Talk:Nemmersdorf massacre/Archive 1

message: ===Cut and past move===
Note: The article was moved by cut and paste from Nemmersdorf. If someone can merge page histories, please do it here.
This is an odd use for .
The original version of this article was submitted with this label, as if the original author knew it was not a balanced presentation of the facts. However, there is no clue in the body of the article itself to suggest why it is POV: the article states that 26 people from this village were killed in the closing months of WW II, & notes the deaths were blamed on both the advancing Russian army & the retreating Germans, which appears to me as close to NPOV as the first draft of an article -- marked as a stub -- can reasonably be expected to be.
Unless what we have here is an attempt by someone to start a violent disagreement over this   matter -- which would be in bad faith.
Or am I missing something here? Can someone offer a criticism of this article, & show why it should remain so marked? -- llywrch 22:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you do :-). The article was moved from Nemmersdorf in an improper way: by cut'n'paste. If you look into the Nemmersdorf page history, as weel as into what links there you'll probably understand. Mikkalai 03:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I've looked over the materials you've pointed to, Mikkalai, I understand what you are saying, but even with the evidence in front of me, this tag badly needed some kind of explanation: the Nemmersdorf article is currently nothing more than a redirect to this article -- with nothing on its Talk page. The history of that page shows there was a fair amount of disputes over the article, but since this article was created, the disagreements appear to have died down. (But I see you have removed the tag; I hope that it does not need to be restored.) -- llywrch 20:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name

message: Note: The article was moved by cut and paste from Nemmersdorf. If someone can merge page histories, please do it here.
This is an odd use for .
The original version of this article was submitted with this label, as if the original author knew it was not a balanced presentation of the facts. However, there is no clue in the body of the article itself to suggest why it is POV: the article states that 26 people from this village were killed in the closing months of WW II, & notes the deaths were blamed on both the advancing Russian army & the retreating Germans, which appears to me as close to NPOV as the first draft of an article -- marked as a stub -- can reasonably be expected to be.
Unless what we have here is an attempt by someone to start a violent disagreement over this   matter -- which would be in bad faith.
Or am I missing something here? Can someone offer a criticism of this article, & show why it should remain so marked? -- llywrch 22:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you do :-). The article was moved from Nemmersdorf in an improper way: by cut'n'paste. If you look into the Nemmersdorf page history, as weel as into what links there you'll probably understand. Mikkalai 03:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I've looked over the materials you've pointed to, Mikkalai, I understand what you are saying, but even with the evidence in front of me, this tag badly needed some kind of explanation: the Nemmersdorf article is currently nothing more than a redirect to this article -- with nothing on its Talk page. The history of that page shows there was a fair amount of disputes over the article, but since this article was created, the disagreements appear to have died down. (But I see you have removed the tag; I hope that it does not need to be restored.) -- llywrch 20:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut and past move

message: I've completed the history merge and moved the resulting article to Nemmersdorf as requested by PBS on WP:AN.  This is not meant as an endorsement of the current naming; you may settle that issue on your own.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut and past fixed 

message: It seems to be the precedent established at Gdańsk is to use the Russian name, although the German name can be used when referring to something that took place while the town was German-speaking. If anyone wants to move this to another name, please do NOT do so by cutting and pasting. Use the move button, or if that doesn't work, leave me or another admin a message and let them do it properly. Thanks! Angr (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mayakovskoye 

message: 1. Either the link is wrong, or Die Zeit should not be called a Social democratic paper. On the other hand, since the Grafin according to her own article lived in the South of East Prussia, the part that was to become Polish, why bother? As Fisch says something completely different - wa should delete the entire passage - she is just being quoted because she was not a right-winger in politics.
2. According to what I could read about Fisch's thesis, he does not say that it "was performed under the command of Goebbels". He suggests that the thing was SET UP by Goebbels. Which is something completely different. "performed under the command of Goebbels" will even suggest to some people that is claimed that Goebbels was actually in the neighbourhood passing on orders. That obviously did not happen.
: It is a bit more complicated, I have since found out - having to bite my tongue while going through a lot of web text from German extreme-rightwingers - that there has been a ZDF tv programme claiming it was all fabrication. Unfortunately, these websites probably do not give all the reasons why ZDF claimed that. Two reasons I did find were: neither Goebbels' propaganda abteilung (which was in control of the area until January 1945) nor the Bund der vertriebene ever tried to identify the victims, that is PUT ACTUAL NAMES on the faces in the pictures. And ZDF found two witnesses (one old lady who actually lived through the event in Nemmersdorf) who testified there had been no rapes. Well, hardly any spectacular points - as it was already in the Fisch book.
:The extreme-right websites also mention a convoy of "refugees" passing close to Nemmersdorf at the time the Russians were evicted. This may actually answer a number of sticky problems: the difefrence between 26 (Fisch) and 660, eg. It is obvious that the high number includes many of these refugees killed in crossfire. Not everyone in the convoy was a refugee however: surprise, surprise, the 50 dead French POWs were in that convoy. (Note: I am fairly sure that transporting POWs through a dangerous area is contrary to the Geneva Convention).--pgp 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other errors 

message: АХТЯМОВ Сабир Ахтямович became a hero of the Soviet Union destroyning a number of German tanks at Nemmersdorf: http://www.allrus.info/obj/main.php?ID=241235&ar3=18
User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy --pgp 15:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information 

message: Just after I made some changes to make the article more encyclopaedic, thinking especially about what Germans would find objective (deleting one of the references to Goebbels' propaganda, clarifying that the 10 not in the shelter were also executed, ...) someone put up a POV flag. Meaning of course that the Fisch book and the ZDF broadcast are Russian-Polish propaganda.
Looking for a link between Clausthal (Ziwec is a computer publication there) and Nemmersdorf, I found this:
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Krieg/Nemmersdorf.html
Interesting passages: "Im Durchschnitt ist mehr als jeder dritte deutsche Soldat in sowjetischer Gefangenschaft umgekommen, schätzungsweise rund zwei Millionen." Interesting statistic - what about Soviet POWs in Germany?
But what I found most interesting:
"Ich sollte noch Kriegsgefangene für den Abtransport unserer etwa 300 Pferde aus Gumbinnen beschaffen." And some of the POWs were Belgian...
"Nach Angaben des ehemaligen Chefs des Stabes der in Ostpreußen eingesetzten 4. Armee, Gen. Major Dethleffsen, vor einem amerikan. Militärgericht in Neu-Ulm wurden in N. auch etwa 50 frz. Kriegsgefangene von sowjet. Soldaten erschossen." You would almost think he was there himself during the 4 hours' occupation. The problem is of course that the Red Army just loved to parade liberated Western POWs - interestingly, the French Normandie-Niemen regiment participated in the October offensive into East Prussia, shooting down 29 German aircraft according to its official history - and of course, these POWs should not have been there at all. Saving horses ... User talk:Pan Gerwazy --pgp 19:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I hate to interrupt the picnic of countering "Nazi propganda" (over 60 years after the Nazis have disappeared as a political power), but wasn't there photographic evidence of attrocities at Nemmersdorf?
Why not include these, and include ALL information - including the specifics of German claims - in the article?
Is it better to dictate what the truth is, or isn't it better to give people information, and let them figure it out for themselves?Johan77 21:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What About Photographic Evidence? 

message: According to Junge Freiheit, Fisch is not a historian, and is known as a Russian and Soviet apologist, even having been a teacher of Russian language. These facts should be easily verifiable. The POV of the source is of tantamount importance when the source's contribution mostly amounts to inferences or speculation rather than verifiable facts, as is the case with Fisch.
85.243.91.140 21:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The credibility of Bernard Fisch 

message: This article doesn't look like a piece about the massacre. From the start, it looks like a sloppy refutation of facts that the reader would have been previously exposed to.
1) The 'traditional' view of the events is never clearly presented, only attacked as 'nazi propaganda'. Whether to defend it or disprove it, a section - the very first - presenting the view is mandatory. After all, the article isn't called 'Criticism of the nazi version of the events at Nemmersdorf'.
2) Through the whole article, there is constant abuse of terms like 'nazi propaganda' and default assumption that everything the nazis complained of was at best a lie, at worts - often - of their own doing. This is no way to write anything. If one were to insert - as is only fair - a 'citation needed' every time a debatable accusation is made toward the german government, or the nazis' intentions are assumed without evidence, the article would become unreadable.
3) The 'recent' views that the nazis may have propiciated the events and then exagerated their peoportions are simple that, views. They are not the 'mainstream' view. Of course they present some evidence. So do Holocaust deniers. In a matter like this, they should be mentioned, and even exposed in detail - but not, that's for sure, as 'the new and better view that has emerged'. However, even in this talk page, every single fact they claim is taken as true.
4) From reading this article, one might even get the idea that it was the germans themselves who massacred the civilians. No source makes that claim, and yet it comes through, exposing the gross twist of mind that has taen place - what matters in no longer to honour the dead and condemn the savagery that killed them, but to be self-righteous and cry it was all about Goebbels's 'propaganda'.
Due to the poor presentation of the matter, anyone reading this article without previous knowledge of the facts will get the message: 'Nemmersdorf? Oh that was when the nazis shelled a russian village, killed everyone and then said the russians had done it'.
85.243.91.140 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article reads like an editorial 

message: In your entry on Nemmersdorf it says "new sources became available and the dominating view among scholars became that most of the massacre was actually set up under the command of Goebbels".  That is not true.   The Nemmersdorf massacre has gone down in history as a Red Army atrocity. The Red Army's atrocities as they entered western Europe at Gumbinnen and elsewhere are a matter of no dispute, except apparently at wikipedia.  Are you also contesting the mass rape and murder by the Red Army in the rest of eastern Germany?  This is a serious question.  Please address this question also in your response to my letter.  Because, in addition to saying Nemmersdorf is propaganda, you mention nothing of the other mass atrocities committed by the Red Army in Germany, leaving the reader to believe the Red Army did nothing wrong.  
Your article says the Nemmersdorf massacre is Nazi propaganda and this propaganda was repeated by Die Zeit editor, Marion Gräfin Dönhoff.  Poles are not known for being German friendly.  Mr. Jamkowski is the Deputy Chief Editor of National Geographic Polish edition.  Are you saying he is repeating Nazi propaganda also?
I edited this article a couple of years ago putting the blame where it properly belongs, but one of your editors changed it back.  This is propaganda at its worst.  Your encyclopedia should reflect what is common knowledge and not the biased views of one or two editors.
Pgg804 05:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In you entry

message: In his article (National Geographic, February 2005)  on the sinking of the German luxury liner Steuben by the Soviets in 1945, the Polish author Marcin Jamkowski at one point says "despite what the Nazis did in my country, I had tears in my eyes as I listened".   Later in his article Jamkowski says "German residents knew all too well what an encounter with the incoming Soviet army could mean, having heard the story of Nemmersdorf, a village in East Prussia overrun by the Soviets the previous autumn.  There the Red Army had taken bloody revenge for three years of suffering caused by the German invasion of Russia... the soldiers had first raped all women, regardless of age, then had crucified them on doors of barns and houses.  Men and children had been clubbed to death, shot, or run over with tanks". 4.242.171.141 23:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marcin Jamkowski