Talk:4th Panzer Division

To end this

This has gone far enough.No reason for doubts were give.Throughout the discussion personal attacks, blocking without any justification accured, and yet nobody opposing adding information on the atrocities has given any reason why they believe the unit didn't do it. I am only doing this becuse the level of emotions in my opinion has reached hysteria: Quotes from the books have been used by another wiki user Szopen in discussion on wehrmacht war crimes on axis forum: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=466672 Since September the 1st to October 26th 1993, when Wehrmacht had full power over occupied Polish lands, from 764 executions, in which 24.000 people were killed, in 311 participated soldiers of Wehrmacht. It was documented by Szymon Datner in "55 days of Wehrmacht in Poland. Crimes done on civilian population in period 1.IX-25.X 1939", Warsaw 1967 and "Crimes of Wehrmacht - choosen documents", Warsaw 1974.

(Polish titles: "55 dni Wehrmachtu w Polsce. Zbrodnie dokonane na ludnosci cywilnej w okresi 1.iX-25.X 1939" oraz "Zbronie Wehrmachtu - wybrane dokumenty"

2 and 3rd september 1939 in the region of Rybnik group of Polish soldiers from 12 pp was captured by Wehrmacht. They were given no pardon, "they were throwed to tha ground and over their bodies were driving tanks" (Szymon Datner, Crimes of Wehrmacht on prisoners of war during WWII", Warsaw 1964). September the 3rd near Radomsko Germans shot down POlish aircraft and captured two persons from crew. One prisoner after tortures (cutting his tongue, ears and nose) was murdered. It was done yb soldiers of 4 panzer division of XVI corps of 10th army of Reichenau.

Shooting of prisoners or their mistreating were done by, amongst others, 2nd division of XVII corps of 14 army, 207 division infnatry of 4th army, 4 panzer division of XVI corps of 10th army.

--Molobo 03:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You have been reverted again Molobo, as per the discussion on this talkpage, and a patent lie (No reason for deletion given) has again been registered [1] and is to be compared to this. Thank you for providing the evidence for your request for comment. I know Szopen since long before I joined Wikipedia, but I am deeply concerned about the fact that you take your scholarly quotes from discussion sites.--Wiglaf 07:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Lady and gentlemen, may I kindly ask you to stick to the topic? While I understand the grievances of all sides involved, I'd rather you took personal comments/remarks/problems, as well as problems with common behaviour of this or that wikipedian to some other place. Let us discuss the specific issues of war crimes here and leave all the other topics for some other place and time. This would allow us to discuss more freely and with cooler heads.

As to specific concerns - the problem is that neither of the books has any ISBN number. They were published in times when the ISBN system was only starting in Poland and still the most common number all books had was the cenzorship file, not the ISBN or ISSN. That's why I could not provide the numbers when I civilized the reference links.

As to what Wiglaf wrote above - in fact quoting Szopen's posts in an internet forum is the easiest way as the book was published long ago in small issue (some 5000 copies altogether) and it's quite hard to get. Of course, if you want me to I can go to the National Library of Poland and make some better translations for you, but I hope there is no need to do that. I read the Datner's book in question and I must say that it was quite crushing. Mainly because it was a mere selection of source documents, that is original German reports, interrogation reports of Polish witnesses, Red Cross documents and so on. And there were also German reports on some of the crimes listed. After all German bureaucracy was pretty consistent in documenting everything the German knights did.

As to Revvar's argument, later supported by Wiglaf who continued the revert war, that the sources are polish books from 1961 and 1971 (cold war), I believe that he should post some more serious argument. Bashing all Polish historians just because they published their books between 1939 an 1990 is not what I would expect of a reasonable person. Are books on early middle ages published in 1960's equally wrong just because they were published in Poland? Similarily we could bash all historians of German war machine since they use documents prepared during the times of Nazism... Note that the collection of documents was published by an official Polish historical institution created to document the WWII crimes against Poles, the same that was later renamed to Institute of National Remembrance. So, all in all, I would have to hear some specific counter-arguments to make me think that there is something wrong with the sources we provided.

The other argument expressed briefly in the edit history was polish web site which equates wehrmacht with waffen-ss? are you serious?. Well yes, I am serious, especially that the site does not equate the two formations, just lists some crimes committed by Wehrmacht together with those committed by the SS, Gestapo, Hiwis and Waffen-SS. Contrary to West German 1960's propaganda, the idea of clean hands of Wehrmacht is an absurd and it was repeatedly proved wrong by numerous historians, both Polish, German, American and so on. It was even explicitly shown wrong at the famous 1990's exhibition on Wehrmacht war crimes in Berlin. Though the exhibition documented only the crimes committed after the German aggression on the Soviet Union, I find it strange that there apparently are people who still believe that the Wehrmacht did not commit war crimes - just because.

To make long thing short - so far I saw no serious, specific arguments against the chapter on war crimes in Poland. On the contrary, it is well-sourced and quite well supported. Why exactly should we cut it out? If there are no specific concerns with the sources provided, I would kindly ask Wiglaf or Revvar (what a nice name, but shouldn't it be rather Revwar?) to reinsert it. I will not do it myself, but unless some arguments are posted here I believe that Shauri's, Revvar's and Wiglaf's arguments are against Molobo and not against books by Leszczyński or Datner. Halibutt 09:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You are right in the fact that our concerns are about Molobo's trustworthiness. I have friends and relatives, such as prof. Aleksandr Kan, who were university scholars in a Communist dictatorship and they have my full trust, and I don't for a second believe that Polish cold war scholars were automatically unreliable. Believe me, Shauri has done her utmost to convince Molobo to behave like a civil Wikipedian, but has been met with nothing but contempt and guilt by association. We wish nothing else but to ask you take care of this matter and vouch for the reliability of the sources, since Molobo has shown little sign of trustworthiness.--Wiglaf 09:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have friends and relatives, such as prof. Aleksandr Kan, who were university scholars in a Communist dictatorship and they have my full trust, and I don't for a second believe that Polish cold war scholars were automatically unreliable

Your personal belief.If you don't produce a reliable source questioning the book that this stays your personal opinion. Believe me, Shauri has done her utmost to convince Molobo to behave like a civil Wikipedian, but has been met with nothing but contempt an Using false accusations an personal attacks ? Molobo has shown little sign of trustworthiness Speaking of trust-care finally to say what policy breaking led to block of my by you ? Doesn't speak much about your trustworthiness. --Molobo 10:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear... All right, but please be so kind as to tell me what exactly can I do with this matter. Perhaps this weekend I could go to the National Library and re-read the books mentioned in the bibliography. I don't know yet if I'll have time to do that as the books are quite long and translation of all the relevant parts would take me ages, but if that's what you really want... Ideally I would rather hear some counter-arguments before I go to the library. That way it would be much easier for me to simply find some relevant parts and not all mentions of the specific unit. Any counter-arguments would do, for instance that certain source claims that the 4th division did not do that or this source mentions that 4th division was not even there.

Alternatively I could simply translate the extract of Gumkowski's and Leszczyński's book published at the What For page (also in the reference page until you and Revvar deleted it). It is but a list of a few examples of attrocities, with some of them clearly related to the 4th Panzer division, including the massacre of Ciepielów. It is to be noted that, while the original source mentions the 4th division with certainity in this case, the author of the webpage added the word most probably in square brackets. I don't know why though.

As to what Molobo wrote above - indeed, it takes a little more than that to question a source and I'm happy that Wiglaf changed his mind and now all of us agree on this one. Halibutt 10:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Halibbutt, this is not a change of mind, but something we have hoped for all along. To have someone who can confirm that Molobo is not writing nonsense.--Wiglaf 16:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be also noted that Datner is used in scholary research to this day. There simply wasn't much political influence upon authors researching war crimes made by German forces in Poland, unless it dealt with Soviets or party. --Molobo 10:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Current research on atrocities committed by German forces in Poland uses Datner's works as reference. See IPN Regular bulletin of the institute from : http://www.ipn.gov.pl/biuletyn8-9_43-44.pdf

Page 19 footnote : 2 Zob. w szczególności S. Datner, 55 dni Wehrmachtu w Polsce. Zbrodnie dokonane na polskiej ludności cywilnej w okresie 1 IX–25 X 1939 r.,

2 Look in : Zob. w szczególności S. Datner, 55 dni Wehrmachtu w Polsce. Zbrodnie dokonane na polskiej ludności cywilnej w okresie 1 IX–25 X 1939 r., Warszawa 1967 --Molobo 13:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the IPN bulletin quoted by Molobo above has a pretty little article by one of the prosecutors of the IPN explaining why the German post-WWII courts refused to prosecute any of the Wehrmacht war criminals listed by the Polish authorities. It's fascinating and I guess it might explain the problem some modern Germans have when they hear that Wehrmacht was no saint. To make long thing short, the guy listed some 15 cases of war crimes investigated by the Polish authorities between 1960's and 1990's and presented to the German authorities. In all cases the German authorities responded that either the crime might have been a result of unfriendly stance of Polish population towards the German soldiers, the crime was a killing and not a murder and hence is subject to non-claim or unlucky accident rather than a crime (as in the case of a deaf woman who was shot by a German soldier after she did not hear him crying Halt). All in all, my conclusion after reading it is that what is obviously a war crime to Poles, might be an unlucky accident to Germans. Which however does not make the war crimes less evident.

Anyway, I also asked Revvar to explain his stance and his/hers reverts. Unfortunately, he/she did not respond yet. Halibutt 16:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I will leave this to you Halibutt, but until you have confirmed Molobo's information he will be reverted. His comments above have finally convinced me that there is no way for communication to reach through to him and he will be treated accordingly.--Wiglaf 16:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

But still, if you claim the sources are biased, you should post some evidence to back up your point. And I mean evidence against the source, not the user who quoted it. Of course, I might help you in this case and do one of the things I mentioned above to clear your doubts, but you'll have to help me and at least state what was wrong with that chapter. The only reasonable claim so far was that it was written by Molobo whom you do not trust. Yet, it is confirmed by at least two online sources and some of the info is confirmed by my own memory. (I find the What For page quite trustworthy; it's often quite one-sided, but it's quite understandable given its main topic - the Warsaw Uprising - yet in most cases it's well-sourced and I never caught them on inventing things). So, it's not simply the conflict with User:Molobo. Also, as can be seen from this page, even he is willing to talk to others on this issue. But to start a discussion that leads anywhere, the other side (that would be you, Revvar and Shauri) should also provide some help and not only accusations of bad faith of one of the people involved.

Now it's your turn to provide sources or at least ask me some specific questions regarding the source I can check. Shauri mentioned verifiability and so far the stance of one of the sides is indeed verifiable. If there is a need, I can even verify the facts myself if that's what you really need. However, the other side apparently suggests that these war crimes did not take place. If that is so, then please be so kind as to provide sources. Otherwise I see no reason to continue the revert war and the only option would be to re-add the chapter and ask for admin protection, since lack of specific arguments (other than of personal nature) yet continuation of revert war borders vandalism, and that's not exactly what this article needs, is it.

BTW, regardless of what the final outcome is, that chapter should be expanded to include the attrocities against civilians and war crimes committed in other parts of the world - if there were any. Any of you have a decent monography of the unit at hand? Halibutt 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I will let you to handle this. To you he seems at least to be communicative.--Wiglaf 17:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

@Halibutt: Are your serious? We have to give sources that Molobo is wrong? This means that i can write everything, with sources from my old eastgerman history books, where the USA is the devil and the russians are godlike heros and the other user must show me that i'm wrong. If the war crime reproaches are true, then it should be easy to find a neutral and acceptable source.

But even if Molobo is true, it is absurd to write over every killed person, like " On September 6 yet another Polish prisoner of war was executed in the village of Czermno.". The inital sentence "Throughout its existence, the division was responsible for a number of war crimes" isn't documented with the rest of the text, which describes only war crimes at September 1939. Another missing but important detail is, which regiment(s) of the division did the war crimes (see also http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gliederungen/Panzerdivisionen/4PD-R.htm ). --Revvar 17:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

But even if Molobo is true, it is absurd to write over every killed person, like " On September 6 yet another Polish prisoner of war was executed in the village of Czermno.. This documents incidents of atrocities.Of course if they would murder 20people in one incident that wouldn't be divided by all of them but they would be counted together.If they aren't however its worth noting this incidents seperatly.Right now for example I am writing an article on one of Germn divisions who murdered almost 200 people in September Campaign.Its understandable that they won't be treated seperatly, except cases that researchers documenting the case have noted out(for example a German soldier smashing the head of 1.5 yearold child with his riffle during the massacre). As to regiments-that unfortunetly is hard to find out for researches, thats why term division is used or even better elements of the division--Molobo 17:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Are your serious? We have to give sources that Molobo is wrong? This means that i can write everything, with sources from my old eastgerman history books, where the USA is the devil and the russians are godlike heros and the other user must show me that i'm wrong. Such simple portayal would be easly described as propaganda.However research on war atrocities is serious and the author is respectable researcher whos works are cited to this day by historians documenting the atrocities Wehrmacht engaged in. --Molobo 17:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

New start

Ok, now that we have all the people involved in the quarrel using the talk page, we're halfways there. Good work everyone! In all negotiations the good place to start is the list of differences. I'll post what I draw from the above comments and correct me if I put something wrong.

• Me, Molobo, Szopen and the author of What For site believe that what was written in the book on 1939 attrocities in Poland is basically true.
• Revvar thinks that we should present a source published after 1945 outside of Poland or a Polish source published after 1990 that would mention it.
• Wiglaf and Shauri fear that this article is simply one of the battlefields used by Molobo in his alleged crusade, or whatever it is, and as such it should be double-checked before it is made available to wider audience not because it's incredible as such, but because Molobo has been previously involved in several edit wars over touchy matters and his stance was thought to be bizarre, to say the least.

Now on to my own oppinions: I was born and grew up in a city that has been brutally slaughtered by all sorts of German military formations, from Wehrmacht to Hiwis and from Gestapo to SS. Hence it is most probably easier for me to accept that Wehrmacht did commit the crimes it was accused of by several historians, be them modern or 1970's ones. On the contrary, someone born in West Germany and brought up in belief that the Wehrmacht was simply composed of soldiers fighting for their Fatherland and the bad guys were the SS and all the rest naturally finds it less credible. So, the proposed list of steps is as follows:

1. Molobo told me he will shortly obtain Datner's book. As soon as he gets it, I ask him to send me the relevant paras and I will translate them to English
2. I will try to check whether the specific regiments and battalions were named in the source for easier cross-checking
3. I ask Revvar to provide some arguments that the war crimes were not committed, possibly using the three monographies mentioned at the page he posted a link to. If my German is good enough, that page mentions that one of them hasn't got the first part published, but the remaining two should have something on it - or could at least provide info whether the division was actually there.
4. Then we could proceed and expand the chapter to include also the war crimes committed after 1939, if we find any in the sources. Help of someone who can obtain German books is crucial here as the online sources provided so far are either based on 1939 crimes or are mere lists of regiments and commanders.

Does it seem a good way to settle this discpute? Or am I missing something here? Halibutt 18:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I hold this matter closed on my part after you endorsed the sources provided by Molobo, thus my opinion on this matter is not needed anymore. I do however encourage you to proceed with your others suggestions, as they seem the best way to reach an agreement with Revvar, who is still concerned about them. I praise your attitude, Halibutt - you've been kind, collaborating, accesible and have shown a will to work on a solution, marking an immense difference with the position of Molobo. If he had shared just a bit of your intentions, all this would have been completely avoided. I'm also concerned that you actually had to babysit for Molobo and made him at long last attempt a constructive approach - the many wikipedians who disagree with him can't just go and bother you every time a serious discussion of his arguments and sources is required, something he always refuses to do. Keep on the good work and continue to act the way you did - that's what really marks the difference between a truly valuable wikipedian and a simple edit warrior. Shauri smile! 14:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Revvar thinks that we should present a source published after 1945 outside of Poland or a Polish source published after 1990 that would mention it.I already provided a resource mentioning the said book as a credible source of information in regards to atrocities made by Wehrmacht from beyond 1990. --Molobo 19:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Revvar thinks that we should present a source published after 1945 outside of Poland or a Polish source published after 1990 that would mention it.

As I said IPN uses Datner work today.But not only they do it, here we have: http://www.kean.edu/~hrc/filmsbooks.htm The Holocaust Resource Center (HRC) of Kean University opened its doors in the Fall semester of 1982. The Center is a joint initiative between the University and the Holocaust Resource Foundation, a private philanthropic organization. The Center collects and disseminates knowledge of the Holocaust to commemorate and strengthen education about the Holocaust. The mission of the HRC is to strengthen the conditions for a just and humane life in our society by collecting and disseminating knowledge of the Holocaust. The mandate for the HRC is to commemorate and strengthen education about the Holocaust. The Center offers an annual free lecture series and a tuition-free graduate course for teachers called “Teaching the Holocaust.” As enrollment in the course increased, it expanded from the University to various local school districts to allow for greater teacher preparation. The Center also offers a follow-up course called “Teaching Prejudice Reduction.” Thousands of teachers have participated in the project. The Center's educational programs serve as a resource for many Kean University students and members of the community.

The Resource Center also lists Datner as credible source of information: http://www.kean.edu/~hrc/filmsbooks.htm NEW BOOK ADDITIONS Added: (June 20, 2005) Datner, Szymon; Janusz Gumkowski;Kazimierz Leszcynski,War Crimes in Poland: Genocide 1939-1945 --Molobo 22:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC) So as we can see Leszczynski, Gumkowski and Datner are certainly viewed as reliable source of information by modern scholars. --Molobo 22:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Another example: http://www.umkc.edu/lib/spec-col/statland-bib.htm Suzanne Statland Collection in Holocaust Studies This bibliography lists 150 items that document the horrifying and abhorrent events that constitute the Holocaust. These materials represent only a very small cross-section of the Statland Collection in Holocaust Studies and other related research collections in the University of Missouri-Kansas City Libraries. Datner, Szymon; Gumkowski, Janusz; and Leszcynski, Kazimierz. Genocide 1939-1945. War Crimes in Poland. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Zachodnie, 1962. --Molobo 22:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Another example of modern scholars using Datner as credible reference: (warning the page is long) http://raven.cc.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/BiblPt2.htm (Cienciala, revised Feb.-March 2004).

(iv) The Poles under the German occupation.

Szymon Datner, Janusz Gumkowski, Kazimierz Leszczynski, War Crimes in Poland. Genocide 1939-1945, Wydawnictwo Zachodnie, Poznan, Warsaw, 1962.

Deals with German war crimes against the Polish population; has lists of executions by location. (see also Pilichowski below) --Molobo 22:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have finally had time to read most of the relevant discussion, and so far I have to completly agree with Halibutt, and mostly with Molobo. Molobo has provided many sources, while his opponents have provided none. True, those sources are not perfect, but until we have any sources to the contrary I see no reason for removing the relevant information from the article. I have seen Molobo accused of lacking good faith, but - at least in the latter part of the discussion I have read - I think it may be the other way around. Revvar statement "We have to give sources that Molobo is wrong?" is so preposterous I think it must have been a joke. Nonetheless, I would like all parties to refreain from any personal attacks and concentrate on providing sources, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Let me quote a very relevant part of this policy: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false. As far as I can see it, Molobo has provided sources better then his opponets, thus his information should be included in the relevant articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I've I repeat that the reason why I haven't made any statements in the last couple of days is because I no longer hold this as a disputed matter after Halibutt's intervention. Thus I don't consider myself an "opponent" (why such a harsh term, Piotr?) of any part here, at least not anymore. I thus strongly hope that your consideration of bad faith doesn't include the segments of this discussion where I was involved. Shauri smile! 14:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

@Piotrus:I don't think that a non reputable source is better than no source.

Why is it to difficult for Molobo to give other sources? It doesn't make any difference to me, if 4th Panzer Division did any war crimes or not. I just want reputable sources and not sources written during the cold war. It was in the russians interrest to blame the Wehrmacht to legitimate there revenge at prisioners of war. There is big difference between using a source and blind belief in a source. You have to consider the historical environment.

I'm also amazed that i can't find any incalatury sources about the 4th Panzer Division, and you should consider that we have a big Antifa movement in germany and there is also a exposition "Verbrechen der Wehrmacht" ;-).

Some sources:

• http://www.verbrechen-der-wehrmacht.de/docs/e_archiv/p_ausstellung1.htm --> "from 1941-1944" i don't think that the exhibitor mean that the war crimes from 1939 are not notable.
• http://www.bpb.de/publikationen/SIP831,0,0,Wehrmacht.html
• de:Wehrmacht_und_NS-Verbrechen --> "Diese Verstrickung betraf erhebliche Teile der Wehrmachtsführung und der Generalität sowie einer unbekannten Zahl einzelner Soldaten."
• --Revvar 10:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I still fail to understand your argument that all sources published prior to 1990 are non-reputable, even the ones that are found reputable by modern historians (as proven by Molobo's links). But I guess that we can't do much about your oppinion on that. As Piotrus pointed out, the criterion of verifiability is satisfied even if one of the sides does not like the sources provided. And I doubt there would be many more modern sources on the topic. Mainly because the WWII crimes of Wehrmacht were researched shortly after the war, not 60 years afterwards.

As to the Hamburg exhibition, you apparently forgot to mention (or did not know) that the period of the exhibition was subject of an inquiry of the Polish embassy, who asked why the crimes committed in Poland were not covered. I don't know if there was any reply. But the Polish reply to the German exhibition not mentioning Poland at all was an IPN-organized exhibition on Wehrmacht-committed war crimes in September and October of 1939. Note that it was co-authored by the German Historical Institute of Warsaw. Halibutt 14:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that the sources given are not perfect (they are relatively old, offline Polish sources), they are the best we have, and I am not aware of any criticism of those particular sources - well, other then your personal opionion. Yes, they are likely to containt some Polish POV, but virtually any off-Wiki source has some POV. Unless you can give us a source that specifically casts doubt on the Molobo sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability makes it clear that they are valid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, just for Revvar here's some more sources available online - for all to check instantly. The usage of civillians as human shields is mentioned in Grupa Operacyjna "Piotrków" 1939 by Bielski (Warsaw, 1991). The massacre of Śladów is mentioned in this article of Wielka Encyklopedia PWN, the most respected Polish modern encyclopedia. The complicity of 4th Panzer Division is clearly explained in the article on Śladów itself. The Official site of Kampinos National Reserve mentions the exact death toll as 252 POWs and 106 civillians. The site of the commune of Brochów publishes a pic of the monument erected to commemorate the murdered. It is also mentioned here, here and here. This site mentions the details of the massacre. In short, the 4th division was attacking a Polish position and used civillians as human shields. When the Poles surrendered, not willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people, they were all murdered at the spot, either by shot in the head or by drowning in Vistula. English translation available at request. Unless there are any other claims/doubts/requests I'm putting the chapter on war crimes back (with a little rewrite). BTW, Molobo, please let me know as soon as you get Datner's book. Do you have a scanner? Halibutt 05:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

A fistful of translations for Revvar:

1. [2] - In Śladów more than 300 prisoners of wars and civillians were shot or drowned in Vistula (children included)
2. [3] - During WWII, on September 18th 1939, the soldiers of 4th panzer div. of the Wehrmacht led by G.H. Reinhardt, murdered 300 Poles there (roughly 150 soldiers and 150 civilians), after the war a monument was erected to commemorate the victims.
3. [4] - Śladów - a monument on the bank of Vistula commemorating the Polish soldiers and inhabitants of nearby villages murdered by the hitlerites on Sept. 18th, 1939. There were 252 soldiers and 106 civillians killed.
4. [5] - In Śladów a monument was erected on the spot where Hitler's soldiers murdered Polish POWs and civilians of nearby villages
5. [6] - 3) A commemorative monument in Śladów. On the bank of Vistula there is a monument commemorating the dramatic events of September of 1939. The hitlerites attacking the Polish units defending the area used local civillians as human shields (lit. living curtain in Polish - Halibutt). Wanting to save the innocent people the Polish unit surrendered. Both the soldiers and the civillians were murdered.

Note that the translations are quite harsh and that in some instances I copied the Polish terms rather than translating them. In particular the Polish term hitlerowiec is hard to translate. It literally means man of Hitler and can be translated to, depending on context or personal preferrence, to either Nazi, hitlerite or German. Also note that in Polish the division onto German and Nazi in context of WWII is not as strong as in English. In particular calling Auschwitz a German camp is perfectly ok in Polish, while in Germany it would rather be called Nazi camp. Halibutt 17:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

War Crimes

Hello, I edited the War Crimes section. Till sufficient sources are brought forth for every member of this division being guilty of a war crime a broad generalization is not correct. The same for some of those war crimes mentioned. Sources are needed! Kenaz9 13:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't want to get into the discussion about whether those alleged war crimes really happened or not. It is more questionable for me to state all alleged "minor war crimes". WW2 was full of actions were eg POWs were killed and civilian collateral damages accepted: "Dehumanization" took place on both sides, everywhere. Having said this, I don't want to sanitize the Wehrmacht from any single crime one of its members had committed. But due to the fact that those actions happened on a daily basis everywhere, this page would be blown out of proportion in case you want to mention every crime. Therefore, I would suggest that you only mention well documented "major war crimes" like Malmedy or Oradour.

While I understand your reasoning, I find it highly unacceptable. Who are we to decide which war crime was major and which was minor? Is a massacre of 300 Poles, roughly 150 of them soldiers more or less notable than killing 84 American soldiers at Malmedy? And who should decide on that?

Of course, if it turns out that this particular division has committed a large number of attrocities in all parts of the world and the list would be too long, then perhaps we could simply concentrate on the more notorious, but so far I see no need to. Halibutt 12:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You are a very dishonest disputant. You imply that I stated a Polish life doesn't equal that of an American. And yes, a question implies it too, if it is used as an equation with a statement. You are disgusting, because I didn't write such claims. In fact, I wouldn't write it, it's simply not true. I simply wrote that you cannot mention every killed POW or civilian due to the large number of killed people in the course of the war. And who are to only write about Poles? Are Russians, Ukrainians and other people less important that you focus on your "own people"? The "Polish version" is in large parts about incidents of a small number of individuals. As I said, this page would be blown out of proportion, if you put together an accumulation of "minor incidents". If you can provide a reasoning that this alleged massacre of 300 Poles is documented and widely accepted by historians (not only by Poles) comparable to Malmedy or Oradour, I am with you. You have to distinguish this "acceptance" (a majority of historians accept it as a fact) from a dispute (a small minority says it is a proven fact). Your claims are mere "disputes" as long as you cannot provide a broad acceptance. Quak 15:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks (You are a very dishonest disputant, You are disgusting). However, I will assume good faith on your part, and disregarding those accussations against a well-respected edior like Halibutt I will address the issues you raise. Wikipedia is not paper - we have room for all minor details. An execution of a single POW is notable. You are free to expand this information with info on crimes this unit committed on other nationalities, but lack of this information in current version is no reason for their adoption. If we were to publish articles on Wiki only when they would be perfectly comprehensive, we would never had a single article. Again, Wikipedia:Verifiability states clearly that we do need cofirmation from other sources, the Polish source given above is perfectly adequate unless you can provide a source that disputes it. Even then, the usuall action is to note in the article that this information may be disputed, removal of it is rarely appoproate. The burden of proving that sources given by Molobo are false is on you, neither he, nor Halibutt have no reason to waste their time proving it to you any more then they have already done so. Innocent until proven guilty is the rule around here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No need to get hot-headed as I meant no harm and I'm sorry if you felt that way. What I meant is that your idea of "minor war crimes",as you put it, are somehow different than major war crimes. Especially that by major war crimes you apprently mean the ones well-publicized in the west. If I got it wrong, then I stand corrected now, no need to get offended - or offend thy neighbour. Also please note that I mentioned, that in case the article gets overcrowded with singular cases of attrocities, we might want to shorten it a bit, possibly moving the rest of cases to a separate article. So, we apparently agree on this one. In fact, as Piotrus noted, Wiki is not paper and we do not really have to care for lack of space.

As to your other remarks, the fact that millions of people were killed in WWII does not mean that singular murders committed against international conventions or the laws of war are non-notable. They might be less striking or less known, but by no means are they less notable - and less encyclopedic.

BTW, when it comes both to your arguments and to the discussion we had above with Wiglaf, Revvar et al., if it was me who added the chapter on war attrocities I would simply add a short statement about the fact that the division committed a number of attrocities and war crimes throughout the war, most notably in Poland in 1939 and that would be it. But since we have specific examples here, I find it even better. Halibutt 22:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry that I misunderstood you. My apologies. But I am always suspicious about those statements that are packed in a question and reality may be meant as a personal attack. Not a few people use this kind of tactic to attack the opponent.

But where we both don't agree is to collect all single crimes/war crimes, because the whole war was full of such actions. SS soldiers/NKVD Commissioners were directly killed after being taken POW. This even happened to Wehrmacht soldiers: After my grandfather and other soldiers were captured by the Red Army, two of his comrades were executed right at the place. Do I think that all these single actions are worth to be mentioned? No, because this happened on a daily basis in all theatres. This kind of warfare can be summarized in a chapter of WW2 or in a new page about the warfare in WW2. But where it becomes notable are war crimes that outstand the daily actions even if you apply the "standards of WW2". Those are the already mentioned war crimes in Malmedy and Oradour. Or if you can prove it as a fact the massacre of 300 Poles near the Vistula river.

But how can you prove it as a fact? Only by quoting one Polish book? Especially when it comes to sensitive allegations such as committed war crimes, we have to be very careful. In this case, it is not enough to refer to one single source. If this source and the content comes into the spotlight of more historians and after they examined the scientific method, the reasoning and they agree with it, one can talk about an established and accepted fact. But why isn't it mentioned in other books or articles? Why is such a big war crime not an established fact like Malmedy or Oradour 65 after it happened and 15 years after the fall of the Iron Curtain? Was such a major war crime (300 killed Poles) not worth to be mentioned in other books or did it not happen? Quak 00:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I have now read the Wiki policy on the usage of sources (Verifiability). This kind of usage cannot stand my own criterias and differentiations when it comes to very sensitive issues such as war crimes. But what is a fact? Defining it, we can only refer to a sequence of incidents that has really happened. The jurists talk about something that can be distingished between true and wrong. But how can you say what is true and what is not, if you have no witnesses who have seen it? You have to count on a convincing factual line of arguments. At least I assume that a convincing reasoning is shared by the majority of authors and thus can be regarded as the truth. In the course of getting to these facts I distinguish three major groups:

1. Allegation: If one sources states it as a fact, this fact is an "alleged fact", because other authors have not taken it into account. It can become an accepted fact, if a majority accepts it after having examined the sources.

2. Dispute: One sources is challenged by another author, because he is dissatisfied with the reasoning/applied method or refers to unnoticed other issues.

3. Established fact: Established facts are accepted by a majority of authors, because they have backed up the reasoning and the method of the first author: At least I can only be satisfied with this third group, if we deal with such serious issues as war crimes.

Because Wikipedia cannot stand my criterias for facts, that it is enough to write something as a fact,if you can only provide one allegation (source), I am not able to be involved in such a project. According to Wiki's "weak" criterias for facts (for serious issues as war crimes) Molobo's source is enough. But not enough for my differntiation. Therefore, this is my last statement on Wikipedia. I cannot identify myself with a fundamental policy. Quak 00:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ciepielów

The problem with German war crimes committed in Poland and their, pardon my French, popularity outside of Poland dates back to 1945 and the political situation back then. As Poland was puppetized by the Soviet Union with the acceptance of the West, it had no vote on post-war criminal trials. Hence there was no mention of crimes that happened in Poland on the Nuremberg trials. In part that was due to the fact that the Soviets did not like to be reminded that they were allied to Hitler in 1939. In part perhaps because nobody was interested. The fact is that there were barely any war crimes mentioned that would happen in Poland (apart from the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). And ever since the German war criminals accused by the Polish prosecutors were freed of all responsibility by the West German courts, under a variety of causes.

Anyway, the result of that is that you have hundreds of books on Malmedy in English yet I doubt you would find much in English about Wawer (107 civillians murdered), Piaśnica (up to 12,000), Ćwiklice near Pszczyna (220 POWs killed), Ciepielów (300 POWs), Barbarka near Toruń (roughly 600 civillians), Śladów (300 POWs and civilians alike), Urycze (100 POWs burnt alive in a barn), Szpęgawsk (up to 7500), Palmiry (at least 2215 killed) and so on. These places remain largely unknown outside of Poland and I doubt that there are many books in English on them. Note that the number of Google clicks for them is surprisingly low - yet there is no way to claim that these crimes did not happen as the cemeteries are still there. It's simply lack of publicity that makes them less known, not lack of credibility. Searching for Malmedy in amazon.com shows at least 16 relevant books on the topic, searching for Palmiry shows nothing. So, according to your criteria the mass murder did not happen and it's merely an unsupported accusation. And the best Polish book on the topic (by Władysław Bartoszewski) was published in 1976, at the peak of the cold war, so Revvar would not even find it credible. Halibutt 04:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

@Halibutt: What are your intents, when you write such things about me: "... so Revvar would not even find it credible." , "Bashing all Polish historians just because they published their books between 1939 an 1990 is not what I would expect of a reasonable person.", " Revvar (what a nice name, but shouldn't it be rather Revwar?)", "the other side (that would be you, Revvar and Shauri) should also provide some help and not only accusations of bad faith of one of the people involved."? You appear to believe to know what i'm "really" mean. Making jokes about other user names is'nt a sign of earnestness.

I want to clarify that i'm neither a "fan" of the 4th Panzer Division, nor do i believe that the Wehrmacht did not any war crimes.

I'm confused about all your links. How many prime sources we have now? Are all sources are based on Datners book(s)? Btw i'm not a polish, so it would be nice if you can show me the text parts, where the 4th Panzer Division is blamed.

The picture: Does " German 15th Motorized Infantry Regiment" is the translation of "Kradschützen-Bataillon 15"? Do you have sources with a higher resolution?

--Revvar 08:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, one by one.

1. You've expressed your distrust in historians working in Eastern Bloc countries during the cold war. Hence I assumed that, if you distrust them, you would not find their works credible. Correct me if I'm wrong.
2. The bashing remark refers to the similar remark by Wiglaf who noted that he doesn't think it is acceptable with scholarship produced under a communist dicatorship. I know far too much about governments' influence over scholarship, even in democratic countries, to consider cold war scholarship reliable. I found that remark not-so-reasonable since it threw all the people working in those times into one bucket, as if all of them were crazed commies spreading their propaganda to the left and right. Fortunately we reached an agreement later in the discussion and I don't feel the need to bring it up again.
3. The note on your nick-name was made by me when the only contact with you was through your taking part in a revert war, before you took part in the discussion. I aggree that I wrongly assumed your intentions and I'm sorry for that.
4. The other side remark was also made before the intentions of Shauri and Wiglaf became clear. I clearly referred to the fact that their only reason for revert was distrust in Molobo, and not what he writes. You seemed to fit the scheme as you took part in the revert war and I thought you simply support their arguments.
5. As to prime sources - as far as I remember there were some 5 of them altogether in Datner's collection, but I might be wrong since I read it a long time ago. In addition, there were two or three in Bielski's monography of Piotrków Operational Group. I can't say how many were in the book by Leszczyński and Gumkowski. BTW, I wrote a stub on Datner in case you wondered who the guy was.
6. As to the links I provided - indeed, some of them mention the division, others mention only the fact that people were killed. I posted them to provide more backup on the fact that this is not only an invention by one person, and even if it is, it's well-established.
7. As to the Ciepielów picture - I have no idea. It's original is held in the Archive of New Files in Warsaw and was provided by, as far as I remember the story, some anonymous German soldier who sent his pictures (some 10 of them altogether) with two pages of description of the massacre to the German authorities in 1950's, which in turn passed the originals to the Poles. As to the regiment - you have a point here as there seems to be something fishy with the original caption at poland.gov site. The English version mentions the 15th motorized regiment and so does the Polish version; I simply copied the caption from there. Now that you noted it I checked the German version of that page and it mentions the... 2. Panzerregiment. Strange, but I find the earlier version more credible, especially that it seems to be confirmed by a variety of sources. Among others has translations of both the relation of the anonymous German author of the picture and one of the Polish peasants who lived nearby and witnessed the massacre. And the header mentions that it was committed by the 11th company of 15th regiment of 29th motorized infantry division. Also, in this article it is mentioned as III motorized battalion of 15th infantry regiment of the Wehrmacht. This site also mentions the same unit and explains bot the story of the skirmish, the manuscript and the massacre in detail. So, I believe that the 15th Motorized Infantry Regiment is called Infanterie-Regiment 15 in German. And no, sadly I don't have any better versions of that picture.
8. Make a list of links and I will translate the relevant parts for you. Are you German by any chance? If so, there are some publications quoted here which seem to be related to our topic and perhaps might shed some light on it. This seems to be an extract of one of these.

Halibutt 11:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to keep you informed, Molobo notified me that he has received Datner's book, which could really help. Keep in touch. Halibutt 10:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Human Shield

I would like to put this argument about the idea of the Germans using a "human sheild" as a war crime. they did not do such an act, if one is to research common WWII frontline practise u would know that all land within 8 miles of the front lines were evacuated as quickly as possible. That is what happened here, the civilian population was being forced out of the area as to common military practises, and they were to go back to their own nation's lands, not the foreign forces side.Jadger 08:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a request for supporting citations to the "human shields" claim. --Lysy^talk 08:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks You Lysy, I have the book Panzer Commander: The Memoirs of Colonel Hans von Luck, which describes the protocols I described above. If no one can come up with a source for these statements that source can be better used to clarify that it was an accident.

Also, I would like to find a way of clarifying where it says 3 polish soldiers in civilian clothing were shot. According to the Geneva Convention those men could be punished (executed) for not being recognized combatants. As well I have noticed that all these statements of Polish soldiers being shot does not tell us anything other then they are shot. They were still subject to laws like everyone else, so perhaps they were being punished according to the Geneva Convention. there is not enough information given, so please whomever is the one who wrote that please clarify.Jadger 08:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

War Crimes 2

Obviously the contents of the War Crimes section is controversial and is going to be disputed now and in the future. Therefore, it would be useful if the sources of the facts mentioned in this section are properly referenced, whoever put them there. --Lysy^talk 17:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are we the only two people willing to discuss on this, and try to find out the truth in this? If Molobo and Space Cadet would note just under the edit box when they revert to Propoganda that there is a sentence stating:

"Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL."

Now, my question is, how can this be verified when they don't give sources and seem to pull these things out of there hat? (so to say)

--Jadger 19:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to give it some credit of trust and assume a grace period, say one week, until the end of March 15 to have the information in this section properly referenced. Would anyone object to this ? I have to admit I'll not be able to find supporting sources for that. I believe Halibutt might have some references ? Would a week be enough ? --Lysy^talk 19:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm done with part of the references. I suppose the ball is now on Molobo's court as he told me he has obtained Datner's book. Quoting numbers of relevant pages should do, I guess. Halibutt 21:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. While generally I would not trust individual web sites that much, these seem fairly consistent. I've also found a book reference of the Śladow events in "Puszcza Kampinoska" by Lechosław Herz, Pruszków 2002, page 289. He does not, however, identify the German unit responsible for murdering the civilians and the POWs, only uses term Nazi ("hitlerowcy") to name them. A small thing I've noticed is that the sources are not consistent on the number of victims (one claims 150, another 252+106) but I guess getting the exact number of murdered could be difficult. Unfortunately IPN's site remains silent about this. --Lysy^talk 23:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

which number will we use then if concrete proof has not been found? Will we say, "estimates of number of dead range from 150 up to 252+106"? Unfortunately feldgrau and the other databases on the unit's history simply state its location as "Poland". If we were to tie its location directly to the specific area, then I would be willing to say that more then likely this unit was responsible, unless there is information of a Nazi unit in the area (such as SS or whatever organization was in charge of the criminal actions at the time). I still think a direct quotation would work best, specifically in the part concerning the torture methods used on Polish aircrew.

Also the reference to "human shields" is troubling, as I have stated on the Battle of Mokra talk page.

--Jadger 00:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to solve it one by one. The number of victims. According to Polish PWN Encyclopedia:

18 IX 1939 żołnierze 4. dyw. pancernej Wehrmachtu, pod dowództwem gen. G.H. Reinhardta, zamordowali 300 Polaków (150 jeńców wojennych i 150 osób cyw.),

which roughly translates to:

On September 18, 1939, soldiers of 4th Panzer Division of Wehrmacht, commanded by gen. G.H. Reinhardt murdered 300 Poles (150 POWs and 150 civilians)

I think we could say something like: "about 300 POWs and civilians" in the article. This would seem a reasonable compromise between all these numbers. Does it make sense ?

--Lysy^talk 00:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"about 300 POWs and civilians" could be misinterpreted into being 600 people total though. and that still does not give any information into the situation of the executions. did that quoted sentence stand alone or was there more information in the surrounding paragraphs? such as recent combat or partisan action in the area.

--Jadger 01:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Almost alone. The other sentence mentioned that Germans burned the village. Too early for partisan actions in September Campaign. How about: "about 300 Poles (POWs and civilians) ?" --Lysy^talk 02:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

that seems fine, but I still think more information is needed. Not meaning to just start "what ifs" but perhaps the murders were a retaliation for inflicting heavy casualties upon the attacking force, or in response for the Silesian Uprisings, where there were atrocities and strong arm tactics on both sides. After all, this was in a part of Poland that had been ceded to Poland after the Silesian Uprsisings. beign stationed just accross teh border before invasion, it is highly probable that the troops heard extravagant tales of Polish actions during the uprisings, and wanted some form of vengeance.

Now on to the subject of "human shields". As I have stated previously, it was common military practise to clear 8 miles within the combat zone of civilians, to prevent espionage and collateral damage. Since this occurence happened on the first day of battle, the refugees from the taken areas would only be able to move towards the Polish forces, as moving behind German lines would of made them illegal migrants in Germany and would of more then likely gone to concentration camps. Of course at this time they thought allied troops would land in Poland and aid them, so perhaps the refugees moved back to Polish areas in hope of Poland not losing. The specifics on whether or not it was a case of "human shield" tactics I have started discussion on the Battle of Mokra talk page, so perhaps look at that before expanding upon it here.

--Jadger 02:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources and More

Several of the sources in the War Crimes section do not confirm precisely what the article states, which is inexcusable. Secondly, (granted, the Anglo world and any other ethnic community is no stranger to its own biases and manipulative focus) if you are unable to find your "facts" represented to a similar extent in other, non-domestic sources, maybe you should check the sources that your Polish source cites. The printed paper era was not flawless, but academic standards went a long way - unlike the internet, that is a third complaint. As for the content, I do not doubt for a second that atrocities took place, but that is to be expected, regardless of Nation or era, and few other alternative army-related articles go into such explicit detail about the crimes committed within that certain country's ranks (for some reason, you found any broad mention of Soviet related atrocities disputable on the Free City of Danzig page). However, I will assume good faith, as I also agree that the Free State article would benefit from exact citation (by the way, I own a Time-Life source which explicitly mentions German women being nailed to barn doors and raped, beaten and so on and so forth. Another source you might want to check out is Eye for an Eye).--Hohns3 09:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

Space Cadet, how is including a picture of executed persons in a trench, who may or may not be associated with the 4th Panzer Division's expedition into Poland, pertaining to a NPOV edit? Secondly, you have removed the wikipedia article advisory warning without addressing your point of view or making any changes. I can't wait to hear the explanation for this one, though I doubt it will ever come. --Hohns3 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The advisory warning removal was an honest, human mistake. And I corrected the edit summary into "restoring historical truth". Thx, Space Cadet 20:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Completely understood. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. As for the matter at hand and for the sake of illustration, perhaps you should examine the segment on Soviet war crimes in the Red Army article. Germans and Eastern Europeans know better than to brand their oppressors as those "fun loving Rus", but even then the article uses key words such as "revenge" and stresses a refutation of Army leadership complicity, arguably POV pushing in the opposite direction (killing civilians is revenge for an army-related atrocities?). While the article is careful not to break down the supposed "good guy" and "bad guy" distinctions within the Allied and German units themselves, its brief overview is sufficient simply because 1)absence of giant pictures of raped and beaten victims lining the page 2) no absolute denial of the crimes themselves. This article reaches new heights of unacceptability, going overboard with descriptions as well as graphic depictions of atrocities that may or may not be assoicated with this specific grouping. As I mentioned before, I do not doubt atrocities took place, but a brief generalization would be sufficient unless we're going to start to go into excess about the crimes of every nation's army in each division's wikipage, because heinous brutality in war is timeless. Fair is fair and though you may get emotional because it involves "your" people, you'll just have to trust me when I say its all been done before - just not at the same overall scale (thank you scientific racism and war industry-related technology). --Hohns3 04:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Warsaw siege4.jpg

The image Image:Warsaw siege4.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. --00:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Added sources

Added sources on atrocities in 1939, Polish history books are perfectly RS sources of information per Wikipedia. Also governmental sites can be used. Note that Szymon Datner is expert on the subject.--Molobo (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not when they are from Polish sources. They cannot be verified, so dubious and fact tags have been added. Englsh literature sources are needed here. That's all I have to say. I am not going to get into a debate with you because of past problems. Dapi89 (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

They can be verified - I don't see your point. If the sources are scholarly and reliable, that's all that's needed. And Dapi89, please be civil to other editors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? It is obvious that I have not been uncivil. Please stop being untruthful. Dapi89 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at Molobo's log I can see you are his most ardent defender. Therefore I don't think you can be relied up to deliver neutral arbitration. So I would request other authorities, other than you, to deal with this. And I want an apology for your false accusation. Dapi89 (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"am not going to get into a debate with you because of past problems." You are clearly being uncivil, and violating WP:NPA ("discuss articles, not editors").--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. It's away of avoiding yet more unpleasant accusations by this editor. It is the exact opposite. Dapi89 (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What accusations? The only ones I see come from you. I have warned you about incivility; now, please, discuss the article, not the editors. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you won't talk down to me, so keep your phoney warnings and threats to yourself. Your accusation is simple: you said I was uncivil, this is false. Dealing with the main issue, you are engaged in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. You are claiming that these authors are being truthful without question. It is customary to use "claim" or "claims" in regard to obscure "historians" or writers. What they say may not be the truth or correct. There needs to be an English speaking source - that way obvious bias and falsehoods can avoided. For example, who was this airman? What unit was he from? Who were these POWs, what unit were they from? It lacks detail, and is suspect. 21:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said: Consider yourself warned; further violations of NPA will be dealt with accordingly. Your edits in the mainspace are violating our policies: words like "claim" violate WP:WTA/WP:WEASEL; Polish sources are acceptable per Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources (English sources are of course preferred). If you want to argue that the particular books or authors are unreliable, you have to present evidence supporting your claims. I've looked into all of the cited authors, and they seem reliable, and well cited. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said: Consider your erroneous threats ignored. And no, "claim" is not a weasel word - more nonsense. It is obvious you cannot be relied upon to unbiased, so neutral arbitration is needed. Dapi89 (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For now, until I get my sources ready, I have removed the dubious tags. But where the use of "claim" is - there is no violation as far as I can see. So I would request third party arbitration. Dapi89 (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe you mean mediation. Although a WP:RFC may be simpler. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

<-- [7].radek (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Slight correction

Gumkowski and Leszczynski are historians not writers. The two professions of course are different, a historian is a scholar.--Molobo (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A moot point. The distinction was made already. Dapi89 (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Orel

The current article mentions a battle of Orel in 1942. It links to a Battle of Orel that describes a conflict that took place in the Russian Civil war. I am not aware of any such battle in 1942. There was a battle in 1943 after the failure of Kursk, where the soviet armies forced the Germans out of the orel salient, this was called Operation Kutuzov (talk) 29 September 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I know it comes about three years late but I have now removed the link to the civil war battle. Calistemon (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. All moved (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 19:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

---

• 4th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 4th Panzer Division
• 6th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 6th Panzer Division
• 8th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 8th Panzer Division
• 11th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 11th Panzer Division
• 13th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 13th Panzer Division
• 14th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 14th Panzer Division
• 15th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 15th Panzer Division
• 16th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 16th Panzer Division
• 17th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 17th Panzer Division
• 18th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 18th Panzer Division
• 19th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 19th Panzer Division
• 20th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 20th Panzer Division
• 21st Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 21st Panzer Division
• 22nd Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 22nd Panzer Division
• 23rd Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 23rd Panzer Division
• 24th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 24th Panzer Division
• 25th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 25th Panzer Division
• 27th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 27th Panzer Division
• 116th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 116th Panzer Division
• 155th Reserve Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 155th Reserve Panzer Division
• 179th Reserve Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 179th Reserve Panzer Division
• 233rd Reserve Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 233rd Reserve Panzer Division
• 273rd Reserve Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) → 273rd Reserve Panzer Division

– There is no ambiguity and no need for the parenthetical per WP:CONCISE/WP:PRECISION. This nomination does not include divisions 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 12, which are ambiguous. See relevant categories here, here and here. This should normally not be controversial, but WP:MILMOS § UNITNAME calls for preemptive disambiguation for "cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces". The problem with the status quo is that it strongly implies that there are several articles e.g. with the name 25th Panzer Division, while there is only one. —  AjaxSmack  02:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: 26th Panzer Division (Germany) → 26th Panzer Division has been removed because the former is a redirect, and redirects are ineligible to be current titles in move requests. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Unnecessary disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Definitely Support 15 and above. Less convinced on below 15 - if this is done a hatnote to pages like 13th Panzergrenadier Division (Bundeswehr) (also unnecessarily disambiguated) would be needed. But not objecting either. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ​I thought about adding hatnotes for those because the word "Panzer" appears in the title, but Panzergrenadiere are mechanized infantry, not tank, divisions. —  AjaxSmack  16:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    • It's not just the title similarity, it's that they appear to be numbered as one continuous sequence without the distinction. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
      • ​I just added DAB hatnotes to the 5 articles in question. —  AjaxSmack  21:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.