Talk:Ratlines (World War II)

Vatican
So after reading up on this a bit it seems that the theoris about this accuse some set of priests physically operating out of Vatican City, rather than an orginized conspiricy of the Holy See so I have disambiguated the link in this article thus. Dalf | Talk 08:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * the opinions of authors selling books should not be in wikipedia

only FACTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

NPOV
"That is, these were suspected war criminals and quislings from areas occupied by the Red Army" I don't think the use of the word "quisling" is very NPOV... --John Lunney 01:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Gladio
I have removed the link to "Gladio" from the internal links since this organisation has been created within the NATO and has IMO nothing to do with escape lines for nazis or fascists. --Lebob-BE 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

More categories
I think this article should be in more categories than just "Yugoslavia during World War II" but I'm not sure what would be best. Any suggestions? heqs 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

original research
The stuff on these U.S. sponsored stay behind networks seems to be original research here. Where is the assertion that BDJ-TD was a ratline? Or Kibitz-15? Intangible2.0 23:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

pavelicpapers.com
This website seems to be down, but is supporting a large number of claims in this article. Alas.

Not a POV?
Clearly Wikipedia isn’t the home of points of view. However in a similar spirit how far can quotes from other sources be used to make an argument when they seem to lack the substance for the argument?

In this article there is a quote under the heading “The Case Against the Vatican” where a rat line investigator usurped his authority by searching Church buildings and got reported to his superiors by the Vatican Secretariat of State. He responds with an unsubstantiated allegation that “The aim of the complaint was to interfere with the investigation.” On balance this would suggest sour grapes but in this article it substantiates a heading “The Case Against the Vatican”.

Likewise, a mass media article about a freedom of information application seeking to substantiate various things including a claim by some unnamed “Holocaust researchers” hiding behind anonymity that Ustashe leader Ante Pavelic “made his way to Latin America using papers allegedly provided by the Vatican, and disguised as a priest”. Therefore a quote cited in a mass media publication (which often equates to ‘out of context’ or in some other way ‘misconstrued’) of some unknown people relating to some evidence speculated to be available sounds damaging for the Vatican. However this tenuous evidence is in the article in the section List of Nazis who escaped using ratlines as:

“Famous Nazis war criminals such as Adolf Eichmann, Franz Stangl, Josef Mengele, Erich Priebke, Aribert Heim, Andrija Artuković and Ante Pavelic, the latter "using papers allegedly provided by the Vatican, and disguised as a priest"[19], found refuge in Latin America and the Middle East.”

In other words the damaging quote has been pulled out and is presented as a fact albeit with allegedly in as part of the original quote. The Wikipedia article the “allegedly” would be reasonably interpreted as a witness alleging that something happened not some speculation. The practical effect is a mass media style pulling a quote out of context.

My understanding is that the prohibition on POV is no more than a prohibition on Wikipedia editors stating an unsubstantiated point of view. However, in an encylopedia article, when there is no actual technical breach how far can you take something that is in substance as problematic and as academically unsound?

User:jb3 12:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Respected this note to the point of removing 'alleged(ly)' as apparent distortion of the referenced text--71.252.101.51 (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

US Military slang 2008
"Our main concern is to find the rat lines," says General David Petraeus, poring over maps at a US military base on the banks of the Euphrates River, "and having found them, to close them." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo8rge (talk • contribs) 08:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Origin of term
How did the term arise? At least a passing mention would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.4.117 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but ten years later here we are still. Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

POV tag
I removed the following line from the section on Argentina: "On the other side of the Atlantic, the ratline escapees found their warmest welcome in Peron's Argentina." It is an interpretation to say they found "their warmest welcome...." The phrase itself sounds like it just came out of Lady's Home Journal. Not encyclopedic.

As some Argentines on Wikipedia have noted, the Nazi presence in Argentina pre-dates and post-dates the terms of Juan Peron. The German Argentine community in Argentina is the third largest ethnic group in the country, after the Italians and the Spanish. So, if the Nazis found a "warm welcome" in Argetina, that may be in part due to the fact that they had a large community awaiting them in Argentina -- a community in place long before Juan Peron came to power (or had even been born). This is undeniably the reason the Nazis chose Argentina specifically as a nation to relocate to.

So it would be best so as to avoid writing the section to portray that Juan Peron himself was a nazi. He wasn't. If we are going to suggest that he was a Nazi, then we'd better suggest that the Vatican, the United States, and everyone else who helped Nazis hide, were also Nazis. I am also going to remove the statement about Braden because it doesn't really pertain to the subject matter. That is a political accusation that Braden made against Juan Peron himself, not a comment Braden had made with regard to Juan Peron allowing Nazis into the country. Any historian knows that Braden actually, unwittingly, helped Juan Peron win the election to president because many Argentines were offended that an American was campaigning in Argentina. Argentine lad (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you removed it, what is the justification of the POV tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.162 (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor Change in intro
Removed the bit about the scope of ODESSA. It was accurate, but felt forced in, almost as an attempt at refutation of a point no one made. I considered rewriting instead of removal, but was unable to find a reason it belonged in the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.148.26 (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Racist term
"Ratlines" is a racist term that was used by the representatives of the victorious powers. It is racist because it compares humans to rats, hence, it's really not any different than former Nazi propaganda. While we should mention the use of this derogatory term, it seems more appropriate to move the article itself to a more neutral title, like Escape routes for fascists after WWII or something along those lines. When dealing generally with the escape routes, they should be described as escape routes, not ratlines. Mononokeoke (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the prevailing historical term. The allegation of racism is apparently your own. Use WP:RM, not a pov tag. Savidan 14:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not "racist" as it isn't applied to one particular race (it isn't specifically anti-German for example). Rather it simply describes all nazis (whatever their race) or being verminous. An apt description I feel. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Besides the discussion above, I believe that this article needs to devote some space to the origins of this picturesque word. (BTW, rats aren't venomous; they may be disease-ridden, but I believe the worst one will contract from a rat's bite or scratch is tetanus or rabies -- which can be contracted from the bites of otherwise cute & cuddly animals like dogs, cats & raccoons.) My first thought, upon encountering this word, wasn't that it was derogatory per se, but that it compared the Fascists seeking refuge after the collapse of the "Thousand-Year Reich" to rats fleeing a sinking ship; but I'm unclear how the word "line" came to be part of this word. Research & citations are needed to answer this, not speculations by non-specialists like me. -- llywrch (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "ratline" has nothing to do with rats. Originally, this meant ship's ladder and was derived from "rathelinge". Check the dictionary before you complain! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.134.151 (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Name change
The reference to WWII is misleading, since the "ratlines" were put in action after 1945. I changed it to "World War II aftermath".--Darius (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ratlines (World War II aftermath). 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/20071008205604/http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/pavelicpapers/army/ar0002.html to http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/pavelicpapers/army/ar0002.html

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) 03:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ambassador Llobet
Who is this person. Several searches gave no results other than quotations of this Wikipedia article. Braytonww (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Article cites conspiracy theorists
This article heavily references a book written by John Loftus, who has been called a fraud and a liar by serious historians. It also cites a book written by Uki Goñi, who isn't a professional historian. It also cites Pius XII, The Holocaust, and the Cold War, which is written by an academic, Michael Phayer, but has (understandably) been criticized by other historians who think that uses the aforementioned book written by Loftus (and Mark Aarons, another amateur historian). Pretty suspicious, especially given that most of the article relies on the Loftus and Phayer books as sources. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Loftus is indeed a conspiracy theorist, and the books he wrote with Aarons are trash. I don't know about Phayer. Goñi is better than Loftus by a mile, as unlike Loftus he provides evidence for his claims, but it's true he's not a professional historian. I suggest looking at academic reviews of Goñi's book to see how he is received. Here is one in German which defends Goñi from his critics. One serious error in this article is the claim that Goñi upheld the existence of "ODESSA". The opposite is true. Goñi used the name for his own purposes but was very clear that he did not believe there was an actual organisation of that name. Zerotalk 14:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * hiya. im bird 244. i made a post on the reliable sources noticeboard about the dodgy sources used in this page. i notified the wikiprojects for catholicism and military history as well.  while passionate about history, i lack the skills in terms of research and historiography to remove and replace the offending articles.
 * all this leads me to conclude that all pages where loftus is quoted as a sourced must have the sections removed and replaced. Bird244 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * addendum: all this is part of my wider annoyance with Pius Xii being smeared as a collaborator, with books such as those by David Kertzer somehow gaining much more traction in media outlets Bird244 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile
— Assignment last updated by APC04OU (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

on use of sources by Loftus and Phayer in this page
this page is at the time of writing currently being rewritten as it was discovered that some sources used were questionable at best and psudeohistory at worst. anything by loftus and phayer on this page will be removed unless it can be corroborated by unrelated primary and secondary sources Bird244 (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)