Talk:Defence of the Polish Post Office in Danzig

The Tin Drum

Doesn't The Tin Drum deserve to be mentioned somewhere?

Dear anon, what's the relevance between TTD and this article?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the chapters of The Tin Drum, the Polish Post Office, describes the events (fairly close to the Wikipedia article, though not mentioning the flamethrowers) through the eyes of the protagonist, Oskar, and his presumed father who was an employee of the Post Office and was sentenced to death and shot as described in the novel. User_talk:Zapiens

In that case, yes, I think it is relevant. Probably worth mentioning in the aftermath as a cultural reference.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Post

"Post" is a very ambiguous term (among other things, it means "military base)." Maybe better retitle the article: "Defense of the Polish Post Office in Danzig"? KonradWallenrod 16:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection. The title is becoming rather long, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Short incidents tend to get long titles. World War II, with its short title, was a fairly long incident. KonradWallenrod 18:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, a military base it was, wasn't it? Certain buildings (and user accounts ...) are not what they pretend to be. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I love how someone linked "Going postal" to this article. Please let's keep it this way, because these brave people really went postal.

Hand machine guns

What are hand machine guns? I assume that's meant to mean submachine gun? Geoff B 19:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not sure. On pl wiki there is an article about 'hand machine guns' (pl:Ręczny karabin maszynowy) which is different from submachine guns (which on pl wiki are listed at pl:Pistolet maszynowy).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it means light machine guns, I see. No problem. Geoff B 00:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Polish nomenclature might at times be hard to translate as rkm (literally hand-held machine gun) might be both a LMG and a SMG, but in this case it was the earlier. //Halibutt 07:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

SS or SA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_Corps_Feldherrnhalle#Early_campaigns says SA. --HanzoHattori 10:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess both. Also, infobox illustration: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:Atak_na_Polsk%C4%85_Poczt%C4%99_w_Gda%C5%84sku_1.09.1939.jpg --HanzoHattori 10:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Would be nice to add those pics here, or to Commons.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Naming

"Defense of the Polish Post Office in Danzig" has only one source at Google Books: a Waffen-SS member. Okay, he has won a Nobel price, but not for history. The title is POV from those within the building. Do all Polish Post offices have caches with machine guns and hand grenades? "battle for the Polish Post Office in Danzig" "battle for the Polish Post Office" "attack on the Polish Post Office" ? The latter [1] is used by Steve Zaloga, W. Victor Madej: The Polish Campaign, 1939. "Fight for"? "Siege of"? -- Matthead  Discuß   14:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Numbers of polish forces (?)

Article claims 55 Postmen and civilians + 1 railwayman (56), german wiki claims 57, though only mentioning 40 danzig postmen + 10 from other posts plus a railwayman + the janitor + wife and adopted child (which comes only to 40+10+1+1+1+1= 54). The casualties section claims 6 killed , 14 wounded, 38 executed in captivity (shouldn't that be 'captured, later executed'?) which comes up to 58 casualties for 56 people in the post (German article claims 6 killed, 2 more killed trying to surrender, 6 fleed, 44 captured of which 16 were wounded and 6 died of these wounds, leaving us with 8 dead, 16 wounded&captured, 6 fled, 28 (44-16 wounded) captured which at least matches the numbers). Has anyone citations for correct numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.151.73 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it's a problem. The following sentence appears in the article: "In the Polish Post Office complex on 1 September 1939 there were 57 people: Konrad Guderski, 42 local Polish employees, 10 employees from Gdynia and Bydgoszcz, and the building keeper with his wife and 10-year old daughter who lived in the complex." According to my calculation, that's 56 people, not 57. That agrees w/the Polish strength # in the infobox, though not the casualty #'s in the infobox.76.246.47.78 (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Court martial

Is there any information on the book alleging that the court martial was not legally competent? The Danzig police forces may have had a "commanding role" in the attack, but if the defenders breached a German criminal code a Wehrmacht court martial would have jurisdiction. There was no equivalent "police court".Royalcourtier (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The attack was commanded and largely carried out by local (Danzig) police forces, resistance against police might be a crime, but not a war crime. The equivalent "police court" is simply a normal criminal court, thus the Wehrmacht court martial wasn't the competent tribunal. If at all, the defenders breached the criminal code of Danzig - and capital punishment was abolished in Danzig.

However, the court of Lübeck has reversed the court martial as illegal, and I'm pretty sure they had good reasons to do so. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Defence of the Polish Post Office in Danzig. 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/20060303184511/http://www.mowiawieki.pl/artykul.html?id_artykul=1183 to http://www.mowiawieki.pl/artykul.html?id_artykul=1183
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502021616/http://www.1939.pl/epizody/poczta_gdansk.htm to http://www.1939.pl/epizody/poczta_gdansk.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)