Talk:Siege of Warsaw (1939)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Erich von Manstein[edit]

Erich von Manstein article mentions: He was first to strike into Warsaw's suburbs. How accurate is this - perhaps this should be added to our article, if correct? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The person to write such rubbish must've liked Manstein a lot. In fact he was a chief of staff of von Rundstedt's Army Group South, under which fought the 4th division. However, it is highly unlikely Manstein was there personally. Halibutt 03:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Casualties[edit]

What are the sources for the casualties.

I don't know the sources for figures quoted in the article. Reliable sources are official Polish documents available in libraries in Warsaw and London. German sources are: Janusz Piekalkiewicz: Der Zweite Weltkrieg - Econ, München, 1987 Herbert Drescher: Warschau und Modlin im Polenfeldzug 1939 : Berichte und Dokumente - Pforzheim 1991

"Fall Weiss" quotes: 10 000 and approx 35 000 wounded in civilian population, approx 2 000 killied and 16 000 wounded Polish soldiers. 12% abuildings in city detroyed. No German casualties reported. However TOTAL German casualties in 1939 campaign in Poland are: 10 572 killed; 30 322 wounded; 3 409 missing per official German Wehrmacht sources.

Syrenab 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relation with Modlin Army[edit]

What was the relation between Warsaw and Modlin Armies? Some sources note that Modlin was defended by Warsaw Army or was its theatre of operations, other note it was the role of Modlin Army. Also, looking at the map, why were the forces near Warsaw formed into a new Army instead of assigned to the Modlin Army?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Modlin" army was based on the fortress Modlin and commanded by General Emil Krukowicz-Przedrzymirski. It was spread along a fortified line north of Mławy to defend against an attack from East Prussia. It was outflanked by the German Third Army and after 3 Sept gradually withdrew towards Modlin. The siege of Modlin commenced on 22 Sept when German forces cut across to the Vistula south of Modlin, cutting the fortress from Warsaw.

There was no "Warsaw" Army originally. On 3rd Sept the Min of the Army (Min. Spraw Wojskowych) gen. Tadeusz Kasprzycki, ordered gen. Walerian Czuma (the Commnder of the Border Guards (Straz Graniczna) to organize a force to defend the city of Warsaw agains a German attack . 8 Sept gen. Juliusz Rómmel, arriving in Warsaw, is given by chief of staff of the Polish Army (gen Stachiewicz then in Breść) the overall command of all forces defending Warsaw, incl the Warsaw Defense Force, the army "Modlin" and the army "Łódź". (zrodlo Bartoszewski - "1859 Dni Warszawy"))

Syrenab 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: Could you copy the relevant fragments to Army Warszawa and Army Modlin for future reference?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note completely rewritten Army Warsaw. I will now change Siege of Warsaw (1939) article to agree and to add all the new information that I have found.

Syrenab 14:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. For wider audience, consider annoucing this stuff at WP:PWNB.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing problem[edit]

What is going on????

The section of the article fro the middle of the section "Casualties" has been cut off.

All attempts to add it back in have failed

Syrenab 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced reference syntax, I think Halibutt fixed it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:German Troops In Warsaw.jpg[edit]

The image Image:German Troops In Warsaw.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partial[edit]

I'm a spanish user of wikipedia living in Poland. Translating this article to spanish, I have the feeling this article is slightly partial. Any other agrees, or it's just my oppinion? Best regards --Oszalał (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review[edit]

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Siege of Warsaw (1939). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soviets did not liberate Warsaw[edit]

Ban evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Given the huge controversy surrounding the Red Army's actions during the Warsaw Uprising it is inappropriate to say the city was liberated by the Soviets. (86.151.111.0 (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Of course. Changed to neutral captured. Please be aware that there is a constant push to use the term 'liberate' by some Russian nationalist, who try to insert it into random relevant Wikipedia articles. Pleae WP:BEBOLD and instead of just reporting, adjust the text in offending articles directly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not of course. Liberate is widely used in the historiography to denote capture of Nazi territory by the Allies, in general — see, for example, Liberation of France. Are you sure your point of view isn't a factor here? El_C 10:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The western Allies did not carry out genocide in the countries they invaded during World War II, unlike the Soviets with their anti-Semitic Rootless Cosmopolitan Campaign. The word "liberate" should never be used when referring to Soviet actions. (86.160.157.224 (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
The mainstream historiogrpahy, including but not limited to Holocaust historiography, uses "liberate." As in "camps were liberated." Your anti-Soviet bias, in this instance, is not grounded in historical and historiographical consensus, even in Western countries. El_C 11:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Soviets did not "liberate" anyone. They had allied with Nazi Germany to invade Poland in 1939, and had carried out the Katyn massacre. Many survivors of the Holocaust were murdered by the Soviets after the war. (86.158.252.114 (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]
This has been discussed previously and there was a general consensus to use the neutral term 'capture' or 'take' instead of 'liberate'. On the other side, we could use the non-neutral term 'occupy'... so I suggest not reopening this can of worms. PS. The comparison with France is not accurate, as US/UK and such did not stay to enforce their government's will, as the power was quickly returned to a democratic French gov't. What happened in Soviet 'liberated' territories was quite different.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was more alluding to something along the line of Auschwitz_concentration_camp#Liberation, but fair enough. El_C 07:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but I think it's fine to say that Soviets liberated prisoners from Nazi camps and prisons, or that they liberated camps and prisons. On the small scale like that, Soviets were liberators (well, until they moved westwards, see Rape_during_the_Soviet_occupation_of_Poland#Red_Army_Winter_Offensive_of_1945...). But on the larger scale, they were not. While the Western Allies liberated France, the Soviets did not liberate Poland in the same sense. This was discussed a lot at the Talk:Warsaw Uprising and possibly a few more articles. Bottom line is, liberators are generally expected to leave the liberated in peace and go home... if they overstay their welcome they are no longer liberators, right? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure liberate and occupy are always mutually exclusive. Often, it can be a matter of semantics. In regards to Poland, then, the lengthy Eastern Front (World War II) article reads:
Polish Armed Forces in the East, initially consisting of Poles from Eastern Poland or otherwise in the Soviet Union in 1939–1941, began fighting alongside the Red Army in 1943, and grew steadily as more Polish territory was liberated from the Nazis in 1944–1945.
When the Axis countries of Central Europe were occupied by the Soviets, they changed sides and declared war on Germany (see Allied Commissions).
Allies liberate Nazi territory by (historiographical) definition — what happens after is another matter. But I already conceded so this all may be moot. El_C 05:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A quick addendum. One of my concerns is that with Poland's shift to the right there is a re-framing of definitions (beyond the scope of this debate, too) outside of widely-accepted historical and historiographical consensus. El_C 05:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the framing and such does shift over time. For example, pre-1989 Polish historiography was subject to censorship, so there was a 'consensus' in Polish sources that Soviets liberated Poland, and nobody was allowed to use the word 'occupied'... moderm Polish scholarship is much more likely to use the term 'occupy' then 'liberate' --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 30 years since then — what I'm describing is much more recent. And when I say consensus, I'm talking also outside of Poland. El_C 03:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with El_C. Yes, it would be correct to say that Warsaw was liberated from Nazi by the Soviets, and, despite the fact that the government that the Soviets installed in Poland was by no means supported by the majority of population, it was a Polish government (although those Poles were devoted Communists). It would be correct to say Poland was not fully independent during the Cold war era, but the situation there could not be compared with the time when it was under a direct German rule. Therefore, whereas it would be incorrect to speak about a complete liberation (like in France), the word "liberation" (with reservations) is still applicable.
With regard to the recent tendency to equate Nazi and Soviet role, this trend seems to be associated with a recent conservative political shift in Poland. My sincere belief is that in that situation a preference should be given to non-Polish sources, because local historian should be treated with caution when they are writing about sensitive episodes of their country's history. And, taking into account that this article is not too popular, so mostly Polish users are working with it, the opinion of external users is especially valuable, because it allows avoiding a bias.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I believe we have consensus to use neutral language (taken/captured, etc.) instead of POV liberate/occupy. Warsaw was taken/captured by the Soviets in 1945, etc. Let's just use neutral language and nobody should complain (much). PS. The construction liberated from Nazis can also be fine, since IMHO there's a difference between saying just 'liberated' and 'liberated from'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did I understand correct that the dispute is about the following sentence?
"On October 1 the Wehrmacht entered Warsaw, which started a period of German occupation that lasted until the devastating Warsaw Uprising and later until January 17, 1945, when the city was captured by Soviet forces. "
If yes, then the most relevant information is as follows: on October 1, 1939 the Germans entered besieged Warsaw and on January 17 they left it before the advancing Soviet forces. Had the Soviets "liberated" Warsaw of "occupied" it does not matter, what does matter is that the German occupation had ended on January 17 due to the advance of the Soviet (actually, Polish-Soviet) troops. Therefore, if your real intention is not to equate Soviets and Nazi, then the correct wording should be:
"On October 1 the Wehrmacht entered Warsaw, which started a period of German occupation that lasted until the devastating Warsaw Uprising and later until January 17, 1945, when the Germans abandoned the city due to the advance of Polish-Soviet troops."
--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


possible Block evasion by banned User:HarveyCarter. same IP area as the others from the Invasion of Poland and the German declaration of war against the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.180.20.239 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.154.234.153

@Piotrus: @Paul Siebert: @El C: @Binksternet:

Last sentence in the lead[edit]

This sentence seems out of place "Under the international rules regarding aerial warfare in 1939 Warsaw was considered a legitimate military target as the city was on the front line during the fighting and it was heavily defended by the Polish army.[2]". I haven't seen any similar statements on other articles, so what makes this one special? Could be moved further down, if it wasn't already. Rousillon (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fedor Bock leaded the bombardement of warsaw[edit]

Fedor von Bock was the highest general in the wehrmacht heeresgruppe nord, who invaded northern poland ... He was the general, who leaded the luftwaffe bombardement on warsaw ... bock killed a lot of civilians ... 2003:FA:5F05:6D00:D0C0:7C4C:8268:C928 (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Warsaw_(1939)&oldid=1213812939"