Talk:Bloody Sunday (1939)/Archive 1

Old discussion
We would surely like to know what was Bromberger Blutsonntag. It is Sunday - when ? What happened ? Why ? What happened next ? Who were the perpetrators ? There was some official Communist propaganda but obviously there was also Nazi propaganda that we don't want to put in this article. Right ? Kpjas


 * Added quotes from Nuremburg trials: there is clearly more than one point of view about these events. -- Anon.
 * There is another Bloody Sunday on 9th and 10th September 1939 there were 1500 Polish inhabitants executed in retribution for the Bloody Sunday of 3rd Sept. It was given prominence by the Communist authorities after the war of course.Kpjas

Note that i have a book about Bydgoszcz which quite clearly proves that there was no such thing and shows how false data was collected by Germans (for example, they counted every Pole with German sounding name, some of people supposedly killed were found alive etc)


 * The actualisation: I've found interview with author of the book, which changed his mind and now is of opinion that massacre happened and umber of victims is about 358 (but definetely not 5.000). User:szopen
 * but other call him: partyjniak Cautious 22:41, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Moved to talk: The numbers quoted in document are now usually lowered to 20 to 40 Polish soldiers killed in Bydgoszcz at September the first, and in whole about 13.000 inhabitants of Bydgoszcz murdered during the war.

Maybe somebody can updare recent documents of IPN? Cautious 22:41, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeti, don't kwno why you removed "from already prapred lists". There is no point in arguing that there were no such lists: there were. The members of Nazi party, German activists etc were on that list. The intention was to separate people from that lists, not to kill them; the utter failure of Polish government was that it started action during the war, because making it earlier would made interning easier.

It is also not the sign of "germano-fobia" of whatever. The same were doing other governments and it's quite natural - interning, not killing. Szopen

Also German pastors and politicians, some of them very old, were taken from their homes and forced to walk, some of them never returned. The real Nazis were arrested before the war.

Except for the ones who hid their political preference, were agents, or parachuted down 2 days earlier. Duh! Space Cadet 14:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

diversant
The article uses the term 'diversants'. I couldn't find the word diversant in my dictionaries (I tried two of them).

What is a diversant? Maybe it is an incorrect translation of the Polish word 'dywersant' - however, I don't know that word either. Is it something like 'saboteur'?

194.149.80.4 4 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)

Dywersant means saboteur :)

Moved from WW II atrocities in Poland
Bromberg Bloody Sunday event and its consequences were summarized in World War II atrocities in Poland. This remaining material might be merged with the article:

"According to Nazi propaganda:
 * In addition to the events in Bromberg, throughout western Poland a portion of the German residents were rounded up, jailed, marched eastward, shot and buried in nearby woods. This all occurred in the confusion of the military retreat. When advancing German forces neared the prisoner marches, they were some times executed as a spies, but more frequently released.

German and Polish historians continue to argue about the validity of the claims.

As German forces gained control, immediate executions killed over 3,000 Poles, many with unproven culpability. More reprisals were soon to follow. A British witness described the beginning of the massacre as follows:


 * The first victims of the campaign were a number of Boy Scouts from twelve to sixteen years of age, who were set up in the marketplace against a wall and shot. No reason was given. A devoted priest who rushed to administer the Last Sacrament was shot too. He received five wounds. A Pole said afterwards that the sight of those children lying dead was the most piteous of all the horrors he saw.

Following this, the Wehrmacht troops began rounding up schoolboys in the street, who were similarly executed. The witness continues:


 * Thirty-four of the leading tradespeople and merchants of the town were shot, and many other leading citizens.

The troops then attacked the Jesuits, looting and ransacking the church. The priests were taken to a barn, where the local Jewish population was already imprisoned, and they were all subjected to abuse. Altogether, some 1,000 people were killed in the ensuing massacres." --Ttyre 14:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. --Lysy (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Language
I would just like to point out the quality of grammar in the text was horrible, and at some points I had to read sentances several times to infer any sort of meaning from them. I did my best to clean up the mistakes that I saw, but the sentances were sometimes simply too ambigious. Articles should only be written and edited by people who no only have a decent understanding of the language that they're writting in, but are able to produce a sufficiently coherent text. If not, please stick to contributing to the Wikipedia in your language. Sooner or later someone will see the need for the article in their language and translate it.

Spelling
At the end of the second paragraph of the "Bloody Sunday" section, a reference is made to "captured German uninformed armed insurgents". They may well have not been told of something or other, but probably they were either uniformed or un-uniformed. Since I don't know which, I have not corrected this in the article, but request someone better informed than I am to make the correction. Cherns Major (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Current Polish Position
Nothing on this talk page deals with an unbiased current Polish interpretation of what happened on Bromberg Bloody Sunday. Did it happen or not? Not, what happened before or after, but during the event. Dr. Dan 23:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's still disputed. Take a look e.g. at this (apologies for citing in Polish):
 * W „Nowej Trybunie Opolskiej” dyskusja o „Krwawej niedzieli” pomiędzy prof. Włodzimierzem Jastrzębskim a dr Tomaszem Chincińskim. - Nie znaleźliśmy natomiast żadnych dokumentów, z których by wynikało, że to Niemcy przygotowali słynną dywersję bydgoską. W związku z tym nadal bazujemy tylko na materiałach drugorzędnych polskich i niemieckich. A propos tych ostatnich - wśród polskich historyków panuje niezrozumiały dla mnie wstręt do źródeł hitlerowskich. Zakłada się z góry, że te dokumenty muszą być sfałszowane przez ówczesną propagandę. To błędne podejście. W tych dokumentach znaleźć można całe mnóstwo ciekawych informacji – mówi prof. Jastrzębski. - Ja wysnuwam zupełnie inne wnioski z tych materiałów. Dokumenty, do których udało mi się dotrzeć w Londynie, przede wszystkim meldunki polskich armii z 3 września, są absolutnie bezcenne, bo powstawały na gorąco – mówi dr Chinciński. „Krwawa niedziela – protokół rozbieżności” 10.09.2005 r. 
 * --Lysytalk 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Dziękuję, Dr. Dan 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

1) German press and relations of Sept 1939 were prepared by the Propagandaministerium of Dr Goebels. In 3rd Reich there was a strict system of political control of the press. The propagandaministerium issued day-to-day huidance of what may be written in press and how. Also, the presentation of Bydgoszcz case was guided by Propagandaministerium. The term "Bromberger Bloody Sunday" itself was decreed by Goebbels for obligatory use in German press. Hitler-time publications are as true a representation of facts of Sept 1939 as, for instance, publications in 'Pravda' were representaions of facts in Afganistan during 1979 on. In this context it is not an 'abomination' but rather rational estimation of published German sources.

2) Post-war German publications re-write of what was written in Hitler times. The present usage of Goebbels' term "Bloody Sunday" is an evidence.

2) The shooting to people on the streets of Bydgoszcz was not a fact done in hidden rooms, but in public. The shots and casualties were seen by seen by thousands of people. Mr. Jarzebski came to the conclusion that what had been seen by those mass of people was their sheer mistake (and those bodies of Poles shot in the streets were surely a fatamorgana? or perhaps they were cause by that Polish officer who allegedly shoot up in the air to open way for his military unit?), and he relies on Hitlerian and post-Hitlerian German publications. It is silly to believe it, I dare say. Quite similarly, also the existence of Gulag archipelago was "under dispute" some time and there was an unreasonable "abomination" of Soviet sources which "proved" it never existed. Please notice the similarities in both cases.

The Polish Pigons

I must ad, that the killing of German Civilians where not the first killings, done by the Polish on German. After the IWW  in the areas witch where disputed like Upper Slesia their  happend Killings against Germans True Polish the first time. A product of the peace treatys. Beween the war was a lot of unjust done against the German minoity from the Polish side and that endet in the Killings on the beginning and on the end of the Second world war, so it is a little bit amoral to blame everything only on Hitler and the Germans and to think the Polish are the peaceful unguilty pigons. J.

factual accuracy
"The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." Where is such a label at "Holocaust"-related articles. Or is this label only reserved for articles dealing with atrocities against Germans.

holo-bias
Why cannot anything remotely related to Jews be covered on Wikipedia without childish squabbling? Facts should be facts. Finito!

Temporarily removed
Seems to be a not supported opinion. Could you supply some details?

Killing of German civilians in Poland 1939 German numbers

"August Müller, witch worked for the "Commission for the history of German in Poland" a half German state commission, has created an archive with 4.332 Names of sure death Germans murdered by Polish because they where German in 1939 in the fist weeks of the war. That is the lowest possible number. The Chief of the police commission on this of the German Reich, Wehner gave on the 20.05.1964 on an official meeting in Mannheim the number 6.300,- Germans killed by the polish witch can be seen as the highest number witch was surged for. Anyway it is very difficult because Germans lived all over the huge Polish state and the actual serge vor victims took mainly place in the Part of Poland witch was German before the first WW so the number could be even be slightly higher. Johann". Yeti 15:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

IIRC it was the list of the Germans from pre-war Poland which died during September-October 1939. I've seen a number of 5000 dead. However, it's hard to call them "lowest possible number of murdered by Poles", since it is a number of Germans killed, not "murdered by Poles". It includes probably victims of lynchs as well as sabotageurs, killed by air-raids etc. It's hard to believe that only Poles died as victims as air-raids - bombs choose no victims. Szopen 11:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This article needs A LOT of work
It says little to nothing and it lacking even the remnants of a citation effort. Furthermore, nobody in the English speaking world refers to this event - if they bother to learn about it - as the Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday...its Bromberg " " not only because nobody has a clue how to pronounce it (sorry Poland), but in a historical context, that is how it is remembered on an English page.--72.94.90.144 09:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, if the "English speaking world" learned to pronounce Côte d'Ivoire, they will learn to pronounce Bydgoszcz (sorry ignorants). Space Cadet 10:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Watch it there, Space Cadet. Do not try to make me feel like an "ignorant" foreigner...especially on my own turf. This is English Wiki. You have quite a track record as a Polocentric, and you don't even have the "excuse" of isolation and sheer size like the US does. I am raising the question as to whether it is referred to as Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday or Bromberg Bloody Sunday, and I'm pretty sure the latter is the case outside of Poland. I don't mean to be snippy Space Cadet, but you've started off on the wrong foot here.--72.94.90.144 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You watch it! And don't push "easy to pronounce" names over the correct ones. Space Cadet 21:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: You never heard of German post WW I revisionism and you have a problem with me using the word "ignorant". Come on!

See for yourself:

2,550 hits for "Bromberg Bloody Sunday"

51 for "Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday"

Checking the article's history, I see that it was only recently changed to Bydgoszcz instead of Bromberg with the logic that it is either this, Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday, or its full German equivalent. I do not agree with either solution.--72.94.90.144 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the post-WWI revisionism suggestion relates to Bydgoszcz/Bromberg Bloody Sunday except your effort to classify this particular event as part of a supposed long line of German fairy-tales. I'm not sure I buy that.--72.94.90.144 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't change my comments just because you don't understand them. Let me educate you: "Post Scriptum" means "after signature". Google hits don't represent encyclopedic knowledge. The "revisionism" part was added by mistake, my apologies. It was meant for another anon. Can you please get an account? Space Cadet 00:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I know what post scriptum means, don't be such a smartass. I was simply trying to keep your comments seperate from mine so people can follow this conversation. In light of this though, I think it is pretty ironic that you changed the title of this discussion, which I designated before you even got here. But anyway, yes, I agree that Google hits do not represent "encyclopedic knowledge", but a mere 51 hits certainly suggests what I am suspecting: "Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday" is not how this event is referred to outside of Poland. Obviously neither of us is accomplishing anything here and naturally you are going to disagree with me, so I guess we should see how the rest of the wikicommunity feels. For the sake of our conversation though, why are you so sure that Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday is "correct" for reasons other than personal preference? Also, I'm kind of fascinated by Poland's representation on Wikipedia; is English really that predominant in Poland? Hardly anyone seems to speak English in eastern Germany, though the Czech Republic is a different story...--72.94.90.144 04:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Article name
This incident does not seem to be referenced frequently in English. Based on publications, Bromberg is used slightly more frequently than Bydgoszcz based on Google Books and Scholar. With that in mind, it seems the article should be moved back to the previous title. Olessi 05:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't insist on "Bydgoszcz", just a comment. English usage would probably depend on on the origin of the information and it can be equally "Bromberg" or "Bydgoszcz". As probably there are more German than Polish authors, I expect "Bromberg" would be more frequent (but I'm not sure of the "size matters" argument really applies here). On the other hand the city both before an after the Nazi occupation belonged to Poland and had Polish name and maybe we could respect that ? --Lysytalk 06:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an odd case, since it is not frequently discussed in English. I'm usually not one for worrying about local sensitivities, so I'd rather go with a name most commonly used in English, if applicable. I'll inquire if john k would be willing to provide input. Olessi 20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean who has more historians: Germany or Poland ? I think you don't need to ask john k to answer that question. I also expect that German historians, being more numerous, have overall more research output, so the German names will always prevail if quantity is all that matters. --Lysytalk 21:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to discern whether there are more instances of Bromberg Blutsonntag or Krwawa niedziela. I am interested in whether the "Bromberg Bloody Sunday" / "Bloody Sunday of Bromberg" or "Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday" / "Bloody Sunday of Bydgoszcz" are used more with WP:UE in mind. I would be fine with using Bydgoszcz in the title if that is the predominant usage. Actually, after taking a look at the other titles at Bloody Sunday, an idea to take into consideration is simply calling it "Bloody Sunday (1939). What do you think? Olessi 22:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Bloody Sunday (1939) would be consistent with all the other Bloody Sundays naming and then "Bromberg ..." and "Bydgoszcz ..." would redirect to it. --Lysytalk 07:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with that too.--User:72.94.90.144 08:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday → Bloody Sunday (1939)– The desired title is neutral and fits with the naming scheme of similar events at Bloody Sunday. Olessi 19:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~
 * Support as originator. Olessi 19:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support as discussed before. --Lysytalk 19:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Looks pretty obvious to me that the page should be as suggested. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why Bromberger Blutsonntag- Bloody Sunday ?
Some photos and partial lists of victims were shown in previous entry, but removed: Victims photos- Lists of victims names- click on massacre photos (Warning: very graphic. Much is written in order to whitewash the event, but in order to understand what was done one needs to see the photos from English language newspapers.

A book with names and descriptions Labbas 20 December 2006 -

WIkipedia isn't the place for questions
I(f you have a question, discuss it here, not in the article.Xx236 07:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Jastrzębski
Jastrzębski has completely changed his opinion, so his old book shouldn't be quoted here. Xx236 11:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is still valid and many historians still cite it. Did Jastrzębski published any academic work criticizing his previous work? All I could find was one interview and much media coverage of it around 2003. PS. For the record, I stubbed Włodzimierz Jastrzębski.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

German historians
German Wikipedia quotes Christian Jansen, Arno Weckbecker: Eine Miliz im „Weltanschaungskrieg.“ Der „Volksdeutsche Selbstschutz“ in Polen 1939/1940 In: Wolfgang Michalka (Hrsg. im Auftrag des Militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamtes) Der Zweite Weltkrieg - Analysen, Grundzüge, Forschungsbilanz. München, Zürich 1993, S. 484 - 4000 Germans in Poland died, of them 1200-1500 in Bydgoszcz.Xx236 12:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Details
MAny articles describing German crimes are more abstract and should be rewritten the same way, with pictures and other details. The other solution is to neutralize this article. Xx236 12:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to reconsider what is bias and what is not
n the context of Wikipedia's rules, I have the basic question why the shooting of German saboteurs is to be 'alleged' while the massacring of Germans is cited without any adjectives, i.e. a proven fact? The attack by 5th column was done in the eyes of thousands of Bydgoszcz inhabitants. Court evidence from the Polish side was collected as early as in 1945 and was submitted to Nurnberg Tribunal, which supported this accusation in his verdict. Please come to Bydgoszcz and meet many old persons in Bydgoszcz who witnessed the shots, remember from what houses they were done and remember those killed. There are or were at least similar number of Polish witnesses than German ones. Polish court sources were published. The amount of evidence produced is at least the same in favor of 5th column attack than those in favor of Germans' massacre. In this article German sources seem to be treated as less biased and more reliable than similar ones coming from Polish side. Pehaps German origin automatically assures less bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacek Kucharski (talk • contribs) 11:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

German and Polish relations
The relations wasnt so bad. The Germans has culture and sport clubs in Bydgoszcz. The polish football teams has played on german sport place in Patzer Garden... --84.142.196.110 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the murdered Germans
We could make atl least fair use of the pictures taken. Ther are plenty. For sample http://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities_p219-223.htm 87.234.156.16 (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh my godness. Shall we really to expect from the reader to stand the truth. The material is so cruel. Better forge. I can't stant that. 131.173.32.97 (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So, we should use the photos prepared by Nazi propaganda? From a site, which contains literally thousands of errors, omission and hate speech? Come one, this is encyclopedia, not some nazi site. Szopen (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is terribly inaccurate
I will rewrite it shortly; for now I will just tag it. The article sources currently are primarily "German amateur historian, Hugo Rasmus" and IIWW-time Nazi sources (sic!). Modern sources (both German - Günter Schubert, Das Unternehmen "Bromberger Blutsonntag". Tod einer Legende, Köln 1989 and Polish - Włodzimierz Jastrzębski, "Dywersja czy masakra", 1988) agree that the massacre was likely started by German fifth columns and that the number of German civilian casualities was lower (nothing more than what could be expected during a short urban fight between a regular army and uniformed militia, although the numbers are still disputed); crucially German planning from the very beginning assumed that the fifth column and the 'uprising' would be defeated by the Polish sources and wanted that as well as reprisal against the Germans (and hence German civilian casualties) because Goebbles propaganda needed this event as a 'proof' of "Polish war crimes". Polish Institute of National Remembrance published a document summing the above up in 2004 ; --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Another sad example how Nazi propaganda lives to this day. This article needs a great deal of re-working.--Molobo (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate references: for example, in 2006 an anon has rewritten the article adding five times a strange ref to Richard Blanke, The American Historical Review, Vol. 97, No. 2. Apr., 1992, pp. 580-582. See also: Wlodzimierz Jastrzebski,Der Bromberger Blutsonntag: Legende und Wirklichkeit. and Andrzej Brozek, ''Niemcy zagraniczni w poliyce kolonizacji pruskich prowincji wschodnich (1886-1918)'. First of all, one should not refer three publications at the same time; but in any case I cannot find any publication by Richard Blanke (otherwise a reliable scholar publishing on Polish-German issues) that can be traced to The American Historical Review in 1992; see Volume 97 ToC here - note it does not contain a single piece by Blanke. With that, the article does not contain a single reliable reference other than Roland Spickermann Orphans of the Kulturkampf which is used solely for pre-1910 background. PS. I did a quick check on Google Scholar trying to find any publication by Blanke that mentions "Bloody Sunday" or "Bromberger" and I couldn't find a thing. If anybody can provide the proper reference for that, it would be great; otherwise I'll likely have to remove the claims supported by this "reference" during my rewriting as unreferenced.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, I just discovered that one of the sources used is a online library of Nazi propaganda books and what seems to be a neo-nazi website. Disturbing to say the least.--Molobo (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which one? The text does attribute several sources to Nazi era works, and I do believe that we should show how Nazi propaganda tried to portray the events (of course, with clear attribution). After all, their view is as notable as the Soviet claims that Germans committed the Katyn massacre. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This site http://www.jrbooksonline.com/, it opens with a quote of Hitler, picture of an "Aryan" girl from known Nazi poster with slogan underneath "tell her the truth about race", and lists things such as  Jewish Ritual Murder resources,   Racial Biology of the Jews etc. This 'thing' was used as source in article.--Molobo (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, a google will give you the material on JSTOR, which is a more reliable source that Google apparently cant access. I suppose someone has gone to a uni library and downloaded this or similar.--Stor stark7 Talk 23:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I even found what might be one of the referenced works
 * , please please keep a check on, thanks to your intervention here he has already proceeded to delete the sourced information, about a minute after your request for verification. Jeeez. is it supposed to work like this?--Stor stark7 Talk 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:V supports removal of unreferenced info. I will read through the sources you brought up and ajust the article accordingly; thanks for bringing them up.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Frentz sources: Rasmus
Frentz cites Hugo Rasmus for more graphic details of the massacre. Can we get information the reliability of those authors? There was an unsourced claim that Rasmus is an "amateur" historian, such a claim should be clarified or removed (it sounds offensive). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Focus: Bydgoszcz or Poland?
While I think a good part of the Stor Stark 7 content was valid - I am in the middle of verifying and restoring it - the "German victims through-out Poland" section is not relevant and should be moved to a more general article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strangely, for the moment this is the only article we have on the subject, and it should therefore be kept here as background information until the Polish massacres article has been created. And you should assume good faith, deleting material for "verification" does not sound as "good faith" to me.--Stor stark7 Talk 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not oppose creation of such an article using reliable sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * , please stop reverting my edits using missleading edit summaries, you are restoring a very Polish POV version of the article, not surprising given your "operation Himmler" edits though. I guess the only way we will get this article into shape is by pointing out each piece of POV you've inserted bit by bit on the talk page. I'll look forward to it.--Stor stark7 Talk 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do note I am in the process of restoring most of your content and reverting the user who reverted you. This article is overdue for major rewrite anyway.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A proper way to go about it would have been to use my text as a starting point, not the reverted text version left by this new user --Stor stark7 Talk 14:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. I just started working with the latest revision. Going back to the topic, perhaps a good place to discuss this would be the history of German minority in Poland? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats odd, considering you obviously knew that the latest revision by, funny name that, was a massive revert by a completely new user, (whom you welcomed on his talk page), that used the edit summary: "propaganda". Usually those types of edits only merit reversion as vandalism, not a warm welcome. Very odd choice of version to choose to start from indeed, Piotrus.


 * But as you say, lets get back on topic. There is obviously a strong need for an article covering Polish crimes against Germans. Perhaps one mirroring the one that your oft-time co-editor seems to have started: Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles. It would then be Polish crimes against ethnic Germans. In this article we could include not only these early massacres, massacres during the inter war period, the rapes and violence against Germans during the post-war ethnic cleansings, the concentration camps run by the Poles, the slave labor etc etc.
 * I also noticed there is need for an article on Flight and expulsion of Jews from Poland after World War II. But I'll deal with those articles elsewhere. So much work to do, we've barely scratched the surface of Polish history.--Stor stark7 Talk 15:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The claim that the germans caused their own massacre
Piotrus, I just realised that it was you who inserted the unreferenced claim in the article Operation Himmler that it was the Germans who caused the massacre.  Quote your text:


 * Operation Himmler was continued after the start of the war. Agents of Abwehr, Gestapo and Selbstschutz who have infiltrated Polish territory continued the campaign of misinformation and sabotage. One of the most infamous actions of that period was the inciting of the Bloody Sunday in Bydgoszcz (Bromberg), where German undercover agents organized an attack on Polish forces retreating through the town. In the resulting firefights a disputed number of German civilians were killed; Nazi propaganda would use blow this event out of proportions, increasing the casualties by a hundredfold and presenting it as a prime example of "Polish atrocities against the German people".ref name="Naziprop"For an example of Nazi propaganda document discussing this event, see The Polish Atrocities Against the German Minority in Poland Compiled by Hans Schadewaldt (Berlin: German foreign office, 1940) pp. 35-54, cases 1 - 15. signed testimony of Herbert Matthes, Bromberg furniture maker /ref

And I see that it was you who inserted the text about operation Himmler into this article. I have removed your text about operation Himmler from this article for 3 reasons. It is unsubstantiated, no sources were given for its relevance to this article, it was given a too prominent position, and the whole concept you are pushing is contradicted by the reliable sources that this strangely new character deleted just before your recent edits.--Stor stark7 Talk 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly this needs an attribution, I will look for a reliable source to back this assertion. If we cannot find one, it indeed should be removed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm so happy to hear you realize that now. Next time, please realize the need for such before even inserting the text in the first place. Thanks --Stor stark7 Talk 14:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Before recently, the articles in question were almost completly unreferenced; if we removed all uncited info we would have no articles at all. Now that we are improving the verifiability standards, of course our approach is different.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to have completely misunderstood what I wrote in my last comment. Not surprising since neither of us is a native English speaker. Foreign languages can be tough. To be extra clear: What I meant was, please do not insert very controversial and un-cited information into articles, such as the un-cited information on Operation Himmler that you created and inserted into this and into that article just a few weeks ago.,
 * It does of course please me to hear that you are now "improving the verifiability standards".--Stor stark7 Talk 14:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Connection between Gleiwitz incident and Bloody Sunday is drawn for example by Janusz Kutta, another Polish historian (here's an interview with him). I have made it clear in the article that this connection is not universally accepted by the historians, and I have attributed it for now only to Kutta and Pospieszalski, which do make it. From what I see, the connection is based on the 5th column argument, which - as the article also notes - is also not universally accepted (but certainly is notable).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Polish
I have replaced the POV flag, and it should stay there until NPOV has been reattained. At the moment the article seems focused on Polish claims, and is unduly focused on polish suffering, (something that didn't even happen until after the massacre).

To get to the estimates of German victims you have to plow through a huge background section, a short massacre section reeking with Polish POV, an huge aftermath section detailing alleged Polish suffering, I'm specifically refering to data such such as that data presented by the polish communists to Nuremberg. Since when are they reliable to anyone in the west? Didn't they also accuse Germany for Katyn at Nuremberg? And first after that you reach any info on the actually massacred people themselves.

I note that you have reinserted very litle of the info you chose to delete (through your strange choice of base version) about the German victims, such as what the Red Cross had to say. At the moment this article is a long way from NPOV and readers should be alerted to this.--Stor stark7 Talk 18:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't object to the POV tag, considering the width of literature available and our meger overview I am sure we are missing a lot of valid viewpoints, particularly as it appears that new studies have challenged some old, and both Polish and German historiographies are still not only struggling with each other but have failed to produce a 'monolith' approach. Please note that the work on this article is still ongoing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

German/Nazi
We should be careful to distinguish between modern German POV and Nazi POV, and in general be careful with citing anything that traces its origin back to Nazi sources (which are not the paragon of reliability, to say the least).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Polish/Communist
We should likewise be very careful to distinguish between modern Polish POV and Communist Polish POV, such as use of the term "Recovered Territories" (Sadly there does not seem to be such a clean break with its past in Poland as it is in Germany, many Poles still seem to push for this discredited propaganda term). And likewise be careful with citing anything that traces its origin back to Communist Poland sources (which are not the paragon of reliability, to say the least).--Stor stark7 Talk 10:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be discussed at Talk:Recovered Territories; this term has been extensively used by Western historiography anyway. And Polish communist sources were relatively unbiased when it comes to Polish-German WWII history (feel free to cite works that disagree). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please Piotrus, you disappoint me. You claim that the historians in a totalitarian Communist dictatorship who, amongst other things, created a myth about "recovered territories" to justify Polish sovereignty over territory annexed from Germany after the war (see the link above), that these historians were relatively unbiased? I would, for example pointing to the link I provided above, say that they were very much biased. It is you who defends the historians in a totalitarian dictatorship, so I feel that it is you who should provide sources that they were not biased. After all, if someone claimed that historians in Nazi Germany were biased it is not the one claiming they were biased who should have the burden of providing proof, it should be self evident.
 * Nevertheless, to humor your strange request Pro-consul:
 * Communist era historians were constricted by ideology and state controls
 * The Polish communist government presented Germany in textbooks and elsewhere as a permanent threat to Poland, rooted in an intrinsic German desire to take land away from Poles and slavs. By 1985 Polish historians had begun to move away from that interpretation.
 * The Katyn incident was taboo....
 * --Stor stark7 Talk 19:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Polish historiography is biased. So is every national one, including post-1945 German. Nazi atrocities are minimized; denial is not uncommon, works of non-German authors that were too criticial were often ignored by the German academics   - and such criticism comes from more reliable German scholars, such as Ulrich Herbert. We need articles on Polish historiography and German historiography, yes, but the bottom line is that both of them will be biased towards such issues.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Shall I take that response as a backtrack on your earlier statement that "Polish communist sources were relatively unbiased when it comes to Polish-German WWII history"?--Stor stark7 Talk 17:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They were certainly less biased that Nazi historiography/Nazi propaganda, which unfortunately are often used without too much doubt by German scholarship. .--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I take your apparent switch of topic to be a reply in the affirmative to my question. As for the new topic you introduce: Of course Nazi propaganda was full of lies, Polish Propaganda was also full of lies. Lying is the ROLE of propaganda. Are you trying to compare Apples and Oranges here in order to make Polish historians seem more favorable when compared to direct propagandists?. As for the two books you presented as evidence for your claim that Nazi propaganda often is used by German scholars... I'm not impressed by the 2 sources. What did they have to say about modern scholars? Nothing really as far as I can tell. Although it was interesting to learn that Polish pre-war antisemitism was far worse than German antisemitism. And that leads to an interesting topic, that Polish histography consistently seems to have refused to deal with, namely Polish crimes, to the degree that when the revelations of crimes against the Jews by the American scholar Jan T. Gross are Published in Poland the Polish state even tries to shut him up Wow! In view of your many recent comments I'd once again like to admonish you to please remember to be on the lookout for any Polish historians who use Polish wartime propaganda as their sources.--Stor stark7 Talk 19:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Polish pre-war antisemitism was far worse than German antisemitism
 * would you be so kind to discuss here the subject Bloody Sunday (1939), not any other subject?Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

German wiki
de:Bromberger Blutsonntag seems to have much useful information. Can it be translated and incorporated? Polish wiki is worse, the article is mostly missing inline citations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Nazi German Reports?
, I don't understand this edit of yours with the edit summary "move, shorten from uncessary details"

There you insert the following text:
 * "He quotes the Nazi German reports about the civilian victims and atrocities, later collaborated by a Red Cross commission that Nazis invited to the scene."

And delete the following text:
 * According to von Frentz Polish propaganda claims that the massacre was caused by activities by German 5th columnists are very unlikely and contradicted by available facts, instead it was likely caused by Polish confusion and panic. According to the German account of Peter Aurich the German population was unarmed and not involved in the conflict, nevertheless they were attacked by Polish civilians. Some Poles who tried to stop the executions of the ethnic Germans were also shot by their countrymen. The German dead included priests, pregnant women, children and the elderly. An international investigation committee sent by the Red Cross confirmed that many victims had been raped, and mutilated before dying. The mutilations included stab wounds to the eyes and missing limbs.

My problem is that I can find nothing in the source to corroborate the new text that you wrote when you did a quote: "shorten from uncessary details" Which "Nazi German" reports are quoted? I presume that you are referring to something Christian Raitz von Frentz wrote that is included in the text? Could you please help me find it for I can't find it (the "Nazi" source) in the reference given. Perhaps you made a mistake? Cheers--Stor stark7 Talk 18:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The text has footnotes. Follow them until you find the source of the original information.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That reply was not very helpful Piotrus, please respect wiki policy on civility. The article as you left it after your edit reads like this:


 * Along those lines another German historian Christian Raitz von Frentz wrote that "In Bydgoszcz, the event was probably caused by confusion among the rapidly retreating soldiers, a general breakdown in public order and panic among the Polish majority after two German air raids and the discovery of a small reconnaissance group of the German army on the previous day.". He quotes the Nazi German reports about the civilian victims and atrocities, later collaborated by a Red Cross commission that Nazis invited to the scene. 


 * Both references given in the text by you are to the book by Christian von Frentz.


 * Now, I already checked the footnotes before I asked, but I realize from your answer that you assume I had not done so. The source for the Red Cross data is page 211 of the book by Hugo Rasmus: "Pomerellen, Westpreusen, 1919-1939" Berlin and Munich, 1989
 * This makes no sence in relation to your very grave accusation in the text, which is why I requested an explanation, Piotrus.
 * --Stor stark7 Talk 19:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And Rasmus source for that info is...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you source your Nazi allegation to the book by von Frenz and not to the book by Rasmuson mentioned in the footnotes I have no choice but to presume you have made a grave error. I presume from the citation given by you that the source for the info on the victims is the report by the delegation of physicians from Chile, Greece, Italy, India and Persia, sent by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
 * Is there something you wish to add to this, or shall we after this little merry-go-round presume that it has been established that your text is erroneous and proceed to correct it?--Stor stark7 Talk 20:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several issues that need to be addressed here. We need bio stubs for Hugo Rasmus and Peter Aurich, at the very least, to determine their reliability (I've stubbed Polish historians cited here). The de wiki as I pointed above has a section on Nazi POV, this should be translated (and probably quite a few things from it). Red Cross issue is addressed below, and we need to look at Aurich's book to see what are his sources for those graphic and not very neutral details quoted by Christian Raitz von Frentz (who could also use a stub).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Let us not forget the most important question, Piotrus, that the text you inserted violates both No original research and Tendentious editing, and also does not seem to completely fit with the edit summary. E.g. repetitive and unnecessary use of Nazi, seemingly to discredit the source, and the OR that it was "Nazi reports".--Stor stark7 Talk 16:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Polish Witness/Red cross
How Red Cros established that victims were mutilated BEFORE dying? I know at least one Polish witness, who participated in exhumation of one German victim, who testified that body was not mutilated, while later the Nazis claimed that this victim was severely mutilated before the death. My question is serious. Szopen (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide more information than that if you wish to make a point. Do you know this alleged witness or have you read about this person. If you read about him/her, was it in a reliable source, and what/who was the original source of the information? How can we know that the Germans were talking about the same victim as your witness? As a side note, the Russians provided witnesses that it was Germans who had Killed the Poles at Katyn. Witnesses are not always reliable...
 * If we return the subject to the victims investigated by the doctors from the International committee of the Red Cross... My impression after watching perhaps too much CSI TV series is that it is not too difficult to see the difference between wounds that were caused before death and wounds caused after death. Here is a snipped view of a book, sorry I couldnt find better on short notice
 * I would expect that this type of tampering of the corpses would have been exactly what was investigated for by the physicians. Also, I don't think surviving family members or neighbors would have allowed or kept quiet about the Nazi propagandists tampering with the victims bodies to make it look like their women had been raped or their friends or children mutilated before they were killed by the Poles.--Stor stark7 Talk 13:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstood my question. I know how one can establish whether bodies were mutilated before or after the death. However, I am asking how Red Cross carried examination of the bodies. When Red Cross came to Bromberg (26th September - just one day? In one day it's hard to examine properly all the bodies), how the exhumation were carried, who were the doctors etc. Did they just came and saw the bodies, or did they carried proper medical examination? As for the witness, I will consult my library Szopen (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * About Red Cross:
 * . Xx236 (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. While there is no reason not to mention Red Cross visit, we should also note that the report cannot be considered fully reliable, as Nazis had duped Red Cross before. It would be great if we could find a reference directly criticizing this Red Cross report, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All I can say Piotrus is, please review No original research. Of course, if you do manage to find a reliable verifiable source that questions the reliability of this particular Red Cross report, then you can proceed to challenge it in the text. And please lets try to make it a reliable secondary source this time, I'm not keen on primary sources--Stor stark7 Talk 17:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Jugoslav Civil war Incident, compared to the red cross investigation in 1939
The racak incident may be very educational here. Initial OSCE observers reported that bodies were mutilated and decapitated. Yet, Finnish report published after thourough investigation showed that bodies were NOT mutilated before the death, and attributed this to wild animals (including damage to the heads etc). I think it should be clear that a layman, even educated and even if he will see a lot of CSI TV, can not be trusted on the issue.Szopen (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Szopen, the Internationall group from the Red Cross sent to Poland consisted of physicians, not laymen. In addition, I'm afraid you may have seriously misinterpreted the data you are presenting here, and its relevance to the preceding discussion is very tenuous, to say the least. It has however some interesting similarity to the overall Polish POV in this article. I'll get back to that in point 3 further down.
 * Some facts from the summary of the article you refer to:
 * "40 to 45 Kosovo Albanians were killed in the village of Račak (Reçak in Albanian) in central Kosovo. The government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia asserted that the casualties were all members of the Kosovo Liberation Army who had been killed in a clash with state security forces. The international community did not accept this explanation, characterising the killings as a deliberate massacre of civilians by Yugoslav forces."
 * Racak_incident: Members of an unarmed observer force from the OSCE reported that they found 40 bodies, all had been shot, and some were decapitated (were without their heads). A BBC reporter who was there with the OSCE observers reported that all victims had been shot in the head.
 * Racak_incident: The Yugoslavs and their Belarus allies (Belorussia is up there with North Korea in credibility by the way), physicians conducted autopsies and concluded that no massacre had taken place. The Finnish physicians later did their own investigation and concluded that the victims were all civilians, and that the missing heads were probably due to animals eating of the victims. "Six of the victims had sustained postmortem damage, most likely inflicted by animals. In addition, the postmortem decapitation of two of the victims was likely caused by animals after a severe trauma to the head. No signs of postmortem mutilation were present."


 * So, what lessons can be learned from this?


 * (1) "I think it should be clear that a layman, even educated and even if he will see a lot of CSI TV, can not be trusted on the issue.Szopen" The OSCE laymen seem to have reported fairly accurately what they found. Dead civilians, some without heads. As far as I can tell they were not claiming anything else.


 * (2) Even disregarding point 1., equating the observations of laymen of the OSCE in Kosovo with the investigation by an international team of physicians of the Red Cross in Poland makes no sense and so is completely irrelevant to the discussion. A better comparison would have been to compare the Red Cross physicians investigation to that of the Finnish physicians. So in one massacre case a neutral team physicians confirm atrocities such as rape, in an other massacre a neutral team of physicians can show that decapitations were likely caused by animals eating on heads that had been severely damaged (probably by shots to the head)


 * (3) Even more interesting would be to compare the Polish and Yugoslav claims about the causes of the two massacres. The Milosevic regime in Yugoslavia claimed that: its police units had come under fire from "ethnic Albanian terrorist groups ... on routes leading to Racak village in the Stimlje municipality." In the subsequent counter-attack "several dozen terrorists were killed in the clashes with the police. Most of them were in uniforms bearing the insignia of the ethnic Albanian terrorist organization calling itself the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)." Doesnt that Serbian claim, discredited by the Neutral Finnish physicians, sound very similar to the claim made by the Polish regime when it claimed the Germans had been firing on Polish troops and therefore were killed? Maybe the Poles and Milosevic are in the same class... --Stor stark7 Talk 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. The layman claimed that bodies were massacred, mutilated etc. The forensic report showed one close-range shot. The different reports indeed showed there was fighting in Racak. UCK claimed that all victims were victims of senseless violence, while for me it seems that at least half of the victims were killed in fight, and only half was killed afterwards. Finnish didn't dicredit Serbian claims -- they discredited only one of such claims, that they were in uniforms. Milosevic in his trial neatly asked, how many UCK fighers actually had uniforms anyway. :::But what's important it to note how long it took Finns to report their findings - and that in several cases they refused to made any claims at all, saying it was too late for any serious investigation.

Szopen (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Finns DIDNT said victims were civilians. They had not answered this whether they were or not, they just published facts. That the victims were civilians, was question of interpretation. E.g. killed woman and children surely were civilians. Szopen (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The victims presented most likely are of those Polish civilians mass murdered during the genocide operations by German intelligence and paramilitary Selbstschutz.--Molobo (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Polish-German discussion
Xx236 (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

IPN article Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Jastrzębski has changed his opinion
Jastrzębski opposes his old works.Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment at .--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

He took part in the Polish-German academic discussion, see above. Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And do we know what he was saying? For all the old media reports tell us, he could have well retracted his words after this unfortunate interview.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The text linked above as 27, under Polish-German discussion, quotes Jastrzębski's opinion. Xx236 (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's quite interesting indeed. On a related subject, what is the reception for the work by Günter Schubert, which is said to be a German work significantly accepting Polish claims? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims about preparing evidence
Please see here: http://www.ukw.edu.pl/zdj/ftp/kwartalnik_akademicki_8.pdf.

Piotrus, I have no time to translate it. Could you please do it? In short it gave examples how Germans were gathering bodies, e.g. victims of bombing (E.g. Ernst Springer, wounded during bombing and died in hospital from wounds), or arbitrarily were deciding that those are bodies of Germans, though the victims had no documents and could not be identified.

And I wonder how Stork will explain the military raports written in 3-4th September that soldiers are fighting within city, or that at least 20 Polish soldiers died 3-4th in Bydgoszcz fitghing with diversants. Or Polish witnesses reporting that they were shot at. Of course they all lied, and Polish officers prepared reports knowing in advance that those reports will be needed in the future to prove there was no diversion. Szopen (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good article in Polish: http://www.google.pl/search?q=blutsonntag+bromberg+red+cross&hl=pl&lr=&start=20&sa=N

E.g. About Max Gackowski, who was screaming "beat the Germans", beat one of them, and was then recognised by beaten German. He was then accused, and after interregotion he was released. WHy? Because Gackowski was gestapo worker, and as German he had no reason to attack other Germans, therefore judges decided he was innocent. Delicious. Also about Polish officers accused about shooting caught Germans, proven not guilty because German judges decided they had right to shot those Germans- BECAUSE THEY WERE CAUGHT WITH ARMS OR BECAUSE THEY WERE SHOOTING TO POLES. The article also claims that 34 Polish soldiers are known from name and rank, who died 3-4 September 1939 in Bydgoszcz during fights with 5th column. Szopen (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC) This of course does NOT mean ALL shot Germans were diversants. I am pretty sure that mob lynched a lot of innocent people. Szopen (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is confirmed in some of the Polish officers' reports - the same one which also confirm the diversion. I wonder, if those were supposed to be the faked reports, it is not common for the propaganda fakes to also include damning information about one's own side, now, is it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

POV?
Interestingly, any attempts to refer to "allegations" of war crimes in articles like the 4th Panzer Division or the 17th Infantry Division are continually reverted to being proven war crimes. On the other hand the events that took place in this article, are only allegations. Hmm? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

edits since 2006
This article has become rubbish. If you can't even write in proper English, then go waste the days of your life editing the Polish or German wikipedia. I have reverted the article to a version by Appleseed. It was the last, fully-legible, relatively-balanced sample. --82.212.17.136 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

....and then sifted through what has been added since then, up to the current version.--82.212.17.136 (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear anon (please consider creating an account). I've revert your version; the 2008 version contained more information (for example, about specific Polish units) than the 2006 version. If you would like to discuss some POV, please do so here, citing sections that need to be improved and explaining how they should be rewritten. If you'd like to edit the article, please do so on the current body; reverting two years of work is not very helpful and makes it next to impossible to see what parts you from the more recent edits you want to keep.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

article "cleansed"
I see that over time, this article has been "cleansed" of references to the systematic rounding up of Germans, their detention and their forced death march. Reading this aricle, one would get the idea that only a "confusion" of panicked shots were traded. Way to go, once again: "only Germans bad, Poles innocent" Bwood (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "death march" was German Nazi propaganda term. As you know (maybe not), the number of victims of marches was highly exxagerated, and main point of the marches was not death of the participants, but moving them to detention area.
 * Besides, this is not article about how bad were Poles around Poland, but about one specific event in Bydgoszcz. Szopen (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Death marches were not only a German propaganda term - they were a German actively used tool, see Death marches (Holocaust). What was pruned was German Nazi propaganda and some later apologetics repeating it. Who was bad and who was good - well, that has never been subject to much serious debate, and is not the place of Wikipedia to to revise it, anyway.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You should see the pl article. ;) Which btw is sooooo like if it was written 20+ years ago. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not suprised. I wonder if German one is any more neutral? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

New German view (Guenter Schubert) - to be mentioned
http://www.ofiaromwojny.republika.pl/teksty/0021.htm

A badly-organized SS diversion (SD officers from Germany, men local) and summary executions of suspects (including of innocent civilians) plus some outright murders and a Protestant church destroyed. Clashes and executions continuing also on the second day (September 4); Polish soldiers, police, ad-hoc militia and civilians involved. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He is cited once (current ref 23); I agree his view should be made more prominent.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinciński in 2005 - to be mentioned
Tomasz Chinciński, ''[http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal/pl/236/3740/nr_2_82005_8211_cena_3600_zl.html Niemiecka dywersja w Polsce w 1939 r. w świetle dokumentów policyjnych i wojskowych II Rzeczypospolitej oraz służb specjalnych III Rzeszy. Część 1 (marzec–sierpień 1939 r.)]''. Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość. nr 2 (8)/2005 - is a very useful (and reliable - publication of Institute of National Remembrance) work. Pages 165-166 are dedicated to review of the newest Polish and German works, and strongly support the diversion argument. For editors who ignore Polish historiography, relevant German publications cited: Schubert's work discussed in the section above; and Edwin Erich Dwinger, Die zwölf Gespräche - who in this works renouces his previous work where he denied the diversion argument, and calls his past denial "politically motivated propaganda". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a very big book Bydgoszcz 3 - 4 września 1939, Chinciński T., Machcewicz P. (ed.),IPN, 2008, EAN: 9788360464762 summarizing the research.Xx236 (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
At least "something" happened at Bromberg in 1939, this is not disputed I think. The pictures are part of the WP:commons of the Bundesarchiv. The Bundesarchiv is the official archive of the Federal Republic of Germany and does not publish Nazi propaganda. I will restore that picture. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * does not publish Nazi propaganda - surely does. The majority of the pictures come from Nazi German state production which is Nazi propaganda. They generally don't show the other 50% of the truth - German crimes, starving people, terror. Xx236 (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Like majority of Polish cities with German minorty on the border, Bydgoszcz was subject of diversion operations by Selbstschutz and intelligence organisations whose primary aim was to destroy Polish state and perform genocide of Polish people. The pictures of murdered people likely come from the victims of those acts.--Molobo (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's convenient you cannot ask people in the picture who were they, really... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a source claiming, this picture was not made in Bromberg, not in September 1939 or is not showing victims of the Bloody Sunday? According to Bundesarchiv, a reliable source, it was made in Bromberg in September 1939 and is showing those victims. It is undisputed, that some people were killed in B., so there's no reason why this picture shouldn't be real. The picture does not claim to show 58.000 victims (according to Nazi propaganda) or makes any similar propaganda statement.
 * @Piotrus: would you make a similar statement about Massacre in Ciepielów, Wola massacre? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't compare the genocide of Polish people to propaganda claims of Nazi Germany. Thank you.--Molobo (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again: You have a source claiming, this picture was not made in Bromberg, not in September 1939 or is not showing victims of the Bloody Sunday? HerkusMonte (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the Nemmersdorf massacre about the reliability of German pictures as a source. Next - the picture is profesional, it shows the victims like advertised cars or cosmetics. Nazi victims didn't have such pictures. Mr Gebbels wins.Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, another debate regarding usage of Nazi propaganda as source on Wikipedia...sigh...We have been through this before-Nazi propaganda isn't a reliable source and as such can't be used as source or presented as fact on Wiki. The proper place for such things in Nazi propaganda article.--Molobo (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nazi sources are not acceptable by default and require extra proof of reliability. It's as simple as that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So we have to remove any German picture made in 1933 - 45, as they were all used by Nazis. Every Adolf Hitler - portrait is pure propaganda. Be honest, it's all about "I don't like it". HerkusMonte (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's a simple portait it can be used. If it is a portait "Adolf Hilter attacked by untermenschen", "German soldiers helping Polish farmers", "Wehrmacht assisting the wounded", "Poles great the chivalric Wehrmacht", "Allied terror"-it can't be used. It's quite simple. Pictures for non-propagandic uses can be used but those who are used for propaganda purpouse or part of it are not acceptable. And of course I don't like the picture. It most likely shows murdered Poles by Operation Tannenberg. There is nothing to like about it. But wiki is not about our emotions. --Molobo (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bundesarchiv_as_a_source on how to deal with Bundesarchiv pictures made in 1933 -45. I would appreciate a general discussion as it seems to be a general problem. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The picture is propaganda, but should be added to the article nonetheless
There appear to be some misconceptions here. 1) The picture is propaganda (but this doesn't necessarily mean that it is fake). It was used by the Nazis as part of an attempt to morally discredit Polish people and their British allies. You'd only have to read the original image description, it is dripping with hate. The Bundesarchiv is quite aware of that and for this reason includes the disclaimer: For documentary purposes the German Federal Archive often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme. Factual corrections and alternative descriptions are encouraged separately from the original description. Currently we don't know whether the picture is real or was staged for propaganda purposes. That would need to be answered by the historians, so you would have to take a look at the respective history books. If we should be able to sort this out the Image description should be updated accordingly.

2)Even if the image was fake (which we don't know at this point) it would provide some useful visual information to the reader. It illustrates how the Nazis used the incident for propaganda purposes. Considering that we don't have any image in the article at all, and that 'free use' illustrations are hard to come by anyway, the image should be used in the article, BUT with an appropriate caption. I would suggest: Nazi propaganda image allegedly showing German victims.

And a side note: I know that the German-Polish relations are a difficult topic, and I've come around some other POV issues at other articles. Please don't let such issues get in the way of writing articles. Zara1709 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Caption
(copied from: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard)


 * Bundesarchiv stores all images with two captions:
 * Originaltitel ("initial caption") is the caption given by the database the Bundesarchiv got the image from. This may be biased, propagandistic, or untrue, as indicated in the image description at commons, and is only kept for documentation.
 * Archivtitel (archive caption) is the caption given by the Bundesarchive. This caption is the one we have to rely on.
 * If we look at the Bloody Sunday (1939) image (at commons or =detail at Bundesarchiv]) which caused this thread, we can see those two captions. The initial, historical caption is of course biased, the archive's caption is not, it only states
 * "Polen.- Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher (Opfer des "Bromberger Blutsonntag")"
 * i.e."Poland.- Bodys of killed Volksdeutsche (victims of the Bromberg Bloody Sunday)"
 * So I do not see any reason to label the image as Nazi propaganda.

I therefore replaced the caption with the archive's caption ("Archivtitel") - no way to get closer to the source. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, in the previous discussion someone expressed the view that the picture could be staged, if I remember correctly. The current caption was my suggestion to take this into account, but I won't bother much with defending it here. Discuss it with the other editors. You also might want to look if another one of the images in the commons would fit better, so that we don't have to discuss the caption. Zara1709 (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If another reliable source says this image is staged, that of course would need to be included in the caption.
 * I however understand that the concerns are based on the initial caption, which is written in Nazi propaganda style. That's why I pointed to the caption given by the Bundesarchiv itself. What is Bundesarchiv caption and what is initial caption might be a little hard to figure out at commons, because there both captions are in one description section. The Bundesarchiv caption (and thus the reliable one) is given in brackets ("[blah blah]") below the initial caption (that may be biased and certainly is in this case). At the bundesarchiv website, which is linked in the commons image description, the archive's and the initial captions are listed more clearly seperated. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * False. The Bundesarchive doesn't use its captions at all. It uses a numeric and letter code to designate pictures. The captions and their text comes from orginals or documents they took their pictures from.--Molobo (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You confuse filename and caption. Follow the Bundesarchiv link, click detail and you get the two distinct captions. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't. The captions are not made by Bundesarchive-they are taken from the original one. BD only uses the signature.--Molobo (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the caption "Nazi propaganda photo showing alleged German victims of the Bloody Sunday" is ok: it states that it is propaganda made, and that it is alleged victims.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you now that the picture was used or made by Nazi propaganda? Why "alleged"? As long as this is only speculation, it should not be included. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Read up on Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Nazi propaganda, and so on. Any product of Nazi Germany is non reliable by default, and it has to be proven that it is reliable (just like with Soviet historiography... an article on Nazi historiography is long overdue). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Bundesarchiv and Bundesarchiv caption however is not a product of Nazi Germany. You find the the caption given by the Bundesarchiv (not by the Nazis) below (Archivtitel). Skäpperöd (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Bromberg, Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher Die Massenmorde von Bromberg - die Folgen Englands Blankovollmacht an Polen. Über Bromberg steht der Schatten des Todes. In den Straßen, Parks, Anlagen in Gräben und Hauseingängen, zwischen Hecken und Büschen liegen die Opfer polnischer Grausamkeit, die Leichen vieler hunderter von Volksdeutschen, mit deren Ermordung die Polen ihre Drohung nur zu schrecklich wahr gemacht haben, vor dem Einzug der Deutschen noch Rache zu nehmen. Widerliche bestialische für Menschen kaum denkbare Grausamkeiten sind, bevor die Opfer unter den Bajonetten und Gewehrläufen ihr Leben für Deutschlands Ehre und des Reiches Größe hingaben, an diesen Toten verübt worden. Weinend suchen die Angehörigen ihre Vermißten. Die schmerzgebeugten Frauen selbst hatten für ihre hingeschlachteten Männer und Söhne die Massengräber zu schaufeln begonnen, bis ihnen die einmarschierenden deutschen Soldaten diesen letzten Dienst für die unschuldigen Opfer des Polenhasses abnahmen. Die Geiselmorde von Bromberg, eine Folge der leichtfertigen englischen Blankovollmacht, wird allzeit ein Schandfleck in der Geschichte der polnischen Nation sein. 8.9.1939

Obvious Nazi Propaganda texts-notice the description of Poles as beasts for example. Wikipedia is no place for Nazi propaganda. --Molobo (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You refer to "Originaltitel" (the contemporary caption) which is not the caption given by the Bundesarchiv ("Archivtitel") we should use. See below Skäpperöd (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The following is the Bundesarchiv image description of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-E10612, Bromberg, Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher.jpg. The Bundesarchiv description is linked from the WPCommons image description, the URL is http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/archives/barchpic/search/_1229936395/?search[view]=detail. Signatur (signatur, from which the filename is derived), Originaltitel (initial, contemporary caption), and Archivtitel (Bundesarchiv caption) are emphasized.

Signatur:	Bild 183-E10612

Bestand:	Bild 183 - Allgemeiner Deutscher Nachrichtendienst - Zentralbild

Dateiinformationen

Bildtyp: Fotografie

Ausrichtung: Querformat

Farbe: Nein

Abmessungen: 3738x2843 Pixel

Dateityp: image/jpeg

Dateigrösse: 936.3 kB

Bei 300 dpi druckbar bis 31.65 x 24.07 cm.

Originaltitel:	Die Massenmorde von Bromberg - die Folgen Englands Blankovollmacht an Polen. Über Bromberg steht der Schatten des Todes. In den Straßen, Parks, Anlagen in Gräben und Hauseingängen, zwischen Hecken und Büschen liegen die Opfer polnischer Grausamkeit, die Leichen vieler hunderter von Volksdeutschen, mit deren Ermordung die Polen ihre Drohung nur zu schrecklich wahr gemacht haben, vor dem Einzug der Deutschen noch Rache zu nehmen. Widerliche bestialische für Menschen kaum denkbare Grausamkeiten sind, bevor die Opfer unter den Bajonetten und Gewehrläufen ihr Leben für Deutschlands Ehre und des Reiches Größe hingaben, an diesen Toten verübt worden. Weinend suchen die Angehörigen ihre Vermißten. Die schmerzgebeugten Frauen selbst hatten für ihre hingeschlachteten Männer und Söhne die Massengräber zu schaufeln begonnen, bis ihnen die einmarschierenden deutschen Soldaten diesen letzten Dienst für die unschuldigen Opfer des Polenhasses abnahmen. Die Geiselmorde von Bromberg, eine Folge der leichtfertigen englischen Blankovollmacht, wird allzeit ein Schandfleck in der Geschichte der polnischen Nation sein. 8.9.1939

Archivtitel:	Polen.- Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher (Opfer des "Bromberger Blutsonntag")

Datierung:	September 1939

Fotograf:	o.Ang.

Agentur:	Scherl

Quelle:	Bundesarchiv

Klassifikation:	Bild 183 ADN/G {Gesellschaft}/G X {Kriege}/G X 1939 {Zweiter Weltkrieg}/G X 1939 5 {Hinter der Front im besetzten Gebiet}/G X 1939 53 {Geiselmord, Greuelbilder, Beisetzung von Opfern}/G X 1939 531 {Geiselmord} Bild 183 ADN/G {Gesellschaft}/G X {Kriege}/G X 1939 {Zweiter Weltkrieg}/G X 1939 1 {A-Z der Kriegsschauplätze}/G X 1939 1 Polen {Polen} As it was debated in previous postings that a Bundesarchiv caption exists despite my various hints were to find it, I inserted the respective parts of the Bundesarchiv image description above for everyone to review. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can the German text be translated? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

English version (http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/archives/barchpic/search/_1229936395/?switch_lang=en, the stuff not translated by the Bundesarchiv English version was translated by me and is given in brackets)

Signature:	Bild 183-E10612

Inventory:	Bild 183 - Allgemeiner Deutscher Nachrichtendienst - Zentralbild

File information

Image type: Fotografie [photography]

Orientation: Querformat [horizontal]

Colour: Nein [no]

Dimensions: 3738x2843 pixels

File Type: image/jpeg

File Size: 936.3 kB

At 300 dpi printable up to 31.65 x 24.07 cm.

Original title: Die Massenmorde von Bromberg - die Folgen Englands Blankovollmacht an Polen. Über Bromberg steht der Schatten des Todes. In den Straßen, Parks, Anlagen in Gräben und Hauseingängen, zwischen Hecken und Büschen liegen die Opfer polnischer Grausamkeit, die Leichen vieler hunderter von Volksdeutschen, mit deren Ermordung die Polen ihre Drohung nur zu schrecklich wahr gemacht haben, vor dem Einzug der Deutschen noch Rache zu nehmen. Widerliche bestialische für Menschen kaum denkbare Grausamkeiten sind, bevor die Opfer unter den Bajonetten und Gewehrläufen ihr Leben für Deutschlands Ehre und des Reiches Größe hingaben, an diesen Toten verübt worden. Weinend suchen die Angehörigen ihre Vermißten. Die schmerzgebeugten Frauen selbst hatten für ihre hingeschlachteten Männer und Söhne die Massengräber zu schaufeln begonnen, bis ihnen die einmarschierenden deutschen Soldaten diesen letzten Dienst für die unschuldigen Opfer des Polenhasses abnahmen. Die Geiselmorde von Bromberg, eine Folge der leichtfertigen englischen Blankovollmacht, wird allzeit ein Schandfleck in der Geschichte der polnischen Nation sein. 8.9.1939

[The mass murder of Bromberg - consequence of England's carte blanche to Poland. Death casted its shade on Bromberg. In the streets, parks, green areas, in ditches and entrances, in hags and bushes lie the victims of the gruesome Polish act, bodies of several hundred Volksdeutsche, with the murder of whom the Poles have carried out in a dreadful manner their threat to act out revenge before the Germans move in. Disgusting, bestial, nearly unthinkable cruelties were exerted on the dead before the victims gave their life for Germany's honour and the Reich's magnanimity under bayonets and rifles. Crying relatives search for their missing. Women bent by pain had started to dig the graves for their slaughtered husbands and sons themselves before the German troops marched in and took on with this last service for the innocent victims of Polish hatred. The hostage killings of Bromberg, consequence of England's frivolously given carte blanche, will for all time blemish the history of the Polish nation. 8.9.1939]

Archive title: Polen.- Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher (Opfer des "Bromberger Blutsonntag") [Poland. - Bodies of killed Volksdeutsche (victims of the Bromberg Bloody Sunday)]

Dating:	September 1939

Photographer:	o.Ang. [not specified]

Agency:	Scherl

Origin:	Bundesarchiv

Classification:	Bild 183 ADN/G {Gesellschaft}/G X {Kriege}/G X 1939 {Zweiter Weltkrieg}/G X 1939 5 {Hinter der Front im besetzten Gebiet}/G X 1939 53 {Geiselmord, Greuelbilder, Beisetzung von Opfern}/G X 1939 531 {Geiselmord} Bild 183 ADN/G {Gesellschaft}/G X {Kriege}/G X 1939 {Zweiter Weltkrieg}/G X 1939 1 {A-Z der Kriegsschauplätze}/G X 1939 1 Polen {Polen}

Skäpperöd (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, for my second question: who is the author of the second, smaller caption? What are his expert/academic credentials? Is there a reliable academic somewhere who verified that those bodies are indeed from that place, time and of who they are claimed to be? In other words, can you guarantee that the second caption is not also a Nazi product, or that it wasn't written by some bored intern summarizing a Nazi caption? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Archivtitel" (archive caption) is the caption given by the archive (which is certainly no Nazi organization). Responsible for Bundesarchiv images is Prof. Dr. Hartmut Weber. Bundesarchiv is a federal institution subordinate to the bureau for inner affairs of Germany. An archive caption (Archivtitel) is given by the archive if the "Originaltitel" is missing, incomplete, or wrong. It is also pointed out at the archive's website that many of the "Originaltitel"s especially from the Nazi and Communist era are biased, so it is not like there is noone aware of that problem. That is exactly what the "Archivtitel" is for, to balance/correct the "Originaltitel" if something is not alright with it. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

.....victims gave their life for Germany's honour and the Reich's...consequence of England's frivolously given carte blanche.. ..innocent victims of Polish hatred... Scabby Nazi propaganda at it's best. Please remove the picture from the article.

Replace with this one:--Jacurek (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Noone is proposing to use the "Originaltitel", which is the caption given to the image during the Nazi era, or even parts thereof as a caption. The question here is solely: Why is the caption given to that image by the Bundesarchiv rejected here? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because while for a normal photo, depoliticizided, neutral caption would be good enough, totalitarian era (Nazi, Soviet) propaganda machine produced many artifacts that are totally unreliable. For example, it is possible that the photo is not of German victims, and was not made anywhere near Bydgoszcz. I am sorry, but I cannot trust Nazi propaganda artifacts, and per WP:RS: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Any Nazi propaganda claims are exceptional. You can read a little more on Nazi propaganda photography here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

... please also look at the composition of that picture, clearly aimed at human emotions. Picture does not focus on the dead but on the older lady with flowers, possibly mother but maybe a Nazi actress. I strongly suggest to remove that picture and if necessary replace it with picture of the soldiers showing off dead bodies to the journalists.--Jacurek (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That the image is Nazi propaganda is pure speculation. The image has been published by a reliable source (Bundesarchiv) and the content of the image is described by this reliable source. Though Bundesarchiv also gives the caption applied during the Nazi era by the Scherl image agency, which is written in propagandistic style, that does not mean that the image itself is Nazi propaganda. This is the rather systematic problem I have with the repeated addition of Nazi propaganda to that image. All the source says is that this image was once stored by another agency with a propagandistic caption. And the source also provides its own caption to that image, which does not state that the image is a product of Nazi propaganda. It is not even clear yet if the image was ever used in a Nazi propaganda campaign. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with introducing the image Jacurek proposed. My problem here is only that one cannot argue that the caption given by the Bundesarchiv is unreliable, and instead add one's own interpretation of what the image allegedly shows. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That the image is Nazi propaganda is proven by the original caption. Pure and simple.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No. The caption only proves that someone had once added a propagandistic capture to that image.Skäpperöd (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC) And now let's have a peaceful Christmas first of all. I replaced the image with the one Jacurek proposed, and inserted the other image with both captions here. I named the non-Bundesarchiv caption Piotrus simply because Piotrus restored it repeatedly, though he might not have created it and is not the only one supporting it. My concern here is not so much the picture itself, but the reliability of the Bundesarchiv captions. I suggest that after Christmas, we move on with the discussion, either here (maybe with an RfC request) or at another board (maybe RS/N). Is that a procedure we can all live with? Merry Christmas to all of you. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need a third opinion. Merry XMAS all, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Since several editors obviously cannot live with the compromise Jacurek and I proposed and keep adding "alleged" etc to the caption, I have started a thread at WP:RS/N: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to inform you that:
 * The Bundesarchive mentions clearly that they copy the text descriptions from original archive names and captions. In some cases they use their own version, but they also rely on suggestions. This means that


 * A:All photos need to be judged case by case.Caption given by Bundesarchive can be copy of the original archive caption as noted in their explanation.


 * B:Bundesarchive pictures can have non-reliable captions.


 * C: They are hardly dedicated scholary project to show captions as evidence in support of contested claims.

From Bundesarchive page: http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/index.php?barch_item=en_help#a15 ''The Federal Archive describes pictures - where available - with the original text. If no original text is available, the picture is described by the archivists of the Federal Archive. In view of the large number of pictures, of course it can come to discrepancies in individual cases. We are always grateful for notes and additions because of this.''

--Molobo (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note the warning on the photo files: "For documentary purposes the German Federal Archive often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme. Factual corrections and alternative descriptions are encouraged separately from the original description." Nihil novi (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Shall we show pictures of dead victims here?
I have asked for opinions; Xx236 (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Amusing /example of manipulation of Wikipedia
Eyewitness accounts have been however criticized, among others by Richard Blanke Richard Blanke actually is a German-American historian. It's amusing because Christian Raitz von Frentz earlier quoted in support of accusation against Poles critizes Blanke in one of his books for anti-Polish bias.--Molobo (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

POV sentence
''By March 1939, these ambitions, charges of atrocities on both sides of the border, distrust, and rising nationalist sentiment led to the complete deterioration of Polish-German relations. Hitler demands for the Polish Corridor, Polish opposition to [appeasement|appease]] him, and finally the German invasion of Poland fueled this vicious cycle.''

The sentence portrays a vision where Hitler is shown as equal partner with Poland for starting the war. This is extreme POV-Poland had no claims against Germany and it was German aggression that led to war, combined with racial ideas of superiority over Polish people. Finally "German ivasion of Poland fueled this vicious cycle" is a uttermost bizarre formulation, and I am not even sure what should it mean.--Molobo (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of claims of atrocities originating from the Polish side; on the other hand it is well documented that there were bogus Nazi propaganda claims of Polish atrocities. This is indeed in need of correcting.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hugo Rasmus isn't actually a real historian but member of political organisation
Hugo Rasmus is not a real historian as written in the article but actually member of political group of Germans from Poland.--Molobo (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We need a stub on him.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hugo Rasmus Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

image again
For the caption I suggest to change "used" into "made", so "One of many photos made by Nazi propaganda" instead of "One of many photos used by Nazi propaganda". From what I read here there´s no source proving any publication of that picture. --ThePiedCow (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No objection. "Created" may be even better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Object. That this picture was made by Nazi propaganda is even more speculative than used by Nazi propaganda, which is - at least somehow - backed by the original caption. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What is speculative is that any media made in Germany at that time was not influenced by Nazi propaganda. Are you going to request a citation for who run the country at that time? Be serious, please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am. Just because this (or any other) picture was taken during the Nazi (or any other totalitarian) era does not make it Nazi (foo) propaganda automatically. Only a few pictures are propaganda per se, i.e. arranged or faked, for all others the context the picture is used in is the decisive whether it must be considered propaganda or not. If a Gazan, living in a totalitarian regime, takes pictures of airstrike victims, those are not propaganda itself, they only become propaganda with a caption like "martyrs of the massacre foreign devils conducted and so on". Same here, the mere picture of the bodies is not propaganda but simply documentation, though the event and thus the picture were of value for the Nazi propaganda machinery. That the event was exploited by Nazi propaganda is undisputed, that the picture was exploited is likely because of the original caption, but the picture itself, put in a neutral context, is not Nazi propaganda. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No straw men, please. There is no totalitarian regime in Gaza. There was a totalitarian regime in Nazi Germany, with near total control of media, thus non-propaganda pictures were an exception to the rule. Unless you can prove that this picture was taken independent of Nazi propaganda machine, we should assume it is Nazi propaganda. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Faulty logic, at best. We can't just assume that the original picture came from an unreliable source and that the photo was staged because there is a lack of evidence suggesting the opposite! That doesn't make sense. It (the photograph) cannot lose value because of an assumption, just as assuming the photograph came from x, and that x is a reliable...source should not lead us to think that the photo's value is increased. Those who are interested in truth would never be happy "playing the odds" as we are doing here. Sure, the Germans, Nazis or whatever used the photo when and if they tried to put the photo into a certain context, that is undeniable. but you cannot just assume that the photographer is untrustworthy, working for an untrustworthy source or that the photo was doctored after it was taken. - G. Ward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.12.198 (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Polish Wikipedia article is a joke
I hope at least the German version is more neutral... --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Problems with background section
There are many sentences in this section that make strong factual statements with no clear support. Some sentences seeme to contradict themselves. The final paragraph cites no sourtss at all, and seems to be original reasarch. Also, there seems to be an emphasis in the final paragraph that the both sides were equally to blame for the rise in ethnic tensionss. That may or may not be true, but without any citations, this can't be verified. To say that both sides were equally to blame is itself a POV. Probably the whole article would be better off without the section. Mtsmallwood (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the section is well balanced. It does not represent neither German nor Polish POV. Do you see any specific issues there ? --Lysytalk 06:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)