Talk:Colditz Castle

older entries
I think this is a fascinating article, featured article material. - Added by 68.77.162.199 on 17 Mar 2005
 * It would appear everyone else thought so too ;)  ALKIVAR &trade;

Hermann Göring's Title
Not to make mountains out of molehills here but is the part about Göring's title in the intro blob even relevant? It seems like a complete tangent to the rest of the information there. I could understand the rank showing some kind of maybe authority when he said what he said, but he was in charge of Luftwaffe operations.


 * I agree it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant (and he does have his own page). Cjrother 18:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is relevant for 1 reason... Colditz was technically a Luftwaffe prison, as such Goering was the top most person in charge of Colditz. The title was included to show the guy basically responsible for everything to do with Germany's prison system was the one making the obviously false claim.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 02:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Still to do:


Needs more:
 * Colditz as Mental Institution
 * Prisoner population changes 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945

Still to add:
 * Section on the Nazi guards in command
 * I just added a partial list of the German staff at Colditz!
 * rather sloppily though, it has since been spun off and cleaned up.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 05:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Section on camp appearance and layout using this map
 * Unsuccessful escape attempts
 * Complete Colditz Castle/List of Colditz Castle escape attempts
 * Expand section on life in camp
 * Colditz in fiction: TV/Movies/Games
 * Find a way to work in images:
 * Of Camp:
 * 
 * Of Prisoners:
 * 
 * Of Guards:
 * 

Needed to fix:
 * Duplicate link removal nothing repeated too badly.
 * Copy edit (thanks Bishonen!) / proofread
 * There seems to be a contradiction in "Thou Shalt Escape..." section to MI9 article about using Red Cross packages to smuggle in escape tools.
 * deutschfeindlich -> volksfeindlich made recommended change, and included proper literal translation.

Novel?
At the moment, Pat Reid's books are described as novels. This suggests that they were works of fiction with perhaps composite characters and the distortion of factual events. Is this the case or are we actually talking about a memoir? Jooler 12:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * They are not outright fiction; however, there are composite characters, fictionalized escape attempts, and other exaggerations made to make the camp larger than life. Pat Reid's accountings seem much more grandiose than say Eggers's or Neave's. Does this help you understand my wording?  ALKIVAR &trade; 18:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I know that the film "The Colditz Story" and the Colditz TV series from the 1970s (both based on Reid's first book) were fictionalised as described above, but I'm asking whether the original book was like this. In the film Pat Reid (John Mills) makes the first home run, but it then pops up a caption at the end saying the in fact Airey Neave made the first home run. In the TV series a character named Pat Grant (Edward Hardwicke) was essentially Pat Reid. I haven't read Pat Reid's book, but it would seem to me that if Pat Reid published a book purporting to tell the story of his experiences in Colditz and it was full of what a less than kind critic might describe as "half truths and outright lies" that it would be difficult for the book to have been taken seriously at the time it was published and would probably have been viewed less than favourably by other former inmates. Have you read the book? Jooler 21:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes his books are like this. I was referring specifically to his books (which I have read). His books are not full of "outright lies" as I stated earlier, they are exaggerations. And when I previously stated fictinalized escape attempts I refer to events no one else mentions/recollects. That does not mean they are necessarily false/fiction, merely unverified and likely to remain so.
 * Neither Pat Reid or Airey Neave were the first home run. Lt. Alain Le Ray, a French inmate was the first successful escape on April 11 '41, predating the arrival of the British by more than a month. Airey Neave was the first British escape, but he didnt escape until January 4 '42. (see Colditz Castle/List of Colditz Castle escape attempts).
 * as for difficulty to be taken seriously, poppycock. Newspapers regularly exaggerate and play up the story to get sales, his books do this same thing. That does not stop people from believing whats in the newspapers. As for the other inmates, it makes them look larger than life, I strongly doubt extremely pro POV would have been complained about.
 * Thats my 3 cents worth anyways.  ALKIVAR &trade; 22:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The phrase "Home Run" as regards POW camps is of British origin and refers specifically to returning to the UK and so being able to re-join the fight against Germany with one's unit. It does not apply to people returning to countries occupied by Germany, such as France, Belgium, Holland, etc., because by that time Germany was no longer at war with those countries.


 * Reid's and Neave's books were self-censored at the request of MI6 and MI9 so as to remove information that might be of use to future enemies and so some events had to be altered slightly in order to disguise certain aspects. In addition, some of the people involved were still alive at the time and may have wished their identities kept secret - for whatever reasons. Otherwise the books are non-fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.162 (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"Sonderlager"
The word Sonderlager does not mean "high-security prison", at least not literally. A more literal translation would be "Special Camp", or somesuch. Anyone have an idea why it says "high-security prison" in its translation? &mdash;Gabbe 08:10, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Nazis only used the term Sonderlager to refer to their "high security" camps. Although that may not be the literal translation of it... that was its actual use. I figured it made more sense to use it as the Nazi's did, rather than the straight German translation.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 09:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * OK. Good enough for me... &mdash;Gabbe 10:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)ad


 * The Nazis were great ones for euphemisms so the literal meaning is often incorrect when referring to the Nazi period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.162 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"deutschfeindlich"
Not to nitpick, but "deutschfeindlich" is an adjective in German, so "Anti-Germans" is a wrong translation. Besides, from the view of a native speaker, it just doesn't "sound right". Alternatives would be "deutschlandfeindlich", which would mean something like "enemy of the state", or "volksfeindlich", which was used heavily in Nazi propaganda and can be translated as "treasonous against the people". That would also be corresponding to the national socialist ideal of the "Volk", the people as a group, as opposed to the individual. But again, that's just nitpicking from the native speakers ;)
 * I understand where your coming from, as a non native speaker of German, I am forced to rely on other translations for my terminology. Both Reinhold Eggars and Henry Chancellor's books use the term "Deutschfeindlich" with the translation of "anti-German". Volksfeindlich seems the most likely replacement candidate based on Nazi propaganda as you mentioned. I was hoping someone who was a native German speaker would help clear this up :) thanks! I will make the changes later today.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 09:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

American captives?
The Parker Bros. game I have had since I was a kid (devised by Pat Reid) has the following playing pieces:
 * Black: German
 * Red: British
 * Blue: American
 * Orange: Dutch
 * Brown: French
 * Green: Polish

Although not in the escapee list, were any US prisoners held there at any time, or was it simply an understandable marketing ploy of the game's manufacturer? Dainamo 11:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Look for sections about 1944 and Prominente. None of them seems to have escaped, however. - Skysmith 21:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Eight Americans were held at Colditz. All arrived in 1944 or 1945, and none escaped or attempted to escape, that I know of. Two were removed by the Germans before the castle's liberation on 16 April 1945. The eight were:

1) Colonel Florimond Duke [at Colditz 23 Ag 1944 till liberation]

2) Lt. J. Le Forsonney [at Colditz 4-21 Ag 1944]

3) Captain G.T. Nunn [at Colditz 23 Ag 1944 till liberation]

4) Major K. Sabadosh [at Colditz 23 Ag 1944 till liberation]

5) Lt/Col W.H. Schaeffer [at Colditz 06 Dc 1944 till liberation]

6) 1/Lt M.C. Shannon [at Colditz 14 Mr 1945 till liberation]

7) Captain A.M. Suarez [at Colditz 23 Ag 1944 till liberation]

8) Lt. J.G. Winant [at Colditz 07 Ap 1945-13 Ap 1945]. A 'Promeninten'

Source: P.R. Reid, Colditz: The Full Story, p. 325. DonBruce 16:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Use of Liberation
The article uses the terms liberation, liberated, etc. several times. Given that Dresden was always a German city, wouldn't capture, captured, etc. be more appropriate?

NB. I'd retain it in cases such as liberating the prison though.

Crebbin 17:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC).

d

Glider table
excellently done. simple, easy to read and space-efficient. and borders only when needed to divide data. 69.241.225.95 23:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From a native American English speaker whose middling German skills...
... were at their peak when he lived there for two years about a quarter-century ago, so take for what it is worth. Isn't "Field Marshall of the Empire" somewhat off as a translation for Reichsmarschall? Reich may not be exactly the same thing as "state" (certainly not in the U.S. sense, where Land would be the closest to that perhaps, but in the more general sense of worldwide English usage still not an exact equivalent), but would be closer to that than it would "Empire". I never thought of the Third Reich as being exactly the "Third Empire". Any comments? Rlquall 01:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * They attempted to portray themselves as an empire, or at least a return to the power of the Holy Roman Empire, and therefore were very prone to bestowing flowery titles upon each other. From the article on Göring:

"In 1939, he became the first Luftwaffe Field Marshall (Generalfeldmarshal) and by a decree on June 29, 1941, Hitler appointed Göring his formal successor and promoted him to the rank of Reichsmarshall, the highest military rank of the Greater German Reich. Reichsmarshall was a special rank intended for Göring and which made him senior to all Army and Air Force Field Marshals."


 * It appears to me that it was meant as a title similar to say "Commander in Chief", a head of the heads so to speak. Whether it was in actuality an empire is besides the point. Since they referred to themselves as an empire, the title translation's intent, although inaccurate factually, is spot on. But I'm certainly open for debate on a more "appropriate" translation. (although preferably by a native german speaker).  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 09:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deaths?
Other than that 1 reported death, was there any other deaths in the castle?
 * Caused deaths? or deaths of natural causes? I'm doing research on this currently, so it will eventually be added, problem is different sources conflict, so it might be a while.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 03:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1) An older UK POW officer died of a heart attack in 1943?

2) Michael Sinclair was shot while trying to escape on 25 September 1944. Source: P.R. Reid, Colditz: The Full Story, pp. 243-246, 309.

3) and 4) Two Germans committed suicide in the POW part of the castle. Source: Michael Booker, Collecting Colditz, pp. 31-32. DonBruce 16:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Michael Sinclair was the only POW to have been shot and killed there (according to the tour guide). He was buried with full military honours in Berlin (?)

At least one German was shot by firing squad during WWII Lowgoz (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

How should we work this data in a less obtrusive way?
This table is huge, perhaps someone has a better way we can work this in? ALKIVAR &trade; 13:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Structure issues
The article as it is currently is in blatant violation of several wikipedia policies, including WP:SP and WP:NPOV. First, the subsections need to changed from slash titles to proper titles, as that form is deprecated (and has been since before they were created). Second, a "suggested reading" list is inappropriate, as it is not wikipedia's place to suggest things or make recommendations, so it should be moved to "List of books about Colditz Castle" or something similarly neutral. Third, the references section is a mess, and could use a good cleanup. The text seems fine, but we shouldn't have blatant, easily correctible violations of basic wikipedia standards in a featured article. I'd just go and fix it, but last time I tried, my changes were reverted without comment. Night Gyr 08:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition, I note that in the FAC nomination for this article, the sole oppose was based on the fair use photos. Does the current status of at least 4-5 fair use photos and diagrams, apparently mostly from the same source, cause a problem in anyone else's mind? -- nae'blis (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:V0.5 review
This is an excellent article in every respect, but it's a bit obscure for the (very small) 0.5 version. I've moved the listing to the held nominations page, where it will be considered for inclusion in one of the later releases. Kirill Lokshin 02:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree that its obscure... several television shows, many many books, and several well recieved movies would counter the "bit obscure" part... not to mention it is a likely candidate for most famous of the Nazi prisons (not counting concetration camps) only prison to give it a run fame wise is Stalag Luft III.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 03:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Obscure my eye! - It's the most famous POW camp in the world. Jooler 03:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Colditz Castle escape attempts
This article is growing to the point where it is becoming a daunting read. The part of the article that describes the different escape attempts is self-contained. I suggest that this part of the article be moved to an article of its own titled "Colditz Castle escape attempts". Cowpriest2 21:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed split of article
Within Category:World War II POW camps there is a growing body of articles about Oflags and Stalags. I propose to split this excellent article into its two logical parts: possibly there should be a third article about the excape attempts as suggested above.
 * Colditz Castle - description and history.
 * Oflag IV-C - during WW II

Syrenab 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Per you comment at WP:MILHIST, I would support splitting the article into two, possibly three parts. As you suggest, a pre-WWII article and a WWII article. Escapes could probably remain in the Oflag IV-C article, although as someone mentioned above, the whole thing has become rather daunting, and a three-way split might be necessary. Carom 13:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have split the article into two sparate articles


 * Colditz, which includes Colditz Castle
 * Oflag 4c, the whole of the present article about Oflag IV-C including the escapes. This should be renamed Oflag IV-C, but I have not been successful in opening it under this title - it always redirects back to Colditz Castle.

If this change is approved then the present article Colditz Castle may be deleted and the bew article Oflag 4c moved to the correct name "Oflag IV-C"

I believe that this is the best solution. It fits in with the present organization of Wikipedia for all other Oflags and Stalags, and articles about places.

Syrenab 16:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been no further comment. Split has been completed into two separate articles:

Syrenab 14:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Colditz, includes history of Castle
 * Oflag IV-C, includes stories of escapes.


 * Joelr31 has reverted to the original article, without any discussion (he never participated in any of the original discussion). If he objects to the way that I split the article, I suggest that he suggest how to do it better, and not just revert.  Syrenab 16:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, there has been significant discussion at WP:FAR, and Joelito's revert reflects the consensus at FAR as well as the MilHist group, which never supported the split to begin with. Please see the FAR link at the top of this talk page.  Sandy (Talk) 18:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory statement
This section below is contradictory. Does anyone know which bit is correct?

"Pat Reid claims in Colditz: The Full Story that there were 31 "home runs". It should be noted that he includes prisoners from the hospital and prisoners being transported, who were not directly under Colditz staff control. Henry Chancellor in Colditz: The Definitive History claims 32 escaped but only 15 were "home runs": 1 Belgian, 11 British, 7 Dutch, 12 French and 1 Polish. The difference is that Reid claims any successful escape by an "official" Colditz POW a "home run" where most other historians only consider escapes from the castle or castle grounds itself as a "home run". Also a subject of debate is whether or not Millar's escape should be considered a "home run", but since he is listed MIA (unofficially he is assumed deceased), Chancellor does not count him as such."

-*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 22:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How can it be contradictory?!?!? It quite clearly states why there is a discrepancy between the two counts!  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 22:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference to SS in first paragraph
There is a reference to the SS in the first paragraph. However, I read the Reid book and he indicates the camp was run by the Wehrmacht. Is this a contradiction or is there other historical data on this?--Silverscreen 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This mistake has been corrected before and then reverted. You are correct - All Oflags were run by the Wehrmacht, not the SS Syrenab 18:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

New project
I have just started up WikiProject Colditz to cover articles regarding Colditz Castle and, in particular, it's role as a Prisoner of War camp in WWII. This project aims to cover the castle and all the notable prisoners, such as Michael Sinclair and Pat Reid, who were imprisoned there. Feel free to check it out and if you want to help out, I will be most grateful! -- Qarnos 09:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good luck! I spent a lot of time trying to clean up the Colditz Castle/Oflag IV-C in October 2006. Everything I did was reverted by those who believe it to be just fine the way it is! -- Syrenab 19:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Qarnos, I will gladly work with you on this project. For the last several months I hve been compiling articles on Oflags and Stalags, and trying to improve existing ones. The Colditz Castle/Oflag IV-C article in the present form might be a good magazine article, but is contrary, in my opinion, to all requirements for an encyclopedic article - is too long and I believe should be broken into at least three elements :
 * history of Colditz Castle,
 * history of Oflag IV-C,
 * recounting of all escape attempts, succesful and unsuccesful.

Syrenab 16:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I support the split because this article is too long and covers three clearly distinct subjects, as you point out. Here is how I imagine the three articles:

1) "Colditz Castle", containing: 2) "Oflag IV-C", containing: 3) "Oflag IV-C escape attempts", containing:
 * the history of the castle
 * one paragraph about the mental institution.
 * one paragraph about Oflag IV-C, with a link to the main article.
 * most of the current "Colditz Castle as Oflag IVc" section, except the escape attempts.
 * one paragraph about the escape attempts, with a link to the main article (see 3 below).
 * the current "Colditz Castle in popular culture" paragraph, with the link to the main article.
 * the sub-section currently titled "Thou shalt escape if you possibly can", along with all its sub-sub-sections and sub-sub-sub-sections (damn, this article really is too large).

I would also change the title of the "Colditz Castle in popular culture" article to "Oflag IV-C in popular culture", because that's what that article really is about.

I don't intend to do any of this myself, just my 2 cents. Cowpriest2 07:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Cowpriest2. Your split suggestions I think are just what is needed.

I offer to do the work, but only if there is general agreement. I alredy spent many hours on this subject and all my efforts were reverted.

Syrenab 13:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've notified the WWII task force guys. Hopefully we'll see what their take is on this. Cowpriest2 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok Syrenab, I believe you can go ahead with the changes. No one has any objections, and Kirill Lokshin thinks it's a decent idea. Cowpriest2 03:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly proceed. But first, I would like Qarnos and Kirill Lokshin to clarify how to carry out the work within WikiProject Colditz in view of the previous arguments against splitting the article and the  opposition of ALKEVAR. Syrenab 16:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on User:Alkivar's page (User_talk:Alkivar). However, he's on an indefinite wikibreak, so I'm not sure we should wait for his opinion. As for the previous arguments against splitting, can you tell me what they are? The split was opposed during the FAR, but from what I understand it was mostly because it was still a featured article at the time. Cowpriest2 07:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Well, Lokshin seems to have changed his mind, and the article is no longer featured. But I understand why you hesitate. If only we could get alkivar's approval, that would simplify things. Cowpriest2 07:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem as I see it. We've got nearly 1000 years of history to cover, so splitting it makes sense somewhat... until you look at that 1000 year span... the first 500 odd years of the castles history are virtually insignificant (so can be summed up in a few paragraphs at most.) the fire in the 1500s was a significant part of the castles history, and I guess a stub could be written about the fire, the reconstruction and the zoo that was put in the castle park... but it would never get beyond stub status... and be pretty pathetic as far as a stand alone article. So an article for the castle from 1046 - 1800 would never be more than a large stub, small article.


 * From 1800 - WW1 it became a mental institution, and sadly there is damn near nothing in print with any information about it during that time period that i've been able to find, and believe me, i've spent a lot of time looking! So again a bare stub at best...


 * From WW1-Pre WW2 it was a POW camp... almost all of those records have been lost. Through correspondance with the historical society, I've gotten a bit of information... but again there really isnt a whole lot there... and again a bare stub at best.


 * WW2 ... HUGE MASSIVE TOMES of content for it as Oflag IV-C. We should have articles on each of the successful escapees (some wont be much more than a stub... but their notability is established by history). The escape attempts deserve really all deserve an article ... but 1 giant article for all of them with detail on the more major ones is probably all we can get past the deletionists. The glider probably has enough data about it to get its own article, as its certainly one of the most outlandish escape attempts from WW2.


 * Post WW2 history... not a whole lot worth saying really... Popular culture stuff all relates to its WW2 history (and is already its own article).


 * As it stands now we have 1 giant comprehensive well thought out article. If we split it, we wind up with 1 pathetic article of its history pre-WW2; A large WW2 article and its spinoffs; and 1 pathetic stub of its post-WW2 history. I'm not sure the benefits of splintering it are worth it... we just wind up with more articles to watch, more targets for vandalism, and a less central location for content. Personally I'd rather not split it... but I can certainly see the arguments for the split. Give me a little more info on your post-split ideas and maybe you can convince me.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 02:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify something. The history of the castle would not be split. The new "Colditz Castle" article would cover the whole history of the castle, from its creation to this day. The article would mention, in one paragraph, that the castle was the location of a POW camp. For more information, it would refer you to the main article about the prisoner's camp at "Oflag IV-C". My main point here is that the castle and Oflag IV-C are two different concepts. Colditz castle is a building, Oflag IV-C is a prisoners' camp. Cowpriest2 22:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

ALKIVAR forgets that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a literary magazine. He seems to think that the dozens of entries in the various language Wikipedias for various castles are pointless, because in most of them not very much happened during the last few hundred years. I suppose he also considers the many entries that I and others have written for Oflags and Stalags are pointless, because most have no great stories of escapes.

Enough said, the plan is to split the article into 3 logical entries:
 * Colditz Castle (with its uninteresting 1000 year history up to the present day).
 * Oflag IV-C, including short accounts of escapes (with links to the full stories)
 * Escapes from Oflag IV-C Colditz Castle - at this time all of the stories should be included in one article. Personally, I think that there is not much point in breaking them up into separate articles.

Syrenab 14:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The preliminary part of the project has been done. The original article "Colditz Castle" has been broken ouit into three sections: Each of these articles needs additional refinement, of course. Go to it!
 * Colditz Castle
 * Oflag IV-C
 * Oflag_IV-C_Colditz_Castle_Escapes

Syrenab 13:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a few corrections, but indeed, there is still some refinement to do. Colditz Castle/Suggested reading page is kind of weird. Should Wikipedia really keep track of every book where the castle is just mentioned? Maybe we should distribute the references where they belong and delete Colditz Castle/Suggested reading. Also, the references section from the original Colditz Castle article must be redistributed.

I like using the expression "escape attempts" instead of "escapes". Note that this works both for successful and unsuccessful attempts. You can say "successful escape attempts" and "unsuccessful escape attempts". No big deal though. What do you think?

There is some work to do with the titles. I guess we should come up with a convention. Right now we have: One way would be: Cowpriest2 06:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oflag IV-C
 * Oflag IV-C Colditz Castle Escapes
 * Colditz Castle/List of Colditz Castle escape attempts
 * Colditz Castle in popular culture
 * Oflag IV-C
 * Attempts to escape Oflag IV-C. Bonus: You can start the article with "There have been several attempts to escape Oflag IV-C ..." and it fits the title.
 * List of attempts to escape Oflag IV-C
 * Oflag IV-C in popular culture

Well in fact, Colditz Castle in popular culture is not that long, so we could just merge it with Oflag IV-C.Cowpriest2 07:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions are good. I will work on it, as soon as I complete my present project (Armia Warszawa, English and Polish versions). However I will be away (sailing!) for 10 days starting  29 March, and may not be able to get to it until early April. If you have time to do some rearranging, go ahead. Syrenab 11:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Template
Hi, I noticed several articles relating to Colditz castle and so have created a template to bring them together. At present it only includes the main articles e.g. castle, list of staff, escape attempts etc. However feel free to expand the template to include key people or other similar/related articles. LordHarris 06:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A very good idea! I have added the new articles to the template, and added the template to the new articles. Syrenab 14:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Radio room info
User:Jimdebrichards added the following comment to the article which I have removed and placed here until we work out how the information can be added in an encyclopaedic way:

"(Change info on radio room in Colditz Castle during WW2. French Lieut. Frederic Guigues first set up radio room in Colditz in 1942. + Reference book by Reinhold Eggers (former Commandant), "Colditz Recaptured". 1973. Pg 45"

--Bermicourt (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the French radio room set up by Frederic Guigues was the same one later used by the British and then subsequently lost and re-discovered. A French radio room had been discovered by Eggers and his team in the attic above Room 302 in December 1942. (Ref. Eggers, 1961 Colditz: The German Story pg. 106)
 * Also note that Reinhold Eggers was never the Commandant at Colditz when it was Oflag IV-C; he was initially a Duty Officer, and then later became the Security Officer. Poltair (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colditz Castle. 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://archive.is/20041023211609/http://www.schlosscolditz.com/Englisch/besondere.htm to http://www.schlosscolditz.com/Englisch/besondere.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20040413092546/http://www.schlosscolditz.com/Englisch/historie.htm to http://www.schlosscolditz.com/Englisch/historie.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

illustrations needed
The article currently describes in words many changes to the building over the centuries. These are pretty vague/confusing. Relevant illustrations (drawings/photos) would be helpful.-73.61.15.226 (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Headings structure
Yesterday I reverted these edits:, which were made in March by an obvious IP sockpuppet, in evasion of a block, see: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010 - I have been going through their edit histories and doing cleanup.

The edits to this article added an extra level of subheaders, creating a "History" section and moving three of the four existing main sections under it. My revert was undone today by :, with the explanation "does seem to be a better structure". I'd like to suggest reverting again back to the version of the structure prior to the sockpuppetry, for the following reasons:


 * I don't think the change is an improvement. The present article structure is simple. It's already obvious enough what the sections refer to, i.e. "Original castle", "Periods of reconstruction", and "Use as a POW camp". I don't think putting them under an extra level of indentation to indicate they are "history", as opposed to the one other section "Present", adds to the organization or understanding of the article at this time. More importantly, on the mobile phone version of Wikipedia, second-level subheaders are hidden in the table of contents, leaving only "History" and "Present", which is less useful than the previous version. It would be preferable to have all four descriptive sections listed in the table of contents as before.
 * This blocked user has disrupted literally thousands of articles with superfluous additions of "History", and edit-warring over them, and contines to do so. Reinstating and approving their edits as being "useful" may encourage them to continue their disruption. While editors may reinstate the edits of blocked users, if they take responsibility for the edits, they should take into account the rationale explained in WP:BMB, and consider whether the value of the particular edit they are reinstating outweighs the overall damage to Wikipedia by allowing or encouraging the blocked/banned user to edit.

I hope that makes sense... --IamNotU (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Lee Carson
American war correspondent Lee Carson was assigned to the task force that liberated the Castle on April 16, 1945. It was then she took the only photograph of the "cock" glider in the attic. I have updated this information to now read correctly with sources and image. Thanks you. Maineartists (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)