Talk:Battle of Mokra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Polish military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Idiotic phrases as "armoured detachment" and "mounted artillery detachment" have been changed to "armoured battalion" and "mounted artillery battalion", respectively. The Polish word "dywizjon" should be translated as "battalion", not "detachment". Look guys, it's 1/4-1/3 of artillery/armoured regiment, while detachment is simply "oddział"

Musashi.

Look whom we have here! Thanks for the feedback, Musashi, I really appreciate your comments. As to specific issues you raised - there is a serious problem in translating the Polish military terms to English. The very word dywizjon is really problematic, as it might mean basically anything, from unit, through detachment, command, air wing, detached group, flotilla, battalion, half of battalion or any other small unit. It all depends on the context. So, in other words, an artillery dywizjon might indeed be artillery battalion, while an armoured dywizjon might be much, much smaller than actual armoured battalion. Hence my translation. Halibutt 11:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] supposed war crimes

I would like someone to find a source for the following that I edited out of the page:

"...Polish positions in order to disrupt the Polish defence and use the civilians as human shields for the advancing towns. However, lack of coordination between advancing German forces allowed for the Polish reconnaissance squadrons to direct the fleeing civilians further southwards, towards the town of Kłobuck."

now, can anyone prove that indeed the Germans planned to use the civilians as human shields? is there a combat report that has an outline of the German Commander's combat briefing for the morning, wherein he orders for the units to advance close behind the refugees.

The problem I see with this is that it claims the Germans were evil devils. It also assumes that the Germans failed to coordinate, instead of the fact that maybe they waited until the civilians were clear of the combat area before attacking. It was common practise to remove the civilians from a combat area in order to ensure their safety. Now, why would these Polish refugees go into Germany? this is the first day of the attack, and there is no polish land behind them to seek refuge in, they can only go in one direction, which is in the direction of Polish forces.

--Jadger 22:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a source for such controversial information must be provided. I looked briefly on Google and Google Print, but could find no sources about use of human shields in this battle (although it's possible it may be in sources not online/Polish - not covered by Google Print yet). On a related note, I found a reference for use of human shields by German troops during the Warsaw Uprising: [1]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If no sources can be given to unequivocally say that the Germans used them as human sheilds, the book Panzer Commander: the memoirs of Colonel Hans von Luck is very useful in that he describes what I believe is the same action (although he doesn't state the location I think) but the description of the location is almost identical, and can be used to discount this slanderous accusation against the German forces.

--Jadger 05:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... And did you read any German WWII memoirs whose authors would admit to commit war crimes? //Halibutt 08:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

actually yes, Rudolf Höß, the commandant of Auschwitz wrote an autobiography in which he details atrocities he partook in. see the article about him for a quote from the book.

--Jadger 17:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

not to mention that you are assuming guilt by association. I don't know about in Poland Halibutt, but in the Western World the law says a person is innocent before proven guilty of a crime. --Jadger 18:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Hitler was innocent and was never tried. Same for von dem Bach, and many others. Eichmann's trial was not free either, so he was innocent as well. Long live the application of modern law standards to historical war crimes. Nobody ever tried anyone for Nemmersdorf, so it did not happen. Oh, and let's not forget about Katyn: it never happened since noone was ever tried. //Halibutt 09:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

do you actually think before you type? I never once claimed that Hitler was innocent, or that because Eichmann's trial was not free or fair that he was innocent, I just keep an open mind. and I never claimed that because no one has been tried for an atrocity, the atrocity never occurred, there is such a thing as unsolved crimes.

--Jadger 01:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You explicitly said above that the reason why the German WWII crimes should not be mentioned in this article is that no person has been proven guilty of a crime. If I misunderstood your guilt by association comment, then please inform me on how should I read it. //Halibutt 07:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You assumed that simply because Hans von Luck was German he committed war crimes, and covered them up in his war memoirs. It isnt even clear in this case if a crime was even committed. how can you charge someone with a crime that you cannot clearly varify has happened? --Jadger 14:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Either you got my comment wrong, or I did get yours wrong, or both. You stated that the crime did not happen because it is not mentioned in von Luck's memoirs. I stated that it's not yet a proof as the Bible does not mention the crime either, yet it does not mean it did not happen. Then we went into the innocent until proven thing. Besides, I do not charge anyone, nor did I refer to von Luck personally, I don't believe I ever even heard of him. Which does not change a single thing here. There is a source to say the Germans used living shields and there are no sources so far disputing that. Full stop. //Halibutt 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

well, my point was that since it was an unreferenced and controversial point in the article, it should not be used. especially when a man fighting in the action describes the attack and never mentions something as major as forcing Polish civilians to run in front of tanks. Now where is this source you claim proves that human shields were used, this has been removed from numerous articles claiming the same thing, and it has not been reverted yet (it has been many months since I removed it), no one has ever had something to say about it, except of course Molobo, or as he is more commonly known, Trollobo. --Jadger 03:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, offending a guy who cannot defend his good name is not what I'd call an example of civility and culture.

As to the sources, it's fairly easy to find, as it's already cited in the article. But you could find it on-line as wel, for instance here: here (Niemcy pędzili przed czołgami ludność cywilną, w tym kobiety i dzieci. W pewnym momencie zawahali się i w tym czasie ludność przeszła przez polskie pozycje. - The Germans forced Polish civilians, including children and women, to run in front of their tanks. However, at certain moment they lost orientation and the civilians managed to cross the Polish lines). //Halibutt 06:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I never offended anyone with a good name, Molobo tarnished his name long ago.

it is not cited in the article, hence the {{fact}} tag in the article. And that link you provided is hardly credible, not only does it have tonnes of ad popups on the opening page, but its links to "Top 100 military sites" are fakes, when clicked on it says "tricked into coming here? enter without voting". the site is not even slightly credible in the least bit, it tries to solicit your vote to make it a credible site with lots of adverts. when looking for credible cites to research from, one does not classify one that solicits your vote and annoys one with popups as a credible one

--Jadger 02:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mokra in Silesia?

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to get rid of the mention of Silesia? Mokra is not geographically in Silesia, it is simply in the Silesian Voivodship, but a few dozen kilometers from what is geographically, historically and linguistically known as Silesia (Śląsk). I'll check for a more apropriate geographical term. arczi 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Geographically Mokra belongs to Wieluń Uplands (wyżyna wieluńska in Polish), but that term is fairly unknown even in Poland. What's more, the area of Częstochowa does not belong to any specifically-designed historical region as it changed hands quite often. It's a part of the Kraków-Częstochowa Upland, but also a part of historical Silesia and even at times of Greater Poland (sic!). Besides, the city is rather a modern settlement (both villages merged in 19th century), so it doesn't really fit well into the mediaeval scheme of historical regions, I'm afraid. //Halibutt 00:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe we could describe it as "North-West of Częstochowa" rather than "in Silesia"? arczi 12:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jadger's copyedits

Thanks, the article seems much better now. Molobo, no need to react that strongly, his changes seem acceptable, at least to me. Or am I missing something here? //Halibutt 09:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)