Talk:1st Armoured Division (Poland)

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Poles Breda.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Poles Wilhelmshafen.jpg

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  I repeat, the only issue is WP:REDFLAG, as Piotrus rightly stated. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Alleged War Crimes 

message: 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. 
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)
thread_title: Translation issue as explanation

message: 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)
thread_title: Useful comparison

message: 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)
thread_title: Arbitration

message: 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)
thread_title: Boleslav Polivka, Colonel, Österreichisches Bundesheer

message: 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!
* http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/00-01.asp
** In 1st Armoured Division (Poland) on 2011-05-25 06:51:24, 404 Not found
** In 1st Armoured Division (Poland) on 2011-06-09 12:52:02, 404 Not found
--JeffGBot (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Attachment to the First Canadian Army 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724212036/http://www.memorial-montormel.org/index.php?id=57 to http://www.memorial-montormel.org/index.php?id=57
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724212005/http://www.memorial-montormel.org/index.php?id=69 to http://www.memorial-montormel.org/index.php?id=69
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204034207/http://freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/a27m.html to http://freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/a27m.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040325123148/http://stadsarchief.breda.nl/actueel/Breda_750/oktober/defaultE.htm to http://stadsarchief.breda.nl/actueel/Breda_750/oktober/defaultE.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080203111639/http://scotsatwar.co.uk/printerv/poles%26scotland.htm to http://scotsatwar.co.uk/printerv/poles%26scotland.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311111702/http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/00-01.asp to http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/00-01.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified