Talk:Transport of concentration camp inmates to Tyrol

Tyrol vs South Tyrol

Even during the Third Reich, the region at Niederdorf and Pragser Wildsee was part of South Tyrol, Italy, not of Tyrol, Großdeutsches Reich. So the lemma "Transport of concentration camp inmates to Tyrol" is not correct. It better should be like "Transport of concentration camp inmates to South Tyrol" or "Transport of concentration camp inmates to the Alpenfestung" Havaube (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There hasn't been any discussion for over a month and there doesn't seem to be any agreement on the optimal title. Jenks24 (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Transport of concentration camp inmates to Tyrol → Transport of concentration camp inmates to South Tyrol – The region is known as South Tyrol it is simply not Tyrol --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC) 81.132.174.16 (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As Tyrol was not the destination, the renaming to South Tyrol is not important. The only reason they stopped there was due to running out of petrol. Contemporary accounts of the incident generally say Tyrol but I have no real objection to the change, it just seems a little pedantic. Wayne (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support from someone who knows little about geography. The Tyrol is a federation state in western Austria. Where the important point of the this article occurred was in South Tyrol in Italy. I don't think that is pedantic.81.132.173.211 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

South Tyrol was considered part of Austrian Tyrol at the time of this incident. It didn't revert to Italy until after the war. Wayne (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

OK it was administered as part of the Operational Zone of the Alpine Foothills, which were the provinces of Belluno, South Tyrol and Trentino. Regardless of its governance, the area is not known as the Tyrol. Sheesh getting anything done on this site is like pulling teeth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.173.211 (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I suggest the article should be retitled Liberation of Nazi hostages in South Tyrol because that is what happened. 82.132.214.112 (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, but if it has become an issue of this and that - as noted below. They were still prisoners if not hostages. How about Transport of important prisoners to South Tyrol? Or Release of important prisoners in May 1945? It's wordy but maybe prisoners needs to be clarified as "concentration camp prisoners".81.132.173.211 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

They were not actually hostages. Sympathetic Sachsenhausen guards who had accompanied the Sachsenhausen prisoners to Flossenbürg concentration camp intervened when the Flossenbürg commandant ordered them shot because of a lack of room. They argued that the British officers could be useful as hostages. Two weeks later the prisoners were transferred to Dachau Concentration Camp where this article takes up the story. The SS who went with the prisoners from Dachau had no intention of using any as hostages, but to execute all the prisoners if the chance presented itself in a way that the allies could be blamed. For example, the allies regularly bombed convoys passing through the Brenner Pass and the SS planned to say that they had died in the bombing, but on this occasion the allies only strafed the convoy so this plan failed. After arrival in Niederdorf the SS received orders to execute all the prisoners before the allies arrived.

This brings up another point. The article states: However in the south Tyrol region, regular German troops took the inmates into protective custody. The entire group was eventually liberated by advanced units from the Seventh Army. This is incorrect as Alvensleben, who was in Bozen, was contacted by telephone by one of the prisoners and asked to prevent the executions. After taking control, the SS guards were given the option of surrendering to Alvensleben's Wehrmacht unit or leaving Niederdorf. The prisoners were then given their freedom some four days before the allies arrived. This is recognized as the only time in WWII that allied prisoners were liberated by German troops. Wayne (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed new title: The Final Journey of Hitler's VIP Hostages to the Tyrol in April 1945

The existing title is more than ten years old and the proposed revised and updated title contains more specific references to the subject of the entry than is currently the case.

1) There is no mention of VIP Hostages which is a specific element of the entry. The description ‘concentration camp inmates’ whilst accurate is too general for the specific nature of the entry. 2) There is no indication as to when this incident took place in the existing title. 3) There is no specific reference to the fact that this ‘transport’ was, in reality ‘ A Final Journey’ which was destined to terminate with the death of the VIP hostages. The existing title makes no reference to the reason for the ‘transport’ to the Tyrol.

Mafairhurst (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: It wasn't a "journey", it wasn't "final" and not all of them were "VIPs" (kin-prisoners). HerkusMonte (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: it sounds more like the title of a history painting, like The Meeting of Frederick II and Joseph II in Neisse in 1769 or The Defeat of the Floating Batteries at Gibraltar, September 1782. Opera hat (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion:The term ‘concentration camp inmates’ doesn't seem to be appropriate. In his book, The Spirit in the Cage, Peter Churchill describes how he and many other VIP prisoners of different nationalities were held not in Dachau concentration camp, but in a former brothel in Dachau . He states that as the Americans were approaching Dachau, he and 30 other officers were taken by bus to Innsbruck where they were joined by other Prominenten, though he does not record where the others had been held. This may be documented in Hitler’s Last Plot – The 139 VIP hostages Selected for Death in the Final Days of World War II which I have yet to read. MrArmstrong2 (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Misleading title

I see that folks have been struggling for a nice title. I don't see the mention of Tyrol in the introduction, so this whole article was confusing to me when I read it the first time. I had to read the talk page to understand the article. Can someone who is knowledgeable about the event and the geography of the event, rewrite the intro? Jay (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you 2601:196:181:be00:b5c9:c04b:ed04:6a92 for fixing the intro. Jay (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Final journey?

"On 27 April the prisoners began their final journey.". What does this mean? Does it mean this transportation event was a journey with several stages, and the final stage happened on 27 April? If so, which were the other stages of the journey? The prisoners survived, so I asume the "final" did not intend to mean death. Jay (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you 2601:196:181:be00:b5c9:c04b:ed04:6a92 for fixing this to final leg of the journey. Jay (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Invidious?

"With only two men at his disposal von Alvensleben was in an invidious position."

I am not familiar with the word and checked the dictionary. Some of the meanings are: calculated to create ill will, resentment or give offense; hateful; offensively or unfairly discriminating; injurious: causing or tending to cause animosity, resentment, or envy.

From the context of the article, I imagined the meaning of the word to be "helpless or weak position", but it does not seem to match any of the above meanings. Jay (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you 2601:196:181:be00:b5c9:c04b:ed04:6a92 for changing this to untenable. Jay (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Survival of prisoners

Did all prisoners survive, or did some of them not? Why does it say "Anni von Lerchenfeld, mother in law of Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg; died in the SS camp in Matzkau"? Jay (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It does appear from the article that all 139 prisoners were liberated safely, but it doesn't state so specifically. Jay (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Link Peter Jehle

The link seems to be misdirected. Does anyone know where to direct it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E4:8F16:397B:EC60:5ED5:D30E:8459 (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Unlinked in Jan 2021. There is no article for the Peter Jehle of this article. Jay (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

tone

apart from missing references, much of the article, especially the Standoff section, is written in an entriely unencyclopedic tone. "The Prominenten were now free of the SS and SD, but not of danger. They were still at the mercy of German deserters, fanatical Nazis carrying on the fight, and marauding bands of Italian partisans with scores to settle." "There was a tense silence as the Wehrmacht machine gunners and the American infantrymen saw each other in the gloom of the dawn, but when the Wehrmacht sentries realised that the soldiers were American and not German foes, they laid down their weapons and surrendered." The german article is better sourced and written and should probably be used for expansion. — jonas (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)