Talk:Rab concentration camp/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Figures

In the italian wp, there is a figure of the number of prisoners in different periods. Unfortunately, sources are missing. Can anybody check it out:

Period	Men	Women	Children	Total
July 27-July 31 1942	1061	111	53	1225
August 1-August 15 1942	3992	0	1029	5021
August 16-August 31 1942	5333	1076	1209	7618
September 1-September 151942	6787	1563	1296	9646
September 16-September 30 1942	7327	1804	1392	10 523
October 1-October 15 1942	7387	1854	1392	10 633
October 16-October 31 1942	7206	1991	1422	10 619
November 1-November 15 1942	7207	2062	1463	10 732
November 16-November 27 1942	6647	1560	926	9133
Fonte:,Davide Rodogno Il nuovo ordine mediterraneo, ed. Bollati Boringhieri, Torino 2003

I think it would be appropriate to include it, but as I've said, sources are missing. Viator slovenicus (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a total idiot: of course there is a source, I just didn't noticed it. I haven't read the book quoted, but Davide Rodogno is a very good historian and I tend to believe the figures are exact. What do you think of including the table in the article? Viator slovenicus (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Viator, it seems at face falue to be well sourced material that would be a welcome addition to the article. Pity they are only partial figures (up to Nov 1942) but partial is anyway an excellent start. Hopefully in time the remaining data will come to light. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon's edit

I am curious about the reason for this revert?[1] --Elonka 05:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The anon is obviously trying to "POV-ize" the article. No sources were added, just a typical IP read-thru edit. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There may have been some POV language, but there were also several good changes, and the addition of a photo, all of which was reverted wholesale. This could be seen as a violation of WP:OWN. We want anons and other editors to be able to come in and make good faith changes. In the future, instead of just reverting an edit, it would be better to change it. Keep the good parts, tweak the bad parts. Reversions should only be for really blatant situations such as vandalism. --Elonka 13:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite and expansion

I've rewritten the article to expand it substantially (approximately doubling its length) and replacing many of the web-based sources, some of which are of very dubious quality, with high-quality academic sources that also provide a considerably greater level of detail about the camp. Hopefully the changes should be pretty much self-explanatory. I've focused on providing context (the previous version didn't really explain why the Italians built the camp in the first place) as well as eye-witness accounts and a more detailed explanation of why the Jewish section of the camp was much more salubrious than the Slovenian/Croatian section. It's not a total rewrite, as I've preserved as much of the previous version as possible while incorporating it into the new text that I added. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That is much better. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How about incorporating this material from the IHT article? [2]

"Jews were held separately at Rab and were treated relatively better, survivors said. They had access to radio and newspapers and were better-fed. "We were prisoners; they were protected people," Vratusa said. "We used their assistance."

A unique partnership emerged between Jewish prisoners and Slovene and Croat partisans. After the Italians capitulated, a group of young Jewish men who were in decent physical shape joined the emaciated Slovenes to form a military unit — the Rab Brigade, they called it — to fight the German occupying army."

The difference in treatment had to do with a difference in status -- for the Jews it was more of a refugee camp, -- for the Slovenians/Croats it was more of a prison camp. It is rather nice to know that the Slovenians and Jews had a "unique partnership." --Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You can call it what you like, it's a concentration camp. Is the difference in treatment supposed to depict the "niceness" of the Italian fascists? The perspective of the imprisoned Partisans is somewhat different. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've said in the article, the difference appears to be due largely to the fact that the Italians saw the Slavs as enemies and the Jews as, if not friends, then at least people whom it was honorable to protect. This appears to have been the case not just in Rab but throughout Italian-ruled territory (something like 85% of Italian Jews survived the war). -- ChrisO (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand your question. They Jews got lucky in the Italy. In general in Italy, they were not just handed over to the Nazis for gassing, unlike the situation in numerous other countries. The Partisans, according to this article, "used the assistance" of the better cared-for Jews. That was good for the Partisans, I would think. No sure where you are coming from when you refer to the "niceness" of the Italian fascists. There is a section in the article that seems to imply something like that. Maybe we could work on making that bit clearer -- --Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to point out is that we can view this from two perspectives: "Jews were treated better than Partisans", and "Partisans were treated worse than Jews". The former seems to imply that the Jews should be grateful to have been treated so "well" in a concentration camp, and that the Partisans should consider themselves lucky to be able to "scrape something together" from that. I'm just saying I don't like how that sounds. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but we have to be careful with this kind of sensitive articles, and not start dealing out praises for not killing victims, or not treating them completely gruesomely. BTW ChrisO, excellent work :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that at all, except to remind you that there was so much killing going on in Europe at that time that it was almost like, what's a couple of thousand starved? Stalin is considered to be responsible for the starving of millions, there was starvation due to the war throughout Europe, and thousands died of cold in the Russian winters. I think the article would be well served were we to label the Slovenians "prisoners" (in conditions possibly similar to what we call concentration camp today), and the Jews as "internees." To make that separation clear should draw a distinction without us having to state one perspective or another. Apparently the Jews were seen "through the barbed wire" by the partisans, so it is almost as if there were two different camps there. Perhaps that is the angle that we should take. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There were two different camps next to each other - Franc Potočnik calls them "Camp I" and "Camp II". It seems to have been a very unusual combination of a lethally unhygenic and overcrowded concentration camp and a relatively comfortable internment camp, both on the same site. You have to wonder what relations between the two sets of inmates were like. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work guys. I've altered the intro to make it clear that the inmates of the camp were civilians and those accused of partisan activities. Many of them were people picked up at random in sweeps of villages, which Roatta hoped would serve as a deterrent to those thinking of or already providing food or other assistance to the partisans. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons to Buchenwald

Did you see my edit summary? I really don't think that there is any reason to make comparisons with other concentration camps. What do we learn by that? What does it mean? The original link refers to 19% death rate in Rab "in some sectors" and compares with a 15% death rate in Buchenwald. What does the source mean when he says "in some sectors"? How do you compare that with the all sectors of Buchenwald? The 15% death rate is contradicted by the wiki article on Buchenwald which gives a 24% death rate. So it could well be inaccurate. Some 33,000-55,000 (I've read both figures) died in Buchenwald, and about 2000 died in Rab. By giving these percentages you risk giving the reader a false impression. Finally, though, the information does not tell us anything valuable about the camp. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of the 19% figure "in some sectors". I've not come across that in any other source, and the reference to "sectors" is confusing, given that Rab only really had two sections - one for Slavs, the other for Jews. This may be a garbled interpretation of a seminal article by James Walston, "History and Memory of the Italian Concentration Camps", in the Historical Journal, which describes a mortality rate of 18% in some sectors of the Italian camp system as a whole. Given the ambiguity, I thought it better to go with Walston's widely cited article rather than the previously linked one. There's no harm in making a comparison with the equivalent Nazi camps and it provides a useful perspective on the comparative lethality of the Italian and Nazi systems. However, you do have to be careful to ensure that you're quoting mortality rates at the same point in time (i.e. 1942). The figures I gave are accurate for that point in time, but obviously the Nazi camps became more lethal later in the war, which probably explains the different figure for Buchenwald in the Wikipedia article on that camp. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How it is a "useful perspective" when it gives possibly erroneous material and certainly implies that Buchenwald was "no big deal" by comparison? Why not compare it with Auschwitz or Treblinka or Dachau? The arbitrary choice of Buchenwald gives us no useful information. How is Buchenwald equivalent to Rab? How is an arbitrary choice of 1942 representative? What was the death rate of the Jews vs a vs Slovenians? If we were to compare total death rates in all (Italian and Nazi) camps to each other, at the end of the war, then maybe you might have something that gives us useful information. And even that should include actual numbers not merely percentages. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Giving a range is definitely better. I still think numbers should be included, as death rate by percentage is not too useful. I would prefer to strike it altogether. In a camp with 10 people, 5 dead would show 50% death rate. Yet in a camp with 20,000 people a 2% death rate would be 400 people. The % doesn't tell us the whole story, in fact is misleading. Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm thinking that the current phrasing is not very good - no offense to whoever constructed it. I'd suggest giving the mortality issue a bit more text and placing it within the context of the "in general" mortality at camps during WWII rather than add in a statistic (which could easily be replaced with other statistics). Thoughts/Suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, it is better now than it was when it compared Rab only to Buchenwald. ChrisO did try (and succeeded )to improve it. It still needs help as it is not accurate or clear enough, and I think it should be scrapped until and unless a bigger, more accurate picture can be obtained. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, your source [3] says "In 1941, Mauthausen reported an inmate mortality rate of 58 percent, compared with 36 percent at Dachau and 19 percent at Buchenwald. " Thus I think you do not meet your own criterion: "you do have to be careful to ensure that you're quoting mortality rates at the same point in time (i.e. 1942)." -Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I get rid of it now without getting into an edit war? Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the mistake - evidently I misread the date. Don't delete it yet, let's see if we can get a consensus on including it. I still think it should be included. Alasdair, Direktor, what do you think? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I still can't see any enlightenment coming from this statistic. 1941 was a totally different year. The murdering of Jews began in earnest in late 1941. In 1939 Germans killed 70,000 people declared "unfit for life." 1938 and 1939 in Austria and Czechoslovakia, they built camps. After WWII started in 1939 the Germans constructed camps in Poland. In 1940, camps were established in the Netherlands, France, and elsewhere in western and northwestern Europe. In 1941, in Greece, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union. "These included POW camps for captured enemy soldiers, labor camps for conquered people, brothels based on sexual slavery, ghettos for Jews, camps for Gypsies..." Starting in late 1941, death camps were constructed with the means to kill thousands of people daily, essentially Jews. In 1942 thousands are moved to these camps and die in Nazi gas chambers. In May, 1942, 4300 Jews are deported from the Chelm, Poland to Sobibor, where all are gassed to death. In 1942, the mass murders, both in camps and out, have begun. [4] To compare to the situation in 1941 is not realistic. Too many questions here as to how many (or what %) Jews died in Rab (or the rest of the Italian camps) & how many Slovenians and Croats. How many Jews died in Nazi camps versus how many Slovenians and Croats (%)? In 1941, Rab did not even exist. This statistic is entirely arbitrary and irrelevant and contradicts your own view earlier: "you do have to be careful to ensure that you're quoting mortality rates at the same point in time (i.e. 1942)" You have yet to explain what it is that your statistic is elucidating ie how it is relevant, particularly the 1941 Nazi death rates prior even to the establishment of this camp. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am still trying to understand why you would want to include this figure. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tents, subcamps

Tundrabuggy, just a minor one. I suppose that when Anton Vratuša referred to the tents he was talking only about the camp for Slavs. Elvira Kohn is a useful source here (I know she's a primary source rather than a secondary one but I see her as entirely reliable). "There were two camps: one for Slovenes and the other for Jews. Slovenes were imprisoned by the Italians just like we were. The two camps were strictly separated and no communication or contact between the two camps could take place. (...) The Jewish camp, called Kampor, was divided into two camps: the Dubrovnik camp, where I was with my mother and other Jews from Dubrovnik, and the Kraljevica camp. (...) The two camps, Dubrovnik and Kraljevica camp, were separated and each was enclosed with a wired fence. (...) There were around 1200 Jews in Dubrovnik camp and perhaps the same number or maybe a bit more in Kraljevica camp. We were accommodated in the barracks; in Kraljevica camp, there were wooden barracks, and in Dubrovnik camp they were made out of bricks. The barracks were long and somewhat narrow. There were some 30 people in one barrack". [5]. What exactly this photo [6] shows I am unclear. My presumption is that it is the camp for Slavs (referred to by Kohn as the camp for Slovenes, although it is known the inmates were Slovenes and Croats) with guard huts around the periphery. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
...and, while I know this may be a bit of a can of worms to get the wording right, but to be entirely accurate, we should refer to a camp for Jews and one for "other (Slavic) people", as the Jews in question were also Croats and Slovenes, born and/or resident in the 1st Yugoslavia. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Metod Milač describes a similar setup in his memoirs Resistance, Imprisonment & Forced Labor. I suppose the question of how you describe the Jewish camp depends on whether you define Jews as a religious or an ethnic group. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Probably saying 'Jewish' and 'Slavic' covers the matter clearly for the purposes of this article without opening a very thorny topic indeed. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense AlasdairGreen27. I don't have a problem with that. If I understand correctly there were some six camps in one, 4 with Slavs, and 2 with Jews. Not only were they ethnically different, reasoning behind it was different. The one group was being "protected" -- more like internees, the other group, imprisoned similarly to enemy aliens. They were treated differently but if in general they were so separate, maybe it is not really appropriate to make such a big deal out of the differences. I am not saying to ignore it, but in the scheme of things it really should not be the main thrust of this article. It seems that the Slavs died of starvation and cold, neglect and harsh conditions but were not directly killed by the guards. I think there would be appropriate to have some emphasis on this. The way it is written now would be similar to if we were to write an article that said that gays had it so much better than Jews in a Nazi camp, explain how, and write up the rationale for it. It may have been true, but it isn't really the appropriate emphasis for such an article. Again I am not suggesting leaving it out, just talking about WP:WEIGHT. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

More precisely, two camps physically located next to each other, as described by Milač and Kohn, subdivided into smaller sections, but all part of the same overall institution - the Campo di concentramento per internati civili di Guerra – Arbe. I think the current weight of the article is fine; it's an accurate reflection of the weight assigned by the sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The numbers don't add up

"The camp held up to 15,000 prisoners at its peak, mostly Slovenes and Croatian..." "The number of deaths in the Rab camp has been put at some 1,400 people, with a further 800 prisoners dying later when they were relocated" -- That would be 9.3% if you don't count the 800 who died later, and 14.6% if you do. The article says "Although the conditions at Rab were particularly atrocious, it was far from unique. According to James Walston, the annual mortality rate in the Italian camps was at least 18 percent ..." If the conditions were particularly atrocious, (and I am not suggesting that they were not), why would the mortality rate be (considerably) lower that the average annual mortality rate (at 9.3% at the Rab camp itself)? Something is odd here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Numbers quoted vary. I put in the 1,400 figure in as it was from a reasonably reliable source and I was nervous about putting in a figure at the higher end of the scale. YadVashem says 4,000. An equally reliable source, possibly more so. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The higher figure I believe comes from Franc Potočnik. However, Jonathan Steinberg casts doubt on that, saying that his numbers are controversial and disputed. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is better to just leave off these percentage numbers off altogether unless and until they are validated somewhere? The annual mortality rate of 18 percent may come from a reliable source, but if you stop and think of it, it is a huge number. Especially on an annual basis as opposed to a cumulative basis, which was what I used to figure Rab deaths. Then put in a range of death figures and let the actual numbers speak for themselves, instead of percentages which are so misleading. Think of this: One year you have a camp with one person in it and that person dies. Death rate: 100%. Next year you have 100 people-- no deaths at all. Annual rate? 50% Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)