Poland Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / Polish / World War II C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Polish military history task force World War II task force

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]