User talk:Markus Becker02

Welcome!

Hello, Markus Becker02, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Lysy^talk 19:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: massacre

It isn't an alleged war crime... its an alleged incedent. There was no sugar coating, but this is an incident that has not been investigated or proven to have occured. If it occured then it is a war crime, no doubt, but even the primary sources have only appeared in the last ten years. Before i edited it, it didn't even HAVE the words war crime, just stating that it was an alleged incedent. WookMuff 20:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just what I supected. Germans killing american POWs = war crime, Americans killing german POWs = alleged incedent. That´s sugar coating at it worst. The sources are there, have been for years and there are plenty of others pointing in the same general direction. The only thing "ignorant" is ignoring them. Markus Becker02 01:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, well documented and publicized instances of Germans killing Americans = War Crimes, Incedents without proof of American's doing the same to Germans = Alleged. Alleged doesn't mean fake, or false, or unlikely, it means unproven. Why would i feel the urge to sugar coat? I don't even think that the other massacre WAS a war crime, the POW in question were American soldiers just captured and disarmed, allegedly trying to escape. Anyway, have you ever heard of Innocent until proven guilty? Don't remove the "sugar coating" again. WookMuff 03:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What "incedents without proof" are you talking about? You have evidence from a 1986 book and in 2006 a US veteran confirms it. What else do you need? An official US Army investigation? The same US Army that said "there is no evidence... that American troops took advantage of orders, implicit or explicit, to kill their SS prisoners." ignoring the Order 27. issued by Headquarters, 328th Infantry, on 21 December? Markus Becker02 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Becker02, WookMuff: There seems to be an edit war brewing over the phrasing of the introduction to the Chenogne massacre article, as you are discussing on Markus Becker02's talk page. I'd like to ask that you both stop making and reverting edits, and instead discuss and reach a consensus. I've started a section in the Talk:Chenogne massacre page for that discussion. --Jdlh | Talk 08:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your documentation on Eugene Bullard?

I have documentation that he was never in the Lafayette Escadrille (only the Lafayette Flying Corps) and the Legion after being kicked out of aviation.

If you have different facts and docs, please let me know.

--Escadrille Americaine 18:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just mixed that up. Nevermind.Markus Becker02 21:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Werwolf

The exact quote from page 259 is "In northern Baden, combat troops destroyed the town of Bruchsal, apparently in response to some unnamed atrocity by the SS." The sentence is in turn referenced to note 38, which contains the text "With the 102d Infantry Division through Germany", 206; Blumenstock, Der Einmarch der Americaner und Franzosen im Nordlichen Wurttemberg, 224-6; Hassan, With the 114th in the ETO, 112; and Carl Friedrich, The Three Phases of Field Operations in Germany, 1945-1946, in American Experiences in Military Government in World War II,ed. Carl Friedrich (New York 1948), 241.

I hope there is only one town/area by the name of Bruchsal, otherwise things get complicated.

If you are interested in the Werewolf I would recommend reading Biddiscombes books, he has written several on the topic. Also, in the book in question he has devoted appendix A to explain the reasons why researchers of various nationalities have avoided or downplayed the subject. For example U.S. military historical records tend to avoid the topic since it would entail also mentioning illegal activities undertaken in response to werwolf actions. The German researchers generally seem to be uncomfortable with the thought of the ideas of Naziism living on past "stunde null", others feel that partisans were heroes, therefore there could hav been no German partisans etc.

I also did some googling to try to figure out what happened. Maybe some clues.

From a note in an article by Biddiscombe on the Anti Fraternization movement. "As for the French, there were 385 rapes in the Constance area; 600 in Bruchsal; and 500 in Freudenstadt." http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-72412197.html (Summary that contains the note) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_3_34/ai_72412197/pg_1 (Contains the full article text, but I'm not so sure it also contains the notes.)

From a Webpage on "Buchenau" "Buechenau is a stadteil under the control of Bruchsal" "On February 2, 1945 the allies shelled the fool out of the town in preparation for their crossing the Rhine, and destroyed 80% of the town." http://michaelreineck.com/html/germany.html

From a U.S. government image website "Five Germans were condemned to death for the killing of six American flyers, who were seized from their German military captors. Joseph Harzgen is led to execution by hanging at Bruchsal, Germany." http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/arch_results_detail.jsp?&pg=1&si=0&st=b&rp=details&nh=1

"Both Bruchsal and Pforzheim were completely destroyed during the war, the former in a night bombing raid by American bombers in retaliation for the killing of an American pilot by Bruchsal farmers after the pilot parachuted to the ground from his disabled plane." http://www.aoshs.org/memories/Memorydetail.asp?MemoryID=59&VolumeID=1

So The image seems confused. Without access to the literature listed in Biddiscombes note I really cant say what happened.

1. Apparently the city was very heavily bombed from the air when the war was almost over and just about to be overrun by U.S. ground troops, this aerial bombing was possibly done solely as retaliation for the killing of bomber-crews by locals.

2. There are hints that in addition to the aerial bombing the city was shelled by artillery by U.S. ground troops, possibly after the air bombing.

3. Apparently the city was to be in the French occupation zone, so I assume it was handed over by the U.S. troops to French occupation troops, who proceeded to rape etc in the town.

If you are interested in reading more about Werewolf this Researcher has made an interesting compilation on U.S. German relations, many of which refer to acts of resistance. No mention about the city in question though. http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~roehner/occupation.html

I don't really have any time to edit in Wikipedia at the moment, but I hope I was of some help.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that adds to my scepticism about the factual accuracy of his work. If even the author can not give a date or confirm it actually happened -note the use of apparently- that´s bad craftsmanship. Actually Bruchsal was destroyed by a US air raid on March 1st and taken without any resistance by the French on April 2nd. So far I could not come up with any bit of information supporting his claim. A claim that is vague to begin with. The "explanation" for the almost complete lack of documentation might be convenient for Mr.Biddiscombe but it is not convincing. Not in the case of such a well researched topic like WW2. I´ll keep searching.Markus Becker02 18:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. My opinion however is that Biddiscombe works with the restricted material he has access to, and does provide far more footnotes than most authors. Maybe the destruction by combat troops refers to the U.S. artillery shelling? I don't want to get into a discussion on such a minor point, but I feel I should state my position on the "well researched topic like WW2"; My strong impression is that up till recently It's only well researched from the winners point of view. Now some few brave souls are digging deeper.

If German soldiers had made a habit of boiling the flesh off Russian skulls to send home as table ornaments, I have no doubt it would be a well researched topic, as you say. Since it was U.S. troops that did so and the victims were Japanese probably few who are interested in the WWII even know about it, nor of the mass rapes of Japanese women by U.S. soldiers.

She named the love gift Tojo, from LIFE magazine, 5/22/44 p.35 "Picture of the Week". Her boyfriend sent her home an autographed souvenir, and she was proud enough to let LIFE magazine print it. LIFE seems to have found the activity perfectly normal for an average American of the time.
[1] Ooops, here the police recently found a skull and are slightly confused.
trophy taking Seems the reason for the trophy hunting was a feeling that the Japanese were an inferior species
Or as Niall Ferguson, concludes in "Prisoner Taking and Prisoner Killing in the Age of Total War: Towards a Political Economy of Military Defeat", War in History, 2004, 11 (2): 148–192 "To the historian who has specialized in German history, this is one of the most troubling aspects of the Second World War: the fact that Allied troops often regarded the Japanese in the same way that Germans regarded Russians – as Untermenschen."
American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs'
Images of a common brutality

My impression is that the full picture of WWII is only slowly being revealed, for the western front as for the pacific front and that Biddiscombe has placed an important piece of the puzzle on the table, a puzzle that so far only is close to complete for loosers half of the table. But thats just my opinion. Cheers --Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, if the destruction by combat troops refers to the U.S. artillery shelling the town it would be irrelevant, since it happened both before the end of the war and even before the town was taken. Shelling enemy towns in the vicinity of the front is a legitimate act of war. By the way, does he give more information about the other incedents? In many cases there are no dates, nor any information on why something was done. And as far as points of view are concerned, German historians fo the 50´s and 60´s might have deliberately ignored a post war insurgency, but those of the 70´s and later would have had a field day.Markus Becker02 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SS Werewolf units were set up to act on German territory behind enemy lines, hence the years 1944 - 1946 in Biddiscombes book title, they were active as soon as the invaders entered German soil in 1944. Whether the was had ended or not is therefore irrelevant.

What is relevant is if the (unconfirmed) artillery shelling of the town was due to military necessity or was committed in retaliation for real or imagined Werwolf actions. If it is the latter then it is a serious type of war crime that Germans tended to be made to dangle from the gallows for when they committed it.

The list I threw together is just a random sample I hurriedly threw together in disgust at the political polemic of the American who obviously must have read the book cover to cover to find out of context sentences where he could negate the importance of the Werwolf, without using the book to contribute to an article that quite frankly at the moment is quite clueless. I will fix the article properly once I have had the time to do more than peruse the book.

Some have dates, some don't. I just made a random sample of some of the examples that Biddiscomb provides, some are undated, some roughly dated, some dated.

The systematic destruction of Sogel took for example place after the April 10 revolt that cost the canadians 5 men to suppress. Constance took place during mid May.

I don't know anything about the capabilities nor the inclinations of 70's German historians. It's fairly pointless arguing about the books contents when one party has not read it at all and the other only partly. We can continue this discussion when both of us have done so.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 21:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, if the "political polemic of the American"-stuff is directed at me, you missed by a margin as wide as an ocean, literally. Second, I´d buy the book, if I considered it worth it´s price. But the probability of this guy having uncovered something hundreds before him have overlooked or deliberately ignored is improbable. Well, what about agreeing on disagreeing on this matter?Markus Becker02 13:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have the spikes out today. I was of course referring to these edits and not to you, although I do admit to being slightly too hasty in my nationality estimation, apparently the individual is a subject of the Queen in London. As to the book you are naturally free to choose not to read it.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 21:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss

We have references showing that the poor reputation of the P-40 in North Africa was partly a victim of German over-claiming. Your source is about the Pacific. Please use one which is about North Africa.

You did not achieve consensus for this material in the past. I would have continued to object, except that I was distracted by real life. Please take it to the talk page. Grant | Talk 10:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation - are we done?

You have been involved in mediation at: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Curtiss P-40. Discussion has subsided, and I think that the concerns have been resolved by removing the contested issues around over claiming to an article about that subject. Is there any need to continue or should we close this process? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have reach common ground.Markus Becker02 (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for deletion

Hello,

An article you have helped edit, Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II (which was formerly entitled "Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories") has been proposed for deletion.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]