• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

the Rhine meadows

Actually I had not heard of them in detail, only that they existed. An interesting read, I never knew of the extent. Thank you for posting it.
 
I googled it. The name Rhine meadows is deceiving- sounds like a flower laden field along the Rhine river, not a series of Army based concentration camps to hold German prisoners. It's estimated as many as 6000 people died. World war II was truly horrible. Are you feeling better Rumpel?
 
Jessie C said:
I googled it. The name Rhine meadows is deceiving- sounds like a flower laden field along the Rhine river, not a series of Army based concentration camps to hold German prisoners. It's estimated as many as 6000 people died. World war II was truly horrible.
Click to expand...

yes, horrible

in contrast to the romantic name
 
I found out about them within the last 2 years and I was dumbfounded. The more I looked into it the more I came to understand the circumstances involved. I don’t believe it was an act of revenge but rather a choice of no win priorities. The fact that mainland Europe was practically destroyed by the war, the allies had to make life or death decisions and the German POW’s were at the bottom of the totem pole. It boiled down to feed, house, and return displaced millions of civilians or feed the POW’s. It’s an over simplification of the mess but that’s basically what it was.
 
gman said:
I found out about them within the last 2 years and I was dumbfounded. The more I looked into it the more I came to understand the circumstances involved. I don’t believe it was an act of revenge but rather a choice of no win priorities. The fact that mainland Europe was practically destroyed by the war, the allies had to make life or death decisions and the German POW’s were at the bottom of the totem pole. It boiled down to feed, house, and return displaced millions of civilians or feed the POW’s. It’s an over simplification of the mess but that’s basically what it was.
Click to expand...
it was pure horror
 
Sabre said:
Of course not, as I said I never heard of it until you posted about it.
Click to expand...
when i first read the wordbRheinwiesen, i thought of a pleasant landscape.

now i rather think …. the horrror of massed POW camps along the Rhine …..
 
Rumpel said:
somebody has called them Eisenhower.s death camps
Click to expand...
It was a decision made by the allies. We’ve all heard of the treatment of POW’s by the Russians but this was a new one on me. Many of the German POW’s in American hands were sent to France and other allied nations as laborers to repair war damage.
When I was assigned to Germany in ‘67 our landlord was a POW survivor of the Russians and wasn’t released until ‘55. He had been captured at the end of the war outside of Leipzig.
 
The irony to this is that the axis POW’s captured prior to the end of the war and interned in the U.S. were treated exceedingly well and ate food the American citizens couldn’t get or was severely rationed. They worked on farms and were allowed passes to go into the nearest town. Needless to say this caused a lot of angst among the locals. Contrast that to those Germans who fought to the end.
 
Undoubtedly cruel, but you must remember that the civilians had suffered the most and there was a finite amount of aid available. In addition to food, there was a serious need to address the pending possibility of rampant diseases. Hard decisions had to be made. It was a course decided upon by all allied powers. It wasn’t unilateral.
 
gman said:
Undoubtedly cruel, but you must remember that the civilians had suffered the most and there was a finite amount of aid available. In addition to food, there was a serious need to address the pending possibility of rampant diseases. Hard decisions had to be made. It was a course decided upon by all allied powers. It wasn’t unilateral.
Click to expand...
There must have been alternatives


Put them In barracks …. And guard them there?
 
Last edited:
Rumpel said:
There must have been alternatives


Put them In barracks …. And guard them there?
Click to expand...
If there were barracks the first priority would be to house the homeless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom