Talk:Battle of Mława

Jadger's actions
Just in case Jadger wanted to delete the reference again and then claim the citation is not there, I'll give the quote here: Ludność cywilna nie podlegała podczas niej jakielkolwiek ochronie, na porządu dziennym były ostrzeliwania kolumn cywilnych uciekinierów, używania cywilów jako żywych tarcz (po raz pierwszy we wrześniowej bitwie pod Mławą), branie zakładników (na przykład na czas, odbieranej przez Hitlera, zwycięskiej defilady w Warszawie, 5 października 1939) i odstraszające egzekucje., which could be translated as The civilians were deprived of any protection; strafing civilians blocking the roads, using them as living shields (for the first time during the battle of Mława), taking hostages (for instance during Hitler's parade in Warsaw on October 5, 1939) and preventive executions.  // Halibutt 22:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

can we get another, more reputable source to back this up? sorry I did not see that before, but i read a translation of the article and there was nothing of that kind in it til you cited the exact sentence. We still need a better reference than a tabloid though. What's next? National Enquirer cited for proof of UFOs?

--Jadger 16:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gazeta Olsztyńska is hardly a tabloid, at least not more than any local daily newspaper is. The fact that the article does not suit your POV does not yet make this newspaper a tabloid, does it. As such it is just as valid reference as any other reliable newspaper, but just to make you happier I added two sources more, just feel free to use them.  // Halibutt 09:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

well, when you claim there is a reference that is claimed to say something, it helps that the reference should be more than one (1) sentence, perhaps a whole reference on this battle. not to mention that reference used does not cite it's sources, and is not concerned with history as this article is. We all know the tendencies of local newspapers to just print what the person they interviewed said, without asking for it to be backed up.

--Jadger 16:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

From the official web site of the Vinkt Museum: "Diezelfde dag poogden Duitse soldaten het Schipdonkkanaal in Deinze over te steken. Burgers uit de stad werden meegenomen als levend schild." Anyone who understands German should have no problem understanding the last sentence. "The same day, German soldiers tried to cross the Schipdonk Canal at Deinze. Civilians from the town were taken along as human shields." The Wikipedia article quoted has by now been translated into French. So, the fact that this was common (happened more than once), does not only have Polish (and Dutch) sources. --Pan Gerwazy 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

if it is that common as you claim than does it need mentioning? it was common but most battle articles don't refer to such actions. I don't mean that we should ignore it, but if it is as common as you claim, it would be assumed as it is a common part of war.

And we are not referring to the Vinkt Massacre here, you cannot point to it happening somewhere else and say definitively that it happened here. I asked for a second source on this event, not on a totally different event involving totally different people.

--Jadger 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, it is not about Vinkt - this is a talk page, we can use intellectual argument here. I only wanted to point out that it happened more than once (without the German High Command punishing the officers responsible - very important), which makes the claim more plausible. And no, it was not THAT common that it does not need mentioning at all. It happened more frequently in the East than in the West, and more with raw troops than with seasoned detachments. By the way, your argument "if it was so common, why mention it" could be rephrased as "well we know they were all war criminals, so why mention this little detail". No, they were not all war criminals. --Pan Gerwazy 21:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

well, since this is a talk page, we should use INTELLECTUAL argmuments, not logical fallacies. murders happened in Vinkt, so that means it happened in Mlawa is not a intellectual argument.

well we know they were all war criminals, so why mention this little detail u misunderstand, you claim it was commonplace, and I went on your presumption. another example of what I meant would be: every living person breaths, so it doesn't need included in their biography. I did not say they were common place, you did. notice at the start of my sentence you quoted:  if it is that common as you claim than does it need mentioning?

--Jadger 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Another reading suggestion for everyone: The Last Word. Balcer 23:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I know what you're doing, you are just trying to have the WP:WORD!, so kiss me, Balcer.

--Jadger 02:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jadger, I am sorry if I spoil what could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship, but the point is that along with a number of reasonable edits, you deleted a fact with its reference. On the grounds that the reference was no good, uncheckable, standalone. Since that last point has now been refuted, that part of your edit looks suspiciously like vandalism. Now, because anyone else intervening may possible ruin the rest of your changes - would you please be so kind as to put it back yourself? --Pan Gerwazy 09:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

LMAO, have you ever heard of assuming good faith Pan Gerwazy? or atleast checking the article you are commenting on? the "reference" is already back in the article. So, before you make yourself look like even more of a fool, kiss me, Pan gerwazy

now, back on topic, can someone cite another, more reliable source to back up the claims of this reference?

--Jadger 16:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Useful reading
This American intelligence bulletin summarizing a German training article might help improve the understanding of the issue here (though admittedly it comes from much later in the war). In a nutshell, this article neatly demonstrates that using "enemy" civilians on the battlefield under fire was part of standard German army tactics. Balcer 13:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And we all know the accuracy of American war-time propoganda, don't we? Please, if you're going to cite something, make sure it doesn't have a warning note at the top like this: [Editor's Note: The following article is wartime information on enemy equipment and tactics published for Allied soldiers. More accurate data on German equipment and tactics is available in postwar publications.] 

--Jadger 16:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not claim this is an authoritative source, and you may feel free to take it for what it is worth. Still, this is not propaganda, this is an intelligence bulletin which during wartime would be distributed mostly to American officers and enlisted men, and not available to the general population.  I do not believe such a publication would have any incentive to lie in this matter, after all during a war it pays to have as accurate information as possible about the enemy available to one's own commanders.  Besides, here they are just translating a German military document which sounds genuine (of course it would be much better to have access to the original).
 * Anyway, the dislaimer you point out applies mostly to information about military equipment, which obviously would have been much less accurate than what was available post war. Here is a description of this publication for those interested (in case the link goes down):


 * Intelligence Bulletin Series


 * Printed by the Military Intelligence Service throughout WWII, the Intelligence Bulletin was designed to inform officers and enlisted men of the latest enemy tactics and weapons. For the historian and collector, the bulletins offer a rare view into the Allied knowledge of the Axis forces.


 * And to quote the specific passage:


 * WHAT THE GERMANS LEARNED AT WARSAW
 * A list of the WRONG and RIGHT tactics followed, and point #8 states:


 * WRONG: The supposedly non-combatant and "harmless" population was not kept under observation, and seldom was employed to clear debris.


 * RIGHT: All able-bodied civilians are employed to clear debris. The German Army must enforce this point relentlessly, even when the work is performed under fire. (In this case the whole population was more or less directly assisting the insurgent Polish troops.)
 * [end of quote]
 * Balcer 17:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

that does not say human shields, that says they should be used to clean up debris, even under fire. It does not say they should purposefully put them in a combat zone to be shot at, it is implied that the common soldier would try to preserve civilian life (and provide covering fire). After all, if all the civilians are killed, the common soldier would have to clear the debris, something he would try to prevent. It says that they should be used to clean up debris, even under fire, not that they had to be placed in front of troops, much of the cleaning up of debris would be behind the trenches but still under fire from artillery and snipers and encircled stragglers.

And I also have a wartime book from the same American source that talks about Hitler's psychological state. none of the authors had ever even been on the same continent as Herr Hitler, they based all their claims on anti-Hitler rumours started by opposition parties pre-1933. It was also only available to US servicemen

--Jadger 20:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What can I say? Your attempts to present the horrifying directive cited in the document in the best possible light are actually rather amusing, but also quite disturbing. Balcer 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not manipulating the words, I am simply explaining the semantics to a non-native speaker of English. you are being entirely incivil just because your interpretation of a reference doesn't stand up to a tiny shred of review.

--Jadger 14:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jadger, your reliance on ad hominens only strenghtens Balcer's point.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I never used ad hominems. I simply stated that we should not assume something because it is close to what is stated in documents. We must take things for what they say, not what you want it to say. for instance: ''a source says. "person A was run over by a car and died" we cannot then use that source and then say on wikipedia "person A jumped in front of a car and ended his life" ''

P.S. FYI your last post was ad hominem itself.

--Jadger 15:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

B-class review: failed
For WP:POLAND. Agree with previous milhist review, the citations are insufficient. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)