Talk:Battle of Wizna

Uncategorized talk
I was not sure whether I should call this battle a German victory, German defeat or a draw. That's why I chose "unconcluded". Three days of heavy fighting with 40:1 odds is not what I'd call a German victory... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 08:11, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Halibutt, what are your sources for Guderian threatening of shooting Polish PoWs ?Szopen 11:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sadly, I don't remember. It might've been his memoirs, but I'm not sure. If that's really important I could check it. Halibutt 14:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it's not his memories. I had not seen this in any other www site (Except those basing on wikipedia). I remember that I saw it somewhere, I even thought it was me who added that info to wikipedia, but I can't remember where. Szopen 07:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Nie wydaje Wam się, że opis "unconcluded" jest trochę mylący ? Polskie pozycje zostały zdobyte, bitwę wygrali Niemcy. Może nie tak szybko jakby chcieli, ale jednak wygrali. Ktoś mógłby pomyśleć, że mimo stosunku sił 1:40 Polacy się obronili ;)
 * Please use English, this is English Wiki. For other readers: anon is disputing the 'unconcluded' result, as Poles were defeated, after all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe we could go either way here. After all the German objective was to blitz the Polish positions and the Polish objective was to hold out for as long as possible. And in fact the Poles held out even longer than planned while the Germans did not blitz the Polish positions. They finally broke through, but... after three days. It's somehow similar to the Finnish war of 1939/1940 - at the end the Soviets broke their resistance and achieved their goals, though some half a year later than planned and with unbelievable losses. Halibutt 16:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

But still Battle at Thermopylae is named "Persian victory" (sorry, my english is very poor). Also, if Kiev offensive have to be "polish defeat" - everything is possible ;) Maybe sometimes better to not fill up this . Always be POV.. Sorry for my english again.
 * Your English is fine. Feel free to use Polish if you cannot express yourself in English, but judging by the above post, you are doing fine. You may want to expand the Polish version of this article (and create a Wikipedia account).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd also say this was a german victory, if the germans had huge losses, then it would be pyrrhic victory, but victory nonetheless. If you just compare casualties and speak about ratios when deciding winner, we should declare germany winner of WW2 with same logic.

I checked battle of thermopylae, and it was counted as Persian victory so no one should have any argues with german victory here. While this could've been thought as strategical defeat for germany, i think it isn't even that because aftermath shows that germans were able to destroy more polish troops after battle of wizna even though they were delayed for some time.

1) The quote that Guderian threatened the polish to kill the POW's if they dont surrender without any historical source should be deleted until someone brings up a valuable source. Right now it appears to me like a myth and shouldn't be noted in an encyclopedia which tries to be scientific, not a story-book. 2) I would like to see pointed out in the article, if it was the resistance in the bunkers which trapped the germans for 3 days or if it was mainly because of the destroyed bridge. 3) The article says "40:1 may refer to the casualty ratio of German to Polish soldiers, though as noted above none of those numbers is well documented." The estimated losses on both sides which are named in the articles box appear like it was 1:1 so the quote is a wrong assumption and should be removed or altered that Sabaton MIGHT have had other numbers as the wrote the song but a source in an interview why they chosen this title would be best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.33.58 (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Most articles of the Poland Campaign are very pov. While in this case there is no polish documentation other then oral post-war stories, the war diary of the 10. Panzerdivision (primary source!) says:


 * Night of 7./8.9.39: Orders for 10. PD to pass Lomza and head for Wizna. At the same time the most forward scouts of the 3rd Army skirmish with polish defenders at the Narev river, with the result of bridges blown by the Polish.


 * Evening of 8.9.39: 10. PD arrives on the battlefield, first bridgehead (by boats) on late evening.


 * Night of 8./9.39: first infantry bridge built. At dawn a whole regiment is bridged. Attack on the bunkers commences.


 * during 9.9.39: Panzers and drawn guns ferried over or crossed on the 16ton bridge.


 * 9.9.39 at 17 hours: whole defense line taken.


 * 10.9.39: whole 10. PD crossed


 * (source: Albert Schick: Die Geschichte der 10. Panzerdivision 1939 - 1943)


 * Overall a river, 50 to 100 meters broad with a well prepared defense beyond, is taken in one day (if you exclude the scouting operations), without stuka or heavy artillery support, by a force of 2000 vs. some 750 i wouldn't call that a polish Thermopylae. Losses were around 100 men for the Germans + 10 afvs: scout cars and Panzer I+II Silberstern (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Silberstern

German Casualties and losses
In the box: Soldiers: 15640 Vehicles: at least 50 tanks and several AFVs In the text: German losses are not known either. In his diaries general Heinz Guderian understated the number of German soldiers killed in action. It is certain, however, that the Wehrmacht lost at least 10 tanks and several other AFVs in the struggle. Where do the exact numbers in the box come from? --217.232.13.28 (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Try asking editors responsible for adding the information:, . Polish wiki repeats the para about unknown losses citing no sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Exact Polish losses are unknown, mostly because very little is known of the soldiers that were taken POW by the Germans" and yet, there is also a claim in this article that no POWs were shot despite the threats. Why is that option excluded without any justification (what is the source) while it is stated that it is not known what happened to POWs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernambuco1 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have set the casualties to "Unknown", and I ask all editors to change this only when you can quote reliable sources. The numbers attributed to Guderian look anecdotal, too. -- Zz (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

German casualties and losses: 900+ infantry killed??? Crazy...Straszny mruk (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

==Exact Polish losses are unknown, mostly because very little is known of the soldiers that were taken POW by the Germans. It is estimated that most of Polish soldiers were killed in action, with some 40 successfully withdrawing and additional 40 taken POW. Those numbers however are not certain.==

so why it is 720 dead in the table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.233.29 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

numbers don´t add up! If there were 350-720 Polish, there can´t be 716 dead (very precise number) and 40 withdrawn, additionally 40 PoWs!!! 91.14.32.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

B-class review
Failed due to insufficient citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Numbers of troops
The figure of 42,200 men for the Wehrmacht against 720 Polish soldiers is incorrect. The attack was done by the Ist/IR86, supported by 2nd/light Anti Air Detachment 71 (mot.)and the light companies of Tank regiment 8 with Pz I and II. They had as well artillery and some air support. So it is difficult to give an exact number. In the war diaries of the germans are as well mentioned some cavalry units and there were some fights besides the bunkers. So the 720 seem to be just the numbers for the bunker line. So silbersterns estimation above, of 2000 against 750 is probably not far from truth. So the 42,200 should be deleted from the text. The battle lasted from 04.50 am on september 8th, with the arrival of the ALA till september 10th around 1.30 pm, according to the german war diaries. The battle under the responsibility of Guderian lasted even just for a single day. The number of german casualties is not given for this single event. The ALA reported for the morning of the 8th that they had 9 KIA and 26 WIA. --Hathugot (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Could be. Please cite your sources, and then feel free to correct the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what the figure of 42,200 contains and how the figure of 42.200 or 40,000 for Guderian's troops can be deleted or corrected useful. the wiki article reports for the XIX. Panzerkorps, another mistake (!), it was the XIX. army corps, that it consisted of the 2nd ID, the 20th ID (mot) and the 3rd PD, ca. 40,000 men. This does not include the 10th PD and the Festungsbrigade Lötzen, perhaps with further 18-20,000 men. The problem here is, that the 2nd and the 20th ID were west of Wizna and at Lomza. The 3rd PD was during the most parts of the battle in the area of Arys (East Prussia) and did not participate in the battle at Wizna. So we have first the ALA who fought around Wizna, I am not completely sure, I think they had ca. 700 men, I'll search for it. Then there was the I/RecceRgt 8, which tried to cross the Narew with their Kradschützen squadron. During the main attack on the bunkers the I/IR 86 was involved with ca. 850 men, supported by 2./AADetachment 71, the history of the 10th division mentions 1 AA gun (a maximum would be 12 Flak) and the II/tank Regiment 8 with its light companies of PzI and Pz II. For the support was the heavy artillery used and some aircrafts. The "Lötzen" did not seem to have participated in the battle.

Perhaps someone here has a proposal, how these informations can be included into the text.--Hathugot (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Unreferenced figures and claims should be market with citation needed and removed if no citation is provided. All other information can be included here; if sources are contradictory, we should clearly state so. All of your statements above are useful, but they each need inline citations, up to and including page number, before inclusion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Before I correct the article, I would like to discuss what I wrote above. I tried to correct the german text about the battle. It was deleted, because it seems some want to preserve the myth instead to recognize facts. It is a lot of work to write it in english and with all citations. So I would like to know if some here would refute my notes about the numbers, have correction advices or additional informations. I am willing to improve the text, but not to waste my time. So my question is, would a correction immediately deleted or have my notes a chance to stay in the article? all information about the german troops is based on Wehrmacht reports or the histories of the participating units. Thanks.--Hathugot (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

XIX PANZER Corps
Why is there a reference to a corps which never existed? In the whole German Army there was never a XIX Panzer Corps, it was the XIX Armee Corps which translates to Infantry Corps! Just because a later Panzergeneral (Guderian) commanded it? Very bad article! 91.14.32.177 (talk)

Sabaton, Forty to One
Should there be a reference to Sabaton's "Forty to One", their song about the battle? Maybe under a section, "Legacy in Modern Culture" or something like that? 173.23.16.189 (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Number of troops - again
Please see the book „First to Fight“ from Roger Moorhouse. While appreciating the Polish heroism in the battle, he states on page 134 that: „ …the more breathless claims attached to the Wizna story are rather harder to justify. Wizna alone did not - as some accounts suggest - halt the 40,000 men of the German 3rd Army in their tracks; that accolade must be shared with the men who defended Lomza and Nowogród further to the west. Neither did the battle last for three days. Though the Germany first arrived at the river on the 7th, there was evidently little genuine combat in the sector until the morning of the 10th…“ 2A01:598:A0FD:9887:5CC3:3C64:8120:75B7 (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)