Talk:Dachau liberation reprisals/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This politically correct BS is really getting out of hand. Reprisal or not, its still a massacre. And you dont have to be a rocket scientist to understand why "Dachau liberation "repirsals"" isn't right for an encyclopedia (Wiki is about facts, not opinions). Im no holocaust denier like the guy up above, but even I can admit that the name of this article is pure white wash/propaganda. (Not trying to demonize the troops, I probably would of offed a few Nazis myself) This reminds me of all the people who kept removing "Japanese victory" from the box on the Pearl Harbor article, and replacing it with "Long-term strategic Japanese failure," or whatever they can cook up. We should not allow pride to get in the way of truth. And just so all of you readers know, this is not a message anybody has to respond to, just an observation.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed the name because the title was simply completely wrong (and misleading and misinforming and just stupid). --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't see anything "politically correct", misleading, misinforming, or "just stupid" about the article title. None of those are real reasons for a move. Please refer to Proposed page move in this talkpage's archives for a discussion of how/why the present article title was arrived at. If you think the present title is incorrect/gives the wrong impression, you could propose another page move/title change. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

misleading, misinforming, or "just stupid" is calling "repisal" something that was not at all a reprisal. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I propose that we go back to this former version of the lead sentence. The Dachau liberation "reprisals" were a series of killings of German camp guards... I retains the title of the article, while acknowledging that German soldiers were executed / killed.

Steve Pastor (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Except there were NO reprisals there at all. It appears there were revenge killings (some in affect and spontanous, some more cold-blooded and systematic), which has nothing to do with the concept of reprisal, and to call it such is simply a disinformation. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Btw, "Proposed page move", at firsrt glance it seems nobody there even had any idea what a reprisal is ("It is a self-enforcement of the laws of war, for reprisal is undertaken not in retaliation or punishment, but rather to force the other side to stop its violation."). It is a ridicalous misinformation that is one of these instances when Wikipedia is being actively stupid. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Reprisal - Retaliation for an injury with the purpose of inflicting comparable or like injury. Webster's New Riverside University Dictionary. Steve Pastor (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat of a troll, and it seems User: Sna-ke may have a point, however harshly put, but I don't see the issue with the term "reprisal" because there is a legal definition and there is the lay definition. See the first definition here, first definition here, both first definitions here - I believe that's four dictionaries in which the lay definition is put before the legal one (indicating most common usage), and this incident fits the lay definition. And if we should modify the lead, let's try to avoid the gerund "killings"; it's just childish sounding and actually discouraged by Wikipedia when a noun can be used. - Boneyard90 (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Reprisal, according to Wikipedia: "A reprisal is a limited and deliberate violation of international law to punish another sovereign state that has already broken them." What constitutes reprisal killings during an armed conflict: "Reprisal is a legal term in international humanitarian law (IHL) describing a particular kind of retaliation. To be a reprisal, it must be undertaken for the purpose of forcing, or inducing, enemy forces to cease their own violation of IHL. It is a self-enforcement of the laws of war, for reprisal is undertaken not in retaliation or punishment, but rather to force the other side to stop its violation."[1] ICRC: "As stated in several military manuals, reprisals have been a traditional method of enforcement of international humanitarian law, albeit subject to the stringent conditions mentioned below." An example of such conditions: "Decision at the highest level of government. The decision to resort to reprisals must be taken at the highest level of government. Whereas the Oxford Manual states that only a commander in chief is entitled to authorize reprisals,[33] more recent practice indicates that such a decision must be taken at the highest political level.[34] State practice confirming this condition is found in military manuals, as well as in some national legislation and official statements.[35] In its reservation concerning reprisals made upon ratification of Additional Protocol I, the United Kingdom stated that reprisals would be taken “only after a decision taken at the highest level of government”.[36 "[2] Don't pull any 'lay definition' bullshit on me, Boneyard90 "somehwat of a troll". "it's just childish sounding and actually discouraged by Wikipedia" to push plain fucking disinformation (which may only disinform of what constitutes a reprisal - and here are the American definitions: "The US Field Manual (1956) states: (a) Definition. Reprisals are acts of retaliation in the form of conduct which would otherwise be unlawful, resorted to by one belligerent against enemy personnel or property for acts of warfare committed by the other belligerent in violation of the law of war, for the purpose of enforcing future compliance with the recognized rules of civilized warfare. ... (d) When and how employed. Reprisals are never adopted merely for revenge, but only as an unavoidable last resort to induce the enemy to desist from unlawful practices."[3]). There were killings, but there were NO reprisals. You can as much call it "Dachau liberation genocide" and it won't be any less or more stupid than "reprisals". --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Your diplomatic skills are impressive. The field manual definition (a) fits perfectly with what happened at Dachau. Now as far as (d), is that part of the definition, a separate definition, or an admonition? And yes, since we are not a court of law, I don't see the problem with using a lay definition. I see no "disinformation". But I can see you feel pretty strong about this, and though you have some aversion to civility, I'll assume good faith on your part. So what do you propose the title be changed to? And don't say "killings". - Boneyard90 (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? REALLY? How does it fits perfectly it was done "for the purpose of enforcing future compliance with the recognized rules of civilized warfare"? Huh? Elaborate, come on! And here's more: "(c) Against Whom Permitted. Reprisals against the persons or property of prisoners of war, including the wounded and sick, and protected civilians are forbidden. Collective penalties and punishment of prisoners of war and protected civilians are likewise prohibited. However, reprisals may still be visited on enemy troops who have not yet fallen into the hands of the forces making the reprisals. (d) When and how employed. Reprisals are never adopted merely for revenge, but only as an unavoidable last resort to induce the enemy to desist from unlawful practices. They should never be employed by individual soldiers except by direct orders of a commander, and the latter should give such orders only after careful inquiry into the alleged offense. The highest accessible military authority should be consulted unless immediate action is demanded, in which event a subordinate commander may order appropriate reprisals upon his own initiative. Ill-considered action may subsequently be found to have been wholly unjustified and will subject the responsible officer himself to punishment for a violation of the law of war. On the other hand, commanding officers must assume responsibility for retaliative measures when an unscrupulous enemy leaves no other recourse against the repetition of unlawful acts." If you hate 'killings' so much, then it's 'crimes' / 'war crimes'. There were no repisals, but there were crimes (which were not persecuted only because General Patton decided to bury the matter). And it's really funny when youn go with calling me "Somewhat of a troll" and then whine about "assuming good faith". --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The lay definition of reprisal fits just fine. "Retaliation for an injury with the intent of inflicting at least as much injury in return." Wikipedia doesn't use a term as direct as "crimes" in titles unless it's very well sourced. I'm not entirely committed to reprisals, but this article is a tricky one to give a short title to. "Liberation massacre of Dachau guards" perhaps? Although that is slightly confusing at first read. (Hohum ^@) 12:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wtf is "lay definition"? Reprisals is a real, existing, defined concept in warfare, with conventions and laws and rules of war. It wasn't a reprisal action at all, it was a series of mass revenge killings (murders) totally violating both the US military and international law.

Revenge killing is a real concept, too (but is a crime). --SNAAAAKE!! (talk

) 14:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

To User Sna~ake: Perhaps you should try some deep-breathing exercises. Anyway, yes, the Dachau incidents fall perfectly within the Definition (a): "Definition. Reprisals are acts of retaliation in the form of conduct which would otherwise be unlawful, resorted to by one belligerent against enemy personnel or property for acts of warfare committed by the other belligerent in violation of the law of war, for the purpose of enforcing future compliance with the recognized rules of civilized warfare." - Sure, all that sounds riht in line with what happened at Dachau. Furthermore, you state: "reprisals may still be visited on enemy troops who have not yet fallen into the hands of the forces making the reprisals", which we may then argue whether the German guards had "fallen into the hands" of the Allied soldiers. Sure, the German guards may have surrendered, but their surrender was apparently not accepted. I believe there are some views that a surrendering soldier isn't actually a POW until in-processed and formally secured. But we still have the lay definition of "reprisal" to keep in mind. I would also be against calling the incidents "crimes" or "war crimes", because as you point out, nobody was ever charged with a crime. So, still open to suggestion in the interest of accuracy and consensus. Whiningly yours, - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Lay - nonprofessional or nonspecialist. See 3rd definition, 2nd entry. So, the "lay definition" of "reprisal" would be the non-legalistic use of the term. Did you go to the dictionary entries I linked? Try those. It may make my position clearer. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No, "reprisals" is A REAL CONCEPT OF THE LAWS AND RULES OF WAR WHICH IS NOT A CRIME and it was IN A WAR. Now: "Liberation massacre" is just silly, and "massacre of Dachau guards" does not mention the wounded soldiers and medical personnel herded out from the hospital, "regardless of their codition", who were obviously not "guards" (btw, the article fails to even mention this with while mentioning "hospital shootings", mentions "SS combat troops" but not they were disabled wounded soldiers). Btw, there were also 160 SS-prisoners(!) who became temporary guards after the real guards fled during the previous night, as to surrender the camp orderly. They were also joined by 200 Hungarian SS combat soldiers (from the Viking Division). And then there were the hospital people. There were very few real guard there. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm a bit confused. The Wikipedia entry for Reprisal states: "A reprisal is a limited and deliberate violation of international law to punish another sovereign state that has already broken them." Is it a crime or isn't it? A "violation of law" is typically the very definition of "crime". I'm understanding that a reprisal is maybe not supposed to be a crime, but certain actions during the execution of reprisal can turn out to be war crimes. So you object to the use of the term "reprisal" because it presents a false sense of legitimacy to the acts of killing the guards and other German troops. Is that it? - Boneyard90 (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should read someothing else than Wikipedia. Here's reprisals defined for you in these "lay" terms of yours: "Reprisal is a legal term in international humanitarian law (IHL) describing a particular kind of retaliation. To be a reprisal, it must be undertaken for the purpose of forcing, or inducing, enemy forces to cease their own violation of IHL. It is a self-enforcement of the laws of war, for reprisal is undertaken not in retaliation or punishment, but rather to force the other side to stop its violation. For this reason, a reprisal is technically an action that, if done on its own, would constitute a violation of IHL. When, however, it is done for the purpose of forcing an adverse party to cease violating IHL, it may become a legal act, providing all the legal criteria are met." [4] (as written by [5]) --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Strange. you have an exceedingly short memory. I quoted from four dictionaries, as well as the US Army Field Manual that you linked to; so, yes, I read "something other than Wikipedia". You still haven't made your position clear as to why you're against the title, other than it somehow doesn't meet the definitions you quote. Your comments are argumentative and hostile, but you do not pinpoint how it fails the lay or legal criteria or if you think the label is misapplied because it either validates or invalidates the actions somehow. Please be clear on how it does not apply, why it fails the criteria in a legal sense, and what title you propose. - Boneyard90 (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Strange. you have an exceedingly short memory. I made my position clear as to why I'm against the title: it's misleading and minisforming. I did pinpoint how it fails the legal criteria and I don't care about about any "lay" bullshit, and of course I think the label is misapplied because it either validates the crimes of war as a legal act. I already changed the title, so stop your act. And to refresh your exceedingly short memory: "Reprisal is a legal term in international humanitarian law (IHL) describing a particular kind of retaliation. To be a reprisal, it must be undertaken for the purpose of forcing, or inducing, enemy forces to cease their own violation of IHL. It is a self-enforcement of the laws of war, for reprisal is undertaken not in retaliation or punishment, but rather to force the other side to stop its violation. For this reason, a reprisal is technically an action that, if done on its own, would constitute a violation of IHL. When, however, it is done for the purpose of forcing an adverse party to cease violating IHL, it may become a legal act, providing all the legal criteria are met." [6] And because your exceedingly short memory - here are the legal criteria: http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule145 (chapter "Conditions"). --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You quote, but you don't explain. As I interpret it, the Dachau incident meets the criteria. "To force the other side to stop its violation" - the Germans stopped didn't they? They were forced to stop. So simply quoting items or linking pages, and thinking those are self-explanatory does not in itself make your case. Simply stating the title is "misleading and misinforming" is a broad and generic argument. How is it misleading and misinforming"? You dump possible evidence, and assume other editors will arrive at the same conclusion you did. So you have not been clear on your position. Your sarcasm and hostility have been counter-productive. But that's ok, I'm willing to work with you. This is the first time you have stated that you believe the title legitimizes the act. So we're getting somewhere, just very, very slowly. Since you don't like the term "lay definition" for some reason, we can use the term "dictionary definition". Now, if you don't feel an application of the dictionary definition is appropriate, then what title do you believe is suitable? - Boneyard90 (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop playing stupid. I see you don't understand "all" (ALL conditions must be met), and I don't udnerstand what do you mean "the Germans stopped" - stopped what, breathing? There was no imact on German conduct elsewhere whatseover (and the other Germans weren't even informed about it, as it was kept secret), and it was never even supposed to have any effect to begin with. And the title I "believe is suitable" is obviously https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dachau_liberation_reprisals&diff=614334707&oldid=612244085 (possibly refined as "extrajudicial killings" or "summary executions"). The whole article should also be clear most of the victims had nothing to do with the camp (other than many were conscripted prisoners), as they were guards for less than 1 day (after the previous commandant SABOTAGED an order to either kill or evacuate the prisoners) and many were in fact just wounded soldiers and medical personnel from a military hospital (which is not mentioned at all). --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not "playing stupid", I just refuse to do your work for you. And you are making your position clearer. This discussion has been about the title. If the content is incomplete, and you want the title to reflect the information missing, then it really is incumbent on you to correct the article or supply the missing information. As for the title: I could support something that includes "executions". - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, go away and stop reverting. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please revert the name change per

SNAAAAKE!! I'm asking that you work with the other editors who are interested in this article. There are now three of use who feel you are not working with us to make the article better. I'm identifying your recent behavior as disruptive editing with a path that has been established for these situations. Again. Please gain consensus before making changes in the article; especially the name. Steve Pastor (talk)

I'd be okay with "killings," but page moves and reverts quickly become disruptive. Best to be patient and take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hear who came with such a misleading (and idiotic) title, and why. Like - which ever military or civilian historian did call it a "reprisal"? German Wikipedia's GA-class article is https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau-Massaker and the term "reprisal" (Repressalie) is, of course, nowhere to be found there.

The other articles are:

• https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masacre_de_Dachau
• https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_de_Dachau
• https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacro_di_Dachau
• https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masakra_w_Dachau
• https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бойня_в_Дахау
• https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaker_v_Dachau
• https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masakr_v_Dachau

Etc. Seems only the English Wikipedia decided to get a stupid title. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the archived discussion here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dachau_liberation_reprisals/Archive_1#Finally.2C_it_was_a_massacre Note in the Highly POV section the following "The title has been stable since the article was first written in 2004. Considering title changes states that: "remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense" and "Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged" but if you think that a title change is in order then you'll need to request a title change by following the instructions for controversial title changes." There's even a section on "Proposed Page Move." Steve Pastor (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I was never against calling the incident a "massacre". I think another editor objected for all the reasons that people object to the term "massacre", not well defined, who decides that it is, etc, but also, why is this incident a "massacre", as opposed to what had been going on there against the Jews and other internees. If consensus favors moving the title back to "Dachau massacre" or even "Dachau liberation massacre", I have no objections, and I'll support the move given that that's the title of Wikipedia pages in other languages. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In the above referenced discussion of name change, one point made was that the original creator of the article pulled the name "massacre" out of thin air. It appears that at least some of the other wiki articles using the same name are based on the original naming and materials. (ie quite likely cut and paste as is quite common) the 2004 stable name does appear to include the word massacre, and the change to reprisal happened in 2012. There appear to be two statements in the discussion that there had a been consensus to change to reprisal. Steve Pastor (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that we go through the documented cases of GIs killing German soldiers one at a time to assess the appropriateness of the word massacre. I would say there was one incidence of execution style killing (in the box car of the "Death Train," followed by shootings of multiple German soldiers at the guard tower and in the coal yard. Although it has been questioned, in both cases there is testimony that contradicts it being execution style killing (had a pistol, tried to get away) Prisoners killing kapos, and guards etc. Steve Pastor (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

One further comment, when at KZ Dachau last year, the official tour guide told me not to believe the accounts of hundreds of guards being killed, as found on the web. Steve Pastor (talk)

Right now I oppose and name change without following the established procedure. But if anyone wants to start that process, I will participate in the discussion. Steve Pastor (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A comparison of the August 16, 2005 versions in French wiki and English wiki show that text in both articles is "identical" when translated using the translate feature. And, the material referenced is from Buechner's account, written in 1986 and not considered reliable. This is NOT a consensus of various wiki editors. It is a simple cut and paste of a highly unbalanced version of events. Steve Pastor (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually the German article, which I've read only for for the first time yesterday, is very rational, pointing out how it the scale of the massacre was apparently vastly exagerrated (as in: there were only dozens and not hundreds of dead) by Buechner's sensationalist "witness" bullshit and then by the Holocaust deniers who picked it up from him (and to quote another book: "Revisionists and Deniers who continue touse the picture at the wall with the accompanying caption stating that this massacre in Dachau was the worst atrocity committed during World War II"). It is titled Dachau-Massaker. And what's most important: THERE WERE NO REPRISALS AT DACHAU. The obnly legal/lawful action there was the Dachau trials and this idiotic "Dachau reprisals" thing is still actively disinforming readers. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Since there's disagreement brewing on all suggestions so far, I'll throw another one into the mix. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - As pointed out by myself and conceded by at least one other editor (User:A Humble Contributor) earlier, the term Dachau liberation massacre seems to be the most common name in sources and other-language Wikipedia pages. The term was used by the first author on the incident, which, as per
  WP:TITLECHANGES, is given priority consideration in case of disagreement. - Boneyard90 (talk
  ) 14:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose You can use Google Advanced search to look for instances of the phrase by year. You will note that before Buechner's book, there are no instances. Around mid 1995 two journal articles appeared with the phrase. Use of the phrase isn't really found until after the article was started here. Please look at the first edits. I hope you will agree that it was pretty much one sided; therefore the "original title" guideline should not be used here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dachau_liberation_reprisals&diff=8032901&oldid=8006490 And, I would argue that Buechner had his own agenda with his inflated number(s) which the guides at Dachua dismiss. Steve Pastor (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yo, I read the article and was a bit baffled by the choice of the title. Coming to the discussion page I can see I am not the first to note something is amiss here (yes I have read the whole thing). Now I do not want to share the last contributors' tone (hence a new section), but indeed there is a point: This simply was not reprisal. A reprisal is fundamentally a state action, and it meant to coerce the other side into some form of acceptable behavior. Neither of this is the case here: This was no state action by the US, but a spontaneous act of individual lower ranked soldiers or small groups. It did not aim to enforce acceptable conduct of Nazis (or even attempt that), since the Nazi state never learned of it, and the individual guards were already under arrest anyway. So quite simply, the headline gives an awfully wrong impression that this was an organized act by the US military for a specific aim, which is neither supported by the content of the article, nor referenced. This is obviously a bad state of affairs.

We should use a more descriptive and importantly correct title. I suggest "Dachau liberation shootings" or something along the lines. Thoughts? A humble contributor (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not read the discussion in the previous section. I suggest calling the article whatever the reliable sources call this event, rather than trying to interpret the sources. I will note that the most-cited source for this article is Dann, and a Google search of his book for the word "reprisal" turns up no hits. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Please review the previous discussions on this at this url, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dachau_liberation_reprisals/Archive_1 , and the previous section of this page. Steve Pastor (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Choosing one of the dictionary definitions of "reprisal" that doesn't fit, and ignoring the others seems oddly selective and a bad basis for a complaint. (Hohum ^@) 16:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well even if this simply was a case of multiple definition of which only one is grossly misleading, then we should at least avoid this ambiguity if we have an alternative, less confusing title. Moreover, the definition that does not fit is the definition in international war regarding war crimes, and this incident is alleged by some to be a war crime. On top of that, "reprisal" in the context of WW2 by and large refers to state-sanctioned systematic German massacres of civilians in occupied areas as 'reprisal' versus partisans, acts that are considered to be war crimes. It is at the very least unfortunate to use the same term for a non-state-sanctioned and spontaneous killing of enemy paramilitaries by lower ranked US-troops that has not been held as a war crime by a court. Lastly, Wikipedia itself claims that in the US-Army a 'reprisal' would have to be ordered by a theatre-level general; The US Army is the primary party to this incident, so it would be somewhat questionable to use the term in a different meaning here. (and yes, it even contradicts the definition in the field manual sourced above) If all parties that hold an interest in this event - international law theorists, WW2 historians and the US Army - understand one precise concept under 'reprisal', we really should not use it in the alternate sense of 'revenge'. Why not just use the far less ambiguous 'shooting', especially as our main reference does not even seem to mention 'reprisal'A humble contributor (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Because as pointed out in the earlier discussion, we should avoid gerund use in the title; a noun is preferable. Other (language) Wikiepedias use "massacre". - Boneyard90 (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is more important that an article title is clear and avoids confusions compared to grammatical preferences. I would also point out that "Precision and disambiguation" is a principle in

Shooting of the Romanov family, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Virginia Tech shooting and 2009 Fort Hood shooting to just name a few. 'Massacre' seems to be the most common name, but it does seem to imply a greater scale and just seems somewhat odd in this context, especially as this event seems to consist of various incidents that happened in connection, but not as a single action. I would prefer it over 'reprisal', because at least its not plain out wrong, and indeed common. Still, if we could find something less sensationalist that would be better. I still lean to 'shooting', despite your aversion to gerunds, but I am open for other suggestions.A humble contributor (talk

) 07:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"The title has been stable since the article was first written in 2004. Considering title changes states that: "remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense" and "Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged" but if you think that a title change is in order then you'll need to request a title change by following the instructions for controversial title changes." from previous section of this talk pageSteve Pastor (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Steve Pastor (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. Well the title has actually changed since you first posted this. Also, I have no quarrels with the title on moral or political correctness grounds. I have a problem with the title purely on the grounds that it is factually misleading (or at the very least ambiguous) and hence confusing for the reader. I would hope that I get to convince you of this obtrusiveness and that hence a title change to a technically more correct title might not actually be controversial (am I really writing this?). Indeed I want to avoid changing this to another controversial title, which is precisely why I am asking you fine people for input what you think would constitute a good (non-controversial and correct) title, rather than blurt out the first alternative naming that comes to my humble mind in a change request. A humble contributor (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Dachau liberation shooting" isn't useful since shooting during a liberation is hardly informative, which side did the shooting? (Shooting during a liberation and at a school aren't really comparable in terminology). Same problem with "Dachau liberation killing" or "massacre" since it seems as if some prisoners were killed just previous to the liberation. I'm pretty sure I'm not splitting hairs any more than taking issue with "reprisal". There doesn't seem to really be a common name of the event, since it's typically described in sources in conjunction with the liberation - Unless you come up with a name which consensus says is superior to what the page is currently using, you're flogging a dead horse.(Hohum ^@) 18:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never quite understood the endless controversy over the term "massacre", or why some view it as "sensationalist". If the incident fits the definition, what is sensationalized about calling an incident what it is? But if the incident isn't named in sources, aside from the liberation of Dachau, why can't it be named just that: Dachau liberation or Liberation of Dachau, as there was more than just the retaliatory homicides that occurred: there were beatings and the surrender itself. - Boneyard90 (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with "Dachau liberation" and similar is that although that is the surrounding event, the overwhelming bulk of detail available is about the killing of the guards, which makes the title rather misleading about the content. (Hohum ^@) 15:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

'Massacre' is commonly used for shootings of POWs in WW2, both by US personnel such as

Midnight Massacre (1945) and Biscari massacre, and by the Germans such as Malmedy massacre. However, in the context of Dachau it's especially awkward, since it had been site to a continuous massacre for some years, so 'massacre' as such does not seem to identify the particular incident at the end sufficiently.A humble contributor (talk

) 08:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The archived 2012 discussion about the title of this article had many good points, I suggest that interested editors read though the posts at Proposed Page Move. Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see "Dachau liberation" as misleading. Since there is no "common name" for the assault on the guards, then the primary event, and the one that precipitated the shooting and beating incidents was the liberation. The assault incidents stemmed from that event. You can talk about the liberation without addressing the homicides, but you can't talk about the homicides without introducing the proximal cause, the liberation. So the article is essentially about the liberation, in which the homicides were an incident therein. However, if editors want the title to call attention to the homicides, so be it. As per the 2012 discussion, it seems there is no "common name", and the official report by the US Army refers to the incidents as the "Alleged Mistreatment of German Guards at Dachau". In a more streamlined form, the closest thing we have to an "official name" is the "Dachau guard mistreatment". I would suggest "Assault on Dachau guards", but as the term "assault" has a legal definition as well, I would foresee it would become a problem with some editors. In the end, I would support the titles: Dachau guard mistreatment, Dachau liberation, Liberation of Dachau, or Dachau liberation massacre. On the term "Dachau liberation massacre", I don't think this invites the question "which side did the shooting?" as User:Hohum insists. If there was a massacre at the time of liberation, by the camp guards, it would, it should, follow (and I think logically) that those deaths would be an extension of the previous several years of camp operation. As a seperate incident, a "liberation massacre" would be a retaliatory incident, but I agree that id does not define which "side" as far as whether the inmates or the US soldiers committed the massacre, when in actuality, it was both. - Boneyard90 (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"Dachau guard mistreatment" is ambiguous, it could be mistreatment by guards or of them. On consideration of Boneyard90's reasoning, "Dachau liberation" or "Liberation of Dachau" could work. "Dachau liberation massacre" is also ambiguous, it could be of guards or of prisoners just before the liberation, on this I don't agree with Boneyard90's argument. The title should make the subject immediately apparent with as little ambiguity as possible, and without relying on foreknowledge of the event and the surrounding situation. (Hohum ^@) 16:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we will never be able to establish the full context of an event in the title. You could also misinterpret "liberation reprisal" as a reprisal carried out for the liberation by Germans elsewhere. Anyway, sensible use of 'of' and 'by' should be able to clarify this without be becoming to awkward, e.g. "Mistreatment of Dachau guards" (although mistreatment is a bit soft for what happened, and it seems some 'victims' were SS men who were not actually guards. 'Killing of SS men during Dachau liberation'? Too long? A humble contributor (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I truly wish that our combined efforts were going into making this, and the KZ Dachau articles better, rather than into discussing the name of the article. Part of the problem is that this article does not do a good job of establishing the context in which guards were shot, or beaten to death by prisoners. (BTW I wish someone had taken me up on the offer to list all documented instances of guards being killed.) In fact, I think my preferred option would be to delete this article and have this material in the article on the camp itself, thus placing it in the context of the camp, what happened there, and what was found by the first troops, where it belongs. I cannot support using the word "massacre," and at one point there was text explaining that reprisal was not being used in the legal sense with a link to "reprisal." Editors can't stay away from the introductory paragraphs, and clarifying information is repeatedly or changed or moved to the detriment of the article. Steve Pastor (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. So much time spent on the title. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see the appeal in merging, but in this case I think there are reasons to leave it as a separate article. The incident seems to have gotten some attention by revisionists in post war Germany and was thus discussed as a topic in itself. A humble contributor (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree on the level of perceived ambiguity. I believe a reader would have to be especially, no - deliberately dense or naive to hear "liberation massacre" and think that it was the German guards/SS who, at the time of liberation, suddenly began massacring inmates - which again, would just be an extension of the previous years' massacre activity. (I would point out the same for "liberation reprisal", but I think we've established we're trying to move away from that title.) Even if such a misunderstanding were possible in a significant portion of readers, the first paragraph would dispel such misunderstanding. There are many titles with much more ambiguity, but context makes it clear. Anybody who hears the "Boston Massacre" for the first time might be tempted to think it was the Bostonians massacring British troops, or Native Americans, or witches, for that matter. The context is not clear until you learn about the incident, but I would say that all three of those mistaken scenarios would be as understandable a mistake - more so - than thinking that a "Dachau liberation massacre" was referring to German guards/SS committing a massacre of the inmates in such a way as to separate it from all previous massacring activity. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Trouble is that there were indeed massacres in preparation of most concentration camp liberations (Edit: going even beyond the scope of the 'normal' level of mass killing there), as the Germans variously tried to cover their crimes by eliminating witnesses, rid themselves of their perceived enemies just before they lost hold of them, or simply tried to evacuate the inmates to different camps (which in the military, logistical and moral conditions quickly deteriorated to massacres - as indeed was the case with the train that seemed to have ignited incident). Of course these events typically occurred in preparation and therefore slightly before the actual liberation, but the close causal relation between many of these massacres and the subsequent liberation means "liberation massacre" might be more ambiguous than you think. That being said, I agree that this can quickly be clarified in the opening paragraph (although that also holds for the alternatives) A humble contributor (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A massacre is a specific incident which involves the violent killing of many people[citation needed] – and the perpetrating party is perceived as in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived as helpless or innocent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre Steve Pastor (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I get the impression you quote that because it makes a point for you, but you really should be clear on what that point is. If the German guards/SS surrendered to, and/or were in retreat from, US troops, then both troops and inmates would be in control, and the (arguably justly) "victimized party" (Germans guards/SS) could easily be perceived as the "helpless" party, especially if they had given up their arms. So, all the bold font aside, this incident would seem to fall into the definition or description quoted above. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Right then, to sum it up:

• "Reprisal" is a very poor choice. It is a technical term that has one precise meaning that is used in the law of war, by WW2 historians and by the US Army (and also Wikipedia for the matter). That meaning does not apply here. It might have a secondary dictionary meaning to the effect of "Revenge", but that is both less precise and less relevant here since all concerned parties use the formal definition.
• "Massacre" has the advantage that it seems the most common name in the literature and other language Wikis. It was also used by the first author, which is what we should refer to in case of disagreement per
  WP:TITLECHANGES
  asks to ignore. Hmmm. However, it also feels confusing to call it "Liberation Massacre", as Concentration Camp Liberations were indeed very often directly preceded by major massacres committed by the Germans. The Quote by User:Steve Pastor above would also imply that "massacre" carries a connotation that the victims were 'innocent', which seems doubtful for SS men, be they guards or not.
• "Assault" would also be somewhat confusing as it also carries a legal meaning and a military meaning, neither of which applies. It also seems a bit to 'soft', seeing how people were killed here.
• "Shooting" still seems to be the most neural to me, as it is not very emotionally loaded and does not carry any other meaning that people being shot (which neatly also captures the wounded, not just the dead, as "killing" would). However, it would need to be given more context to clarify whom was shot. Makes the title longer, but better a bit long than confusing or wrong.
• Not yet proposed, but I would also not mind the catch-all term of "Incident". It is not particularly descriptive and does not capture that people died. On the other hand, this would kind of capture the stuff-happened-but-kind-of-meh-attidue that seem to have persisted afterwards.
• Lastly, I think we all agree that both "Dachau" and "Liberation" need to be in the title. The place is obviously crucial to the event, as is the timing.

So, I have two suggestions for you fine contributors to consider:

1. Dachau Liberation Incident
2. Shooting of SS-men during Dachau Liberation

What do you think? A humble contributor (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I do want to thank you for an excellent summary. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I also want to thank User:A humble contributor for taking the initiative and summing up the debate. Perhaps we should try and gain a consensus on one of them. Would sub-headings for each of the proposed titles work? - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think especially the "Incident" title is so neutral in tone that it does not fully cover the reality of the situation. One problem is that many people will come to this article thinking it might be about the liberation of the camp, meaning about the technical aspects of the Allied troops (whichever unit it actually was) taking over Dachau itself. But this article is about the shootings, the killings, the woundings of the various German troops, some of whom were not prison guards but were rather other soldiers who had been left behind when the actual prison guards basically abandoned their posts before the Allied troops showed up. (It also, if I remember correctly, covers some of the conditions that the Allied soldiers found as they entered and after they entered the camp.) One final point - as editors we need to be cognizant of the fact that Wikipedia has a worldwide readership...not everyone will regard what happened to those German soldiers as a single "incident", but I think "Dachau liberation incidents" or "Dachau Liberation incidents" with clear subtitles delineating the various actions and who did them might be more appropriate. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on the use of the plural 'incidents' (and capitalization for the matter). But especially because this article covers a set of connected but somewhat different actions (shooting and beating by different groups in different locations at slightly different times resulting in death and injury. 'Incidents' might be the most appropriate to capture the variance, as a term that is more specific to some of the actions would likely fail to describe the other actions adequately. A humble contributor (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Dachau Liberation Incident

Please list whether you support or oppose the above title, and reasons. Debate has occurred in depth, so it may not be completely necessary at this point. - Boneyard90 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support: This is a neutral "non-loaded" term, that would cover the various assaults, motives, non-judicial penal actions, and cover-up. - Boneyard90 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support: Neutral, not wrong and catchy. The only real issue is that it is not very descriptive - but a title does not really need to provide all details, which are outlined in the intro and article proper. A humble contributor (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Might just as well be Dachau liberation, and accept that the killing of the guards is going to be most of the article. (Hohum ^@) 17:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Too neutral? (I know but that's the way it appears to me.) Also not sure for WP:MOS that all the words should be capitalized if what occurred is not described as such ("The Dachau Liberation Incident") in sources. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • True, it would be Dacau liberation incident. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: having no adverse effect,lacking importance or distinction Steve Pastor (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of SS-men during Dachau Liberation

Please list whether you support or oppose the above title, and reasons. Debate has occurred in depth, so it may not be completely necessary at this point. - Boneyard90 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, as too long and detailed for a title. - Boneyard90 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Long-winded and not very elegant; but essentially it is what you need to do to capture all aspects. Better long than wrong. EDIT: As others rightfully point out there were beatings as well as shootings, so I reversed my original support.A humble contributor (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Awkward, and incorrect, since I think the article covers guards being beaten to death by prisoners as well. (Hohum ^@) 17:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose An estimated 25 to 50 SS men, and Kapos, were killed by prisoners during the liberation, some by beating as described by witnesses Steve Pastor (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Partially correct but too awkward and doesn't cover other actions such as beatings (either resulting in death or in injury). Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

While we are discussing changes in title Steve Pastor (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete article and place non redundant material in main Dachau Liberation article where it will be in context

• Oppose: This would give undue weight to this incident to overall Dachau. This article is currently some 2000 words, the Dachau concentration camp some 6000 words (ignoring the lists). Either we would have 1/4th of the Dachau article concerning a relatively minor event at the end, or we would need to cull this thing so strongly that we loose information crucial to the understanding. -A humble contributor (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Does this imply creating a new Dachau Liberation article, or did you mean to suggest we merge this article in with Dachau concentration camp? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: What main "Dachau liberation" article? I'd support just changing the name of this article to "Dachau liberation" as I've said before though. (Hohum ^@) 16:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Sorry, everyone. Yes, I meant the Dachau concentration camp article. Note that the Elvis Presley article is twice as long as the Dachau cc article. Each editor can decide which article deserves more attention here on wikipedia. As I have already pointed out, there are common elements in both articles, so it would not be completely additive. Steve Pastor (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Define reprisal in current article as "retaliation for an injury with the purpose of inflicting comparable or like injury" per Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary

• Oppose and strongly so. As a general rule, you know you have the wrong title if you need a section in the article to explain that you are not using the term in the meaning understood by all relevant parties (including Wikipedia), but instead use some alternative definition without direct relation to the case. A humble contributor (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support That article presents one definition as THE definition, which it is not. It would be a simple matter to edit the article to add other definitions, such as "Use of political or military force without actually resorting to war." We only have to explain that usage because of the misleading nature of that article. Steve Pastor (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Several dictionaries I combed through put non-legal definitions ahead of and more prominently than the legal definition. Never had a problem with this, and sounds quite reasonable. Yes, "reprisal" can have a legal definition, but so can bribery, assault, corruption, and many others; and we use all these is a non-legal sense in many contexts. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I've looked and looked and can't figure out why this page hasn't been archived since November 2013. A week or two ago I did change the "threads left" parameter to 2 and changed the parameter for archiving from 30 days to 15 but there are still year-old threads with no recent posts on here. If any of you technophiles/coders watching this page would fix it, that would be greatly appreciated. I think the present size of the talk page is starting to get unwieldy. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's because of the settings minthreadsleft=2 and minthreadstoarchive=2 (by default). Until earlier today (UTC) there were two old threads and one new one. It wants to archive a minimum of two, but if it did that there would only be one left. We now have three new threads, so I predict when it runs tonight (in about five hours) it will archive the two oldest. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that the default for minthreadstoarchive is 2, I think I'll adjust it to 1 and see how that works. The sheer length of this talk page at present makes it unwieldy to get through. Shearonink (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Lt. Col. Joseph Whitaker, the Seventh Army's Assistant Inspector General, was subsequently ordered to investigate after witnesses came forward testifying about the killings. He issued a report on 8 June 1945, called the "Investigation of Alleged Mistreatment of German Guards at Dachau" and also known as "the I.G. Report". In 1991, an archived copy was found in the National Archives in Washington, D.C. and was made public. Listed reference is here. http://abundanthope.net/pages/True_US_History_108/DACHAU-CONCENTRATION-CAMP---LIBERATION-A-Documentary---U-S-Massacre-of-Waffen-SS---April-29-1945.shtml

Bolded text is not supported by the link, and, it's not a very authoritative source. I note in the archive that the discussion about the inclusion of this information was not very robust. Steve Pastor (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding material from Moody in the caption of the coal yard shooting, SPARKS thought there was a cover up? That does not make any sense at all, since Sparks was the one who was called into Patton's headquarters because of the IG investigation. Patton's thoughts on the charges against Sparks, as reported by Sparks, were, "I have already had these charges investigated, and they are a bunch of crap. I'm going to tear up these goddamn papers on you and your men." Steve Pastor (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

In both of these cases note that General Linden had had a run in with Sparks during the liberation. According to Moody, whose account agrees with Sparks' account, Linden threatened Sparks and another soldier with courts martial based on the confrontation. Sparks himself wrote, "He left, but only after advising me that I would face a general court-martial for my actions." He was NOT talking about the killings of guards. Obviously someone got the investigation started, but... Steve Pastor (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

One more - "A few days after the liberation, General Frederick came to my headquarters and informed me that General Linden was trying to stir up trouble through the Seventh Army Inspector General." http://45thinfantrydivision.com/index14.htm So, again, probably it wasn't witnesses who came forward to trigger the investigation, but Linden. Steve Pastor (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand: the only mentions in the article are of "15-16" men being gunned down (excepting one dismissed claim of 324), so how does that explain the photograph which shows several dozen dead bodies, at least, with the three surviving prisoners still standing (and what appears to be several not dead, but lying on the ground and looking back at the camera on the left side of the photograph; perhaps only wounded?). Also, the captions seem to suggest that the two photographs of bodies "at the base of the tower" are different shots of the same group of men, but if you look at the the details, they clearly don't show the same thing. One group is lying beside a road, the other isn't, one man is separated from the rest in one, not in the other. The only way they could be the same bodies is if they were moved between shots. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem with the recent removal of that material, but, here's some relevant material. One Comment on the shooting of German soldiers in the "coal yard" at Dachau scene in Shutter Island was that "The shot is entirely unrealistic..." A Dishonest Reckoning: Play-'Acting Through' Personal Trauma and the Shoah in Martin Scorsese's SHUTTER ISLAND" Kristopher Mecholsky page 189 published at Academia.edu "The Holocaust in Lehane's novel is both a real historical event and a fantasy" "Did Andrew Laeddis liberate Dachau? We might think so, but we cannot be sure." The Adaptation of History: Essays on Ways of Telling the Past Adapting Dachau: Intertextuality and Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island page 46 "Teddy Daniels...may or may not have invented his experience of liberating...Dachau. page 42. Those are reliable source statements. Comparisons of photographs of the actual site and the film show that either intentionally or otherwise, there is a distinct disconnect between the recalled site, and the actual site. This may come up again in the future of this article, and I want other editors, and myself, to have those two references to work with if need be. Bottom line is, I think, that Scorsese's recreation should not be taken as a faithful recreation of what happened. Steve Pastor (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to add that in Dennis Lehane's novel, Shutter Island, on which the film is based, is clear that that "Teddy"/ Laeddis has extensive military training. Dachau is mentioned repeatedly throughout the narrative. Dr Cawley mentions the danger "Teddy" poses and speaks of this being a result of his military and law enforcement training in the final, revealing chapters of the book. One other note is that the film locations don't really "replicate" Dachau. Rather, they are a stand-in for it. The images in the film bear little resemblance to the actual site as seen in photographs. One more - Teddy at one point remembers a girl in the April sunshine at the camp. Note the absence of deep shadows in liberation photographs, the date being April 29, with one day left in April, and the referenced statement "Weather at the time of liberation was unseasonably cool and temperatures trended down through the first two days of May; on May 2, the area received a snowstorm with 10 cm of snow at nearby Munich." Finally, Lehane exaggerates even Buechner's discredited number of 324 killed with a number of 500. Steve Pastor (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Dachau liberation massacre Since there's disagreement brewing on all suggestions so far, I'll throw another one into the mix. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Support - As pointed out by myself and conceded by at least one other editor (User:A Humble Contributor) earlier, the term Dachau liberation massacre seems to be the most common name in sources and other-language Wikipedia pages. The term was used by the first author on the incident, which, as per WP:TITLECHANGES, is given priority consideration in case of disagreement. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose You can use Google Advanced search to look for instances of the phrase by year. You will note that before Buechner's book, there are no instances. Around mid 1995 two journal articles appeared with the phrase. Use of the phrase isn't really found until after the article was started here. Please look at the first edits. I hope you will agree that it was pretty much one sided; therefore the "original title" guideline should not be used here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dachau_liberation_reprisals&diff=8032901&oldid=8006490 And, I would argue that Buechner had his own agenda with his inflated number(s) which the guides at Dachua dismiss. Steve Pastor (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Although I didn't respond to the recent changing of the incident in the lead sentence, I support the more recent reversal to the previously agreed upon name. Steve Pastor (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no context in the first words of the Discoveries section

Just before the soldiers entered the complex

What soliders? What complex? Where? When? How? It's like this is lifted out of the middle of some other source. patsw (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no context in the first words of the Discoveries section

Just before the soldiers entered the complex

What soliders? What complex? Where? When? How? It's like this is lifted out of the middle of some other source. patsw (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dachau liberation reprisals. 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/20131010045411/http://www.humanitas-international.org:80/archive/dachau-liberation/ to http://www.humanitas-international.org/archive/dachau-liberation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130918030939/http://abraham.cs.uml.edu:80/secretwar/GlobeSecretHistory/index5_transcript_46.shtml to http://abraham.cs.uml.edu/secretwar/GlobeSecretHistory/index5_transcript_46.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324034016/http://www.humanitas-international.org:80/archive/dachau-liberation/ to http://www.humanitas-international.org/archive/dachau-liberation/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 00:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw some documentaries (likely revisionist) that suggested that 400-500 German Soldiers were executed here. Is there any suggestion to support that statement from historians or eye witnesses?

```` Yes, hve seen similar figures but it is to be expected that German casualty figures are usually underestimated by'official sorces' For example, the Dresden figures of 260,000 deaths have falled to 10-20,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.247 (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

One GI writing home 2 days later mentioned approximately 350 Germans killed, and this to me sounds about right. The saddest part is that most SS guards had absconded before the Americans arrived, so that most of the men machine-gunned in cold blood in the coal yard were German convalescents from the military hospital right behind the coal yard wall. The red cross on the roof is visible in some photos of the massacre.

80.183.71.29 (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm hoping that someone reads this and adds a section about how this event was portrayed in the movie "Shutter Island" where Leonardo DiCaprio's character describes how he was one of the shooters. I am a lousy Wikipedian, and I have no idea how to do that.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.198.132 (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a common misunderstanding of what "reprisal" means from a military standpoint. It is a method one country has of protesting the illegal actions of another country during war, in an effort to get them to stop. For example when British and Canadians handcuffed prisoners during the Sark and Dieppe raids, a violation of international law, the Germans handcuffed Allied POWs in custody as a reprisal until the British promised to change their policy on the handcuffing of prisoners. Shooting camp guards at Dachau was not a "reprisal" in the military sense, it was a war crime, as the Geneva Convention clearly states that prisoners of war cannot be harmed. I understand that 'reprisal' can also mean a simple act of vengeance, but it is not accurate here.174.0.48.147 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

If none of the source material for this article uses the term 'reprisal' to describe the shooting of unarmed guards, why would the article? Doesn't that constitute original research, a violation of

The sources don't appear to call it anything specific, and/or don't use a common name. Generally it seems to be described among the events that happened during the liberation. The article, however, needs to be given a name. Choosing that name is difficult; most short names can be argued as being ambiguous, but trying to be specific creates long, clumsy names. This has been discussed in the archives of the talk page. (Hohum <sup>@</sup>) 00:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This wasn't anything remotely like a reprisal. Why not call it what it is? A massacre! --105.8.2.173 (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, it's called a Massacre in other languages like Spanish. But you know how it is. Americans are the good guys, even when they are being bad.186.156.33.116 (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Read Talk:Dachau_liberation_reprisals/Archive_2, then comment if you have something new to say. (Hohum <sup>@</sup>) 19:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Buechener´s account of 500 dead in the coalyard is a fairytale. Even if you don´t believe Sparks' account, the photographic evidence is clear. I have actually visited what was the coal yard (in what is know the police barracks) - the wall is long gone but the other structures in the photos remain. Lining up the photos with the view today it is clear that no-where like the hundreds of bodies that Buechener writes about were there. Why would he fabricate this? I don´t know - perhaps in some way to mitigate against his own failings on that day: "Yep, I did not give first aid when I should have but at least I did commit mass murder". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.53.229 (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I have read 10% of the archived discussions. Still I am for "massacre". Spade is a spade. Zezen (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Considering what the Nazi's did in these camps, "reprisals" is being very kind. And if no RS calls these isolated killings a massacre, then neither will Wiki.50.111.24.147 (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Here: https://search.proquest.com/openview/6c0a1dd176e4e1c297251b138e2ce211/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Summary Judgement at Dachau: Exploiting the Massacre of SS Guards by Allied Liberating Troops at Dachau

Krzeminski, Stephen C. Florida Atlantic University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2019. 13861281.

http://search.proquest.com/openview/6c0a1dd176e4e1c297251b138e2ce211/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Zezen (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

A single student thesis is hardly a

WP:RS. (Hohum <sup>@</sup>

) 17:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The article gives a total of 30 guards killed. That still qualifies as a 'massacre'.174.0.48.147 (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Reprisal and Retribution are two different things

"Reprisal" is clearly defined by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and that definition was in use in 1945. It is an illegal act permitted by a government to convince another government to stop its own illegal acts. This event at Dachau was an illegal killing, it had nothing to do with reprisals. I think most of the people in this discussion are confusing "reprisal" with "retribution". They are not the same thing.174.0.48.147 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

That is one of definitions. I suggest reading Archive 2 (Hohum <sup>@</sup>) 20:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I not only reread it before boldly moving the article to "Dachau Liberation Incident" as suggested in that archive, but I notice I in fact participated in that discussion at the time it occurred. For the record, I would trust the definition of "reprisal" given by the International Committee of the Red Cross before I would trust anonymous Wikipedia editors with no proven expertise or mastery of the subject matter. That definition is correct for the context, your definition clearly is not. 174.0.48.147 (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The word reprisal has more meanings than just the narrow legal definition. These are available in all good dictionaries. (Hohum <sup>@</sup>) 18:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

For instance, The dictionary definition of reprisal at Wiktionary which states "An act of retaliation." and which links to the synonyms in the Thesaurus The dictionary definition of Thesaurus:revenge at Wiktionary such as avenge, payback, retaliation, retribution, revenge... Shearonink (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

That is correct. "Reprisal" comes up on google as "an act of retaliation." If the Dachau killings weren't retaliation I don't know what you call it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

You're talking about the simplistic definition of the word. What happened at Dachau doesn't meet the legal definition of "reprisal" as recognized by the ICRC. Reprisals in the legal sense are permitted by international law. Calling what happened at Dachau a reprisal insinuates that a) it was government sanctioned and b) intended as a legal measure to prevent further German atrocities. Neither is true. Calling it a reprisal twists the understanding of what happened there, and why.174.0.48.147 (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This article isn't a legal document, nor on a legal subject. The regular meaning is, therefore, just fine. (Hohum <sup>@</sup>) 17:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the IP editor's good faith addition to the article that this wasn't a reprisal in the legal sense. Content needs to be sourced, not bare editor opinion. (Hohum <sup>@</sup>) 00:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've added part of the IP edit to a note on the article title. (Hohum <sup>@</sup>) 08:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What about dictionaries' definitions of the word... If WP just leaves the "legal definition" hanging alone in the lead that seems to give more weight to the legal rather than equal weight to the commonly-understood... Shearonink (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I have updated the introductory paragraph to be in-line with virtually every other Wikipedia article covering a war crime. Starting the article with "during", and using a strange narrative prose is not a good was to begin an ostensibly academic article. Failing to call the event a "war crime" is also a major oversight, the article should clearly explain what the event was and who perpetrated it in the opening line. Take a look at some other WWII war crime article introductions for guidance:

"The Malmedy massacre was a Nazi war crime committed by soldiers of the Waffen-SS on 17 December 1944..."

"The Katyn massacre was a series of mass executions of nearly 22,000 Polish military officers and intelligentsia carried out by the Soviet Union..."

The key photograph for the article's caption also needed to be updated, erroneously says the SS men are being "guarded" while the very source the image was obtained from (The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum) says it depicts and execution. There is even a footnote on the article saying the erroneous caption of them just being guarded, and not executed, was falsified as part of an attempted cover-up.

If you have any concerns over these changes please voice them. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The change you made to the lad failed to accurately reflect the body of the article and was not constructive. Coretheapple (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to elaborate on how my edits are allegedly "non-constructive"? The edits simply made the article clearer, with evidence in the form other Wikipedia articles covering topics of a similar nature supporting said edits. Site-wide consensus on article format seems to be on my side here. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no "site-wide consensus" to call the killings of SS men at Dachau a "war crime" in Wikipedia's voice, as you are seeking to do. There is, however, a consensus among editors at this article not to utilize that description. Coretheapple (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing such documented consensus being reached anywhere. Furthermore, the lynchpin of your entire argument seems to be "consensus" as opposed to any sort of actual logic. The extrajudicial murder of unarmed prisoners is a war crime, "consensus" or not. Other Wikipedia articles, historians, publications, and international law are in agreement on this. So unless you have some sort of actual reason for not describing it was a "war crime", the article should reflect this. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: the nature of the killings (i.e. if they were a war crime) should be first explored in the body of the article, with sources -- before being added to the lead. See
  MOS:LEAD. The cited caption does not appear to say that the photo depicts the killings, at least to my eye. --K.e.coffman (talk
  ) 04:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Official United States Holocaust Memorial Museum caption reads: "American soldiers execute SS camp guards who have been lined up against a wall during the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp." https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa5694

What about that "does not appear to say that the photo depicts the killings"? BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to:

• The caption for the photograph in the U.S. National Archives reads, "SC208765, Soldiers of the 42nd Infantry Division, U.S. Seventh Army, order SS men to come forward when one of their number tried to escape from the Dachau, Germany, concentration camp after it was captured by U.S. forces. Men on the ground in background feign death by falling as the guards fired a volley at the fleeing SS men. (157th Regt. 4/29/45)."

As can be seen, it's not as direct as the USHMM caption. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

This has already been debunked as a falsified caption as part of a cover-up, per a U.S. Lieutenant Colonel in a cited, published work. Quote: "Lt. Colonel Felix L. Sparks disputed this and thought that it 'represented the initial step in the cover-up of the execution of German guards'." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#cite_note-47 BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I would support using the USHMM as a source for the caption then. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad there is at least agreement on edits to the caption. With respect to adding "war crimes" to the lead however, it is wholly unnecessary to have entire body section devoted to "if they were a war crime". The activities described fit the definition of a "war crime" in every sense, from legal to common parlance, and are referred to as war crimes in articles, published works, and other Wikipedia articles. Extrajudicially murdering unarmed prisoners (which is what is described in the article, via cited sources) constitutes a war crime, and should thus be named as such. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dan white 76 and AzureCitizen: please participate in the discussion so that we can progress towards a discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

If the treatment in the reliable sources generally characterize what happened during the camp's liberation as "war crimes," it's reasonable to discuss whether or not the lead should be rewritten to emphasize it. With regard to the captioned photo, it's a matter of dispute as to whether or not that shows an actual execution scene. If you zoom in closely on the photo using an editor at your computer and look carefully at some of the German guards, you'll note they are propping themselves up slightly and looking straight towards the camera, which corroborates the original photo caption in the U.S. National Archives that they had dropped to the ground for self-protection when a fellow guard tried to run away and drew the fire of U.S. Army soldiers. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This is intended to be a new entry for this sub-heading. I wanted to run it by more experienced Wikipedia editors first, however. You may do with this what you will. I just really think it needs to be included. The following comes from letters written by Captain David Wilsey, a 30-year-old anesthesiologist with the 116th Evacuation Hospital. The letters he wrote to his wife during his time in Dachau would not be discovered by his children until their mother died in 2008. Some articles, and one book so far, has been written from these letters. But Wilsey's account of what he personally witnessed in Dachau still doesn't appear anywhere on this page or any other history page dedicated to the memory of Dachau. Since he was there and witnessed many horrible events, I feel it's important that his contribution to what went on there should be included in this section. I will write it out for any editor who chooses to add this, but please feel free to change it to anything you feel is appropriate. Source material is also included. The Wilsey collection of letters is currently hosted by the Holocaust Center for Humanity in Seattle, WA.

Wilsey account Captain David Wilsey, a 30-year old anethesiologist serving with the 116th Evacuation Hospital, arrived at the Dachau camp shortly after it had been liberated by U.S. soldiers. His accounts, which stem from a series of letters he sent to his wife, suggest that the reprisal killings committted by US servicemen took place for several days after the camp had been liberated and may have continued well after Germany's surrender on May 8. <sup>[1]</sup> In one letter, written to Emily Wilsey on VE Day, May 8th, David Wilsey stated the following: "We roared through the gates of Dachau figurative “minutes” after its liberation while 40,000+ wrecks-of-humanity milled, tore, looted, screamed, cried as/like depraved beasts which the Nazi SS has made them. In those early “minutes,” I saw captured SS tortured against a wall [by U.S. soldiers] and then shot in what you Americans would call “cold blood." In a second letter, dated May 22, Captain Wilsey wrote: "Did I “confess” how PASSIVELY my canteen cup was used to pour icy riverwater down SSers half-naked backs as they stood for hours with a two-arm-up-Heil Hitler before being shot in cold blood? A truly bloodthirsty (I’d never seen it before) combat engineer from California asked to borrow my cup in performing his “preliminaries” to roaring his .45 automatic right into the face of 3 SSers." Other letters Wilsey sent to his wife suggested the killings continued, even after V-E Day. <sup>[2]</sup>

Billbird2111 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends to prefer

WP:EXCEPTIONAL proof, in my opinion. (Hohum <sup>@</sup>

) 00:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. This is why I defer to more experienced editors. I do question some of this policy over sources, however. I think it is fairly clear, from Captain Wilsey's letters, that something happened. He was there. The evidence supports it. It doesn't fit the narrative of what eventually came out regarding the history of the Dachau reprisals, but the information that was revealed following the incidents was tightly controlled. It was only later, after books about the incident had been published decades after the fact, did some of the wild claims emerge. But here you have a letter that was published just days after these incidents took place. Yet, it's not given proper context because there are no "other reputable sources?" To not give this information the credit it deserves is a mistake, imo. But, that's just one person's opinion. Wilsey's letters are now under examination. Hopefully, they will not be forgotten. Billbird2111 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone explain please, how we could describe properly that kind of war crimes when they have done by US Troops? For example if it's done by Red Army, German or Turkish Army or any other Army, i have never seen that it was defined as "Reprisal" and never tried to justify and veryfy with such words like "SS guards at the camp had forced 7,000 inmates on a death march that resulted in the death of many from exposure and shooting. When Allied soldiers liberated Dachau, they were variously shocked, horrified, disturbed, and angered at finding the massed corpses of internees..." I think there is a significant lack of

It wasn't a reprisal, it was most definitely an excessive killing. If Germans did it, it would be called 'war crime' even for less. The "Death Train" discovery also got a twist to it. Was the train attacked from the air? I recall photos that looked like bullet holes on them. 105.4.1.48 (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times. Please read the previous arguments section at the top of this talk page. (Hohum <sup>@</sup>) 22:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

They were executions by firing squad. 95.151.194.20 (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It was US’s war crime. Not some personal troops incident but US’s officers’s policy’s action. Do not try whitewash american troops in this massacre.

American comand just ignore this incident and protect their own war crimes. Some of US’s troops turn into evil that they fight. Dmitriy Tehlin (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I will remind you gently: WP:NONAZIS

There’s nothing evil about killing SS camp guards. It is, objectively, an act of heroism. Snokalok (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Extrajudicial killings are not an act of heroism. They are a human rights violation. Dimadick (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

You say that as if the concept of human rights at all applies to, I reiterate, the exact Nazis who were running the Dachau concentration camp.

It does not. Snokalok (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I will ask you to remember what the SS guards were doing. That was pure heroism from the US troops. AstroSaturn (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)