Talk:Bloody Sunday (1939)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Old discussion

We would surely like to know what was Bromberger Blutsonntag.
It is Sunday - when ?
What happened ?
Why ?
What happened next ?
Who were the perpetrators ?
There was some official Communist propaganda but obviously there was also Nazi propaganda that we don't want to put in this article. Right ?
Kpjas

Added quotes from Nuremburg trials: there is clearly more than one point of view about these events. -- Anon.
There is another Bloody Sunday on 9th and 10th September 1939 there were 1500 Polish inhabitants executed in retribution for the Bloody Sunday of 3rd Sept.
It was given prominence by the Communist authorities after the war of course.Kpjas

Note that i have a book about Bydgoszcz which quite clearly proves that there was no such thing and shows how false data was collected by Germans (for example, they counted every Pole with German sounding name, some of people supposedly killed were found alive etc)

The actualisation: I've found interview with author of the book, which changed his mind and now is of opinion that massacre happened and umber of victims is about 358 (but definetely not 5.000). User:szopen
but other call him: partyjniak Cautious 22:41, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Moved to talk: The numbers quoted in document are now usually lowered to 20 to 40 Polish soldiers killed in Bydgoszcz at September the first, and in whole about 13.000 inhabitants of Bydgoszcz murdered during the war.

Maybe somebody can updare recent documents of IPN? Cautious 22:41, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeti, don't kwno why you removed "from already prapred lists". There is no point in arguing that there were no such lists: there were. The members of Nazi party, German activists etc were on that list. The intention was to separate people from that lists, not to kill them; the utter failure of Polish government was that it started action during the war, because making it earlier would made interning easier.

It is also not the sign of "germano-fobia" of whatever. The same were doing other governments and it's quite natural - interning, not killing. Szopen

Also German pastors and politicians, some of them very old, were taken from their homes and forced to walk, some of them never returned. The real Nazis were arrested before the war.

Except for the ones who hid their political preference, were agents, or parachuted down 2 days earlier. Duh! Space Cadet 14:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] factuality

[edit] diversant

The article uses the term 'diversants'. I couldn't find the word diversant in my dictionaries (I tried two of them).

What is a diversant? Maybe it is an incorrect translation of the Polish word 'dywersant' - however, I don't know that word either. Is it something like 'saboteur'?

194.149.80.4 4 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)

Dywersant means saboteur :)

[edit] Moved from WW II atrocities in Poland

Bromberg Bloody Sunday event and its consequences were summarized in World War II atrocities in Poland. This remaining material might be merged with the article:

"According to Nazi propaganda:

In addition to the events in Bromberg, throughout western Poland a portion of the German residents were rounded up, jailed, marched eastward, shot and buried in nearby woods. This all occurred in the confusion of the military retreat. When advancing German forces neared the prisoner marches, they were some times executed as a spies, but more frequently released.

German and Polish historians continue to argue about the validity of the claims.

As German forces gained control, immediate executions killed over 3,000 Poles, many with unproven culpability. More reprisals were soon to follow. A British witness described the beginning of the massacre as follows:

The first victims of the campaign were a number of Boy Scouts from twelve to sixteen years of age, who were set up in the marketplace against a wall and shot. No reason was given. A devoted priest who rushed to administer the Last Sacrament was shot too. He received five wounds. A Pole said afterwards that the sight of those children lying dead was the most piteous of all the horrors he saw.

Following this, the Wehrmacht troops began rounding up schoolboys in the street, who were similarly executed. The witness continues:

Thirty-four of the leading tradespeople and merchants of the town were shot, and many other leading citizens.

The troops then attacked the Jesuits, looting and ransacking the church. The priests were taken to a barn, where the local Jewish population was already imprisoned, and they were all subjected to abuse. Altogether, some 1,000 people were killed in the ensuing massacres." --Ttyre 14:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Lysy (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Language

I would just like to point out the quality of grammar in the text was horrible, and at some points I had to read sentances several times to infer any sort of meaning from them. I did my best to clean up the mistakes that I saw, but the sentances were sometimes simply too ambigious. Articles should only be written and edited by people who no only have a decent understanding of the language that they're writting in, but are able to produce a sufficiently coherent text. If not, please stick to contributing to the Wikipedia in your language. Sooner or later someone will see the need for the article in their language and translate it.

[edit] Current Polish Position

Nothing on this talk page deals with an unbiased current Polish interpretation of what happened on Bromberg Bloody Sunday. Did it happen or not? Not, what happened before or after, but during the event. Dr. Dan 23:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's still disputed. Take a look e.g. at this (apologies for citing in Polish):
W „Nowej Trybunie Opolskiej” dyskusja o „Krwawej niedzieli” pomiędzy prof. Włodzimierzem Jastrzębskim a dr Tomaszem Chincińskim. - Nie znaleźliśmy natomiast żadnych dokumentów, z których by wynikało, że to Niemcy przygotowali słynną dywersję bydgoską. W związku z tym nadal bazujemy tylko na materiałach drugorzędnych polskich i niemieckich. A propos tych ostatnich - wśród polskich historyków panuje niezrozumiały dla mnie wstręt do źródeł hitlerowskich. Zakłada się z góry, że te dokumenty muszą być sfałszowane przez ówczesną propagandę. To błędne podejście. W tych dokumentach znaleźć można całe mnóstwo ciekawych informacji – mówi prof. Jastrzębski. - Ja wysnuwam zupełnie inne wnioski z tych materiałów. Dokumenty, do których udało mi się dotrzeć w Londynie, przede wszystkim meldunki polskich armii z 3 września, są absolutnie bezcenne, bo powstawały na gorąco – mówi dr Chinciński. „Krwawa niedziela – protokół rozbieżności” 10.09.2005 r.
--Lysytalk 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Dziękuję, Dr. Dan 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


1) German press and relations of Sept 1939 were prepared by the Propagandaministerium of Dr Goebels. In 3rd Reich there was a strict system of political control of the press. The propagandaministerium issued day-to-day huidance of what may be written in press and how. Also, the presentation of Bydgoszcz case was guided by Propagandaministerium. The term "Bromberger Bloody Sunday" itself was decreed by Goebbels for obligatory use in German press. Hitler-time publications are as true a representation of facts of Sept 1939 as, for instance, publications in 'Pravda' were representaions of facts in Afganistan during 1979 on. In this context it is not an 'abomination' but rather rational estimation of published German sources.

2) Post-war German publications re-write of what was written in Hitler times. The present usage of Goebbels' term "Bloody Sunday" is an evidence.

2) The shooting to people on the streets of Bydgoszcz was not a fact done in hidden rooms, but in public. The shots and casualties were seen by seen by thousands of people. Mr. Jarzebski came to the conclusion that what had been seen by those mass of people was their sheer mistake (and those bodies of Poles shot in the streets were surely a fatamorgana? or perhaps they were cause by that Polish officer who allegedly shoot up in the air to open way for his military unit?), and he relies on Hitlerian and post-Hitlerian German publications. It is silly to believe it, I dare say. Quite similarly, also the existence of Gulag archipelago was "under dispute" some time and there was an unreasonable "abomination" of Soviet sources which "proved" it never existed. Please notice the similarities in both cases.

The Polish Pigons

I must ad, that the killing of German Civilians where not the first killings, done by the Polish on German. After the IWW in the areas witch where disputed like Upper Slesia their happend Killings against Germans True Polish the first time . A product of the peace treatys. Beween the war was a lot of unjust done against the German minoity from the Polish side and that endet in the Killings on the beginning and on the end of the Second world war, so it is a little bit amoral to blame everything only on Hitler and the Germans and to think the Polish are the peaceful unguilty pigons. J.

[edit] factual accuracy

"The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." Where is such a label at "Holocaust"-related articles. Or is this label only reserved for articles dealing with atrocities against Germans.

[edit] holo-bias

Why cannot anything remotely related to Jews be covered on Wikipedia without childish squabbling? Facts should be facts. Finito!

[edit] Temporarily removed

Seems to be a not supported opinion. Could you supply some details?


Killing of German civilians in Poland 1939 German numbers

"August Müller, witch worked for the "Commission for the history of German in Poland" a half German state commission, has created an archive with 4.332 Names of sure death Germans murdered by Polish because they where German in 1939 in the fist weeks of the war. That is the lowest possible number. The Chief of the police commission on this of the German Reich, Wehner gave on the 20.05.1964 on an official meeting in Mannheim the number 6.300,- Germans killed by the polish witch can be seen as the highest number witch was surged for. Anyway it is very difficult because Germans lived all over the huge Polish state and the actual serge vor victims took mainly place in the Part of Poland witch was German before the first WW so the number could be even be slightly higher. Johann". Yeti 15:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

IIRC it was the list of the Germans from pre-war Poland which died during September-October 1939. I've seen a number of 5000 dead. However, it's hard to call them "lowest possible number of murdered by Poles", since it is a number of Germans killed, not "murdered by Poles". It includes probably victims of lynchs as well as sabotageurs, killed by air-raids etc. It's hard to believe that only Poles died as victims as air-raids - bombs choose no victims. Szopen 11:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs A LOT of work

It says little to nothing and it lacking even the remnants of a citation effort. Furthermore, nobody in the English speaking world refers to this event - if they bother to learn about it - as the Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday...its Bromberg " " not only because nobody has a clue how to pronounce it (sorry Poland), but in a historical context, that is how it is remembered on an English page.--72.94.90.144 09:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, if the "English speaking world" learned to pronounce Côte d'Ivoire, they will learn to pronounce Bydgoszcz (sorry ignorants). Space Cadet 10:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Watch it there, Space Cadet. Do not try to make me feel like an "ignorant" foreigner...especially on my own turf. This is English Wiki. You have quite a track record as a Polocentric, and you don't even have the "excuse" of isolation and sheer size like the US does. I am raising the question as to whether it is referred to as Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday or Bromberg Bloody Sunday, and I'm pretty sure the latter is the case outside of Poland. I don't mean to be snippy Space Cadet, but you've started off on the wrong foot here.--72.94.90.144 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You watch it! And don't push "easy to pronounce" names over the correct ones. Space Cadet 21:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
PS: You never heard of German post WW I revisionism and you have a problem with me using the word "ignorant". Come on!

See for yourself:

2,550 hits for "Bromberg Bloody Sunday"

51 for "Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday"

Checking the article's history, I see that it was only recently changed to Bydgoszcz instead of Bromberg with the logic that it is either this, Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday, or its full German equivalent. I do not agree with either solution.--72.94.90.144 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the post-WWI revisionism suggestion relates to Bydgoszcz/Bromberg Bloody Sunday except your effort to classify this particular event as part of a supposed long line of German fairy-tales. I'm not sure I buy that.--72.94.90.144 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't change my comments just because you don't understand them. Let me educate you: "Post Scriptum" means "after signature". Google hits don't represent encyclopedic knowledge. The "revisionism" part was added by mistake, my apologies. It was meant for another anon. Can you please get an account? Space Cadet 00:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I know what post scriptum means, don't be such a smartass. I was simply trying to keep your comments seperate from mine so people can follow this conversation. In light of this though, I think it is pretty ironic that you changed the title of this discussion, which I designated before you even got here. But anyway, yes, I agree that Google hits do not represent "encyclopedic knowledge", but a mere 51 hits certainly suggests what I am suspecting: "Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday" is not how this event is referred to outside of Poland. Obviously neither of us is accomplishing anything here and naturally you are going to disagree with me, so I guess we should see how the rest of the wikicommunity feels. For the sake of our conversation though, why are you so sure that Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday is "correct" for reasons other than personal preference? Also, I'm kind of fascinated by Poland's representation on Wikipedia; is English really that predominant in Poland? Hardly anyone seems to speak English in eastern Germany, though the Czech Republic is a different story...--72.94.90.144 04:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

This incident does not seem to be referenced frequently in English. Based on publications, Bromberg is used slightly more frequently than Bydgoszcz based on Google Books ([1],[2]) and Scholar ([3],[4]). With that in mind, it seems the article should be moved back to the previous title. Olessi 05:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't insist on "Bydgoszcz", just a comment. English usage would probably depend on on the origin of the information and it can be equally "Bromberg" or "Bydgoszcz". As probably there are more German than Polish authors, I expect "Bromberg" would be more frequent (but I'm not sure of the "size matters" argument really applies here). On the other hand the city both before an after the Nazi occupation belonged to Poland and had Polish name and maybe we could respect that ? --Lysytalk 06:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an odd case, since it is not frequently discussed in English. I'm usually not one for worrying about local sensitivities, so I'd rather go with a name most commonly used in English, if applicable. I'll inquire if john k would be willing to provide input. Olessi 20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean who has more historians: Germany or Poland ? I think you don't need to ask john k to answer that question. I also expect that German historians, being more numerous, have overall more research output, so the German names will always prevail if quantity is all that matters. --Lysytalk 21:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to discern whether there are more instances of Bromberg Blutsonntag or Krwawa niedziela. I am interested in whether the "Bromberg Bloody Sunday" / "Bloody Sunday of Bromberg" or "Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday" / "Bloody Sunday of Bydgoszcz" are used more with WP:UE in mind. I would be fine with using Bydgoszcz in the title if that is the predominant usage. Actually, after taking a look at the other titles at Bloody Sunday, an idea to take into consideration is simply calling it "Bloody Sunday (1939). What do you think? Olessi 22:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Bloody Sunday (1939) would be consistent with all the other Bloody Sundays naming and then "Bromberg ..." and "Bydgoszcz ..." would redirect to it. --Lysytalk 07:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that too.--User:72.94.90.144 08:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday → Bloody Sunday (1939)– The desired title is neutral and fits with the naming scheme of similar events at Bloody Sunday. Olessi 19:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Why Bromberger Blutsonntag- Bloody Sunday ?

Some photos and partial lists of victims were shown in previous entry, but removed: Victims photos- Lists of victims names- click on massacre photos (Warning: very graphic. Much is written in order to whitewash the event, but in order to understand what was done one needs to see the photos from English language newspapers.

A book with names and descriptions Labbas 20 December 2006

[edit] WIkipedia isn't the place for questions

I(f you have a question, discuss it here, not in the article.Xx236 07:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jastrzębski

Jastrzębski has completely changed his opinion, so his old book shouldn't be quoted here. Xx236 11:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is still valid and many historians still cite it. Did Jastrzębski published any academic work criticizing his previous work? All I could find was one interview and much media coverage of it around 2003. PS. For the record, I stubbed Włodzimierz Jastrzębski.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German historians

German Wikipedia quotes Christian Jansen, Arno Weckbecker: Eine Miliz im „Weltanschaungskrieg.“ Der „Volksdeutsche Selbstschutz“ in Polen 1939/1940 In: Wolfgang Michalka (Hrsg. im Auftrag des Militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamtes) Der Zweite Weltkrieg - Analysen, Grundzüge, Forschungsbilanz. München, Zürich 1993, S. 484 - 4000 Germans in Poland died, of them 1200-1500 in Bydgoszcz.Xx236 12:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Details

MAny articles describing German crimes are more abstract and should be rewritten the same way, with pictures and other details. The other solution is to neutralize this article. Xx236 12:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I suggest to reconsider what is bias and what is not

n the context of Wikipedia's rules, I have the basic question why the shooting of German saboteurs is to be 'alleged' while the massacring of Germans is cited without any adjectives, i.e. a proven fact? The attack by 5th column was done in the eyes of thousands of Bydgoszcz inhabitants. Court evidence from the Polish side was collected as early as in 1945 and was submitted to Nurnberg Tribunal, which supported this accusation in his verdict. Please come to Bydgoszcz and meet many old persons in Bydgoszcz who witnessed the shots, remember from what houses they were done and remember those killed. There are or were at least similar number of Polish witnesses than German ones. Polish court sources were published. The amount of evidence produced is at least the same in favor of 5th column attack than those in favor of Germans' massacre. In this article German sources seem to be treated as less biased and more reliable than similar ones coming from Polish side. Pehaps German origin automatically assures less bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacek Kucharski (talk • contribs) 11:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] German and Polish relations

The relations wasnt so bad. The Germans has culture and sport clubs in Bydgoszcz. The polish football teams has played on german sport place in Patzer Garden... --84.142.196.110 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have a look at the murdered Germans

We could make atl least fair use of the pictures taken. Ther are plenty. For sample http://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities_p219-223.htm 87.234.156.16 (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh my godness. Shall we really to expect from the reader to stand the truth. The material is so cruel. Better forge. I can't stant that. 131.173.32.97 (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
So, we should use the photos prepared by Nazi propaganda? From a site, which contains literally thousands of errors, omission and hate speech? Come one, this is encyclopedia, not some nazi site. Szopen (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article is terribly inaccurate

I will rewrite it shortly; for now I will just tag it. The article sources currently are primarily "German amateur historian, Hugo Rasmus" and IIWW-time Nazi sources (sic!). Modern sources (both German - Günter Schubert, Das Unternehmen "Bromberger Blutsonntag". Tod einer Legende, Köln 1989 and Polish - Włodzimierz Jastrzębski, "Dywersja czy masakra", 1988) agree that the massacre was likely started by German fifth columns and that the number of German civilian casualities was lower (nothing more than what could be expected during a short urban fight between a regular army and uniformed militia, although the numbers are still disputed); crucially German planning from the very beginning assumed that the fifth column and the 'uprising' would be defeated by the Polish sources and wanted that as well as reprisal against the Germans (and hence German civilian casualties) because Goebbles propaganda needed this event as a 'proof' of "Polish war crimes". Polish Institute of National Remembrance published a document summing the above up in 2004 ([5]); --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another sad example how Nazi propaganda lives to this day. This article needs a great deal of re-working.--Molobo (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate references: for example, in 2006 an anon has rewritten the article adding five times a strange ref to Richard Blanke, The American Historical Review, Vol. 97, No. 2. Apr., 1992, pp. 580-582. See also: Wlodzimierz Jastrzebski,Der Bromberger Blutsonntag: Legende und Wirklichkeit. and Andrzej Brozek, Niemcy zagraniczni w poliyce kolonizacji pruskich prowincji wschodnich (1886-1918)'. First of all, one should not refer three publications at the same time; but in any case I cannot find any publication by Richard Blanke (otherwise a reliable scholar publishing on Polish-German issues) that can be traced to The American Historical Review in 1992; see Volume 97 ToC here - note it does not contain a single piece by Blanke. With that, the article does not contain a single reliable reference other than Roland Spickermann Orphans of the Kulturkampf which is used solely for pre-1910 background. PS. I did a quick check on Google Scholar trying to find any publication by Blanke that mentions "Bloody Sunday" or "Bromberger" and I couldn't find a thing. If anybody can provide the proper reference for that, it would be great; otherwise I'll likely have to remove the claims supported by this "reference" during my rewriting as unreferenced.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, I just discovered that one of the sources used is a online library of Nazi propaganda books and what seems to be a neo-nazi website. Disturbing to say the least.--Molobo (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Which one? The text does attribute several sources to Nazi era works, and I do believe that we should show how Nazi propaganda tried to portray the events (of course, with clear attribution). After all, their view is as notable as the Soviet claims that Germans committed the Katyn massacre. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This site http://www.jrbooksonline.com/, it opens with a quote of Hitler, picture of an "Aryan" girl from known Nazi poster with slogan underneath "tell her the truth about race", and lists things such as Jewish Ritual Murder resources, Racial Biology of the Jews etc. This 'thing' was used as source in article.--Molobo (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, a google will give you the material on JSTOR, which is a more reliable source that Google apparently cant access. I suppose someone has gone to a uni library and downloaded this or similar.--Stor stark7 Talk 23:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I even found what might be one of the referenced works [6]
Piotrus (talk · contribs), please please keep a check on Molobo (talk · contribs), thanks to your intervention here he has already proceeded to delete the sourced information, about a minute after your request for verification. Jeeez. is it supposed to work like this?--Stor stark7 Talk 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:V supports removal of unreferenced info. I will read through the sources you brought up and ajust the article accordingly; thanks for bringing them up.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frentz sources: Rasmus

Frentz cites Hugo Rasmus for more graphic details of the massacre. Can we get information the reliability of those authors? There was an unsourced claim that Rasmus is an "amateur" historian, such a claim should be clarified or removed (it sounds offensive). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Focus: Bydgoszcz or Poland?

While I think a good part of the Stor Stark 7 content was valid - I am in the middle of verifying and restoring it - the "German victims through-out Poland" section is not relevant and should be moved to a more general article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Strangely, for the moment this is the only article we have on the subject, and it should therefore be kept here as background information until the Polish massacres article has been created. And you should assume good faith, deleting material for "verification" does not sound as "good faith" to me.--Stor stark7 Talk 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I would not oppose creation of such an article using reliable sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus (talk · contribs), please stop reverting my edits using missleading edit summaries [7], you are restoring a very Polish POV version of the article, not surprising given your "operation Himmler" edits though. I guess the only way we will get this article into shape is by pointing out each piece of POV you've inserted bit by bit on the talk page. I'll look forward to it.--Stor stark7 Talk 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Do note I am in the process of restoring most of your content and reverting the user who reverted you. This article is overdue for major rewrite anyway.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
A proper way to go about it would have been to use my text as a starting point, not the reverted text version left by this new user --Stor stark7 Talk 14:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps. I just started working with the latest revision. Going back to the topic, perhaps a good place to discuss this would be the history of German minority in Poland? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats odd, considering you obviously knew that the latest revision by Antyfaszysta (talk · contribs), funny name that, was a massive revert by a completely new user, (whom you welcomed on his talk page), that used the edit summary: "propaganda".[8] Usually those types of edits only merit reversion as vandalism, not a warm welcome. Very odd choice of version to choose to start from indeed, Piotrus.
But as you say, lets get back on topic. There is obviously a strong need for an article covering Polish crimes against Germans. Perhaps one mirroring the one that your oft-time co-editor Molobo (talk · contribs) seems to have started: Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles. It would then be Polish crimes against ethnic Germans. In this article we could include not only these early massacres, massacres during the inter war period, the rapes and violence against Germans during the post-war ethnic cleansings, the concentration camps run by the Poles, the slave labor etc etc.
I also noticed there is need for an article on Flight and expulsion of Jews from Poland after World War II. But I'll deal with those articles elsewhere. So much work to do, we've barely scratched the surface of Polish history.--Stor stark7 Talk 15:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The claim that the germans caused their own massacre

Piotrus, I just realised that it was you who inserted the unreferenced claim in the article Operation Himmler that it was the Germans who caused the massacre. [9] Quote your text:

Operation Himmler was continued after the start of the war. Agents of Abwehr, Gestapo and Selbstschutz who have infiltrated Polish territory continued the campaign of misinformation and sabotage. One of the most infamous actions of that period was the inciting of the Bloody Sunday in Bydgoszcz (Bromberg), where German undercover agents organized an attack on Polish forces retreating through the town. In the resulting firefights a disputed number of German civilians were killed; Nazi propaganda would use blow this event out of proportions, increasing the casualties by a hundredfold and presenting it as a prime example of "Polish atrocities against the German people".ref name="Naziprop"For an example of Nazi propaganda document discussing this event, see The Polish Atrocities Against the German Minority in Poland Compiled by Hans Schadewaldt (Berlin: German foreign office, 1940) pp. 35-54, cases 1 - 15. signed testimony of Herbert Matthes, Bromberg furniture maker /ref

And I see that it was you who inserted the text about operation Himmler into this article. I have removed your text about operation Himmler from this article for 3 reasons. It is unsubstantiated, no sources were given for its relevance to this article, it was given a too prominent position, and the whole concept you are pushing is contradicted by the reliable sources that this strangely new character Antyfaszysta (talk · contribs) deleted just before your recent edits.--Stor stark7 Talk 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly this needs an attribution, I will look for a reliable source to back this assertion. If we cannot find one, it indeed should be removed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm so happy to hear you realize that now. Next time, please realize the need for such before even inserting the text in the first place. Thanks --Stor stark7 Talk 14:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Before recently, the articles in question were almost completly unreferenced; if we removed all uncited info we would have no articles at all. Now that we are improving the verifiability standards, of course our approach is different.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have completely misunderstood what I wrote in my last comment. Not surprising since neither of us is a native English speaker. Foreign languages can be tough. To be extra clear: What I meant was, please do not insert very controversial and un-cited information into articles, such as the un-cited information on Operation Himmler that you created and inserted into this and into that article just a few weeks ago.[10],[11]
It does of course please me to hear that you are now "improving the verifiability standards".--Stor stark7 Talk 14:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Connection between Gleiwitz incident and Bloody Sunday is drawn for example by Janusz Kutta, another Polish historian (here's an interview with him). I have made it clear in the article that this connection is not universally accepted by the historians, and I have attributed it for now only to Kutta and Pospieszalski, which do make it. From what I see, the connection is based on the 5th column argument, which - as the article also notes - is also not universally accepted (but certainly is notable).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

[edit] Polish

I have replaced the POV flag, and it should stay there until NPOV has been reattained. At the moment the article seems focused on Polish claims, and is unduly focused on polish suffering, (something that didn't even happen until after the massacre).

To get to the estimates of German victims you have to plow through a huge background section, a short massacre section reeking with Polish POV, an huge aftermath section detailing alleged Polish suffering, I'm specifically refering to data such such as that data presented by the polish communists to Nuremberg. Since when are they reliable to anyone in the west? Didn't they also accuse Germany for Katyn at Nuremberg? And first after that you reach any info on the actually massacred people themselves.

Piotrus (talk · contribs) I note that you have reinserted very litle of the info you chose to delete (through your strange choice of base version) about the German victims, such as what the Red Cross had to say. At the moment this article is a long way from NPOV and readers should be alerted to this.--Stor stark7 Talk 18:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to the POV tag, considering the width of literature available and our meger overview I am sure we are missing a lot of valid viewpoints, particularly as it appears that new studies have challenged some old, and both Polish and German historiographies are still not only struggling with each other but have failed to produce a 'monolith' approach. Please note that the work on this article is still ongoing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German/Nazi

We should be careful to distinguish between modern German POV and Nazi POV, and in general be careful with citing anything that traces its origin back to Nazi sources (which are not the paragon of reliability, to say the least).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polish/Communist

We should likewise be very careful to distinguish between modern Polish POV and Communist Polish POV, such as use of the term "Recovered Territories" (Sadly there does not seem to be such a clean break with its past in Poland as it is in Germany, many Poles still seem to push for this discredited propaganda term[12]). And likewise be careful with citing anything that traces its origin back to Communist Poland sources (which are not the paragon of reliability, to say the least).--Stor stark7 Talk 10:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This should be discussed at Talk:Recovered Territories; this term has been extensively used by Western historiography anyway. And Polish communist sources were relatively unbiased when it comes to Polish-German WWII history (feel free to cite works that disagree). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Please Piotrus, you disappoint me. You claim that the historians in a totalitarian Communist dictatorship who, amongst other things, created a myth about "recovered territories" to justify Polish sovereignty over territory annexed from Germany after the war (see the link above), that these historians were relatively unbiased? I would, for example pointing to the link I provided above, say that they were very much biased. It is you who defends the historians in a totalitarian dictatorship, so I feel that it is you who should provide sources that they were not biased. After all, if someone claimed that historians in Nazi Germany were biased it is not the one claiming they were biased who should have the burden of providing proof, it should be self evident.
Nevertheless, to humor your strange request Pro-consul:
Communist era historians were constricted by ideology and state controls[13]
The Polish communist government presented Germany in textbooks and elsewhere as a permanent threat to Poland, rooted in an intrinsic German desire to take land away from Poles and slavs. By 1985 Polish historians had begun to move away from that interpretation.[14]
The Katyn incident was taboo....[15]
--Stor stark7 Talk 19:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Polish historiography is biased. So is every national one, including post-1945 German. Nazi atrocities are minimized; denial is not uncommon, works of non-German authors that were too criticial were often ignored by the German academics [16] [17] - and such criticism comes from more reliable German scholars, such as Ulrich Herbert. We need articles on Polish historiography and German historiography, yes, but the bottom line is that both of them will be biased towards such issues.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Shall I take that response as a backtrack on your earlier statement that "Polish communist sources were relatively unbiased when it comes to Polish-German WWII history"?--Stor stark7 Talk 17:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
They were certainly less biased that Nazi historiography/Nazi propaganda, which unfortunately are often used without too much doubt by German scholarship.[18] [19] [20].--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I take your apparent switch of topic to be a reply in the affirmative to my question. As for the new topic you introduce: Of course Nazi propaganda was full of lies, Polish Propaganda was also full of lies. Lying is the ROLE of propaganda. Are you trying to compare Apples and Oranges here in order to make Polish historians seem more favorable when compared to direct propagandists?. As for the two books you presented as evidence for your claim that Nazi propaganda often is used by German scholars... I'm not impressed by the 2 sources. What did they have to say about modern scholars? Nothing really as far as I can tell. Although it was interesting to learn that Polish pre-war antisemitism was far worse than German antisemitism. And that leads to an interesting topic, that Polish histography consistently seems to have refused to deal with, namely Polish crimes, to the degree that when the revelations of crimes against the Jews[21] by the American scholar Jan T. Gross are Published in Poland the Polish state even tries to shut him up[22] Wow! In view of your many recent comments I'd once again like to admonish you to please remember to be on the lookout for any Polish historians who use Polish wartime propaganda as their sources.--Stor stark7 Talk 19:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Polish pre-war antisemitism was far worse than German antisemitism

  • would you be so kind to discuss here the subject Bloody Sunday (1939), not any other subject?Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German wiki

de:Bromberger Blutsonntag seems to have much useful information. Can it be translated and incorporated? Polish wiki is worse, the article is mostly missing inline citations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quoting Nazi German Reports?

Piotrus (talk · contribs), I don't understand this edit of yours[23] with the edit summary "move, shorten from uncessary details"

There you insert the following text:

"He quotes the Nazi German reports about the civilian victims and atrocities, later collaborated by a Red Cross commission that Nazis invited to the scene."

And delete the following text:

According to von Frentz Polish propaganda[1] claims that the massacre was caused by activities by German 5th columnists are very unlikely and contradicted by available facts, instead it was likely caused by Polish confusion and panic.[1] According to the German account of Peter Aurich the German population was unarmed and not involved in the conflict, nevertheless they were attacked by Polish civilians.[2] Some Poles who tried to stop the executions of the ethnic Germans were also shot by their countrymen.[2] The German dead included priests, pregnant women, children and the elderly.[1] An international investigation committee sent by the Red Cross confirmed that many victims had been raped, and mutilated before dying.[1]The mutilations included stab wounds to the eyes and missing limbs.[1]

My problem is that I can find nothing in the source to corroborate the new text that you wrote when you did a quote: "shorten from uncessary details" Which "Nazi German" reports are quoted? I presume that you are referring to something Christian Raitz von Frentz wrote that is included in the text? Could you please help me find it for I can't find it (the "Nazi" source) in the reference given. Perhaps you made a mistake? Cheers--Stor stark7 Talk 18:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The text has footnotes. Follow them until you find the source of the original information.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That reply was not very helpful Piotrus, please respect wiki policy on civility. The article as you left it after your edit reads like this:
Along those lines another German historian Christian Raitz von Frentz wrote that "In Bydgoszcz, the event was probably caused by confusion among the rapidly retreating soldiers, a general breakdown in public order and panic among the Polish majority after two German air raids and the discovery of a small reconnaissance group of the German army on the previous day.".[1] He quotes the Nazi German reports about the civilian victims and atrocities, later collaborated by a Red Cross commission that Nazis invited to the scene.[1]
Both references given in the text by you are to the book by Christian von Frentz.
Now, I already checked the footnotes before I asked, but I realize from your answer that you assume I had not done so. The source for the Red Cross data is page 211 of the book by Hugo Rasmus: "Pomerellen, Westpreusen, 1919-1939" Berlin and Munich, 1989
This makes no sence in relation to your very grave accusation in the text, which is why I requested an explanation, Piotrus.
--Stor stark7 Talk 19:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
And Rasmus source for that info is...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you source your Nazi allegation to the book by von Frenz and not to the book by Rasmuson mentioned in the footnotes I have no choice but to presume you have made a grave error. I presume from the citation given by you that the source for the info on the victims is the report by the delegation of physicians from Chile, Greece, Italy, India and Persia, sent by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Is there something you wish to add to this, or shall we after this little merry-go-round presume that it has been established that your text is erroneous and proceed to correct it?--Stor stark7 Talk 20:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There are several issues that need to be addressed here. We need bio stubs for Hugo Rasmus and Peter Aurich, at the very least, to determine their reliability (I've stubbed Polish historians cited here). The de wiki as I pointed above has a section on Nazi POV, this should be translated (and probably quite a few things from it). Red Cross issue is addressed below, and we need to look at Aurich's book to see what are his sources for those graphic and not very neutral details quoted by Christian Raitz von Frentz (who could also use a stub).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Let us not forget the most important question, Piotrus, that the text you inserted[24] violates both Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and also does not seem to completely fit with the edit summary. E.g. repetitive and unnecessary use of Nazi, seemingly to discredit the source, and the OR that it was "Nazi reports".--Stor stark7 Talk 16:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polish Witness/Red cross

How Red Cros established that victims were mutilated BEFORE dying? I know at least one Polish witness, who participated in exhumation of one German victim, who testified that body was not mutilated, while later the Nazis claimed that this victim was severely mutilated before the death. My question is serious. Szopen (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide more information than that if you wish to make a point. Do you know this alleged witness or have you read about this person. If you read about him/her, was it in a reliable source, and what/who was the original source of the information? How can we know that the Germans were talking about the same victim as your witness? As a side note, the Russians provided witnesses that it was Germans who had Killed the Poles at Katyn. Witnesses are not always reliable...
If we return the subject to the victims investigated by the doctors from the International committee of the Red Cross... My impression after watching perhaps too much CSI TV series is that it is not too difficult to see the difference between wounds that were caused before death and wounds caused after death. Here is a snipped view of a book, sorry I couldnt find better on short notice[25]
I would expect that this type of tampering of the corpses would have been exactly what was investigated for by the physicians. Also, I don't think surviving family members or neighbors would have allowed or kept quiet about the Nazi propagandists tampering with the victims bodies to make it look like their women had been raped or their friends or children mutilated before they were killed by the Poles.--Stor stark7 Talk 13:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstood my question. I know how one can establish whether bodies were mutilated before or after the death. However, I am asking how Red Cross carried examination of the bodies. When Red Cross came to Bromberg (26th September - just one day? In one day it's hard to examine properly all the bodies), how the exhumation were carried, who were the doctors etc. Did they just came and saw the bodies, or did they carried proper medical examination? As for the witness, I will consult my library Szopen (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
About Red Cross:
[26]. Xx236 (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. While there is no reason not to mention Red Cross visit, we should also note that the report cannot be considered fully reliable, as Nazis had duped Red Cross before. It would be great if we could find a reference directly criticizing this Red Cross report, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
All I can say Piotrus is, please review Wikipedia:No original research. Of course, if you do manage to find a reliable verifiable source that questions the reliability of this particular Red Cross report, then you can proceed to challenge it in the text. And please lets try to make it a reliable secondary source this time, I'm not keen on primary sources--Stor stark7 Talk 17:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jugoslav Civil war Incident, compared to the red cross investigation in 1939

The racak incident may be very educational here. Initial OSCE observers reported that bodies were mutilated and decapitated. Yet, Finnish report published after thourough investigation showed that bodies were NOT mutilated before the death, and attributed this to wild animals (including damage to the heads etc). I think it should be clear that a layman, even educated and even if he will see a lot of CSI TV, can not be trusted on the issue.Szopen (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Szopen, the Internationall group from the Red Cross sent to Poland consisted of physicians, not laymen. In addition, I'm afraid you may have seriously misinterpreted the data you are presenting here, and its relevance to the preceding discussion is very tenuous, to say the least. It has however some interesting similarity to the overall Polish POV in this article. I'll get back to that in point 3 further down.
Some facts from the summary of the article you refer to:
"40 to 45 Kosovo Albanians were killed in the village of Račak (Reçak in Albanian) in central Kosovo. The government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia asserted that the casualties were all members of the Kosovo Liberation Army who had been killed in a clash with state security forces. The international community did not accept this explanation, characterising the killings as a deliberate massacre of civilians by Yugoslav forces."
Racak_incident#Background: Members of an unarmed observer force from the OSCE reported that they found 40 bodies, all had been shot, and some were decapitated (were without their heads). A BBC reporter who was there with the OSCE observers reported that all victims had been shot in the head.
Racak_incident#Forensic_reports: The Yugoslavs and their Belarus allies (Belorussia is up there with North Korea in credibility by the way), physicians conducted autopsies and concluded that no massacre had taken place. The Finnish physicians later did their own investigation and concluded that the victims were all civilians, and that the missing heads were probably due to animals eating of the victims. "Six of the victims had sustained postmortem damage, most likely inflicted by animals. In addition, the postmortem decapitation of two of the victims was likely caused by animals after a severe trauma to the head. No signs of postmortem mutilation were present."[27]
So, what lessons can be learned from this?
(1) "I think it should be clear that a layman, even educated and even if he will see a lot of CSI TV, can not be trusted on the issue.Szopen" The OSCE laymen seem to have reported fairly accurately what they found. Dead civilians, some without heads. As far as I can tell they were not claiming anything else.
(2) Even disregarding point 1., equating the observations of laymen of the OSCE in Kosovo with the investigation by an international team of physicians of the Red Cross in Poland makes no sense and so is completely irrelevant to the discussion. A better comparison would have been to compare the Red Cross physicians investigation to that of the Finnish physicians. So in one massacre case a neutral team physicians confirm atrocities such as rape, in an other massacre a neutral team of physicians can show that decapitations were likely caused by animals eating on heads that had been severely damaged (probably by shots to the head)
(3) Even more interesting would be to compare the Polish and Yugoslav claims about the causes of the two massacres. The Milosevic regime in Yugoslavia claimed that: its police units had come under fire from "ethnic Albanian terrorist groups ... on routes leading to Racak village in the Stimlje municipality." In the subsequent counter-attack "several dozen terrorists were killed in the clashes with the police. Most of them were in uniforms bearing the insignia of the ethnic Albanian terrorist organization calling itself the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)." Doesnt that Serbian claim, discredited by the Neutral Finnish physicians, sound very similar to the claim made by the Polish regime when it claimed the Germans had been firing on Polish troops and therefore were killed? Maybe the Poles and Milosevic are in the same class... --Stor stark7 Talk 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course. The layman claimed that bodies were massacred, mutilated etc. The forensic report showed one close-range shot. The different reports indeed showed there was fighting in Racak. UCK claimed that all victims were victims of senseless violence, while for me it seems that at least half of the victims were killed in fight, and only half was killed afterwards. Finnish didn't dicredit Serbian claims -- they discredited only one of such claims, that they were in uniforms. Milosevic in his trial neatly asked, how many UCK fighers actually had uniforms anyway. :::But what's important it to note how long it took Finns to report their findings - and that in several cases they refused to made any claims at all, saying it was too late for any serious investigation.

Szopen (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Finns DIDNT said victims were civilians. They had not answered this whether they were or not, they just published facts. That the victims were civilians, was question of interpretation. E.g. killed woman and children surely were civilians. Szopen (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polish-German discussion

[28] Xx236 (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

IPN article [29]Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jastrzębski has changed his opinion

Jastrzębski opposes his old works.Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment at #Jastrzębski.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

He took part in the Polish-German academic discussion, see above. Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And do we know what he was saying? For all the old media reports tell us, he could have well retracted his words after this unfortunate interview.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The text linked above as 27, under Polish-German discussion, quotes Jastrzębski's opinion. Xx236 (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's quite interesting indeed. On a related subject, what is the reception for the work by Günter Schubert, which is said to be a German work significantly accepting Polish claims? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claims about preparing evidence

Please see here: http://www.ukw.edu.pl/zdj/ftp/kwartalnik_akademicki_8.pdf.

Piotrus, I have no time to translate it. Could you please do it? In short it gave examples how Germans were gathering bodies, e.g. victims of bombing (E.g. Ernst Springer, wounded during bombing and died in hospital from wounds), or arbitrarily were deciding that those are bodies of Germans, though the victims had no documents and could not be identified.

And I wonder how Stork will explain the military raports written in 3-4th September that soldiers are fighting within city, or that at least 20 Polish soldiers died 3-4th in Bydgoszcz fitghing with diversants. Or Polish witnesses reporting that they were shot at. Of course they all lied, and Polish officers prepared reports knowing in advance that those reports will be needed in the future to prove there was no diversion. Szopen (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good article in Polish: http://www.google.pl/search?q=blutsonntag+bromberg+red+cross&hl=pl&lr=&start=20&sa=N

E.g. About Max Gackowski, who was screaming "beat the Germans", beat one of them, and was then recognised by beaten German. He was then accused, and after interregotion he was released. WHy? Because Gackowski was gestapo worker, and as German he had no reason to attack other Germans, therefore judges decided he was innocent. Delicious. Also about Polish officers accused about shooting caught Germans, proven not guilty because German judges decided they had right to shot those Germans- BECAUSE THEY WERE CAUGHT WITH ARMS OR BECAUSE THEY WERE SHOOTING TO POLES. The article also claims that 34 Polish soldiers are known from name and rank, who died 3-4 September 1939 in Bydgoszcz during fights with 5th column. Szopen (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC) This of course does NOT mean ALL shot Germans were diversants. I am pretty sure that mob lynched a lot of innocent people. Szopen (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this is confirmed in some of the Polish officers' reports ([30]) - the same one which also confirm the diversion. I wonder, if those were supposed to be the faked reports, it is not common for the propaganda fakes to also include damning information about one's own side, now, is it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

Interestingly, any attempts to refer to "allegations" of war crimes in articles like the 4th Panzer Division or the 17th Infantry Division are continually reverted to being proven war crimes. On the other hand the events that took place in this article, are only allegations. Hmm? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] edits since 2006 =

This article has become rubbish. If you can't even write in proper English, then go waste the days of your life editing the Polish or German wikipedia. I have reverted the article to a version by Appleseed. It was the last, fully-legible, relatively-balanced sample. --82.212.17.136 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

....and then sifted through what has been added since then, up to the current version.--82.212.17.136 (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear anon (please consider creating an account). I've revert your version; the 2008 version contained more information (for example, about specific Polish units) than the 2006 version. If you would like to discuss some POV, please do so here, citing sections that need to be improved and explaining how they should be rewritten. If you'd like to edit the article, please do so on the current body; reverting two years of work is not very helpful and makes it next to impossible to see what parts you from the more recent edits you want to keep.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] article "cleansed"

I see that over time, this article has been "cleansed" of references to the systematic rounding up of Germans, their detention and their forced death march. Reading this aricle, one would get the idea that only a "confusion" of panicked shots were traded. Way to go, once again: "only Germans bad, Poles innocent" Bwood (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)