Talk:Bloody Sunday (1939)

Social/political background
It is hard to understand logical reasons of the attack (German civilians VS Polish soldiers) without at least a sketch of atmosphere on the Pommerania before Sept. 1, 1939. We have to remember that Hitler's speeches (transmitted by the Berlin radio) were listened in many German houses (also in Bromberg). Some people (NSDAP entusiasts) thought about end of the "Polish occupation" and "historic justice". They could wait for Wermacht troops, but they wanted to help German fellow-soldiers to re-gain their territory. After Anshlus of Austria and Czechoslovakia they had to believe that Hitler is so mighty and powerful that nobody will dare to attack Ubermensches. Then we should add Abwehr infiltration especially active in 1939 on the whole area of the Korridor. Agents who not only could deliver necessary weapon (Polish army reports says about confiscated machine guns of the same type as used by Wermacht), but also teach logistic and urban guerilla methods, undoubtedly brought to local Germans feelings that Hitler is unconquered leader. Polish Army retreat soon confirmed this view. At the end it is necessary to add that even according to Polish historians that not the whole German population took part in the sabotage. If we count Germans in the city for approximately 10.000 people (then less than 5.000 would be men; ca. 2.500 in the age proper to fight) less than forth part of male population capable to fight took part in the action (according to Poles ca. 600 people). This addition is not to justify German side, but to understand, that German diversion is highly probable. It could took part as Poles claims (we have to remember that it was poorly documented - at the time of retreat nobody cares for crime evidence). For me less logic would be reaction of Polish mob that on the face of arriving German troops decided to lynch German fellow-citizens. It is poor to observe that neo-nazi propaganda is still present in the net and denies facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.80.108 (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please create an account, IP edits on a controversial topic like this are often problematic.
 * "The number of casualties and other details of the incident are disputed among historians" -Please don't present one version as "the truth", especially not Roman Rudenko's version of 1946.
 * Which version might be more credible or more probable should be left to the reader. For these reasons I reverted your edit.HerkusMonte (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * of course for HerkusMonte, Joseph Goebbels version is much more credible. If you read with understanding you will find that Rudenko only quotes official documents (I use this link, because English translation is easier to understand by users).

Because of it I reject your extremely non POV version. P. S. Sorry, guys - I will t create account. I do not publish in wikipedia excerpt of minor corrections when mistakes are really reious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.214.199 (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear IP, your attacks are unhelpful. I second HerkusMonte's concerns about presenting Roman Rudenko's version as WP:THE TRUTH, obviously, per WP:NPOV. Just because you found a link to a protocol of the Nuremberg Trials where another protocol is briefly mentioned and summarized by Rudenko does not mean that this is the true version of the events and everything published since is of secondary importance. I fail to see how your source qualifies as a reliable source at all. Unless you have evidence that Rudenko's summary resembles the mainstream sholary view it can not be presented as such here. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)/Skäpperöd (talk)

language & tone
"The Nazis exploited the deaths as grounds for a massacre of Polish inhabitants after the Wehrmacht captured the town." Should that not more ordinarily be termed "a reprisal". Hakluyt bean (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, this seems problematic as POV and should be tagged accordingly. JDanek007 Talk 03:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * added after the statement in the intro JDanek007 Talk  07:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The "the debate in scholarship" section...
...is problematic. First it completely fails to mention the works of such German historians as Gunther Schubert (The Bromberg Bloody Sunday: Death of a Legend refers to the death of the Nazi legend about this supposed "atrocity") whose research basically accords with what the article insists on calling "the Polish version" (i.e. not the version propagated by the Nazis during the war). Specifically in regard to whether not there were attacks by German "diversionists" Schubert shows that there was a pre-planned action directed at retreating Polish troops, organized with the participation of agents from outside the city, who arrived for this very purpose.

Along the same lines, this division of sources into "the Polish version" and the "the German version" is inaccurate or at least outdated. As the example of Schubert shows, newer German research basically says the same thing as this so-called "Polish version". In fact this kind of a nationally-based dichotomy serves as a sneaky tactic to pretend that there is "real" (as opposed to "imagined" or "fringe") current (as opposed to outdated) debate on the topic and to give equal weight to both views currently accepted by historians and those which have been rejected (but which I'm sure still have quite a prominence on some sites on the net).

 Volunteer Marek  17:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

On the issue of whether there was in fact any sniping at Polish troops by German irregulars, I'd make several observations.

First, my reading of accounts of the Dunkirk evacuation, etc makes it clear that 'fifth column psychosis' was common in such situations, and obviously innocent people were often seized and shot as snipers. This isn't proof that sniping didn't occur in Bromberg -- but it does create the possibility that it did not. Retreating troops do become panicky, imagine in all sincerity that they are surrounded by civilian snipers, and react accordingly. The mere fact that the civilians around them included Germans could have provided the necessary tinder -- no actual sniping would have had to have taken place. In 1940, for example, British troops on several occasions seized Belgian or French civilians, accused them of sniping, signalling, etc, and shot them -- even though it has been subsequently established that no such activity took place. It happens. Whether it happened in Bromberg is another matter.

Second, it would be germane to look into whether the Germans ever employed such tactics in other places: I don't believe they did. Bromberg might have been a one-off -- the presence of a large, hostile German population might have created a unique situation and opportunity. However, the absence of of any parallels that I am aware of doesn't increase the likelihood that the sniping was authentic.

Then too -- why? On the one hand, there would have been some marginal military benefit. On the other, the cost to the German inhabitants of Bromberg would have been potentially catastrophic. The Germans -- at least by their own lights -- were sane. They weren't given to self-immolation. While I'm certainly open to evidence to the contrary, on the face of it it seems unlikely that either the German military or the German civilian population of Bromberg would have engaged in such behavior. Not because they were nice guys -- simply because it would have been foolish.

Finally, and as so often, other possibilities exist. Individuals in the German population may have been very willing to defend themselves -- so willing that when Polish troops entered their homes, they shot first. Whatever did occur, it could have fallen into some such grey area. There might well have been shots fired. What those shots constituted could depend on who you asked. -- Colin Wright — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.192.43 (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Archive (2014)
I added the talk page header, which wasn't already included on this page, and also searchable archives, since the archive for this talk page is large and full of some very contentious talk. JDanek007 Talk 03:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
Please provide support for the recent reverts such as these. If you want to explain why an "established editor" is enabling edit warring IPs  who are clearly engaging in POV pushing here, that would help as well. Best as I can tell this is, at best, a tertiary source (a discussion of an interview supposedly given by a secondary source at one point), inserted into the article without proper context based on a source of unknown reliability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This sentences has been part of the article for years, an IP asked for a source in February 2015 and I provided a source. There is no POV pushing nor editwarring nor anything wrong with that source; LIT Verlag is a wellknown scientific publisher. Jastrzębski is also mentioned before (based on his former views), it's certainly worth to mention his change of mind. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a fringe view, that doesn't represent mainstream opinion of Polish historiography. I have added a source confirming that Polish historians view the event as attacks by German nationalist militia. I will re-add Jastrzebski when I will expand the article later during the day, don't worry. I must note that there are several issues with its current content-there is too much outdated info from 2003, Nazi propaganda is presented alongside legitimate historians(Wehrmacht statements) and so on. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Jastrzębski was the director of the Institute of History at the Academy of Bydgoszcz, he is a leading expert in the topic and published several books about it. Just because he's not supporting the "mainstream" of "Polish" historiography doesn't mean his views are "fringe". Actually, to present divergent views of several scientists is  a matter of WP:NPOV, to erase modern scientific research from the article, just becaus it doesn't correspond to your POV or the current "Polish" view, is not.HerkusMonte (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, it doesn't really help your case when you insist on putting the work of reliable historians in quotation marks according to their nationality, as in "oh my god! They're "Polish"" historians!!!. Are you trying to scare people by bolding the word Polish, or are you trying to scare them by putting the word "Polish" in scare quotation marks? Let me guess. Both bolding and putting the word "Polish" in quoation marks is likely to really really really scare editors, right?
 * Anyway, all you got there is a sketchy tertiary source referring to one particular person and whatever they may have said at one point or another. It's classic cherry picking for the purposes of POV pushing which violates UNDUE weight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm using quotation marks when I cite Molobo. And to make it very clear, there is not just the Polish mainstream view; there is no consensus among historians and it is our job to present divergent views in a neutral way. Jastrzębski is leading expert on the topic and he's not the only one (outside of Poland) questioning the traditional Polish version. We need a neutral description of the different modern views, not just one side against the Nazis. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to get into nationalistic edit wars that have to do with Polish-German topics, you can really do better than this and actually pick an article where there is something to argue about. Here, there's basically the Nazi propaganda view and the view of the modern historians (be they '"Polish!!!!!!!!! Oh my God!!!!!!!", or not). The best you can argue is that there's some nuances in this situation. But then NPOV requires that these nuances are presented as nuances, rather than as some kind of "Nazi propaganda was actually right!" kind of thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You want to claim that Professor Jastrzębski (recipient of the Order of Polonia Restituta and author of several historiographic books) has somehow fallen into supporting Nazi-Propaganda, and that the Universities of Kiel and Oldenburg back him up? No, it's not basically Nazi-Propaganda vs. modern scholars. The exact circumstances of the events are disputed, still today and the involvement of German intelligence is not at all consensus (well, outside of Poland). I'll repeat it again: the sentence, which you don't like has been part of the article for years now, someone asked for a source and I provided a source. That was the point when you started editwarring about the deletion of a well-sourced, legitimate, modern scholarly view of an expert in the topic. You can really do better than this.
 * "... some kind of "Nazi propaganda was actually right!" kind of thing"- Do you claim that my attempt to keep Jastrzębski's and other historians view in the article is correctly labeled that way? A pretty blatant personal attack, no? HerkusMonte (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't defend institutions of Nazi Germany like Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau. Also this event isn't disputed anymore by mainstream historians, and there is a general consensus. Jastrzebski represents a fringe view that isn't shared by other historians.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * here is no consensus among historians and it is our job to present divergent views in a neutral way. Jastrzębski is leading expert

I am not surprised this isn't backed by any source. There is a modern consensus between historians on these events, and Jastrzebski is not a leading expert.Tomasz Chinciński i Pawel Machcewicz are. Jastrzebski wasn't published or publicized regarding this since his cooperation with German expelled organizations and every publication on the events in Poland criticized him or pointed out that his claims are not really reliable.He does represent the very definition of a fringe view. We can mention him in passing, but he isn't really somebody that should dominate this article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You forgot to add "..in Poland", mainstream historians in Poland agree and there is a consensus in Poland, sure. But we are not limited to Polish mainstream only. The University of Oldenburg clearly describes the events as disputed between the Polish mainstream and German historians (plus Jastrzębski) ("Die Ursachen dieser Ereignisse sind in der Forschung bis heute umstritten: Die Mehrheit der polnischen Historiker vertritt die These,...Der polnische Historiker Włodzimierz Jastrzębski und viele seiner deutschen Kollegen lehnen die These eines deutschen Sabotageakts ..ab.." transl.: In research the causes of these events remain disputed: The majority of Polish historian argue... The Polish historian Włodzimierz Jastrzębski and many of his German colleagues reject the thesis of German sabotage...); Jörg Zägel, in a University of Kiel publication, also explicitly refers to Jastrzębski to present the different versions. There are sources, you just prefer to ignore them.
 * "Please don't defend institutions of Nazi Germany like Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau" - Did I ? I don't think so, but please remember WP:NPA. HerkusMonte (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well this is an outdated information I am afraid and note that this a general page about a city not a dedicated scholarly publication.Since 2010 documents are known that confirm that this was diversion operation. The only dispute is the number of eliminated saboteurs.To be more specific documents uncovered concern transport of weapons to sabotage groups in Bydgoszcz before the war, report that "our diversionists sustained heavy losses in Bydgoszcz", name of contact person coordinating action in Bydgoszcz with Abwehr and German army and transport of wounded operatives etc.I will add this to the article along with sources of course. Also note that your own second source(from 2007 and referring to very outdated publication from 2003) confirms that there is consensus among Polish historians. If there are German historians who claim Wehrmacht and Abwehr documents uncovered in archive in Freiburg im Breisgau in recent years(2009-2010) are fabrications that would be news to me.I am actually working on improving this article, and it should be updated this week.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Documents from German archive reveal General Erwin Lahousen praising German saboteurs in Bydgoszcz
A lot of stuff here is based on outdated information from 2003 and 2004. After this year there was a special committee organized by Polish historians and they researched archives in Poland and Germany regarding these events. One of the findings was report by German general Lahousen who praised the sabotage action in Bydgoszcz. Most of this is located in Dr. Tomasz Chincinski book  "Forpoczta Hitlera. Niemiecka dywersja w Polsce w 1939 roku" published in 2010.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the relevance of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.212.198 (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bloody Sunday (1939). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611211622/http://www.ipn.gov.pl/wai.php?serwis=pl&dzial=2&id=3824&search=7 to http://www.ipn.gov.pl/wai.php?serwis=pl&dzial=2&id=3824&search=7
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080405152937/http://www.1939.pl:80/epizody/bydg02.htm to http://www.1939.pl/epizody/bydg02.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Alleged consensus
The consensus alleged in some sections of this article may be a consensus among Polish historians. There's no such consensus in Germany or anywhere else in the world. In fact, the possibility of the massacre being a behind-enemy-lines operation is even positively ruled out by some respected non-partisan historians. Now, I'm not saying that I or anyone knows the infallible truth; but it is apparent that editors around here have given in to Polish POV pushing. The article should be rewritten and protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.204.102.169 (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * IP - First, register your avatar, no one will take you seriously if you don't. Second, if you have sources that refute the "...consensus among Polish historians", then bring it on.  You're not bringing anything to the discussion by just sitting on the sidelines and complaining. It's too easy to do that... Dinky town   talk  07:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This problem was already raised before. The article completely ignores modern non-Polish research like the University of Oldenburgs view ("Die Ursachen dieser Ereignisse sind in der Forschung bis heute umstritten: Die Mehrheit der polnischen Historiker vertritt die These,...Der polnische Historiker Włodzimierz Jastrzębski und viele seiner deutschen Kollegen lehnen die These eines deutschen Sabotageakts ..ab.." transl.: In scientific research the causes of these events remain disputed: The majority of Polish historian argue... The Polish historian Włodzimierz Jastrzębski and many of his German colleagues reject the thesis of German sabotage...) or Wolfgang Benz' "Enzyklopädie des Nationalsozialismus" which clearly states that the exact circumstances remain unclear.  HerkusMonte (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but need more on that. Who are his 'many German colleagues'? Is his research published in English or Polish? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a few examples: ...shots were fired, the origin of which have never been established.
 * Jürgen Matthäus, Jochen Böhler, Klaus-Michael Mallmann, publ: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: "War, Pacification, and Mass Murder, 1939: The Einsatzgruppen in Poland"

...is still a matter of fierce dispute between German and Polish historians, as is the question of whether the Polish soldiers' belief that they had been fired upon was well founded
 * R.M. Douglas: "Orderly and Humane"

...einem Pogrom als Folge vermeintlicher deutscher Angriffe...dessen Ursache bis heute nicht endgültig geklärt ist. ("...a pogrom as a consequence of alleged German attacks ... whose cause has not yet been definitively clarified")
 * German Foreign Office: The Ministry and the Past

[https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/der-zweite-weltkrieg/kriegsverlauf/bromberger-blutsonntag.html Der Ablauf der Ereignisse, die Verantwortlichkeit für die Übergriffe und die genaue Zahl der Opfer sind bis heute umstritten. Auch eine 2008 vom polnischen Institut des Nationalen Gedenkens veröffentliche umfangreiche Dokumentation konnte nicht zur endgültigen Klärung beitragen.] ("The course of the events, the responsibility for the attacks and the exact number of victims are still controversial. A comprehensive documentation, published by the Polish Institute of National Remembrance in 2008, could not contribute to the final clarification.")
 * Deutsches Historisches Museum:

Was genau an diesem Tag in Bromberg und Umgebung geschah... ist bis heute unklar und umstritten... Bis heute ist nicht zu ermitteln, wer warum die ersten Schüsse abfeuerte... ("What excactly happened on that day in Bromberg and the surrounding area ... is unclear and controversial to this day ... Still today it's not possible to determine by whom and why the first shots were fired.") HerkusMonte (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dieter Schenk: "Danzig 1930-1945":


 * We have been discussing this before.This is an outdated information repeated.Since 2010 documents are known that confirm that this was diversion operation. The only dispute is the number of eliminated saboteurs.To be more specific documents uncovered concern transport of weapons to sabotage groups in Bydgoszcz before the war, report that "our saboteurs in Bydgoszcz sustained heavy losses in Bydgoszcz", name of contact person coordinating action in Bydgoszcz with Abwehr and German army and transport of wounded operatives etc.We also know that General Erwin Lahousen was praising German saboteurs in Bydgoszcz. If there are German historians who claim Wehrmacht and Abwehr documents uncovered in archive in Freiburg im Breisgau in recent years(2009-2010) are fabrications I would be interested to know. A conclusive study of these events was concluded in recent years using German archives which contain a lot of information and confirm that this was a diversion operation that Germans botched and which ended miserably. They were others, scholar Tomasz Chincinski counts around 230 such events during Invasion of Poland and estimates number of Abwehr agents in Poland recruited into paramilitary groups attacking Polish soldiers and cities at around 20,000 in addition to Selbstschutz. See Forpoczta Hitlera: niemiecka dywersja w Polsce w 1939 roku

Tomasz Chinciński 2010--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Every single of the sources listed above was published after the IPN publication, the DHM (in February 2017) explicitly states that the IPN study "could not contribute to the final clarification". No, these are not outdated sources and No, the IPN is not the Ministry of Truth. The article completely ignores non-Polish research, pretty obviously. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "The article completely ignores non-Polish research, pretty obviously" - this part at least is demonstrably false, although for some reason you are trying to remove this "non-Polish research" from the article .  Volunteer Marek   07:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CHERRYPICKING and obviously false summary of what the source actually says, yes I deleted that. Böhler just reports what is already described at length, he does not take sides, he does not "confirm" anything. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it is fine to add a sentence, at least, listing the German historians which state that it is unclear who fired first. If they want their names tied with this type of denial it is their choice, but if they are reputable (notable) historians, their views do belong here. It is interesting to note that not a single ones argues the Polish version is untrue, they are at best saying there is no conclusive evidence either way. Pretty lame form of denial... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bloody Sunday (1939). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721065408/http://www.bydgoszcz.pl/binary/Wydarzenia%203%20i%204%20wrze%C5%9Bnia%20w%20Bydgoszczy_tcm29-22266.pdf to http://www.bydgoszcz.pl/binary/Wydarzenia%203%20i%204%20wrze%C5%9Bnia%20w%20Bydgoszczy_tcm29-22266.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Background
The background section includes:
 * For months prior to the 1939 German invasion of Poland, German newspapers and politicians like Adolf Hitler had carried out a national and international propaganda campaign accusing Polish authorities of organizing or tolerating violent ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans living in Poland.

Does anyone know which source this is based on? No references are linked to in the first 2 paragraphs and then suddenly 3 are linked after the 1st sentence in the 3rd. I'd like to know what specifics are known about these accusations such as dates / casualties and whether 'violent cleansing' referred to murder or forced extradition.

If going into too much detail begins to bloat the background section, we could consider exporting the information to a new article. In that case I'm interested in fielding ideas for what to call it. background to Bloody Sunday or German accusations against Polish authorities ? Ideally if someone could identify what source(s) this is based on, a name might be extrapolated from their phrasing. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Register your avatar, or nobody will take you seriously?
Somebody above said "Register your avatar, or nobody will take you seriously." I must confess that registered avatar never entered my mind as basis of taking someone seriously. Can someone explain to me why registering an avatar should be an issue in taking someone seriously? (PeacePeace (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC))

Chicken & the egg & the chicken & the egg & the chicken & the egg . ..
Article says: "The sequence started with an attack of German Selbstschutz snipers on retreating Polish troops and then was followed by a Polish reaction and then the final retaliatory execution of Polish hostages . . . ."
 * Is that the start of the "sequence"? I suppose the start of the sequence goes back to a geopolitical conflict between Russia & Austria with the Serbs being clients of Russia against Austria with a serb shooting the Archduke of Austria, leading to the dominoes that fell leading to WWI followed by Treaty of Versailles followed by German humiliation with German land given to Poland, and consequent rise of nationalism, Nazis, & Hitler in Germany. Then there was a dispute between Germany & Poland on an isolated segment of Germany (caused by the victors of WWI giving away German heartland to Poland), followed by Hitler warring vs Poland & invading Poland, Polish troups retreating, then the Selbstschutz thing (all this in the context of German nationalist "Deutchland uber alles)." So how do you present this Bloody Sunday with NPOV? The start of the sequence might be traced back to Adam & his sin with consequent depraved human nature! (PeacePeace (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC))
 * I second the notion that the article is misleading and does not accurately summarize its contents, there is definitely a chicken and egg factor here and the word "Started" carries a lot of bias which the sources do not adequately support.
 * --1.159.14.185 (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're replying to a comment from almost two years ago. The article no longer contains the language in question. Generalrelative (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Outrage
This Polish Propaganda Page is a monstrous outrage against history. "German saboteurs dressed up in Polish uniforms". Just a joke. Fortunately the Swiss Red Cross were monitoring events against the German minority throughout the interwar period. 2A00:23C4:B607:CF00:19E4:6141:4073:DC11 (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Show us reliable sources upon which you base your claims and we'll talk. Polish nationalism is no more appropriate than German nationalism here. But vandalism like this [] will simply get you banned from editing Wikipedia. Generalrelative (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Tone and wording
Phrases like "heavily exploited the events" could be changed to "used" to retain neutral wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memethepenguin (talk • contribs) 21:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is what reliable secondary sources say. See e.g. the block quote from Ian Kershaw's book just after this language appears in the article. Generalrelative (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Misquoting Böhler?
Hi,

I just wanted to point out a possible misquoting of historian Böhler.

A user on a deleted r/askhistorians post feels Böhler to claim that evidence is "supposed to show," rather than neccessarily actually showing.

Sorry if I broke some rule and for not having an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.212.224 (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

German propaganda casualty numbers
At the risk of playing a dupe for believing that Wikipedia might treat this subject impartially, regarding this sentence:

Goebbels had initially estimated that 5,400 Germans had been killed during Bloody Sunday but in 1940 increased the estimate to 58,000 which was subsequently published in the pamphlet "Polish Atrocities Against the German Minority in Poland"

This is not what the linked source says Goebbels said; it says that the 5,400 and 58,000 numbers refer to the total pre-invasion casualties suffered by the 1.5 million Germans in Poland, and not on the one Bloody Sunday in Bromberg. Needless to say, the sentence as currently written serves to ridicule the German estimates with its convenient misinterpretation of the source.

It looks like this sentence was added seven years ago, by someone who writes like a conscientious seventh grader, with a book citation; four years later, someone else added a web source and even quoted the relevant section in the source's pop-up, but evidently failed to read it; and here I am now.

Is there a way for readers to know whether an article has been reviewed by someone competent, or should every article indiscriminately be considered as likely wrong on the details? 24.62.224.22 (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This article is not page protected. You could have gone ahead and fixed the language yourself. That said, I am more than happy to ridicule an evil clown like Goebbels –– or rather to let him lampoon himself. But in any case, we do not need to misrepresent sources to do so. And upon inspection it was clear that the bit you're complaining about could simply be cut because it repeated in a somewhat garbled way what was stated quite clearly in the Kershaw quote immediately below. And yes, the German "estimates" were absolutely pulled out of their asses. Generalrelative (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, a second look at that Kershaw quote reveals that it's obviously apologia for the anti-German violence, which is made especially clear when Kershaw says:
 * "Terrible though these atrocities were, they were more or less spontaneous outbursts of hatred that took place in the context of panic and fear following the German invasion. They did not remotely compare with, let alone provide any justification for, the calculated savagery of the treatment meted out by the German masters"
 * i.e. "it was bad, but what the victims' friends did was worse"
 * Surely this quote violates the neutral POV policy, and probably Kershaw's book is not a neutral-POV source, and frankly I think I'd suspect anything he writes.
 * Kershaw is perfectly good anti-German propaganda, but if the section is about pro-German propaganda, why not simply refer to the propaganda pamphlet which was previously cited? 24.62.224.22 (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ian Kershaw is the type of gold-standard historian upon whose work Wikipedia is based, per our core policies, e.g. WP:RS. If you have a problem with us citing him, or if you want to read something that employs false balance toward the Nazis, then this is emphatically not the place for you. There are plenty of disgusting corners on the internet for you to creep off to. Generalrelative (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken: here is not an issue of balance, but rather of moralizing in an inappropriate place.
 * In the quote, Kershaw is both reporting facts and applying a good/evil lens to them. Neither would it be appropriate for a pro-Nazi source to be quoted as saying 'these are the facts, and the Poles deserved it, because of X.' It seems polemic, better fit for a persuasive speech than an encyclopedia.
 * This subject is clearly a bit of a third rail, so I suppose I understand why these nits still exist to be picked, but nonetheless I'd think you'd have an interest in impartiality, especially in light of the fact that wikipedia is increasingly becoming a political battleground (cf. the brouhaha over 'Recession'). 24.62.224.22 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Overhaul needed
This article suffers from significant issues. For one thing, the 'incident' section does not actually describe the events in any meaningful way. Most anglophone historians agree that pogroms against ethnic Germans did occur. Whilst I am aware that Marxist and revisionist Polish sources have asserted that such incidents Were false flag attacks, this view should not be expressed as fact in wikivoice.

As it stands, the article just implicitly refutes a point that hasn't even been asserted - namely, that a pogrom occurred in Bromberg at the time in question.

I intend to revise at least that section, and the lead, to describe the events. Riposte97 (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * What are your sources? Generalrelative (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Kershaw for one, Evans another. I'll cite them, of course. Riposte97 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome, those are certainly top notch sources. The edits look good to me so far. Generalrelative (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have tried to make them modest. Please let me know if you think I've strayed at all. Riposte97 (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool. I reverted the latest edit just now, since I think it fundamentally changes what the article is about. A shift of this nature would require a new consensus, and I'm not convinced that when scholars talk about "Bloody Sunday" they're only referring to German victims (who were of course less numerous than the Polish ones, regardless of the precise sequence of events that set the killings in motion). Generalrelative (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My impression was that 'Bloody Sunday' refers only to the events of that day, and that the subsequent Nazi reprisals are a separate issue (although of course relevantly included in the article!). I speak no Polish - do the Polish-language sources discuss inter-communal towards ethnic Poles? Riposte97 (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Polish either but I know that the English-language historiography makes clear that Hitler had planted agents-provocateurs among the Volksdeutsche in the hopes of creating an ex post facto justification for the invasion. I don't have them to hand right now but would be happy to dig something up if necessary, and more to the point I have no reason to doubt the Polish sources here –– nor, frankly, German ones like Jochen Böhler's Auftakt zum Vernichtungskrieg. Die Wehrmacht in Polen (2006), which is cited for this at the end of the "Incident" section. So yeah, even if we're talking about the events of 3 September 1939 we're talking about plenty of killing on both sides. Generalrelative (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I will say: looking over the "The debate in scholarship" section just now –– it really is a mess. I would love some collaboration just cleaning out the redundancy and overwrought claims which appear to pit Polish and German historians against one another as though they were monolithic groups. Generalrelative (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep that's reasonable. Happy to keep the lead as is.
 * Regarding the debate section - agreed. I'm happy to have a pass at it in the next 24 hours, but again, we're at a disadvantage in that we can't read a lot of the citations. Riposte97 (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome, happy to collaborate. We can of course try pinging Polish-speaking editors like or, but if they're too busy there's still much we can do. For instance, this was a pretty easy call. Generalrelative (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. I have gone over several sections so far, removing irrelevant information, unsupported information, etc. I have not yet touched some parts, despite severe reservations, due to difficulty in following up sources. In particular, I am suspicious of references to the Wehrmacht Bureau investigation, and anecdotes of several potentially unrelated atrocities.
 * An even greater problem is the account of the incident. Must of the section seems to imply that those killed in the initial attacks on German civilians were Abwehr agents or partisans. The sources for much of these claims is:
 * "Niemiecka dywersja w Polsce w 1939 r. w świetle dokumentów policyjnych i wojskowych II Rzeczpospolitej oraz służb specjalnych III Rzeszy" Tomasz Chińciński, page 181 Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość 4/2 (8), 159-195. 2005"
 * Whilst I cannot read the source, it is cited in the 'debate' section as a source on the Polish side of the contested historiography, which in my view renders it slightly unsound. It is cited throughout for claims which seemingly contradict more easily-accessible sources.
 * I intend to go through the Debate/Recent Discussion sections with a fine-toothed comb, and judge how to proceed in treating that sourced based on what I find there.
 * Any thoughts? Riposte97 (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, unfortunately I felt that I needed to roll back the recent changes you made. Each of these can be discussed individually, but overall I do not agree that they represent a step in the direction of NPOV. In particular, we do have other sources for the claim that there were plenty of Abwehr agents operating in the city, and all the best sources (Evans included) note that fifth column elements may well have sparked the violence. This is emphatically not something that is only claimed by Polish sources. Prominent German historian Jochen Böhler, for instance, states in his 2006 book Auftakt zum Vernichtungskrieg. Die Wehrmacht in Polen 1939 (p. 136): In English, that's  That's pretty definitive. For added context, here's what Alexander B. Rossino has to say in his book Hitler Strikes Poland (p. 62):  But I also object to the assumption that we should reject a Polish source simply because it's presented as partisan in the current "Debate" section, which we both agree is a mess. Wikipedia is, after all, not a reliable source. Perhaps the source is biased, but I see no evidence that it is contradicted by mainstream English- or German-language historiography in this regard.
 * I will say that I don't have a ton of time to devote to this, so it may be that a logical next step –– if we can't agree on what the most neutral way to present things is –– would be to bring the matter up at WP:NPOVN. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for taking the time to lay out your reasons. No objection here to putting this on the noticeboard, but I will lay out my reasoning here anyway. I don't think I expressed myself clearly above. I don't at all contest that the Abwehr attacked Polish troops - that is agreed upon by almost every source. My objection was the implication that only Abwehr agents and fifth-columnists had been killed. In my view, the existing parts of the 'incident' section could be read to suggest as much, which is not at all unanimous amongst the sources.
 * I agree that we can't go about cutting out text based on only apprehended bias - I didn't actually touch most of what was attributed to the questioned sources. I'm merely apprehensive, based on what has been attributed to it, that it may contradict other sources. I'm hoping a Polish Wikipedian might be better able to assess its soundness. Riposte97 (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just looked over your changes, and I think they significantly improve the page. I have made just two edits myself:
 * Firstly, I edited the lead to make a clear distinction between the Bloody Sunday reprisals and Operation Tannenberg, the latter being a premeditated campaign of murder separate to the reprisals.
 * Secondly, I changed the wording at the very start of the 'incident' section, to remove the definite article from the reference to ethnic Germans, which I felt could be read to imply that all the Germans in the city were engaged in hostilities.
 * Cheers. Riposte97 (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Thank you for your thoughtful collaboration on this difficult subject! Generalrelative (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. Regarding the sentence "After armed conflict erupted on 1 September 1939, ethnic Germans living in Poland were in many places subjected to attacks and ethnic cleansing." changed from "After armed conflict erupted on 1 September 1939, statements that persecutions of ethnic Germans had occurred in Poland, especially in Bydgoszcz, continued to appear in the Nazi press.”. This is a pretty big difference - we should be carefull endorsing Nazi propaganda claims. Does the cited source say that Germans were subject to ethnic cleansing or that Germans COMMITTED ethnic cleaning, using some attacks as a pretext? Can anyone verify this and/or quote what is in the source? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Good point that the sources don't necessarily confirm "ethnic cleansing", though it was certainly something very close to that. I've updated the text after consulting Evans' authoritative book, The Third Reich at War. Generalrelative (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead cleanup / claim of POWs murdered?
This unreferenced paragraph in lead does not seem to be summarizing anything in the body: "Approximately 600-800 Polish hostages were shot in a mass execution in the aftermath of the fall of the city on 5 September. Additionally, fifty Polish prisoners of war from Bydgoszcz were accused by Nazi summary courts for taking part in "Bloody Sunday" and shot. Later, the Germans killed 1,200-3,000 Polish civilians in Bydgoszcz as part of Operation Tannenberg, in a part of the city that became known as the Valley of Death. These victims included the mayor of Bydgoszcz, Leon Barciszewski.". I don't have time to rewrite this now, but hope others active above can check it. The estimates seem to differ from referenced ones in the body. In particular, the claim about POWs is not something I found outside of the lead, so right now this is unreferenced claim. And a redflag to me, b/c recently I wrote an article on German atrocities committed against Polish prisoners of war which lists POWs massacres of that size, and I did not find any massacre in Bydgoszcz mentioned in sources I've reviewed. Note that I haven't done dedicated BEFORE for this. Leon B. should be linked to pl:Leon Barciszewski if the mention of his death is kept (but this probably should be in the body, not in the lead). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Dreamcatcher25 re POWs deaths. Anything comes to mind? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The reprisal executions are pretty thoroughly documented in the "German reprisals and atrocities" section, though the figure of 600–800 Poles killed in the immediate aftermath does appear to be at odds with the sources cited there. See e.g. Christopher Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution which gives 200–400 killed by 8 September. I agree that the killing of the mayor probably belongs in the article body rather than the lead. Generalrelative (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks folks. I suggest we incorprate the sourced material (below) about the POWs to the body and correct estimates form the lead to match those in the body. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done! Generalrelative (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus Regarding the deaths of prisoners of war (POWs) during the events in Bydgoszcz, it is noted that on September 5, 1939, when Wehrmacht entered the city, regular Polish Army had already retreated. However, the German forces encountered resistance from members of the paramilitary Citizen Watch (Straż Obywatelska), particularly in the Szwederowo neighborhood, which was predominantly inhabited by working-class individuals.
 * The Citizen Watch in Bydgoszcz relinquished its weapons after receiving assurances from General Eccard von Gablenz, commander of the Kampgruppe "Netze", that its members would be treated in accordance with international law as POWs. However, these assurances were not upheld by the Germans. The captured Citizen Watch members were handed over by the Wehrmacht to members of Einsatzgruppe IV. Approximately 40 prisoners were subjected to fatal beatings by SS men using metal rods. The remaining POWs (my sources do not indicate how many), which included the leaders of the Citizen Watch, Konrad Fiedler and Marian Maczuga, were executed by gunfire in the Bielawki neighborhood of Bydgoszcz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamcatcher25 (talk • contribs) 15:05, October 4, 2023 (UTC)


 * @Dreamcatcher25 Thanks. Digging more, the claim of 50 POWs is probably related to the Boryszew massacre (pl:Zbrodnia w Boryszewie). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * To what extent should we distinguish between the events of Bloody Sunday and the reprisals, and subsequent massacres and atrocities? It may be difficult to draw a practical delineation, but imho claims like the above (and other general references to events in Bydgoszcz) likely fall outside the article's scope. Riposte97 (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Some or most of it may be due in the aftermath section, less so in the lead. Boryszew massacre for example is related as according to the pl wiki articles, one of the main rationales for that attrocity was the false accusation the unit was involved in the Bloody Sunday.
 * Something I recall from the German attrocities against Polish POW article is the stuff discussed in the Background. TL;DR German propaganda tried to manufacture false claims of attrocities to justify their own. Which seems very much what the Bloody Sunday was about. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Bloody Sunday" isn't just the events of 3 September 1939. Equally important is the phenomenon of how those events were exploited by the Nazi regime. All of those subsequent exaggerations and reprisals by the Nazis aren't just ramifications; they're core aspects of what "Bloody Sunday" is from a historical perspective. Generalrelative (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Aye that's fair enough, but we ought to be careful not to attribute all nearby atrocities in some way to this event, especially where we have no direct sources. The Nazi use of Bloody Sunday to justify subsequent actions is well and good where we have a specified link, but it seems to me that a great many things went into their warped narrative, and to tie subsequent events to this one supposed justification might be to efface other factors.
 * I object in particular to references to Operation Tannenberg, which was conceived of prior to the Nazi invasion, and the deaths from which therefore do not seem causally connected to Bloody Sunday. Any objections to me removing these specifically? Happy to discuss. Riposte97 (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We should indeed be clear about what is directly relevant. But Operation Tannenberg should be mentioned here as well. Alexander B. Rossino provides a good overview in his Hitler Strikes Poland here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am missing something, but that passage seems explicitly to repudiate a causal connection between Bloody Sunday and Tannenberg. Perhaps it would be more precise to mention that reprisals coincided with violent pacification and with Tannenberg? I just think the lead as it reads now seems to imply causation. Riposte97 (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine. For causation we should mention Boryszew massacre instead. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Missing Polish Wikipedia articles to translate
This topic seems well covered (and referenced) on pl wiki. That includes several subarticles that we may want to translate: For now, such articles can be linked using ill. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * pl:Niemieckie represje wobec ludności Bydgoszczy (1939)->German repressions against Bydgoszcz citizens (1939) (lead gives the figure of 5,000 victims by December that year)
 * pl:Sondergericht Bromberg->Sondergericht Bromberg(?) about German special court in Bydgoszcz
 * pl:Zbrodnia w Boryszewie-Boryszew massacre, related to the POWs deaths about executions of 50 members of Bydgoszcz Civil Defence (pl:Batalion ON „Bydgoszcz”) due to false accusations of their involvement in the Bloody Sunday events