War crimes of the Waffen-SS (the article just says SS, I'm assuming it was run by the Waffen-SS)? — jonas (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

None of the concentration camps was run by the Waffen-SS
. The branch of the SS in charge of the camps was the SS-Totenkopfverbande. The Wehrmacht category was added because the article mentions Wehrmacht guards (t · c) buidhe 18:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I know it wasn't run by the Waffen-SS, but there is no "war crimes of the SS" category, so that would be the closest one. More importantly, this article only contains the word Wehrmacht a single time, in the sentence "Due to manpower shortages, fit young guards were called up for front-line service and many older men, members of the Wehrmacht and five hundred SS women were recruited into the guard force at Flossenbürg.". Compare to the rest of the article: "During 1942, the focus of the SS shifted towards war production" "The SS liquidated prisoners" "SS leader Heinrich Himmler ordered all of the camps to be evacuated" " the SS massacred sick Jewish prisoners before evacuating" "SS- Hauptsturmführer Friedrich Becker, the head of the labor department at Flossenbürg, had signed most of the transport lists and was considered the most important perpetrator by the American prosecutors" "Thirty-three of the defendants were low-ranking SS members, sixteen were former prisoner functionaries, and two were civilians."
Currently nothing in the articles indicates this being about Wehrmacht war crimes, so it doesnt belong in that category. — jonas (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
It would be better to create a new category than place it in an inaccurate one (t · c) buidhe 12:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)