# Talk:Bombing of Wieluń

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I am currently working on a translation of this article for the German Wikipedia, the event is at present covered by a few sentences on Wielun history in the article about the city. Unfortunately, the introducing sentences state that the attack started at 04:40 h, which would make it the first assault in WW2, minutes before the shelling of the Westerplatte. OK, I am ready to accept this, providing some sort of citation. The next citation mark is the Nomination Letter for Nobel Peace Price, which is not at the specified location (Wielun local government site). Not a single word in the following article text confirms this early time of attack, but the Ju 57-B "started from Nieder-Ellguth airfield at 5:02 am". Jet lag??? I could imagine that Poland was simply in another time zone, but around 40 minutes from start at Nieder-Ellguth to the attack of Wielun seems to be a lot of time. Anyway, the article should stick either to attacker's time (some time after 05:02 h means after Westerplatte shelling), or to victim's time. Could somebody with access to reliable sources check this, please? --Cimbail (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

this sentence is incorrect.
"Journalists Sylwia Słomińska and Joachim Trenkner state that there were no military or industrial targets of note in the area,[5][6] except for a small sugar factory in the outskirts of the town. According to the two journalists, German bombers also destroyed the historical gothic church."
firstly journalists are not historians and neither military experts.
secondly a german and a british historian argue otherwise.
so this in nonsense and not encyclopedic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.90.114.46 (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC) 

Journalists aren't as good a source as historians, however they are not unreliable sources. Their opinion is shown with the correct WP:WEIGHT, since it is pointed out that they are only journalists. (Hohum @) 19:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

the sentence "It is considered to be one of the first terror bombings in history and first in Europe in this war.[1]" is wrong.
the definition of terror bombing is "Terror bombing is an emotive term used for aerial attacks planned to weaken or break enemy morale." as you can find it if you follow the link in this very article.
since the bombing of wielun was never planed as such and surely not to weaken or break the enemy morale, it's not terror bombing and absolutely nobody considers it to be the first terror bomb attack in history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.90.114.46 (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC) 

The dozen or so University professors of law, political science, history and philosophy who endorsed the letter, which I have relinked to, don't seem to agree with you. (Hohum @) 19:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
this is so bad. you are some piece of historic revisionists. I'm not going to repeat myself. your letter is no source and of no historic significance. why do you try to write such utter nonsense sentences in the article, with just this on letter as "source". here is the other thing you wrote. so everyone can read.
"me: correct, deleted. this sentence "There were no military targets of any importance in the area.[1]" is wrong. the fact that at least two notable historians argue otherwise is enough. (Boog and Smith). as for the source, I can't even find it and even if this nobel eace price letter would exist, it would only be a viable source if it is based on original research. so this is not encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.90.114.46 (talk)
you: Thread necromancy is bad. This is an eight year old conversation. I have fixed the nobel link. You will note it is signed by over a dozen university professors of law, political science, history and philosophy. (Hohum @) 19:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
me: are you shitting me? this letter is of no historic importance whatsoever. written in hindsight by poles to nominate themselves for a nobel peace price which they didn't get. on top of that it's full of historic errors and the fact that all kinds of polish politicians and professors signed it makes it even more hilarious. this is not a source. not even close. stop linking to it and search for a real source. not this bitter, self-pitying attempt to get a price for such a non story. there is no original research, no sources given. no facts, just blah blah. deleted. 109.90.114.46 (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)"
so either you come up with a source (which you can't since there are non to back up your nonsense sentences) or you stop this edit war and go to a university to study some history instead, then you can come back to me. but be warned. every history prof will kick your butt if you try to show them your laughable sources and you nonsensical sentences. 
like: 
1. "first terror bombings in history". wow what a nonsense. it's not the first terror bombing in history. nobody ever claimed that. you made this up. and what a shitty statement that is.
this sentence alone completely discredits you. oh and there is no source for this claim as well. but well.. as if..
2. it's not even terror bombing. just read the link to "terror bombing". a mentally challenged person can figure rather quickly that your sentence and the link "terror bombing" in this very article, don't match at all. how can you even pretend that it's terror bombing when non of the criteria fulfilled?
3. "There were no military targets" really? but 3 serious historians say otherwise. all of them experts in the field and all of them studied this case.
so you have no problem claiming the opposite of what they say. can I get your name please? maybe you are such a great historian that I missed out on some of your papers and books. no?
4. "Journalists Sylwia Słomińska and Joachim Trenkner state that there were no military or industrial targets of note in the area,[5][6] "
this is so bad too. the first link is dead and the second is a newspaper article from 2008 written by some idiot who got his "facts" probably from this very wikipedia article. there are no sources no original research. also journalists are not historical sources if they are not witnesses themselves. 
you can't quote journalists and make it look like a historic fact. does this even have to be said? by good is this awful.
this article is badly written and the sentences I deleted considerably improved it and made it more neutral. other people also complained and you seem to be the problem here.
why do you defend this nonsense? I have never come across such a bad article on wikipedia. you are holding down the standards and you try to revise history. why do you still insist that the stupid sentences are included? are you polish by any chance? what are your reasons?  109.90.114.46 (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

this is not the first terror bombing in history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_bombing#Terror_bombing
Swunt10 (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for other articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
it's not a terror bombing because terror bombing is something completely different, as you can read in the wikipedia article or any other encyclopedia. you can't just pretend something is a terror bombing even if it's clearly not. so make an effort and stop reverting my changes or come up with a source (and not a dead link again, I'm sick of deleting this nonsense link to nowhere) that is clearly based on more information than 3 expert historians who studied this incident and published their work.  Swunt10 (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The supporting source says otherwise. Your personal opinion on what constitutes a terror bombing isn't relevant. (Hohum @) 15:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Reverted per WP:BRD. Please gain consensus before trying to make your changes again. (Hohum @) 15:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

the 3 supporting sources say I'm right and it isn't a terror bombing. your personal opinion and the unfounded personal opinions of your "sources"  are the problem.
I haven't used my personal opinion yet. but 3 historians who looked into this say you are wrong. so why do you insist using the mayor of wielun's opinon in the inroduction instead of the secondary sources of 3 historians WP:WEIGHT?  exactly, because of your personal opinion. Swunt10 (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

this sentence: 
"Journalists Sylwia Słomińska and Joachim Trenkner state that there were no military or industrial targets of note in the area,[5][6] except for a small sugar factory in the outskirts of the town. According to the two journalists, German bombers also destroyed the historical gothic church."
is just strange. 'no military targets' but then this is followed by 'except'? and how is a sugar factory a military target?
this whole sentence doesn't make sense.
also the first link is dead and modern journalists are not credible sources for historic events. 
credible sources use original research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
since there are published OR sources they must be used. 

Boog, p. 136
Smith, 2007. p. 23
Cynk, p. 74
you are only allowed to use NOR if there are no OR. Swunt10 (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Media stories are reliable sources. I've just reverted your deletions. Please take the time to review WP:RS and WP:V. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
wrong. if 3 historians who are experts in the field say there where military targets and one journalist writes an article in a polish paper claiming there weren't, you can't just ignore the original research and write some nonsense that some guy without qualifications made up. Swunt10 (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
From a military point of view: If you have intelligence reports about military units in this location you will try to attack the reported location. The int report may have been wrong or outdated but as military commander you have to act upon the information you have. What makes the actions around Wielun strange is the alleged bombing of the inner city on the first runs, not a location more outside (as you won't expect a cavalry unit to be stationed inside a city, especially if they were already on alert from german actions at the borders). AFAIR the city bombing was later done with level bombers but not with Stukas. BTW a city near a frontline has multiple military targets, especially communications and roads/rails. Although if very close to the frontline I'd wanted to capture road/rail intact so they don't slow down my advance.

Between all the propaganda from both sides it's not really easy to get the truth. Especially in post-WW2 the Soviet were great in blaming others for their actions (Katyn) or greatly inflate actions done by Nazi Germany. If you had ever seen the communist-influenced TV programs of the GDR you would have got the impression only soldiers from West Germany were fighting in the Wehrmacht (just stated as an example). --Denniss (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
well they bombed the western part of the town on the first run. Wieluń had 13k inhabitants in 1931. so it's basically a small village. it doesn't need a lot of bombing to destroy such a small area. the second and third waves simply orientated themselves on the smoke and fire as they usually did. add to that the ground fog and bed wether and it's not such a big mystery. Swunt10 (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
If two journalists say one thing, and three historians say another, you give the correct WP:WEIGHT to their comments by pointing out their credentials, not ignoring them. (Hohum @) 15:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Reverted per WP:BRD. Please gain consensus before trying to make your changes again. (Hohum @) 15:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I have reached consensus with the rest of the intelligent world and everyone who has a brain. you are really taxing, I can tell you that. if you try to post this dead link nonsense again I'm going to explode. I fucking deleted this stupid dead link 4 times. are you completely advice resistant? make some effort and stop posting dead links. 
also if you want to give weight to one  (not two, and even if) journalist against 3, in words three, historians who've done original research, then I can help you. it's zero to a million and you can ask anyone on the planet if I'm right.
every idiot without any qualifications can write whatever he wants in any 'paper'.
but luckily there are sources which use original research so we use them and not made up nonsense. agreed?
this not not about religion, where everyone has a different opinion. this is about a fact. there is only one right and many wrongs.
to go even further. the rev 1. namely the nobel piece price letter. is no a letter FROM the nobel piece price people. it's a letter FROM some poles from wielun, trying to get attention from the nobel piece price people (and failed). this is not a source. it's story telling a la post-soviet polish victim myth.
local patriotism at it's best. they would like to be important that's why they wrote this letter.  in this letter they claim that "The town of Wieluń along with Warsaw and Westerplatte remain symbols" "towns around the world fell victim to similar atrocities with tragedies of Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki"
yeah right, wielun right next to hiroshima and dresden^^. but nobody except a few people who studied the history of aviation warfare ever heard of the bombing of wielun. this letter is clearly over simplified and over dramatic to get attention. it is no really about the history anyway, it's about the international cultural work of the town. the history part is just a pre-text. and you still insist of using this as the only source?
it's just story telling without sources or facts. full of errors.
like in the letter they claim that 75% of the city center got destroyed but in the article here it says 90% of the city center got destroyed. but the best part is that this claim uses the article as reverence^^LOL. great stuff. really nice article, this one. it's so fucked up, it starts to get funny again.
another thing, nobody outside of wielun considers this to be terror bombing nor does anyone consider it to be the first terror bombing.
you can't write "It is considered to be one of the first terror bombings in history" just because people from wielun wrote that in a letter to get attention from potential tourists.
it is not considered to be anything but nonsense. this is not a reliable source and the whole sentence is attention seeking bullshit. 
this is not the first terror bombing in history and it's not even terror bombing by the very definition of terror bombing itself.
so which part didn't you understand? if it would be considered terror bombing why do notably historians (all of them) disagree? Swunt10 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You have no consensus here. You have been reverted by others as well. Learn how wikipedia operates. Also obey WP:CIVIL or you will likely get banned from editing.
I have linked the remaining dead link to an archive version of the page.
Tirades and rants will get you nowhere fast. Act in a collegiate manner or go and do something else. (Hohum @)
historians and academics have reached consensus a long time ago, so who do you think you are to make your own little version of history? the wikipedia 'personal opinion' and 'two unreliable letters from nobodys are better than three original research sources from academics if it suits me' god? what did you study to be qualified enough to rewrite history? who made you the master of wikipedia anyway? you can't even tell the difference of quality of a source between a journalist who is known for nothing and uses causual language and didn't study history, and 3 historians who are experts in aviation and military history.  do you really think the mayor of wielun or the journalist he paid are reliable sources, given that they wanted a nobel piece price by writing a letter to the nobel piece price people? this letter is written by an amateur who uses words like "terror bombing" and "carpet bombing" as synonyms. so you take his ill chosen words over that of experts who know the definition of the words they use? a letter from nobody filled with typical polish regional patriotism is what you call a source of historical importance? and you favour this ? is this wikipedia or a polish small town rumours page.  the fact that there are 3 sources (and a journalists without education and historical knowledge is not a source if there are real sources otherwise I could start writing about ufos here as well) and explained it logically is enough. that you ignore these sources and go with whatever your opinion is is just bad. this article seems to be written by children and wanna be historians and the anti intellectual attitude here is unbearable.
just read the other comments here in the talk page. you think you are in the majority? why is everyone constantly complaining about this article since 10 years. everyone writes that this article is biased, RfC: Neutrality issues, This articles neutrality is under dispute aso.
so give me one reason why you ignore the historians and go with letters by nobodies who haven't thought about the words they used for one second?
just one reason. if you can't find a reason to ignore the historians than we seriously HAVE to change the introduction. your personal opinion, some journalists personal opinions and that of our hardcore german hater, polish nationalist  Xx236 doesn't count. we have experts who looked into this and used original research. they are what this article should be based upon. a neutral language is to prefer anyway. and you can't link to the wiki page for 'terror bombing' when it's clearly not terror bombing. everyone who clicks the links will be confused.  Swunt10 (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus-based editing: please see WP:CONSENSUS. If you don't want to write in such an environment then you should not be contributing here (though judging from your comments above I suspect that this isn't your first account). Carrying on does not help your case. I note that the description of this bombing given as a caption in the Bundeswehr Military History Museum describes it as a "violation of international law" and states that the town was unprepared for the raid as war had not been declared at the time it occurred. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
it is my first account. but probably the last time I use wikipedia. "Carrying on does not help your case.". really? maybe you should read WP:CONSENSUS. I and 3 historians get ignored here and mister hohum is absolutely advise resistant. so where is my compromise WP:EDITCONSENSUS ? you guys invent and rewrite history as it pleases you. the consensus shouldn't based on ignoring everybody and writing bullshit. the introduction of this article says "It is considered to be one of the first terror bombings in history". so where is your source? I can give you 3 sources that say it isn't. neither the first nor a terror bombing.
Boog, p. 136
Smith, 2007. p. 23
Cynk, p. 74
your "source" (lets call it that since everyones opinion is clearly equal or should we wait until the ufo people also come along?)
is written by the mayor of wielun in 2009. the sentence that you use as reverence comes after this^^ "Nazi bombs destroyed the town rendering it the first casualty and victim of World War II, the greatest and bloodiest injustice in the history of mankind"
how unbiased is this, right? what a great source.^^
the sentence it self is this "The bombing of Wieluń had gone down in history as one of the first terror bombings. "
but this is wrong isn't it. where did it go down? in history? what history? if this is the only collection of words that you have as source than I might intervene with my sources that say it isn't.
but my sources are historians so why didn't it go down on them? maybe they all missed the order given by the mayor of wielun.
this is NOT considered the first terror bombing in history and it is gone down in history as not a terror bombing.
so where is my compromise or do the laws of wikipedia just apply to others? especially to you? I want my compromise and I want people with a brain to negotiate with me.
people who can properly WP:WEIGHT sources. differentiating between nonsense and accurate sources.
in conclusion.
it's not terror bombing and it's not considered the fist by anyone. so can we finally delete it or do we want to talk about it some more?
but apart from wikipedia subscribers most people are not unemployed and time is precious. Swunt10 (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you keep rereading WP:CIVIL, WP:RELIABLE and, WP:WEIGHT until you understand them. It's currently clear that you don't. WP:TLDR is also worth a try. (Hohum @) 18:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
there you are again. my favorite history revisionist hohum. you keep posting these links and suggesting that I should read them. that's so kind of you. may I point out that you should read them first?
May I quote from WP:RELIABLE. 

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
do you understand that? not any old third party sources, but the ones with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, they should be used. you know, like real historians who use original research and are accountable for what they write (third party) and not completely made up opinions from guys who use nothing but their own wishes and hopes 60 years after it happened, like the mayor from wielun who would like to be famous and win a nobel price. this is part of WP:THIRDPARTY 

"A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered"
this excludes the mayor who tried to get a nobel price by calling the bombing "the greatest and bloodiest injustice in the history of mankind"  clearly not independent. or may I quote from WP:NPOV 

"When there is a potential conflict of interest, identifying the connection between the source and topic is important" you know the mayor of wielun and the guy who is the mayor of wielun^^ making him a suspicious source.  or WP:UNDUE
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views."
you know what's undue weight? calling the bombing "the first terror bombing in history" in the introduction/summery of the article. this clearly violates 

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias".
but how can I argue with the guy who wrote the article and expect that he agrees that what he wrote is nonsense and wrong?
of course you will say "no I'm perfect, this is my article, you go away and let me be self-righteous" 
you call this terror bombing even though historians say it isn't. you even dare to call it the first ever terror bombing, which is so outrageously stupid, that it actively insults every person who ever died by bombs and their relatives. trying to profit from bombs and dead.. wow. and you even got the balls to put this into the introduction. making it look like an undisputed fact for everyone who reads it. how low is that? 
now can I finally delete this nonsense or can you come up with anything remotely conform with wiki rules? but it better be good because right now it's personal opinions from biased sources against common sense :(calling something ""The bombing of Wieluń had gone down in history as one of the first terror bombings. " even though it clearly isn't and you will find no reverence anywhere, especially since terror bombing is really hard to judge and calling something first is childish in every way")
and 3 historians who are credible third party sources.
the polish wiki article is better than this one. that says something about the quality of the works you try to defend.
Swunt10 (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

More misplaced condescension, abuse and ranting. It's not convincing. (Hohum @) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
then you should stop to play a foul, the logic is clear and simple, or you still need to learn to comprehend written text, I don't know where your problem is. maybe it's WP:TLDR but you are hopefully not a teenager so I expect some niveau.  you can't argue with arguments and you can't argue against my arguments. so you clearly lost the argument. your text violates WP:UNDUE. I expect that this problem gets resolved by someone. I can't do it since you refuse WP:CON. playing stonewall is a great way for children and woman to handle an argument, but it's not really grown up. ignoring my points of concern and dismiss them out of hand, so you don't need to accept that your personal opinions i.e. the articles introduction text, are wrong. luckily you kept posting these helpful links to me ( WP:RELIABLE WP:WEIGHT so I could quote to you from them, just strange that you still can't accept wiki rules. it's so clear. but somehow "not convincing" to you. mhh  Swunt10 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion civil. I don't like the current state of the article, especially the intro sentences stating something as fact that's not shown as "fact" in the other versions of the event" section (should be changed to "some authors claim). Also of note are the time differences between the alleged bombing and the time of take-off. I assume there was an 1-hour difference between local time and the Berlin-time (similar to NATO zulu-time) used by the Wehrmacht. Add to this the 4:40 AM bombing time and 5:02 take-off with 20 min later arriving over Wielun. I'd call "hitting the hospital first" either a communist propaganda or an extreme occurance due to target misidentifications, that's wasn't a standard target or standard procedure by the Luftwaffe to hit those kind of civil buildings. The last sentence in "Events" claims a gothic church destroyed yet the section has an image made from a church tower and showing another intact church on the left and one possible more in the left background. --Denniss (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
well it seems like hohum has given up or he is trying to stonewall against (others already complained that he does that), so I'm going to change the introduction tomorrow from this 
"It is considered to be one of the first terror bombings in history and first in Europe in this war."
to this
"It is considered to be one of the first bombings in Europe in this war"
and this as the source.  http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/we-must-not-forget-the-real-causes-of-the-war-1778973.html
any objections? 
somebody should also definitely check and compare the times mentioned.
Swunt10 (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I can live with with that change. I'd prefer if you reigned back on the personal attacks though; I have asked this several times. Having other things to do is not stonewalling. (Hohum @) 17:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Coming to this article by chance, I'm surprised at the level of emotion here after all the time that has gone by since 1939. Most people alive then will be dead by now. I agree with Hohum that there should be more civility here. By now the article seems to contain mainly undisputed facts at the beginning, with opinions and interpretations given later, which I think is right. I suggest changing "Other version of the events" to "Interpretations of the events", and under this title could be presented the different possible interpretations: (a) that it was a deliberate bombing of civilians, and (b) that it was an attack on a military target that went wrong for some reason. I don't suppose we have any way of finding out for sure which is the correct interpretation. Torve (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Do it! (Hohum @) 18:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
FWIW I thought the 1st terror bombings occurred in the 1st world war. Possibly over London by Zeppelins in 1915. I may be wrong. I seem to remember reading about Italians bombing Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935. Clearly the victims, having never seen a plane, let alone a bomb falling from the sky would have been in a state of terror. I.e. maybe you're all dancing around semantics.1812ahill (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There were infantry and cavalry divisions in the town. (213.122.111.142 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

German intelligence thought they were there but it's not known if they were really there. It's possible some units were stationed there in peacetime.--Denniss (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The thread started here is a long-term ban evader and troll Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's misleading to say there were no military targets when there were reports of an infantry division and a cavalry brigade. That is what the Luftwaffe was sent to bomb. (EmileMeyer (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC))

And I have a report about German sockpuppets of the same value.Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hans-Erich Volkmann: Wolfram von Richthofen, die Zerstörung Wieluńs und das Kriegsvölkerrecht. In: Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift 70 (2011), S. 287–328. Xx236 (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The German page is more anti-Nazi than this one.Xx236 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Polish historian Jerzy B. Cynk, author of "The Polish Air Force at War: The Official History 1939-1943", wrote about the events: "Numerous direct support missions were also flown, with the heaviest attacks directed against the Polish cavalry and troop concentrations at Wielun. (213.122.111.175 (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC))

ISBN and page number? (Hohum @) 12:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bombing of Wieluń. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222154840/http://www.historiawielunia.gazetawielunska.pl:80/1_wrzesnia_1939.html to http://www.historiawielunia.gazetawielunska.pl/1_wrzesnia_1939.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.france24.com/en/20090818-world-war-ii-where-did-combat-start
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) 17:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bombing of Wieluń. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317212148/http://schron.szczecin.pl/files/artykul-wielun.pdf to http://www.schron.szczecin.pl/files/artykul-wielun.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105195335/http://www.historia.wielunia.webpark.pl/1wrzesnia2.html to http://www.historia.wielunia.webpark.pl/1wrzesnia2.html
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) 16:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, on 1st Sept WCB was engaged in the battle of Mokra. That is about ~50km away from Wielun. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed from Further reading. Pls see de.wiki article: Cajus Bekker. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The article recounts the POV of Horst Boog (with a supporting role by some Peter C. Smith, publishing with non-academic publisher Classic publications, and some apparent hearsay about some Jerzy B. Cynk). The article fails to make use of de:Hans-Erich Volkmann: Wolfram von Richthofen, die Zerstörung Wieluńs und das Kriegsvölkerrecht, in: Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift (2011), vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 287–328. In this article, based on numerous primary and secondary sources, Volkmann comes to the conclusion that commanding officer Wolfram von Richthofen ordered the attack on the town to try the effectiveness of the Ju 87 in combat. Boog is a respected historian and his opinion is certainly relevant, although he has chosen to publish in the collection of essays Kriegsverbrechen in Europa und im Nahen Osten im 20. Jahrhundert, a publication with a partially revisionist outlook, which has received very poor reviews. But Volkmann's article adds importantly to the knowledge about the attack. I do not have Volkmann's article at hand right now, so I leave this note.--Assayer (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

By whom?Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Relevant (in Polish): [1]. "12. Śledztwo w sprawie zabójstwa przez lotników niemieckich w dniu 1 września 1939 roku, podczas bombardowania miasta, 32 pacjentów Szpitala w Wieluniu oraz kilkuset Polaków i Żydów, którzy zginęli w innych miejscach podczas bombardowania miasta, to jest o zbrodnię nazistowską stanowiącą zbrodnię wojenną (S 10.2004.Zn)." (Long title). Summary of key points: 1) identified German units and commanders involved 2) there were no Polish military units on 1st Sept or in the prior day in the town or its vicinity 3) number of fatalities is estimated at "few hundred". Cited number 1,200 is incorrect and exaggerated (our article gives 1,300...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No military unit in city - was this checked just +/- 1 day from the actual attack? The german intellicence report (claiming a unit there) may have been older as the initial attack was planned for August 26 but then delayed to September 1. Given the current polish government how reliable is this report ?--Denniss (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The IPN (from 2016 it is better than 2018, but still "cloudy") - should be used with great care. I will note that the IPN actually may be lowballing the casulty number - as they look at this from the point of view of a criminal investigation - they tend to stick to 99%+ confirmed estimates - leading to low "at least" estimates (sources looking at this from a non-criminal POV will often include likely casulties (e.g. 50%) in their estimates). It is also a PRIMARY source. It is best, in this case, to rely on SECONDARY sources from mainstream historians from an uninvolved party - and per NOENG preferring English sources of the same quality over non-English ones.Icewhiz (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm afraid, having tried to turn it into a more neutral, objective article, it's now been skewed again with heavy use of a IPN sources, exaggerated claims ("historians claimed categorically", "historical research decisively concluded") and emotive language ("Nazi propaganda", "terror bombing"). It's difficult, because there aren't many sources and they appear to be biased, but we could at least handle them more objectively in the text as I tried to do before. I've reverted the latest series of edits by @MyMoloboaccount: and encouraged him to discuss them under the WP:BRD rule, but he's ignored that, reverted my reversion and ploughed on. I'll place a neutrality tag on the article until this is sorted out. Bermicourt (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
First, unless we have sources saying that the Nazi Germans made the attack based on reports older than one day or such, this is OR speculation. Second, IPN is still quite reliable, because again, criticism of it is primarily OR. I am not fond of the current Polish government, but I am not aware of any serious academic criticism of IPN reliability. Also, IPN is an historical research institution and its findings are about as secondary as anything else published by an academic publisher. I don't have an opinion on the possible neutrality language issues mentioned above, but frankly, if there are issues here, they generally tend to relate to German Nazi apologetic trying to justify war crimes. Some Polish sources may have exaggerated casualty count, and here the IPN's lower estimate serves as a nice example that they are trying to be objective, not pushing some POV.  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I've done a c/e of the article, verifying what I could with the refs; some are not online/linked or are in German. The only NPOV issue remaining seems to be the use of the term "terror bombing", but this is sourced to an (online) German book, and I don't read German, so I can't comment whether this is the accurate term/translation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I will expand the article further during next few days, as I have acquired more literature on this subject.IPN is a highly reliable source towards Nazi atrocities.For the record Muller and Boog have highly fringe views, Muller states that Nazis respected Hague convention in Invasion of Poland, Poland should have agreed to become Nazi puppet state, and that Allies were "perpetrators" in air war while Germans victims.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What are reliable sources for the presence of Polish military target? In [2], a web article by Sylwia Słomińska, there is a quoted report of a German pilot: "while a German pilot reported that he was "only attacking soldiers" and that "nothing was left of the Polish cavalry brigade." She also debunks this claim by saying 'there were no military targetsand the pilot was clearly wrong'. Unfortunately, she does not use inline citations, and I couldn't find information on her academic credentials, the only redeeming grace for this source is that it is published on the pages of Lodz University, but other than that it seems 'just a webpage', and certainly is not peer reviewed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

So... anyone? I've found a bit, and all of this seems to be attributed to a report by the pilot Oskar Dinort: Mike Guardia (20 July 2014). Junkers Ju 87 Stuka. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 50–. ISBN 978-1-4728-0121-0. (also cites a German intelligence report about Polish units north of the city), Richard Hargreaves (2008). Blitzkrieg Unleashed: The German Invasion of Poland, 1939. Stackpole Books. pp. 116–. ISBN 978-0-8117-0724-4. (notes that Polish and German historians disagree on presence of military targets), Chris McNab (20 November 2012). Hitler’s Eagles: The Luftwaffe 1933–45. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 262–. ISBN 978-1-78200-311-3. (also notes a reconnaissance report).
That said, majority sources I see seem to agree the bombing was of civilians, not military. Here's another source from a reputable scholar, Timothy Snyder: Timothy Snyder (2 October 2012). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. Basic Books. p. 119. ISBN 978-0-465-03297-6. The Germans had chosen a locality bereft of military significance as the site of a lethal experiment. Could a modern air force terrorize a civilian population by deliberate bombing?. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
One more thing: I google translated the German article, it pretty much agrees with our version, the only difference is it cites German sources only. It cites only one source for the 'military targets were present': "The purpose of the attack is controversial among historians. Rolf-Dieter Müller argues that the Luftwaffe wanted to eliminate military targets in order to gain immediate effect on the battlefield. In Wieluń on 31 August a Polish division and a cavalry brigade had been identified, to which the attacks would have applied. But because of ground fog these goals were missed. The attack on Wieluń was therefore not a planned terrorist attack despite the devastating effect." (Rolf-Dieter Müller: Der Bombenkrieg 1939–1945 , Ch. Links Verlag , Berlin 2004, ISBN 978-3-86153-317-7 , S. 54; Horst Boog: Bombenkriegslegenden , in: Militärgeschichtliche Beiträge 9/1995, S. 22.). Then it proceeds to cite the German historians we already cite (Jochen Böhler and Hans-Erich Volkmann) who favor the theory that the bombing of the town was a test of German airforce power.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
This is clearly a key question and links to others like "what was the mission?" There must have been one. Where are the Polish military reports of the units that might have been in the vicinity? They would surely have reported any enemy sightings or engagements? And is there any evidence for the theory about it being a 'test of German airpower'. Why would they need to bomb a town to prove that? Again the mission statement would have said something like "Mission: to destroy enemy forces within 5 km of Wielun" or "Mission: to destroy the town of Wielun in order to..."  As I mentioned below, many of the cited sources don't say where their information or theories come from, which isn't helpful. And we'd probably have to go to national archives to find the contemporary sources. Meanwhile, the language used in the article needs to reflect all this uncertainty, claim and counter-claim... and thank you for helping with that. Bermicourt (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
As an aside, @Piotrus:, I can translate any German sources and, with your knowledge of Polish, we can get an accurate understanding of what they're saying. Bermicourt (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The article clearly has a neutrality issue - witness the discussions on this talk page - but I am confident it can be resolved. To do that we need to be careful how we cite the sources. For example: it's okay to say "German intelligence reports identified Polish units here and here" while "the local Polish newspaper reported that German planes bombed the police station" or whatever. It's also okay to say "German historians generally take the line that... while Polish research suggests the other".  What we can't do is say "the Germans bombed a Polish brigade in the town" citing one or two German sources or "research has proven beyond doubt that there were no Polish units in the area" citing only one or two Polish sources. That's unbalanced and misleading. We also need to be sure that the sources quoted actually say what we're implying. I checked one source at random and it didn't seem to back the text at all. Come on guys, we can do this. Bermicourt (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"it's okay to say "German intelligence reports identified Polish units here and here" " - yes, it's okay to say that, but only if you have reliable sources which state it. You can't just add because "you think so" (or based on unreliable sources)
Ditto for "German historians generally take the line that... while Polish research suggests the other"
In regard to the latter, we actually can't say that as its pretty clear that the split isn't along German-Polish historians line. For example, Jochen Böhler is a German historian and his conclusion is no different from that of many Polish historians. Likewise, I'm assuming that Hans-Erich Volkmann is a German historian and the same is true for him as well.
On the other hand, we do have a far-right historian, Horst Boog, who also tries to justify other Nazi atrocities, such as the Bombing of Guernica.
So the split isn't "Polish vs. German", it's "far-right vs. non-far-right".
And we DON'T say ""research has proven beyond doubt that there were no Polish units in the area" citing only one or two Polish sources". That's a strawman.
And if you checked some sources and it didn't support the text, then you need to be specific.
Most of your complaint then involves the fact that the article does not represent your own original research. The rest of your complaint is ambiguous. Until you correct these deficiencies in your objections, your tag is spurious and I'm removing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I have already removed the 'beyond the doubt' expression (and several others you've identified previously) as I concur they were not neutral. But I don't see such problems with the current revision. As I believe all language issues have been resolved, I don't see the need for the tag. Sources review, formatting, verification and attribution may require a bit more trouble but again, during my c/e two days ago I checked all the facts that were verifiable. I don't see any red flags here, except that we are missing any reliable sources for the claim that Germans thought there were some military units there. We have reliable sources to deny this claim, but nothing for it (which I think is an oversight, but I didn't have the time to look for such sources, which in any case I suspect would be obsolete and unreliable - since I have no reason to doubt IPN's 2017 findings). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Piotrus:. I have concerns about some of the sources. Most of them are written 70 to 80 years after the event. Few of them refer to any primary sources such as contemporary military and civilian records; one wonders if they're just quoting each other. The figures of casualties and percentage of the town destroyed vary from source to source with no explanation ( one source appears to misquote another in saying 90% of the town was destroyed whereas another says it was 70% of the town and 90% of the town centre). The 2009 Independent newspaper article, cited 3 times, is journalese and hardly authoritative. I'm not as confident as you are in the IPN's findings; one could almost predict the conclusions of modern-day research by a Polish organisation into the bombing of a Polish town by Nazi Germany. And there are no references to either German or Polish military records. It relates to the first of three key questions: what was the purpose of the mission? Was there a 'soft' military target in or around the town? Was the town just used as target practice? Was it "terror bombing" as the article claims? Or was it actually a mistake, like the bombing of Croydon? We don't seem to really know the answers, but the article takes a particular line. There are other key questions: what was the weather like? Could the pilots identify their targets in every case? (in other words, was it cold-blooded killing and destruction?) What were the actual casualty figures? The level of destruction? I have no axe to grind here; as a Brit, I'm grateful for the outstanding support of the Polish during the Second World War and grateful to Germany for joining NATO and defending the West during the Cold War. I just want to find out the facts of this interesting but tragic event and portray them faithfully in the article. If the sources vary or are unsafe or if the facts are unclear, we should say so. We should not, for example, quote the words of a 2009 British journalist as if they were eye witness facts. Bermicourt (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Piotrus, I've just seen your comments in the section above which address some of this stuff. I'll respond there. Bermicourt (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: That sources vary is a common occurrence. I'd very much like to find a recent scholarly works that attempts to engage various viewpoints and estimates, but as often is the case, such a source is lacking. I also agree that the sources cited and available online sadly don't seem to rely sufficiently on primary sources, and as usual they have substandard inline references, alas, there is little we can do but work with what we have. I am not particularly concerned with variations in estimates as to the casualties/buildings, we can just cite the most reliable range. The 2009 newspaper is an article written by a historian who is an expert in EE/WWII history, Norman Davies, so I am not particularly concerned with it, plus I don't think it is being used for anything controversial. As for IPN, until I see a scholarly analysis of its (recent?) lack of reliability, it remains a reliable source. More so than the sources associated with claiming there were military units there, some of which seem to have ties with neo-Nazis/right wing factions. You ask good questions, but again, the sources are lacking (through IPN does a good job at discussing casualties). I do believe the article represents the sources correctly; as having read a dozen or so cited accounts (and having found several of them), it seems that majority of historians (including, please note, German historians) agree there were no military targets of value in the town, and that it was destroyed to test tactics/weaponry. Again, I too would very much like to see more details on what primary sources revealed - those reports about Polish  military units, etc. There may be some of that in the German-language sources we've identified and are referencing, but since I don't read German, I can't really help that much. As for Polish sources, here's a bit more that I've found online:
[3]: Jan Książek: Cel zniszczony, z dzienników wojennych Waltera Siegla i Kurta Hartmana, s. 45. , „Siódma Prowincja” 2005, nr 3-4. SP is/was a regional Polish magazine. ([4]). The author, JK, is/was a director of the pl:Muzeum Ziemi Wieluńskiej w Wieluniu, through he doesn't have a doctorate of history (seems just a masters), and is an author of several books (and likely articles) about regional history. The article argues that this bombing was the first terror bombing, cites 3 other Polish scholars and 1 German supporting this, and 1 German opposing this (all German sources in Polish translation, perhaps the author doesn't read German). What's perhaps is more interesting here is that the article discusses new primary sources that were obtained by the museum - war diaries of German pilot Kurt Hartmann. Summarizing, part of the bombing group task was to bomb part (eastern) of Wielun itself where German intelligence suspected some Polish military HQ was located. He also confirms no AA fire. The museum also obtained German photos of the town's destruction, some are reproduced in the article. Then the article discusses the destruction, not in % but just in terms of notable buildings destroyed/damaged.
[5] (pdf): this is seems to be a Polish-language military history journal by Mateusz Jan Piątkowski , a scholar from Faculty of Law and Administration (let's not get into 'but he is not a historian', he does historical research, the name of his department is not that important, I am an academic, I can attest to that). Anyway his research is on legal aspects of warfare (see this is English). First, the article discusses (with footnotes) location of nearby Polish military units. There were some nearby, few kilometers, not that uprising as the border with Germany was about that far. But no military units were present in the city, through the Germans thought otherwise. The paper, like later IPN,  notes the death toll was lower than often reported, and actually cites 75% of buildings destroyed and 127 facilities (like IPN, it notes that bigger estimates include fatalities outside the town and incurred over several days of hostilities, including nearby bombings of other towns/villages). The article discusses also whether the term terror bombing/attack, as defined by the art. 22 of Hague conventions on aerial warfare from 1923 is applicable, and concludes that it is impossible to say whether it was, or wasn't a terror attack, leaning towards 'wasn't', due to the lack of documents that suggest primary aim of the operation was destruction of civilian property/lives. However, it also states that there are grounds, through no sure proof, to support claims that a more hidden aim of the attack was to test German weapons/tactics. It concludes that the attack violated numerous international laws, particularly related to humanitarian values and proportional damage. The concluding sentence of the article states that is seems likely that the destruction of the suspected Polish cavalry/hq in the city was not a real object, but rather, a cover story to justify the destruction of the town, for the real, but not officially confirmed, goal of testing strategy/weapons. That said, the article, as far as I can tell after skimming it, does not discuss this 'conspiracy theory' at all outside the conclusion, which strikes me as a bit weird (I did search for some keywords and read intro and the last few pages, but I don't feel like reading it line by line).
Tadeusz Olejnik. Wieluń polska Guernica, 2004 book (pdf for 2009 edition, worldcat). Author is a Polish historian, also a director of the Wielun museum (pl:Tadeusz Olejnik). Confirms that there were no military units in the town (through some passed through in the weeks prior, again, it was a border town). It cites some Polish witness accounts of the destruction, and a (different, I think) German pilot account which reported 'fires in the parts of the town were Polish units were supposed to be'. It repeats 75% estimate for buildings destruction, and the 1,200 civilian fatalities (there are numerous footnotes to other sources). From page, there's is a brief discussion of the reasons, and the author thinks the terror aspect (psychological warfare) was primary reason, with testing of the new German planes/weapons, second. He then discusses the lack of military importance of the town for German army, and then cites the German pilot account about the cavalry presence, noting that it was a clear error (fabrication), and attributing it to purposeful disinformation, to mask the reality that the Germans bombed a civilian target. An interesting argument is that the bombing (which had several waves) was followed, after first wave, by German reconaissance planes which reported Polish military nearby (but not in) the town, and he concludes that the fact that the German bombers were not rerouted to target military, but were told to continue bombing the town, is a proof that the goal was the destruction of the town, not of military targets. Then there is a lengthy discussion on the time of the attack (apparently some historians disagree(d) about some specific minutes), a bit about the legal aspects, and the book ends with praise for some German historians which accept various facts (like the number of casualties, or that there were no military units).
Bottom line, unless one thinks that the entirety of Polish scholarship up to date is hiding / falsifying information, it seems obvious there were no military units in the city. German intelligence thought otherwise (wrongly... cough, Iraq, cough), and bombed the town. One pilot thought he saw military units in the city, other(s) did not, there was no AA fire, it's rather clear that the one pilot who thought he saw military targets either was simply mistaken, or lied in his report to claim credit/glory (this is not my OR, this was suggested in some English language sources I read and I think probably is already cited, through not for that fact). The only think that might warrant further analysis is the 'conspiracy theory' about the real motives for the bombing, and how to phrase it neutrally (note that not a single source uses the term conspiracy theory, I just chose it for a simplification, and that the claims about the real motives being terror/testing are repeated by numerous reliable sources). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I've read a number of sources, and I don't think there's much else (except the 2009 book by Janusz Wróbel, ed., that's not available online or anywhere near me in the library). As such I think the article is now comprehensive and reasonably neutral. I'd invite User:Volunteer Marek, User:Nihil novi and User:Poeticbent, all interested in Polish WWII issues, to give it a read for prose/etc. Of course anyone else is welcome to comment/edit. I think we can nominate this for WP:GAN in the near future? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Try Wieluń – 1 IX 1939 r. Bombardowanie miasta a międzynarodowe prawo konfliktów zbrojnych in Wojskowy Przeglad Prawniczy  by Mateusz Jan Piątkowski[6]. It describes in detail the legal aspects of the bombing.While it is sometimes too detailed for Wiki article, it does cover some misconceptions, for example the proceedings in West Germany weren't about bombing of the city but about bombing of the hospital only. Also because the bombing was made before official time of war, it was treated as murder rather than a war crime by German courts[7]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I completed a copyedit on 21 May 2018.  Nihil novi (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This article's lead gives the percentage of the town's buildings destroyed as "75-80%".  The article's "Events" section cites "70%", then "75%".  It might be well to harmonize the numbers, or to state and substantiate a range.  Nihil novi (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Under the Purpose section the last few sentences in the second paragraph are not cited. Djmaschek (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Djmaschek: Fixed. Do you think this is up to B-class standards now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
If you think that the article "is not comprehensive and well written" consider putting in a request for a copy edit at GOCE. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Since B-class check was passed for milhist, I've taken the liberty to standardize this for Poland and German wikiprojects too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

1.Marius Emmerling-not a historian but a football trainer. He did self-publish some publications on Luftwaffe, and others in very niche publishing houses. I am not aware of him publishing anything in scholarly pubication house or journal. I suggest removing.
2.Rolf-Dieter Müller -that is a bizarre case.He makes statements such that Hitler was friendly to Poland, omits in his works how German soldiers war crimes in Poland or says they acted "honourably", blames Poland for Second World War by its supposed rejection of alliance or "friendly" alliance with Nazi Germany.Presenting him casually like that seems to be giving him undue weight, this guy's claims are very radical and he needs to be presented in context.He was enthusiastically praised as revisionist by German far right publication Junge Freiheit [8]
3.Post-war trials.The whole section is wrong. Only parts of the bombing were subject to trial, and the case is very complicated. This whole section needs to be re-written.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount:
1 I don't think ME is totally unreliable, he is an amateur historian,  yes, but unless is widely controversial, criticized, etc. I think we can let him be. You can take it to WP:RSN.
2 Likely another Nazi apologetic, but this needs WP:RSN
3 Sources are needed to verify error. Expansion is of course welcome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record: Rolf-Dieter Müller is a highly respected military historian, his book wasn't "praised" by the Junge Freiheit, in fact they wrote a scathing review full of sarcasm. Mocking and irony is probably not easy to understand for non-native speakers, however calling "this guy" "radical" or  "likely another Nazi apologetic" is highly inappropriate. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Zniszczenia1939 0.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This article has the German side led by men of wing commander and group commander rank. While they undoubtedly led the attack, the town was bombed because of orders at air corps and air fleet level. Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen would have issued the order, for StG 77 was under the command of his corps. Dapi89 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I've no problem with that argument, through I am unsure if WP:MILHIST has some MoS-level recommendations for this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)