At a guess, this is likely Neo-Nazi agitprop referencing either the mass expulsions of Germans from the East from 1944, or perhaps a more specific reference to the treatment of German POWs by Western Allied forces after 1945.

In the immediate aftermath of the major operations crossing the Rhine from March 1945, Allied armies found themselves with vast numbers of prisoners they simply didn't have the resources to adequately care for in the short-term. Several hundred thousand personnel were detained in improvised open-air camps on the left bank of the Rhine in poor conditions with low rations. This situation, while horrible, was temporary, and large scale prisoner releases began relatively soon after surrender.

This has been blamed on Allied malice and the claim might refer to this, although it was more to due inadequate food supplies being available in Germany (for civilians as well as imprisoned personnel) and the sheer numbers overwhelming the personnel available to staff and organise the camps.

Estimates are roughly 500,000 personnel imprisoned in these camps, with a death rate of 1 per cent, and up to 5 per cent at higher plausible estimates. These deaths were avoidable with proper planning and organisation, and what occurred certainly shouldn't be written off but there is no evidence of some deliberate policy to kill imprisoned personnel - rather a story of poor planning, incompetence and to some degree indifference.

Source: Frederick Taylor, Exorcising Hitler: The Occupation and Denazification of Germany

This should have everything you need.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses

I would write out a fuller answer, studied this as part of my degree, but it's a big effort to explain what is essentially rubbish history work being brutally crushed by the academy.

The literature is quite straightforward: James Bacque, 'Other Losses': Argues that it was much like you describe, newer editions have counterarguments to the book below. Günter Bischof, Stephen Ambrose, 'Eisenhower and the German POWs': Professional historians arguing against it in detail on a number of grounds, the product of a panel in New Orleans (NOP).

There are a few issues, however, with the official response; Ambrose is Eisenhower's official biographer (quite hagiographic and a bit muddied with a plagiarism scandal) and the US government have kept many of the records that would actually clear up the matter classified with little indication why.

phoenixbasileus' answer touches on many of the more reasonable statements from historians, as the NOP was at times quite reactionary, sometimes dismissing Bacque out of hand and not engaging in open debate.

Thank you!