Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Mokra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old stuff (section title added 1/9/2012)

[edit]

Idiotic phrases as "armoured detachment" and "mounted artillery detachment" have been changed to "armoured battalion" and "mounted artillery battalion", respectively. The Polish word "dywizjon" should be translated as "battalion", not "detachment". Look guys, it's 1/4-1/3 of artillery/armoured regiment, while detachment is simply "oddział"

Musashi.

Look whom we have here! Thanks for the feedback, Musashi, I really appreciate your comments. As to specific issues you raised - there is a serious problem in translating the Polish military terms to English. The very word dywizjon is really problematic, as it might mean basically anything, from unit, through detachment, command, air wing, detached group, flotilla, battalion, half of battalion or any other small unit. It all depends on the context. So, in other words, an artillery dywizjon might indeed be artillery battalion, while an armoured dywizjon might be much, much smaller than actual armoured battalion. Hence my translation. Halibutt 11:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

supposed war crimes

[edit]

I would like someone to find a source for the following that I edited out of the page:

"...Polish positions in order to disrupt the Polish defence and use the civilians as human shields for the advancing towns. However, lack of coordination between advancing German forces allowed for the Polish reconnaissance squadrons to direct the fleeing civilians further southwards, towards the town of Kłobuck."

now, can anyone prove that indeed the Germans planned to use the civilians as human shields? is there a combat report that has an outline of the German Commander's combat briefing for the morning, wherein he orders for the units to advance close behind the refugees.

The problem I see with this is that it claims the Germans were evil devils. It also assumes that the Germans failed to coordinate, instead of the fact that maybe they waited until the civilians were clear of the combat area before attacking. It was common practise to remove the civilians from a combat area in order to ensure their safety. Now, why would these Polish refugees go into Germany? this is the first day of the attack, and there is no polish land behind them to seek refuge in, they can only go in one direction, which is in the direction of Polish forces.

--Jadger 22:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a source for such controversial information must be provided. I looked briefly on Google and Google Print, but could find no sources about use of human shields in this battle (although it's possible it may be in sources not online/Polish - not covered by Google Print yet). On a related note, I found a reference for use of human shields by German troops during the Warsaw Uprising: [1]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If no sources can be given to unequivocally say that the Germans used them as human sheilds, the book Panzer Commander: the memoirs of Colonel Hans von Luck is very useful in that he describes what I believe is the same action (although he doesn't state the location I think) but the description of the location is almost identical, and can be used to discount this slanderous accusation against the German forces.

--Jadger 05:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... And did you read any German WWII memoirs whose authors would admit to commit war crimes? //Halibutt 08:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually yes, Rudolf Höß, the commandant of Auschwitz wrote an autobiography in which he details atrocities he partook in. see the article about him for a quote from the book.

--Jadger 17:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not to mention that you are assuming guilt by association. I don't know about in Poland Halibutt, but in the Western World the law says a person is innocent before proven guilty of a crime. --Jadger 18:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Hitler was innocent and was never tried. Same for von dem Bach, and many others. Eichmann's trial was not free either, so he was innocent as well. Long live the application of modern law standards to historical war crimes. Nobody ever tried anyone for Nemmersdorf, so it did not happen. Oh, and let's not forget about Katyn: it never happened since noone was ever tried. //Halibutt 09:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do you actually think before you type? I never once claimed that Hitler was innocent, or that because Eichmann's trial was not free or fair that he was innocent, I just keep an open mind. and I never claimed that because no one has been tried for an atrocity, the atrocity never occurred, there is such a thing as unsolved crimes.

--Jadger 01:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You explicitly said above that the reason why the German WWII crimes should not be mentioned in this article is that no person has been proven guilty of a crime. If I misunderstood your guilt by association comment, then please inform me on how should I read it. //Halibutt 07:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You assumed that simply because Hans von Luck was German he committed war crimes, and covered them up in his war memoirs. It isnt even clear in this case if a crime was even committed. how can you charge someone with a crime that you cannot clearly varify has happened? --Jadger 14:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either you got my comment wrong, or I did get yours wrong, or both. You stated that the crime did not happen because it is not mentioned in von Luck's memoirs. I stated that it's not yet a proof as the Bible does not mention the crime either, yet it does not mean it did not happen. Then we went into the innocent until proven thing. Besides, I do not charge anyone, nor did I refer to von Luck personally, I don't believe I ever even heard of him. Which does not change a single thing here. There is a source to say the Germans used living shields and there are no sources so far disputing that. Full stop. //Halibutt 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, my point was that since it was an unreferenced and controversial point in the article, it should not be used. especially when a man fighting in the action describes the attack and never mentions something as major as forcing Polish civilians to run in front of tanks. Now where is this source you claim proves that human shields were used, this has been removed from numerous articles claiming the same thing, and it has not been reverted yet (it has been many months since I removed it), no one has ever had something to say about it, except of course Molobo, or as he is more commonly known, Trollobo. --Jadger 03:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, offending a guy who cannot defend his good name is not what I'd call an example of civility and culture.
As to the sources, it's fairly easy to find, as it's already cited in the article. But you could find it on-line as wel, for instance here: here (Niemcy pędzili przed czołgami ludność cywilną, w tym kobiety i dzieci. W pewnym momencie zawahali się i w tym czasie ludność przeszła przez polskie pozycje. - The Germans forced Polish civilians, including children and women, to run in front of their tanks. However, at certain moment they lost orientation and the civilians managed to cross the Polish lines). //Halibutt 06:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This source is based on memories of cpt. Radajewicz. The problem is his commander - mjr. Sokol - suggested that his memories are different, and - moreover - no other polish soldier remembers that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.239.114 (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never offended anyone with a good name, Molobo tarnished his name long ago.
it is not cited in the article, hence the {{fact}} tag in the article. And that link you provided is hardly credible, not only does it have tonnes of ad popups on the opening page, but its links to "Top 100 military sites" are fakes, when clicked on it says "tricked into coming here? enter without voting". the site is not even slightly credible in the least bit, it tries to solicit your vote to make it a credible site with lots of adverts. when looking for credible cites to research from, one does not classify one that solicits your vote and annoys one with popups as a credible one

--Jadger 02:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mokra in Silesia?

[edit]

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to get rid of the mention of Silesia? Mokra is not geographically in Silesia, it is simply in the Silesian Voivodship, but a few dozen kilometers from what is geographically, historically and linguistically known as Silesia (Śląsk). I'll check for a more apropriate geographical term. arczi 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geographically Mokra belongs to Wieluń Uplands (wyżyna wieluńska in Polish), but that term is fairly unknown even in Poland. What's more, the area of Częstochowa does not belong to any specifically-designed historical region as it changed hands quite often. It's a part of the Kraków-Częstochowa Upland, but also a part of historical Silesia and even at times of Greater Poland (sic!). Besides, the city is rather a modern settlement (both villages merged in 19th century), so it doesn't really fit well into the mediaeval scheme of historical regions, I'm afraid. //Halibutt 00:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe we could describe it as "North-West of Częstochowa" rather than "in Silesia"? arczi 12:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"but also a part of historical Silesia" No ! It isnt´t true !!! :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C80:40:493:CA1F:66FF:FE49:EA1A (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jadger's copyedits

[edit]

Thanks, the article seems much better now. Molobo, no need to react that strongly, his changes seem acceptable, at least to me. Or am I missing something here? //Halibutt 09:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One sided and biased/unlikely account

[edit]

I was trying to glean some information about early use of anti-tank weapons in the Second World War, so looked here.

Why are only Polish sources used for the article? There are German sources also.

Why is no information given about the German troops that participated? Its not hard to find:

4th Panzer Division had 7th Panzer Brigade, composed of 35th and 36th Panzer Regiments and was commanded by General-Major Georg Hans Reinhardt. In August of 1939, each Panzer Regiment was composed of two Panzer Abteilungs. Each Abteilung was composed of two light companies (equipped with PzKpfw I and II) and one medium company (equipped with PzKpfw III and IV) along with other units. Each Abteilung had 71 to 74 tanks including 5 command tanks, each Regiment had 150 to 156 tanks including 12 command tanks. Single division had 308 to 316 tanks including 26 command tanks.

Of the other German divisions, the 31st Infantry Division seems to have been hardly involved in the battle having quickly fallen behind.

Each Panzer Division had its own infantry, reconnaissance, artillery, transport, communication, medical, technical and general services component. At the time, 4th Panzer Division lacked some infantry and anti-tank units

No infantry (mounted on motorcycles) was present in the battle, with the reconnaissance troops having moved out of the way of the tanks.

Counting all the tanks in the division would produce about 1,000 German personnel involved in the combat. However, the article claims 800 as German losses! One forum suggests - It is estimated that up to 30% of all German armour casualties in this battle were suffered by 4. Panzer-Division - the majority of them were casualties of its Panzer-Regiment 36. The vast majority of the remaining 70+% of German armour casualties in this battle were suffered by 1. Panzer-Division.

And yet there are records that show 1st Panzer Division continuing its advance. This is because German accounting is quite different:

Pz.Rgt.35 - 14 tanks burnt out, ca. 25 - 30 more knocked out.; losses among tank crews: 15 KIA, 14 WIA
Pz.Rgt.36 - at least 10 tanks burnt out, over a dozen more knocked out; losses of tank crews: 7 KIA, 13 WIA
Stab Pz.Brig. - unknown tank losses; 1 officer wounded
Among the burnt out tanks were 11 Pz-Is and a bit more (14?) Pz-II. At least 1 Pz-IV from PR.35 was knocked out.
In total about 70 tanks were disabled; losses of tank crews: 22 KIA (2 officers), 28 WIA (at least 4 officers).
Officers killed: Hptm. Buz, Lt. Lohr (both KIA near Mokra III)
Most losses of tank crews were sustained near Mokra III (15 KIA), the remaining near Mokra I and Mokra II.

On 01.09.1939 (at the beginning of the campaign) PR.35 had 177 tanks operational On 08.09.1939 (before the assault on Warsaw) PR.35 had 120 tanks operational (losses 1 - 8/IX: 57+ tanks)

From the document on irrecoverable tank losses of 1. & 4. Pz.Div. in period 01.09.1939 - 14.09.1939:
(the document comes from AAN - Archiwum Akt Nowych - archive in Warsaw)

It seems to me a gross and clear case of WP:NPOV Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC) NOTE. Germans only had tanks, albeit mostly light, in the battle, no 'AFV's Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice this article's been pretty much stable for years now? Apparently noone with access to German-language literature was interested in editing it. Be sure to add anything you believe fits - provided you add sources as well. //Halibutt 08:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to the German losses, there seems to be no conflict between Polish and German sources on this one. The problem is mostly with terminology. Take 35th panzerregiment for instance. Polish sources state, that it lost "more than 45 tanks", but as the Germans in the end captured the battlefield and were able to withdraw all of them for repairs, in the end only 14 were counted as destroyed by the Germans (as the rest could be repaired/refitted with new turrets/engines in Germany and then reused).

The higher number is also partially confirmed by the 35th regiment's number of tanks during the assault on Warsaw on September 8th and 9th. It had 120 operational tanks, meaning roughly 65 less than on September 1. Given that between Mokra and Warsaw the regiment did not take part in as heavy battles, most authors assume that the largest part of the losses was due to Mokra, and not Tomaszów Mazowiecki or Piotrków Trybunalski. //Halibutt 13:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so can we take the neutrality-check off of the page now?Capt Jim (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review: failed

[edit]

For WP:POLAND. Agree with previous milhist review, the citations are insufficient. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Mokra. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Mokra&oldid=1214046878"