Talk:World War II crimes in Poland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Facts? What facts?

Why does this page even exist? Isn't Wikipedia a compendium of facts?

This page is the very definition of POV, because to call something an atrocity is to define it within one's own moral view point. Unless someone can come up with a rigid and unambiguous definition of atrocity, this page should be deleted.

Not only is this page not NPOV, but I was reading over the articles on "Original Research", and I think some of this qualifies.

"Origin of this policy: the opinion of Wikipedia's founder


Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described original research as follows...

   An article that 'makes no new low-level claims', but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively

original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one. ... I think in part this is just a symptom of an unfortunate tendency of disrespect for history as a professional discipline. Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history" (WikiEN-l, December 6, 2004)."

Non-standard interpretation of history? Makes no new low-level claims? That sounds just like half of these incidents to me.

Wikipedia is not a place for people to espouse their own theories, no matter how accurate they may be, because Wikipedians do not have the specialized knowledge necessary to verify theories. If the theory is not widely accepted by the community most capable of falsifying it (in this case, academia), then it has no place in Wikipedia. If you want to keep this article, I suggest that you redefine it in a sense which clearly labels it as interpretation, or that removes the interpretation from it. If this article doesn't receive some attention soon, I'm going to begin the process of deletion. --72.240.124.125 11:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use English

Isn't "Pomorz" what is called "Pomerania" in English? Bwood 22:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] First talks

"Regime of terror?" Who wrote this, GWB's speech writer?

This was trimmings from the article "Reichsgau Wartheland". Naturally, there are neutrality issues. Feel free to consult the rules about neutrality and to improve the material. - Bwood 04:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


It seems as though, at the moment, this page is only the start of something, but at the moment it would be more accurate to label it "World War II atrocities committed in Poland", rather than "World War II atrocities".

For example, any basic article on the more general topic should start with the holocaust, the Burma Railway, the Rape of Nanking, all of which already have pages on Wikipedia. You don't even mention the Katyn massacre, which did occur in Poland and against Poles.

I don't mean to tread on your toes, but maybe a disambiguation page with a summary of each of those events with links to their own pages would make a better start to this page, and the detailed information about Poland would be better served being on a different page. (Mistertim 04:34, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC))

Presumably this strictly Polish material is meant to be only the beginning of a more complete article, as Bwood said. Be sure to include the Bataan Death March, the fire-bombing of Dresden, and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would probably be most useful to break the article down by Axis and Allies, then by nation (though Dresden was by both the UK and the US - perhaps in one, and a short note in the other?) Tualha 05:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Less we Forget China

And then there is Manchuria and atrocities commited by the Japanese, and then the liberation of Northeast China by the Russians and the looting that went on.

And Nanjing. Stargoat 15:15, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Dresden

Someone forgot the Allied Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II, a punishment raid. Stargoat 15:15, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Let's move this

This article is good but if we include all the necessary incidents and the necessary explanation of what we mena by atrocities and why they were or were not considered atrocities at the time, the article will be far to large. I would suggest moving this to World War II atrocities in Poland and perhaps making this article the head of a series so that we wouldn't have to reexplain the criteria on every page. Rmhermen 14:55, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. This specific article should be a list of pointers to. And there probably should be a series of parallels (eg, WWI atrocities, classical world atrocities, age of exploration atrocities, Victorian era atrocities, post WWII atrocities, internal atrocities (eg, Stalin's, Saddam's, ...), and so on) with a meta page for them (atrocities against humans, perhaps) pointing to them. Ecological atrocities probably deserves their own articles. Thus, prehistoric extinction atrocities, historic extinction atrocities, saltation atrocities, industrial accident atrocities, ... Actually, having typed atrocity so many times its beginning to seem like there must be a better word.

But I'm serious here. There are so many, and the WP really should take advantage of such classificatory rubrics, that some such structure is needed.

Responses?

ww


I'm not sure of exactly the best structure. Note topics: Atrocity and List of massacres, also. Background on this page: moved it from the Reichsgau Wartheland topic, as I felt it was much detail on a single subtopic to remain where it was. I lean towards a structure like this:

  • Atrocities
    • Major event (sorted by date)
      • Theater (if major event covered wide geo area, mainly the two World Wars)

We must consider how the material ties into various history articles. - Bwood 19:33, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Text of old page "World War II atrocities in Poland", to be merged with the new one

The German invasion of Poland, which sparked World War II, initiated the Nazis' genocidal campaign against so-called inferior races, which came to be known as the Holocaust (particularly in reference to Jews) and Porajmos (in reference to Gypsies). In fact, however, the Polish people were the first group to suffer from genocidal policies: some 6 million Polish citizens, out of an approximate population of 30 million, died during World War II. Considering that about 3 million of them were Jews, that leaves roughly 3 million Polish victims, or about 10 percent of the country's population, who were also victims of the Nazis.

The origin of this campaign can be traced to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, in which he declares his hatred for the Slavic peoples and talks about their enslavement. Poles in particular were to be victimized, since their very presence interfered with Nazi concepts of Lebensraum. One week before the invasion of Poland, Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht to "kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language. Only this way can we obtain the living space we need."

During the Blitzkrieg, the Luftwaffe first initiated the policy of attacking civilian targets, strafing cities with incendiary bombs and attacking convoys of civilians fleeing the war. According to American ambassador Anthony J. Drexel Biddle, Jr. sent a cable to Washington stating that the Germans intended to "terrorize the civilian population and reduce the number number of child bearing Poles ..." The massacre at Bydgoszcz is perhaps the best known of the Wehrmacht's attacks on civilian targets, but 531 towns and villages were destroyed during the military occupation.

Once occupied, Poles were treated as Untermenschen, and it is noteworthy that this was the only European country without a civilian administration comprised of local collaborators (though it can be argued that no Poles agreed to collaborate with the Germans). Polish intellectuals (in this case meaning having completed secondary school) were immediately slated for execution (see, for instance, Tadeusz Borowski's fictionalized autobiography, This Way to the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen), but unlike the masses of Jews, who were slated (at least after the Wannsee Conference) for mass execution, most Poles were to be worked to death. This policy actually evoked the cynical comment from the head of the General Government Hans Frank, who complained that "The Reich wants to milk the cow ... and kill it."

Given the strong ties between Polish nationalism and Catholicism, the assault against intellectuals also encompassed the local clergy. So, while Poland lost 45 percent of her doctors and 57 percent of her lawyers during the war, the country also lost 18 percent of her priests. It was the only occupied country in which even bishops were arrested and sent to one of the 2,000 concentration and work camps throughout the country or to the infamous Pawiak prison. Underground newspapers frequently condemned Pope Pius XII for what they perceived as his indifference to the fate of their clergy.

The complete Germanization of the General Government began on November 28, 1942, with the order to deport all Poles living in the area. In practice this meant the diving of all Poles into distinct groups, with some showing desirable racial characteristics being sent to Lodz for further examination, others being sent to slave labor faciilities in Germany proper, and the last category being sent to the gas chambers in Auschwitz (until 1942, Poles were the largest ethnic group interred in Auschwitz). By 1943, however, with the war turning against the Germans, the exterminations came to a sudden stop, and the Germans began concentrating once again on using Poles as helots.

By the end of the war, the Nazis had reneged on their initial policies in Poland, and even attempted to recruit young Poles of military age to fight the Soviets. The scars on the country were too deep, however, though it is often forgotten that the Poles were the first victims of Hitler's campaign of genocide.

World War II atrocities in Poland List of Concentration Camps for Poles

[edit] Article on Soviet raping

The source of the following is unknown (from my files) and is placed here as food for discussion:

Red Army troops raped even Russian women as they freed them from camps By Daniel Johnson

THE Red Army's orgy of rape in the dying days of Nazi Germany was conducted on a much greater scale than previously suspected, according to a new book by the military historian Anthony Beevor.

Beevor, the author of the best-selling _Stalingrad_, says advancing Soviet troops raped large numbers of Russian and Polish women held in concentration camps, as well as millions of Germans.

The extent of the Red Army's indiscipline and depravity emerged as the author studied Soviet archives for his forthcoming book _Berlin_, to be published in April by Viking.

Beevor - who was educated at Sandhurstand served in the 11th Hussars (Prince Albert's Own), an elite cavalry regiment- says details of the Soviet soldiers' behaviour have forced him to revise his view of human nature.

"Having always in the past slightly pooh-poohed the idea that most men are potential rapists, I had to come to the conclusion that if there is a lack of army discipline, most men with a weapon, dehumanised by living through two or three years of war, do become potential rapists," he told The Bookseller.

He appears to echo the American feminist Marilyn French's notorious claim that "in their relations with women, all men are rapists, and that's all they are". Any such resemblance is, however, superficial. Beevor is careful to qualify any suggestion that what happened from1944 onwards is in any way typical of male behaviour in peacetime. But he admits that he was "shaken to the core" to discover that Russian and Polish women and girls liberated from concentration camps were also violated.

"That completely undermined the notion that the soldiers were using rape as a form of revenge against the Germans," he said.

"By the time the Russians reached Berlin, soldiers were regarding women almost as carnal booty; they felt because they were liberating Europe they could behave as they pleased. That is very frightening, because one starts to realise that civilisation is terribly superficial and the facade can be stripped away in a very short time."

Beevor's high reputation as a historian ensures that his claims will be taken seriously. Stalingrad was widely praised and awarded the prestigious Samuel Johnson Prize, the Wolfson Prize for History and the Hawthornden Prize. His account of the siege of Berlin, however, promises to be more controversial. "In many ways the fate of the women and the girls in Berlin is far worse than that of the soldiers starving and suffering in Stalingrad."

To understand why the rape of Germany was so uniquely terrible, the context is essential. Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1941, began the most genocidal conflict in history. Perhaps 30 million inhabitants of the Soviet Union are now thought to have died during the war, including more than three million who were deliberately starved in German PoW camps.

The Germans, having shown no quarter, could expect none in return. Their casualties were also on a vast scale. In the Battle of Berlin alone more than a million German soldiers were killed or died later in captivity, plus at least100,000 civilians. The Soviet Union lost more than 300,000 men.

Against this horrific background, Stalin and his commanders condoned or even justified rape, not only against Germans but also their allies in Hungary, Romania and Croatia. When the Yugoslav Communist Milovan Djilas protested to Stalin, the dictator exploded: "Can't he understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle?"

And when German Communists warned him that the rapes were turning the population against them, Stalin fumed: "I will not allow anyone to drag the reputation of the Red Army in the mud."

The rapes had begun as soon as the Red Army entered East Prussia and Silesia in1944. In many towns and villages every female, aged from 10 to 80, was raped. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Nobellaureate who was then a young officer, described the horror in his narrative poem Prussian Nights: "The little daughter's on the mattress, / Dead. How many have been on it/A platoon, a company perhaps?"

But Solzhenitsyn was rare: most of his comrades regarded rape as legitimate. As the offensive struck deep into Germany, the orders of Marshal Zhukov, their commander, stated: "Woe to the land of the murderers. We will get a terrible revenge for everything."

By the time the Red Army reached Berlin its reputation, reinforced by Nazi propaganda, had already terrified the population, many of whom fled. Though the hopeless struggle came to an end in May1945, the ordeal of German women did not.

How many German women were raped? One can only guess, but a high proportion of at least 15 million women who either lived in the Soviet Union zone or were expelled from the eastern provinces. The scale of rape is suggested by the fact that about two million women had illegal abortions every year between 1945 and 1948.

It was not until the winter of 1946-47that the Soviet authorities, concerned by the spread of disease, imposed serious penalties on their forces in East Germany for fraternising with the enemy.

Soviet soldiers saw rape, often carried out in front of a woman's husband and family, as an appropriate way of humiliating the Germans, who had treated Slavs as an inferior race with whom sexual relations were discouraged. Russia's patriarchal society and the habit of binge-drinking were also factors, but more important was resentment at the discovery of Germany's comparative wealth.

The fact, highlighted by Beevor, that Soviet troops raped not only Germans but also their victims, recently liberated from concentration camps, suggests that the sexual violence was often indiscriminate, although far fewer Russian or Polish women were raped when their areas were liberated compared to the conquered Germans.

Jews, however, were not necessarily regarded by Soviet troops as fellow victims of the Nazis. The Soviet commissars had commandeered German concentration camps in order to incarcerate their own political prisoners, who included "class enemies" as well as Nazi officials, and their attitude towards the previous inmates was, to say the least, unsentimental.

As for the millions of Russian prisoners or slave workers who survived the Nazis: those who were not executed as traitors or sent to the Gulag could count themselves lucky. The women among them were probably treated no better than the Germans, perhaps worse.

The rape of Germany left a bitter legacy. It contributed to the unpopularity of the East German communist regime and its consequent reliance on the Stasi secret police. The victims themselves were permanently traumatised: women of the wartime generation still refer to the Red Army war memorial in Berlin as "the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist". Bwood 23:44, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is barely ever mentioned in foreign publications, but there was a similar problem in Poland. There were countless examples of rape and plunder by the Red Army (mostly second echelon, the front-line troops had a decent reputation) in many of Polish cities. Halibutt 01:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article's overhaul

This article needs a major overhaul. Deportation of Jews and Expulsions of Poles sections have to be moved because they don't meet the definition of atrocities. Lengthy Invasion section should be summarized and partially moved to Bromberg Bloody Sunday. Following sections should be added:

  • killings of civilians during the Polish Campaign and until the end of 1939
  • atrocities against Polish, Russian, and Allied POWs
  • pacification of villages
  • round-ups and public executions
  • summary of "ethnic" atrocities covered by other wiki articles
  • other?

Will upload a set of photographs to select from. --Ttyre 9 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)

Can't wait to see'em. BTW, I created an article on round-ups some time ago. Halibutt 19:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 00:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute?

Someone added the NPOV dispute. However, I fail to see any at the talk page. What should be done to clear the supposed NPOV and erase the tag? Halibutt 06:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forced labor copyvio

The section "Forced labor" seems to be taken directly from the link given under external links, http://www.holocaust-trc.org/poles.htm , and loooks like a copyvio unless used with some kind of permission. After looking into this, it seems this information has been in the article from the very beginning, although some of it has since been removed, rephrased or changed. See [1]. Although containing relevant material, some of which is not found anywhere else on WP (such as the purple P used to mark Poles, preceding the more known yellow star of David used on Jews), I'm commenting this out for the moment as it is not attributed to the source (even though it is linked to later on), and a violation of copyright. --Cybbe 18:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the Soviet part?

Now it's eventually "Nazi atrocities in Poland". What is the idea to limit the area to "Poland" (which Poland, 1939?), so atrocities outside Poland aren't important? Xx236 13:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute Szopen 10:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it's about Holocaust, not the Soviet Union. --Kocoum 11:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The title doesn't say "Nazi atrocities in Poland" it says "World War II Atrocities in Poland" which means it should encompass all atrocities commited, not exclusively focusing on the Germans, which is a form of bias. Its interesting to note that there is no mention of the Katyn forest massacre in which over 25,000 Polish military and civilian leaders, soldiers, factory owners ect. were murdered by the Soviets and subsequently blamed on the Nazis by the allies. Seven German Wehrmacht officers were executed at the Nuremberg trials for a crime they did not commit, and 3 more were sentences to 20 years hard labour in Soviet Gulags. They were most likely executed as well since they were never seen again after being handed over to the Soviets.

Since this article has no mention of that inconvenient article, I am flagging this article as disputed until it has been properly revised.

Nazrac π 20:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] confusing German POV "logic(?)"

I reworded the following sentence to what I think it meant.

"Until the end of the September 1944, Polish resistance fighters were not considered by Germans as combatants thus when captured they were summarily executed."

do u mean to tell me that from October 1944 on the Germans saw them as regular combatants? that is not believable. and it was not only the Germans that didnt see them as combatants, according to the Geneva convention they were non-combatants, and the German actions of executions were in no way against the laws of war (except maybe the bad methods) when in the situation of being fired upon by non-combatants.

--Jadger 18:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how "according to the Geneva convention they were non-combatants". Space Cadet 18:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The uprising ended with a military capitulation and the Polish fighters were granted POW status and sent to a POW camps. Several insurgents of Jewish origin, in order to avoid immediate death, decided to hide their identity. --Kocoum 11:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
According to the Geneva convention the soldiers of the uprising did perfectly fit the definition of a combatant force as all bore distinctive signs (a white&red armband) and acted as a standing army and not a partisan force. Check the convention if you don't believe me. //Halibutt 11:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't question this. But I was always interested in the other thing - how treated were Germans taken prisoner in the initial days of fighting? I never heard anything more than "taken" and photos of being paraded to cameras (and in one instance, Ukrainians being marked). (I know all Gesiowka KL personnel who didn't escape were killed, including 3 German Jews mistaken with Germans.) --Kocoum 12:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

wearing an armband has not historically been deemed sufficient to make up an uniform, for instance in the Franco-Prussian war, franc-tireurs were simply given an armband and wore otherwise civilian clothing. One of these "combatants" could easily snipe or shoot at the enemy, then rip off the armband that you call an uniform and walk away, pretending to be a civilian. this is much the same way it was in the Franco-Prussian war, a great book on the subject is Geoffrey Wawro's The Franco-Prussian War. and also, photos being taken of soldiers being humiliated as they were by the Polish insurgents, is directly contrary to the laws of the Geneva Convention, why must the German side obey the Geneva Convention (which to the most part they did) if the Poles are not willing to do so as well?

--Jadger 13:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, check combatant definition. Polish soldiers wear distinctions (not just armbands) fought under leadership of military commanders, in regular units. They were simply, soldiers. As for second side, most of German PoW were treated IIRC well, except of SS personel. if you know about any cases of killing of German PoWs, post them here - of course no one will deny that in any army of any time there are always single accidents of shoting PoWs, so you should post examples of shooting PoWs on orders from the superiors. Szopen 09:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

But we are talking about the sentence highlighted in my first post in this topic, it says resistance fighters, not regular soldiers. the resistance/partisans did not have land controlled to put the German POWs into camps. and regular soldiers simply do not disappear into crowds as these partisans did. what else did these "soldiers" wear besides the armband? as that is all that has been told of their uniform

--Jadger 18:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

After the first days, mostly captured German uniforms, including great number of SS camos (with white-red armbands and helmet markings). Some had old Polish uniforms. Go see photos. Kinda like Volksturm I guess. There were no "crowds", as it was a scene of regular house-to-house fighting, resembling Stalingrad or Berlin in terms of intensity and devastation.
As for the German POWs, hundreds were taken, but I guess they were later executed in the eye-for-eye reprisals. http://www.polishnews.com/historia/powstanie1.jpg 115 members of SS were captured in the PASTA building alone, when it fell after a nearly month-long siege.

but those are not regular uniforms worn by all, and that is the point I made. They wear SS uniforms, what besides the armband differentiates them from the SS? again, rip off the armband and what do you have? someone that is perceived as not being a threat. The whole point of an uniform is to be distinguishable from your foe. take for instance the special operatives behind Allied lines in the Ardennes offensive, they wore American uniforms, with German markings underneath, how is that any different? as they had even more of a uniform on then the resistance fighters did. If one Polish fighter wears an SS uniform, and another a prewar polish uniform, what makes them unique? absolutely nothing. In that one picture they are wearing police uniforms, what is there to distinguish them from a regular constable then besides the armband which is in no way attached to the clothing so that it cant fall off or be taken off at will?

perhaps there were no crowds, but then there was the wounded in hospital, when the Germans came they could quite easily get rid of there armband, looking like an ordinary civilian. And how did they get these German uniforms anyways? I'm sure there wasnt a surplus store with tonnes of them just waiting for buyers. they would of first had to of killed the German soldiers before taking the uniform.

my point is this: this "army" was not one that fit the Geneva convention. And now lets get back to the whole start of this argument: If they always wore these "uniforms" then why were they not regarded as regular combatants until October of '44? One cannot make a band of rebels into a regular army simply by giving them a piece of cloth, and saying "this lets u go shoot Germans, have fun" --Jadger 14:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Armbands and signs - the very point is there were Polish signs and armbands, and no German signs and armbands (yes, armbands); working the both ways. Both sides even actually developed a changing system of how to wear their signs and a passwords, as to protect themselves from the night time infiltrators. Making no one "unique" is also the point of uniform (UNI-FORM - as of unification). The German forces also varried in what they wore, especially irregulars like Volksturm (who were actually created beacause of the Warsaw Uprising experience!) - not to even mention Wehrwolf (failed Nazi guerilla project). The German saboteurs in Ardennes were wearing American uniforms in order to POSE as American soldiers - that's spying, not guerilla (they weren't wearing armbands withs swastikas and German eagles on them, didn't they?) and the spies can be shot in the martial law. Yes, the German uniforms were captured "in tonnes" - especially in the large Waffen-SS storages at Stawki 4 street, but also in other places (magazines, barracks, police stations). As for buying stuff, it was common for years before (especially from Hungarians, Polish policemen and German deserters). The guy in police uniform was actually a Polish auxillary policeman who joined the insurgents (as practically all the force, like it happened in Paris too - no surprise I guess).
The captured partisans were not treated as partisans, because of the Nazi approach (just like the Soviet regulars POWs were not treated as a POWs) - and this including even ban of a very usage word of "partisans" since 1941 (only "bandits") by Himmler himself. And in Warsaw, they had Hitler's order to completely destroy the city and the Himmler's to kill everyone (EVERYONE). Which was however dropped after the first week or so, when they stopped organised slaughtering civilians by tens of thousands (and later even they were even agreeing for a cease fires for civilians to get out, Red Cross helped). It's interesting the idea of carpet bombing was dropped because of thousands German civilians and soldiers in pockets (German civilians were interned in a camps by insurgents, and so were the captured Wehrmacht soldiers). Radio BBC even threated to take reprisal action against German POWs if they don't stop execution captives (pure propaganda maneuver however, as everyone knows it would lead to the British prisoners suffering consequences in turn). Some Wehrmacht officers even rescued surrendered fighters from SS, as in after fall of Mokotow pocket a week before the end (there inclduing regular Polish and even Soviet soldiers). As for the urban guerilla resistance and forest partisans with dealing with captured Germans, the general (written) rule was to only disarm Wehrmacht soldiers (sort of a catch-and-go policy), but not members of SS and German police (actually, all members of German police belonged to SS anyway). Any attacks against friendly Hungarians were banned, and to attack the Polish police there had to be a valid reason.

http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/foto.htm for lots of pictures.

what I meant by unique uniform was unique from the enemy, and you know that, stop twisting my words. the whole purpose of the uniform was to be able to tell yourself and friends apart from the enemy. and what does wehrwolf have to do with this topic? we are not talking about some failed saboteurs that happened years after the war, stop trying to go off-topic the wehrwolfs were not fighting an army, rather attacking civilians whom they did not agree with.

and again you have no idea what I was saying, or you do, you just like twisting what I say. the Germans in the Ardennes wore the German uniform underneath the American one, in case they were captured, so they couldnt be killed as spies. My point was how is that any different then the partisans, they would simply rip off the uniform so they couldn't be punished.

In order for those German uniforms to be captured in tonnes at these warehouses and police stations, the location would of had to of been taken. now are you telling me that there were no guards or anyone at police stations, barracks and magazines? in order to get in they would of had to of shot the guards, but at that time they were not in any uniform besides the armband, which cannot be proven that they wore it.

you are wrong again "the captured partisans were not treated as partisans" partisans are not regular fighters and do not have any rights under the Geneva convention, so if they were not treated as partisans as you claim, when captured they were served with champagne and caviar at a nice restaurant, instead of executed like they should of been. that is your claim.

and BTW: where are your sources for these blanket cliams of carpet bombing and mass murder? If what you are saying is true, why is it not in the article?

--Jadger 03:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, i don't have time for arguing, so in short and no more. German saboteurs in Ardennes were shot because they were POSING AS AMERICANS, wearing their complete uniforms WITHOUT ANY GERMAN SIGNS ON DISPLAY, speaking ENGLISH (not the American English, oops "petrol"!), in short being spies, not guerillas or commandos. And btw, Germans were executing captured commandos as well (as a written rule) - and the Soviet political officers and the Jewish soldiers (again, on the orders - and using special Einsatsgruppen murder squads), and the Black French soldiers in 1940, and also of course MILLIONS of an ordinary Soviet POWs (including by mass gassing). That's about it the Nazi treatment of MOST of POWs. As for Geneva, read it first (to be a lawful combatant you need: distinct signs, military organisation, chain of command). They were more soldiers than the Volksturm paramilitaries, who were in great part just mob of an armed civilians who were given only an armband and a Panzerfaust (to quote Wikipedia: The Volkssturm "uniform" was only a black armband with words Deutscher Volkssturm with a series of silver collar pips pinned to the wearer's collar). The Warsaw Uprising article is here.

Would you please stop editing inside my signature, it makes it appear that I am making the nonsensical claims and not you. Now will you please come up with an argument instead of reinforcing my point and saying that you are against me.

  • Indeed, the commandoes were shot, because they were wearing the uniforms to disguise themselves, like the Polish partisans as I have been pointing out,
  • In no way was the armband a compulsory thing that every rebel wore, just look at the pictures you provided for proof. Many of the people in those pictures you cannot see their armband, and some are clearly not wearing one.
  • I have never claimed the Volksturm was a regular force, so stop comparing them. It could not matter less if the Volksturm were regular combatants, the point of dispute is the Polish partisans, not the German paramilitary organizations.
  • The Soviets had not signed the Geneva convention, and as a result did not follow it, that is common knowledge, that is why medics had to carry sidearms on the Eastern Front. just look at the number of German POWS returning from the USSR, most did not survive, and some didn't return until the 1950s.

In short: your whole argument is the tu quoque fallacy, and does not stand up to even the most simple criticism.

--Jadger 14:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photos for Jadger

[edit] Why was this article moved?

I noticed Kocoum moved this article to some bizarre, narrow title. Why ethnic Poles and not simply Poles? Why Nazi crimes and not German crimes (I mean non-Nazi crimes), not to mention Soviet crimes or our own, Polish crimes against the Poles themselves? I don't really get it. //Halibutt 08:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total dispute

This article has an obvious bias. Its not hard to realize its more beating of the dead Nazi horse.

Nazrac π 22:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be easier to correct that if you were more specific. What should be changed? What is wrong? Also, if you add the total dispute tag, you should state what is it that is actually disputed. Don't you think? Either give us your view or remove the tag please. //Halibutt 12:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you haven't provided any reason, I removed the tag. --Molobo 12:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KL Warschau a "public secret" ?

The very existence of the death camp part of the compound had been a public secret during the era of Communist rule in Poland. The reason was to inflate numbers of victims of the Warsaw Uprising, initiated by the patriotic Polish Home Army against the Germans in 1944, which was followed by a massive civilian casualties inflicted by the Nazis upon the city's population (see below).

Well, according to IPN [2] there were investigations in 1945-1946 and later in 1974-1976, and some people (F. Buschbaum, J. Niessner, M. Pelgar, F. Süss) were even sentenced to death for KL Warschau activity. Some prisons in Warsaw (like Pawiak) were very widely known. So how much of a secret was it ? Taw 13:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balcer's latest edit

I would like for Balcer to outline his latest edits and why they are needed. It looks me as if the article list of polish martyrdom sites (now deleted) has simply been moved to this page. not to mention that the word martyr is used rather loosely here and I think belies a POV. martyrs die for causes, I would more likely call them victims, not martyrs. also the edits are rather vague as to who did which actions, for instance it looks as if the list of gulag camps was perpetrated by the same people as the previous ones mentioned in article. Also the "list of places of mass execution is just place names with a link to the city article, some death toll or a link to an article on the massacres should be given.

so please, explain your changes

--Jadger 01:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the edit was to merge the rather awkward separate article in here, in accordance with what was suggested on the talk page. Feel free to edit further and improve as you see fit. If you don't like my edit, make it better. This is what Wikipedia is all about.Balcer 04:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to discuss it on here so that my work was not reverted once I had done so, thanks for giving me the go-ahead.

--Jadger 15:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New content to be included in the article

There's missing information on Piasnica Wielka execution site. From the Polish Wikipedia:

W pobliżu Piaśnicy Wielkiej, w 1939 roku hitlerowcy rozstrzelali i zakopali w masowych grobach około 10-12 tys. Polaków, głównie działaczy kulturowych, księży i inteligencję ziemi pomorskiej.
W tym miejscu oddział SS pod dowództwem Kurta Einmanna rozstrzelał także ok. 1200 nieuleczalnie chorych osób, głównie narodowości niemieckiej, umieszczonych w miejscowych szpitalach psychiatrycznych.

Kpjas 17:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think this should be exclusively the Holocaust article

And a Soviet crimes should be moved elsewhere. --HanzoHattori 10:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Why is that? Murdering people is atrocity only when done by Nazis?! Szopen 08:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The title is changed (it used to be "Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles" - see? redirected). Also notice how the crimes against the Jews are mostly ommited? About half of the Polish victimes were also Jewish, but this is not what the article is about. It's also listed in the Template:The Holocaust (under "Poles"). You know, The Holocaust was a Nazi crime (Soviets would help 1939-41, but then they became the victims too). --HanzoHattori 12:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki and this article

See also items should be included into the article. It seems that some parts of this article are written totally out of the context.Xx236 07:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German vs Soviet focus - proposed move

This article currently focuses entirely on the Nazi Germany crimes. I'd therefore suggest moving it to German World War II crimes in Poland (per Polish interwiki pl:Zbrodnie niemieckie w Polsce (1939-1945)). The article under the title should become a disambig between the new article, Occupation of Poland, Holocaust in Poland, pl:Represje ZSRR wobec Polaków i obywateli polskich 1939-1946 (when translated) and related articles.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

What is the deal with this article? There is a great deal of data given here but no source citations or attributions. The article cries out for about a hundred footnotes. Would whomever wrote the main text please provide source citations? Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with this article

I had another look at this article and I see a number of substantial problems with it that need to be addressed.


1) The title of the article does not accurately correspond to its content.


The article is called "World War II crimes in Poland" and yet the lead sentence says "This article details the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against ethnic Poles during World War II." About three million Polish Jews were killed during WWII, so if the article is to be called "World War II crimes in Poland", the crimes against Jews must be discussed.

Either that, or this article needs to be merged with the existing article Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles, which, by the way, is both better written and better sourced.

Also, almost all of the article's content deals with the war crimes of the Germans in Poland. There is very little about the Soviet Union here. If the article is to be kept as a separtate article, then the Soviet Union info needs to be added. Similarly, crimes by collaborationists, by Poles against Poles, by Poles against Jews, etc, would need to be covered as well.


2) Balance and neutrality problems.

Most of these are connected with item 1) above. The fact that an article called "World War II crimes in Poland" does not discuss war crimes against Polish Jews, is a huge balance and WP:UNDUE problem by itself. The same goes for the crimes by the Soviet Union.

Also, the second sentence reads "Three million non-Jewish Polish citizens perished during the course of the war, most of them civilians, killed by the actions of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union."

Lumping together the victims of Germany and of the Soviet Union into a single figure, without providing further details, is highly problematic as far as NPOV, balance and undue weight are concerned. How much of the three million figure is attributable to German actions? And how much to the Soviet Union's? This certainly must be detailed.

3) The complete absence of sourcing, citations, footnotes, etc, is very disconcerting especially since the article has been around for quite a while already. WP:V is one of the main Wikipedia policies and there is no excuse for ignoring it.

Somebody with sufficient knowledge about the subject, or with enough interest and time to track down the relevant references, needs to do serious sourcing work on the article. Right now I have half the mind to add "citation needed" tags to every other sentence.

I am placing a few extra tags on the article in the hopes of attracting attention of someone willing to work on improving the article.

Nsk92 (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)