Talk:Bombing of Wieluń/Archive 2

The masterpiece
Is it possible to destroy a town when you attack a cavalry unit stationed far from the town? The name of the unit remains unknown 60 years after the bombing.Xx236 (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * According to, it was the Wołyńska Cavalry Brigade. According to their article, they were in the same region. Hohum (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

- the question remains - how to destroy Wieluń (51° 13′ 21″ N, 18° 34′ 26″ E) fighting near Kłobuck (50° 55′ 0″ N, 18° 56′ 0″ E)?Xx236 (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless someone, including you, find a source to answer that, it's going to remain unanswered. We can only present in the article what we have sources for, not ask unanswered questions. However, cavalry brigades can have subunits in multiple places at once - not that I'm suggesting saying that in the article either. Hohum (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Kurfust's edits
I disagree with the recent edits by user Kurfust and in my opinion they worsened the article considerably. If nobody disagrees i indent to reverse them. Dr. Loosmark 22:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You have been engaging in disruptive editing in this and other articles, repeatedly reversing and removing sourced information and obviously not being interested in discussion. I am well aware that the Arbitration Comittee recently mass banned a number of Polish editors, and stripped some of them of their administrative rights - coincidentally the ones you have been closely cooperating in a similiar manner, due to evidence a secret mailing list that coordinating these 'editors' for disruptive tag teaming, stonewalling and non-constructive reverts on nationalistic grounds.
 * Be advised up front that the Arbitration Commitee will be closely informed of your editing here, and your actions here and the pattern they show with other articles is likely to be put under close scrutiny. Kurfürst (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Kurfust, I request you immediately withdraw the unfounded personal attacks above. Dr. Loosmark  04:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from simultaneously bombing a paragraph with fact tags while also taking the time to point out that its contents were the opinion of the two specific journalists (whose linked citations annulled the fact tags) - WP:IRONY; plus removing the unclear tag and incorrectly attributing the reason I put it there - both of which I have attended to; I don't see a problem with the recent edits. Hohum (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of problems, see for example this one: . His edit summary says: "repetance (sic)- this is already mentioned in 'events' section". The problem is that the events section doesn't mention that the Germans continued to bomb Wieluń for another 8 hours after it was already burning. So what he did is he removed that important info in a sneaky way. Dr. Loosmark  04:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources are pretty clear that there was three wave of attacks during the day, on the suspected positions of the cavarly, not the town, in a span of 8 hours, involving some 90 Stuka dive bombers, and NOT a continuous eight hour bombardment... the latter would be certainly more sensational, but nevertheless entirely inaccurate. BTW sorry if the unclear tag was removed, AFAICR it was added because some readers could be unsure of what the heck 'StG' stands for.. Kurfürst (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Jerzy B. Cynk
What is his source? I bet he copied his revelations from German sources. Any serious Polish historian would have listed the Polish units allegedly attacked in Wieluń and their looses. There are hundreds of books on the subject. At the moment we know - no units were at Wieluń, the Germans believed there were such units there. Generally some Germans believe till today that Poles don't have brains. Some German books claim that the Luftwaffe destroied the majority of Polish planes on September the 1st., which wasn't true. Xx236 (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Polish, corrected edition of Cynk, says something totally different. Either the English version misinforms or the quote isn't full.Xx236 (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a really hard time deciding wheater Cynk is a doubtful historian (see: Talk:Bombing_of_Wieluń), or perhaps a German agent, or there's a conspiracy in the English edition... Can we see perhaps what the Polish, so-called 'corrected' :D edition has to say on the event, and what edition (commie times, post-commie times etc.) are we talking about? Kurfürst (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Cynk is very doubtful, because he doen't quote his sources. "A conspiracy" is your story, my thesis is ignorance both of the author and (but mostly) the editor. Xx236 (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Is the quoted sentence the only one? Shame on Cynk.Xx236 (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I./St.G76 and I./St.G2 attacked several times Polish cavalry units in the area of Wieluń, Działoszyn and Zduńska Wola (a triangle, Działoszyn-Zduńska Wola 55 km) and imprinted in the memory of Poles completely destroing the town of Wieluń, killing many civilians, helped by Dorniers of I./KG 77. page 120 Xx236 (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you perhaps give the details of this edition (Publushing date, ISBN etc?) It seems to me that that Polish also supports that Polish cavalry units were the target in the region. Kurfürst (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.techniczna.com.pl/default.asp?isbn=83-7237-027-3 "in the region" 55 km long, and the town of Wieluń had maybe 1km.Xx236 (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.geschichtsforum.de/f68/wielu-15405/index2.html - German language discussion.Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with a source, take it to WP:RSN to see if it's deemed reliable. If you find contradictory reliable sources, then include both(all) versions. Don't provide your own synthesised conclusion based on multiple sources.
 * It also seems to me that including a bombing mission that didn't attack Wielun is beyond the scope of the article, unless the quoted source connects it to Wielun directly. Hohum (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Polish, corrected edition of Cynk, says something totally different." -- What does it say? Can you provide some original, versus English translations of "corrected" Polish language passages as examples please? Does it say who made the corrections, does it have better referencing? Why do you find Cynk credible in one version and not in another? Hohum (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I warn Nazi fans that they should be careful. I haven't started the idiotic discussion about the nonexisting Polish units in Wieluń and I don't have time to prove I'm not a camel. Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I have included my unprecise translation of the discussed sentence above.Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Try and improve the article instead of throwing vague accusations into the ether. Wikipedia needs a citation with accurate source details for the book, page number, and for non-english sources, preferably the relevant supporting passage of original text, and the translation per WP:NONENG. You are the one trying to make a point about Cynk, either WP:PROVEIT or do something else useful.
 * It is currently impossible to pick out what you say has changed between editions. Hohum (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears there are actually two seperate books by the same author, not seperate editions of the same book. The English one we have is the Official history of the Polish Air Force, whereas our rude friend appears posted a sentence from another book by Cynk, the Polish edition of 'Polish Air Force fighters in the September battle'. The two books have different scope and slightly different focus, but generally I do not see what the problem is, in both books he states same, ie. Stukas were attacking the Polish cavalry in the area.... Kurfürst (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The town of Wieluń isn't "in the area". It is a small point in a big area.
 * Generally a book about the precize month is a better source than a book about several years of the WWII.
 * Cynk doesn't quote his sources regarding Wieluń.
 * The only source supporting the Polish cavalry story is a Nazi propaganda book. Germans entered Wieluń at the same day, how many dead Polish soldiers did they find there?
 * I admit, I'm getting rude when I read Nazi propaganda.
 * This article has been rewritten by a biased editor and the section tagged since many months. Xx236 (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The books by Cynk are mainly about the Polish Air Force. What we really need is a book which concentrates on the Luftwaffe and its atrocities. We have to understand the mentality of the Nazi pilots. Were they really chasing this fathom cavalry unit or not? And why did they need to completely destroy a town to disable a cavalry unit which wasn't even in the town at the time? It doesn't make much sense, even more so because the Germans are known for their precision. It's far more likely they did some sort of test for terror bombing on a town which had no AA defenses not to risk losses. Dr. Loosmark  00:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Loosmark. We need reliable sources that have enough detail, not just ones about atrocities. Wielun doesn't seem to have much written about it. What you think is likely is irrelevant. What is relevant - is what reliable sources have to say.
 * Xx236. If you have a problem with specific sources, take it to WP:RSN, there is no point complaining about them here, over and over again. If you have questions, seek sources that answer them. Bring cited information instead of complaining. WP:CIVIL applies all of the time. If you feel upset/angry/nauseated and can't control what you type, wait until you can, and then post. I tagged the section because it is confused. If you have additional, well sourced information which clarifies the situation, bring it here. Hohum  20:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The article should be rewritten
"Other version of the events" is the biggest part of the article. Don't you see this?Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a garbled mess, and tagged as such, already indicating that it needs editing for clarity. Don't you see that? Hohum (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article isn't tagged, only one section of it is. Rewriting a section "Other version of the events" doesn't make a good article. Don't you see that?Xx236 (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The section you are complaining about is the part that is tagged as being unclear. I didn't suggest that the title of the section made the article good. Please make some constructive comments, that is what this talk page is for. Hohum  20:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Different attacks, different targets
Yes. It's that easy. Late in the day, military units in the area were attacked. The first attack, however, had as its main target (Hauptziel) the town of Wielun (Ort Wielun), other targets (Nebenziele): none. The report from this attack by I/StG 76 states that very clearly. it doesn't mention military units. It reports: target destroyed, fires observed. Which is unsurprising considered the loadout.

So yes, during that day the Luftwaffe attacked military units in the area. And yes, for starters it flattened the town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.236.237.65 (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Wielun
[moved from my talk page] ( Hohum @) 19:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I gave you 6 reasons why the intro to this article is awful, to which you gave no answer. I don't care to play your games, so leave it as you want it, but don't you dare accuse me of "vandalising the article" by fixing a cantankerous, flawed, uncyclopedic, uncited "introduction" which is longer than the body.
 * please describe to me what an "indiscriminate" bombing is. Indiscriminate means no consideration for where anything lands...how can any source know it is indiscriminate when the only person who knows if an attack is indiscriminate is the attacker himself. Why is the tone of this article so much stronger than the one for, for example, the Dresden bombing? OR the Guernica bombing (I know the answer). I don't see indiscriminate anywhere else.
 * Indiscriminate: "lacking in care, judgment, selectivity". There are references that say there were no military objectives in the town, there are no recorded military casualties, high civilians ones, and a hospital was bombed. That fits the description well.( Hohum @)


 * the first sentence sounds odd - "the bombing of the ___ refers to the bombing of"
 * The first sentence scans perfectly well in English.( Hohum @)


 * it should be "beginning of the war in Europe", not "the war". Or? But then that makes the first sentence even LONGER.
 * I can't make sense of this criticism. The phrase "the war" doesn't appear in the article text. The shelling of Westerplatte is considered my many as marking the start of WWII.( Hohum @)


 * "this war" is a strange tone for an encyclopedia or any academic text.
 * This also scans perfectly well in English, referring to WWII, mentioned in the previous sentence. ( Hohum @)


 * show me the source for "carpet bombing". Sure doesn't look like a carpet bombing, either.
 * Carpet bombing can be descriptive of waves of aircraft attacking a town, especially considering the amount of damage caused. Of course, it isn't nearly of the same scale as the massive attacks that happened later in the war. The phrase usually causes the latter connotations, so it's probably not right for this article. ( Hohum @)


 * Taking 2 peoples opinions on what constitutes as a "terror bombing", one Polish, one widely-published in Poland, does not mean "...is considered as one of the first terror bombings" unless your goal is to use the least-NPOV language possible.
 * You will need to convince WP:RSN that the current sources are unreliable in this matter. However, it would be acceptable to rephrase it to "Source X and Source Y consider this as one of the first terror bombings", to make it clear whose opinion is being cited.( Hohum @)


 * The first sentence is God-awful. What is considered the start of World War II? The bombing or the shelling?  ", which..."  someone needs to relearn English.
 * It's not particularly ambiguous, but it can be clarified. I'll probably do this shortly.( Hohum @)


 * The hospital was a target because it was bombed? Again, POV. A sensationalist and unproven claim. Show me the plan where the Germans made bombing the hospital their objective. Show me the technology where, in 1930, you can hit a hospital and not hit a hospital when you want to. This is just propaganda, nothing more. The British hit a hospital when they were trying to hit a damn harbor.
 * targets should be changed to places. Regarding the accuracy of Stukas - they are not heavy bombers dropping large numbers of bombs from high altitude. Stuka pilots could usually see their targets quite clearly. ( Hohum @)


 * The quoting of different figures and other such details does not belong in the lede. Nearly everything is in the lede..nothing else in in the rest of the article.
 * About three quarters of the article is after the lead. ( Hohum @)

Now, after reading my well thought-out criticism, please address your objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.102.241.26 (talk • contribs)


 * Now, for a more general reply. You deleted phrases which were supported by sources. You deleted sources. Neither of these actions are acceptable. When it was pointed out that it was unacceptable, you deleted them again. You have failed to say why you did this. ( Hohum @) 20:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * of course. when the Nazis threw their bombs it was an accident, they didn't really mean it, it was all British propaganda, etc etc etc. and of course they prepared documents which stated "we the Nazis are going to hit a hospital and write this document as a proof we planed it". Dr. Loosmark  20:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Speculation - the Germans may have done Wielun as a practice air raid, this being at the head of the war and the situation on the ground providing an excuse. They might well have been doing a trial run for bigger and more important targets, such as Warsaw. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Totally inacceptable
The article is unacceptable. It presents Polish and German nationalistic POV, uses biased sources. Eg. Cynk's opinion in recently published book is different than the quoted one. Xx236 (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC) The phrase "Poeppel, Hans and Prinz von Preußen" isn't a correct description of the authors.Xx236 (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly do we go about making a neutral POV without using Polish and German nationalism when describing a Polish-German national military conflict? Just curious. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bombing civilians is a specific kind of a "Polish-German national military conflict".Xx236 (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the problems with the article is lack of quality sources. We only seem to have short snippets and/or sources which are less than ideal. If anyone can find a detailed description of the events in a secondary source by a widely recognised historian, that would be great. ( Hohum @) 01:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

pl
Jeśli ktoś chciałby wykorzystać pl:Bombardowanie Wielunia 89.72.134.216 (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Sure, especially pl:Marius Emmerling's valuable works, unknown in his land. Xx236 (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Death toll, percentage of town centre/center destroyed
I saw two different versions of the death toll and the percentage of the town center destroyed in the article. 1300, 1200. 75%, 90%. Which is it? Or do both figures have some merit in each case? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Different sources give different numbers. 90% seems to usually be attributed to the town center, with 70-75% for the town overall. Casualties of 1200–1300 isn't much of a spread. ( Hohum @) 01:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Casualties - 89-2169 (see pl:Bombardowanie Wielunia) 89.72.134.216 (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 89 being a Nazi estimate, thank your for your valuable liberal contribution.Xx236 (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is this attack being referred to as "indiscriminate" ?
The very fact that the Germans employed Stukas to attack Wieluń, is an indication that a specific target had been assigned. Stukas are, by their very nature, DISCRIMINATE tools and wholly unsuited to indiscriminate, arbitrary bombing attacks due to their small ordnance load. Had the Germans wished, they could have used level bombers, such as Heinkels or Dorniers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.73.23 (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

number of casualties
The polish acrticle says that there were 89 proven casualties and estimates range to about 1200 (but are highly doubtable).--93.218.134.75 (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)