This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bloody Sunday (1939) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
It is hard to understand logical reasons of the attack (German civilians VS Polish soldiers) without at least a sketch of atmosphere on the Pommerania before Sept. 1, 1939. We have to remember that Hitler's speeches (transmitted by the Berlin radio) were listened in many German houses (also in Bromberg). Some people (NSDAP entusiasts) thought about end of the "Polish occupation" and "historic justice". They could wait for Wermacht troops, but they wanted to help German fellow-soldiers to re-gain their territory. After Anshlus of Austria and Czechoslovakia they had to believe that Hitler is so mighty and powerful that nobody will dare to attack Ubermensches. Then we should add Abwehr infiltration especially active in 1939 on the whole area of the Korridor. Agents who not only could deliver necessary weapon (Polish army reports says about confiscated machine guns of the same type as used by Wermacht), but also teach logistic and urban guerilla methods, undoubtedly brought to local Germans feelings that Hitler is unconquered leader. Polish Army retreat soon confirmed this view. At the end it is necessary to add that even according to Polish historians that not the whole German population took part in the sabotage. If we count Germans in the city for approximately 10.000 people (then less than 5.000 would be men; ca. 2.500 in the age proper to fight) less than forth part of male population capable to fight took part in the action (according to Poles ca. 600 people). This addition is not to justify German side, but to understand, that German diversion is highly probable. It could took part as Poles claims (we have to remember that it was poorly documented - at the time of retreat nobody cares for crime evidence). For me less logic would be reaction of Polish mob that on the face of arriving German troops decided to lynch German fellow-citizens. It is poor to observe that neo-nazi propaganda is still present in the net and denies facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.80.108 ( talk) 05:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Because of it I reject your extremely non POV version. P. S. Sorry, guys - I will t create account. I do not publish in wikipedia excerpt of minor corrections when mistakes are really reious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.214.199 ( talk) 14:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
"The Nazis exploited the deaths as grounds for a massacre of Polish inhabitants after the Wehrmacht captured the town." Should that not more ordinarily be termed "a reprisal". Hakluyt bean ( talk) 01:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
...is problematic. First it completely fails to mention the works of such German historians as Gunther Schubert [1] (The Bromberg Bloody Sunday: Death of a Legend refers to the death of the Nazi legend about this supposed "atrocity") whose research basically accords with what the article insists on calling "the Polish version" (i.e. not the version propagated by the Nazis during the war). Specifically in regard to whether not there were attacks by German "diversionists" Schubert shows that there was a pre-planned action directed at retreating Polish troops, organized with the participation of agents from outside the city, who arrived for this very purpose.
Along the same lines, this division of sources into "the Polish version" and the "the German version" is inaccurate or at least outdated. As the example of Schubert shows, newer German research basically says the same thing as this so-called "Polish version". In fact this kind of a nationally-based dichotomy serves as a sneaky tactic to pretend that there is "real" (as opposed to "imagined" or "fringe") current (as opposed to outdated) debate on the topic and to give equal weight to both views currently accepted by historians and those which have been rejected (but which I'm sure still have quite a prominence on some sites on the net).
Volunteer Marek 17:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
On the issue of whether there was in fact any sniping at Polish troops by German irregulars, I'd make several observations.
First, my reading of accounts of the Dunkirk evacuation, etc makes it clear that 'fifth column psychosis' was common in such situations, and obviously innocent people were often seized and shot as snipers. This isn't proof that sniping didn't occur in Bromberg -- but it does create the possibility that it did not. Retreating troops do become panicky, imagine in all sincerity that they are surrounded by civilian snipers, and react accordingly. The mere fact that the civilians around them included Germans could have provided the necessary tinder -- no actual sniping would have had to have taken place. In 1940, for example, British troops on several occasions seized Belgian or French civilians, accused them of sniping, signalling, etc, and shot them -- even though it has been subsequently established that no such activity took place. It happens. Whether it happened in Bromberg is another matter.
Second, it would be germane to look into whether the Germans ever employed such tactics in other places: I don't believe they did. Bromberg might have been a one-off -- the presence of a large, hostile German population might have created a unique situation and opportunity. However, the absence of of any parallels that I am aware of doesn't increase the likelihood that the sniping was authentic.
Then too -- why? On the one hand, there would have been some marginal military benefit. On the other, the cost to the German inhabitants of Bromberg would have been potentially catastrophic. The Germans -- at least by their own lights -- were sane. They weren't given to self-immolation. While I'm certainly open to evidence to the contrary, on the face of it it seems unlikely that either the German military or the German civilian population of Bromberg would have engaged in such behavior. Not because they were nice guys -- simply because it would have been foolish.
Finally, and as so often, other possibilities exist. Individuals in the German population may have been very willing to defend themselves -- so willing that when Polish troops entered their homes, they shot first. Whatever did occur, it could have fallen into some such grey area. There might well have been shots fired. What those shots constituted could depend on who you asked. -- Colin Wright — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.192.43 ( talk) 05:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I added the talk page header, which wasn't already included on this page, and also searchable archives, since the archive for this talk page is large and full of some very contentious talk. JDanek007 Talk 03:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Please provide support for the recent reverts such as these [2]. If you want to explain why an "established editor" is enabling edit warring IPs [3] [4] who are clearly engaging in POV pushing here, that would help as well. Best as I can tell this is, at best, a tertiary source (a discussion of an interview supposedly given by a secondary source at one point), inserted into the article without proper context based on a source of unknown reliability. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not surprised this isn't backed by any source. There is a modern consensus between historians on these events, and Jastrzebski is not a leading expert.Tomasz Chinciński i Pawel Machcewicz are. Jastrzebski wasn't published or publicized regarding this since his cooperation with German expelled organizations and every publication on the events in Poland criticized him or pointed out that his claims are not really reliable.He does represent the very definition of a fringe view. We can mention him in passing, but he isn't really somebody that should dominate this article.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 11:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
A lot of stuff here is based on outdated information from 2003 and 2004. After this year there was a special committee organized by Polish historians and they researched archives in Poland and Germany regarding these events. One of the findings was report by German general Lahousen who praised the sabotage action in Bydgoszcz. Most of this is located in Dr. Tomasz Chincinski book "Forpoczta Hitlera. Niemiecka dywersja w Polsce w 1939 roku" published in 2010.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 11:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't see the relevance of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.212.198 ( talk) 13:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bloody Sunday (1939). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The consensus alleged in some sections of this article may be a consensus among Polish historians. There's no such consensus in Germany or anywhere else in the world. In fact, the possibility of the massacre being a behind-enemy-lines operation is even positively ruled out by some respected non-partisan historians. Now, I'm not saying that I or anyone knows the infallible truth; but it is apparent that editors around here have given in to Polish POV pushing. The article should be rewritten and protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.204.102.169 ( talk) 02:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a few examples:
...shots were fired, the origin of which have never been established.
...einem Pogrom als Folge vermeintlicher deutscher Angriffe...dessen Ursache bis heute nicht endgültig geklärt ist. ("...a pogrom as a consequence of alleged German attacks ... whose cause has not yet been definitively clarified")
Der Ablauf der Ereignisse, die Verantwortlichkeit für die Übergriffe und die genaue Zahl der Opfer sind bis heute umstritten. Auch eine 2008 vom polnischen Institut des Nationalen Gedenkens veröffentliche umfangreiche Dokumentation konnte nicht zur endgültigen Klärung beitragen. ("The course of the events, the responsibility for the attacks and the exact number of victims are still controversial. A comprehensive documentation, published by the Polish Institute of National Remembrance in 2008, could not contribute to the final clarification.")
Was genau an diesem Tag in Bromberg und Umgebung geschah... ist bis heute unklar und umstritten... Bis heute ist nicht zu ermitteln, wer warum die ersten Schüsse abfeuerte... ("What excactly happened on that day in Bromberg and the surrounding area ... is unclear and controversial to this day ... Still today it's not possible to determine by whom and why the first shots were fired.") HerkusMonte ( talk) 12:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Tomasz Chinciński 2010-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 12:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it is fine to add a sentence, at least, listing the German historians which state that it is unclear who fired first. If they want their names tied with this type of denial it is their choice, but if they are reputable (notable) historians, their views do belong here. It is interesting to note that not a single ones argues the Polish version is untrue, they are at best saying there is no conclusive evidence either way. Pretty lame form of denial... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bloody Sunday (1939). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The background section includes:
Does anyone know which source this is based on? No references are linked to in the first 2 paragraphs and then suddenly 3 are linked after the 1st sentence in the 3rd. I'd like to know what specifics are known about these accusations such as dates / casualties and whether 'violent cleansing' referred to murder or forced extradition.
If going into too much detail begins to bloat the background section, we could consider exporting the information to a new article. In that case I'm interested in fielding ideas for what to call it. background to Bloody Sunday or German accusations against Polish authorities ? Ideally if someone could identify what source(s) this is based on, a name might be extrapolated from their phrasing. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 17:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Somebody above said "Register your avatar, or nobody will take you seriously." I must confess that registered avatar never entered my mind as basis of taking someone seriously. Can someone explain to me why registering an avatar should be an issue in taking someone seriously? ( PeacePeace ( talk) 15:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC))
Article says: "The sequence started with an attack of German Selbstschutz snipers on retreating Polish troops and then was followed by a Polish reaction and then the final retaliatory execution of Polish hostages . . . ."
This Polish Propaganda Page is a monstrous outrage against history. "German saboteurs dressed up in Polish uniforms". Just a joke. Fortunately the Swiss Red Cross were monitoring events against the German minority throughout the interwar period. 2A00:23C4:B607:CF00:19E4:6141:4073:DC11 ( talk) 10:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Phrases like "heavily exploited the events" could be changed to "used" to retain neutral wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memethepenguin ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I just wanted to point out a possible misquoting of historian Böhler.
A user on a deleted r/askhistorians post feels Böhler to claim that evidence is "supposed to show," rather than neccessarily actually showing.
Sorry if I broke some rule and for not having an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.212.224 ( talk) 15:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
At the risk of playing a dupe for believing that Wikipedia might treat this subject impartially, regarding this sentence:
Goebbels had initially estimated that 5,400 Germans had been killed during Bloody Sunday but in 1940 increased the estimate to 58,000 which was subsequently published in the pamphlet "Polish Atrocities Against the German Minority in Poland"
This is not what the linked source says Goebbels said; it says that the 5,400 and 58,000 numbers refer to the total pre-invasion casualties suffered by the 1.5 million Germans in Poland, and not on the one Bloody Sunday in Bromberg. Needless to say, the sentence as currently written serves to ridicule the German estimates with its convenient misinterpretation of the source.
It looks like this sentence was added seven years ago, by someone who writes like a conscientious seventh grader, with a book citation; four years later, someone else added a web source and even quoted the relevant section in the source's pop-up, but evidently failed to read it; and here I am now.
Is there a way for readers to know whether an article has been reviewed by someone competent, or should every article indiscriminately be considered as likely wrong on the details? 24.62.224.22 ( talk) 00:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
This article suffers from significant issues. For one thing, the 'incident' section does not actually describe the events in any meaningful way. Most anglophone historians agree that pogroms against ethnic Germans did occur. Whilst I am aware that Marxist and revisionist Polish sources have asserted that such incidents Were false flag attacks, this view should not be expressed as fact in wikivoice.
As it stands, the article just implicitly refutes a point that hasn't even been asserted - namely, that a pogrom occurred in Bromberg at the time in question.
I intend to revise at least that section, and the lead, to describe the events. Riposte97 ( talk) 11:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
In English, that'sNeue Dokumente und Archivquellen sollen belegen, dass polnische Truppen von Abwehr-Agenten und Angehörigen der deutschen Minderheit beschossen wurden.
That's pretty definitive. For added context, here's what Alexander B. Rossino has to say in his book Hitler Strikes Poland (p. 62):New documents and archival sources should prove that Polish troops were fired upon by Abwehr agents and members of the German minority.
But I also object to the assumption that we should reject a Polish source simply because it's presented as partisan in the current "Debate" section, which we both agree is a mess. Wikipedia is, after all, not a reliable source. Perhaps the source is biased, but I see no evidence that it is contradicted by mainstream English- or German-language historiography in this regard.Conditions in Bydgoszcz had steadily deteriorated in the days immediately after the beginning of the German invasion. Situated squarely between Pomerania and East Prussia, Bydgoszcz was home to a considerable number of ethnic Germans, many of whom belonged to underground political groups organized by Nazi sympathizers. Armed clashes between Polish troops and members of the Volksdeutsche underground broke out in the days between the beginning of the German offensive and the Wehrmacht's occupation on 5 September.
Hmmm. Regarding the sentence "After armed conflict erupted on 1 September 1939, ethnic Germans living in Poland were in many places subjected to attacks and ethnic cleansing." changed from "After armed conflict erupted on 1 September 1939, statements that persecutions of ethnic Germans had occurred in Poland, especially in Bydgoszcz, continued to appear in the Nazi press.”. This is a pretty big difference - we should be carefull endorsing Nazi propaganda claims. Does the cited source say that Germans were subject to ethnic cleansing or that Germans COMMITTED ethnic cleaning, using some attacks as a pretext? Can anyone verify this and/or quote what is in the source? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
This unreferenced paragraph in lead does not seem to be summarizing anything in the body: "Approximately 600-800 Polish hostages were shot in a mass execution in the aftermath of the fall of the city on 5 September. Additionally, fifty Polish prisoners of war from Bydgoszcz were accused by Nazi summary courts for taking part in "Bloody Sunday" and shot. Later, the Germans killed 1,200-3,000 Polish civilians in Bydgoszcz as part of Operation Tannenberg, in a part of the city that became known as the Valley of Death. These victims included the mayor of Bydgoszcz, Leon Barciszewski.". I don't have time to rewrite this now, but hope others active above can check it. The estimates seem to differ from referenced ones in the body. In particular, the claim about POWs is not something I found outside of the lead, so right now this is unreferenced claim. And a redflag to me, b/c recently I wrote an article on German atrocities committed against Polish prisoners of war which lists POWs massacres of that size, and I did not find any massacre in Bydgoszcz mentioned in sources I've reviewed. Note that I haven't done dedicated BEFORE for this. Leon B. should be linked to pl:Leon Barciszewski if the mention of his death is kept (but this probably should be in the body, not in the lead). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
References
This topic seems well covered (and referenced) on pl wiki. That includes several subarticles that we may want to translate:
For now, such articles can be linked using {{ ill}}. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bloody Sunday (1939) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
It is hard to understand logical reasons of the attack (German civilians VS Polish soldiers) without at least a sketch of atmosphere on the Pommerania before Sept. 1, 1939. We have to remember that Hitler's speeches (transmitted by the Berlin radio) were listened in many German houses (also in Bromberg). Some people (NSDAP entusiasts) thought about end of the "Polish occupation" and "historic justice". They could wait for Wermacht troops, but they wanted to help German fellow-soldiers to re-gain their territory. After Anshlus of Austria and Czechoslovakia they had to believe that Hitler is so mighty and powerful that nobody will dare to attack Ubermensches. Then we should add Abwehr infiltration especially active in 1939 on the whole area of the Korridor. Agents who not only could deliver necessary weapon (Polish army reports says about confiscated machine guns of the same type as used by Wermacht), but also teach logistic and urban guerilla methods, undoubtedly brought to local Germans feelings that Hitler is unconquered leader. Polish Army retreat soon confirmed this view. At the end it is necessary to add that even according to Polish historians that not the whole German population took part in the sabotage. If we count Germans in the city for approximately 10.000 people (then less than 5.000 would be men; ca. 2.500 in the age proper to fight) less than forth part of male population capable to fight took part in the action (according to Poles ca. 600 people). This addition is not to justify German side, but to understand, that German diversion is highly probable. It could took part as Poles claims (we have to remember that it was poorly documented - at the time of retreat nobody cares for crime evidence). For me less logic would be reaction of Polish mob that on the face of arriving German troops decided to lynch German fellow-citizens. It is poor to observe that neo-nazi propaganda is still present in the net and denies facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.80.108 ( talk) 05:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Because of it I reject your extremely non POV version. P. S. Sorry, guys - I will t create account. I do not publish in wikipedia excerpt of minor corrections when mistakes are really reious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.214.199 ( talk) 14:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
"The Nazis exploited the deaths as grounds for a massacre of Polish inhabitants after the Wehrmacht captured the town." Should that not more ordinarily be termed "a reprisal". Hakluyt bean ( talk) 01:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
...is problematic. First it completely fails to mention the works of such German historians as Gunther Schubert [1] (The Bromberg Bloody Sunday: Death of a Legend refers to the death of the Nazi legend about this supposed "atrocity") whose research basically accords with what the article insists on calling "the Polish version" (i.e. not the version propagated by the Nazis during the war). Specifically in regard to whether not there were attacks by German "diversionists" Schubert shows that there was a pre-planned action directed at retreating Polish troops, organized with the participation of agents from outside the city, who arrived for this very purpose.
Along the same lines, this division of sources into "the Polish version" and the "the German version" is inaccurate or at least outdated. As the example of Schubert shows, newer German research basically says the same thing as this so-called "Polish version". In fact this kind of a nationally-based dichotomy serves as a sneaky tactic to pretend that there is "real" (as opposed to "imagined" or "fringe") current (as opposed to outdated) debate on the topic and to give equal weight to both views currently accepted by historians and those which have been rejected (but which I'm sure still have quite a prominence on some sites on the net).
Volunteer Marek 17:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
On the issue of whether there was in fact any sniping at Polish troops by German irregulars, I'd make several observations.
First, my reading of accounts of the Dunkirk evacuation, etc makes it clear that 'fifth column psychosis' was common in such situations, and obviously innocent people were often seized and shot as snipers. This isn't proof that sniping didn't occur in Bromberg -- but it does create the possibility that it did not. Retreating troops do become panicky, imagine in all sincerity that they are surrounded by civilian snipers, and react accordingly. The mere fact that the civilians around them included Germans could have provided the necessary tinder -- no actual sniping would have had to have taken place. In 1940, for example, British troops on several occasions seized Belgian or French civilians, accused them of sniping, signalling, etc, and shot them -- even though it has been subsequently established that no such activity took place. It happens. Whether it happened in Bromberg is another matter.
Second, it would be germane to look into whether the Germans ever employed such tactics in other places: I don't believe they did. Bromberg might have been a one-off -- the presence of a large, hostile German population might have created a unique situation and opportunity. However, the absence of of any parallels that I am aware of doesn't increase the likelihood that the sniping was authentic.
Then too -- why? On the one hand, there would have been some marginal military benefit. On the other, the cost to the German inhabitants of Bromberg would have been potentially catastrophic. The Germans -- at least by their own lights -- were sane. They weren't given to self-immolation. While I'm certainly open to evidence to the contrary, on the face of it it seems unlikely that either the German military or the German civilian population of Bromberg would have engaged in such behavior. Not because they were nice guys -- simply because it would have been foolish.
Finally, and as so often, other possibilities exist. Individuals in the German population may have been very willing to defend themselves -- so willing that when Polish troops entered their homes, they shot first. Whatever did occur, it could have fallen into some such grey area. There might well have been shots fired. What those shots constituted could depend on who you asked. -- Colin Wright — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.192.43 ( talk) 05:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I added the talk page header, which wasn't already included on this page, and also searchable archives, since the archive for this talk page is large and full of some very contentious talk. JDanek007 Talk 03:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Please provide support for the recent reverts such as these [2]. If you want to explain why an "established editor" is enabling edit warring IPs [3] [4] who are clearly engaging in POV pushing here, that would help as well. Best as I can tell this is, at best, a tertiary source (a discussion of an interview supposedly given by a secondary source at one point), inserted into the article without proper context based on a source of unknown reliability. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not surprised this isn't backed by any source. There is a modern consensus between historians on these events, and Jastrzebski is not a leading expert.Tomasz Chinciński i Pawel Machcewicz are. Jastrzebski wasn't published or publicized regarding this since his cooperation with German expelled organizations and every publication on the events in Poland criticized him or pointed out that his claims are not really reliable.He does represent the very definition of a fringe view. We can mention him in passing, but he isn't really somebody that should dominate this article.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 11:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
A lot of stuff here is based on outdated information from 2003 and 2004. After this year there was a special committee organized by Polish historians and they researched archives in Poland and Germany regarding these events. One of the findings was report by German general Lahousen who praised the sabotage action in Bydgoszcz. Most of this is located in Dr. Tomasz Chincinski book "Forpoczta Hitlera. Niemiecka dywersja w Polsce w 1939 roku" published in 2010.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 11:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't see the relevance of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.212.198 ( talk) 13:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bloody Sunday (1939). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The consensus alleged in some sections of this article may be a consensus among Polish historians. There's no such consensus in Germany or anywhere else in the world. In fact, the possibility of the massacre being a behind-enemy-lines operation is even positively ruled out by some respected non-partisan historians. Now, I'm not saying that I or anyone knows the infallible truth; but it is apparent that editors around here have given in to Polish POV pushing. The article should be rewritten and protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.204.102.169 ( talk) 02:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a few examples:
...shots were fired, the origin of which have never been established.
...einem Pogrom als Folge vermeintlicher deutscher Angriffe...dessen Ursache bis heute nicht endgültig geklärt ist. ("...a pogrom as a consequence of alleged German attacks ... whose cause has not yet been definitively clarified")
Der Ablauf der Ereignisse, die Verantwortlichkeit für die Übergriffe und die genaue Zahl der Opfer sind bis heute umstritten. Auch eine 2008 vom polnischen Institut des Nationalen Gedenkens veröffentliche umfangreiche Dokumentation konnte nicht zur endgültigen Klärung beitragen. ("The course of the events, the responsibility for the attacks and the exact number of victims are still controversial. A comprehensive documentation, published by the Polish Institute of National Remembrance in 2008, could not contribute to the final clarification.")
Was genau an diesem Tag in Bromberg und Umgebung geschah... ist bis heute unklar und umstritten... Bis heute ist nicht zu ermitteln, wer warum die ersten Schüsse abfeuerte... ("What excactly happened on that day in Bromberg and the surrounding area ... is unclear and controversial to this day ... Still today it's not possible to determine by whom and why the first shots were fired.") HerkusMonte ( talk) 12:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Tomasz Chinciński 2010-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 12:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it is fine to add a sentence, at least, listing the German historians which state that it is unclear who fired first. If they want their names tied with this type of denial it is their choice, but if they are reputable (notable) historians, their views do belong here. It is interesting to note that not a single ones argues the Polish version is untrue, they are at best saying there is no conclusive evidence either way. Pretty lame form of denial... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bloody Sunday (1939). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The background section includes:
Does anyone know which source this is based on? No references are linked to in the first 2 paragraphs and then suddenly 3 are linked after the 1st sentence in the 3rd. I'd like to know what specifics are known about these accusations such as dates / casualties and whether 'violent cleansing' referred to murder or forced extradition.
If going into too much detail begins to bloat the background section, we could consider exporting the information to a new article. In that case I'm interested in fielding ideas for what to call it. background to Bloody Sunday or German accusations against Polish authorities ? Ideally if someone could identify what source(s) this is based on, a name might be extrapolated from their phrasing. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 17:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Somebody above said "Register your avatar, or nobody will take you seriously." I must confess that registered avatar never entered my mind as basis of taking someone seriously. Can someone explain to me why registering an avatar should be an issue in taking someone seriously? ( PeacePeace ( talk) 15:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC))
Article says: "The sequence started with an attack of German Selbstschutz snipers on retreating Polish troops and then was followed by a Polish reaction and then the final retaliatory execution of Polish hostages . . . ."
This Polish Propaganda Page is a monstrous outrage against history. "German saboteurs dressed up in Polish uniforms". Just a joke. Fortunately the Swiss Red Cross were monitoring events against the German minority throughout the interwar period. 2A00:23C4:B607:CF00:19E4:6141:4073:DC11 ( talk) 10:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Phrases like "heavily exploited the events" could be changed to "used" to retain neutral wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memethepenguin ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I just wanted to point out a possible misquoting of historian Böhler.
A user on a deleted r/askhistorians post feels Böhler to claim that evidence is "supposed to show," rather than neccessarily actually showing.
Sorry if I broke some rule and for not having an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.212.224 ( talk) 15:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
At the risk of playing a dupe for believing that Wikipedia might treat this subject impartially, regarding this sentence:
Goebbels had initially estimated that 5,400 Germans had been killed during Bloody Sunday but in 1940 increased the estimate to 58,000 which was subsequently published in the pamphlet "Polish Atrocities Against the German Minority in Poland"
This is not what the linked source says Goebbels said; it says that the 5,400 and 58,000 numbers refer to the total pre-invasion casualties suffered by the 1.5 million Germans in Poland, and not on the one Bloody Sunday in Bromberg. Needless to say, the sentence as currently written serves to ridicule the German estimates with its convenient misinterpretation of the source.
It looks like this sentence was added seven years ago, by someone who writes like a conscientious seventh grader, with a book citation; four years later, someone else added a web source and even quoted the relevant section in the source's pop-up, but evidently failed to read it; and here I am now.
Is there a way for readers to know whether an article has been reviewed by someone competent, or should every article indiscriminately be considered as likely wrong on the details? 24.62.224.22 ( talk) 00:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
This article suffers from significant issues. For one thing, the 'incident' section does not actually describe the events in any meaningful way. Most anglophone historians agree that pogroms against ethnic Germans did occur. Whilst I am aware that Marxist and revisionist Polish sources have asserted that such incidents Were false flag attacks, this view should not be expressed as fact in wikivoice.
As it stands, the article just implicitly refutes a point that hasn't even been asserted - namely, that a pogrom occurred in Bromberg at the time in question.
I intend to revise at least that section, and the lead, to describe the events. Riposte97 ( talk) 11:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
In English, that'sNeue Dokumente und Archivquellen sollen belegen, dass polnische Truppen von Abwehr-Agenten und Angehörigen der deutschen Minderheit beschossen wurden.
That's pretty definitive. For added context, here's what Alexander B. Rossino has to say in his book Hitler Strikes Poland (p. 62):New documents and archival sources should prove that Polish troops were fired upon by Abwehr agents and members of the German minority.
But I also object to the assumption that we should reject a Polish source simply because it's presented as partisan in the current "Debate" section, which we both agree is a mess. Wikipedia is, after all, not a reliable source. Perhaps the source is biased, but I see no evidence that it is contradicted by mainstream English- or German-language historiography in this regard.Conditions in Bydgoszcz had steadily deteriorated in the days immediately after the beginning of the German invasion. Situated squarely between Pomerania and East Prussia, Bydgoszcz was home to a considerable number of ethnic Germans, many of whom belonged to underground political groups organized by Nazi sympathizers. Armed clashes between Polish troops and members of the Volksdeutsche underground broke out in the days between the beginning of the German offensive and the Wehrmacht's occupation on 5 September.
Hmmm. Regarding the sentence "After armed conflict erupted on 1 September 1939, ethnic Germans living in Poland were in many places subjected to attacks and ethnic cleansing." changed from "After armed conflict erupted on 1 September 1939, statements that persecutions of ethnic Germans had occurred in Poland, especially in Bydgoszcz, continued to appear in the Nazi press.”. This is a pretty big difference - we should be carefull endorsing Nazi propaganda claims. Does the cited source say that Germans were subject to ethnic cleansing or that Germans COMMITTED ethnic cleaning, using some attacks as a pretext? Can anyone verify this and/or quote what is in the source? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
This unreferenced paragraph in lead does not seem to be summarizing anything in the body: "Approximately 600-800 Polish hostages were shot in a mass execution in the aftermath of the fall of the city on 5 September. Additionally, fifty Polish prisoners of war from Bydgoszcz were accused by Nazi summary courts for taking part in "Bloody Sunday" and shot. Later, the Germans killed 1,200-3,000 Polish civilians in Bydgoszcz as part of Operation Tannenberg, in a part of the city that became known as the Valley of Death. These victims included the mayor of Bydgoszcz, Leon Barciszewski.". I don't have time to rewrite this now, but hope others active above can check it. The estimates seem to differ from referenced ones in the body. In particular, the claim about POWs is not something I found outside of the lead, so right now this is unreferenced claim. And a redflag to me, b/c recently I wrote an article on German atrocities committed against Polish prisoners of war which lists POWs massacres of that size, and I did not find any massacre in Bydgoszcz mentioned in sources I've reviewed. Note that I haven't done dedicated BEFORE for this. Leon B. should be linked to pl:Leon Barciszewski if the mention of his death is kept (but this probably should be in the body, not in the lead). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
References
This topic seems well covered (and referenced) on pl wiki. That includes several subarticles that we may want to translate:
For now, such articles can be linked using {{ ill}}. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)