Talk:Dachau massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents 1 Removal of contributions by 217.180.64.154 2 Finally, it was a massacre 3 Link Removal 4 Reversion of WolframSievert 5 Citations 6 Changes 7 Scrapbookpages Website 8 punishment 9 remarks 10 Testimony of Hans Linsberger

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Template:Sources needed 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)

[edit] 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.

This policy in a nutshell:

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

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)

[edit] punishment

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?

---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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)