Talk:17th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)

Quotes
I delete this huge quote part. An encyclopedic article should concentrate on facts. This is not a collection of quotes. Volkerfreund 19:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Volkerfreund, a sourced quote from an eyewitness describing a massacre in the article certainly seems encyclopedic. It is not part of a collection of quotes, and you are not apparently arguing with its veracity. What is the justification for deleting it? --Goodoldpolonius2 19:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The facts are encyclopedic, so please stick to them. Quotes of alleged eyewitnesses are lurid and NOT encyclopedic. --Volkerfreund 19:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The eyewitness was examined before a comission that invistigated German crimes in Poland, and his statements are used to this day in respectable publications such as IPN research. --Molobo 19:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. There is no need to bring quotes of eyewitnesses into a encyclopedia. Bring the facts and that's it. Volkerfreund 19:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether the IPN is so respectable and trustworthy especially when it comes to German soldiers is another question. As I read now the IPN was founded in 1998 so there was quite some time between the war crime and their publication about it.--Volkerfreund 20:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please give a source claiming that it is questionable that IPN is respectable and trustworthy towards its research.Are you claiming the quote was falsfied ? If so-what are your sources. --Molobo 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As I read now the IPN was founded in 1998 so there was quite some time between the war crime and their publication about it It was founded on the old Chief Commission for investigation of Nazi War Crimes-which worked from 1949 and was founded on earlier Commission. --Molobo 20:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

They are tonns of articles with quotes in Wiki, and it is a normal procedure to insert them. --Molobo 19:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly. It's not about quotes in general but about quotes of alleged eyewitnesses of crimes in specific. Please show me any important article about a crime like Massacre in Jedwabne or the Holocaust which uses quotes of eyewitnesses in the article. --Volkerfreund 19:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That just doesn't make sense, quotes of eyewitnesses are used in scholarly publications all the time, and in encyclopedias -- they are just another source of primary facts, just as documentary evidence is. If their veracity is questioned, then they should be examined, but why on earth would we delete valid primary information? You are making some sort of statement about encyclopedia policy that seems to be ideosyncratic, it is not the policy of Wikipedia, at least. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. It's a source, but shouldnt be part of the article itself. Do you see the difference?--Volkerfreund 19:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be part of article ? Several articles have quotes. Why shouldn't this article have quotes ? --Molobo 19:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, quotes of famous statesmen et.al. See the difference? --Volkerfreund 19:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) No not really-witness statements from events are quite suitable. Why shouldn't they be ? Anyway this statement is recorded in scholary research on murder of civilian population by German soldiers during September Campaign, thus suitable for article about the unit that took part in the campaign and engaged in atrocities. --Molobo 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Because they make the article lurid and manipulative. But if there are so many articles with quotes of eyewitnesses, please show me some comparable articles with such quotes.--Volkerfreund 20:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please present the source claiming that the witness is alledged --Molobo 20:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, "alleged" is the wrong word. I'll use "supposed" now.--Volkerfreund 20:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please give source claiming that the witness is supposed. --Molobo 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Because they make the article lurid and manipulative In which way does it make it manipulative ? May I know what are you claiming ? --Molobo 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The report of an supposed eyewitness is inevitably POV and thus makes the article POV, too.--Volkerfreund 20:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The eyewitness is seen as reliable by professor Witold Kulesza Prosecutor of the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN)- Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes Against the Polish Nation. The quote is from his article in IPN bulleting-article "Zbrodnie Wehrmachtu w Polsce-wrzesień 1939" or "Atrocities of Wehrmacht in Poland-September 1939". Now can I have your source that contradicts Professor Kulesza's article (using the quote as reliable reference)? --Molobo 20:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And just because youre professor Kulesza who seems not to be especially well-known uses this quote, it is proven that everything in this quote is right? I don't think so. Furthermore I'll delete the quote again, if the changes Kmf164 suggested won't be made. -- Volkerfreund 21:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless you find a quote contradicting Professor Kulesza from respectable and objective source the quote will stay. --Molobo 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's jump four speech bubbles back, to where Volkerfreund labels the disputed statement POV. Molobo then assures him that the quote is reliable. Reliable in what way? Neutrality? And if we are not immediately swayed by this assertion of Molobo, we have to "find a quote contradicting Professor Kulesza from respectable and objective source"? Do what?? No one has to disprove that the quote "represents all sides fairly" if you can't prove it does. Even if the source coming from the governmental IPN in which the quote is embedded is objective, then it still doesn't necessarily mean that it would not make wiki's article biased when you cherrypick that quote, rip it out of the allegedly objective source's context and put it into the context of that Wiki article. So let's check on whether the wiki article represents views fairly and without bias.


 * How many participated in that atrocity? 10 soldiers? 20? Maybe even 50? I can see no numbers of soldiers in this infantry division but according to Infantry division, a division is "usually consisting of around ten to fifteen thousand soldiers." Even if you think that 100-150 soldiers were ordered for the massacre in this little village, they would account for only 1% of the division. So to imply that the whole division was just a bunch of murderers is to exaggerate unscrupulously and how can you call that an unbiased evaluation of the division? I have the misfortune of not being able to read Polish and can only assume but not know for certain whether or not the IPN's source is an objective source or just a morbid dramatized view reduced to only warcrimes. Even so, the other source, this one in English, seems unaware of the divisions atrocious behaviour or simply doesn't consider it atrocious on the whole. In conclusion, I don't think the quote should be deleted because if every unfair representation was quickly deprived of some statements for balance reasons, wikipedia might almost just as quickly end up without information at all. I'll therefore just add a warning against POV to the article. Sciurinæ 19:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So no sources disproving the quote. Removing POV tag now. --Molobo 22:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There are three rules to consider - Verifiability, No original research AND NPOV. Vandalism: "Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period." Sciurinæ 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As to numbers of the units its irrelevent-the fact remains that soldiers of the division comitted the massacre in presence of several units of the division and HQ. Unless you have source contradicting this the POV tag is competelely out of place. --Molobo 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said, overempasis of a negative example (and don't generalise!). Now hold your fire and let me reply in detail. Sciurinæ 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the unit did later in the war is irrelevent-such massacre overshadows all other activities. However I don't know an heroics that would counterbalance this atrocitiy comitted by the German soldiers.Since you believe some exists appearantly-please provide your sources.Please provide sources disproving the quote or Kulesza.Either or you will have no basis for the POV tag. --Molobo 22:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "such massacre overshadows all other activities." It must be obviously be so overshadowing that it overlooks all else. Maybe it is in your opinion. Don't forget there are people out there with a more moderate view. "However I don't know an heroics that would counterbalance this atrocitiy comitted by the German soldiers." Do you think the IPN would include that??? And what are the criterias for weighing heroism and nastiness? And what is heroic? This is not a forum. Sciurinæ 13:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As of now there is no dispute-no sources were given, no contradiction of events other then persistant refusal of Sciurinæ to accept information contradicting his POV. --Molobo 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But accusing every other person of denial... What are you doing, if you're not in dispute with me here?

What would you say if someone added an insult to an article and finds a source who does that too? What kind of source are you asking for??? Are you mixing up verifiability and neutrality? Yup, the fact that verifiability is the same as neutrality is information contradicting my POV and also the definitions by the two enforced and fundamental wiki policies. Sciurinæ 13:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

To deal with the argument that "only 1% of the soldiers participated", let me provide an example of how other articles deal with such issues. The Mỹ Lai Massacre was carried out by a single platoon of the Americal Division, yet the massacre is mentioned in the article about the division (the mention is brief because a huge separate article exists about the massacre). Now, if it would be possible to track down which particular subunit of this German division carried out the atrocity, that information could of course be included. But for that one would probably have to track down the relevant German military records, which could be difficult, as armies usually don't like to document their own atrocities.

Another good example is the article about The Canadian Airborne Regiment which was involved in the so-called Somalia Affair. In short, if American and Canadian military units can have their atrocities discussed, I don't see why German units cannot. Balcer 00:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The My Lai Massacre has 174.000 hits in Google. Yes, you can call it very well-known. The division responsible was the 23d Infantry Division. Searching for it triggers as few as 206 hits. Such an unnotable Division containing the perpetrators of such a famous massacre - an objective Molobo would say the massacre overshadows everything else. Well, read the article and you see it doesn't. Yes, it is included but considering also the extent of the inclusion and what is there: one little sentence at the bottom that does not even have its own paragraph, let alone headline. The Canadian Airborne Regiment is a regiment, not a division, and the number of soldiers in a Regiment usually ranges from a few hundred soldiers up to 2,000-3,000, ie a division has about five times the number of a regiment. In the article there are many references to the Somalia affair, yes, but again, look at the proportion: how many sentences describe what happened in the Somalia affair rather than what effect the affair had on troops morality, reputation or any other related impact? As you can see, I'm talking of proportion, degree, ratio, and not whether it is included or not. Let's take an article with certainly little bias in favour of the subject matter, Adolf Hitler. As you can see, the Holocaust is included, yes, of course, but to what extent? If the killing of 200 people by some of 10000-15000 should be overshadowing in their article, how overshadowing should Hitler's millions of victims be in the article on Hitler? See also, JonRoma's comment about balance. Sciurinæ 13:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The division responsible for My Lai was the Americal Division (that was the name by which it was known, the 23rd division was a less known formal designation), and a Google search for "Americal division" returns 47,000 hits. Looks pretty notable to me.  The inclusion is short because a whole separate article exists about the My Lai Massacre.  Should we make an article about the Zloczew massacre, I would be quite happy to move all the information about the massacre currently in the article there, and leave only a short mention pointing the reader to the full article.  The Canadian Airborne Regiment was of course smaller, but then the scale of its crime was also smaller (one confirmed murder), so "per capita guilt", so to speak, is comparable or lesser that in the German unit being discussed here.  As for proportion, no one is stopping any editor from expanding the current article by including plenty of information about the division's combat record.  Do you want a smaller part of the article to be devoted to war crimes? Write the rest of it!.  In fact, I am surprised nobody found the time to do this so far. Balcer 14:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is that an article must be balanced. If a reader wants a fair and informative picture of the 17th Infantry Division and is one-sidedely confronted by mainly enumerations of war crimes that some of the thousands of soldiers have engaged in, you just can't tell me it's an unbiased picture. It does not matter whether editors can even up the proportion as long as the proportion is not evened up.


 * "The inclusion is short because a whole separate article exists about the My Lai Massacre." No, just because there's already a more detailed article including a main idea, is no reason to shorten the section. For example, you can't simply remove, say, most information from the Hitler-article's Holocaust section and have most information in the Hitler-article focusing on, say, Hitler's back because there's not an article about Hitler's back yet and all the other information can be removed or played down as they all have their separate article. If there's too much information about the Holocaust to put it all into Hitler's article, and if it would be notable enough to create an article for it, it deserves its own article, The Holocaust, but the view must remain balanced.


 * A view is a way of thinking about something. A view doesn't mean whether you think of a subject as good or bad (though this is certainly part of it). You can see history as a mainly class struggle, or as mainly a forth and back of action and counteraction, or as mainly lessons for the future or as whatever. These are all different views, interpretations, of "History". How these views are represented, how they are balanced, which and to what extent should overwhelm another, that's what WP:NPOV is good for - that all views are to be represented fairly. So as you can see, Wikipedia is not a trashbin for information on the Internet, even less a place where information scavenged from the web is allocated to for imposing one's view(s) on the readership.


 * This, for example, is how it understands, interprets, sees, views the 17th_Infantry_Division, what its main points are. Or just on the wikipedia level, any other article on military divisions. Other articles show how the proportion should be. I got to go but will correct and/or extend my reply later. Sciurinæ 19:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree that as the article looks now it's not balanced since it's very short and there is little about the 17th Division apart of the quote. However, it doesn't mean that the quote should be removed only that the article should be expanded, and the war atrocities should be only one of several sections there. What do you propose then? Are you willing to expand the article, and we may keep the tag until you do that?--SylwiaS | talk 20:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, a lack of balance usually doesn't excuse deletion. Yes, also, the war atrocities should be only one of several sections there. Yes and no, I propose to remove the Neutrality-tag once there's a more neutral balance (Halibutt made a step in the right direction), but no, I'm not going to take pains over expanding the article, as the subject of the article is just not worth a lot of time and as I've already spent too much time on it. Sciurinæ 22:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say the comprehensiveness of www.feldgrau.com does not impress me, given for example their coverage of the SS Totenkopf division, one of the most notoriously brutal units, made up of concentration camp guards. The only crime of this unit mentioned by the site is a massacre of some Allied POWs in 1940, and even that is judged unlikely and the postwar verdict against the officer responsible biased.  About the division's criminal activies in the Soviet Union there is of course total silence.
 * Obviously www.feldgrau.com and similar sites focus on the military aspects of the German armed forces and are not particularly interested in the war crimes that various units might have commited. It does not follow however that Wikipedia should mirror that approach.  It should provide both comprehensive information about the unit's military activities, together with information on any dishonourable and criminal activities the unit might have engaged in.
 * I agree with SylwiaS that at present the military part of the article is rather underdeveloped, and hence I encourage other editors with knowledge in this subject to correct the error, by adding the necessary information. Until that is done, however, the part about the war crimes can stay.  After all, Wikipedia is always a work in progress.  There is no reason to remove good, verified information before other information is added. Balcer 22:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I checked it to, as Sciurinæ advises, avoid generalization. IPN says that it was SS-Leibstandarte “Adolf Hitler”, but German prosecutors say that they cannot confirm if that was exactly this regiment, so I thought adding it here unfair. Also, the article mentions other atrocities of the 17th Division, Molobo quoted only one of them.--SylwiaS | talk 00:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * IPN says that it was SS-Leibstandarte “Adolf Hitler”, but German prosecutors say that they cannot confirm if that was exactly this regiment, so I thought adding it here unfair To be precise the unit is believed to be part of the atrocity also besides members of the division but this couldn't confirmed. Knowing how sensitive some users are to mentioning war crimes of German units for some reasons, I just left it alone.

--Molobo 02:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Believed to be part of they atrocity" and "couldn't be confirmed", are not encyclopedic terms. Nor are they facts. Please create a fantasy article with all of your information in it. Please remove it from here. Dr. Dan 23:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Sorry but they are no doubts that soldiers from division made that atrocit, the only unknown thing is what exact units of the division made it. --Molobo 16:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Most quotes should be moved to Wikiquote - especially if they linger in the Quotes sections. However if one wants to use quotes in text to illustrate a specific example, or beacuse they are important, there is no rule saying that quotes may not be used here. In addition, quotes are perfectly good reference - of course, if coming from a respected source. After all, much scientific research is based on interviews or such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

An interesting discussion. Can anyone add when Janina Modrzewska gave this testimony? Where was she at the time of her testimony? How old was she at the time of the atrocities? Did she give the testimony directly to Kulesza or someone else, and he merely has compiled or archived testimony that he believes is credible? Does anyone know if she (Modrzewka), is alive today? Just curious? Dr. Dan 16:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Source citation
Where did the quote come from? It's important to reference the quote with proper citations. I'd suggest using a footnote that tells me where I could go verify the quote. Also, I think it would help enormously to give much more context of the massacre, which should probably be in a separate article? Right now the quote just seems out of context and cherry-picked. With the right context, a shorter excerpt of the quote might be okay. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 20:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If the reference listed at the end of the article is where the quote is drawn from, please make a footnote to it from the quote. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 20:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And is Janina Modrzewska's testimony originally in English or in Polish? Is this quote a translation? -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 20:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did it come from? The quote is from Institute of National Remembrance bulletin, article about Wehrmacht atrocities in September 1939.The article was written by professor Witold Kulesza who uses the quote as reference .He is the Prosecutor of the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN)- Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes Against the Polish Nation. --Molobo 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If the reference listed at the end of the article is where the quote is drawn from, please make a footnote to it from the quote I am inexperienced user-don't know how to make footnoes.I added the article and the bulletin in links:Polish IPN Bulletin, Issue 8-9(August-September) 2004.

Is this quote a translation? This is a direct translation. --Molobo 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. I found the quote.  Though I don't know Polish (with the help of online translation), your translation sounds reasonable.  Still, it's my opinion that the quote needs much more context.  What are some other sources about the massacre?  And, perhaps this article isn't the best place for it.  Maybe this specific massacre needs it's own article, and to be put into context of the Polish September Campaign?  I just added a link in the article, though from reading this, I don't still don't understand how this massacre fits into context of the Polish September Campaign.
 * As for the footnotes, look at Footnotes for instructions. Basically, you need to put  after the quote, and put  in the references section, before the citation. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This just one of a countless number of war crimes commited by the German armed forces during the Polish September Campaign (sad but true). This massacre does not differ in any significant way from the other war crimes commited in september 1939 so I do not see a reasons to put this quote in any other currently existing articles. Mieciu K 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mieciu-while indeed German soldiers engaged in thousands of mass murders of such brutality during their aggression against Polish people, they are only a few well published eyewitness statements such as the one presented here.

--Molobo 01:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I read the article. It says about atrocities of Wehrmacht during the September Campaign in general and 17th division's in details. The information given by Molobo is correct. All we can do is giving more quotes about other atrocities. Since Molobo has answered several questions here, are there any more or we can remove the neutrality tag?--SylwiaS | talk 00:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not true that you only have to prove some source on the net includes a certain claim, to prove the article is neutral. And just because Molobo replies to all questions - whether by just launching fierce allegations against me or saying over and over again that the quote was verifiable, doesn't dismiss that the article, as it is now, is biased. Sciurinæ 13:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The article, as it is now, is biased Why ? 1-The witness isn't credible ? Source please. 2.IPN isn't credible ? Source please. 3.Wiktor Kulesza isn't credible ? Source please. 4.The unit is known for its humanitarian and loving nature ? Source please. So far the only thing given here is your POV that rejects all mentions of German atrocities of persecution of other nationalities. --Molobo 14:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

2

I'll ask again. Is Modrzewska still alive? How old was she when the atrocities took place? Did she give the testimony directly to Kuleza, or has he investigated and archived the information from earlier testimony? Where, when, and to whom did Modrzewska give her original testimony? Dr. Dan 15:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The statements of Modrzejewska come from archive of IPN. --Molobo 15:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you happen to know when, and to whom her original testimony was given? Also, any idea why when she picked up the 1,5 y.o. baby, she was not also harmed? She says the baby's head was smashed in by a rifle butt, while in her arms. For some reason she was unharmed during this maelstrom of violence and fire, and managed to witness various atrocities. She must have been very brave to be walking around during the melee, making mental notes for her later testimony. Most people would have run and hid? Dr. Dan 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if she had been killed, obviously we would not have had her testimony, now would we? The line of argument "you survived hence your testimony cannot be reliable" is laughable. Furthermore, in stress situations people do not necessarily act in rational ways, do they?


 * Her testimony was judged credible by the IPN. It is not our job to run war crimes investigations on Wikipedia, as obviously there is no way we can have access to all the facts of the case.  The only way that the validity of this testimony could be reasonably questioned would be for someone to present sourced, well founded information that the IPN itself is a biased organisation conducting sloppy research and gathering unreliable witness testimony.  So far no participants in this discussion has presented any such information.  In fact the opposite is the case: the reputation of the IPN is actually quite exceptional.


 * I must say that I find the tone of User:Dr. Dan remarks, with the excessive use of the Socratic method, somewhat disturbing. If he finds the information in the testimony not credible, why does he just not come right out and say what he finds problematic?     Balcer 16:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Two points. First - User:Dr. Dan knows Polish, so he can just read the source instead of asking all the questions. Second - how is it that all the persons who criticise IPN here as an uncredible source don't complain on Salomon Morel article that is based mostly on the same source?--SylwiaS | talk 18:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Grammar
I offer no opinion on the neutrality or veracity of this article or quote.

That being said, I want to point out that this quote is full of errors both with respect to spelling and grammar. There is no credit given to the translator. Bobby1011 16:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bobby1011 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute?
This was placed by a German user: don't remove a dispute-tag even if you think your article is unbiased but the dispute isn't over (or the article representing all views fairly As far as I see there is no dispute: 1.Nobody has provided any evidence that the statement is false did they ? 2.Nobody has provided any evidence that the IPN is a biased organisation. 3.Nobody has provided any evidence that Wiktor Kulesza is lying or pushing some agenda.

article representing all views fairly I am all ears-what "all views" ? What are those other views ? May we finally know them ? --Molobo 16:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How about waiting till Monday? If we don't get any sourced counterarguments against the source we'll remove the tag as unexplained. That should give anyone enough time to check its credibility. BTW The source is not just some internet information. It's a published periodic of an official Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation that was scanned and added to their website for everyone to read.--SylwiaS | talk 18:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We can wait until Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday. I would like to know how a witness at this massacre survived, and holding a baby in her arms (who had its head smashed in), continued to walk around notating the rest of the atrocites that were being commited. Is a direct answer possible? Or will we we waltz around my use of the Socratic method, (sorry to be so disturbing to Balcer), and ignore the questionability of this testimony? If in fact it is undisputably true, I will champion its inclusion in this article. Meanwhile, if it is some type of "bolshevik" propaganda, I will support the neutrality dispute label, and want to get to the bottom of the truth. Lastly, this indictment of an entire "division", seems unfair and absurd. At the very most, if sick and depraved individuals, egged on by their sick and depraved attitudes towards human beings acted in a way deserving of ultimate punishment, I say go for it. Dr. Dan 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In a short period of time 531 towns and villages were burned, the Wehrmacht carried out 714 mass executions and a number of other crimes. Altogether, it is estimated that 50,000 Polish civilians had perished including 7000 Jews. How many "sick and depraved individuals" according to you would be required to carry it out? Of course, no one says that all of them did it. But it couldn't have been done by 10-20 lost soldiers without the knowledge of their commanders as well.--SylwiaS | talk 03:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As to what you call a Socratic method, you would really be frightened to know how much can people bear - and survive, especially by accident. In most cases of mass executions there were people to survive under the pile of bodies. This was true to many of the mass executions on Warsaw at least, where the Wehrmacht and SS rounded up people in the courtyard, shot them with machine gun fire and proceeded to the next house. Anyway, unless you can prove that there is anything bolshevik or a grain of propaganda in the sourced statement, your logical arguments are no good here. Wiki rules state clearly that No Original Research is allowed, thus we can only question credibility of sources with other sources, not with what our own minds tell us. Halibutt 03:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't evade my question. I did'nt interject the remark about the Socratic method. We're talking about the credibility of Modrzewka's testimony. How did she survive the massacre? How did she, holding a baby in her arms (whose skull was crushed by a German soldier's rifle butt), continue to mentally notate the rest of the action and witness the rest of the atrocities committed. Dr. Dan 03:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC) p.s. What in the world does Salomon Morel, have to do with the issue?


 * Wikipedia policy: No Original Research. We are not here to conduct an investigation on the credibility of Modrzewska's testimony because that would be original research. To support your claims please:

1 Provide sourced evidence that the statement is false or 2  Provide any sourced evidence that the IPN is a biased organisation or 3  Provide any sourced evidence that Wiktor Kulesza is lying or pushing some agenda. Mieciu K 14:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dan, frankly speaking I don't know and I don't care. I imagine that she had a whole life to remember what happened that day, but this is but my assumption and has nothing to do with this article, justr like your questions. Halibutt 14:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

To anyone with knowledge or seeking knowledge, I do care. My points and questions are on the talk page and interested in continuing a discussion about an article that has been tagged as being biased. I am not editing, adding, deleting, nor "vandalizing" (as some like to call it), the article itself. "My Logical Arguments are no Good Here", is most most telling to any objective person trying to get to the bottom of the matter. Dr. Dan 16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Logical arguments are no good, because quite simply we do not have access to all the data. Really, the only person who was in a position to judge the veracity of the witness testimony was the investigator at IPN (or whatever the organisation was called at the time) who conducted the interview.  We can reasonably assume that they carefully examined the witness and asked all the important questions, to confirm whether her account was consistent and reasonable.
 * So, to come back to the main point, the only reasonable way that we as Wikipedians, given our resources, can cast doubt on the veracity of this interview, is to find sources which prove that IPN is inherently biased and inaccurate. As I keep stressing, no one has presented any evidence to that effect. Balcer 16:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that the IPN is inherently biased and inaccurate. Got that! If the interview with Janina Modrzewka was taken by a functionary of the PRL (Communist Poland), and archived by the IPN after the fall of communism, it is fair to question it. Not deny it outright, but to question it. There is a difference you know. I am now asking a deeper question. Is anything archived in the IPN suspect as far as accuracy or the truth is concerned? In other words, is some of the testimony cataloged without comment as to its veracity (maybe because it's not possible to check in some cases)? As to the absurd remark "We can reasonably assume that they carefully examined the witness and asked all the important questions". Why should we reasonably assume this? If I said we should reasonably assume that the testimony against Witold Pilecki was conducted by carefully examining the witnesses and asking the important questions to confirm whether their testimony was true, it would be laughable. I am not equating the work of the IPN to the prosecution of Pilecki by the murdering thugs, including Cyrankiewicz, who killed a great Hero. I am trying to show you that your total acceptance of a witness with questionable statements can not be blindly accepted because it comes froma source that you hold to be the final arbiter of a dispute. Dr. Dan 17:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I said "we can reasonably assume" because, to my knowledge, the investigating of Nazi crimes in Communist Poland by the predecessor organisations of IPN was overall consistent with historical accuracy and not overly tainted by propaganda. If you believe that is not true, I would appreciate it if you could point me to some evidence.  On the other hand, the Soviet and Communist crimes were passed over in silence, and the IPN has only started investigating them after 1989.  Such was the reality of the Communist regime in Poland: certain subjects could be discussed frankly and truthfully, and certain other subjects were passed over in silence or distorted. Research on Nazi crimes fell into the first category.  Given that, it is not fair to cast wholesale doubt on research done in Poland in the years 1945-1989 without providing some evidence or citing some sources which question the validity of that research. Balcer 17:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting choice of words, Balcer, "not overly tainted by propaganda". I took courses in Marxist Philosphy in the PRL. Did you? Dr. Dan 17:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you care to ask, my elementary school did not offer such courses. In fact I don't recall any of our teachers ever mentioning Marx or Lenin. Still, that was in the 1980s, after Solidarity.  Your experience at university level must have been different, obviously.
 * Still waiting for that evidence that investigations of Nazi crimes in Communist Poland are not to be trusted. Sources, please. Balcer 17:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dr. Dan, maybe you should better write to IPN that you’re afraid they are working on Bolshevik materials and are too stupid to see it by themselves, because all Poles by definition must be blind to being manipulated while all inhabitants of free world can discern the holy truth at once. So you have just discovered the clandestine fact for them and you’ll be happy to verify the testimony if they answer your following questions… Add also in your CV that you’re highly qualified for the job, because you took courses in Marxist Philosophy in the PRL, while they most probably derive all their knowledge from Soviet TV, and should never be allowed to be prosecutors in any cases. Advise them also that Poles as overwhelmingly Catholics should recognize the fact that 50,000 of civilians were not murdered by any division of Wehrmacht only were miraculously dematerialized, because God wanted to spare them watching unpleasant pictures. Then you can go to deny whole Holocaust, because many testimonies were gathered by the same manipulative officials, so they must be all false. After all how it is possible that some people survived the concentration camps while so many others didn’t? When you have all the answers, please come back and enlighten us.--SylwiaS | talk 18:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to your last "contribution" above, you've saved me any further trouble. I think you've enlightened us all, more than I ever could. Thanks. Dr. Dan 18:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome.--SylwiaS | talk 18:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Radio Talk Show?
Now the article moves from the ridiculous to the sublime. I have deleted the last contribution about the geographical "origins" of this division and that being relevant to its participation in alleged war crimes. It's POV in extremis. Why don't you throw in some references, if you can (anonymous editor, who just happened to "stumble upon this article")? Is this an encyclopedia or a radio talk show? Ask yourself that question, when a military historian comes to this article for objective information about the subject. Keep that in mind. Dr. Dan 14:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But notice that there were even some Nazis in the Wehrmacht (hard to believe ?) - it was NAZI Germany who built the Wehrmacht ! How do YOU explain the fact that among some divisions right in this division's area such a war crime occured - a "own initiative"-action ? --[[18. Febr. 2006]

Can someone translate this anonymous editor's point in relation to either, the article, or the discussion page? Dr. Dan 16:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Quote
I have deleted the quote of Janina Modrzewska. After reading, and re-reading the quote, in Polish, and the surrounding information in regards to it, I see nothing linking this division to the allegation. If someone is extrapolating that since the division was in the area (as were other units), her allegations conclusively prove the involvement of the 17th German Infantry Division, they will have to do better than that. Again, the division is not named, nor identified in the quote by name. Maybe someone should start an article about Janina Modrzewska, and they can add her quote there. Dr. Dan 15:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your attempts to delete information about atrocities made by German army. The IPN article from professor Kulesza is clear about involvment of the unit in the crime. You haven't presented any evidence supporting your POV. --Molobo 16:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC) I see nothing linking this division to the allegation. http://www.ipn.gov.pl/biuletyn8-9_43-44.pdf: The artilcle clearly writes: Soldiers of German 17th Infantry Division murdered two hundred people in Złoczew on 3rd and 4th September. Witness Janina Modrzewska, who lived in Złoczew describes these events as follows:(here the quote is given). It seems Dr. Dan you either missed that sentence or aren't as good as Polish as you think. --Molobo 16:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete that there are allegations that atrocities occured. In fact I left it in. I deleted the quote of a person that does not identify members of the 17th German Infantry Division as the perpetrators. So, in your best English, (since you are questioning my ability to read Polish), tell us, where in her quote, she identifies any one from the 17th GID. If no one can, the quote has no place in this article. Once again, I invite you to create an article about her and her testimony. Put it in the article of the IPN, if you think it warrants it. It does not belong here. Dr. Dan 17:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

 I didn't delete that there are allegations that atrocities occured. Can I see the source where the war crimes are described as alledged ?

tell us, where in her quote, she identifies any one from the 17th GID Kulesza clearly writes that atrocities of German 17th Infantry Division are described in quote given by her which is as follows. I don't see your point. She doesn't have to identify them, they are identified by historians from IPN who give the quote of those events. Either you have some sources contradicting the IPN article or I fail to see what you are aiming at. As to if IPN identifies the soldiers correctly, you are free to ask them If you have any basis for doubting that, or in need to know how their research works. --Molobo 17:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If no one can, the quote has no place in this article. The quote is given in scholary work on atrocities made by German 17th Infantry Division, written by one of the leading Polish historians, where it is given as description of the mass murder made by soldiers of the division. I see no reason why Wikipedia can't do the same as such distinguished scholars. --Molobo 17:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I will get back to the point in a moment. You are the creator of this article, but I'm not certain if it was to educate the reader about the 17th GID, or to create a vehicle to bring he said, she said, "allegations" made about the division after the war in Communist Poland. Was any officer or soldier of the 17th GID, charged, tried, or convicted of these allegations? Will wait for your answer. Please tell us who they were. Next I read the Polish text in your link, (loved the pictures), pgs. 21,22,23, and understood it very well. Interestingly, you ommitted the German procurator's response to Modzrewska's quote. Maybe for fairness sake, you can include an unabridged translation of it. I reiterate again, Janina Modrzewska does not identify the 17th GID in her testimony, or her quote in the IPN article, that you have staked your point on. Has not, at any time, stated the 17th GID was responsible for these atrocities. If someone extrapolates that they were in the vicinity on the dates in question, it does not prove it. Then the question is simply could her claims have been perpetrated by others? Dr. Dan 01:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Professor Kulesza clearly writes that massacre comitted by German 17th Infantry Division is described in statement by Janina Modrzewska. If you have problem with his scholary work, you are free to adress the Professor Kulesza or bring up sources claiming he is lying. The only unanswered in the article is what exact units of the division were engaging in massacre or if  SS-Leibstandarte “Adolf Hitler” was involved as well. No doubts are made in the article whetever the atrocity was made by German 17th Infantry Division or not.This was already explained on this discussion page above. It is clearly marked as the unit responsible and it is clearly written that that massacre is presented in statement of the  Janina Modrzewska. Oh and in the case you didn't notice the article is about German attempts to reject any claims about war crimes, against opposition by Polish historians. --Molobo 13:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)  I reiterate again, Janina Modrzewska does not identify the 17th GID in her testimony She doesn't have to, since professor Kulesza in the article writes that the events the unit made are described by her statement. --Molobo 13:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you, or are you not, going to answer these two questions, Molobo?
 * 1.Was anyone from this division, charged, tried or convicted of these crimes? If not, these are considered allegations that need to be brought to justice. And not like Witold Pilecki, was bought to justice, and tried and murdered, or the Germans who were tried and executed for perpetrating the Katyn Massacre.
 * 2.Are you going to give the German response to these allegations from your IPN article, and include them? You know, like in fairness and balance? Dr. Dan 20:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am not professor Kulesza. If you have questions towards him, you are free to contact IPN. --Molobo 22:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, like in fairness and balance? Sure I will add that German prosecution argued exact elements of the units couldn't be identified. --Molobo 22:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And in particular that Modzrewska's quote didn't identify them either, which is why this non-NPOV quote has no place in this article. Put it where ever else you want. Create an article for it. These events are not proven, and are therefore allegations. Everyone knows you are not Professor Kulesza, and I'm aware of my "freedom" to be able to contact him, if I so desire. My questions are towards you, not him, because you are the author of the article, and the person who included the quote. Don't hide behind the IPN, and a deposition taken twenty years after the fact, in Communist Poland, and say that an editor in the English Wikipedia cannot question the entire proceedings, nor the quote itself. Only after I mentioned that you also neglected to give the German position, are you attempting to add some balance to some very questionable material. Furthermore, I am beginning to get the impression that the IPN is in many cases, cataloguing information that it considers credible, but itself is not passing judgement on its veracity. Dr. Dan 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry show sources showing IPN is wrong. I don't care for your POV Dan that the massacre didn't happen.These events are not proven, and are therefore allegations." According to IPN they are-what is your source ? --Molobo 10:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've read through the discussions here since my last comments... I'm not expert at this topic, but think that since this article is about the "German 17th Infantry Division" and not specifically about this massacre or the War crimes of the Wehrmacht. As such, this IPN source would fit better as a linked reference for the sentence, "in the town of Złoczew circa 200 people were murdered", with a footnote explaining about Modzrewska. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 03:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

See talk above-other military units that comitted massacres or engaged in wrong behaviour have information in their articles. --Molobo 10:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Modrzewska quotaion is just an excerpt from a (probably long) investigation of post-war Polish authorities. It is impossible to state if the investigation was properly conducted or not based on the Kulesza's article (although Kulesza is a credible historian imho). I propose to leave the formulation that it was the Polish authorities that concluded that the atrocities were commited. Let's leave the burden of asessing the credibility of the authorities on the readers and on the future editors who will gain access to the investigation documentation. alx-pl   D  16:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the IPN did not establish that the 17th GID commited war crimes in the Kulesza article. Nor was the information rendered by Modrzewska, done in front of professor Kulesza. The IPN is documenting allegations from the Polish side, and the dissagreement of them, from the German side (a matter that editor, Molobo, somehow felt unnecessary to present). It includes a quote of an 18 year old peasant girl, taken 28 years after the fact, in a totalitarian and biased (toward WWII Germany) State, who doesn't identify the 17th GID, in any way. I am not personally disputing whether these allegations, occured or not. They need to be put in context, and not out of context, in a seperate article. These matters can then be discussed and examined further. Unless someone can produce that any member of this division was charged, tried, and convicted of war crimes, the term alleged, is the only fair, and NPOV adjective, regarding these accusations. If no one can come up with this information, I will re-add Alleged in the appropriate locations, and soon. Dr. Dan 19:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not IPN, it was the Polish (just) post-war authorities that established that 17th Division was involved in the Złoczew events.
 * Which european state was not biased against Germany after WWII?
 * If they were: does that mean that what was established in Nurmberg trials were just allegations?
 * The defence line of the German authorities is not that they dispute the basis of the accusation, but that they deny the possibility of making a trial for the charges.
 * The standards you propose are not proper as for instance no one demands convictions against the soldiers of the No. 5 Group RAF to establish that they bombed Dresden.
 * Of course the informations should be put in the proper context.
 * alx-pl  D  09:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Alx, a brief response. First, although you agree that the IPN did not establish the testimony, it is being used as the basis that the allegations cannot be challenged, and the quote proves the Division is guilty of the atrocites. I reiterate, I'm not challenging the IPN, Modrzewska, or the allegations. I am stating, on the basis of the evidence, that is being provided to the English speaking article, from a non-English source, that the material does not belong in the article, but in its own venue. The bias against Germany was different in Denemark, as opposed to Poland. The historical emnity between the fascists and communists is well known, and the exaggerations and lies that were propagandized by both, are well known to any objective person, let alone a historian. In the Nuremburg Trials, there were charges, trials, and convictions ( a very big difference than allegations), of war crimes. If you'll allow me to leave Dresden out of the picture for a moment (you are right the standards are very different), please rememember that Germans were "tried and executed" for the Katyn Massacre. The German position on the Modrzewska matter, is it is impossible to prove who did what, and in particular to accuse the 17th German Infantry Division, on the basis of the testimony provided. In spite of this, the creator of the article is trying to state that this information is proven fact, and cannot be challenged. Lastly, the article, the 17th German Infantry Division, needs to be informative and factual, and not to be ultimately be held in scorn as not NPOV or something like the Henryk Batuta article. Dr. Dan 18:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The material presented in the Kulesza's article is based on a procuratorial investigation not on a trial result which means that its statements are less obvious, but we should use the historical methodology which, as you stated above, may not take into account the results of trials, but reach to the investigation materials.
 * I don't want to establish if the Modrzewska quotation belongs to the article (IMHO it doesn't as this is an encyclopedia article not a procuratorial investigation diary). I want to establish if the information on the atrocities belongs to the article.
 * The information belongs to the article as there was an investigation which shows that there were atrocities on the route of the unit.
 * IMHO it is only the matter of formulation of the fact.
 * IMHO it is enough to state that the Polish authorities established that the atrocities were made by 17th Infantry Division.
 * Your objection concerning the bias of the Polish comunist authorities can be used to weaken the position that the units were German (as opposed to dressed up Polish or Russian). In what sense the Polish authorities were biased against 17th Infantry Division that they wanted this particular division to be charged of the atrocities?
 * I think we can add some more context to that information, if necessary.
 * alx-pl  D  21:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are making progress in that in IYHO the quote doesn't belong here. Why don't you delete it so that I don't have to do it again. I'm sure you have read the article Bromberg Bloody Sunday, in it there are a lot of claims made by both sides. The point is that they are just claims or in legal terminology, allegations; difficult to prove as fact. Calling them claims or allegations "is nothing to be ashamed of" (you used that remark in an edit summary, don't know why). Much worse, would be to call them, irrefutable facts. If I need to explain to a Pole, the "information" dispersed to the Polish nation, in the PRL, about anything that they considered adversarial to them, didn't have to be read "twice", you didn't live there (or wrote for them; just joking). Lastly, IYHO or IMHO, is not the basis for inclusion or exclusion of material in an Encyclopedia. Dr. Dan 23:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you have read the article Bromberg Bloody Sunday, in it there are a lot of claims made by both sides. Wrong comparision.Here we are dealing with a well researched case, admitted by both sides. The Bromberg Bloody Sunday was a invention made by Goebbels in order to justify mass murder of Poles in 1939. I find your comparision of it to Polish research as inappropriate.  The point is that they are just claims or in legal terminology, allegations; difficult to prove as fact. The massacre of people made by German 17th Infantry Division is an established fact. You still haven't provided any sources disputing this. Both professor Kulesza and German prosecutor admit it happened. --Molobo 22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are making progress in that in IYHO the quote doesn't belong here As cases of mass murder made by German soldiers are disputed on regular basis it is usefull to give a full description. --Molobo 22:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dr Dan, of course Someone's HO can be the basis for inclusion/exclusion to an Encyclopedia. This, however, can be easily challanged by another HO and that's why we have to sometimes resort to verification by secondary sources and all the stuff related to the writing NPOV & NOR articles.
 * My opinion on Modrzewska's quotation is purely of the aestethic nature and I don't believe there is any other criterion that can allow or disallow the quotation in the article.
 * Indeed, it would be unfair to present claims as irrefutable facts. Note, however, that presenting a fact as a claim is not good either. Of course this all is subject to the quality of our sources and their credibility (no historian believes in all what's written in the medieval chronicles).
 * However, we have to use the historical methodology. I agree that a sentence of a German court would be a strong indication about the factuality of the atrocities. I cannot agree though that it is impossible to establish the fact without the sentence.
 * I don't think that the document we use as the reference is an irrefutable piece of evidence. I think though that Kulesza is a reputable historian and I consider his research as decent.
 * Of course all historians (Polish, English, Russian etc.) have certain bigger or lesser biases and not all their claims can stand "double" critical reading. We have to of course believe in some of the accounts provided by historians. In this light, your standpoint that Kulesza's account can be inaccurate is valid provided that you can point to more examples of his inaccuracy, or even better show that this one is factually wrong.
 * I propose to resolve the formulation by atributing that the information about 17th Infantry Division presence in Złoczew was established by the Polish investigators.
 * More information on the case can be found in the files AIPN Oddział w Łodzi, S28/04/Zn. Probably other sources can also give us a clue. Maybe we have an access to a detailed route of the units of the division.
 * alx-pl  D  12:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again these kinds of quotes do not belong in an encyclopedia. Secondly, no fact has been established by the quote, nor does the quote mention the Division. So put it in its own article, and have people discuss the quote in its own article about its unquestionable truth and necessity. Finally, Alx, make up your mind. Do you IYHO think the quote does or doesn't belong in the article, because you have espoused both POVs, in your last several entries in this discussion above? Dr. Dan 02:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the quote does not belong to the article (and I exposed only this POV), but rather because it evokes strong emotions. The emotional kind of writing should be avoided in an encyclopedia.
 * I think, however, the quote itself is relevant to the topic as the source we use puts it in the appropriate context.
 * I think also that we know too little to put the quotation in the due context in this Wikipedia article as the account of Kulesza is quite vague. This is another point against mentioning of the quotation.
 * My entries concerned mostly the description of the Złoczew events than the quotation, this should probably explain why you saw two POVs instead of one.
 * alx-pl  D  08:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Since war crimes are often denied It's good to have the quote. There is no doubt that the division took part in the murder only what exact units made it is unknown. --Molobo 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

so, we need quotes because "eye witnesses" never lie or deny things, or publish untrue statements (that is your point right Molobo?). Take for instance, Mein Kampf, not a single thing in that book false, and the Jews are trying to take over the world, and hitler was publishing his "eyewitness" account of current events to him. of course I am being sarcastic.

--Jadger 18:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you believe she is lying present a scholary paper that claims so. Kulesza from IPN however believes her credible and put her witness statement as example. --Molobo 20:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

no scholarly paper would waste its time writing about a simple Polish peasant that is not significant or special in any way, or else why havent I had an article written on me? I'm not important or significant, just like her.

many people (although not very smart ones) believe that what Hitler stated in Mein Kampf is true, and believes it is credible and uses it as a statement and example. The same thing you say about this "witness" example can be said about any source, wether factual or not. scientific investigations into eye witness reports (such as in criminal investigations such as teh one u are quoting) have proven that they are not reliable at all, and in fact the increased adrenaline in situations can lead to things being skewed or totally made up.

--Jadger 23:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC) a simple Polish peasant Well Kulesza is a well respected professor, If somebody disputes his statements sources and examples let me know. Could write a little better btw ? --Molobo 00:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

read your own quote again, the quote is not from him, it is from a paesant who testified at an investigation he headed as prosecutor. The person's name is Janina Modrzewska, the prosecutor's name is Kulesza. NOTE that it states prosecutor, which means that he must take a side and "run with it" so to say, that directly contradicts Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

What is not being disputed is his credibility, but the credibility of his witness, now if you are going to quote that, why do you not quote the cross-examination by the defence in this trial for supposed war crimes? One side cannot be presented without the other without seriously warping the issue towards one POV.

--Jadger 02:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote of this victim is given by Professor Kulesza who clearly writes that it describes the events that happened. If the quote would be disputed or unreliable it would either be mentioned or not given at all. --Molobo 13:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

which is exactly why it has been repeatedly deleted by many users, because it is unreliable and UNVERIFIABLE. Professor Kulesza writes that it describes the events that supposedly happened, but how does he know? only from this "eye witness". and how does the German soldier crush the baby, but fail to kill the person that was holding the baby? that is a rather stupid point, but one cant forget the fact that this prosecution is all happening more then 20 years after the incident.

--Jadger 18:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Breaking up the Length
It's getting long, so I'm breaking it up. Molobo, please explain what you just said in your last entry. You included alx-pl's quote to me, and then made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Can anyone please give a geographical idea of where Złoczew is located in Poland, what would be the nearest largest city or what Wojowódstwo is it in? Dr. Dan 00:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is explained in the Polish Wikipedia article pl:Złoczew. This is a town 23 km south of Sieradz in the current powiat sieradzki, województwo łódzkie. Here is a map with the town. alx-pl   D  09:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Need an article on Helena Modrzewska
Where has this testimony been established as fact? Why is her testimony more reliable than German testimony concerning Bromberg Bloody Sunday? Dr. Dan 00:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Where has this testimony been established as fact? By renown Professor Kulesza of IPN that researches war crimes and atrocities.  Why is her testimony more reliable than German testimony concerning Bromberg Bloody Sunday? Unconnected to this article. Adress this issue there. --Molobo 13:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing the point? You claim the Bromberg case is propaganda, but claim your information is factual and scholary. There is nothing verifiable or scholarly provided by you in this quote. Nothing identifying this division. Nothing that requires anyone to prove that it untrue. The burden is for you to prove its true in order for it to remain in the article. Dr. Dan 14:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

'' There is nothing verifiable or scholarly provided by you in this quote. Nothing identifying this division. Nothing that requires anyone to prove that it untrue. The burden is for you to prove its true in order for it to remain in the article.'' Please provide scholary source claiming professor Kulesza's statement that the division comitted massacre in Złoczew which is described by witness statement is a falsification. Thanks for pointing out Bydgoszcz-I shall add information from IPN about how this propaganda was created by German state in the proper article. --Molobo 17:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Correction in point Pan Molobo, you show us where professor Kulesza made any statement that the 17th GID committed your not his allegations that you have falsely put it this article about the division. I'm not claiming he has falsified anything. Only that you have. I'm claiming that he is recounting allegations made by others, and cataloging them in the IPN. Give us the exact line that Kulesza accuses this Division and an English translation, and not only will I back off, but I'll support your position. How's that? Dr. Dan 02:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

''żołnierze tej samej 17. Dywizji Piechoty, której podlegał wówczas pułk SS-Leibstandarte „Adolf Hitler”, 3 i 4 września 1939 r. w miejscowości Złoczew zamordowali około dwustu osób – Polaków i obywateli polskich narodowości żydowskiej. W polskim śledztwie5 ustalono nazwiska 71 ofiar. Niemożność zidentyfikowania pozostałych wynikała z tego, że byli to uciekinierzy próbujący ujść przed nadciągającymi oddziałami niemieckimi. Świadek Janina Modrzewska, mieszkanka Złoczewa, która wówczas miała 18 lat, tak opisała wydarzenia:'' Soldiers of this same 17th Infantry Division, which included SS-Leibstandarte „Adolf Hitler”, on 3rd and 4th September in the town of Złoczew murdered circa two hundred people-Poles and Polish citizens of jewish nationality. In Polish invistigation 71 names of victims were identified. The impossibility of identitfing the rest was the result of that that they were refugees trying to escape before advancing German units. Witness Janina Modrzewska, inhabitant of Złoczew which had 18 years at the time, described the event:" End of quote.No other division mentioned, no dispute as reliability of the statement on part of Kulesza.It is clear that the quote relates to atrocities that Kulesza writes were made by German 17th  Infantry Division. --Molobo 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Another case
Of either deletion of atrocities or extreme poor Polish skills of our "Dr". '' Po skończonym nalocie żołnierze niemieccy z 17 dyw. piechoty rozstrzelali 10 chłopów polskich.'' After air attack german soldiers from 17th Infantry Division executed 10 Polish peasents.

I expect the usuall comments like :"Was it on Earth ? It doesn't say it was on Earth, maybe it was on Mars ? Dr.Dan" --Molobo 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering your usual POV and propagandizing polemics, it might as well have been on Mars. Dr. Dan 18:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda
To those who might be interested, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for propaganda. Please create another article for your own enjoyment at home. To those who disagree, please name one person who was charged, tried and convicted of a war crime from the 17th GID. Or please name one person who was charged, tried, and acquitted of such crimes from this division. If you can't, please remove your relentless bolshevik POV, from the English Wikipedia. I'm sure there has got to be a forum for this nonsense, somewhere. Like the Stalin Society, maybe. Dr. Dan 04:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dan, now you're also crossing the line. You're stating that the Attempts by authorities in Communist Poland to link soldiers from the German 17th Infantry Division to war crimes during World War II, failed, which is a POV statement in itself. First, what has the communism of the authorities to do with the Nazi war crimes? Secondly, why not The post-war attempts to trial the war criminals of the division failed due to West German refusal to proceed the case?


 * Besides, I remember a dispute I had with someone over various Nazi war criminals who lived peaceful and happy lives in West Germany after the war. Take Heinz Reinefarth and Erich von dem Bach duo for instance. If we were to adopt your standards here (no trial - no guilt), then they were simply innocent people harassed by the Polish lawyers for no apparent reason. Same as Kaligula, Nero, Hitler or Goebbels - as none of them was ever tried.  // Halibutt 02:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Halibutt, let's leave Caligula out of this one. And doctor Goebbels too (let's pretend that Goebbels got banished from Wikipedia for a month, and although he might come back, we'd be lucky if he didn't). Let me tell you in the most friendliest way possible, that "...authorities in Communist Poland to link..." is not POV, but a fact that doesn't require a citation. That they "failed" to make this link is a fact also, and not POV requiring a citation, either. When the editor "created" this article, it was not to inform or educate our readers about this division, but rather to make a vehicle to continue a barrage of propaganda, that after consensus and discussion, had been settled to most peoples' satisfaction. In spite of this consensus, that editor would continually and surreptitiously put the same crap back in. I was put in an uncomfortable position to be fair and objective whether I wanted to be in this position or not. Like many judges have had to be, throughout time immemorial. Unfortunately some people who have a need and a bent to propagandize in Wikipedia, and cannot understand that objectivity has to be applied universally (even to the Germans in WWII). Several times I suggested that this "information" and "quote" be introduced into their own articles, or other existent appropriate articles, but this suggestion, came to nought. Personally, I have read the article and talk pages about it enough, for my own satisfaction. Because of my regards and esteem towards you, Halibutt, I replied to your comments, although reluctantly. Hopefully you can read between the lines and understand the gist of my position. In short, mam dosić. Dr. Dan 03:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dan, you're using the Nazi argument the other way around. Underlining the COMMUNIST authorities here would be like switching all mentions of "Germany" to "Nazis" in WWII contexts. You know, Mann was a Nazi philosopher. Anyway, they succeeded in make a link, as the recent investigation proved. They did not succeed in convincing West Germany to investigate the matter, which is a completely different case. So, in other words, you're presenting your own views here as if they were reality, which they are not. I understood the gist in your position - and decided to reply here before I apply changes to the article.  // Halibutt 08:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again you need to read the article from its incipiency, and the talk pages too. The completely factual addition about the Communists came later, and unfortunately became necessary as a result of a relentlessly biased presentation of who garnered the information. It's funny how certain information comming from "sources" that one feels are questionable, like Jerzy Urban or David Irving, are swept under the rug so to speak. These are the same authorities that killed Witold Pilecki (a personal Hero of mine), and took care of Jerzy Popieluszko. They came from the same system that tried to kill Jan Pawel II. Your'e lucky to have been a baby when this monstrosity began to become undone, and not have to lived in it for long. All of those pretty flags of where you have travelled to, would at best been the NRD, Czechoslovakia, and if you were lucky, the privelege of getting to see Lenin himself in Moscow. I lived in this system, as a guest, and travelled in it extensively, and boy am I glad it's gone. There were a lot of crimes committed in WWII, by everybody. William T. Sherman said that War is Hell, and he was right. That is why, for among other reasons, I am a staunch Pacifist. Once again the article, which degenerated into a propaganda piece, was about a division of 10 to 15 thousand men, and it was created by an editor whose talk page, to do list, and numerous articles clearly show that it is not me who has crossed the line over and over again. Halibutt, drogi, change what you will, but at least admit that your Fact tags are a little bit overdone. Dr. Dan 15:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, since when was someone presumed guilty before being proven innocent? that was the system in ancient China, but not on the English wikipedia or in the western world. As you said halibutt "you're presenting your own views here as if they were reality, which they are not". we all know the system of how the communists prosecuted Germans after the war. take for instance Erich Hartmann (fighter ace), he could not account for the positioning of every single one of his shots, and so the communists held him prisoner until 1955 I believe. The West-German government would not prosecute because there was not enough credible evidence to bring it to trial under a fair system such as that of West Germany, rather then a kangaroo court like the ones held in Poland to prosecute war criminals and common Germans both.

--Jadger 02:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, just sit back for a while and think about it: the case of WWII war crimes is a tad different from some post-war trials in democratic countries. The fact that neither Hitler nor von dem Bach were ever tried for their crimes does not mean that they were innocent. Sorry, democratic principles do not apply to all cases, and especially so in the case of Nazi officials. In a strict sense yes, both these gentlemen were innocent as nobody has ever found them guilty in a free and fair trial.
 * Also the argument that the fact that Poland was ruled by communists at that time is absurd. Dan, you've spent some time here. Did you eat communist bread or just bread? Did the authorities put a communist stamp in your passport or just a stamp? I agree that the communist authorities were in no way innocent and fair. However, this does not mean that they were 100% bad and 100% wrong. The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia is a complete rubbish when it comes to historical articles, but that does not mean that 2 and 2 do not make 4, just because the "communist stated so in their encyclopaedia".
 * As to the division - the reason why the West German government declined to prosecute the matter was not because "there was not enough credible evidence", but because it assumed a priori (for this or that reason) that the murders were in fact an element of warfare or actions against criminal partisans. Note that this was the German explanation of turning down a single case presented by the Polish authorities, which was limited to murder of 14 people known by name. Among them was an elderly woman who hid in a cellar from the German army and was killed with a grenade, murder of a 31-year old man who was shot because he did not have an id card at him, a murder of three people (a 50-year old man, his son and colleague, the father of a girl who was murdered the previous day) from whom the German soldiers have stolen horses, a murder of a guy who was passing by a group of German soldiers on his bicycle and an execution of four elderly people who were too old to leave the village of Wola Kleszczowa before the German advance. The German prosecutors' office further explained that there is a chance that the killing of those people might have breached the rules of German war law, the Hague convention and so on, but again authoritatively announced that these crimes were common crimes (killing) and not heavy crimes (murder) and hence are subject to non-claim. SImilar explanation was given in the decision to turn down the Złoczew case (that is the murder of 71 victims known by name out of approximately 200 people murdered that day. In the case of a wounded woman who survived the slaughter and was then pushed into a burning house, the German court declared that the crime was committed without cruelty. In all, the decision to turn down the case was explained in a similar way: no way to check which unit arrived to Złoczew first (a complete nonsense as I could dentify the unit myself, without even leaving my room: all testimonies mention a division's headquarters and a unit with motorcycles and bicycles - not a common thing in early WWII German divisions)
 * And so on and so forth. If we are to declare that the division's soldiers were innocent and that the Polish civilians were in fact partisans, while it were the bad communists who tried to spread their ugly tentacles to freedom-loving West Germany, then we should also mention this POVs mirror: that the German revisionists, Hitler's henchmen, declined to persecute their fellow Nazi criminals for fear of their own past being revealed. Seems sensible? I doubt it.  // Halibutt 16:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

for your whole blatantly false accusations and POV pushing in statements above, I give you the following, and implore you to use it: Fact --Jadger 03:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really sure what you mean in the above comment. And these are not mine accusations. Even the German authorities admitted that the people were indeed killed by the division. What differed between their POV and the POV of the Polish authorities was the legal interpretation of the killings. What for the Poles was a war crime, for the Germans was a common crime. A crime nevertheless. Check for yourself.  // Halibutt 10:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

what I meant was that a citation tag Fact would be needed in your comments above. If your POV was actually able to be substantiated, it would of been backed up with credible citations in the article. But instead it has been removed because it is obviously a twisting of words to suit your purpose of continuing your jihad.

let's pretend for a second that your above statements were an actual article. It would require a citation tag Fact on almost every single line, because what you state is so blatantly false or a twisting of words. maybe it is just the online translator you are using that is giving words with different connotations and meanings than what you mean.

--Jadger 00:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for assuming good faith. That's exactly what I expected of you. As to my statements above - all is in the IPN source. Basically it lists dozens of examples where the West German authorities rejected the prosecution on procedural grounds (common crimes subject to non-claim mostly). Which means that they indeed considered the crimes... crimes. If that is false - please be so kind as to provide some source to state clearly that these cases were not rejected on these grounds but rather found no crime at all, regardless of its nature or clasification. Or apologize. Or both.  // Halibutt 02:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Judging from the fact that Jadger decided to delete the sources altogether instead of presenting his, I consider the case closed. Now waiting for some reaction here, hopefully in line with what I wrote above.  // Halibutt 20:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

the IPN is only a credible source if you live in Poland, elsewhere it is the least credible source for information. it is like asking OJ Simpson to head the investigation into his wife's murder.

--Jadger 02:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * IPN is incredible? Then please be so kind as to tell my why so. Or at least point me to some western source to question IPN's credibility as a whole or in part. Are all of its 17 regional branches incredible or is it only one or two? Or perhaps it's some of the historians or lawyers working there that are incredible - or is it the entire staff?
 * Sorry, Jadger. You might not like the source, but you can't deny it exists. If we are to chose between what IPN historians say in serious publications or what User:Jadger claims in edit summaries, I'd say we go with the IPN. And deletion of sources from the article just because you don't like what they say is not a step in a good direction and I consider it an act of vandalism.  // Halibutt 07:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I will say again, the IPN is not credible. because it was set up solely to research/fabricate and then prosecute foreign people for crimes committed during the Nazi and Soviet eras. It is not an unbiased group of historians (as you claim), but a team of prosecutors trying to dig up dirt on the former rulers. institute of national remembrance article states that in a not as clear way, it states that in a more polite way.

why does all your "information" come from this one source, usually if one would like to prove such controversial claims as you make, they find multiple credible sources, rather than one nefarious one. so please, provide us with another source that claims this, if it did actually happen there surely would be more than one source that talks about it on the vast world wide web. and please, perhaps a site in English for once please?

--Jadger 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Err... I'm speechless. Fortunately it seems you're the only person in the world to believe IPN is incredible. I believe it's because you're throwing all of its' offices into one basket, and perhaps because they write books and articles on what is not a popular knowledge in modern Germany. None of my business, really.
 * Fortunately, the source is online and comes from a source that is not disputed by any modern scholar, be him serious or not. Which is pretty much enough to satisfy the WP:VERIFY. I doubt there are more on-line sources in English as the topic of German WWII war crimes is pretty much omitted by modern British or American historians, just like Polish historians barely ever write books on American Civil War. That seems pretty natural to me. But hey, contrary to what you state, there's already several on-line sources in the article, not all of them related to IPN. But perhaps you need some more sources for some specific fact? Feel free to add citation tags, I'm sure I could find a source for all statements in the said section.
 * But why focus on my work? Currently the article is a tad imbalanced as one of the sections is sufficiently sourced and well-described, while the rest of the article is merely a large stub. Why don't you focus on expanding it? It's fun, you know?  // Halibutt 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Here We Go Again
Thank you Jadger, for somewhat "politely" pointing out that the this recurring POV, will be opposed, everytime, it is re-introduced. Obviously the source, of these entries, is a "Bastion of truth and fact", like when he bid us all a tearful farewell, and said he was leaving English-Wikipedia for good, and going to take all of his information and "transfer it", to Polish-Wiki, where I'm sure it would have found a happier home. Dr. Dan 00:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I've heard, he is not welcomed there either (the polish wiki). It seems no matter where he goes he is still reverted constantly by more enlightened users. But yes, if he were ever to actually leave, he would be missed like a dog misses fleas.

--Jadger 01:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, the info about war crimes and description is quite present in Polish wiki. --Molobo 09:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

ya, until someone reverts you again just like on here.

--Jadger 01:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC) They aren't many people interested in deleting information about German war crimes on Polish wiki. --Molobo 02:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And are seriously unaware that most war  crimes made by Wehrmacht went unpersecuted ? --Molobo 02:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Allegation: definition
 * Noun
 * 1. a formal accusation against someone.
 * 2. Statements corroborating or affirming, or disputing or denying certain facts.


 * Understood, better now? Dr. Dan 02:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC) P.S., Get out your slownik, and look up persecute and prosecute.

a formal accusation against someone. Oh the infantry division is known to comitt the crimes, and this went past the accusation. They escaped justice because German court said it is impossible to determine who among  division members' made the crime, not if the division was engaged. --Molobo 07:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That above statement from June 13th is untrue and nonsense. However I do not agree with Jadger about the IPN being a bogus source. I consider it a credible source. I do however consider the the communist predecessor to it, very bogus. And the IPN is the source that has merely cataloged information from the communist post-war elements that killed Pilecki, and accused this division. As a side note I'm am attempting to garner information about the witnesses at Pilecki's trial. Which traitors who were in the camps with him testified (and lied), for their scum-like benefit, and betrayed him. A bit OT, which I will move to his talk page. Back to the division, I insist on including, and will continue to add that the so-called crimes were alleged and unproven. And that the charges were initiated in communist Poland. These are significant facts, are true, and need not be deleted, unless there is an agenda here. I have no objection to the allegations being made. I am very aware of the crimes committed by all sides in WWII. Dr. Dan 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So let's stick to on-topic. First of all, your recent changes, while better than Jadger's wholesale deletion of facts he doesn't like, is still factually inaccurate. The German courts did not claim that there were no crimes, so it was not merely alleged killing and so on. The German courts did dispute the probable reason for killing these people or claimed that there is no way to find those responsible. However, both Polish and West German authorities agreed that the people were indeed killed by the soldiers of the 17th division. You read Polish, so you'd have no problems understanding the source.
 * Also, branding the people to investigate the crimes as communists (for which you have no proof whatsoever) could serve only one purpose: to make the crimes sound less serious or improbable. Bah, the Commies were bragging all the time, no need to listen. Have you ever wondered why don't we write of Nazi railwaymen, Nazi nurses or Nazi lawyers? Or perhaps should we change all mentions of the UK to Royalist UK? Divisions of the New Dealist USA landed in Normandy? Let's not mix ideologies of the state authorities with actions of its citizens.  // Halibutt 08:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me try not to be personal here. With your equating my efforts and Jadger's, which have nothing to do with each other, it is difficult however, for me not to be. Jadger has his opinions, I have mine. We are not the Bobbsey Twins, and we are not working in tandem, for some common agenda which unfortunately I see alot of, with some editors (recognize anyone), over and over again. Nor am I an apologist for the crimes committed in wars by all sides, throughout history. Wikipedia is, as you've pointed out on several occasions, not a forum or a chat room. It is not a venue for propaganda either. This article, was "created" by an editor with a lot of baggage, user:Molobo, who has been banned for a lengthy time, for a lot of reasons. He did not create it to teach us or inform us about the 17th German Infantry Division, but as a vehicle to relay accusations that were brought against it, in communist Poland after the war. His anti-German bias was legendary. Now to some facts. None of these accusations were confirmed to have been perpetrated by this division. The allegations were initiated by the authorities in communist Poland. Whether or not you like those facts, they are simply true. I have read and re-read the IPN account in Polish several times, and although there is some twisting and turning, that's still how it reads. I do not believe the IPN to be unworthy or suspect (it's not a neutral or an un-biased entity either) in its activities. Unfortunately it has no actual power to do anything, or as I'm sure you'll agree, Salomon Morel, would have been, and should have been, extradited back to Poland. I have stated several times that the accusations or allegations made here, are worthy of having their own articles (even Helena Modrzewka and her quote), and their talk pages as well. One half of this article is unproven communist propaganda, that cannot be tied to this division except by extrapolation and other "assumptions" (like they were in the vicinity, so it had to be them). Furthermore the propaganda brought forth, is besmirching over ten thousand soldiers, as if they all were playing catch with babies on their bayonets. Remember the stories in WWI, in Belgium (British Propaganda)? The article is furthermore becoming less and less encyclopaedic, because it is going way off the subject about the division. This kind of detail belongs in something other than an encyclopedia. You wouldn't even find nonsense like the Modrzewska quote in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and your additions are merely paraphrasing her quote. And rather poorly I might add. Write a couple of new articles about the allegations, if it will make you feel better. If I want information about the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment, I would prefer to get it from the article. If I want to know about Wounded Knee, or the Battle of the Little Bighorn, I can go to their own articles. Any links or redirects are never a problem for me, even in this case (like Modrzewska's "quote", pure melodramatic bolshevik propaganda). I have left a lot of nonsense alone and not reverted it, why should the two facts of the charges being allegations, and that the initial source claiming them, was communist Poland, be removed? Certainly not because they are not true. Look up allegation in a English dictionary. Dr. Dan 02:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This article was started by Molobo, yet it was me to expand it and source it . So it is not an article created by Molobo (who was blocked), but by Halibutt and others (who were not).
 * I did not create it as a vehicle to relay accusations that were brought against it, but to tell the history of a certain WWII unit. And I believe I did it well, using as many references as I could find on-line.
 * Well, what you call unproven Communist propaganda is in fact a perfectly sourced material based on legal documents of both "Communist" Poland and "Capitalist" or "Post-Nazi" West Germany. Which courts would you like to meddle the issue in order for this article to be sourced better? Nicaraguan?
 * I don't know if those facts could be tied to this division. The fact is however that they were tied indeed, both by Polish prosecutors and by German court.
 * Also, contrary to what you allege, this article does not blame all soldiers of the said division for the crimes. Nor does it suggests that every single soldier of this division took part in the Battle of Moscow sustaining heavy losses. If we write an article on, say, American intervention in Cuba, we do not mean that every single American citizen took part in it, do we.
 * The article is indeed unbalanced, as the "Polish part" of division's history is explained in detail, while other parts are not. However, this does not mean that we should delete the expanded fragment to make this article a stub again. You want it to be balanced? Expand other sections as well, if you can.
 * As to allegations - you already asked everyone involved to look the word up in the dictionary and so I did. Yet, an allegation is not something that is confirmed by courts of two independent states. Of course you could claim that Polish courts were under Bolshevik influence and the German courts were controlled by the US or former Nazi officials. However, you'd need a proof that this was the case here. Otherwise let's stick to what is written in the sources, shall we?
 * Finally, Modrzewska is not even mentioned in this article.  // Halibutt 06:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Response to Halibutt's ''8 POINTS

1. The article was created by Molobo.

2. The article was created by Molobo.

3. No need to go to Nicaragua now to get your sources verified. Might have been a good place during the Sandanista regime though.

4. No one was charged, tried, or convicted from the 17th GID of any war crimes. I will grant you however, that allegations of war crimes were made against the division in communist Poland.

5. I never said that, and if no individuals from the division can be pinpointed, you are painting the entire division with a negative broad brush. And the entire division is being besmirched.

6. You are right and that's why I didn't delete something that I didn't like. Like you did, e.g., the factual insertion that these charges were Allegations and the references to communist Poland (where the initial charges were made).

7.The definition of Allegation cannot be not disputed. It is what it is in the English language, and it means what it means, in the English language. What you should want to tell us is that the "crimes", were unproven allegations. BTW, you are too young to remember (or have conveniently forgotten), that Gerald Ford got into "hot water", by making the absurd remark that communist Poland was an "independent" state. Don't repeat the mistake, please.

8. Please don't play dumb. The propagandistic quote of Modrzewska was added one week after Molobo "created" this article, by an anonymous editor. It was only after much acrimony and bickering that it was finally removed by somewhat of a consensus, only to be surreptitiouly re-added several times later. Yes, now it's gone. If I'm not mistaken you were a devotee and defender of the quote (I could care less) when it was here. Now you've taken the essense of the quote, with names and ages of victims and a slew of other nonsensical propaganda, and re-entered it into the encyclopedia. Look at the article and try to convince yourself that your "expansion" of the article is not propaganda and furthermore is keeping the article scholarly, unbiased, and worthy of an encyclopedia article. Dr. Dan 02:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope. Check the links I provided. Or check the history yourself.
 * As above.
 * Then what is it that you need?
 * Nope, the division was found responsible of war crimes in Poland and West Germany. No member of the division was charged by the German court, yet the German court admitted that the division was involved in war crimes. Check the source.
 * Nope. If we are mentioning that the division fought valiantly, does it mean that we present every single soldier, from the General to a simple cook, in a positive light? Nope. I'd present every single soldier in a bad light if I insisted on adding a remark similar to every single soldier of the division was a war criminal. Note that's not what is in the article.
 * I already said why I don't like your communist Poland. Just like I don't like Post-Nazi West Germany, and all similar weasel terms that are meant only to downgrade the importance of some statements. Communist laundries must have been worse then capitalist ones, as there were no freedom fries in Communist countries... right? Let's not mix ideology with facts.
 * Your making up your own definition of what actually happened. Two courts have confirmed that the division took part in killing Polish civilians. That's what happened. No need to hide it behind sophisticated vocabulary.
 * I'm not playing dumb, are you? Modrzewska is not mentioned in the article. Or is she? And let me paraphrase your comment: look at the article I wrote and try to convince yourself that by trying to portray the war crimes as less evident you are not pushing some strange views into this encyclopaedia. We have sourced statements, and we have your own idea on how to present them. I'd say let's stick to the sources. BTW, did you like Communist cuisine here in Poland? And how about our Communist girls? I assure you, there's nothing like a Communist schabowy in a Communist restaurant - provided they don't turn off the Communist electricity so that you could listen to Communist hits on the radio.  // Halibutt 01:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Further response


 * The history of the article shows it was "created", November 30, 2005, by Molobo. English is not your native language, and since you have shown that you do not understand the definition of the word allegation, it is likely that you do not understand what the word create means either.
 * As above.
 * You are right here for once, ...What I (you) call unproven communist propaganda is in fact perfectly sourced material, but just the same is unproven communist propaganda. And Nicaragua has nothing to do with it.
 * Who was charged, tried and convicted (or acquitted for that matter) from the division of the alleged crimes?
 * Forget every single soldier in the division, can you name one who committed the alleged atrocities? Is a simple yes or no possible? Do you know what an allegation is, or do you still prefer a "conviction" based on your "objective" sources from communist Poland? Let me call it Stalinist communist Poland, because that's what it was, at the time the charges were initiated, if you prefer (I definitely do). And kiddo, if you think that testimony garnered in nazi Germany and communist Poland was not skewed or biased, and not relevant to be mentioned when it is presented, let's stop this discussion, because in that case it's pointless.
 * You see, it's not important whether you like my communist Poland or not. The charges were brought up in communist Poland, and the fact that you want to supress this fact is very revealing.
 * Excellent description of what you are doing here!
 * Ah Modrzewska (actually one of your main sources), the girl in the currant berry bushes who witnessed the atrocities, and testified 18 years after the fact in communist Poland. I hope she at least got a telephone for her troubles, or miracle of miracles, a new apartment. Maybe a low number as a Party member in the PZPR. Part two of this point, I would prefer to address on your talk page (even though I'm not welcome there, see user: Halibutt Talk, Communism in Poland.
 * Dr. Dan 04:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ...And what does to play dumb mean? But seriously, the article was indeed started by Molobo. Yet, the version you're commenting on has little to do with Molobo or Molobo's work. So, in other words, you state that the current article was written by Molobo in order to prove some point, even though Molobo did not write it.
 * As above.
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't we find some source to back that up? Seriously, I could imagine Communist propaganda published after 1989 in historical journals (although not in IPN's bulletin, unless it was an original document). However, I can hardly imagine a West German court spreading Communist propaganda. Yet, that's what it did, according to your interpretation.
 * No one. Just like none of the soldiers of the Wehrmacht were ever tried by West German courts. Yet, the courts confirmed that it was the 17th division to kill those people. Whether it was Hans Schmidtke or Franz Bauer is irrelevant here, as we're writing the article on 17th Division and not those guys anyway.
 * No, I can't. And I don't need to. The German court did not need to investigate the matter much to state authoritatively that it were soldiers of the 17th Division - and that's all that counts here. English is your native language, yet you have shown that you do not understand the definition of the word Stalinism - so what? Perhaps the Polish courts were biased, and so were the German ones. How does that influence this article? We have decisions of two courts of two different states on two sides of the iron courtain, both stating more or less the same. What's more, we have a description of the events published by a respected modern historian in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal. And on the other side we have doubts of certain Dr.Dan and Jadger... You are entitled to your doubts, but shouldn't you be able to find some backup for your allegations? WP:VERIFY is the way to go here I believe.
 * And the fact that you want to label the case as Communist - for no apparent reason - is also revealing. However, so far you did not explain what would be the merit of such mixing of ideologies with facts. Ever wondered why don't we write of McCarthyist actors or butchers here in Wikipedia? Or Nazi shopkeepers, for that matter?
 * I beg your pardon?
 * She's not my source. I stated my sources in the section on sources and references. And Modrzewska's not there - or is she?  // Halibutt 07:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While not directly related to this discussion, I believe this link might be pretty helpful here. It explains the reason why West Germany forgave the Wehrmacht  // Halibutt 06:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct that it is not directly related to this discussion. More over, it's an opinion, or more correctly put, a hypothesis. The entire phrase about West Germany forgiving the Wehrmacht is almost surrealistic Dr. Dan 01:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Surrealistic? Read some books by Grass, or perhaps his essays on the never-ending times of Adenauer...  // Halibutt 06:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

humble suggestion
I just scanned over the looooong discussion above in amazement... I just had a humble suggestion about additional references, and composition.
 * composition: There is a strong focus on the war crimes, and all that is written is of great importance. In terms of military history, I would be interested to also see more details about its deployments.
 * references: I wanted to add additional references but I fear it will get shredded to bits in some gigantic discussion as above. I post it here for now and if there aren't too many objections then I will insert it in a week or so (unless somebody else does).
 * References suggested:
 * Durch die Hölle des Krieges, Erinnerungen eines deutschen Soldaten der 17. Infanterie Division in der Schlacht um Stalingrad. Edgar Klaus, 438 pages.
 * (newer version: Klaus, Edgar: Durch die Hölle des Krieges, Erinnerungen eines deutschen Unternehmers an Stalingrad, Gefangenschaft und Wiederaufbau. Berlin 1991, 438 Pages).
 * Die Geschichte der 17. Infanterie-Division. Festschrift zum Treffen 1958 in Nürnberg.

(Thank you Feldgrau.com) --Carboxen 23:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, the article desperately needs expansion. Both the war-time history, the composition and even the armament need more attention from someone who has sources at hand.  // Halibutt 07:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to use the citation mechanism yet so I refrained from just editing the code for insertion of these above references. Hopefully I will get to learning it soon, unless somebody else wants to volunteer to amend these references. Hi Halibutt, some of it is available in secondary compilations, such as Feldgrau, including reference to the original sources. I am not sure if I will get to it any time soon (anybody welcome). Thank you for caring and responding! --Carboxen 16:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitions
Back to square one? Or back two spaces? Interestingly user: Molobo, who keeps reverting the fact that the accusations against this division are allegations, insists that the unproven war crime allegations against this division, largely brought forth by the authorities of Communist Poland, are valid, but the crimes commited during the episode at Bloody Sunday that took place at virtually the same time, are "allegations". Any outside opinions? Dr. Dan (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (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://books.google.com/?id=Jmga9yWKeFgC&pg=RA3-PA23-IA22&lpg=RA3-PA23-IA22&dq=17th+division
 * In 17th Infantry Division (Germany) on 2011-05-25 02:00:35, 404 Not Found
 * In 17th Infantry Division (Germany) on 2011-06-01 22:18:22, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)