Talk:Death march

factor is the intended killing

I think the factor is the intended killing to make it "Death March". But, in colloquial language, I would call the retreat a Death March. That wouldn't be correct, but it would give an instant image. Hope I could help you, I post that on you Userpage, too, so you will be noticed. :-) --DocBrown 22:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

But is there intention??? See below.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources for this article?

Maybe we can find some? I'll try. --Tom 22:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Nazis intended to kill all of them? How many completed the "death march"? How many walked - how many took the train? Any stats on any of this - Anne Frank can't be the only one strong enough to have made the trip.159.105.80.141 19:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shut up, you Neo-Nazi Scumbag. We should build an Auschwitz just to put you inhuman beasts in. Make you feel the pain of those whose deaths you deny. THEN maybe you will see the truth.But I doubt it. Your just subhuman animals, too dumb too understand anytng but hate and malice.As I said, you're an animal and should be slaughtered like an animal. Then your meat should be sold to starving African Children. I'm sure they'll enjoy a Meal of Homo Malignus Neonazius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.132.87 (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed a huge chunk or material about Nazi vs Japannese marchs as original research. --Tom 17:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiger Death March

Could we please add information about the Tiger Death March in Korea? Very famous one, too. 24.214.79.87 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the march warrants its own article, but I question whether it was a death march according to the current definition - see my comments under Fact or Propaganda?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Definition?

The article gives examples of death marches without saying what a death march is. --Thenickdude (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Lydda

The following two sources claim it was not Israel who expelled the Palestinians, but rather their own leaders: Benny Morris, Righteous Victims (New York: Vintage Books, 2001) p.g.256, 211 Alan Dershowitz, The Case for Israel (New Jersy: Wiley, 2003) chapter 12 Therefore I think it's best that the fact it's disputed should be noted in the article. I know that some people would accuse these sources of"bias" and being "polemics"; however, Wikipedia is sopossed to have a "neutrality policy". Quite honestly, what makes one Editor the authority to decide that something is not real scholarship? Their are many scholars who would defend them. Finkelstein's accusations of plagiarism is not the final word on the matter. In fact, given Finkelstein's view on the matter, one could accuse him of bias, but again, what makes one Editor the authority to decide that something is biased? Furthermore, Joan Peter's book From Time Immemorial also expresses this view. I will quote the exact source from that book in a few days. That book is defended by Lucy Dawidowicz and Elie Wiesel, among many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.134.11 (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide the full quote from Morris on this issue? He is an RS. Dershowitz and Peters are not. Their works are polemical and not serious scholarly historical works. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 07:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, what gives one editor the right to decide whether or not a work is "polemic" or not? Your own bias is preventing you from allowing the page to be neutral. Peters' work is backed by many historians. Yes, their are many who dispute the accuracy. That is why the page now reflects the two sides. Also, the current source is neutral in itself, as it has no mention of whether it was the Israelis who did the expelling or another party. (being forced to leave by your own leaders does equal "expelling") "On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda- Ramie area, amounting to some 70000, were expelled in what became known as the 'Lydda Death March'." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.134.11 (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You can make a request at WP:RSN to asses what community consensus on Peters is. I have asked you for full quotes from Morris on the issue, please provide them. The source cited prefaces the sentence about the death march eith a mention of Israel taking ontrol over Lydda and Ramle and the sntence after continues to duscuss Israeli actions. See here. Its clear they are ssiging the expulsion to Israeli forces. Please stop changing the text to what you think it should say and provide source material on this page that supports what you are saying. Tiamut^talk 18:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The argument over sources is unnecessary. Certainly there are sources that point to expulsion of Arabs from those towns. It is sometimes called the Lydda Death March, but that is a misnomer.

As the heading makes clear, a death march is a forced march. People have to not just kick you out, but make you walk. If I tell my daughter to hit the road, that is expulsion. If I push her to Planned Parenthood, that is a death march.

Please don't read too much into my comments politically. I'm removing the Lydda Death March. It, like the Holy Roman Empire, is misnamed.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The survivors of the march say it was a forced march and the reliable source cited calls it by its proper name which includes death march. Do you have a source that disputes this description? We can add it alonside, but you to not get to decide on your own that because you think that an RS has used a misnomer, the info should be removed. NPOV means representing all significant viewpoints. This RS is clear about the name of this event and it belongs on this page. Tiamut^talk 22:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the Boston Massacre? It is well-known as such. But it wasn't a massacre. Patriots used the event to instigate a rebellion, exagerating the number killed.

Yitzhak Rabin described, "the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the [Arab] legion."

10 to 15 miles constitutes a Death March? Not by the definition we use on this page. There are no reliable figures for deaths. Some Arab sources use hearsay to place the number as high as the 300's.

300 in 70,000 does not a death march make. The source that says it "became known as the 'Lydda Death March" doesn't prove it a death march any more than a source referencing the Boston Massacre makes it a massacre. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Boston Massacre is listed in the categories of Massacres in the United States, among others. Your analogy fails since its RS that determine how we define an event and that proper name tells us ehat they think about it, as it does here.

Which reliable source says a death march has to be a certain length to qualify?

Which reliable source says casualties must be a certain amount to qualify?

Again, the source cited is eminently reliable and it matter more than your false and failed analogies. I understand you don't like it, but the entry does brlong here. Tiamut^talk 10:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A death march is a forced march of prisoners of war or other captives or deportees. Those marching must walk over long distances for an extremely long period of time and are not supplied with food or water. Prisoners who collapse are left to die or killed by guards.

That is the definition that this article applies to itself. Lydda doesn't qualify as such. The wiki article that describes the event says that it is called a death march by some, but that isn't the prefered nomanclature.

When RS say that at most "dozens" died and that the march consisted of no more than 20 miles, it isn't a death march. The State of Palestine isn't a state, you aren't a neutral editor, and the Lydda expulsion isn't a death march. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the text you quoted that disqualifies the Lydda death march. Families, including the eldery and small children were marched at gunpoint without water in the sweltering heat for days. People died as a result. The source cited is reliable and calls it a death march. Your attempts to minimize the gravity of this event are unimpressive and your soapboxing about Palestine doesn't add anything to this conversation. If you have a realible source that says that the forced expulsion of 70,000 people from Lydda wasn't a death march, present it. Then we can discuss how to present both POVs here. You don't get to override what one source says just because you think you know better. That's not how things work here. Tiamut^talk 19:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, princess, the source doesn't say it was a death march. It says it has been called that, but the term is not predominant. The Lydda expulsion has an article, you should read it. It's not called a death march because...

1. Noone was marched "at gun point." They were expelled. It takes two for a forced march, a marcher and a forcer.

2. It was not "long distances for an extremely long period of time." It was 1-3 days.

3. 70,000 didn't participate. A large portion were taken by bus and truck to the Arab Legion lines. When transportation was no longer available, armed Jewish groups threw people out of their homes and that is a war crime. But you don't need to label it something it wasn't.

4. Death marches are defined by people dropping along the way. A dozen people, no matter how sad that is, isn't enough to call the whole incident a death march.

Why don't you stick with trying to insert Jesus into Palestine-related articles, and leave military history to those of us with objective minds. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr 'New' Guy, it would help if you would stay off the sauce when we are having these discussions. The source says it is called the Lydda death march. There are other sources that describe it as a death march. Google Keith Wheller, the American journalist who witnessed the event and first used the term, and Father Rantisi who survived it, for example. See also Michel Palumbo's work. We don't need to include them though because our source is both reliable and clear. About your numbered points:

1. Yitzhak Rabin described, "the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the [Arab] legion." (you quoted this above remember?)
2. long distances is not quantified neither is a long period of time
3. is there a minimum amount of people who must participate too that I am unaware of? Stop shifting goalposts.
4. 350 people died according to our source over the course of 2-3 days, that equals about 100 a day or 5 every hour ... that's a pretty significant amount ... again though I don't see a numb of people who have to die per hour requirement either. You seem to be pulling these things out of the air.

Why don't you provide reliable sources that say this was not a death march so that we can discuss how to incorporate that information? As it is, you have Said a lot but proven nothing. Tiamut^talk 21:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, I appreciate your detailed response. I am familiar with the literature on the event and the shortage of RS about it. I think you need to realize the difference between established facts and opinions. Just because there is a shortage of facts doesn't let you place your faith in convenient opinions.

1. Guns were used to frighten people away. Rabin said the soldiers "made them march." This doesn't mean along side them, it means "get the hell out of here <bang, bang>." That's no way for civilized people to act, but clearly isn't a forced march.

2. Look at the real death marches described like the Trail of Tears and Batan and you will get an idea of why the article says "extremely long time." Just because there aren't exact numbers doesn't mean you can make a mountain out of a molehill. The word "extremely" is key. Stop pretending you don't know what it means.

3. I mentioned this to illustrate your ignorance of the event. You thought 70,000 were on a death march, but that is false.

4. Speaking of your ignorance, you said the Oxford source puts the number at 350. That's not true, it doesn't mention a number. The 300+ figure is found only in Arab sources using rumor to create scandal. This is what you are doing. You are Edward Said.

All you have proven is that its been called a death march. That isn't the common name. Even if it was, it'd be a misnomer. You need a RS that shows death and marching, you've proven neither.

Boston Massacre is on a list of things called massacres. This is an article about death marches. Keep your POV off it. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

1. This source says "Count Bernadotte said of the survivors of the forced expulsion of the 1948 'Lydda Death March' (ordered by Ben-Gurion and executed by Rabin), "I have made the acquaintance of a great many refugee camps but never have I seen. more ghastly sight." Sounds like a forced march to me.
2. I know you know that Wikipedia is not an WP:RS. So quoting "extremely long time" to me from our uncited text isn't proving anything.
3. You've only prove your willingness to name-call and come to false conclusions.
4. You have created a strawman argument here. Our text no longer mentions 350 people and your speculation about who uses it and ehy is illuminating as to your biases, but little else.

What the most common name is, is irrelevant. There are multiple sources ascribing Lydda death march to this event as a proper name, like the two cited here and Wheller who gave it that name at the time, and there are plenty of others who descibe it as a death march, like Rantisi and Palumbo who I mentioned above. Read WP:NPOV. We represent all significant viewpoints as relayed by reliable sources. So please provide ome that say this was not a death march so that we can discuss how to include that viewpoint here as well. Removing a viewpoint you don't like isn't acceptable. Tiamut^talk 22:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The Thomas source you quote above calls it a forced expulsion. That's what I've been saying all along.

The inclusion of the Lydda expulsion dillutes the meaning of death march, which is the topic of this article. All I've seen from you is a desire to inject your favorite topic into another article, just like you ejaculated Jesus Christ's name unto the List of Palestinians and Palestinian people.

I wasn't speculating about who passes along the 300+ number. It is only perpetuated in Arab sources, like the rumor that Jews killed Arafat. No signifigant deaths, no forced march, not a death march.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You are reading selectively, both the sources and edit histories of unrelated articles. I have never added Jesus Christ to any article on Palestinians, but that's irrelevant here. What is relevant is that more than one source says what happened in Lydda is known as a death march. We clearly need outside input though, so tonight, I will take it to the NPov noticeboard. Tiamut^talk 10:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Another source:

• [http://books.google.ca/books?id=bWCN0OUiTJkC&pg=PA100&dq=lydda+%22death+march%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HEVTT-bJBcKY8gOXuo3wBQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=lydda%20%22death%20march%22&f=false Israel and the Palestinian refugees, pp. 100-104.Tiamut^talk 10:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You've just brought another source that calls them forced expulsions. Then your book says something like, "let me share two personal annecdotes that will make you think the forced expulsion was a death march." So you've helped back up my earlier statement, that sources sympathetic to the Arab side throw around the word "death march," while neutral RS calls it an expulsion.

For example, you quoted a Pro-Palestinian polemic that said, "Count Bernadotte said of the survivors of the forced expulsion of the 1948 'Lydda Death March'..." This author is showing that in his camp, the event has been called "Lydda Death March," but this isn't the main name. Otherwise, it wouldn't need quotation marks. The event is correctly called a forced expulsion.

"I may re-add [Jesus Christ] one day if I do go looking about for sources" said Tiamut. This is you basically saying you are going to take a source out of context so you can advertise your contentious politics.

You've shown that the incident is mostly refered to as an expulsion. Read your sources. I'm going to remove the material again, because you've proven neither death nor marches.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of he sources and you disagree with mine. I've posted at WP:NPOVN seeking outside feedback. Please do not edit war to remove this material again. Let us see what others have to say about this subject first. Tiamut^talk 09:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. (PS High five on Rim Banna.)Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, first meeting of the Rim Bananas is called to order. The WP:NPOVN received no comments. I propose that the 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle has been described as a death march, but is generally not concidered such. So it does not belong on a list of events that actually were marches resulting in an overwhelming number of deaths. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

lydda deletion

Could the new user deleting this info please explain why the sources cited for this should be ignored? Tiamut^talk 17:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle has a bunch of sources, most of which identify it very differently. The article isn't called "death march" because that isn't the common name. It is a minority characterization. You've taken a single source and staked a political opinion in what is otherwise an objective article. Where'stheanykey (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiki articles are not WP:RS. The sources cited here are. You also seem to be confusing a sub event, the death march for Lydda residents, with the bigger event, the overall depopulation of Ramla and Lydda. Our article isn't called Lydda death march because it deals with much more than that, also including info on the bussing out of Ramlah's inhabitants, the massacre in Lydda, etc, etc.

Please explain why the source cited isn't RS, and/or provide other sources discussing how calling what happened in Lydda a death march is somehow controversial. I've provided multiple sources above attesting to its bring known as a death march, you need some saying its not for me to consider them wrong. Tiamut^talk 18:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see the section right above this one which has the same exact discussion and the same exact lack of consensus. In case it is not clear, I agree of course, as this is far from the typical description as to what happened on Lod and Ramle and it would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia to describe it as such.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of at discussion in which as you can see I praticipated extensively. You didn't bother to say a word there and the other user has since been blocked and banned. Now we have a new user coming directly to this article to delete the same info without discussing until I initiated this conversation. No valid policy based rationale has been provided by either of you for why this material does not belong here. I suggest finding one, presenting it, and the we can move to dispute resolution. Until, the status quo remains in place and edit warringto remove it simply won't do. Tiamut^talk 17:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of policy, you violated our cherished 1RR policy with your latest revert. Kindly correct this. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I made my edit 45 minutes too early. Just saw your message now and have self-reverted. Would you care to provide a policybased reason for the subject at hand - ie the content of the article? Tiamut^talk 11:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Please note the 1RR issue specifically aside you appear to be edit warring in the general sense as indicated by a simple look at the contribution history. I thought I already elucidated my agreement with the underlying concerns raised by all the other editors but I will reiterate. The term "death march" is as you know a contentious term subject to the whims of propagandists. As applied to whatever happened in Ramle and Lod there is a general concurrence among mainstream sources that what happened was not a "death march" as we know it to be described contemporaneously. That said as an encyclopedia we should err on the scholarly and mainstream side over the yellow journalistic propagandist side.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument but an unconvincing one without sources that support it. The source cited is not a "yellow propaganda" book. It is an eminent RS. Do you have an equally eminent RS that states that using Lydda death march to describe the event is not acceptable? Tiamut^talk 16:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You know very well the - at least - controversial nature of the term. There is an entire article entitled 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle. It's not entitled "death march" for good reason. It's been discussed at the talk page and a consensus for this name has never come close to materializing. Trying to get a "death march" in a related article when you well know is there is no consensus for this name in the main article or in any tangential articles by clamming "hey, here's one source, whats your source" is ..............disingenuous? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Controversy doesn't preclude use, and you have yet to establish that its use is controversial in the form of an RS saying that.

As I explained above (are you reading my comments here?) the main article on the exodus isn't a synonym for the death march which was a subset of that larger event. That article did start its life out as [Llydda death march]] because it dealt with only the march. As you may know (or not), a now banned sockpuppet unilaterally moved the page to the another title without discussion as it went up for a DYK. The page was subsequently expanded to include other things about the depopulation of Lydda and Ramlah and so koving it back would not make sense.

Finally, it seems that you and a few banned sockpuppets or IPs and new users are intent to edit war this material out despite NPOV and V. The view that this was a death march is expressed in several reliable sources and is not disputed by a single one. As such, your edits are in violation of policy. Please cease disregarding policy. If you have a problem with the reliability of the source or sources that contest the definition provided, please take your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard or present the sources here so we can include a dissenting view. But stop deleting reliably sourced information based on your personal conception that its application is controversial. There is no wiki policy that permits that. Tiamut^talk 19:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

To quote from above: "The view that this was a death march is expressed in several reliable sources and is not disputed by a single one."

This is not true. Have you searched for any dissenting views? Try looking at Myths and historiography of the 1948 Palestine War revisited: the case of Lydda. It was published by the non-partisan, non-Israeli Middle East Journal. All you have is one source (that isn't peer-reviewed) published years before the above-mentioned peer-reviewed article. Also, your own statements contradict what is in the article. You say that only part of the 70,000 were part of the "death march", yet that isn't what you are editting into the article. As Brewcrewer said, it seems disingenuous. Where'stheanykey (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

List trimmed

I've just removed several examples from the list which either a) aren't commonly called a 'death march' and/or which didn't have a high casualty rate and b) for which a reference for the claim that this was a 'death march' wasn't provided. Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I remove Lydda. Not a good source. I own British War book and not call this "death march" no more. This like quote Chicago Tribune to say "Dewey defeats Truman". Source is good, but out of date, so no good no longer. Dasixiaoriben (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of sources for the attack on Lydda and Ramla and the subsequent depopulation and forced march being called the Lydda Death March. Your single British War book does not trump those sources. nableezy - 16:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

OK "many sources for" and many sources against. This page have one source. It is old book. You read "The Oxford companion to military history"? It is old edition cited here. It no longer call it "death march". Read what you add? 70000 people in Death March? Holy F-shit, this is large number, why it not famous? Oh, because not happen. Read source. You find new copy to Oxford war book, you see it change its mind. Dasixiaoriben (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Which many sources support the idea that these residents were not forcibly expelled from the villages? Because there were orders to expel the residents after the fall of the town, see Morris Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited page 432. nableezy - 18:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this source might provide a suitable resolution. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have this Morris book. Did he call it "death march"? The source (Oxford Military History) does not call it "death march". Cheryy picking old versions of books isn't ok. Dasixiaoriben (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You've removed material on the residents being forcibly expelled. That is reliably sourced. You have removed material on the number of people expelled. That is reliably sourced. You have created out of whole cloth the idea that because one source does not call it a death march means that it was not. And finally, you have violated the 1RR. You also vandalized this page by removing another user's comments. Stop doing all these things, self-revert your edit, and seek consensus for your changes. nableezy - 22:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

And finally, you're also making things up. The searchable copy of The Oxford companion to military history at Amazon.com or ]Google books contains the exact phrase On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda-Ramle area, amounting to come 70,000, were expelled in what became known as the 'Lydda Death March'. The 2001 edition, which is cited, is the only edition that I can find from Oxford University Press. nableezy - 22:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that this is not a list of death marches. This is an article about death marches. It is easy to tell that Lydda's inclusion has caused contention with Wikipedia editors from this talk page alone. That means little since we go off sources. However, sources even have differing thoughts on the matter. We cannot give enough space and and should not have to use 1000 asterisks or notes to give the reader an understanding of the broader subject. It says enough that enough editors not involved in the I-P topic area have brought it up while only a select group of editors have continuously kept the debate alive. This deserves at least an RfC. I am going to be kind of a jerk and remove it altogether based on the reasoning provided.Cptnono (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

List trimmed. Now can an editor (or even an activist who wants to edit) please source the so called lead of this article better and expand on the info to provide a sourced overall summary along with a detailed and sourced piece on the subject that conforms with the MoS. I'll even go create the list and add Lydda (with a note) if someone would rather spend the time bettering the reader's understanding of the subject instead of making a point. Cptnono (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted. Go and edit another article that isn't being edited by someone you have personal problems with and disrupted by a sockpuppet. Your presence here really isn't going to help. It looks like you are actively seeking out conflict with Nableezy and facilitating disruption but a sock. The page is already littered with comments from Lutrinae sockpuppets. If you want to help you can post a message at IPCOLL or start an RfC and walk away. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a section on examples of death marches. The events following the expulsion of the residents of Lydda and Ramle are reliably sourced as being a death march. Not one person not involved with the topic, in fact only one person not a sock of Lutrinae, has even brought it up. So your claim that [i]t says enough that enough editors not involved in the I-P topic area have brought it up while only a select group of editors have continuously kept the debate alive demonstrates your proclivity for making obviously false statements but not much else. Please, find another hobby, annoying me seems a bit too difficult for you to do it right. nableezy - 06:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So is one source enough? I not say that I have a source, I talk about the source already there. I own the book, I read it, it no longer call it death march. Reports of "hundreds dead" is no longer accepted by Scholars outside Arabia. Also, the source not call it death march, just say that it "became known as..." Became known as by who? Not scholars. Source is outdated and shouldn't be used. A more scholarly source is Myths and historiography of the 1948 Palestine War revisited: the case of Lydda from Middle East Journal. It is mentioned above, but Mr. Nableezy seemed to black it out. You are rewritting history. Putting old hearsay above new research. You are like Israeli that rejects New Historians. Wants to believe in heroic David and Goliath story and not Benny Morris (who says it was not death march.) Also, you are like Israeli because you are rude and pushy.

Sean Hoyland, you should follow advice you give to others. "Go and edit another article that isn't being edited by someone you have personal problems with..." You think you talk like a big shot, make you a big shot. In China we say "man with red face have no face." You come here only with revert attacks and accusations but have no comment on content.

Finally, way it is now is misleading to a reader. 70,000 expelled from villiage, but most not marched, use bus. Second saying "historians disagree about the number who died" is not in source and creates impression that number is huge (death march of 70,000, oh Buddha, must be many die! I BDS Israel now. Join pro-terror group and get run over by bull dozer to save smuggling tunnels to bring more drugs and luxury goods into Gaza) See my example, things get out of hand quick. Dasixiaoriben (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You have again misrepresented the cited source, it says in what became known as the 'Lydda Death March'. Ill be reporting your repeated reversions at AE. nableezy - 13:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

And the source is from 2001. Not exactly ancient. And there are other sources, see the article linked for more. And you did not bring up Myths and historiography of the 1948 Palestine War revisited: the case of Lydda. And Myths and historiography of the 1948 Palestine War revisited: the case of Lydda doesnt say the residents were not expelled and forced to march out of Palestine. nableezy - 14:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The source is outdated. The newest version of the book does not mention "death march". You make the dead march to your own drum. Dasixiaoriben (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You are making things up. The 2001 edition (hardcover) and the 2003 edition (paperback) both contain the exact same sentence. I can find no record of any newer edition. nableezy - 18:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't find a version on the free internet newer than 10 years, so it trumps my hardcopy of the newest version. Mirror, my friend. Dasixiaoriben (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Im saying that I cant find a record of their even being an edition of this book since 2003. So I dont believe that you have a hardcopy of the newest version. nableezy - 19:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So how about you put up or shut up. Whats the isbn on this version of the book that you claim to have. nableezy - 19:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So if the newest version not on the internet, I must shut up? You want to shut up people who think different, ok. I see. My father lose a finger for speaking against the Cultural Revolution, so I am afraid of you. Dasixiaoriben (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I want you to prove that you actually have the book that you claim to have. Whats the isbn? nableezy - 19:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Politicized labelling of death marches

The various population transfers of the conflict in the Levant involving competing religious groups shouldn't leak onto this part of Wikipedia. I am removing the talk of Lydda and Ramle until there is more evidense. ProudTeslaDriver (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on published reliable sources. There is the reliable source cited, "The Oxford companion to military history" published by Oxford University Press, and there is you. You are not a reliable source. Do not remove reliably sourced information from the encyclopedia. If you would like to add reliably sourced content that challenges the description, do that. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a need for this attitude. ProudTeslaDriver (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh? There is absolutely the need for an attitude which favours WP:RS. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the reliable source reads "On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda-Ramle area, amounting to some 70,000, were expelled in what became known as the 'Lydda Death March'." this is an accurate summary of a factoid relevant to this article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As I argue below, the label itself is politicised.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If the Oxford University Press called it a death march in quotes, that isn't enough. How many people died? That's important if we want to call it a death march. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.216.93 (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Fact or Propaganda?

The definition in the introduction currently is:

A death march is a forced march of prisoners of war or other captives or deportees with the intent to kill, brutalize, weaken and/or demoralize as many of the captives as possible along the way. It is distinguished in this way from simple prisoner transport via foot march.

Did this ever really happen? Surely it is not an efficient or effective way of killing, brutalising, weakening, or demoralising captives. Surely what are called "death marches" are in fact forced marches in which a lot of people die. A case in point is the Tiger Death March in the Korean War (mentioned above). This was part of a process in which prisoners were transported from Seoul to Pyongyang, to the Yalu River, and then further inland up the Yalu. The intention was clearly to prevent the prisoners being liberated as the UN forces swept into Korea, driving the Korean People's Army up to the Chinese border or into the mountains. If they had simply wanted to kill them, they would have just massacred them at the start, rather than waste troops and resources. In addition, according to George Blake's account, when the surviving POWs reached their final destination, he was well-treated, being accommodated in a farmhouse and being given reading materials etc. Even when he tried to escape he wasn't ill-treated. So it wasn't a "death march" under this definition. I am not sure of the details of the Japanese-run "death marches", but it seems unlikely they could factually fit this definition.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Or is a "death march" a forced march where a lot of people die?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Revert (Pluto)

I never said it wasn't an expulsion of civilians. That's different than a death march though. Death marches are intended/result in significant deaths. There is no evidence this was the case. Again, it doesn't meet the criteria set for similar pages. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

MM, you have tried deleting this three times in the last three weeks. That is what is known as a slow burn edit war. Please respect consensus. If you want to change consensus, you will need to encourage wide discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Polish Silesians deportations?

"In January–April 1945 at least 100,000 Polish Silesians were deported to concentration camps, labour camps and nuclear testing facilities (Semipalatinsk Test Site) in territories occupied by the Soviet Union, most in the Ukrainian Donbass region. Until October–November 1945 further death marches were performed."

The sourcing on this is questionable. The number of 100,000 is not sourced - is this original research? The references are to the sites/concentration camps themselves, and not about the way internees reached their destinations. (BTW, one of the sources is a web page of a music band - http://sbb-music.jimdo.com/ - ??)

Also, by looking the listed concentration camps, it appears that some of them were on Polish territory and housed primarily Volksdeutsche. See: Zgoda labour camp, Jaworzno concentration camp. Perhaps they were removed from Silesia by the Polish Communist government (with Soviet approval) as 'undesirable' or 'collaborators'? We have to remember that Polish borders were expanded westward as sort of a 'compensation' for the territories it lost to the Soviet Union in the east. In any case, the situation appears much more complex than the impression one gets from the current paragraph as "Soviets were exterminating Poles via death marches." The sources listed do not support it.

Thoughts? --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The sourcing seems to relate to the movement of Sorbs, not Silesians. According to this, Sorbs were moved to camps in Silesia, Silesians to camps in Eastern Ukraine (the Donbass).--Jack Upland (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I plan to remove this section as not relevant to the topic of death marches and/or not supported by sources, unless someone objects. I'll give it a few days. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm removing the section in question. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Death march. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120413104654/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=638 to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=638

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death march. 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/20131512425600/http://www.choctawnation.com/history/choctaw-nation-history/trail-of-tears/ to http://www.choctawnation.com/history/choctaw-nation-history/trail-of-tears/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825104559/http://www.ushmm.org:80/outreach/dmarch.htm to http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/dmarch.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Greek genocide.

Why is the Greek Death March not included on the death march page? A link from the Greek genocide brought me to the page yet it doesn't list it. Wikipedia has more on Armenian Genocide Earthgodess53 (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Why doesn't this include the Greek Death March it includes Armenian?

I am wondering why it doesn't include the horrible Death Marchers​ of the Grecian people? My Grandfather was born during this period. I see more about Armenians. Why is this the case Earthgodess53 (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. Many Stalingrad POWs died in POW camps in the vicinity of Stalingrad, AFAIK, from epidemics and lack of medical care in the spring of 1943. "...forced to march impossible distances to internment camps south of Moscow" is highly dubious. Moscow to Stalingrad is nearly 1000 km. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess it depends what "south of Moscow" means. Stalingrad is south of Moscow! But no march is impossible. Napoleon's armies marched to Moscow from France. But I agree it's dubious and should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Aren't the brutal marches for German POWs after the Battle of Stalingrad detailed in most accounts of the battle? A quick Google Books search finds a West Point United States Military Academy book call the treatment of the Stalingrad POWs a "death march across the frozen steppe to labor camps".[1] Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad has a chapter (25, The Sword of Stalingrad) on the treatment of POWs (as I imagine most books about the battle). I don't own that book and it's not available online, but Google Books gives the following glimpse about it:

"At a prison hospital outside Stalingrad, after inmates had become used to the idea of men being shot or left to die on march, Russian guards inexplicably spared theree prisoners recaptured after a futile attempt to escape. Even when conditions improved in the spring of 1943, the death rate in most prison hospitals was atleast one per cent per day. The problems were still enormous, especially in the Stalingrad region, with pellagra, tuberculosis, dropsy and scurvy added to the other diseases."

So I suppose it's worth investigating when and where most of the POWs died in the marches, because some of them did end up in Siberian labour camps. It's probably wrong to say "south of Moscow". But I don't think there is any classification for a death march that they had to travel a certain distance to meet the definition. Without food, water and rest even a shorter march in extreme cold conditions is deadly for sure. --Pudeo (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Additions

@Pudeo: the content added is not supported by the source:

• After the initial captivity near Stalingrad they were send on a "death march across the frozen steppe" to labor camps elsewhere in the Soviet Union.

References

There's nothing here about "After initial captivity near Stalingrad..." or "elsewhere in the Soviet Union": The Second World War: Europe and the Mediterranean.

What's in the book seems to be a generalised statement whereas "death march" is used as a figure of speech. I'd suggest finding a better source that discusses how and why these were death marches. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this should be included. The quote from Beevor given above is not about a march. According to Beevor, the main reason German POWs died was that they were in poor health when they were captured and the USSR had made insufficient preparations for taking on the large numbers of prisoners that they did. It was not that the USSR was trying to kill them (in most cases). The problem was that Stalingrad was in the middle of the steppe, a long way from any other major city. Much of the USSR's industrialised areas were devastated or under German control. The German POWs needed urgent hospital care, but there were no hospitals nearby and very few functioning transport networks. If they stayed they would die; if they marched they would die.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That was my own wording based on the two sources. It's obvious that they were brought to "elsewhere in the Soviet Union" is they were marched across the frozen steppe. But sure, the timeline for the 6th Army POWs could certainly use more details and sources. If the phrase death march was used in the West Point military history series and elsewhere, I'd say it's due there's this very short mention of two sentences here for Stalingrad. Note that there is a separate article for Death marches (Holocaust). The scope for this article is broad. --Pudeo (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Bleiburg

According to this book, the characterization of the executions in and around Bleiburg as a "death march" is a talking point developed by post-war revisionists to draw a moral equivalence between the Partisans and the fascists they fought against. [2] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)