Jump to content

Talk:1st Armoured Division (Poland)

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

Untitled

[edit]

I hope that this is the first of many items written about the Polish first armoured as they saw lots of action and were used as special forces in many ways. It would be nice if the truth were at last written about these heroes who, under Maczek. achieved so many heroic victories which were not mentioned. The Canadians and British took a lot of the glory for the actions of this Polish division and they deserve, at long last, for the truth to be told.

Tielt

On my website I have a section on the Sherman Firefly of the 1st Polish Armored Division in Tielt, Belgium. If someone thinks it's worth to add a link on the page, please feel free to use the following link: http://web.mac.com/davedepickere/World_War_II,_analyzed!/Flanders/Paginas/Tielt.html

Patton76 01:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Poles Breda.jpg

[edit]

Image:Poles Breda.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Poles Wilhelmshafen.jpg

[edit]

Image:Poles Wilhelmshafen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Polish-1st-Armd-Div-Badge.jpg

[edit]

Image:Polish-1st-Armd-Div-Badge.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Alleged War Crimes

[edit]

With respect, I think it was a bit radical of Robert Warren to have deleted the section on alleged war crimes. Agreed, one American source is not strong enough evidence to support the case that war crimes took place. But there is no harm in us referring to the allegation of the war crime. Firstly, I have to say the timing looks very interesting. The alleged crime took place at the same time as the Warsaw Uprising, where Axis troops massacred about 200,000 Polish civilians and did the most awful things to Poles, like gang raping terminally ill Polish female cancer patients in their hospital beds. In revenge, I wouldn't be surprised if Polish troops in France did execute about 1000 of their German prisoners, nor would I be surprised if Allied High Command turned a blind eye. Secondly, we should be aware that Allied conduct in France is being re-examined right now, e.g. the Allied bombing of French civilians in Caen, and the allegations of rape of French civilians by the U.S. Army, and that black American soldiers tended to be punished for rape but white American soldiers tended not to be. These subjects have been taboo for a long time, and should not be taboo in an encyclopaedia. Perhaps the solution is for us to refer to the crimes as allegations rather than facts. After all, it is verifiable that allegations have been made, it is not so far verifiable whether of not the crimes took place. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:REDFLAG: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". I agree with you that till its proven it is alleged, but I also think that such a strong and suprising allegation "soldiers of the 1st Armoured Division were responsible for one of the most serious Allied war crimes during WWII" needs more than just one source (which doesn't even cite a page number...). For the record, I am moving the removed text here below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about WP:REDFLAG. Agreed. Anyway, this is an interesting case and I may find time to research it, particularly this claim that the Poles themselves told the Americans that they had shot the German POWs, and the Americans appear not to have filed any kind of complaint. Also, if anyone has or has not disputed Ambrose's claims, that would be an important issue.-Chumchum7 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please do not remove the War Crimes paragraph. It is clearly stated that it is alleged that Polish soldiers committed these war crimes. Can you present a irrefutable evidence that these crimes did not take place? I will be happy to remove this paragraph if you do. Also, this information comes from a reputable source and it is in-fact included in a printed work. Thus, it warrants inclusion here. I did include a "disputed section" banner, so the issue can be discussed here. As for my personal opinion; it is naive to think that Allied troops did not commit war crimes during WWII. There are numerous instances when Allies murdered POWs and raped and murdered civilians. I am always reminded of the Jedwabne killins that have been blamed on Germans - there was even a memorial that said "Miejsce kaźni ludności żydowskiej. Gestapo i żandarmeria hitlerowska spaliła żywcem 1600 osób 10.VII.1941" = "Place of a massacre of Jewish people. 1600 Jews were burned alive here on 10.07.1941 by Gestapo and Hitler's military police." - that is until 2001 when it was determined by Polish authorities who really committed the murders (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2118649.stm). Unfortunately, history is written by the victors and the extend of Allied crimes will most likely never become known or they will be ever prosecuted. Mariaflores1955 (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the passage from the Ambrose's book - page 105.


"Over the next couple of days,Waters wrote"the Germans attacked with all the fury they they could bring to bear,fueled by their desperation to escape.""Others were trying to surrender,many of them succesfully.Too many,in fact.Neither the Poles nor the Americans had facilities to deal with them.Waters estabilished a POW pen in Chambois,but it was badly overcrowded.Still,one morning a Polish captain brought in some 200 additional POW,s to turn over to the Americans.

Polish captain:"Here are your prisoners"

Waters:"I donn't want them."

Polish captain:"But i must leave them with you.Those are my orders".

Waters:"I still don't want them.Get them out of here".(Waters orders were to accept them.but he had been told to expect 1500;in fact there were only couple of hundred.)

Polish captain: "But i must still leave them with you."

Warers:"well,you were supposed to have 1500 prisoners.Where are they?"

Polish captain:"They are dead.We shoot them.These are all that are left".

Waters: "Then why don't you shoot these too?" A paus,then Waters corrected himself:"No,you can't do that."

Polish captain:"Oh,yes we can.They shot my countryman.".He took Waters by the arm and escorted him away from the others.Then he said ,"Captain ,we can't shoot them.We are out of ammunition."

I hope it suffices... Mariaflores1955 (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here is another interesting article about this division http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/46/a2450846.shtml - note this paragraph...

We took prisoners. Some of those from the Wehrmacht were of Polish birth. They were asked if they would join us: anyone who accepted was given the rifle and paybook of one of the dead! They were unexpected, precious reinforcements. The S.S. and those whose paybooks showed that they had taken part in the invasion of Poland in ’39 received no mercy!

I am told by my colleagues in Poland, that the Ambrose's claim is well know in Poland and it is confirmed by vets of the 1st Armoured Division. In addition the Polish War crimes at Falaise were also mentioned in John Colby’s book "War from the Ground Up"... Mariaflores1955 (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Before this turns into a row about 'unfair claims' versus 'cover ups' I propose we look at this very strictly in terms of Wikipedia rules only. I agree it is naive to think that Allied troops did not commit war crimes during WWII, but nobody is in denial here that these things happened. After I restored the War Crimes section in modified form, Piotrus only raised the issue of WP:REDFLAG, which convinced me. Piotrus did not dispute that War Crimes were possible. Moreover, in US and European defamation and libel law, as well as in Wikipedia, the onus is not on the accused nor the defenders of the accused to present a irrefutable evidence that these crimes did not take place. The onus is on the accuser to present irrefutable evidence that these crimes did take place. I could accuse someone of being an alien from Mars - it would be absurd for me to demand they present irrefutable evidence that they are not an alien from Mars. In my opinion, one source citing one witness isn't enough, and does comes under WP:REDFLAG, as Piotrus says. To conclude this debate about whether Ambrose should even be included in the article, we're going to need two or three Wikipedia moderators to give us their opinion on how Wikipedia rules should be applied here. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a law degree, so I am well aware of the legal implications here. You need to know that readers have the right to have this information at their disposal under the US law, when properly sourced (which it is), Wikipedia cannot be hold liable. This is not original research. It is an encyclopaedia, e.g. all information on this website should come from a published (original) sources. The war crimes section essentially tells readers, there is published work that alleges that specific crime took place. This is the way you need to look at it. If the information is 100% true is another issue. If the vets from the Polish 1st Armoured Division did want to challenged the Ambrose claim, they would have to first file law suit against Ambrose or his estate. By the way, that will NEVER happen, because they would risk ending up in Hague charged with war crimes. The statue of limitation on murder does not expire. Mariaflores1955 (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Ms. Flores, these claims are unsubstantiated suppositions, and your “encyclopedic” research does not suffice. Aside from one brief passage (a hearsay citing “one” officer who was told by “some” Polish captain) and statements by imaginary “friends” in Poland who also “confirmed” these “facts” for you, this remains an unsubstantiated assertion. Please bare in mind that such heavy-loaded accusation requires --> R E A L <-- evidence and what you have offered does not meet such criteria either encyclopedically, or legally. Unless there you have → PROOF ← what you are relentlessly inserting in this article remains a libel and slander, as confirmed by my friend, a very respected attorney. I am removing your -> W A R C R I M E S <- paragraph, and shall continue to do so. Respectfully yours, Robert Warren. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Warren - There are TWO published sources!! And and a BBC article citing similar event. Read my previous reply!! I think you are confused about how encyclopaedia works. You DO NOT NEED absolute proof. You only need an original source for the information to be included. I am not saying that it is 100% true, I am only saying there is an allegation by several historians Ambrose and Colby that war crimes took place. Readers should be aware of it!! Mariaflores1955 (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, the only issue is WP:REDFLAG, as Piotrus rightly stated. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ms. Flores, the fact that one possesses a law degree does not necessarily mean that such individual (he or she) is correct. In fact, I could easily start dropping my academic degrees here, and yes that would be more than two. All the best, Robert Warren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Warren (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look above, I saw this row coming. As I said, we need outside moderation and perhaps we should all stop editing and pause for thought, myself included. This is all about Wikipedia rules and WP:REDFLAG, nothing else. Also, Mariaflores, by saying things like 'present a irrefutable evidence that these crimes did not take place' and 'that will NEVER happen' gives you the appearance of having some kind of fixed and biased agenda. I am more than happy to work with you towards a solution in a fair and accurate way that sticks to Wikipedia guidelines. None of us knows what will 'NEVER' happen. None of us has the right to demand others disprove our accusations about them, particularly war crimes. I've noted you've done a lot of work on Nazi-era medals, so with your interest in the Third Reich and your law degree I'm sure you are familiar with the Nuremberg Trials. If you take a moment to reconsider, I'm sure you'll understand we cannot have your heading 'War Crimes' here if that hasn't been established as fact about the Poles in a court of law, at an international tribunal, or some other such measure. And Robert Warren, let's all try to maintain our dignity, myself included. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is all I want. A resolution. As I stated, I am only saying there is an allegation by several historians (Ambrose and Colby) that war crimes took place and that readers should be aware of it. If you reread again what I have written above, you understand that there is no bias. I am not saying these brave men were a bunch of war criminals. However, readers must be allowed to know that the allegations (I STRESS allegations) exist. That is in line with Wikipedia's rules. Both of the books are on the market and readily available. This is not some obscured source. I can tell you for a fact that Polish soldiers allegedly involved in these war crimes will never challenge this information in an open court. As a former attorney, I can tell you it would be suicidal. It would take a single murdered POW for them to be held responsible and legally labeled as war criminals. Mariaflores1955 (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced: you added the extremely loaded 'War Crime' headline when no war crime has been proven or prosecuted. This is classic POV. I'm not jumping to defend the reputation of Allied soldiers. I'm editing to standard. You offer the unsolicited information that you're a former attorney; well, without telling you my identity, I'm asking you to please face the issue. For the third time, the issue is WP:REDFLAG, and it doesn't matter who you are or who I am. Please discuss WP:REDFLAG with Piotrus, if you don't want to discuss it with me. And finally, the two or three neutral moderators I'm calling for may rule in your favour anyway. I added the modified 'Allegations of..' paragraph, and it should not be more strongly worded than that. If the neutral moderators vote to cut my modified paragraph out as per WP:REDFLAG, then so be it. If it the paragraph stays in, then you've got what you wanted. But don't write 'War Crimes' again, its simply not a verifiable statement of established fact. As a point of reference, there are a couple of historians out there who deny the Holocaust happened, but we don't add their views as a serious and uncontroversial entry at WP:Holocaust. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Said. Best, Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due (and genuine respect) Maria, I really don't get it why you are so fixated on this issue. Such statements as "suicidal", "tell you for a fact that Polish soldiers allegedly involved in these war crimes will never challenge this information in an open court" trouble me profoundly. Please step back for a second and think this through. By any stretch of imagination such serious accusation as "War Crimes" requires far more than a single source from page "x" in one book you found. I wish you all the best. Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the way you change the headline. I just don't want the paragraph to be removed without foundation. That is all. As for the WP:REDFLAG issue. That is what I have been talking to you about. I believe it should not be used here, as there are two sources. In addition and for the final time, my statements are not definite. I simply state that there are allegations (in printed media) that war crimes took place. Finally, I find your comparison of Stephen Ambrose, M. l'abbé Marcel Launay and John Colby with Holocaust deniers distasteful. Mariaflores1955 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maria, no one here, including myself is making distasteful statements, nor comparing Ambrose, and others to Holocaust deniers. What Chumchum7 had clearly stated was that there are quiet a few individuals who post all sorts of goofy things all over the cyber-universe, many of which have no factual foundation at all. That is all and nothing else. I am very surprised you read it this way ... Best, Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, I find the attitude of user Mariaflores1955 disturbing. We do have a well balanced (though unfinished) article here in Wikipedia called 'Jedwabne pogrom', pointing to evidence in the judicial findings of the Institute of National Remembrance, dating back to 2004. Please explain: why did you chose instead (per above) to quote a 2002 British newsbyte preceding the IPN final report? Is it, because that particular newsbyte from before the conclusion of the Polish most recent court case confirms your bias? The newsbyte is riddled with gross exaggerations and mistakes, not to mention egregious omissions. Therefore, your bringing it here in order to illustrate your point makes your entire discourse suspicious and out of touch with the present.[1] --Poeticbent talk 21:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent, what are you talking about? I can't see any connection to the current discussion. I found it completely bizarre. I brought the Jedwabne incident to illustrate a point, which you completely missed (e.g. sometimes it takes 60 years for truth to come out). So, to avoid any further confusion on your part, I agree with you. The Jedwabne Pogrom entry on Wikipedia is excellent. Mariaflores1955 (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in order to avoid any further confusion on your part, user Mariaflores1955, I agree with you too, that sometimes, the actual facts take years to come out, however, you seem to have completely missed my point about your bizarre reference to an old newsbyte from BBC and also, you ignored my question about why you chose to bring it in here? I asked you specifically. What were you trying to illustrate with your expired source? What point were you trying to make with gross exaggerations disseminated by the British media for political gain? The Jedwabne killins would not have happened without the presence of the German SS, moreover, mass killings by Nazi Einsatzgruppen in the region were confirmed by the German judicial Center for Prosecuting Nazi Crimes in Ludwigsburg, not by the Allies. --Poeticbent talk 02:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point, Mariaflores, is that your behaviour is giving some people the impression you have an emotional and fixed agenda, as I have already mentioned. You say the Poles need to come up with evidence to disprove three historians' use of hearsay, but at the same time you claim you're a former attorney and are aware of legal process. You have asserted alleged Polish War Crimes as fact, you claim to know Poles will 'NEVER' face the facts about their War Crimes, you draw on Jedwabne as an example of a Polish cover-up in which Germans were unfairly scapegoated, and you have devoted a lot of Wikipedia time to Nazi memorabilia. Really, you'd be winning more friends and influencing people by not implying Germany has been unfairly treated, or whether Allied nations are hypocrites, but by limiting the discussion to Wikipedia rules. For the record, I think Polish reprisal executions of Waffen-SS POWs at Falaise were entirely possible, especially considering the revenge motive. Germans bombarded the Polish Red Cross compound on Hill 262, even after the Poles had allowed a ceasefire for the Germans to evacuate German Red Cross vans out of the Falaise Pocket. According to Lieutenant-Colonel Aleksander Stefanowicz's speech, the the Poles ended the battle with just 110 men, having started with 1500-2000 and having held off 14 German divisions. These included SS troops, who tended not to take untermensch prisoners, as the Stefanowicz speech shows the Poles knew. We should find the data on how many Poles were taken POW by the SS at Hill 262, instead of being shot by the SS when captured, to further assess the revenge motive in the alleged Polish executions. Add the timing of the horrific German behaviour at the Wola massacre and the Warsaw Uprising, and there is definitely a third motive for the killings. Now we need more evidence of Poles saying how proud they are to have executed SS POWs, and ideally some forensic evidence of execution, to prove this. But even then, it is not for us to assert this is a war crime - it is for a court. Until then, all we have are historians' allegations. Every other editor on this page, including me, now agrees that the paragraph should stay off the article while being considered, and I suggest you accept the consensus. I suspect that a group of non-interested, neutral editors would in fact ask us to put the allegations back into the article given there are three credible sources. So sit and wait, you'll likely get what you want. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my last point, I have just stumbled across a fascinating fact. Generalfeldmarschall Walter Model, the commander of the German assault on Hill 262, was rushed in to command the attack against the Poles at the order of Hitler himself, who also upgraded Model's medal prior to the attack. It seems that just 48 hours earlier, Model had been fighting against the Armia Krajowa on the Eastern Front. Model had been trying but failing to suppress the Warsaw Uprising, where war crimes against Polish civilians and POWs were standard German policy. For the Poles on Hill 262, their moment of victory over Model two days later may have had particular schadenfreude. This is my original research, and I'm not suggesting we include my observations and opinions in the article. This said, the movement of Model from Warsaw to Falaise is a verifiable fact, and we can include that at least. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my modest contribution. An excerpt from the "Black Devils March" et al. "In the middle of 10 PSK's position, at the dressing station, which was treating about 300 men, the prisoners were collected. German medical orderlies helped the polish medical staff and their work was model. In front of 10 PSK's lines were around 1,000 dead and wounded. The carnage reflected the desperation of the enemy as they tried to escape the Allied encirclement of their positions [...] General Maczek, meanwhile, demanded that General Elfeldt, with his staff, be sent to him at once. The regimental adjutant made the following reply: "Yes sir (Tak jest) but the regiment cannot guarantee the safety of transporting these prisoners to your (Maczek's) position. "In the face of this testimony, Maczek withdrew his order. In the afternoon, 10 PSK was able to establish contact with the American Army in the Chambois area. A forwardCromwell platoon, under the command of 2nd Lieutenant Kluz, managed to link up with the 385th Infantry Battalion. The Americans gave all possible assistance with the evacuation of the wounded and agreed to take responsibility for the removal of the prisoners from the battlefield, including Elfeldt." [end quote] Incidentally, I encourage Ms. Flores to take a peek at some photos of German prisoners on page 49 of this book. It may surprise you what these photos depict. Hint, Hint! Once again, suppositions, hearsay, and unfounded accusations of one individual with dubious (and by now clear agenda) should not find its place in this otherwise fine Wiki article. In fact, Ms. Flores talent and fascination with all-things-Nazi may be far better served by her contributions to the Nazi memorabilia section where she had contributed significantly. Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced warning all, I'm going ahead and will invite Wikipedia moderators to take a look at whether or not we should include the Ambrose allegations, even as we're mindful of WP:libel and the need for all parties, myself included, to maintain courtesy on this page. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, after your suggestion I just looked up page 49 (Amazon allowed me to view it online, but now I want to buy it!) and there are 6 pics of crowds of German prisoners held by the Poles. Maybe I'm being dumb, but just to clarify, do you mean this is evidence that the prisoners stayed alive after all? Or were you getting at something else? -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ChumChum, in my humble opinion, these photos represent far more credible evidence of the prisoners treatment than the ALLEGED statement(s) made by ONE individual who spoke with SOME/UNIDENTIFIED Polish officer who ALLEGEDLY said this and that to him, as suggested by Ms. Flores. As noted by Piotrus above, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", and to the best of my understanding no such "exceptional" evidence was offered. At the end of this process we are left with assertions, slander, and libelous accusations. This troubles me greatly! As to the "Black Devils March" by Evan McGilvray, it is one of the most exhaustive, well documented, and highly regarded books on this very subject. Please note that for the most part, this book is based on both Polish and German accounts. The passage on page 51 is particularly telling. It reads: [...] Eventually, the German offensive was broken and the Poles were able to take a large number of prisoners. To the west of 8BS's position, further prisoners were taken and when they were counted, it was discovered that there was a total of 800. Later these prisoners were to suffer causalties from German mortar fire as the Poles were unable to remove them in time to a place of safety". Another passage pertaining specifically to the prisoners reads: " In an exchange of anti-tank fire, the German tanks were destroyed and their crews killed. The prisoners panicked and fled into the woods bud did not escape. A further German tank was destroyed by a Sherman tank from the range of several meters. At the moment of the anti-tank shell hitting the tank and exploding, the tank ran onto the legs of a Polish soldier, trapping him. He died on the spot form the fire in the tank and the resulting explosion of the German tank". Best, Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr. Warren. You are behaving like an ignorant thug! Your settle hints, acquisitions and stubborn attitude is uncalled for. Mrs. Flores conducted herself respectfully and according to Wikipedia guidelines. Your comments and behaviour is quite offensive. As far as I can see, Mrs Flores contributed large amount of data to BIOGRAPHICAL articles on the Third Reich, not some memorabilia section. Where do you get your information? Second, she contributed information into this article that are properly sourced, not like yourself. Believe it or not, they should be included here - and she does note that these are alleged war crimes! As far as this article is concerned: It is a well known incident. If you go to any military discussion forum, this infamous incident is discussed. Poles, American, Canadians and British all confirm that this murders took place. The only question is how many German POW did the Poles executed. It probably was not 1300 (as Ambrose claims), it is likely that the number is close to 500-700. Have a look on this forum for example. Here they discuss the same incident in Belgium: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=46969 and here is more on allied war crimes: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53295 Anyone who thinks that allies did not commit crimes during WWII is absolutely naive. My father served with the Czech forces in the UK during the war and took part in 1944/45 operations in France, Belgium, Holland and Germany. I spoke to him on many occasions about what happen in those days and the mass murders of German POWs and often also civilians (as well as rapes, beatings, theft) happen weekly. So, please wake up and stop acting like know-it-all, for it seems you know very little. Best Regards, Boleslav Polivka, Colonel, Österreichisches Bundesheer. Bolekpolivka (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, thanks for your clarification and for your information. Boleslav, thanks for your yours too. But let's all quit the name-calling and read WP:personal attacks very carefully. Personally, I think both Mariaflores and Robert went a little bit too far in different ways, and both are forgiveable. I'm guilty of getting hot and bothered as well from time to time, so I know how it feels. We could all have time out, as we wait for Wikipedia moderators to weigh in on this and take a final decision. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr. Boleslav, with all due respect, unlike you, I have not and will not resort using superlatives, i.e. "ignorant," "thug," etc to prove my point; in fact there is no point to be proven. What I have been pointing out throughout, of what remained a civil discussion (that is until your grand appearance and name-calling) that such loaded statement as: "soldiers of the 1st Armoured Division were responsible for one of the most serious Allied war crimes during WWII" requires a bit more than cursory "evidence" and hearsay that some kind of "murders" took place and they are know by SOME Poles, Brits, and others. There are people who claim that aliens live among us, the earthlinks, but yet, I hasn't been proven. I did not question yours, or Ms. Flores' intellectual aptitude, (i.e. I don't know how much you know or don't know - and you have implied that I know very little), nor do I attempt to do so now. Simply put, I have appealed for a fair and impartial opinion about as serious an accusation as one can imagine. I believe that both the Wiki readers and particularly the soldiers of the First Polish Armoured Division are entitled to be treated fairly - particularly those who gave lives to liberate Europe. Needless to say, I am troubled by your uncivil behavior. There should not be place for name calling here, and I hope the moderators will take a note of your uncalled-for behavior. -- Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some misconceptions regarding the role of mediation here. Mediators are not moderators but rather facilitators. The mediator will attempt to bring the various editors to agreement rather than imposing a solution. Having looked at the dispute here it seems to me that mediation is not what is needed. Perhaps I'm missing it, but it doesn't seem like there has been a request for comments opened. If there were to be this would hopefully bring in neutral editors to the discussion. Asking for a third opinion here is not appropriate as that aims to resolve a disagreement between just two editors. I'd suggest you try the request for comments route. It might also be useful to ask for input from the members of the military history wikiproject.

I could give you my opinion. And since nobody objected quickly enough I shall do so. Look at other articles on similar topics. What sort of space do they give to allegations of prisoner killings? My impression based on a sample size of two - not a random sample, that would be useless, so I looked at 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler and 3rd SS Division Totenkopf - is that this article is far too short to justify including the claims at present. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Angusmclellan and it is a fair point, mediation is a further step beyond Wikipedia:Requests for comment. To explain my rationale calling for mediation: we're on the verge of accusing living people of murder. This involves the extremely serious issue of WP:Libel and so it requires extremely serious attention in order to rule out any legal risk. This is not just an intellectual debate between editors about content, it is also about Wikipedia's relationship with the law. We should be able to keep our own house in order before provoking a public threat from the likes of Carter-Ruck. Hope that explains my reasoning. Thanks again and best regards, -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation issue as explanation

[edit]

Polish captain:"Here are your prisoners"

Waters:"I donn't want them."

etc.

Polish captain:"Oh,yes we can.They shot my countryman.".He took Waters by the arm and escorted him away from the others.Then he said ,"Captain ,we can't shoot them.We are out of ammunition."

The Polish soldiers of the 1st Armored Division all learned English between 1940 and 1944 as adults and almost certainly spoke it rather poorly. So here a Polish captain meets an American right out of the heat of battle, a conversation ensues, it is brief, the American is not familiar with the Polish accent in English, the Pole probably has not dealt with too many Americans and does not know the American accent. In fact the American source from which the quote comes is making clear that the Pole is speaking broken, ungrammatical English. The conversation is heated, the tired Polish soldier is trying to get out of the stressful situation of escorting prisoners when he has no ammo and so in fact cannot really control them. The American is refusing to follow his orders to accept prisoners, presenting some rather flimsy excuse about numbers. And on the basis of this chaotic "conversation" between people who barely understood each other, someone is trying to build the case for "the most serious Allied war crime in WWII". This is rather ridiculous, obviously.

In fact, one possible explanation is perfectly obvious, at least to me. The Poles are escorting many German prisoners, but the guards are low on ammo. The Polish soldier obviously cannot say this to the American captain near the column within earshot of the Germans, because then they will start running when they hear this and take advantage of the situation. So he takes him aside and tries to explain in broken English that the escort has no ammunition and cannot shoot the Germans, so it is essential that the Americans take control of the prisoners immediately. Makes perfect sense. The American understands this rather differently. Rather humorous, actually. As for the numbers mismatch, such things happen in a war all the time, as miscommunication is common in the fog of war, especially given the communication technology of the 1940s (no cell phones, you know).

Even better in terms of the humor of the situation, maybe the conversation is reported correctly, but the interpretation is wrong. Let's imagine that the Polish officer, exhausted after the battle and tired of escorting prisoners with no ammo, faced with an American officer who is refusing to accept them, made up on the spot the scary story that "you should take them, because we Poles shoot prisoners, you know". Maybe the Polish officers had a good laugh at the mess afterwards about this neat way to offload some prisoners on another unit. I wonder if they would find it funny that this little story is now used 65 years later to accuse them of "war crimes".

Did it happen that way or that ? Who knows. But at least I am illustrating that many interpretations are possible, and using this as evidence of a war crime is a stretch. At best this is an illustration of various rumors were that were swirling behind the Allied front lines at the time, a rather common occurrence in any war.

All joking aside, there were many German prisoners taken in Normandy, who survived and were alive many years after the war. If there were witnesses to atrocities by Polish troops among them, surely they would have come forward by now. If we find publications that mention such allegations from them, then surely we can include them in this article.

Polish and American officers during linkup at Falaise

Finally, in remembrance of brave Polish soldiers from the 1st Armoured Division who died to stop the Nazi gas chambers and bring freedom to Western Europe and West Germany, and now are accused in such a ridiculous way of war crimes on Wikipedia, I will include a picture. This is actually a photo of a Polish and American officer made at the time of the linkup between the Polish and American units at Falaise. They probably look very much like the two officers who took part in the conversation described. .Sourcelat0r (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useful comparison

[edit]

In order to see how the war crimes of a unit involved in the Normandy campaign should be covered, please see the article 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend. It is instructive to compare the weight of evidence presented there with the completely flimsy "evidence" presented here. Sourcelat0r (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose and credibility

[edit]

At the risk of shooting a dead horse here, if the main thrust of the war crimes accusation is based on a a few brief sentences in a book by Ambrose, then his credibility should come under scrutiny. Here the "criticisms" section of the Stephen Ambrose article is quite instructive (in fact the whole article should be read here). It discusses numerous examples of plagiarisms and inaccuracies found in his works. In short, Ambrose is a very popular writer, but he is not considered a serious academic historian. His books are a very good read, but basing such weighty allegations as those discussed here solely on brief mentions in his works is plainly irresponsible. Sourcelat0r (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for an extremely relevant point. I have two things to say in response. Firstly, I think it may be a bit of an assumption by editors here that Ambrose has specifically made a war crime allegation himself. I'm yet to find and check the source myself, but it seems he presented a section of dialogue in his book, which could be interpreted as implying that war crimes may have taken place. That is very different to saying Ambrose has made any accusations. I would like to rule out putting words into Ambrose's mouth, and any WP:Libel issue that may entail. Secondly, to be fair, I'm not sure that Ambrose can be thrown out because he is not considered a serious academic historian. To use precedent, there are plenty of newspaper articles that Wikipedia quotes for history entries, and these are written by reporters of unknown training and experience, rather than 'serious' academic historians. Thanks again, -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would simply suggest applying the old rule that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If we want to insert a claim that the division committed one of the most serious Allied war crimes during WWII, a truly astounding claim to say the least, we need a much better reference than a vague hint of this happening in one of Ambrose's works. To be clear, I know that Ambrose does not say that directly and that this is only a stretched interpretation of the editor who is trying to incorporate the text shown in the diff. Sourcelat0r (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be of benefit to all to carefully read Wiki's own definition of Wikipedia:Defamation: "In law, defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander (for spoken words), and libel (for written or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant)". Robert Warren Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. For me, the uncertainty is whether or not Wikipedia including a brief mention of the section of the Ambrose book is in any way defamatory of Wikipedia or of Ambrose. Neither Wikipedia (nor Ambrose, I suspect) will be accusing anyone of war crimes. At most Wikipedia will be quoting Ambrose quoting one individual uttering what may or may not have been an allegation, a supposition or a theory, depending on one's interpretation. Its an extremely precise distinction, too precise for me to decide, hence my appeal to moderators. Although the the longer Mariaflores and Bolekpoliva don't sign up to the mediation page, the less likely I'll succeed in getting mediation. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chumchum, there is another issue that should be brought forward, that is, the Wikipedia:Appearance of Impropriety. I am citing it here for the benefit of all: "Appearance of impropriety" is a term often used in reference to a situation whose ethics are deemed questionable. It means that any layperson, without knowledge of the facts, would assume that something he/she saw or heard was inappropriate or a violation of a rule/regulation." In the simplest of terms, it is prudent to ask ourselves, what will the Wiki reader think about otherwise distinguished conduct of the First Polish Armoured Division after reading an entry in this article that is based solely on unverifiable sources which libelously and slanderously suggests otherwise? I sincerely hope, that I am not the only one troubled by this! Best, Robert Warren Doomed Soldiers (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more. And if we consider how more and more frequently we see Wikipedia used as a source in mainstream media, and thus how an allegation like the one above can become an established fact in the public consciousness, then we understand the seriousness of the situation. Sourcelat0r (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point. I will spare you my commentary. What do you think some school kid researching the history Polish Armoured Division will see on Google after searching for the "1st Polish Armoured Division" today? He will see: "History" --> "War Crimes" <-- - "Organization during 1944-45". What do you think 9 out of 10 people unfamiliar with the history of this unit will think after seeing War Crimes? -- Robert Warren Doomed Soldiers (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, to my knowledge history teachers tend to tell pupils not to rely on Wikipedia as a primary authority on any subject, just an indication of what references are available. Unless it is a high-quality WP:Featured article.
Anyway, I think we've eliminated the possibility that a "War Crimes" subheading will be used. I expected at most we'll have "Allegation of War Crimes" or more likely "War Crimes theory". But the most likely, IMO, is one sentence in the larger text with passing mention of the scene Ambrose describes, without us or him alleging anything. As I've said before, I'm not even convinced that it is entirely accurate to say Ambrose is alleging war crimes himself.
Finally, I'm not troubled. I want this article to be held up to the cold light of reason, and I am confident that an objective analysis by a neutral authority is the best way for any prejudice, unfairness or impropriety to come out. In my opinion, only people who are dishonest are scared of the truth. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

[edit]

Dear all, pls take a look at this Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/1st Armoured Division (Poland) and improve on what I have done. I've tried to be as accurate and as fair as possible. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is also worth a read. -Chumchum7 (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boleslav Polivka, Colonel, Österreichisches Bundesheer

[edit]

Bolekpolivka, above you appear to have outed yourself as a serving officer in the Austrian Army. Please could you clarify for us whether or not you have done this? If so, are you attempting to inform us that you are a representative of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Defence, or the Austrian Armed Forces? Is the implication of the information you have offered us that we should expect interest from the public relations departments of these organizations? Many thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just in case you weren't aware of this beforehand, Wikipedia has quite a strict policy on professional boundaries. As a precaution, it may be in your advantage to take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if you havn't had a chance to do so already. Many thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libel and WP:REDFLAG

[edit]

How exactly do people think that these two things apply here? Libel can not apply (even in the hugely unlikely situation that anybody would want to do anything about the statement) as there is nothing to identify any person. As for WP:REDFLAG: "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;" We are dealing with a mainstream source and it is not exactly surprising to hear that Allied troops also committed war crimes. "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;" Given that the likes of Anthony Sawoniuk were welcomed into the Polish army, it's not embarrassing to allege that members of it committed war crimes. "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons." As noted above, at least one convicted war criminal was a member of the Polish army.

These allegations are important and are made in three reliable sources. Readers can judge for themselves whether there is any truth in the allegations or not (I'm firmly in the 'very very little truth if any at all' camp, although I would have to concede that there must certainly have been isolated individual cases of German soldiers being shot rather than taken prisoner and that it is difficult not to see how Waffen SS who spoke fluent Polish (i.e. were most probably Polish) and were taken prisoner by Poles could perhaps have been less than well treated). Varsovian (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Readers can judge for themselves whether there is any truth in the allegations". This may sound good but it is nonsense. Think for a minute, is this is the purpose of an encyclopedia? In each Wikipedia article, should we present a bunch of competing theories and tell the reader: "you decide which is true"?! I certainly hope not. Especially in this case, where it can only be assumed that most readers that access the article will know very little about the division and even WWII in general. They will be in no position to form a reasonable determination whether the allegation is true or not. This is the job of the knowledgeable editors who are writing this article. Sourcelat0r (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"should we present a bunch of competing theories" provided that the points of view / theories / versions of history are well sourced, yes we should present them. Here we have an allegation which, despite in my opinion being most probably untrue, is supported by three reliable sources. Therefore it should be in the article. We can also put in sources which deny that the crime took place (although we'd need to find some first) in order to present both sides. Just deleting the allegations because we find it hard to believe them is hardly encyclopedic!Varsovian (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Varsovian, as you can see above, this subject has been very heavily debated. I launched mediation procedure, but the editors who wanted the allegations included did not take the opportunity to participate. Please launch mediation procedure if you want to reopen this issue. -Chumchum7 (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except finding sources which explicitly deny an outlandish allegation can be very hard. If the allegations are not credible and based on flimsy evidence, they should not be included.
Anyway, what three reliable sources support the allegation? You seem to have miscounted. According to this edit in the revert war, only Ambrose was quoted in support of the "atrocity" theory [2]. Did I miss something?
My viewpoint on this whole issue is simple. This allegation is so excessive that the only source which could possibly support it would be a major book devoted to the Battle of Falaise which in depth, extensively and authoritatively discusses allegations of prisoner killings by Polish forces, with specific details of when/how/who etc., backed with testimony of witnesses or credible documents. Books about other issues which briefly mention in passing allegations, hearsay or rumors swirling around the battlefield at the time just don't cut it. Accusing a military unit of war crimes is a very serious business. The veterans of this unit are alive, thousands of descendants of the veterans of this unit are alive, and such false allegations will be unnecessarily hurtful to them. Including these obscure unproven "facts" in the name of some misguided "completeness", especially as it will be difficult to find sources that explicitly deny them, is just not reasonable. If that is what Wikipedia stands for, then the project is a harmful waste of time.Sourcelat0r (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The living persons issue would make it potentially libellous accusation of murder, regardless of hurt feelings. But there is another issue here, which we keep forgetting. In the first place, did Ambrose specifically say a war crime took place? I don't think so, and I haven't seen any evidence that he did. It seems that at worst, he mentions in passing some battlefield hearsay - which hardly constitutes this historian's allegation. Our claim that he made an allegation would also be a WP:OR issue. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment to the First Canadian Army

[edit]

In the Normandy section it says: "The unit was attached to the First Canadian Army. This may have been done to help in communication, as the vast majority of Poles did not speak English when they arrived in UK from 1940 onwards."

So does this mean that: 1) they wanted the Poles subordinated to an English-speaking unit for command and control purposes, rather than operating independently, or that 2) there were sufficient numbers of Polish-language speakers in the Canadian Army to act as translators?

There's no reference linked to this assertion.

192.0.158.233 (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1st Armoured Division (Poland). 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) 01:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1st Armoured Division (Poland). 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: 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) 22:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1st_Armoured_Division_(Poland)&oldid=1212772881"