Talk:Buchenwald concentration camp/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vandalism-user 24.1.149.187 is a repeat vandal

user 24.1.149.187 is a repeat vandal, not only to this article but in his various other changes to various other articles. In the Buchenwald concentration camp article, 24.1.149.187 (1) replaced the correct date of April 4, 1945, for when the U.S. 89th Infantry Division overran Ohrdruf, a subcamp of the Buchenwald with the incorrect date of April 5; (2) replaced name "Patton" with "fart"; (3) replaced name Keffer with "JackAss"; and (4) added the line "* horus a. fagat, died of flesh-eating nanobots in 1993". diremarc (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye out

This page was blanked and listed for speedy deletion by anonymous user 152.163.100.199. It may pay to keep an eye on it. Lisiate 23:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Essen

Which Essen is meant in the section on female prisoners? Saintswithin 10:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Illegal

I removed the word "illegal" from the following sentence: "The camp was also the site of large-scale illegal testing of vaccines for epidemic typhus..." due to it being superfluous. Clearly, as testing was being performed by an official government branch, it was not technically illegal. As for its legality in international post-war courts, this is more or less irrelevant in the sentence.

I do not mean to nitpick, but the reason I remove this bit is that it might confuse people. Not removing the word "illegal" may lead one to think that the camp commanders were, contrary to orders from the central nazi government, experimenting on humans. This would then be faulty. --TVPR 00:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Liberated by Americans or liberated by prisoners?

German Wikipedia writes that the camp was not liberated by the Americans but self-liberated by the prisoners. I will give the article a factual accuracy warning. See also this German language website [1] Andries 18:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The Nazis left the camp before the US Army arrived. So I wonder whether the term 'liberated' is correct at all? 'Liberation' implies a specific action. A good description of the event is at: ww.remember.org/witness/herder.html I'll have a go at editing the article and remove the warning. --Maustrauser 06:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

my grandfather was in this camp... i think it was here that his brother and father died. They were given a death injection 2 weeks before liberation.

I believe that there was a prisoner revolt in Buchenwald, at least, that's what I here from my grandfather and grandmother, both survivors.

According to Martin Gilbert's The Holocaust, "On April 8 [1945], almost all the Jewish inmates at Buchenwald ... were marched out, leaving the non-Jewish prisoners to await the arrival of the Americans. ... A few Jews had managed to hide in Buchenwald during the 'evacuation' of April 8... Three days after most of the Jews had been marched out of the camp, American forces arrived.' (p 792). Sounds as if there was a three day period when the camp was under the control of the inmates (ie the Nazis had all left) before the arrival of the US army. Neither 'revolt' or 'liberation' seems to fit exactly. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In archives of the Dutch Institute of War Documentation (NIOD) are a number of accounts of inmates, written in 1945 and 1946. They stem from Dutch and German inmates. They describe that a part of the SS left the camp accompanying mainly Jewish and Russian prisoners who were evacuated in deadly marshes to other destinations. In the period 1942-45 German communists had organized 850 prisoners of different nationalities in military groups existing of 5 men. Many of them had fought in the Spanish civil war. It is not clear whether due to the evacuation all these 850 men were still available. Arms had been organized since 1942. In 1945 they had one machine gun with 2000 shots ammunition, 91 rifles a few pistols and a number of knifes and swords. When the first American troops approached the camp the guards at the watchtowers started to shoot at unknown targets, maybe they were just nervous. At that moment communist groups stormed the watchtowers and killed the guards. In the accounts stemming from a German inmate especially the importance of the contribution of Belgian inmates is mentioned. A few hours later an American officer came at the main gate and told that an American tank colonna did pass the camp and that the prisoners should protect themselves. For this self protection were also available the arms they looted from the German guards and stocks. Two days later American troops took over control of the camp and the inmates handed over their arms. So, in some way you can call it a self liberation, but without the leave of a major part of the SS and without the presence of American troops in the immediate neighbourhood the self liberation would have had no chance of success.

The archives of the USHHM has a good picture of post-liberation worship meeting - gives rabbi's name - many/thousands? were in one hall - very healthy looking. 159.105.80.141 19:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

While my late father reported to have entered Buchenwald with the 4th Engineer Combat Battalion attached to the 22nd Infantry Regiment,and the 12th cited in this article, after lookng into it it seems these units, part of the 4th Infantry Division were in Bavaria at the time south of Dachau. What does anyone know about this? What is the source of the 22nd/12IR claim here?Marky48 03:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't "evacuated" - the guards fled. Communists were previously priviledged, and they all wore worker's caps or berets. They were also relatively well fed.

Someone correct this. HanzoHattori 11:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a very disgusting remark. Communists were not privileged. Many thousands of communists were murdered in Buchenwald. For the West-European countries like Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway the majority of murdered people stemming from these countries were communists. This remark is of the same order as a holocaust denial. Shame on you!Robvhoorn (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There has been controversy over the question whether the prisoners liberated themselves: see Bruno Bettelheim's essay "Surviving", Jorge Semprun's "Quel beau dimanche !", and the "Buchenwald-Report". The two versions can be summarized as "The prisoners took up arms and liberated the camp," and "The SS turned over the camp to the prisoners peacefully and fled." Neither is completely true nor completely false. Because the prisoners' underground organization was Communist-led, the controversy has been fueled over the years by Communist and anti-Communist polemic. The website of the Buchenwald Memorial currently has a facsimile of the first report of the prisoners' autonomous camp committee after they took over the camp from the SS: <http://www.buchenwald.de/files/downloads/Lagerbericht-D.pdf>. A version of the truth that is compatible with many sides' claims would be that the SS handed over the camp to the senior prisoner at 12:30 p.m. on April 11th and ordered all SS personnel to leave. (The camp commander had requested a nearby Luftwaffe unit to firebomb the camp with the remaining prisoners later that day, but that action was apparently prevented by the approach of the Allies.) The military wing of the prisoners' underground organization armed themselves about two hours later and occupied the guard towers. They found one or two last guards in the gatehouse. The inmates sent out armed patrols to hunt fleeing SS guards in the vicinity of the camp and took prisoners. American and French troops that arrived over the next two days found the camp guarded by armed inmates. The prisoners surrendered their weapons to the Americans on April 13th. See <http://www.buchenwald.de/index.php?p=138>. Wegesrand (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And another side to the other side: See Lutz Niethammer ed., Der 'gesaeuberte' Antifaschismus: Die SED und die roten Kapos von Buchenwald (1994).

"Niethammer expands an introductory remark by the authors of that earlier report: 'the full truth will never be known' with the words: 'at least as long as the interviewed prisoners are still in the power of the communist-dominated camp committee in Buchenwald' [68]. Indeed, as mentioned above, Kogon wrote The Buchenwald Report under the watchful eye of a Communist informant, and Hackett notes, without explanation, that the appendix contains only about 70% of the individual reports originally collected by Kogon's team (384n64). Niethammer has reprinted seven of the missing reports, all of which are compromising for the Communist functionaries (Niethammer, 206-34)." From Harold Marcuse's review of the "Buchenwald Report", <http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=188>. Wegesrand (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Photo

That's a horrible photo, can barely tell what it is (upside down guy behind a fence, I assume dead?), defeintely has to be changed. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it mentioned anywhere that Buchenwald was a prison before the war

Die Hexe von Buchenwald

I question whether Ilse Koch was really known informally as "The Bitch of Buchenwald". Bitch (Huendin) and witch (Hexe) are not homonyms in German, and bitch is not used as an insult, either. The German version of the Buchenwald KZ article just calls her "Hexe" and makes no mention of other descriptions. Anything to back up that she was called "Bitch of Buchenwald"? Pending that, I'll change the sentence to something along the lines that the name loosely translates as "Bitch etc" YggdrasilsRoot 15:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The best translation is whatever English word best conveys the sense of the German word. I would think that "bitch" or even "beast" would be better here than "witch". In English we don't think of witches as particularly cruel and brutal. However someone has monkeyed around with your edit, and it looks odd. I will change it back. 144.9.8.21 19:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Elie Wiesel at Buchenwald?

The picture at the top of the page on the right hand side says Elie Wiesel can be seen in a photo taken from Buchenwald. Elie Wiesel is the author of the book Night, a true account story of his life during the Holocaust, and I happen to have read a large portion of the book just last night. I read nothing about Buchenwald. He was taken straight from the ghetto in Hungary to Auschwitz-Birkenau, what I recall to be a four-day train ride. Buchenwald is in Germany, and Auschwitz is in Poland. Not only did he mention nothing of Buchwald, but Buchenwald is a very illogical checkpoint to go through on your way from Hungary to Poland. Someone might care to research this further and either correct or remove the photograph and its caption.

I've learned Wiesel was taken from Auschwitz to Buchenwald near the end of the war. This subject can be deleted.

Hi, I was wondering. The picture it says was taken on the 16th of April, 1945, but according to Wiesel in Night, he left Buchenwald on the 11th. Is this maybe because the Russians and the Eastern Parts of Europe (e.g. Rumania, where Wiesel comes from) was behind the standard European calendar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VABK (talk • contribs) 15:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath documentation??

This entire section lacks documentation and is subject to deletion. Can anyone provide credible citations? Thanks.Skywriter 22:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Second Request for Documentation

My request for documentation was reverted by HanzoHattori who does not seem to grasp the need for and requirement for documentation. The above request for documentation is reinstated and I ask this new and apparently inexperienced user to please avoid labeling colleagues as "trolls" or "vandals" as this is both off-putting and can quickly lead to troubles. Thank you. Skywriter 18:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad English or true, in which case, where's the source?

It was used to house German prisoners, and Soviet records indicate that over 7,000 died.

Sound like the 7000 German prisoners died here. Is this correct? Source?

While we're at it this article seems to lack source all over, no?

Yes, 7,113 Germans died in Special camp #2 at Buchenwald between 1945 and 1950. My source is "Buchenwald, A tour of the memorial site" purchased at the Buchenwald memorial. Sorry...no ISBN on the guide book. Motorfix 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Many thousands of prisoners (estimates range from 12,000 to over 22,000) would die at the camp while in the Soviet Union's control"

Where do these figures come from? The official Soviet records indicate that 7,113 persons died at the camp during Soviet control. See the KZ Buchenwald website for this (click on History, then Soviet Special Camp, then scroll down to penultimate paragraph). It is possible that more people died than was recorded, but the official figure should certainly be mentioned and the current figures need referencing. They sound rather high. Dross2 17:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ettersburg

The word "Buchenwald" (German for "beech forest") was chosen because the Nazi authorities were not willing to name it after the Ettersburg (the keep) or Ettersberg (the mountain)...

Is that correct? --Plankton5005 17:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be, at least according to the German Wikipedia article, which the paragraph containing this statement seems to be a partial translation of. Jim_Lockhart 06:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

THERE IS NO MENTION ABOUT JEWS BEING HELD THERE!

WHY IS THERE NO MENTION IN THIS ARTICLE ABOUT JEWS?

General "blank" has been replaced with fart's, and captain "blank" has been replaced with JackAss, i don't know who these people were, but i doubt that the present names are accurate Jdoyonw12 (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Number of deaths in Buchenwald

The text in the paragraph about number of deaths in Buchenwald is more or less the same as on the separate wiki-page about number of deaths in Buchenwald (see the link to this page).

The reason that I have put information about statistics on deaths in Buchenwald on both pages, is that I think, it is of relevance both if you are specifically interested in Buchenwald. But it is also of interest if you are interested in the number of deaths in concentration camps in general. I have linked from the page "List of Nazi-German concentration camps" to the wiki page about Number of deaths in Buchenwald. Anette B 13:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your additions are fine, although they need to be reworked a bit. Also, could you provide line-page citations for the information derived from Bartel in Buchenwald—Mahnung und Verpflichtung: Dokumente und Berichte? Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 14:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made four changes:

1. I have changed ”Thanks to” to “Because of”. The reason is that I think of the word thanks to have primarily positive connotations. Whether the administrative collaboration between the Danish civil service and the German occupation forces was “right” is still open to debate.
2. I have changed “The same negotiations” to “The negotiations between the Danish civil service and the German occupation forces”. It is my impression that what actually happened in the negotiations between the Danish civil service and the German occupation forces is somewhat opaque (the Danish civil service operated without guidance from the politicians). So I think it is prudent just to mention the counterparts in the negotiations.
3. I have changed “; nonetheless, 62 Danish policemen died at Buchenwald.” to ”While they were at Buchenwald 62 Danish policemen died.”
4. I have changed “One cause of the deaths in the Buchenwald concentration camp was illness due to harsh camp conditions; for many more, the cause of death was murder.“ to “One cause of the deaths in the Buchenwald concentration camp was illness due to harsh camp conditions. Hunger was prevalent in the camp. Other prisoners were murdered.” What I have gathered from the sources I’ve seen is that hunger and disease was the most prevalent causes of death. Anette B 11:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Annette B! First, let me thank you for adding so many precise citations; that was wonderful.

1. You are correct about “thanks to,” although I believe that here any concerns about the moral status of the negotiations between the civil service and the occupation force—whether they were “right” or not—is moot, and that “thanks to” refers only to the relationship between the negotiations and the outcome as it affected the Danish policemen—for whom it most certainly was an outcome they were probably grateful for. In any case, my primary reason for making the change was the what was previously there (I believe, but don’t recall anymore, that it was “due to”) was inappropriate.
2. I shortened “The negotiations between the Danish civil service and the German occupation forces” to “The same negotiations” for conciseness; I don’t know about Danish writing conventions, but in English repetition of something as long as “negotiations between ... occupation forces” is tautologous and considered undesirable. Since at that point in the article it should already be clear to the reader what negotiations the “same negotiations” are, I believe the shorter form is justified from several perspectives. Those of style aside, the circumstances of the negotiations are, at that point in the narrative, irrelevant; further, I do not believe that repetition of such a long phrase will convey the ambiguity of the negotiations’ moral status—it only makes the sentence longer and that much harder to unwieldy.
3. I don't understand the justification for change 3, since essentially both versions mean the same thing, though mine—through the use of the semi-colon—makes it clearer that despite the better treatment accorded the policemen, camp conditions were still so bad that 62 of them didn’t survive. As a matter of fact, I think I will rework the phrase this way, as it will better highlight the poorness of the conditions.
4. On the causes of death: Is your discussion here focused solely on the causes among the Danish policemen? If it is, this will need to be clarified somehow; further, other editors might feel that the discussion is departing a bit from the narrower subject of this article, which is Buchenwald in general, not the plight of the Danish policemen—especially since their ordeal is also covered in detail in another article specifically about them. Therefore, if your intent with the “causes of death” subsection is to mention only the causes of death among the Danish policemen, that will have to be made less ambiguous: As it stands, it looks like a general statement about causes of death among all populations in the camp.
   Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jim Thanks for your improvements. The bit about "Causes of death in Buchenwald" is intended to describe causes in general. To avoid confusion I made a joint heading so the table of contents now look like "1 History 2 Deathtoll in Buchenwald 2.1 Causes of death in Buchenwald 2.2 Number of deaths in Buchenwald etc". Kind regards Anette B 17:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Anette (and anyone else interested):
I’ve attempted a complete re-edit of the whole article, though time constraints don’t allow me to track down all of the cited sources (I did track done some and found them wanting, though I left the material they appeared with because it was tenable upon cross-checking with the German article). Where I moved material, I did so to give the whole article a better flow and to keep like content together rather than have tidbits of similar content appear redundantly in different places. I hope my work has done yours justice; if not, please let me know and I will try to make further improvements. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 06:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jim again. I think you have put some needed structure to the article. If anything I would argue, that the article could be shortened even further. Concerning causes of death.. since hunger and decease was the most prevalent causes, I would argue, that these causes should be mentioned first. Thanks for taking the time. Best regards Anette B 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Database/Archive of CC-Personnel

Is there any public database with records about the nazi personnel of Buchenwald? Im am especially interested in "Wehrmacht" soldiers. Thanks for any hints. -- 87.79.192.159 10:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Living Monument"

"Inside the camp, there is a living monument in the place of the first monument that is kept at skin temperature year round."

What is a "living monument?" A Google search furnished no information.

The first monument was made by the prisoners. A second monument was made in commemoration. In the place where the obelisks stood is a permanent monument created by Horst Hoheisel and Andreas Knitz; its is a metal placard on the ground called Warmes Mahnmal, or Warm Memorial. The plaque lists some information and is itself heated at skin temperature. You can see a photo of it on the German Buchenwald page. Here is a photo of Obama at the memorial during his visit in the summer of 2009 http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/1244210064000/00826/fsl_barack_obama_bu_826436g.jpg

--Extrabatteries (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary color film

I don't know how significant this is, but there exists a 1942 or 1943 16mm amateur silent color film shot inside Buchenwald camp on either Kodachrome or Agfachrome (given the lack of color "pulsing", I'd opt for Kodachrome) by the baker that supplied the guards with bread. You see the guards eating inside their own house, and you see them walking around on the Appelplatz, both in their black uniforms, and in the latter shot you can see the Jedem das seine gate sign reversed in the backgound because it's seen from inside the camp. --Tlatosmd 15:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Cremation

My grandfather was in the U.S. Third Army when it was liberated and he said that he had to open the cremation ovens there, is there any information specifically about the crematory? 71.89.6.90 05:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Structure and Addendum

May I suggest the article being more structured into the three phases of the camp:

+ concentration camp + (slow) change extermination camp + soviet internation camp

Also we do not learn of the "outcome" of the evacuation marches. That is a particularl pity as those were incredibly gruelsome with an extreme toll of lives.

The addendum would in my oppinion benefit from sepereating the inmates of the nazi camp from those of the soviet camp. They may all be associated with the Buchenwald camp site but not the same camp as such. I would like to understand who was a victim of which system. An additional mention of quite a lot of people being improsened and abused by both totalitarian systems at Buchenwald an serving both the KZ and the soviet camp there would be welcome in the main text. This distressing fate applied to an unfortunately high number of persons, many survivors of the concentation camp finally succumbing to their torment in the soviet camp.

Can anyone make more of these ideas? Regards,194.246.46.15 (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama's Uncle:

Charles W. Payne, born 1924, enlisted 10 Nov '42, Navy. he was not in the Army. http://www.kshs.org/genealogists/military/wwiiveteransresults.php?page=421&branch=N

Reference number 10 is messed up and needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.85.33 (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Last surviving member of the original 4 liberators died

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/14/buchenwald.liberator/index.html 12.206.23.147 (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

POW deaths?

Is there a reference or link for POW deaths? Recently there have been a few US news articles about their deaths and how it wasn't publicized. Berga an der Elster is listed as one place; is this a sub camp of Buchenwald? Here is one reference: http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/11/20/worldwar.two.folo/index.html --MartinezMD (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me be more specific. I read in about the airmen prisoners in the article, but the recent news stories are saying "soldiers" maybe implying ground troops. That is what I am curious about. --MartinezMD (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

76th infantry took part in the liberation?

If I am not mistaken, I believe units of the 76th infantry division was also involved in the Liberation

Can anyone please refute or verify? Cosand (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

POW date of arrival

For what it's worth, the date of arrival of at least some of the POW airmen has to be August 1944 rather than April. This I know because one of them was an acquaintance who died recently. Flight Sgt EK (Peter) Phelps of 207 Sqn, Royal Air Force, was shot down in a raid on the V1 facility at St Leu d'Esserent on 8 July 1944, and after he was betrayed to the Gestapo in Paris he was transferred first to Buchenwald, then to Stalag Luft III. --Fraggle11 (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the word 'Holocaust' appear in the text of the article?

Seems like a big omission. Txh190 (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Txh190

Holocaust template

it is a big omission but partly covered by the holocaust template { { The Holocaust } } at the top of the articl --diremarc (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Koch

This article said that Koch died in Buchenwald, when the page http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Camps/BuchenwaldENG.html states that he was executed in Auschwitz. Which version is the good one ?..

The nazis executed Koch mainly because the SS found some inmate corpses during an inspection.--83.39.47.38 (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Herman Pister

This page claims he was a Standartenführer, but his bio page claims he was an Oberführer. I doubt he was promoted at some point after Buchenwald was liberated from him, so which is right?108.6.226.190 (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please explain "denial conspiracism" and what is the precise wiki infringement

Please explain "denial conspiracism" in the context of Eternalllll's addition to the article (below):

The Psychological Warfare Division. Some of the first Americans to enter Buchenwald on Arpil 11th were intelligence officers assigned to the Publicity and Psychological Warfare Unit of the Twelfth Army Group Headquarters. 2nd Lt. Albert G. Rosenberg and his team were in charge of managing a project that involved choosing a dozen inmates of the camp to write a 400 page documentation of Buchenwald. The report was never published in German, but later on translated into English by David A. Hackett. ("The Buchenwald Report"). Eugen Kogon, a former Buchenwald inmate who briefly worked under Rosenberg after the liberation, had been commissioned to rework the report into a German paperback book. His book "Der SS-Staat" is considered a standard work on the Buchenwald camp.

He has previously asked for an explanation as to why this has been deleted, regretably to no avail. And now I have also asked for an explanation of how it infringes wiki policy, without success. Please can one of you has deleted it do us the couretesy of explaining your reasoning instead of editwarring. In what way does the above deleted contribution infringe wiki policy? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How do we know these were "some of the first Americans to enter Buchenwald"? What is the significance of this material? Someone wrote a book on it. So what? And who said the book was a "standard work" on the camp? I don't see the source for that. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The question was "how does this contribution infringe wiki policy"?

It has previously been deleted numerous times but without an explanation as to why in terms of that policy. Which does rather suggest some kind of censorship based upon some criteria OTHER than wiki policy. You have now addressed the above clear question with "So what" and still no-one has explained "denial conspiracism" as a reason. If people just want extra refrences, why not add a 'citation required' tab for that?

So can I again ask you to please explain how including a short paragraph regarding the origin of one of the most unique accounts of the WW2 concentration camps infringes WP:UNDUE OR ANY OTHER WIKI POLICY.

"The first camp to be liberated in western Germany was Buchenwald, on April 11, 1945. Within days, a special team of German-speaking intelligence officers from the U.S. Army was dispatched to Buchenwald to interview the prisoners there. In the short time available to them before the inmates' final release from the camp, this team was to prepare a report... Nowhere else was such a systematic effort made to... record ...firsthand knowledge of the daily life, structure, and functioning of a concentration camp. The result was an important and unique document, The Buchenwald Report."

"An invaluable report by US Army personnel assembled immediately after liberation of the Buchenwald concentration camp. This vast project, undertaken by German-speaking members of the Army's Psychological Warfare Division..."

Summary: As these secondary sources state, it IS regarded as an "invaluable report" and an "important and unique document" detailing Buchenwald, so again I ask how is a reference to it infringing WP:UNDUE or any other Wiki policy?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A report was written. Why is this report important? Which reliable secondary source described it as "invaluable", and what did it mean by that, especially given that it was forgotten and unpublished for 50 years? Do reliable secondary sources discuss this material? Standard histories of Buchenwald? You are simply asserting it is significant, without explaining why. And why the emphasis on "The Psychological Warfare Division"? We don't even have an article on that topic. Please explain the significance to the Buchenwald concentration camp - and this time, without any ridiculous ad hominem claims about "censorship". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And STILL no-one has explained what "denial conspiracism" means in terms of wiki policy! :-o That was given as a reason for deletion. So as that was the criteria, and as an explanation has not been given for how that infringes wikipolicy, pointing this out is NOT 'ad hominem'.

Someone else has added the disputed information. I have just asked on what grounds is it being repeatedly deleted. Without a valid reason it only seems fair to undo the deletion.

Finally I have NOT been "simply asserting it is significant" as you accuse. Eternalllll provided a source that regarded it as significant. You 'deleters' need to show why that infringes wiki policy, not demand others show why they think it doesn't! :-o I have provided here on the talkpage quotes taken from secondary sources saying it is an "invaluable report" and an "important and unique document". Those are NOT my words or my assessment which of course would be WP:OR. They are wording from the publisher of the book cited. So why do I or the original contributing editor need to "explain the significance to the Buchenwald concentration camp"? The cited source does that. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not here to play games - we all know that Holocaust deniers focus on this material because they claim that various things that were alleged to have been done in Buchenwald were not real, but merely part of a propaganda campaign against Germany by, for example, the Psychological Warfare Division - and that, by extension, all claims made about concentration camps are merely propaganda. Regardless, the material was deleted by more than one individual, for more than one reason. The publisher of a book does not count as a reliable secondary source with regards to things like claims of importance, uniqueness or invaluableness. You have not yet explained why it should be added. If you think there is a reason it should be added, explain why explicitly, using reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaving 'holocaust denial' aside for the moment, still the original question remains unanswered: "In what way does the deleted contribution infringe wiki policy?" The book publisher ref. was only used in the talk page to make a point. We are discussing the reasons for the deletion of Eternalllll's contribution. His source Nizkor is used all over wikipedia as a reliable secondary source. I am not playing games, and I find your avoidance of simple questions and WP:Gaming here and elsewhere very serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs)

a) Just to clear up what appears to be a misconception, material need not "infringe wiki policy" in order to be excluded from an article. Please review False dilemma. b) If you think there is a reason this material should be added, please explain why explicitly, using reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Who really Iiberated Buchenwald?

My father was a POW at this "lovely" institution and he always maintained that the Russian Army liberated this camp and yet the article stated that the American Army liberated Buchenwald. This seems like something Langdom Winner talked about in "The Social Shaping of Technology" in that the winners write the history. One would think that a survivor of this camp should know which army opened the gates for them and ordered him and the rest of the "liberated" POWs to walk to Poland; this does not seem to be the case. To lend some weight to my father's knowledge of life in Buchenwald, you may want to find out what "Dorra" was. But then again, unlike the so-called historian that claims that the US 8th Division troops liberated Buchenwald, my father was actually there; what would he know about Buchenwald, anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.62.109 (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture called into question

It looks like one of the pictures has been called into question. Just that it may have been doctored. I'm not sure how this should be dealt with. Maybe a note saying it has been called into question would work, maybe using the "origional" photo, maybe just not using the photo at all.

http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.se/2013/01/the-most-famous-holocaust-photo-fraud.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.80.44.146 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources: see WP:BLOG. The blogs of Holocaust deniers would be on the low end of reliability for blogs. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, yes those bunks look so much more comfortable without the image of a starving naked man next to them. But maybe I'm just a "Ho£ocaust profiteer", or should that be "Ho£ocau$t profiteer"? What is this dedicated man from the ministry trying to prove exactly? So the naked man was at the camp too, it seems. What a surprise. But perhaps not for long... now you see him, now you don't. Wow, real magic. Well worth the effort, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Concern

This article causes me some concern, such as;

1. This extract appears in the 'Allied airmen' section, para 5:
"The students, being Norwegian, got better treatment than most, but had to resist Nazi schooling for months. They became remembered for resisting forced labor in a minefield, as the Nazis wished to use them as cannon fodder. An incident connected to this is remembered as the 'Strike at Burkheim'. The Norwegian students in Buchenwald lived in a warmer, stone-construction house and had their own clothes..."

I don't understand it. If I have read it correctly, the students were being prepared for "resisting forced labor in a minefield?? and to use them as cannon fodder??!! But they lived in a warmer house (than the prisoners' barracks, presumably) and had (worn?) their own clothes.

What is 'forced labor in a minefield' ? And if they were going to be used as cannon fodder they would hardly likely have to have 'perks' like good accommodation and their own clothes.

2. The "living monument" in para 2 of 'Demolition of the camp'
What is it? The section does not say.

3. The name 'John H. Noble' appears twice in the 'Well known inmates' section; or were there two 'John H. Noble's ?

4. The dates of the kommandants in the table and the text do not match.

5. There are quite a number of 'citation needed' tags visible.

RASAM (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

mainly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.118.166 (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The horrors aren't described.

The current text includes this sentence "It was used to house German prisoners, and Soviet records indicate that over 7,000 died." but there is no mention of the numbers who died while the camp was run by the Nazis. Likely the number was 100 times that, or more.... is it really enough to say that prisoners were used for labor? It was *not* a POW labor camp. It was a concentration/death camp.

It is true that it was a concentration camp. But there have been murdered tens of thousands of Russian POW's in a very cruel way.

Sorry, it was not a concentration camp. It was a POW camp. However, during the later stages of the war it was used as a temporary staging camp for Jews who were on their way to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps.

No, it was a prison camp, not a "death camp" there is consensus on that. Even Historians that accept the common Holocaust narrative accept this. Some, but not all, will also acknowledge that murders of Russian POW's are nothing more then Soviet Propaganda. I mean, the Communist had their way with agitprop, often the most ridiculous, obviously false, stories. I still think that it should be mentioned in the article, just call it what it is. --197.229.147.130 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

BEWARE WIKI STAFF!

An editor attack is being planned on this because it is not protected. It is going to be carried out by a group of people on the popular image board called 4Chan on /b/ (AKA "Random")

So please be on the look out! ~Anon from /pol/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.101.180 (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Images

Why are the most disturbing images buried in the "Notable inmates" section low down in the article, where they are not relevant? I'd suggest making that section a simple two column list and relocating the images into the body of the article. A picture can indeed be worth a thousand words. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the same! Ruessen-Kleinstorckwitz (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll give some references

but it needs some days. Ruessen-Kleinstorckwitz (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

photos: they are not good placed. I will look and give some others. REFERENCES: difficult are they for "notabilly prisoners". german wikipedia also has near no refs. Ruessen-Kleinstorckwitz (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

In the lede it is written that Buchenwald was "one of the first ......... of the concentration camps on German soil" and at the start of History chapter that "In 1934, the Nazis constructed Buchenwald concentration camp,...". Both assertions are incorrect. In fact Sachsenhausen and Buchenwald concentration camps were built in 1936 and 1937 respectively to replace many early camps, such as Columbia-Haus, Esterwegen, which was trasnferred from the SS to the judicial prison camp system, Bad Sulza and Sachsenburg. Nikolaus Wachsmann in his KL - A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps, New York (2015), Farrar, Straus & Giroux, first ebook edition, ISBN 978-1-4299-4372-7, writes that "...the project [of Buchenwald] only got off the ground the next spriong [(1937)]. Following personal inspections in May 1937, they [(Himmler and Eicke)] finally approved a suitable site, a large forested area ..." (loc. 2362 - p. 97) and "The first prisoners arrived in Buchenwald on July 15, 1937, ..." (loc. 2369 - p. 98). Carlotm (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Death marches

Hello,

Please help me list and cite more death marches both to and from Buchenwald. Your help is greatly appreciated. PA * PB = PC * PD (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buchenwald 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/20080319061647/http://www.buchenwald.de/media_en/en_ct_ges_hist2.html to http://www.buchenwald.de/media_en/en_ct_ges_hist2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160625124431/https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-german-chancellor-merkel-and-elie-wiesel-buchenwald-concent to https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-german-chancellor-merkel-and-elie-wiesel-buchenwald-concent

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

" Ettersburg, after the hill in Thuringia "

The line " Ettersburg, after the hill in Thuringia " looks odd to me. Ettersburg is a municipality not a hill. The relevant hill would be named Ettersberg. Agathoclea (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Story of final days

"After this news had been received, inmates stormed the watchtowers and killed the remaining guards". An article today in The Times of Israel says that this version is a myth created in East Germany and that in fact the SS guards had left. I don't know who is right about this but it should be investigated. Zero^talk 03:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 Removed (t · c) buidhe 04:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Buchenwald Resistance should be integrated here

The conflict between political and criminal prisoners should be described here.Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.dw.com/de/die-kapos-und-ihre-wolfsgesellschaft-in-buchenwald/a-18371827 There was a war between groups of prisoners.Xx236 (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)