I'm not sure where you first saw it but the fact that I first saw the accusations on 4chan's /pol/ board should speak volumes to it's validity. More serious publications such as, "Other Losses" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses) were slammed by historians for their unwillingness to abide by strict facts and matters of public record and relied on theories of conspiracy (Eisenhower willfully acted out a noted hatred of the German people by returning German POW's who's served on the Eastern Front but fled and were captured by US / western allies) to drive a thesis which is, if you guessed, based on bunk facts and presumptions. You also have to consider works that rely on using capitalized letters to indicated where your eyes are supposed to focus as though you're an infant while pushing the narrative that Eisenhower was by decent a Swedish Jew which naturally meant that he hated Germany because....Germany. Mind you, such an article (http://www.rense.com/general46/germ.htm) will neither list an author nor abide by things like a list of works cited. Oh, and Patton was assassinated, just like Lawrence of Arabia for his "pro-fascist" views. I'd be loathe to even write about these things if I wasn't legitimately laughing so hard at the absurdity of some of the claims.
While it's not exactly a secret that Eisenhower and FDR thought poorly on the Germans- FDR is on the record as having said that they could all starve to death for all he cared when it came time to plan for a post-war occupation of Germany- but so far as an organized death camp to kill German POW's you will be wanting for demonstrable proof.
That is, unless, you're talking about SS soldiers. They were treated quite differently from the average rank and file because of their organization's reputation and association with various war crimes. It could also be argued that the Nuremberg Trials was in itself a form of "death camp" where the presumption of guilt was a forgone conclusion and the trial itself was just a show of victor's justice.
Otherwise while there were certainly deaths in POW camps, at some level it was simply unavoidable. While there was a concrete effort on the part of the western allies to guarantee that German soldiers were treated within the bounds of the Geneva Accords and similar laws which obligated the occupying forces to supply said individuals with food enough that they might live- approximately 2000 calories daily- the reality was that much of the German army near the end of the war was both starving, and once captured presented a multi-million individual quandary: How does one feed and shelter their own troops and feed a foreign country who's infrastructure has been annihilated?
Deaths did happen but if there was any credible claim to the idea that there was a concerted effort to kill Germans, you'd be better suited to looking at Soviet camps where there was much less preponderance of human rights and German POW's were often put to projects which could arguably be considered a death wish on the prisoners in question. The Soviets employed the kind of slave labor practices designed to kill the prisoners while getting as much labor from them as possible- you had a flat rate of food which was just enough to keep you alive but wasting away. If you worked harder, you got more but never enough in relation to the calories consumed in the endeavor. If you didn't meet your quota, you got less food which only guaranteed a repeat performance. If I recall correctly about 1% of all POW's in the Western Allies' camps died- still a substantial number because the German armed forces numbered in the millions- while a much larger figure would never survive Soviet camps.
While there's always going to be the specter of simple logistics- no one was going to feed a bunch of prisoners at the expense of feeding their own people, law codes on war be damned- there was a more willful attempt amongst the Soviets to get more labor from the POW's. Whether this was intended to kill them is another ball of yarn.
This submission has been removed because it is soapboxing, promotion of a political agenda, or moralizing. We don't allow content that does these things because they are detrimental to unbiased and academic discussion of history.