Talk:1st Independent Parachute Brigade (Poland)

Untitled

I was planning to put back the general's picture which I had replaced with the brigade patch. It's back now, but thanks Halibut for putting the pic back first, I changed it back to the original General's pic which is more 'action' oriented! :-) Pkmink 14:13, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

At your service :D Halibutt 14:38, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Patch ..

The 1st Independent Polish Parachute Brigade did not wear the diving eagle as a patch. It was issued in metal form for qualifying as a paratrooper, and the wreath was added for jumping into a battle situation or for jumping behind enemy lines with the Cichociemni. Regards .. Gary J. .. Son of a Polish Paratrooper - Arnhem Veteran

It depends on what you understand as a "patch". Indeed the Odznaka spadochronowa was worn in the situations you described. However, does it make it something else than a patch? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 02:31, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Halibutt, I'm only trying to point out that the "znak" - "Odznaka Spadochronowa" was not and has never been classed as a patch. "A patch" .. is made of cloth. Also, the "Odznaka Spadochronowa" graphic you have is of a later communist issue and not a WW2 combat issue. During WW2 when the badge was counter issued after a mission with the combat wreath, it is then not classed as and "Ordinary Parachute Badge", but as a "Field issue" ... For futher clarification I refer you to "Historia Polskiego Znaku Spadochronowego" authored by the late J.J.Lorys of the Sikorski Institute in London. Regards Gary J.

Strenght

Ekhm. Strenght of the unit (size, etc.) would be quite useful. Also I'd love to see discussion of why the unit was not used in the Warsaw Uprising.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can understand it had to do with 3 things: 1. Logistic difficulty, distances were still too far to fly Dakota's laden with paratroopers from allied territory to Warsaw. 2. Political reasons, allied support for the Uprising was luke-warm at best 3. Simple lack of sufficient qualified paratroopers for the big market garden operation. Every available airborne unit was highly valuable in this light. Pkmink 20:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Image of the Polish paratroopers

There are two versions of the image. One of bad quallity claiming that it are Polish soldiers; one high quallity claiming that they are British troops. The image is also in the book A Bridge Too Far and there it is claimed to be of two british soldiers. It could be that the image is out of place here.

Since the Polish and the British troops wore virtually identical uniforms it is not possible to determine whether the soldiers are Polish of British.

The original photo is in the Polish_Institute_and_Sikorski_Museum and was taken by a Polish Photographer. It is part of a series of 15 photos around Hotel Hartenstein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.16.63 (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

File:Polish Paratroopers.jpg

Polish_Paratroopers

Two British Airborne troops dug in

Fair use rationale for Image:Poles Arnhem.jpg

Image:Poles Arnhem.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cichociemni malpi gaj.jpg

The image Image:Cichociemni malpi gaj.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Exoneration

Why is the word "exoneration" used as a section title? They did nothing wrong, so for what would they need exoneration? I am changing it to "Post-war honours" CMarshall (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Double Images

Hi folks. I'm afraid to say that as someone noted above, an image on this page is almost certainly out of place. Whilst I've been doing some work I've noticed there a 2 versions of the same image floating around. One is here and the other here. I'm fairly sure the second (ie. British caption) image is correct, and this would seem to back it up. Does anyone mind if I remove the image on this page (I'm going to raise the issue at wikicommons too) Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't. Ranger Steve, is there any picture of the Polish paras at Arnhem this one could be replaced with? Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I can find on the IWM collection or wikicommons. There are quite a few in the photogallery here but I have no idea about permissions to use them. Sorry! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This article does NOT have a proper "order of battle" nor a proper "Table of Order and Equipment" for the 1st Polish, even though it claims both. This article is bullshit. Sosabowski is one of my ancestors. Get it right, or stop trying, (and failing)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.141.93 (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/content.jsp?objectid=16244
  • In 1st Independent Parachute Brigade (Poland) on 2011-05-25 06:53:04, 404 Not Found
  • In 1st Independent Parachute Brigade (Poland) on 2011-06-10 03:54:10, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1st Independent Parachute Brigade (Poland). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716063500/http://www.lintjes.nl/_en/militaire_willemsorde/mwo_polen.html to http://www.lintjes.nl/_en/militaire_willemsorde/mwo_polen.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Under jert

Thre of accepttce opacity Roderick Turner Rl343 (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)