Talk:Rheinwiesenlager

message: Where exactly was the Rheinwiesenlager situated? As the POWs mainly were from the Ruhr pocket, it should be somewhere near Dusseldorf or Duisburg. Someone who knows te details? --Proofreader 13:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: Smith2006, I have reverted your addition of this theory to the infobox in line with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. This outlandish idea is already mentioned in the subsection entitled 'Conditions and deaths'. It is thoroughly discredited and deserves no more than a passing mention there. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Smith2006, I notice that you choose to edit war rather than join me here on the talk page. I will, however, persevere with my attempts to discuss this. Regarding Bacque, I would like you to read Other_Losses#Reliability_of_Bacque.27s_claims. His claims have been discredited, and are a very good example of a fringe theory, to which we should not accord undue weight. A claim dismissed by mainstream scholars has no place in an infobox. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the estimates by James Bacque some 100 times higher than virtually every other estimate], regardless of the lack of credibility of his methodologies, are better suited for a footnote than the info box at the top of the article. They are to be as nice as possible about them, "controversial".  Even though they have credibility issues, I did, however, put them in the ref in the info box, but clearly not the text.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's OK. I would say it complies with our policies. Are we sure it's accurate to describe Bacque as a "scholar" though? I thought he was a novelist who turned his attention to this matter. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uhm, Just because Bacques estimates do differ doesn't mean they are false. Perhaps it's the other estimates that are off the mark.  --196.210.248.146 (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[James Bacque]] 

message: I would like to delete the table of prisoner of war casualties as WP:Undue, and WP:NPOV. Can it be shown to have any relevance to the camps? 
Note, e.g. Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II only covers acts during the period of war, not the subsequent occupation, see the talk page archives for the apparent consensus on this.
E.g. the table purportedly shows "The total death rate for POWs in World War II were as follows:". If that is accurate then I have 2 big issues with it. WW2 in Europe ended in May 1945. The camps lasted April - September 1945. Of what relevance is casualty rate tables from a previous time period when the U.S. had relatively few prisoners? It wasn't until the war was over really large numbers of Germans surrendered, see for example. Can you show that the table for casualties for "POWs in World War II" also covers the mainly post-war period that the camps existed in? If not then the table is misleading and should be deleted as such.
Also, the word POW, i.e. Prisoner of War shows that the table is not applicable. Many of the prisoners in these camps were not Prisoner of War, they were Disarmed Enemy Forces, i.e. DEF when the conditions were at their worst. I.e. making a comparative table purportedly showing casualty rates of POW's during the war wholly inapplicable in an article mainly dealing with the period after the war when at times large parts of the inmates were not even counted as POW's.
--Stor stark7 Speak 18:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also find the table dubious, though I had mainly thought of other reasons. It is based on a single source, which may or may not be more valid than others.? From the table at the top of the article you get a range of .157% to 1% for the camps the article is about, so the number in the table further down is even below the lower bound. Knopffabrik (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The table includes Disarmed Enemy Forces in the number of POWs and the low numbers for British and American camps in that table are cited by historians as evidence that DEFs were not treated badly. See Bischoff, Ambrose and Bohme.  It comes from a RS so is relevant. Wayne (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Prisoner of War casualties per nation 

message: There is a picture with the line "Women held in the Third U.S. Army prisoner of war enclosure at Regansburg, Germany. May, 1945". There is a German city called Regensburg (with an e instead of the a). But it's very far from the Rhine, so why should a picture be in the article about the Rhine meadow camps? Knopffabrik (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Regansburg" picture 

message: "Credible sources for German POW deaths in these camps range from about 3,000 to 10,000...."
I find that statement quite odd and it's actually funny to post something like this without a citation. The tone of the article's introduction is also in a form that it tries to downplay the atrocities committed in the Rheinwiesenlager against prisoners. Taken, present estimation of the number of victims are educated guesses at best and still research needs to be done on this subject. --196.210.248.146 (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of victims 

message: Hold on. Erich Maschke? One of the leading ideologists of Nazi historians who expressed extreme racism and supported Nazi takeover of Europe during the war?
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  In 1972, the official German inquiry into the numbers of deaths was published by the Maschke committee (named after its chairman, Erich Maschke) 

message: In this edit I removed material which wasn't supported by the reference given (the claim that the US official history supports a higher death rate - it doesn't provide statistics on deaths), material cited to the unreliable source The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet influence on American postwar policy (please see Talk:Morgenthau Plan#The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy for my rationale here), material cited to the obviously unreliable source Abuse your illusions : the disinformation guide to media mirages and establishment lies, and a misleading claim that Stephen Ambrose believed that there was "ongoing debate" over the death toll cited to a 1991 article in which he dismisses Bacque's arguments. Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of material 

message: If the U.S. turned over all the camps to France and the UK by July and most of the camps closed by September - who was the Red Cross finally allowed to visit in the fall (and in the U.S. zone only in the spring of the next year)? Is the Red Cross material about some other group of camps entirely? Rmhermen (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Cross

message: I think anyone can agree that German sources are the most reliable here.  We need to break down the number of assessed casualties at the Rhine Meadow Camps by reporting each German historian that published their findings.  Where is Rudiger Overmans' numbers per instance?  Does anybody know?  I'm staring at this line below and it says "German figures state them to be 4,537".  From what source is that from?  We need to break this down and publish each and every number from these German sources and attribute them accordingly. 
Official United States statistics conclude there were just over 3,000 deaths in the Rheinwiesenlager while German figures state them to be 4,537. American academic R. J. Rummel believes the figure is around 6,000.[8]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:9081:B100:F0FD:C1E:12D3:AA75 (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Even Top Secret material have a life span of 25 years." - as the lifespan of JFK Files??? The narrative isn't a question in Germany. 1.) Everybody who would conduct research into it stands on the fringe. 2.) No official resources would be given into such problematic topics. 3.) The sources what could have given transparency were not allowed in the camps e.g. red cross. Eye witness testimony, in case of Germans have no weight (same case as Dresden strafing runs by planes). And the us sources, well... good try.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.13.38.15 (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Sources 

message: Did Eisenhower make the decision in March of 1943 or 1945? The article contradicts itself.☣Yutsi — Talk/Edits 02:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1943 or 1945