Talk:Warsaw Ghetto Uprising/Archive 1

Old talk
I posted some bizarre questions about weird stuff, jews bombing allied patrols in Warsaw in 1943, and the ZOB fighting against the Jews. I changed the article, but my comments never made it to the talk page, because some slob made the talk page a redirect, and somehow wikipedia lost my comments, and I cant be bothered to write them again. diff here and here. -Lethe | Talk 15:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "allied patrols" refers to various auxiliary units (Lithuanian, Ukrainian etc) which worked together with German troops at the time. It is not "Allied patrols", as in British, American etc. Germany also had allies in World War II, you know. Also, "collaborators" here refers to Jews collaborating with the Germans (which some did, to various extent, for example the Jewish police). Balcer 17:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed two captions from "German soldiers" and "Wehrmacht soldiers" to "SS men": not in order to deny Wehrmacht involvement in atrocities; only because the photographs do show SS men.

Note about Iwanski: AFAIK Iwanski WAS soldier of AK, from KB unit inside AK military structure. If anon thinks otherwise, please post the sources. Szopen 07:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed the subheading ..in Israel to In Israel. I was not sure of the purpose of the ... but if the ... were there for a reason feel free to put them back. I also wanted to fix the spacing in a few of the sub headings. There is a big gap between where the text starts and the end part. I was not sure how to fix this, so if someone is familar with the formatting of Wikipedia can someone please do it for me? Thanks Flyerhell 07:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Added a sentence in the first paragraph making it clear that the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and Warsaw Uprising were two different events. Flyerhell 08:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

References needed
Regarding my unreferenced tag, I added it since this article has no references. Further reading and external links are not considered references (if they were used, then please mark them as such) (Cite_sources states clearly: The ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed after the references section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. ), thus this article has no references, thus this template is completly justified, and should be removed only if 1) orginal contributor(s) provide references they used 2) other contributors link some key facts with footnotes to references. As 'lack of references' is the most serious objection I hear from many opponents of Wikipedia, I think that it is something that we should address with all our strenght. And please not I am not saying anything about disputability - there is a difference between unreferenced and NPOV.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me now. If all our articles had this much references, it would be great. Hmmm... scratch that, if all our articles had three footnotes, we would then start a campaign for 30 or something :) Still, isn't it nice to see our standards improve all the time? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Also known?
Changed ...also known as Warsaw Uprising 1943... in the introduction sentence. Warsaw Ghetto Uprising has been know as such in the English language and never as Warsaw Uprising 1943. Most of the internet references to the latter, are to this wikipedia's article and its reprint. See number of references to both in google.com: 278 vs. 104,000. --Ttyre 14:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good catch - I never noticed this error. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Campaignbox
What about making a Template:Campaignbox for ghetto uprisngs? There were several, after all, and have their own category (Category:Ghetto uprisings)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Gwardia Ludowa
The article currently states that the GL took part in an attempt to breach the walls of the ghetto. Strange thing, but most books I've read recently mention that the GL's actions were invented after the war by the commie propaganda and the only action of the GL was to supply the ŻOB with some 30 pistols or so... Anybody..?  // Halibutt 15:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation reference needed for this webpage title
At present, there are at least three Wikipedia articles with similar titles: 1) an article called: 'Warsaw Uprising (1794)' 2) this article on the Jewish uprising during WWII: 'Warsaw Ghetto Uprising' 3) another article on the final uprising of WWII: 'Warsaw Uprising'

The current disambiguation page for item #3 above can be cloned and modified for items #1 and 2. It currently reads:

Warsaw Uprising (disambiguation) Although the best known uprising in Warsaw, Poland, is the armed struggle of 1944, there were also a number of other struggles to take place there: Warsaw Uprising (1794), during Kościuszko's Uprising, also known as Insurretion of Warsaw. Warsaw Uprising (1830), on November 29, an opening stage of the November Uprising. Warsaw Uprising (1905), sometimes used by historians to denote the strikes and riots during the Revolution of 1905. Warsaw Uprising (1943), better known as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Warsaw Uprising (1944), during the Operation Tempest of the Armia Krajowa.

If you can assist with this editorial change, it would be greatly appreciated -thanks (Zoomeri)


 * Dear Zoomeri, welcome to Wikipedia. I am afraid I am not following you: what would you like to change? Someting with Warsaw Uprising (disambiguation)? Remember that you can edit articles yourself (although please consider registering first).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Piotrus, Yes I suggest that Warsaw Uprising (disambiguation) pages be provided for all articles related to the various Warsaw Uprisings, for the purpose of better informing readers on Polish history. I understand that I can make the changes myself, but my limited time and wiki programming experience would probably result in a messy implementation which would likely have to be undone. At the moment, I would defer such editing to more experienced members. Thanks -Zoomeri
 * Ah, I think I understand. You would like each article to include a note like that on Warsaw Uprising, about the existance of the disambiguation page?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Jenin?
I don't think it is worth mentioning the Jenin reference in this article. You could make reference in the Jenin article. Personally, I have not hear or read someone making a connection between the Ghetto Uprising to Jenin. If someone agrees with me, please remove the paragraph. Gadig 13:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I put in the Jenin part.i have heard it mentioned before particularly after the battle.Dermo69
 * Firstly for future reference, you will need to source your information. "Hearing" it, is not enough. Secondly, If you think it is worth mentioning, it could eventually be added to the Jenin article but not this one since the Ghetto Uprising presides Jenin. Gadig 14:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok but Jenin was very similar to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.How about we comprimise by just putting the battle of Jenin in the See Also part of this article?Dermo69

NO. Get out of here. --HanzoHattori 10:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Result
I don't know about the "German victory". German victory would be finishing the slaughter without resistance. The uprising, with Ubermenschen making Nazi "supermen" bleed and die on the eyes (in the end) whole world, it was rather a German defeat. It was also never meant to be victorius in a strictly military sense, the possible outcome was only one (destruction of the Ghetto, with or without rising).

Yes, I know "moral victory" sounds dubious, but it was exactly this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HanzoHattori (talk • contribs)
 * With all due respect to the resistance fighers, they lost, Germans won. Please find citations for anything else, and this is a military infobox, not moral infobox. Otherwise we can go on and change the result of all German victories to 'German moral defeats' or something :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 15:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Except the Germans intended to win (conquer the world, kill the inferior peoples). The Jews intended to die fighting, and they did. Germans were also killed (objective archived). Some Jews even escaped (and then continued killing Germans and some even survived the war). These were primary successes, intended (they never meant to save the ghetto, it was unrealistic). It's much more of a "victory" in moral victory than in, say, the Warsaw Uprising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HanzoHattori (talk • contribs)
 * So the Germans lost the war, but you can't argue that they didn't win some battles. By your logic any battle in which Germans suffered a single casualty or even delay or use of resources can be considered their defeat or victory for the opposing sites. And how can you argue that WGU was more of a defeat for Germans then WU, in which they suffered much higher casualties, I have no idea.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 17:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What I mean, the insurgents did NOT mean to win by a pure military terms. Check the Edelman's memoirs, he states this clearly. In this context, they could lost only if they failed to hurt a single German (the reason was to resist and get some revenge, and they did). It was NOT meant to save the Ghetto, or organise a mass escape of thousands (a small escapes of fighters were dificult enough). On the other hand, the Warsaw Uprising was meant to win, not just kill a lot of Germans (and they were killing Germans in Warsaw daily anyway).

Besides, a victory is archiving the objectives. So what objectives the Jews had to lose - besides resisting the liquidation? Defending the Ghetto until January 17, 1945? Residents breaking out en masse, and Cukierman leading them to Palestine? I don't know, please define. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HanzoHattori (talk • contribs)
 * First of all please start signing your own posts. Second, while I agree with you that Jews could hardly aim for a military victory, it is indisputable that they suffered a military defeat, and this is the only kind that matters for the military infobox. If you have relevant sources, you can of course create a section about how this battle is viewed as a Jewish moral victory, although even so I have trouble with the logic which could be used to define Holocaust (of which this uprising was a part of) like this: it was surely a great tragedy, but to call it victory... I can't see it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 19:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

btw, to add civilians into the range of combatants is a bit overdone for a military infobox. Likewise casualties should list the death toll in the organized groups on an extra account. Now, given a 80% estimate for the side of the Jewish resistance gives a very respectable ratio, especially in the light of availably weaponry - and such a fact serves better as a commemorable statement on the result given the initial target for fighting: "atleast one (German) die with me". They got damn close. A "dealt with" number in the range of tens of thousands civialians had been the plan on the German side anyway, fighting or not. 82.100.247.156 03:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Other Theories
''This large section completely disrupts the flow of the article and unnecessarily repeats much of the content. I moved it here, for now. The useful information can be extracted and incorporated into the main article, and the rest discarded.'' Balcer 17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

French professor Dr. Robert Faurisson has questioned some aspects of the official version of events of the warsaw ghetto uprising of 1943 such as the number of jewish insurgents and the fact that the Germans constructed the air raid shelters and other bunkers, not the Jewish insurgents

To understand what happened in the Warsaw ghetto in April-May 1943, it is important to know why the Germans decided to launch a police operation. In the city’s 'Jewish quarter' or 'ghetto' were 36,000 officially registered residents, as well as, in all probability, more than 20,000 clandestine inhabitants. The ghetto was, in a sense, a city within a city, administered by a 'Jewish Council' (Judenrat), and a Jewish police force, which collaborated with the German occupation authorities, even against Jewish 'terrorists.' Many thousands of Jewish workers toiled in ghetto workshops and factories, supplying products vital to the German war effort.

Following the first Soviet air attack against central Warsaw on August 21, 1942, bomb shelters were built, on German orders, everywhere in the city, including the ghetto, for the protection of the residents. The Germans furnished the Jews with the cement and other necessary materials for these shelters, which legend has transformed into 'blockhouses' and 'bunkers.' So extensive was this 'network of subterranean refuges and hiding places' that, according to one prominent Holocaust historian, 'in the end, every Jew in the ghetto had his own spot in one of the shelters set up in the central part of the ghetto.'

Small armed Jewish groups, numbering no more than 220 persons, were active. The most important of these was the 'Jewish Combat Organization' (JCO), whose members were mostly young men in their twenties. Its 'general directives for combat' specified 'acts of terror' against the Jewish police, the Jewish Council, and the Werkschutz (protection service for the factories and workshops). This JCO directive stated specifically: 'The general staff works out the central plan of action — sabotage and terror — directed against the enemy.'

Accordingly, these 'fighters' or 'terrorists' used 'sabotage and terror' to shake down Jewish ghetto police, Jewish Council officials, and workshop guards. The 'terrorists' also profited from the ghetto’s intensive industrial and commercial life, shaking down merchants and other residents by threat and blackmail, even holding them prisoner in their homes for ransom. They were able to buy weapons from soldiers stationed in Warsaw, who, like troops stationed elsewhere well behind the front lines, often served in patchwork units, ill-trained and poorly motivated. The ghetto 'terrorists' even carried out murderous attacks against German troops and Jewish collaborators.

The ghetto became increasingly insecure. Because of this, the Polish population became more and more hostile to its existence, while the Germans, for their part, feared that it could become a threat to the city’s important role as a rail nexus in the war economy and as a hub for transport of troops to the Eastern front. Himmler therefore decided to relocate the Jewish population, along with the workshops and factories, to the Lublin region, and to raze the ghetto, replacing it with a park. At first the Germans tried to convince the Jews to voluntarily accept relocation. But the 'terrorists' refused to accept this, aware that such a transfer would mean for them losing, simultaneously, their financial base as well as their freedom of movement. They devoted all their efforts to opposing this, until on April 19, 1943, a police operation to forcibly evacuate the remaining Jews was begun on Himmler’s order.

At 6:00 a.m. that morning, troops under the command of SS Colonel Ferdinand von Sammern-Frankenegg entered the ghetto, supported by a single tracked vehicle (captured during the invasion of France) and two armored cars. Initially the 'terrorists' or guerrillas offered stiff resistance, wounding 16 German SS men, six Ukrainians (so-called 'Askaris'), and two Polish policemen. One Polish policeman was killed.

Himmler, eager to minimize casualties, was angered. That same morning, he relieved von Sammern-Frankenegg of command and replaced him with SS General Jürgen Stroop. Stroop, ordered to carry out the operation slowly to minimize casualties, did so in the following manner: each morning, the troops would enter the ghetto, clear buildings of their residents and use smoke candles (not poison gas) to drive out the Jews hiding in the air-raid shelters; the buildings were destroyed as they were evacuated. Each evening the troops sealed the ghetto so that nobody could escape during the night.

Skirmishes lasted from April 19 to May 16, 1943, so that altogether the operation required 28 days. On the third day, many of the Jewish armed fighters tried to escape, most whom where shot or captured. Contrary to some reports, the German command never called for air support to destroy the ghetto, and the operation involved no aerial bombardment.

The number of Jewish dead is unknown. An often-cited figure of 56,065 is, in fact, the number of Jews who were apprehended. The great majority of these were deported, many to the transit camp at Treblinka from where they were taken to Majdanek (Lublin). German deaths in the operation totalled 16. (This included one Polish policeman.)

One should not doubt either the courage of the Jewish resistance in the ghetto or the tragic nature of the whole affair, with the civilian population trapped in the cross-fire between various heterogeneous German units and small groups of Jewish guerrillas scattered throughout the ghetto. Contrary to some grandiose propaganda claims, though, what took place was far from an 'apocalyptic' revolt, as one writer has recently called it, particularly when one is mindful of the tens of thousands of deaths, civilian and military, that occurred during those same 28 days, on battlefields around the globe and in the European cities bombarded by British.

Jewish police
We are missing an article on this subject. Did they have any specific name, like Judenrat?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Self-reply: from : JUDISCHER ORDNUNGSDIENST (JEWISH GHETTO POLICE, REFERRED TO BY THE JEWS AS THE "JEWISH POLICE"). Plus a photo. So the new question is: which term do we use? Jewish police, Jewish ghetto police or Judischer Ordnungsdienst?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see we now have a stub at Jewish Ghetto Police. Thanks, HH!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Under the Background tab, see this section (emphasis added):

"about 300,000 Ghetto residents were sent to the extermination camps and not killed"

I see that an older edit does not have the word "not," suggesting quiet vandalism of this article. I am new to wikipedia and do not feel comfortable going through this article line-by-line, looking for similar errors. Could someone more experienced investigate? Perhaps mark this article as having been vandalized? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newverbal (talk • contribs).

This article has been very clearly vandalized — i.e. "Borat" in the "Background" section — is there anything we can do about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.180.24.195 (talk • contribs).


 * Well, someone removed the "not" and I removed the "Borat" and "Mel Gibson" bits (I don't know how to "revert"). I went through it, but couldn't find anything else (then again, I'm only human). I suppose there is a reason we have pages on our watchlists. Anrie 07:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you locate vandalism, go to the history tab, click the date and time of the last non-vandalized article posting, click edit this page when the un-vandalized version pops up, make a note of reverting the vandalism in edit summary, and then save the page. Btl 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Counter-Vandalism Unit has lots of useful info on how to deal with vandalism.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Date discrepancy
Hi there,

I translated this article at af:Warskou Ghetto Opstand and while looking for information for a stub on David Apfelbaum I noticed a rather alarming discrepancy:

The Wikipedia article states:

Another German tank was knocked out on April 19 in the insurgent counterattack in which ZZW commander David Apfelbaum was killed

However, I found an article at (main site at Polish Home Army ex-Servicemen Association) that states:

''The Germans lost over 100 people and one tank. In the April 27th battles, David Apfelbaum was severely wounded and died the following day.''

Does anyone know where the Wikipedia article gets that specific bit of information from, so that it can be double checked? Is the second article wrong or does the Wikipedian one just have a disastrous typo? Anrie 15:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This report also has Apfelbaum alive on the 26th. Anrie 15:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Vladas Zajanckauskas
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/08/17/alleged_nazi_guard_ordered_deported/ Xx236 07:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Collaborators in Infobox
Why this three ones have been selected?Xx236 07:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Because they took active part, especially in the beginning (later all the Jewish policemen were killed, and more Germans were brought). I don't know if there are articles on the Ukrainian camp-SS and Latvian police units engaged. --HanzoHattori 09:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC) The article says: "Blue Policemen who had been ordered by the Germans to cordon the walls of the Ghetto". Cordoning isn't the most active part. Either the article is wrong or the Infobox.

says that two Latvian Schutzmannschaften Battalions did guard duties. I don't know which pictures show the Latvians.

The numbers of wounded from Stroop report:

which makes: of the wounded. Xx236 10:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 60 Waffen SS personnel.
 * 11 "Watchmen" from Training Camps, probably Lithuanians to judge by their names.
 * 12 Security Police Officers in SS Units.
 * 5 men of the Polish Police
 * 2 regular Army personnel [engineers]
 * Germans 74/85
 * Lithuanians (?) 11/85
 * Poles 5/85

a was prison established by - an error.Xx236 10:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am banned (oh noes) from Military Photos. (Appaerently criticising Russian government for killing and displacing Russians is an offence there.)

Anyway:

"At 2 a.m. on April 19, Sammern-Frankenegg dispatched groups of Lithuanian and Ukrainian SS auxiliaries and Polish police into the ghetto, moving in single file toward the Umschlagplatz. Sammern-Frankenegg believed that the swift occupation of that central area would result in the collapse of Jewish resistance elsewhere. Behind the Askaris went the remaining Ordnungsdienst, or Jewish ghetto police, excluding those of their number who balked at participating in the action or were caught trying to escape--they were brought to the Gestapo gathering point at 103 Zelazna Street and shot."

"Latvian helpers" or police are frequently mentioned. Arajs Kommando with a photo:

"In 1942, Latvian police battalions were active in the Ukraine, Byelorussia and the Generalgouvernement. Among them was the Arajs Kommando, which trained at a German SD school at Fürstenberg near Berlin. Some members of this Kommando were sent to Minsk and took part in mass killings at Maly Trostinec. In Warsaw, two battalions assisted in the rounding-up of Jews for transport to Treblinka, guarding the Umschlagplatz and taking part in the suppression of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising." http://death- camps.org/reinhard/hiwis.html (it's "spam" to post full link for some reason)

--HanzoHattori 12:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have written before: says that two Latvian Schutzmannschaften Battalions did guard duties (which may be an euphemism).
 * Arajs Kommando doesn't say anything about the Warsaw Ghettto.
 * So we agree that there were two battalions in Warsaw, either Arajs or Schutzmannschaften.Xx236 09:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia article starts and ends in 1941. The deathcamps.org article says they were then trained at the SD school in Germany and then some sent to Warsaw (including "suppression of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising") and illustrates it with a photo of them in Warsaw (they seem to wear non-German uniforms). One article mentions the Latvians in general during the WGU. Another article says "units of Ukrainian and Latvian collaborators", and still another "German police, the SS and their Latvian and Ukrainian helpers" Etc. Eyewitness accounts like this: "Mr. Hilton, who was 75 when he testified, did not identify Mr. Zajanckauskas as being in Warsaw, but he described the horrors there - the murder of his 2-year-old sister, rapes and beatings that he said were committed by Lithuanians, Latvians and others who helped the Nazis in the ghetto." --HanzoHattori 12:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Arajs Kommando still doesn't inform about it.Xx236 06:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It was actually my assumption it was Arajs, based on this website. Now when I look at it again, they could mean Estonian policemen in general. ("Among them was the Arajs Kommando (....) In Warsaw, two battalions assisted") --HanzoHattori 18:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Latvian, not Estonian.Xx236 09:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Criminals"
They were just, you know, criminals. Btw, Miła 18 was first built by the criminals, too. --HanzoHattori 19:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we have an article on SS-Standartenführer Ludwig Hahn?
He was was the SD commander in Warsaw and was in charge of the deportation of Warsaw's Jews to Treblinka (among other things). --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Info on many German Holocaust perpetrators is still missing. If you can, go ahead and try to create article on that one; I wrote the one on Wilhelm Koppe some time ago to fill in one of the biggest gaps.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As we're on this, there's no mention of Operation Erntefest yet. --HanzoHattori (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At least here we have an English language page that could be used for a stub, so this can be easily remedied.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Take it back - Aktion Erntefest is here (yes, based on USHMM). Related: Nazi who helped in genocide goes free (Alfons Gotzfrid). --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Need a source for this (and copyedit too)
ŻOB fighters received from the AK: 50 pistols, a light machine gun, a submachine gun, ammunition, 600 hand grenades, 30 kg explosive materials - (C-4 from Allied air drops), 120 kg explosive materials from AK's home production, 400 detonators for bombs and grenades, 30 kg of potassium to produce "Molotov cocktails" and a large quantity of potassium nitrate for gunpowder production. ŻZW fighters received from the Państwowy Korpus Bezpieczeństwa between 1942 and 1943 r. : three machine guns, 100 pistols, seven rifles, 15 assault rifles and 750 hand granades. After April 1943 they send also 4 light machine guns, 11 assault rifles, 50 pistols i 300 hand granades.

Also, the term "assault rifle" (Sturmgewehr) was only invented by Hitler was only invented by Hitler for a new type of weapon introduced in 1944. --HanzoHattori (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be more than B?
I mean, come on, everything is there. --HanzoHattori 09:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want, you can nominate it as a "Good Article" or request an A-class review. Anrie 17:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The don't really want to learn any of the advanced Wikistuff. Just pointing out. --HanzoHattori 17:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not enough references for modern GA class standards.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And how many is enough in these ridiculous criteria? --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Heroic Victory?
Calling this a heroic victory makes doesn't sound very neutral. I'm not trying to say that what the Jews did was wrong. However, I don't think calling them heroes is in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Aren't we here to just present the facts and let the reader decide what to think? 70.23.70.244 02:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It now says "Jewish heroic failure" still I think this is POV. This seems to imply that all other WWII (or any other war for that matter) defeats were not heroic. Secondly, it seems to state that the Jews died heroically while the Polish Home Army died...regularly? Doesn't "German military victory" state all that's necessary for an infobox? JRWalko 02:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Saying that their failure was "heroic" in no way diminishes or enhances any other failure/victory in WWII or any other war. History and other independent writings have decided these people were heroic, not the authors of the article. Anrie 07:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They were heroic, but so were also other soldiers and people dying in other battles and/or hopeless struggles. Wikipedia should avoid such words as "heroic". Szopen 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. All soldiers no matter which side they were on can be 'heroic', calling sides heoric is a logical fallacy (reification, I believe :>).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus. Heroic failure describes a person or group failing to accomplish their goal, but somehow gaining the moral upper hand or becoming ennobled in the attempt. --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Related pictures nominated for deletion
Please see and comment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I question the use of the Israeli national flag in the box at top right of this article identifying the combatants. The articles on the Jewish resistance groups identified do not indicate their use of this flag, designed in 1891 for the Zionist movement. It is not clear that all the Jewish resistance fighters were Zionist movement members. Using the Israeli national flag to designate these groups does not appear to me to make any more sense than would, say, using the Jewish Brigade insignia from the British army unit of that name. Planetaryjim 01:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the said flag (now the flag of Israel) has been raised during the uprising by the Jewish fighters (alongside the Polish flag), thus identifying the combatants with it seems completely justifiable. --208.186.134.104 (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath - Erich Steidtmann
SS member Erich Steidtmann claims to be the last known SS participant in the Warsaw Uprising. Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/16/books.secondworldwar ...this link is a Guardian article from Dec 2007...If true, its of minor historical interest. Does anyone have resources showing any other participants known to be alive today? Engr105th (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Askaris
A review of inconsistencies in sources and what's likeliest to be correct (and in agreement with History of the Holocaust: A Handbook and Dictionary ) is that Askaris consisted of Russian (Soviet) deserters. This term did NOT refer to Latvians, Lithuanians, or Ukrainians. Moreover, the source that provides the basis for its contention the Askaris were Latvians, Lithuanians, and Ukrainians, indicates that basis is consists of Soviet documents. Given the anti-Baltic nationalist/anti-Ukrainian nationalist campaigns waged by the Soviet Union, it's a far more likely the Soviets covered up the complicity of Red Army deserters than that Latvian/Lithuanian SD (assumed) units participated in the Holocaust where there no one has produced any records of their having been dispatched there. (Same for Ukrainian.) I won't do the "unless I hear otherwise, I'll.." bit, (for now) I'll only request the description of Askaris be corrected to "Russian (Soviet) deserters." —PētersV (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't sound very Latvian, Lithuanian, or Ukrainian to me in this account. —PētersV (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Askaris is also a historical term with an origin having nothing to do with Latvians and Lithuanians. However it looks like a Lithuanian or Latvian word ("asaris", for example, is a fish, and "aizkaris" means "curtain"). The term is also being improperly declined from the supposed singular Askaris into supposed plural Askari. —PētersV (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As for indications the Arajs SD unit participated, I haven't researched that in sources. However, they were not Askaris. (One thing at a time.) —PētersV (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo ID?

 * In regard to photo of Boy with Hands in Air-possible ID is in Richard Raskin "A Child at Gunpoint" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.164 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(PL) Wydanie specjalne Mowia Wieki
Jest cala edycja o powstaniu, szereg artykulow (czasem diametralnie rozne liczby, np. w jednym tylko 1 zydowski pistolet maszynowy a w drugim az 25). Ktos moglby uzyc. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesli ktos sie zaoferuje, niech mi powie na talk page - jak nikt nie kupi, to ja za tydzien moze kupie. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Videos and german soldier
This site: [] has a video about this subject.The german soldier on photo(with a Mauser rifle]]) was found later and hanged in former Eastern Germany.Agre22 (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)agre22

Yellow badge image in infobox
I've changed the image used to represent the Jewish resistance in the infobox. The Yellow badge was forced on the Jews by the Nazis. Even given the historical context of this article, it really isn't appropriate to use the Yellow badge to represent the Jewish resistance. -- Versa geek  04:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right but I'm not sure the picture you substituted for it is appropriate either. Perhaps the photo of the monument that's down in the article? Or the one for Mila 18 ?radek (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think those images would scale well, (they would be illegible at the small size required). There are many symbols on Commons that might be suitable, This one might work File:Jewsin_Poland.svg.. I have no particular preference, as long as it isn't the yellow badge. -- Versa geek  07:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazi victory/German victory
Now it says in the article that this was "Nazi victory". German victory would be better, since officially the name of the nation was Germany, not "Nazi Germany", although it is often used (how about "Commie Soviet Union"?). And Germany deployed more Wehrmacht troops than Waffen-SS troops. Also, in the Warsaw uprising of 1944 article it says German victory, rather than Nazi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising --80.186.100.180 12:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable.  // Halibutt 02:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nazi Germany is used to denote a special period of German history just like "Soviet Union" denotes a special period in the history of Russia. So the equivalent of Nazi Germany is Communist Russia or Soviet Union. Btw, the official name was German Reich. 141.13.8.14 13:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * German Reich is a general name used through out history the correct name was III Reich (third Reich - like Trird republic). Regardles It as Germany and German people like it or not. Calling it other way not to mention Aushwitz Lie - klamstwo oswiecimskie is nothing else than rewriting history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.167.177 (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't cramp the articles with images like that
It's not a photo galery - this function is of Wikipedia Commons. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"They fought for what they thought was right."
(moved to correct place in sequence. Xyl 54 (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

What is the point of that sentence? It makes it sound as if there can be a debate about whether fighting against genocide is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.65.6 (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I came here to say just that. Shoot, let's take it out. 68.155.128.142 00:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish & polish police allegedly "not used" - weird OR by Jacurek
"not used"??? oh come on, hundreds were used, even suffered casualties - Stroop Report: "Furthermore, the Polish Police Sergeant Julian Zielinski, born 13 November 1891, 8th Commissariat, fell on 19 April I 1943 while fulfilling his duty."; and also the remnants of the jewish police were used on the day 1 of the german offensive - before gestapo shot most of them and the survivors went into hiding - and many were ALSO killed by the insurgents in the original rising (more than the german forces later? "or there would be no uprising"), so how they could be NOT mentioned?? --217.97.233.20 (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They were not used in combat. Guarding a gate for example as it was a duty of most Polish or Jewish policemen before the uprising is not an involvement.--Jacurek (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So you say 367 Polish policemen on avarage (Stroop Report) "guarded a gate" (I guess it must have been a scene like from Keystone Cops) - and did not fire a shot, or were fired at, while "guarding a gate" anyway?

Julian Zielinski, born 13 November 1891, 8th Commissariat, "fell on 19 April I 1943 while fulfilling his duty", yet he was "not in combat"?

(Stroop original: Ferner fiel in Ausübung seines Dienstes am 19. April 1943 der polnische Polizei-Wachtmeister Julian Zielinski, geboren am 13. November 1891, 8. Kommissariat. Sie setzten ihr Höchstes, ihr Leben, ein. Wir wer den sie nie vergessen. - "gave everything, his life, we won't ever forget this").

You're amazing. How do you define "combat"? Why over 300 police "guarded a gate" but were "not used" anyway? How Zielinski was killed, if he was "not used in combat"?

Did he die because of how overcrowded this gate was, with hundreds of "noncombat" police supposedly packed there like sardines in order to guard it (I guess with nothing but whistles)?

"By April 16, when Himmler arrived in Warsaw for a series of secret conferences, the forces at his disposal were comprised of the following: 2,000 officers and men of the Waffen SS; three Wehrmacht divisions[squads], providing sappers and artillery support; two battalions of German police (234 officers and men); 360 Polish police; about 35 security police; and a 337-man battalion of fascist auxiliaries, called ‘Askaris’ by the Germans in contemptuous reference to the black troops who had helped defend Imperial Germany’s African colonies before and during World War I. In total, it was expected that 2,842 Germans would be committed to cleaning out the ghetto, while another 7,000 SS troops and policemen patrolled the surrounding non-Jewish districts. (...) Sunday, April 18, marked the first night of the Jewish Passover holiday. At 6 o’clock that evening, a cordon of Polish policemen surrounded the ghetto."

Some samples of following "noncombat" by the mentioned above Polish police cordon (getto.pl): ''Jak się później okazało dziewczyny złapała polska policja, a próbujący uciekać chłopak został zabity na miejscu. (...) Tosię i jej towarzyszkę Szyfrę policja złapała i przekazała w ręce Niemców.' (...) Zostali zatrzymani przez polskich policjantów. Stawili opór, rzucili granat ręczny. Niemcy, którzy przyszli z pomocą policjantom, zamordowali ich. (...) Po wyjściu z kanałów natknęli się na patrol Niemców i polskich policjantów. Lilka zginęła w bezpośrednim starciu." (The girls were caught by the Polish police, and the boy was shot on spot while trying to escape. (...) Tosia and Shifra were turned over to the Germans and tortured to death. (...) They were stopped by the Polish policemen, resisted, threw a hand grenade. But the Germans came to help the police and killed the Jews. (...) After they exited the sewere, they came upon a patrol of Germans and Polish policemen. Lilka was killed in the clash.)

What else? History.net: "On the night of April 19, a large force of Polish AK fighters, led by Captain Jozsef Przenny, tried to blast a hole in the ghetto wall facing Sapierinska Street, through which some Jews could escape. Before they could, however, they were spotted by Polish police, who summoned German troops to the scene. After a brisk firefight, in which two Germans and two Polish policemen were killed, the AK men were forced to withdraw with two dead and several wounded."

Now, the Jewish police - Edelman on the uprising:

"At the end of December 1942 we received our first transport of weapons from the Home Army. It was not much--there were only ten pistols in the whole transport--but it enabled us to prepare for our first major action. We planned it for January 22nd and it was to be a retaliatory measure against the Jewish police. However, on January 18th, 1943, the ghetto was surrounded once again and the "second liquidation" began. This time, however, the Germans were not able to carry out their plans unchallenged. Four barricaded battle groups offered the first armed resistance in the ghetto."

But their role in the early German response?

"At 2 a.m. on April 19, Sammern-Frankenegg dispatched groups of Lithuanian and Ukrainian SS auxiliaries and Polish police into the ghetto, moving in single file toward the Umschlagplatz. Sammern-Frankenegg believed that the swift occupation of that central area would result in the collapse of Jewish resistance elsewhere. Behind the Askaris went the remaining Ordnungsdienst, or Jewish ghetto police, excluding those of their number who balked at participating in the action or were caught trying to escape–they were brought to the Gestapo gathering point at 103 Zelazna Street and shot. (...) Elsewhere, at the strategically important junction of Zamenhofa and Mila streets, four Jewish fighting groups lay in wait for the oncoming German assault. They allowed the enemy’s vanguard, which consisted of Jewish police, to pass, then opened fire as the soldiers and their auxiliaries approached. Again shocked by the sudden hail of fire, Ukrainians and Germans alike broke and ran for cover or fled the area entirely."

Why do you do this? Why this very strange continued denial? And why the usurpation of the ownership of article? And oh, also so WHAT ARE YOUR SOURCES for your totally weird claims? "You believe so", because? Original research? --83.13.135.170 (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Stroop report - 16 May versus 15 May
How the total number of captured+shot Jews according the Stroop report decreased from 15 to 16 May according the table from 56,885 to 56,065? I've corrected the letter number to 57,065 as probably a typo.--MathFacts (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Numbers unrealistic
(moved to correct place in sequence. Xyl 54 (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

The article states that the Nazis employed 2000 troops and lost 1000. 50% losses are not realistic considering the course of action in Warsaw. Either more troops were employed or the losses were lower or both. By the way: What is the basis for the claim of 1000 men lost (300 dead, 700 wounded)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.13.8.14 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 16 May 2006


 * It's the Jewish estimates I guess. For example the surviving ZOB commander claims a large remote-controlled mine at the gate killed or wounded everyone of the "100-men" column "who came like on a parade" on the first day. But given their lack of weapons (mostly pistols, very few automatic weapons, many armed only with grenades) I guess the German reports might be more believable. They also lost 2 or so French-made tanks from Molotov attacks. I think it should be noted organised resistance collapsed after few days, with ZZW largely escaping the ghetto and ZOB mostly retreating to their bunkers (hidden places) - only to be hunted down along with civilians (who had their own). Of course, they never thought about "winning" in other terms as a "moral victory" maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocoum (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 June 2006

The Germans lost 16 men, plus one Polish policeman.159.105.80.141 17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The article states that the Nazis employed 2000 troops PER DAY... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.59.130.54 (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In the sentence that begins "Edelman estimated that up to 1,300 enemies..." It is not clear who "enemies" refers to. It seems to be German forces, but it is not clear. 71.139.205.248 (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Germans/Nazis generally kept thorough and accurate records of everything -- something that proved to be to their detriment at the post-war war crimes trials. Stroop might have lied about his loses for public consumption, but is there any reason to assume that he would lie to his superiors? This is not conclusive, but has anyone ever found even a suggestion in the German/Nazi records that Stroop kept a second tally of German/Nazi losses, or that he lied to his superiors?

In contrast, it is customary for at least several thousand years for combatants of many nationalities and ideologies to claim for propaganda purposes that they inflicted huge (and sometimes improbably high) loses on the enemy. It takes nothing away from the courage and tenacity of the Jewish forces in the ghetto to accept the facts as documented to date that relatively few Germans/Nazis and their supporting forces were killed or wounded. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC))

The Wall
John Hersey wrote The Wall, a novel that took place in the Warsaw Ghetto and took in the Ghetto uprising. 70.29.61.159 (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Name could be: "Warsaw ghetto uprising" (less caps)
Is there a reason for the capitalisation? Now it is Warsaw Ghetto Uprising", I'd expect "Warsaw ghetto uprising". Could be, is there a prior discussion I should know? -DePiep (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

16th April
Hi,

People who edit this page reguarly. Did the battle actually start on 16th April instead? I think it did. Anybody that can help please do.

Thanks, pbl1998Pbl1998 (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What was the ŻZW's flag?
It seems like it should be possible to know, but I can't find any reliable sources online that describe it in detail. Some users on Flags of the World say it was the flag at right. It would be a useful illustration if it was possible to be certain.Pwrm (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Article quality ratings
Could it be re-assessed now? --Niemti (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

first mass uprising in nazi occupied europe
fist masss uprising in NAZI occupied europe, was 13. july uprising in Yugoslavia, with about 30.000 people engaged, and more then 8000 km2 of territory liberated. It lasted from 13. july to 14. of august

http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%98%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.215.89 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please remove Szyk's painting from this article
It is copyrighted and no fair use rationale for use in this article is given. — Kpalion(talk) 22:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Article now unblocked, so did it myself. — Kpalion(talk) 03:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Improving the layout and presentation of this article
Editors with wide-screen computer monitors/displays (technically, 'high' aspect ratio displays) may not notice that certain sections of the article create 'pinched' text when the article is viewed by readers with older narrow monitors/displays (technically, 'low' aspect ratio displays). Readers with such narrow displays will have more trouble reading articles due to such pinched (squeezed) text.

When that occurs, the text becomes disjointed (separated by tall gaps), and the text column can be only a few words wide. This is easily verifiable on modern high aspect ratio displays by merely reducing the width of the browser window you are using, in order to simulate a narrow-screen computer display. The problem areas occur where two photos are at the same height, one on the article's left side and the other on its right side, e.g.:

[ photo ] Two or three words  [ photo ]

[ photo ] .............................. [ photo ]

[ photo ] ....... (tall gap) ....... [ photo ]

[ photo ] .............................. [ photo ]

.... (ditto)

.... (ditto)

(....paragraph text resumes under the bottom of the two photos.)

It would be better to improve the layout of photos in this article to prevent pinched text, by rearranging the photos. To do so we don't need to revise or alter any text or remove any photos. I did so yesterday by repositioning the photos: moving one photo upwards, staggering three photos in the section 'Opposing forces', and then placing the remaining photos on the right hand side of the article. Yesterday's rearrangement of photos did leave one problem area of pinched text, however, at the top of the second section 'Background', as there's a tall infobox running down the right hand side of the article. That issue can be dealt with separately.

After I rearranged the photos yesterday another editor partially reverted some of the photo layout, which reintroduced the pinched text problem to two of the article's sections. Before working again on improving the photo layout I'd like to see any comments or other suggestions to resolve this issue. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Making MASSIVE (almost an entire screen long) white spaces on stationary monitors is not an improvement. Also mixing b&w with sepia is distracting. --Niemti (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Polish Police
I removed reference about loses of "Polish police". Could someone deliver any supportive information that such units took part in fightings. I have found this citation by Swedish historian G.S. Paulson that contradicts this information:

''The small number of survivors, therefore, is not a direct result of Polish hostility to the Jews. The Jews were deported from the ghettos to the death camps, not by Poles, but by German gendarmes, reinforced by Ukrainian and Baltic auxiliaries, and with the enforced co-operation of the ghetto police. Neither the Polish police nor any group of Polish civilians was involved in the deportations to any significant degree, nor did they staff the death camps. Nor did the fate of the Jews who were taken to their deaths depend to any significant degree on the attitudes and actions of a people from whom they were isolated by brick walls and barbed wire.''

''The 27,000 Jews in hiding in Warsaw relied on about 50-60,000 people who provided hiding-places and another 20-30,000 who provided other forms of help; on the other hand, blackmailers, police agents, and other actively anti-Jewish elements numbered perhaps 2-3,000, each striking at two or three victims a month. In other words, helpers outnumbered hunters by about 20 or 30 to one. The active helpers of Jews thus made up seven to nine per cent of the population of Warsaw; the Jews themselves, 2.7 per cent; the hunters, perhaps 0.3 per cent; and the whole network-Jews, helpers and hunters-constituted a secret city of at least 100,000: one tenth of the people of Warsaw; more than twice as many as the 40,000 members of the vaunted Polish military underground, the AK [Armia Krajowa or Home Army].''

''How many people in Poland rescued Jews? Of those that meet Yad Vashem's criteria-perhaps 100,000. Of those that offered minor forms of help-perhaps two or three times as many. Of those who were passively protective-undoubtedly the majority of the population. All these acts, great and small, were necessary to rescue Jews in Poland.''

I have expanded the quote anon provided and added an online reference.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly you meant Gunnar S. Paulsson...? CiaPan (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dead = Cross...
I wonder if some Jews, Muslims and followers of other religions (or none) wouldn't find it offensive that the death of members of their faith is represented by a cross (of all things) close to the name of the deceased... Can't we find another way of symbolizing death? 95.69.104.61 (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Skull and bones seems a neutral symbol, but I'm not sure it would be widely accepted...
 * Unicode character ☠ or some icon, like file:Death skull.svg might be used. --CiaPan (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

ק
ק - What is that in infobox? If Dagger (typography) really feels so damn offensive due its similarity with cross, then use "KIA" or something. Don't start bringing in some completely new symbols which 99% English speakers won't understand.--Staberinde (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As stated previously, its the first letter of the Hebrew word for 'murdered'. Its also offensive and presumptuous to assume that Jews would not be bothered by having their victims' deaths labeled by a dagger similar to a Christian cross. As well you need to give people more credit for being able to figure out that the symbol assigned to the Jewish victims refers to their murders. I am reverting your insensitive deletion of the Hebrew symbol. After you have purged the entire collection of Wikipedias of Latin symbols, which 99% of all readers also don't understand, you can return here to argue your case. HarryZilber (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You do realize that if this methodology would be used persistently, so that only christians use that symbol and everyone else from Soviet atheists to Roman pagans get their own unique symbol, those things become meaningless mess? Anyway, I now checked Template:Infobox_military_conflict and there its said this way The KIA and POW templates may be included immediately after the names of commanders who were killed in action or surrendered and were taken prisoner, respectively. However, it does seem that template KIA has different, lets say "non-cross like" version. So I guess it should be acceptable compromise without offending anyone.--Staberinde (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I should remind/inform you they were largely not even religious, often atheist (the leftists, such as Marek Edelman the "militant atheist" by religious beliefs - and a "radical critic" of Israel), sometimes "even" Christian (and I mean Jewish Christians, Jews or part-Jews just by ethicity). It wasn't actually Masada, you know? --Niemti (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

B-class review
Failed for WPPOLAND. Due to insufficient inline citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Disparity between number of casualties on German side in template and number of Germans killed in Stroop report
Someone's goofed up with one of the numbers, someone familiar with the documentation on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising needs to fix this error.--Corkiebuchek (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind, I just realized the stroop report didn't include forced collaborators.--Corkiebuchek (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Questionable edit(s) by IP 12.239.13.142 using fake source
It appears that the so-called source, "History of Post War Poland, by Jarisch Wilken, is not a real book. No results on amazon.com or books.google.com.

A search for Jarisch Wilken results(1) on Wikipedia.

I believe this is all fake. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP has been reported over at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. It would be good if you could post this concern there, and feel free to remove it since it is not a reliable source, if it is one at all. I am refraining from editing his posts until this issue is resolved.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  02:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this source does not appear to be exist.  Volunteer Marek   02:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Discrepancy
You say: Of the remaining 50,000 residents, most were captured and shipped to concentration and extermination camps, in particular to Treblinka.

Wiki page on Treblinka Extermination Camp says: ''Treblinka received only about 7,000 Jews from the capital... the remaining 42,000 Warsaw Jews were deported to Majdanek, instead.'' Valetude (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

einstein's letter published/dedication
shouldn't there be, at least a reference of einstein's letter to the heroes of the battle of the warsaw ghetto, published in Bulletin of the society of polish jews, einstein 1956, 265? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.44.220 (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"Opposing Forces" section too much about non-Jewish Polish participation
Especially the first part of this section is very argumentative and not based on settled research. It sounds to me like pro-Polish historians are trying to argue that substantial numbers of non-Jewish Poles (from the "Aryan side") and Polish underground forces played key roles. There are unsourced claims about numbers of non-Jewish Poles who hid Jewish Poles, which have nothing to do with the ghetto uprising. This doesn't accord with the Wikipedia NPOV policy, and is not relevant to this article. I think someone with solid, uncontested sources should rework this section. Given its heading, it should be about how many Jewish fighters (to my knowledge two main fighting groups of ca. 400 and ca. 600, plus some individual guerrilla bands for a grand total of maybe 1500) vs. how many German forces (ca. 2000). There might be a brief mention that non-Jewish Poles were involved to some extent on BOTH sides, as well as eastern European "Askaris" serving with the Germans. Hmarcuse (talk)hmarcuse —Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040513133343/http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2003-04-bermuda.php to http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2003-04-bermuda.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060526200526/http://www.freeman.org/m_online/may03/arens.htm to http://www.freeman.org/m_online/may03/arens.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor//getto_43.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927072018/http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/eehistory/H200Readings/Topic4-R3.html to http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/eehistory/H200Readings/Topic4-R3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927072018/http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/eehistory/H200Readings/Topic4-R3.html to http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/eehistory/H200Readings/Topic4-R3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211205115/http://akpress.org/2004/items/fiveyearsinthewarsawghetto to http://akpress.org/2004/items/fiveyearsinthewarsawghetto
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308001834/http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/stroop-report/htm/strp001.htm.en to http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/stroop-report/htm/strp001.htm.en

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Strange
Why did the SS allow photographs to be taken? (SMcCellan (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC))

The usage of primary sources?
This article seems to use quite a lot of primary sources. Stroop Report is referenced numerous times, and memoirs/diaries are also used (ex. ). Any thoughts on whether those sources should be removed, consdering WP:PRIMARY? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as they are attributed I see no real issue, can you highlight an example of a problem?Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there is the entire issue of WP:PRIMARY to consider...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with citing Stroop Report for "Stroop report said X". That said there is the matter of UNDUE to consider (this article is not about the Stroop Report) and it would  greatly improve this article to remove all citations to Stroop Report and similar and replace with reliable secondary sources. If what Stroop Report said is of any importance, I suspect it's repeated in some secondary source, chances are with analysis/context as to whether it's likely to be true. buidhe 16:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Problematic source
Can anyone comment on reliability of ? This Russian? website doesn't strike me as reliable. Seems like someone's personal webpage? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, looks like an SPS. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 16:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently you mean this article by Горелик, Пётр Залманович and another similar source. After reading them in Russian, I think it is precisely the case when someone should use better sources which are plenty on this subject. So removed. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like it is a non-homogeneous collection of writings of various authors about Jews. For example, I found an article authored by Maxim Gorky there, and even Ecclesiastes. It seems each item should be judged based on its own merit, and, most likely, most of that has already been published elsewhere. What concrete article from that collection are you talking about?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Any and all articles used here, and frankly, in other Wikipedia articles (but for review, priority is for high visibility topics). Source review and cleanup for this article is on my to do list. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this whole section was problematic in terms of content and sourcing. So removed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent open access source

 * Moshe Arens' article on the ZZW is also open access: <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 08:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Moshe Arens' article on the ZZW is also open access: <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 08:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Stroop quotes
I removed Stroop quotes: diff. My rationale was: "undue quotations from Stroop & the sources listed are not suitable". K.e.coffman (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Photographs
Why did the SS allow photographs to be taken of the uprising and their soldiers? The uprising was after the Second Battle of El Alamein and the Siege of Stalingrad, so the Germans must have known they had lost the war. (86.160.101.190 (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC))
 * Who knows, what edit do you suggest?Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2020
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is mentioned in the film 'The Pianist'. Tadouwes (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned in the film isn't usually establish WP:DUE weight for inclusion. Also, you need to provide a reliable source for the content to be included. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021


Change "getto" to "ghetto" in Polish article section.

Screenshot attached Theelitethreat (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Theelitethreat Now done. Thanks for helping to improve the encyclopedia! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Quote is taken out of context
This article says "Marek Edelman, the only surviving ŻOB commander, said their inspiration to fight was 'to pick the time and place of our deaths'." This is slightly misleading as his actual quote, which is linked to, is "We knew perfectly well that we had no chance of winning. We fought simply not to allow the Germans alone to pick the time and place of our deaths. We knew we were going to die." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnoc527 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * .  Wylie pedia  @ 23:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2021
Requesting that “a total of 13,000 jews died.....” be changed to “13,000 jews were killed....”. The latter is more direct, does not mince around as to what happened (as if some were accidental?) and further, because it is only one category of casualties (just people killed) there’s no need to say “a total of”, which would make more sense if it were saying “killed, wounded or captured.”

It is a minor stylistic change, but I think a good one. 76.78.141.165 (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I left "A total" as to avoid starting the sentence with a numeral. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

2022 infobox edits
Preserving here; my rationales were:
 * "removing Polish resistance from infobox -- undue there; played a marginal role" diff
 * "removing Jewish police from the infobox -- the article states that they participated in ghetto liquidation, not in the suppression of the uprising" diff.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning up quotes
Or beginning to...

I'm no expert on the holocaust, but I just happened to be reading Hilberg book. I noticed that the quote attributed to him in this Wikipedia article could not be found in his book. But I found the quote attributed to Gutman’s book on the net, but I don't have access to that book. I therrefore tagged the source.

Hilberg wrote: "It is possible that one or another name appeared on the list in error, or that someone was overlooked, but in the main the summation of his [Stroop’s] casualties is correct." (p.538)

I don't have access to this either: French L. MacLean, The Ghetto Men: The SS Destruction of the Jewish Warsaw Ghetto—April–May 1943

I removed this paragraph: "On the other hand, the Stroop report vastly exaggerated the actual losses (and strength) of the resistance."

I've found no support for it anywhere, and it was tagged three years ago. If you find a credible source for it, please feel free to put in back in again.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2022
Remove "Jewish Resistance estimate" from Axis casualty figures.

There is no reason to have this estimate listed when we have the actual, exact casualty figures from firsthand source (via Stroop). The claim of "300" is extremely questionable at best, an it just an estimate to boot. The presence of this figure creates unnecessary clutter and confusion. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is consensus needed for something that is already confirmed by a firsthand source? No one has used the talk page for this article in 3 months anyway. My attempt as building "consensus" would likely just go unanswered indefinitely.BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2022
Change casualties of April 19 from 1 to 2 Leeyiam (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2023
I think a good source for "On the afternoon of 19 April, a symbolic event took place when two boys climbed up on the roof of a building on the square and raised two flags, the red-and-white Polish flag and the blue-and-white banner of the ŻZW. These flags remained there, highly visible from the Warsaw streets, for four days." can be this book or this documentary. Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)