Talk:Bombing of Wieluń/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

2005 talk

Hmmm - don't you count half a polish division as a military target ?

Which one, dear anon? Halibutt 08:05, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Parts of a polish infantry division, possibly the 28th, and a cavalry brigade. Located around wielun with parts inside. Are there any valid sources for bombing the hospital first ? Sound like BS because it was politics to bomb strictly military targets during the first years (nobody wanted to start bombing of civilian targets in fear of revenge from the other side). Another Info: The first attacks in the morning have been directed at targets around the bridges to prevent their destruction. Attacks against outer parts of the city startet at about 13:00 to 13:30, first Stukas, later maybe Do 17 or He 111 (Stukas detected lots of soldiers and they called for support) -- Denniss 10:53, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

Nope, there was no Polish infnatry in Wielun. The military units left Wielun and went outside few days earlier. As for your refering that it was "bomb strictly military targets", well, - you used words BS, it nicely suit to that sentence. Luftwaffe was bombing hospitals, schools and strafing civilians on roads in September 1939. The civil rules were only for west. Szopen 10:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

As for stukas etc, this contradicts directly with reports of those witnesses, who survived the raid.

BTW, Wielun is not worse Luftwaffe atroctiy in Poland in 1939. Search for seomthing about Frampol, for exampleSzopen 10:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Check the article linked in external links section, it gives a pretty good overview of the destruction of the town. Sadly it's in Polish and the only German-language monography was published in late 1970's, but I guess you might find the pics interesting (among them the picture of the hospital before and after the air raid). Also, bombing of strictly civilian targets uring the Polish Defensive War was a rule rather than exception, as most of the Polish towns and cities were terror bombed to a lesser or greater degree.

As to half a division in Wieluń - it is a complete nonsense. The defensive line was at the Warta and Widawka rivers, some 30 kilometres east of the town. The only military targets in the town were a police station, a border guards toll post and the train station - all of them being civillian facilities militarized (but not mobilized) after the outbreak of war. Also, if we count policemen as military, then any town in the world would be a military target... Halibutt 10:57, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Move

I think we should move this page from Bombing of Wielun in World War II to Bombing of Wieluń in World War II.

Done. Halibutt 10:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

This articles neutrality is under dispute.

Wikipedia seems to be one of the sites having a strong Anti-German Bias. Fact's are that the Germans had good reasons to see Wielun a valid military target. http://chrito.users1.50megs.com/1939/sep/september_1939.htm Look for Wielun on first of September, especially the "Luftlage". May I quote:

"...Midday the first air reconaissance reports arrive at the HQ. Enemy cavalry formation at Wielun on the left flank of XVI.A.K. 12:50 30 Ju-87B of I./St.G.2 start at Nieder-Ellguth to attack the enemy troop-transports. First the group attacks a polish cavalry column at Wielun. The Stukas reorganise again and attack a second time. The Stabskette sees a house on the north part of Wielun that is obviously used as a HQ and attacks. After the attack of the group I./St.G.77 starts its attack...."

The German claims that there were any Polish military units in or around Wieluń have been proved wrong by several historians, including Tadeusz Olejnik, the only historian so far to write a monography of the bombing of Wieluń.

As to the "cavalry brigade" that was supposedly stationed in Wieluń - it is strange that the German airmen saw it (there are several accounts), yet they had not noticed any anti-air artillery, with which every cavalry brigade was equipped. The reason is that the Kresowa Cavalry Brigade entered the area on September 3rd, 1939, that is 2 days after the air raid. The other cavalry brigade, the Wołyńska CavBde, was tied down near Kłobuck, some 50 kilometres away, and during the day of September 1st fought in the battle of Mokra. So, in other words, there might've been no Polish cavalry in Wieluń at that time. Peasants and their horses perhaps, but not cavalry.

Also, I doubt listing German WWII attrocities is anti-German and listing facts is a bias. As to the validity of German reports - try to find some information there on the bombing of residential areas of Warsaw that happened on the same day. Or any other proof that the German Luftwaffe attacked anything apart from military targets... On paper everything looked all right... Halibutt 11:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I have added a description of the two opposed viewpoints of the debate, and two links (in German) outlining these positions. Tobias R 12:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

To be sincere I don't really understand what's the fuzz all about. There were no strategic bombings during the war of 1939 yet, so the German guy quoted in the text simply cannot be wrong when he says that the attack was tactical in intent and thus could not be compared to Strategic bombing attacks such as on Coventry. Nobody says that it was strategic bombardment and I really see no reason to explain what seems to be obvious (especially that the planes to destroy Wieluń were good ol' Stukas, which are tactical bombers and not strategic bombers. On the other hand, from the previous dispute it seemed to me that the conflict is not between strategic and tactical but between tactical and terror.

The term tactical bombing denotes a bombing planned to destroy a specific, tactically important target. Which was not a case of Wieluń, as basically all town was destroyed and - it had no tactical value for either side. The Germans did not want to go through it, the Poles did not defend it. On the other hand, a civillian town was destroyed and it seems that the term terror bombing is the best here as there were apparently no other reasons to destroy it but to wreck havoc on the civillian population - just like in hundreds of similar actions on that day. Does any of the German articles linked there explain that? Halibutt 02:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

correct, deleted. this sentence "There were no military targets of any importance in the area." is wrong. the fact that at least two notable historians argue otherwise is enough. (Boog and Smith). as for the source, I can't even find it and even if this nobel eace price letter would exist, it would only be a viable source if it is based on original research. so this is not encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.90.114.46 (talk)

Thread necromancy is bad. This is an eight year old conversation. I have fixed the nobel link. You will note it is signed by over a dozen university professors of law, political science, history and philosophy. (Hohum ^@) 19:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

are you shitting me? this letter is of no historic importance whatsoever. written in hindsight by poles to nominate themselves for a nobel peace price which they didn't get. on top of that it's full of historic errors and the fact that all kinds of polish politicians and professors signed it makes it even more hilarious. this is not a source. not even close. stop linking to it and search for a real source. not this bitter, self-pitying attempt to get a price for such a non story. there is no original research, not sources given. no facts, just blah blah. deleted. 109.90.114.46 (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Your bias and lack of objectivity is telling. The opinion of history Professors is a reliable source. Your opinion isn't. (Hohum ^@) 17:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

my opinion matters and 3 real historians agree. the profs who signed this political paper in order to try to win a price haven't studied this case. not the law profs, not the economy profs, not the politicians, non of them have looked into it. the 3 historians who are experts in this field disagree and this is prove enough that your sentence is bullshit and doesn't belong here. you are a liar and a revisionist fool. my 3 historians used original research and documents. one of the is polish, one german and one british. if anyones opinion doesn't matter than it's clearly yours. you've proved that quite clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.90.114.46 (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

MOTIVATION

Any idea why the Luftwaffe would expend valuable fuel and ammunition on a target of absolutely no importance? Also, since bombing missions are inherently dangerous even without AA fire, you are risking the lives of pilots(who at that time underwent over one year of training) for nothing. Seems more likely that the attack was an error caused by the "fog of war." Maybe the German airmen didn't know that every Polish cavalry brigade was equipped with AA artillery. 190.10.4.227 (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Any idea why the Condor Legion would expend valuable fuel and ammunition to bomb Guernica?radek (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The town was bombed by 12 german bombers because it was the headquaerter of a polnish cavallerie division a couple of km beyond the front linie. The rest is communist polnish propaganda. If you look on the picture in this article the town does not look like a 90 % destructed town. Look in the main article Strategic bombing on the picture of Wesel destruction rate 97 %. This loooks pretty diferent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.167.183 (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Any idea for whatever reason Luftwaffe started a dozen of fully equipped Stukas, flying directly to Wielun, before war? No way, the attack was premeditated, and it was twice repeated, shortly afterwards and hours later. An attack on Polish cavalry HQ or division or half of a division appears absolutely unlikely, before fighting has started, before a "front line" even existed. And as there were no military targets of importance in the area, the attack must have had another reason. Concerning the amount of damage: 90 % of the cities' centre is not disputable, for Wielun was a small town, taking 46 tons of bombs. --Cimbail (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Reason for changes

The facts are not given in a logical order, for one thing...

The bombing of Wieluń refers to the terror bombing of the Polish town of Wieluń by the German Luftwaffe on 1 September 1939. This air raid started about five minutes before the shelling of Westerplatte, which has traditionally been considered the beginning of World War II. The bombing of Wieluń is considered as one of the first terror bombings in history.[1][citation needed]

Terror bombing, a pov term in itself, hinges on one's guess as to whether there were troop movements or not and assumes we know the motive of the attackers, which (and the article states this) we don't. WE do not know if the goal of the attack was what the goal of terror bombing is. So to jump right out and say that it was terrorbombing - and do it twice no less, highlighting the term both times and linking it - is an obvious attempt to push pov. Terror bombing is a term that may or may not apply to Guernica; however, note taht in the Guernica article, "terrorbombing" does not appear in the first sentence, and it is given in the context of 'some say' it is " " . This is why it is necessary to elaborate, as I have in my version, so the reader can understand why it is considered terror bombing. (a source would be nice to say who, btw)

"Terror bombing" is the term used in cases where the primary targets of an attack are civilians rather than military or industrial objects. The term does appear in the lead of the article Bombing of Guernica and that's a much longer article. The controversy there revolves around the fact that there were actually military and industrial objects in Guernia (an arms factory). But this is not the case with Wielun. The part about not knowing the motives - both sources I added state that the motive was to terrorize the civilians and affect morale.radek (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"refers to the bombing" - what else would it refer to, ice cream and cookies? this is redundant, unnecessary wordiness

"the first terror bombing in history..." really? the first terror bombing of the war, could be..otherwise, I find this hard to believe. What about the Zeppelins over Britain in World War I? What about any other time projectiles have been dropped from the sky to scare the population and get them to do something? Such an outrageous claim needs to be sourced.

You're right that this should be sourced. But fact tag it and give others some time to find sources.radek (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The bombing started at 4:40 AM. At 6:00 a.m. the German forces noted that Wielun brennt (Wieluń burns), but the raids continued until 2:00 PM. Three waves of attacks were carried out during the day. Among the German pilots were those from Condor Legion, which was involved in the bombing of Guernica two years prior. On their return home, four of the German Junkers Ju 87 bombers were shot down by the Polish 36 Academic Legion Infantry Regiment stationed nearby.

bad english with a.m AM disambig., no real other complaints, which is why I left this section alone.

It is widely acknowledged that there were no military or industrial targets of note in the area[2]], except for a small sugar factory in the outskirts of the town. German bombers destroyed 90% of the town center (including the historical gothic church) and killed approximately 1,200 civilians, about 8% of the town's population of 15,000. Approximately 75% of all the buildings in Wieluń were destroyed. Among the first targets bombed by the Germans was the hospital (despite a huge Red Cross sign painted on the roof). Some eyewitnesses claimed that the German planes strafed civilians who were fleeing through the streets.

A small sugar factory is not a military or industrial target, so to mention it as "except" is unneccessary.

describing the cross as huge is pov. can you find a source to say it was the first target? (more pov) "some eyewitnesses claimed..." ...sounds like polish propaganda. This is why I demanded a fact tag, but notice I did not delete this, either.

The sources I added (the Tygodnik Powszechny one in particular) both state the hospital was the first target. "Huge" could be changed to "readily visible" or similar.

The real purpose of the bombing remains unclear. There are claims that Polish military units were inside the town before the first air raid, a fact that would explain the choice of the city to be bombed. However, it's more likely that the only military units near Wielun were a cavalry column that arrived later in the day.

This needs to be sourced...

"that would explain..." this is rationalizing here. This article isn't about justifying or condemning certain details, it should be about reporting them.

"the real purpose" sounds conspirative.

who made these claims?

Why it is "more likely"

These are just a few of the issues. I will revert to my version now.--Npovshark (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like that last section either, as it's just speculation. It would also need sources.radek (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing of cited information, uncivil edit comments

Dear Loosmark, you have reverted a large mass of cited material added to article, with no reason given, despite having been a participant to the discussion about it on the talk page of Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II, and at which there were no objection about the sources. Could you clarify why you have removed the material with no appearant reason given, and added a very uncivil comment your edit? Kurfürst (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"The papers of Luftflotte 4, 2. Fliegerdivision, I./Stg76 and Stg. and 77." and "Richhofen's war diary" are all primary sources, for a start? Hohum (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you find any reference to 'Luftflotte 4, 2. Fliegerdivision, I./Stg76 and Stg. and 77.' - I think no. The sentence was referenced: Poeppel-von Preußen-von Hase, 2000. p. 248. Earlier you wrote about this very source, very same sentence, direct quote from you: 'Poeppel/Preussen/Hase seems fine to me, unless anyone has any reasonable complaints about it.' Hohum (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Kurfürst (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I also need to describe the official Wiki policy here: Wikipedia:No original research Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

As you noted earlier: Poeppel-von Preußen-von Hase, published in 2000, on p. 248., is a fine, reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Kurfürst (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference to "'Luftflotte 4, 2. Fliegerdivision, I./Stg76 and Stg. and 77.'" was added by your edit [1]. Using the "weight" of naming a primary source used by a secondary source, instead of the synthesis or conclusion drawn by the secondary souce is obviously entirely misleading. Hohum (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I take then that without the 'weight of primary sources' the sentence would be acceptable to you? Ie. On the eve of the war, reconnaissance reported a Polish division near Wieluń and next to it, a Polish cavarly brigade. The bombing started at 4:40 AM. At 6:00 a.m. the German forces noted that Wielun brennt (Wieluń burns), but the raids continued until 2:00 PM. Large concentrations of Polish cavarly were on the move toward Wielun where Hptm Sigel's I/St.G. 76 had earlier pounded the Polish defence works. At 1300 I/StG 2 led by Major Dinort from Nieder-Ellguth, were directed against this concentration, followed a few hours later, by Schwarzkopff with sixty operational Stukas of I/StG 77. Together the dive bombers, braving the intense anti aircraft fire, inflicted heavy losses on the Polish cavartly, and the advance was turned into a rout by ninety Stukas. On their return home, four of the German Junkers Ju 87 bombers were shot down by the Polish 36 Academic Legion Infantry Regiment stationed nearby. Three waves of attacks were carried out during the day. Wielun fell to the Germans on day one. etc.

So the logic here seems to have been "lets destroy a little city inhabited by civilians because a Polish cavalry might be on the move towards it"? Loosmark (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the city was meant to be destroyed, and as much saddening it is, such things tend to happen in time of war. See : Collateral damage. Kurfürst (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst: As long as the referenced work supports that, yes. Change "braving" to "facing" perhaps. However - if this units advance was turned and routed - was this a Stuka attack on Wielun or on units outside it? If it's against approaching units outside it, it's outside the scope of the article - or at least needs to be clearly noted as not an attack on the town itself. I'd also suggest to other editors, if they have good sources that contradict this version of events, not to revert this, but to add the alternative version(s) as well. Hohum (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

These are direct cites, there is as much detail as there can be found. Still, thats the most detailed account of actual operations I could find so far. I agree about 'braving' (direct cite again, but not ency.) I agree about presenting alternate source, too. Its important for NPOV. Its a controversial event. Looks like we have a good agreement (is there a thumbs up smiley here?) Kurfürst (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm only one editor, and not the one that reverted. I suggest you make the changes and see what happens. Bear in mind though, that an article about the bombing of a town probably shouldn't have more information and detail about nearby attacks just because that information is available. Hohum (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Did the changes, hopefully, it will be NPOV to everyone. I left a section for the controvery, describing both version of the events. Hopefully, editors will add sources, engage in discussion, instead of starting another series of revert war. (ducks for cover) Kurfürst (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WE DON'T HAVE A CONCENCUS HERE Kurfürst--Jacurek (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, what specific things do you have problems with? Hohum (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Few. I will answer tomorrow because I have to go now.--Jacurek (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Neutrality issues - Bombing of Wieluń

Some Polish editors oppose the article version, that presented both German and Polish versions of this WW2 event in neutral tone, seek to ensure that only the Polish version is present in the article, by removing the sourced German version repeatedly.

These editors were asked to participate in the consensus finding process, they did not take the opportunity, and consensus was formed without them. They were asked (see above) to share their specific concerns on the edits, they do not participate in discussion on the talk page, but continue to remove sourced material with comments like that it is a 'controversial my ass' 'POV version' and 'there is no consensus for his POV', but still specific points are not being mentioned as to why they oppose the edits.

Removing of other than their own versions, and declaring them 'widely accepted' etc. seems to strongly violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. A request for Comment from a neutral editor seems to be the only way of achieving progress. Kurfürst (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you babbling about? The only one out of consensus here is you since you keep pushing your POV ad nauseum. And no, wikipedia still hasn't fallen so low that the Nazi's Germany point of view would be equal. Loosmark (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Polish aviation historian on Wielun bombins

"Luftflotte 4 raided several other targets, including airfields at Krosno, Moderowka, Sadkow and Maslow, and Heinkels of KG 4 flew accross the Carpathian mountains to make a long range attack on Lwow's Sknilow air base. Numerous direct support missions were also flown, with the heaviest attacks directed against the Polish cavalry and troop concentrations at Wielun."

See: Jerzy B. Cynk. The Polish Air Force at War. The official history 1939-1943. page 74

We have now three seperate sources: one German (Preußen etc), one British (Smith) and surprise surprise, one Polish (Cynk) all stating the same, that Wielun was a tactical support mission against Polish cavalry units. So what does edits based on commie books from 1960s and modern ultra nationalist websites have to the in the article... Kurfürst (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

minor clean up etc

The section on the movements of the cavalry is a mess and it is also only tangentially related to the subject matter as the cavalry was not there on the day of the bombing.radek (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent revisions

The term "indiscriminate" doesn't really need to have a specific reference, since there is a reference for terror bombing one sentence later. Nor does the lead need nuts and bolts details - it is a summary of what is in the rest of the article. If you want to improve the article, then find decent references for relevant information that you do have, and add it to the body. Even better, make the incoherent, confusing, inconsistent section, which is tagged, coherent. Hohum (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, this edit is the removal of Smith, p 23 - regarding Wielun falling on the first day - are you saying that this isn't in the book? If so, why haven't you added a fact tag?Hohum (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed--Jacurek (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Why was this reference removed and replaced with a fact tag? Kurfürst (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

latest edits

Kurfürst returned and again he started to POV push things for which no previous consesus was reached. of course he doesn't even care to start a discussion here on the talk page. Loosmark (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to state the facts, editors Jacurek and Loosmark began to remove again referenced statements from this article, against the opposition by two (Dennis and Hohum, three including myself) editors. The article was stable beforehand for some two months before that. You were invited several times to discuss your specific concerns about the content of the article (see some two sections above), in each case you have refused to participate in the discussion, apart from keeping repeating 'no consensus' (=everybody else but you agree with the edits), 'POV pushing' and 'controversial'. This is the same conduct you have displayed in several other articles. Loosmark and Jacurek (the latter who has been banned from editing articles about Eastern Europe, ie. this article too) keep removing well referenced statements and rewrite the article in a very much non-neutral way.

At this point, since you still do not share any kind of specific concern about the content, I think its time to engage in a DR process. I will be requesting a neutral administrator to watch over this article, and a 3rd opinion on the recent changes you made into this article, and editor's conduct. From your history of refusing any cooperation and aggressive reverts without giving a substantial reasoning for it, I do not think this issue can be resolved on this talk page.

Just to make clear the problems I see with your edits, in order to satisfy the NPOV requirement, it is neccessary to presents both sides of the same coin, and use neutral langauge, instead of stating 'the truth'. Instead, it is much better to state the opinion of the authors, and let the readers decide for themselves which version they believe to be true. Kurfürst (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst what the hell are you talking about? Nobody was banned from editing articles about Eastern Europe. I really suggest you stop spread lies like that. Loosmark (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst, the problem is that you are coming here straight from your block and start making your super controversial edits, attacking other editors at the same time. I would suggest you stop. "Shopping" around for a friendly or unaware administrator to get your opponents restricted will most likely get you in trouble again. Thanks and I hope to be able finally work with you one day.--Jacurek (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Since neither editors expressed (again..) any specific concern or gave reasoning for their removal of sourced material (against three editors), it would appear that the current dispute can only be solved by a proper dispute resultion process, and the help of uninvolved 3rd party. I will request for comment in a few days if in the meantime there is no progress in the matter. Kurfürst (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst, do not put words in my mouth. The recent changes by Jacurek that I questioned have largely been resolved to my satisfaction. I have opposed your edits far more often. I also haven't agreed to your recent, un-discussed edits. 3rd opinion is likely not appropriate since this disagreement isn't between just two editors. I would hope that you would ask for help from members of the Wikipedia Military History project before going to a wider audience. I really hope you don't keep making undiscussed edits and then edit war upon their reversion. Hohum (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep your accusations to yourself, Hohum. They do not help the issue here. I really hope you wish to contribute with more than keeping making up bad-faith accusations, and (wrongly) assuming an edit warring. I don't see anything like that here so far. Jacurek, without previous discussion (which as you now say, you do not to oppose), removed a large part of the existing, referenced text, and re-worded the article considerably. This seems to be opposed by several editors. I also sincerly hope you will refrain from the personal attacks, as it only adds tension to an already disputed section.

Also, take note no editor - neither me, or any other requires your previous consent to make edits to an article, as nobody owns this article. We all work to improve it, right?

Now, on the matter - I understand you have problem with my recent edits. Can you be more specific regarding what sort of problems you have with a more NPOV language or adding the official Polish history of the Polish air force? I already suggested this months ago - see above 'Comment from Polish aviation historian on Wielun bombins' - there were no objections. This seems to be an excellent source from the 'other side'. I don't really what sort of objection you may have with this one. It seems to me, from your tone and personal attacks that it is more like a personal issue for you. But your suggestion for using Wikipedia Military History project for this DR seems sound. Kurfürst (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make an accusation, bad faith or otherwise, unlike you, in your opening comments. I didn't say people need previous consent for edits, I pointed out that I hadn't approved yours because you appeared to be aligning me with you. Please disabuse yourself of this fantasy. Nor have I accused you of edit warring, but rather warned against it, which is only prudent based upon the immediately aggressive reaction from you here, and past history. If you want to make suggestions about proposed edits, do so. I didn't revert your latest edits, nor have I stated any opinion about them. Hohum (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hohum, if you wish to continue to concentrate on my person rather than the content of this article, I suggest you do that on my talk page, which is a more appropriate place for such ad hominem comments. You seem to have habit of concentrating on the person of editors, rather than the contributions they make. This is inappropriate, and I must ask you to refrain from it in the future. The 'I am rubber, you are glue' comments from you do not help to improve the atmosphere, either. Do you - or any other editors - have objection of adding the Official Polish history of the events, as noted in : Talk:Bombing_of_Wieluń#Comment_from_Polish_aviation_historian_on_Wielun_bombins? This was suggested months ago. Kurfürst (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was answering you. If you don't like this concept, stay quiet. Also, the irony of your response is hilarious. My last post specifically asked you to talk about proposed edits.

The official Polish version? or An opinion from someone who happens to be Polish? What makes it official? Hohum (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comments do not seem like attempts to communicate, rather than sorry attempts to pick a fight. I will not lower myself to that level.

Now, regarding your question about what makes the book titled 'The Official History' it the official history - I suppose it is not hard to read the title, or is it? The Polish Air Force at War: The Official History Vol.1 1939-1943, by Jerzy B. Czynk. Kurfürst (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst, perhaps one day you will be able to publish a book and you will give it this title: The official history of trolling by Kurfürst. Would that make your version of trolling history official? Sorry for this little sarcasm but I'm really speechless when I read your embarrassing comments directed at user Hohum.--Jacurek (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

... also, the editorial note of the The Polish Air Force at War: The Official History Vol.1 1939-1943., direct quote from p. 10 :

' Accordingly, we have been most fortunate to be able to entrust the writing of this history to an experienced aviation historian, Mr. Jerzy B. Cynk, whose knowledge of the subject, painstaking research and sound judgement enabled him to deal with this mass of material and condense it in a very readable, and most informative manner. The Editorial Committee appointed by the Council of the Polish Air Force Association, responsible for the production of this work, wishes to acknowledge... etc. ' Kurfürst (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

..Sorry but I don't even understand what message you are trying to get across by copy pasting the above text...I shall retire from this conversation, bye for now...--Jacurek (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an official name, yet it has little to do with the truth. Anyhoo, I'll accept that the Polish Air Force Association deems it official. So, how is an official history of the Polish air force authoritive, and therefore 'official' with regard to actions of the German air force during a bombing that the Polish air force seems not to have opposed? What passages are you intending to use? I assume your point will be that the bombing was a mistake / aimed at Cavalry that were approaching / were turned away / were nearby / other random contradictory report. Hopefully this source supports what you want to say, and doesn't, within a few pages of the phrases you use, completely contradict you, per your use of Hooton regarding the bombing of Warsaw in a different article. Hohum (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, more ad hominem attacks and false accusation from Hohum - predictably. Here it should be noted that you choose to selectively quote use Hooton in that article. Anyway, since I already typed this quote (and referred to it already in this section), I guess it not hard to copy-paste it again, in hope that you perhaps now read it now.

"Luftflotte 4 raided several other targets, including airfields at Krosno, Moderowka, Sadkow and Maslow, and Heinkels of KG 4 flew accross the Carpathian mountains to make a long range attack on Lwow's Sknilow air base. Numerous direct support missions were also flown, with the heaviest attacks directed against the Polish cavarly and troop concentrations at Wielun."

See: Jerzy B. Cynk. The Polish Air Force at War. The official history 1939-1943. page 74

It seems to contradict the notion some including Hohom seem to harbour that Wielun was an indiscriminate 'terror' attack on civillians. It must be noted that now three respectable sources - one German, one British, and the Polish official history all state the same that it was an attack on Polish troops.

However, to satisfy your appearantly insatisfiable apetite for 'guilty' Germans, the same source also mentions that: 'Over 100 air raids were reported Polish towns reported by various Polish cities and towns, large and small, many of which suffered indiscriminate bomberdment of the civillian population.' OTOH, he makes rather clear above the Wielun was not amongst these 'many'. Kurfürst (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't made any accusations, please improve your reading comprehension. I have advised caution and recollected your past, provable behaviour.

It's also a bit rich to be accused of being anti German. Later Allied bombing was far more destructive, and sought to destroy far larger cities entirely. Both (all) sides were guilty of plenty of atrocities. Your constant direct accusations seem like projection.

Attacks on targets other than Wielun have no relevance to attacks on Wielun, so I can see no reason to include most of that passage. The article already incoherently attributes the attack on Wielun variously as; against Cavalry in it, or approaching, or turned away, or that the attack was by mistake with the cavalry not present, so you don't need to repeat the last sentence again either. What would be far more helpful is to include a coherent, referenced reasoning for the attack, or if that is impossible due to conflicting sources (which does little for any of their credibility), to note the several contradictory explanations clearly, and separately. It is also not appropriate to repeat primary or secondary sources in a manner that makes it seem like wikipedia itself is making the judgement call.

Also, I'll ask again, how is a history of the Polish air force authoritive about an attack they weren't present at? You also didn't include a date in your quote, or note which German units the "direct support" attack was aiding. I'd be surprised if German ground units had somehow got to Wielun 5 minutes before the shelling of Westerplatte. Hohum (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The hour of the attack is problematic, because of possible Daylight saving time in one or both countries or erroneous assumption of the existence od the DST. Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a description of military actions in Wieluń area [2]. It's in Polish but anyone can check, where are the places named in the text. Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Which primary sources about Wieluń "battle" quote Smith and Cynk? Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

missing bombs

How a Stuka can "miss" a non-existing army unit destroying a town? Stuka isn't a strategic plane, it's a Stuka.Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the logic, you'd need to support this assertion with the referenced opinion of a historian or military expert, specifically relating to the case of Wieluń. Hohum (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Junkers Ju 87 is a dive bomber. A dive bomber isn't able to destroy a town because it "missed", such ideas come from strategic bombing. Xx236 (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The town wasn't destroyed, appearantly the inner city received serious damage. And while Stukas were reasonably accurate compared to level bombers, obviously they missed sometimes too. Speaking of which, its very annoying that the introduction speaks of 'carpet bombing'. If Stukas participated in the operation, and they were dive bombers, they could'nt carpet bomb (not even having a bombsight for that..) - thats what level bombers do.

Additionally, there's a lot of weasel wording in the introduction. The intro should summerize the content of the article, yet it states it was 'indiscriminate bombing' and ' considered as one of the first terror bombings of the war' - by whom? Obviously there are many conflicting sources, with radically different summaries. Kurfürst (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

75% of the town destroied [3]. Please have some respect for facts and victims. Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Another source says 70%.Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The bomb hits O.K., in the street - says one of the German pilots [4]. Is a street in a town a "Military" goal?Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The German pilot in the second article you posted appear to have seen and bombed Polish troops. : in front of me on the bias group homes, some court buildings or small village. Smoke rises from there, and coated with a dark streak of yellow fields and glistening river. Wieluń -- our goal! several houses in the city is in a great fire. But high above the dark spots on the background of blue sky with lightning speed here and there śmigające like dragonflies over water mirror pane: This German fighters, which are pending, and protect our attack ... My first attack on a living target! For a split second flash of awareness: there is a downstairs living city, a city full of people ... It is true that these are soldiers, and I just attacking soldiers in the streets ... the bottom looks like a postcard picture of a dark points that are on them are moving to. Like the only goal. At an altitude of 2500 meters on earth loses its gravity ... Height - 1200 meters ... the first bomb drops! ...Now look down. Bomb fell down a well, straight into the street. Smoke flares, and the black mass, which glided along the street, stops. On the spot, which landed, formed a dark vortex. And in the tangle of a series of bombs fall from the other aircraft. Weak anti-fire with wood from the north. It seems to me that goal was taken Perkun. Around the machine flash shots. But we are guided flight in accordance with the orders to the north outlet of the city. Again, the bomb! Just outside the city swamped an enclosure and a yoke of the military. We are just at the height of 1200 meters, falls on 800 The bombs are falling and pen down there disappears in the fire and smoke along with everything in it. Retreat! Last load, the heaviest falls in the market. Fountain of flames, smoke and debris more than a small tower of the church ... last look: the Polish cavalry brigade could do nothing ... "

Moreover the article states that while regular Polish Army units were not in the town, there were, as it appears to me, irregular Polish National Defense units, incl. a cavarly brigade.: "Wieluń County was in command of the army plans to "boat" distinguishing foreground, which were not anticipated major defensive fighting, or a clash of delaying tactics. On its premises were so loosely scattered detachments of cavalry brigades and battalions of National Defense. In the Wielun army, it was not. In addition, General J. J. Rommel's army on the eve of the start of World War II was not yet prepared to take the fight. By contrast, the German side in the area of the district bordering wieluńskiego directly with the Third Reich Wehrmacht units were deployed incorporated in Article X of the army General. Walter von Reichenau, in full combat readiness awaiting the order to attack Poland."

OTOH the writer of the article - journalist Sylwia Słomińska, already quoted in the article - still assumes the the attack was a 'terror attack', similiar to 9/11.

IMHO the pilot's account you link would be a useful addition of the article, and hopefully we can find a similiar account from a civillian victim as well. That would add a lot of the human side to the article. Kurfürst (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Poland has millions of soldiers located in towns and waiting naive Germans. Becuase the Poles are racially lower. Can this discussion be more idiotic?Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The pilot was at an altitude of 2500 m and "saw" Polish soldiers. He didn't see them when at 800 m.

Wieluń army is a name. It doesn't say where the army was located. Xx236 (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC) "Żołnierze Wieluńskich Batalionów Obrony Narodowej stacjonowali w Parcicach i Czastarach." National Defence was stationed in Parcice and Czastary. Xx236 (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Military casualties.

If Polish military units were attacked in Wieluń in close support of German troops (who somehow got there 5 minutes before the shelling of Westerplatte...) surely there are German records giving the date, time, and units of ground troops involved, and their discovery shortly afterwards of bombed Polish military casualties within the town. Can anyone provide such records? If none can be found, I am not saying the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but if it does exist, it should be presented. Hohum (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

How many Polish soldiers were killed in Wieluń? The Germans certainly registered all their succeses.Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

According to de:Wieluń the goal could have been a "polnische Kavalleriedivision". One can check if there was a "polnische Kavalleriedivision" near Wieluń.Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC) There was no "chevalry division" in Poland 1939, only brigades.Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Joachim Trenkner is German

Joachim Trenkner is a German writer, who publishes mostly in Poland.Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This site says he a journalist - 'niemieckim publicystą'. 'JOACHIM Trenkner is a German journalist, including multi-employee American "Newsweek" correspondent "Universal Weekly" in Berlin.'

What do we know of his past? The past seems relevant and placed great deal of weight on it in the article. Is he East German or West German, or an ethnic German in Poland? Its odd that he publishes in Polish.. So, what does he writes, is a biography available, does he have a political past (left-wing radical, Baeder-Meinhof, did he serve in any Army or in communist Worker's Watch, was he reporting people to the commie internal services perhaps? Was he involved in the a Pioneer movement in his childhood? etc.) What are his creditentials as a historian? What makes his POV of the events carry weight? Kurfürst (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"was he reporting people to the commie internal services perhaps?" says Kurfürst about a living person. It's a big libel. You have removed my text, that a Nazi pupil was indoctrinated. I haven't speculated what the future general did at Napola, I have written he was indoctrinated because it was the task of this school. Xx236 (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I am asking a question of his background, to see who is this guy, what are his possible motives, does he have the background to make reliable research etc. Its assessing the quality of the source, and as it stands, he is a journalist, not a historian. Regarding Poeppel, I always found the suggestion that he was 'indoctrinated' at the Napola school - why did he not join the SS then, and instead choose to serve in the Wehrmacht? And, how did he rise to one of highest military ranks in the post-war, de-nazified and *very* seriously apolitical Bundeswehr...? It all seems extremely unlikely to me. Kurfürst (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact was that any pupil was indoctrinated in Napola schools. It's a fact. If an indoctrinated person can be neutral discussing crimes of the Wehrmacht - it's another problem.Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst is making here the Bundeswehr apology [5].Xx236 (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My summary

German sources say the Lutwaffe believed to find Polish Army units in Wieluń. There were no such units on September the 1st. No discussion is needed, thwe Germans were poorly informed and now some are lying because they love the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe more than human values. Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Everything was discussed above, in 2005. Some Germans will never admit that Luftwaffe was poorly commanded or committed crimes bombing the hospital. Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but basically you say the town was hit by bombers due to poor German intel on enemy army dislocation..? That is a plausible version amongst the many, but then you are basically saying the town was bombed in a rather typical mistake of the war, rather than intended as terror attack. In short, basically you are finding yourself more-or-less agreement with Generalmajor Peoppel. Kurfürst (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we agree that Germans murdered civilians because they believed to know something, even if they were totally ignorant. It's interesting that Germans believed that Poles didn't have hospitals. I understand, racially lower people cannot have hospitals, maybe ones constructed for them by Germans...Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just can we get rid of all that chauvinistic propaganda here? --41.17.17.22 (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Garwolin

About 70% of Garwolin were destroied, army barracks outside the town survived.Xx236 (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of Frampol

The Bombing of Frampol proves what was the mentality of Nazi Germans, especially Luftwaffe officers.Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Far from being complete list of the Luftwaffe crimes in Poland [6].Xx236 (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A bombing somewhere else isn't a useful citation regarding what happened at Wielun. You need to find reputable sources about this particular event. Hohum (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Long text in Polish, low quality pictures

Includes a copy of a German document: http://www.historiawielunia.uni.lodz.pl/cel_zniszczony.pdf Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And proves that the Germans believed that there were Polish troops in that town (Stäbe in der Stadt). --41.17.17.22 (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Smith and Cynk - doubtful historians

Both Smith and Cynk are fans of airforce. They don't know anything about the ground war and the only sources they had were probably German, rationalizig and/or whitewashing the Luftwaffe. The whole Wieluń dispute is parallel to the Guernica one, whitewashing and/or rationalizing.Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jewish casualties

According to the Polish TV news the Jewish victims of the bombing weren't possibly registered by the Germans. Xx236 (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would they? The Nazis were anti-Semitic. They probably felt it was no business of theirs to play up Jewish fatalities. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Two books by the IPN

http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal/pl/2/10456/Promocja_albumu_Wielun_1_IX_1939_r_oraz_ksiazki_Wielun_byl_pierwszy_Bombardowani.html

"Wieluń był pierwszy" should be read and quoted in the article.Xx236 (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Daylight?

A dive bombing attack needs sufficient light for aiming. While the Schleswig-Holstein in Danzig could practise aiming the day before, and start firing at sunrise, the Stukas needed more light to find any target at all. As I understand, Germany, the Freie Stadt Danzig and Poland all had Central European Time in 1939, and no daylight saving yet. CET is centered on 15° E, Danzig and Wielun are 18° odd. My GPS software and NOAA say, when centered on Wielun, that sunrise there on Sep 1 is on 4:57 CET (UTC+1). For Danzig it's 4:40. This would mean that the ship fired 5 minutes before sunrise, while the Stukas, according to the 4:40 currently claimed unsourced in the article, would have attacked 16 minutes before sunrise. Also, according to [7], Eugeniusz Kolodziejczyk "saw the planes coming in", while the article says "due to the low level fog both attacks in the morning and at noon missed". So Kolodziejczyk apparently saw more than the pilots ... -- Matthead  Discuß   23:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fog at noon in Wieluń? Rather strange phenomenon. The IPN historian claims that the hour was 5:40, as German documents say. "a city full of people ... It is true that these are soldiers, and I just attacking soldiers in the streets ..." claims the German pilot (above).Xx236 (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The caption

The picture was taken after, not during the bombing.Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)