Talk:Bloody Sunday (1939)

/Archive 1

Lack of any social/political background

It is hard to understand logical reasons of the attack (German civilians VS Polish soldiers) without at least a sketch of atmosphere on the Pommerania before Sept. 1, 1939. We have to remember that Hitler's speeches (transmitted by the Berlin radio) were listened in many German houses (also in Bromberg). Some people (NSDAP entusiasts) thought about end of the "Polish occupation" and "historic justice". They could wait for Wermacht troops, but they wanted to help German fellow-soldiers to re-gain their territory. After Anshlus of Austria and Czechoslovakia they had to believe that Hitler is so mighty and powerful that nobody will dare to attack Ubermensches. Then we should add Abwehr infiltration especially active in 1939 on the whole area of the Korridor. Agents who not only could deliver necessary weapon (Polish army reports says about confiscated machine guns of the same type as used by Wermacht), but also teach logistic and urban guerilla methods, undoubtedly brought to local Germans feelings that Hitler is unconquered leader. Polish Army retreat soon confirmed this view. At the end it is necessary to add that even according to Polish historians that not the whole German population took part in the sabotage. If we count Germans in the city for approximately 10.000 people (then less than 5.000 would be men; ca. 2.500 in the age proper to fight) less than forth part of male population capable to fight took part in the action (according to Poles ca. 600 people). This addition is not to justify German side, but to understand, that German diversion is highly probable. It could took part as Poles claims (we have to remember that it was poorly documented - at the time of retreat nobody cares for crime evidence). For me less logic would be reaction of Polish mob that on the face of arriving German troops decided to lynch German fellow-citizens. It is poor to observe that neo-nazi propaganda is still present in the net and denies facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.80.108 (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please create an account, IP edits on a controversial topic like this are often problematic.
• "The number of casualties and other details of the incident are disputed among historians" -Please don't present one version as "the truth", especially not Roman Rudenko's version of 1946.
• Which version might be more credible or more probable should be left to the reader. For these reasons I reverted your edit.HerkusMonte (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

of course for HerkusMonte Joseph Goebbels version is much more credible. If you read with understanding you will find that Rudenko only quotes official documents (I use this link, because English translation is easier to understand by users).

Because of it I reject your extremely non POV version. P. S. Sorry, guys - I will t create account. I do not publish in wikipedia excerpt of minor corrections when mistakes are really reious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.214.199 (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Editorial War??? can somebody help stop Vandal?

Yesterday I found POV statements far from the documented truth about events that this record concerns. I made some adjustments - giving 9% instead of unpressurised "sizeable" and quoted military documentation (unfortunately after Nuremberg Trials - because only there in the net I found translation of the proper fragment). User HerkusMonte reverts previous POV form and delete my comments on his page (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HerkusMonte&action=history ) - can somebody who has editorial privileges stop neo-nazi Vandal? J. Beshevitsh Ph.D. (Professor of Modern History, Georgetown Univ. 20007 Washington DC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.214.199 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)