Talk:Gleiwitz incident

message: I now offer in evidence Document 2751-PS, which is Exhibit USA-482. It is an affidavit of Alfred Helmut Naujocks, dated November 20, 1945. This affidavit particularly refers to the actual occurrences in connection with the Polish border incident. I believe it was referred to by the Witness Lahousen when he was on the stand: 
"I, Alfred Helmut Naujocks, being first duly sworn, depose and state as follows: 
"1. I was a member of the SS from 1931 to 19 October 1944 and a member of the SD from its creation in 1934 to January 1941. 1 served as a member of the Waffen-SS from February 1941 until the middle of 1942. Later I served in the Economics Department of the Military Administration of Belgium from September 1942 to September 1944. 1 surrendered to the Allies on 19 October 1944. 
"2. On or about 10 August 1939 the Chief of the Sipo and SD, Heydrich, personally ordered me to simulate an attack on the radio station near Gleiwitz, near the Polish border, and to make it appear that the attacking force consisted of Poles. Heydrich said: 'Actual proof of these attacks of the Poles is needed for the foreign press, as well as for German propaganda purposes.' I was directed to go to Gleiwitz with five or six SD men and wait there until I received a code word from Heydrich indicating that the attack should take place. My instructions were to seize the radio station and to hold it long enough to permit a Polish-speaking German, who would be put at my disposal, to broadcast a speech in Polish. Heydrich told me that this speech should state that the time had come for the conflict between the Germans and the Poles and that the Poles should get together and strike down any Germans from whom they met resistance. Heydrich also told me at this time that he expected an attack on Poland by Germany in a few days. 
"3. 1 went to Gleiwitz and waited there a fortnight. Then I requested permission of Heydrich to return to Berlin but was told to stay in Gleiwitz. Between the 25th and 31st of August I went to see Heinrich Müller head of the Gestapo, who was then nearby at Oppeln. In my presence Müller discussed with a man named Mehlhorn plans for another border incident, in which it should be made to appear that Polish soldiers were attacking German troops ... Germans in the approximate strength of a company were to be used. Müller stated that he had 12 or 13 condemned criminals who were to be dressed in Polish uniforms and left dead on the ground at the scene of the incident to show that they had been killed while attacking. For this purpose they were to be given fatal injections by a doctor employed by Heydrich. Then they were also to be given gunshot wounds. After the assault members of the press and other persons were to be taken to the spot of the incident. A police report was subsequently to be prepared.
"4. Müller told me that he had an order from Heydrich to make one of those criminals available to me for the action at Gleiwitz. The code name by which he referred to these criminals was 'Canned Goods.' 
"5. The incident at Gleiwitz in which I participated was carried out on the evening preceding the German attack on Poland. As I recall, war broke out on the 1st of September 1939. At noon on the 31st of August I received by telephone from Heydrich the code word for the attack which was to take place at 8 o'clock that evening. Heydrich said, 'In order to carry out this attack, report to Müller for "Canned Goods."' I did this and gave Müller instructions to deliver the man near the radio station. I received this man and had him laid down at the entrance to the station. He was alive, but he was completely unconscious. I tried to open his eyes. I could not recognize by his eyes that he was alive, only by his breathing. I did not see the shot wounds, but a lot of blood was smeared across his face. He was in civilian clothes. 
"6. We seized the radio station as ordered, broadcast a speech of 3 to 4 minutes over an emergency transmitter, fired some pistol shots, and left."
Mikkalai 07:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you offer a citation for this, for referencing purposes?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it from The Trial of German Major War Criminals (2001 print); more specifically, from this online source for this particular case (from the 1946 print). YOu may also want to use this in Alfred Naujocks article. `'Míkka 20:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuremberg proc. [[December 20]]  [[1945]] 

message: The opening paragraph makes the article make no sense, as it states Gleiwitz is in Poland, which it is today, but at the time it was in Germany, which would make more sense as why would Poles attack their own radiot station (supposedly)?  I have rewritten the article to display the truth.
--Jadger 02:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: opening paragraph

message: Please add a very interesting detail,
which isn`t well known yet:
The Polish uniforms needed for this purpouse
were stolen about a week earlier, by a robbery in a military barracks,
in Chorzów (Königshütte,Królewska Huta)
which was a neighbourhood-city on the other sode of the border
it means: in the eastern (then Polish) part 
of Upper Silesia (=Oberschlesien-Ost,O/S.).
Please excuse my poor English. :)
:No uniforms were used in the Gleiwitz operation, since it was supposed to be an attack by civilian insurgents. However, there were other operations near the boarder on this day, so it is possible the uniforms were used there. Where did you get this information? --Mellum 21:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you have any refs for that? Lightbody states that there were several bodies of prisoners in Polish uniforms left on the scene; Wirtz and Godson notes that the raiding party was dressed in those uniforms.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uniforms were in fact obtained from the Abwehr, after resistance by Admiral Canaris. This is discussed in the recent article in After the Battle magazine. 139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish uniforms

message: Did anyone buy this, either in Germany, Poland, or internationally? Brutannica 21:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, nobody heard about this story until Herr Naujocks made his statement in 1945. There are no mentions of this incident anywhere in 1939, no police reports, no media reports, nothing. Seems to me that this Naujocks guy made it up to save his skin. Nowowiejski (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whoa! Beep-beep and backup. Who is "nobody" and are you really and seriously saying that no one heard about the Gleiwitz incident until 1945? What "no (insert type) reports" are you referencing? A quick Google search reveals a tried and true German news propaganda reel from 1939 which very clearly makes this assertion. Not to mention the multiple news archived articles (the first hits of which are the Telegraph and even the Southeast Missourian) which published the information within days of the attack on Poland. Maybe I am misunderstanding your claim? It only took seconds to find these. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

text:  Bingo.74.193.229.27 (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

text: People must surely have asked why Polish troops/civilians would bother to attack a German language radio station (actually just a glorified relay transmitter) to broadcast a message in Polish ? Given that the Polish authorities had stations of their own it must have appeared to be a pointless (not to mention counterproductive) exercise even if one took the German account of events at face value. 213.40.226.94 (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: International reaction

message: All the 21 border incidents happened in the same day? Where can i find info about the other 20?
::Do we have any sources to back this up? that is more important I think
:--Jadger 01:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitler stated 21 (), this number is also given by this source (). We indeed need an article on Operation Himmler, with list of all incidents; Ailsby and Weidner talk about "mock attack on German customs station at Hochlinden; Wirtz and Godson note the one premature incident from 25-26 August; Auden talks about 12 prisoners from Oranienburg concentration camp dressed in Polish uniforms and killed in a forest near the village of Hochlinde-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 21 incidents?

message: Some sources hint that the lower-ranking SD men who took part in
Operation Himmler were eliminated later.  From all I can find this
appears to be a rumor that was in circulation among the 
Wehrmacht brass that was never confirmed -- of course, if it did
happen, Heydrich was unlikely to have left a documentation trail.
However, it is suspicious that it's hard to find any other witnesses
but Naujocks.
Any further info on this notion?  Since it will likely never be
confirmed or denied it is hard to say if it should be put in the
article.  MrG 4.225.214.28 00:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Naujocks indeed seems to be the only witness. And his testimony is rather dubious. Also note the lack of usage of the supposed incident in German propaganda. Among hundreds of other incidents the town Gleiwitz is mentioned, but not the episode with the attack of the radio station. http://archive.org/details/Auswaertiges-Amt-Weissbuch-2 --41.151.240.80 (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elimination of SD Men? 

message: There is a little confusion on victims. Ailsby mention that the German team had several corpses from Dachau concentration camp; Lightbody mentions several victims (prisoners), Gliwice museum gives the name of a single victim - Franciszek Honiok, a Polish Silesian; Auden notes the single victim was a prisoner from the Oranienburg concentration camp.
Another confusing part concerns the message broadcasted from the station. Polish museum page in Gliwice states that the message was only "Attention! This is Gliwice. The broadcasting station is in the Polish hands..." and that the remaining part of the appeal read then was not emitted due to technical errors; Auden states that "the intruders shouted in Polish over the open microphones that they and their comrades were invading Germany", several other sources offer similar but slightly different stories - Zaloga, for example, writes that the message contained inflammatory messages to the Polish minority to take arms and stage an uprising.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion: victims and message

message: I have lifted the protection of this article.  I was away the past two days so this was my earliest opportunity.  I have to say that it bothered me from the start to be protecting the version of the article that I did because, as should be obvious from my comments above, I felt that it was the "wrong" version (i.e. Jadger's version).  However, it is Wikipedia's policy that admins are to protect the latest version of the article and not make any attempt to determine which version is the "correct" version.
I chose to protect the article rather than to block Jadger because I wanted to give him one last chance before blocking him.  As someone who has worked with him on friendly terms on a number of articles, I was reluctant to block him.  Frankly, I rather expected that the 6RR violation report on WP:ANI would result in some other admin blocking him.  I guess that didn't happen but I really want to emphasize to Jadger that, friendship or no, I will block him if he is editing this article against consensus.
Call it a consensus or a cabal, the overwhelming majority is against you, Jadger.  Moreover, the point you are trying to make is not really that critical to this article so please don't make a mess trying to insert it against consensus.
--Richard 19:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection lifted 

message: No one is challenging that the Nazis dressed up people in Polish uniforms and then shot them so that it would look like the Poles had attacked the radio station.
I don't think anyone is challenging that the Polish army crossed the border to incite and support the Silesian uprisings.
One thing that is being challenged is that these two events are similar.  Is there any reliable source that has noted and pointed out the similarity?  Doesn't have to be a historian.  Could be a newspaper or magazine article.  I would imagine that, at a minimum, Nazi propaganda of the time might have pointed out the similarity.  I would imagine some kind of inflammatory rhetoric along the lines of "See?  The Poles are up to the same tricks they used during the Silesian uprisings."
The next thing that is being challenged is very close to the above issue but not quite the same.  Even if someone did notice the similarities, it is unclear (though quite plausible) that the Nazis were specifically attempting to draw an analogy to the Silesian Uprisings when they planned the fake attack.
Naujocks doesn't mention the Silesian Uprisings in his testimony at the Nuremberg trials.  Are there any Nazi documents which would support this assertion?
For that matter, does any reliable source even speculate or conjecture that this might have been part of the Nazi plan?  Is there a historian who writes "It seems that the Nazis were trying to make the attack on Gleiwitz radio station look like the Polish army support of the Silesian Uprisings."?
Without this kind of support, the linkage in the article between Gleiwitz and the Silesian Uprisings is OR.
--Richard 19:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Richard - although it's a bit off topic - I am not sure whether "Polish army crossed the border to incite and support the Silesian uprisings" is true. Silesian Uprisings are on my 'to research list' but I don't recall regular Polish Army crossing the borders ind inciting the uprisings. Polish Military Organization (Polish intelligence of that era) almost certainly had its hand in the uprisings, but it was a semi-official intelligence - a spin-off of the Austrian Polish Legions (although loyal to Piłsudski, not Austria); I am not sure if we can call this intelligence outfit an army - seems a bit too much for a generalization; and if anything, its operatives would be infiltrating the borders, not crossing it. That said, a statement that "Polish intelligence supported the Silesian uprisings" would be ok - but as you note, it's not relevant to this article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I recall Pilsudski ordered that Polish army units should not assist the Poles in Silesia, in fear of German intervention against Poland during Bolshevik Invasion and problems with Western Allies. This is one of main accusations  of Endecja in Poland against Pilsudski, but of course this completely irrelevent to Gliwice article.
--Molobo 20:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recap 

message: UK TV's Channel 4 aired a documentary titled "The Real Oskar Schindler". The programme claimed Oskar Schindler was the black marketeer who supplied the Polish military uniforms and identification papers, to those who took part in the attack on the Sender Gleiwitz radio station.
I think this should be in the main article—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.177.116.201 (talk • contribs).
:Emilie Schindler, the wife of Oskar Schindler, of Schindler's List fame and an Abwehr agent at the time, claimed in her memoir that the Polish uniforms used by Heydrich's operatives in the Gleiwitz incident were obtained by her husband and stored in their Moravska Ostrava apartment, previous to the operation.  -ref. Emilie Schindler with Erika Rosenberg, Where Light And Shadow Meet, translated by Dolores M. Koch; New York: W.W. Norton & Company 1997 - Frank Prchal (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: UK TV / Schindler

message: This reference is a link to 911review.com ; the portal is a 9/11 conspiracy site, and the referenced article lists no author. It seems to be excerpted from . Novickas 23:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced with more reliable citations. In the future, you may consider WP:SOFIXIT philosophy.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am a follower of the 0-revert rule as outlined in Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary: "Zero-revert rule. Editors may also choose to adhere to a zero-revert rule, for example: "Only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while following the principle of preserving information and viewpoints. If you can't figure out how any part of an edit benefits an article ask for clarification on the article's or the editor's discussion page. Using a zero revert rule gives fellow editors the benefit of the doubt in all cases. Even in instances where you know the other editor's viewpoint is dead wrong, the fact that some people have this viewpoint can be relevant in itself, and their contributions might be expandable into a useful addition to the article. However, this rule is very difficult to follow in practice. Furthermore Absolute Zero-revert rule followers will never make any reverts, they will always discuss it first and ask someone else to make the necessary edit and give the benefit of the doubt." Novickas 00:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't really see how this prevents you from contributing to this project and replacing less reliable citations with more reliable ones, but in the end, there are many ways to contribute to this project. Btw, this site is also used as a ref at American Free Press, Thierry Meyssan, The Bojinka Plot and 9/11 Truth Movement.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, let's block and deny all the unofficial information sources, so we can have a world government in 10 years or so... Tell me - do you feel you're better than the "conspiracy theorists" or you all just hate the truth? 85.89.184.212 (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take your meds, and take your soapboxing elsewhere - I'm sure there is a 'www dot tinfoil-hat.com/forum/woo-hoo' or some such out there for you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.47.12 (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note # 1 as a reliable source

message: The text in dispute is:
:The operation was very similar to Polish actions that had ignited three previous Silesian uprisings, where Polish men (notably Wojciech Korfanty) had crossed the border into Germany and incited violence.
Discussion of the disputed text can be found in Talk:Gleiwitz incident#Similarity to Silesian Uprisings and Talk:Gleiwitz incident#Article protected until we can resolve this dispute.
--Richard 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: I am a bit reluctant to edit the article, because it would be a to big change at once. My problem is the fact that this incident was never mentioned in any media report, diplomatic conversation, or police report in 1939. The earliest mention of this incident is from 1945 in the affidavit above, so it is highly unlikely that it was used to justify a German attack on Poland. There is no police or press report regarding Franciszek Honiok and this incident as the article falsely claims. But how to phrase this in an encyclopedic and neutral manner? Nowowiejski (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incident never mentioned in 1939  

message: If you would like further information on this incident, please contact me.
My grandfather was the Director of the Gleiwitz station & my mother (who is still alive)witnessed the entire event.
A German TV documentary in 1964 featured by grandfather discussing the incident with models and all.  I have those transcripts.
Also, a good read is:  On Borrowed Time -- How World War II Began - Leonard Mosely
Nimue08 (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gleiwitz incident 

message: After the Battle has just released an article on the incident that may be of interest to editors. 139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it available online? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  23:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source document 

message: i think the latest unsourced edits by the anonim IP has to be removed. does anybody oppose?  Dr. Loosmark  17:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  testimony was made under pressure 

message: Confirmed as B-class for WP:POLAND, per MILHIST assessment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-class review 

message: I don't know what the current rules are about using YouTube videos, but this 1939 German propaganda newsreel (:Die Deutsche Wochenschau) specifically refers to Gleiwitz (beginning at 03:09) and repeats the Nazi claims of Polish aggression into German territory. I think that would be useful for inclusion somehow.86.6.187.246 (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  German propaganda using Gleiwitz 

message: The whole article is based on the affidavit obtained under duress from one man. If he were to refuse to testify, he would have been hanged.
And this passes for 'History' nowadays. 
What a sick joke.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.162.240.241 (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Tin-foil parade back in Sept of '15, huh?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.25.178 (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Just more ridiculous Talk Page violations from a troll - Admins, why are you not clearing the TP of this kind of WP:SOAP nonsense?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.47.12 (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just More Allied Lies 

message: Alfred Naujocks is the main source and he had very good reasons for lying, in order to save his life. (2A00:23C4:6384:600:54F8:5DC1:A75D:D9D1 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WIKIPEDIA is not a "reliable source" - that is stated in the very premise of the foundation of this project, to technically, "no" - however, the historical facts of this incident have been totally verified by historians.104.169.47.12 (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Historians are relying on Naujocks, who was not a credible witness. (2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:5C6B:5CB0:8C13:84C6 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the article reliable? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gleiwitz incident. 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/20070515180715/http://ww2.boom.ru/Polish/gleiwitz.html to http://ww2.boom.ru/Polish/gleiwitz.html
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) 09:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gleiwitz incident. 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/20051110014039/http://www.muzeum.gliwice.pl/de/news_fullpage.php?nid=719&ret_top=%2Fde%2Findex.php to http://www.muzeum.gliwice.pl/de/news_fullpage.php?nid=719&ret_top=%2Fde%2Findex.php
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) 01:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose a merger of this article and the Operation Himmler one. It is after all the same incident.
89.8.246.47 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge proposal 

message: Probably insufficiently credentialed source to reference directly: https://youtube.com/QevMycFrWRM
Primary source referenced, which does check out: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C10907236 (page 65 in the pdf pagination, of the first pdf.  Free download, but you have to register.)
Naujocks testified prior to Nuremberg that he waited *after* the incident to Berlin, and only then realized the war was only days away.  This is inconsistent with an August 31 date.  Which would also have made it a much less individually decisive factor in the Nazi excuse/rationale to go to work.
68.197.126.82 (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naujocks' is inconsistent on when this happened. 

message: The quote is repeated correctly from the cited sources: 6 and 11
Source 6, Wirtz, does not provide a source.  Source 11, Lightbody cites; Allan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, HarperCollins, 1991, p. 688.  which itself cites Documents On German Foreign Policy, Series D, Volume VII numbers 192-193 (avail https://archive.org/details/DocumentsOnGermanForeignPolicy-SeriesD-VolumeVii-August9-/page/n347/mode/2up) (DGFP) .  DGFP in turn cites: Various, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Volume 14.  (I'm looking for a primary source here.)  In Trial, starting p. 43, we have: 
I come to the third key document—namely, Hitler’s speech before the commanders-in-chief on 22 August 1939, at Obersalzberg. There are two documents: Document 1014-PS and Document 798-PS
1014-PS (ie DGFP no. 193) is the original source for the 22 August quote per DGFP.  At the least, the source could be cited more directly.  The two documents describe the same speech, per Trial, p. 64.  Another account of the speech, L-3, is in Documents On British Foreign Policy 1919-1939, Volume VII, Enclosure in No. 314 (avail https://archive.org/details/DocumentsOnBritishForeignPolicy1919-1939-ThirdSeriesVolumeVi1939/page/n361/mode/2up) (DBFP).  Neither of the documents besides 1014-PS contains substantially the same quote.  DBFP No 314 has:
I shall let a few companies in Polish uniform attack in upper Silesia or in the Protectorate.  Whether the world believes it or not is quite indifferent ("Scheissegal").  The world believes only in success.
The documents were controversial at trial.  Most concerningly, of 1014-PS "The original has no heading, has no file number, no diary number, and no notice that it is secret; no signature, no date, no...".  The chain of custody of 1014-PS and 798-PS is later established, but I don't see authorship.
I would suggest using a translated quote from the speech as transcribed by Bohm which is available in Trial of the Major War Criminals, before the International Tribunal, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, Vol. XLI (avail https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.111830/page/16/mode/2up).  But I don't read German.
Savant45 (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of 22 August Hitler quote