Talk:Gleiwitz incident

Nuremberg proc. December 20 1945

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)

Could you offer a citation for this, for referencing purposes?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

opening paragraph

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)

Polish uniforms

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)

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)

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)

International reaction

Did anyone buy this, either in Germany, Poland, or internationally? Brutannica 21:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

i agree the available informations are not to much (much thinner then i expected), taking h as a reference eg. isn't that convincing or suggestive of accuracy, however i understand from the german (wiki) this man: " Erwin von Lahousen " has also made statements concerning the same cases. wich would clear up some of the status of the narrative of these events. it may be interesting to ppl who research in this affair.(tho this erwin is also an upperclass survivor and thus a witness of doubtfull integrity in my pov) also i don't think noone ever heard of these story's before 1945, as i am quite sure at least the germans were informed about such incidents, and one could point out (as i think article mentions), not completely convinced even. as far as i understood the invited usian press was also not convinced, since otoh. from hearsay i have it some of these polish attacks really happened, ( wich i btw don't belief it did in on any relevant armed scale), i think the matter was of such importance, before 1945(nuremberg) an allied assesment in these affairs was also made. perhaps it is more sensible to also point out that in every neighbouring country anti fascist forces would undertake (for the very most part civil) action against the ever more aggresive nazi politics. it explains somewhat how these incidents could be made up with some degree of credibility. it is also worth realising the contemporain neighbour governments would be most scared and contrary to such actions, wich might explain that (if) the wider european population took the german propaganda to seriously. 24.132.171.225 (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

21 incidents?

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)

Hitler stated 21 ([2]), this number is also given by this source ([3]). 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)

Elimination of SD Men?

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)

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)

Confusion: victims and 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)

Similarity to Silesian Uprisings

Please provide refs for the statement that In order to be more convincing, the operation was made to imitate similar Polish actions that had ignited three previous Silesian uprisings, where Polish army units had crossed the border into Germany and incited violence. Particulary important is to source that Polish army units had crossed border to Germany and initiated the three Silesian Uprisings. Otherwise this claim will have to be removed due to lack of refs (per WP:V).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just look at the Silesian Uprisings article, there is an image of a Polish Army armoured car on German territory. what other evidence do you need? a Polish politician name painted on the side of that armoured car? or that same polish poltician being stated as commander of the Polish forces? or maybe you should read the Polish Military Organisation article, the combatants that fought in the Silesian Uprising were incorporated into the Polish army, hmmm... is that enough evidence? It is not very hard to draw a parallel between the two. Poland in its brief interwar history attacked every single one of her neighbours atleast once. ein---svei---drei---vier---funf

--Jadger 02:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that armoured car is on German territory? I don't see a flag in the picture.

Yes, it would be good to know the names of the units and their commanders (well, names of commanders is not strictly necessary but since you offered...)

You should know by now that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Even if it was, asking the reader to "draw a parallel between the two" is inappropriate. The reader should not have to link to another article to "connect the dots". Connect the dots for him and provide a citation.

--Richard 03:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, we cannot draw conclusions based on a photo - that's OR. Further, the car more likely belong to the insurgents, not the Polish Army.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"there is an image of a Polish Army armoured car on German territory"

It likely is French Italian or German armoured that Polish fighters took for themselfs and painted over(French and Italian forces were there as observers).As to Poland-Polish Army was actually forbidden per orders to intervene due to fear of losing the acceptence of international community regarding Silesia and conflict in the East. Which was base for Endecja accusing Pilsudski of being German agent, but that is another topic--Molobo 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I found where the car was made, I will give this information for Jadger. Poles made it themselfs in Wożniak foundry, it was one of the two created.

--Molobo 10:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

yes, and as for the Polish "insurrectionists" being absorbed into the Polish army? I still havent heard a response. They were obviously trained well enough so that supposed miners and farmers and civilians could be absorbed immediately into the Polish army.

--Jadger 19:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This was just after World War I, during which millions of people have received extensive military training and combat experience. Balcer 19:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

there is no evidence of these citizens being veterans or recruits, unless you can cite a source that states that the insurrectionists were veterans?

--Jadger 04:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Use your brain. World War I ended in 1918. Germany made a great effort in that war, and conscripted a large part of its population. Since Silesia was part of Germany, its population as German citizens served in the war. Hence many young men in the area would have served at the front and gained military experience. It seems pretty clear then that insurrectionists had to include a large proportion of ex-soldiers. Balcer 05:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying it's common sense right? connect the dots? that's exactly what I have been saying to my points all along, but I'm supposed to provide citations and you arent? A little bit of a double standard dont you think?

--Jadger 06:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You have made the claim, so the burden is on you to provide references for it, when requested. Balcer 13:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

YOU made the claim that the insurgents were WWI veterans, so the burden is on you to provide references for it, when requested.

--Jadger 20:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, knock it off, you guys. How is this relevant to the article? Is there a specific edit that this dispute affects? If not, hold this discussion elsewhere. --Richard 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

if he can prove that the insurgents were WWI veterans, it negates the fact that they were trained and armed by Poland, and thus disproves my point that the Polish were performing suversive actions in Germany as early as 1919, and that one can draw a parallel between it and Gleiwitz.

--Jadger 21:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I have no intention to insert a statement into the article that they were WWI veterans, and am making this claim on talk only, I am not required by Wikipedia policies to provide references. On the other hand, since you want to put your claim into the article, you do need to provide references. Surely you see the difference. Balcer 21:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The linchpin of wikipedia is cooperation, the pooling of our resources together. it is entirely childish to not want to help out other users in their attempts to improve articles. If you are go8ing to be an impediment, you might as well leave Wikipedia, as that is not what Wikipedia is for.

--Jadger 21:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the above is very nice but it is still OR. To repeat Piotrus' request... where are the refs that establish that Polish army units crossed the border to support one or more of the Silesian uprisings. Furthermore, where is the ref that establishes that the Gleiwitz incident was manipulated to be similar to the Silesian uprisings? --Richard 05:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it seems the refs are not being provided, I have removed that statement from the article. It can be restored once references that back it up are cited. Balcer 21:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Korfanty was the leader of the Uprising, and was Polish, and crossed the border, my point is proven, Poles crossed the border to fight in the uprising. also on the Silesian Uprising article it clearly states (with citation) that Poles migrated into the region to vote and to fight. I could cite the fact that Korfanty crossed the border and actively enganged in hostilities on the German state a thousand times over, it is a common known fact, so doesnt really need citation.

--Jadger 21:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement makes a claim about how the operation was planned in 1939. It describes what was in the minds of the Nazis who organized it. It is far from obvious to me whether the claim is true, and I would like to see a reference. This seems to be a very reasonable request.

Anyway, who gets to decide which facts are "commonly known" and hence don't need a reference? Balcer 21:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Jadger, read our policies: "Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or any quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be subject to removal." You have failed to provide any sources, reliable or not, for your claims. EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

PP, you also should read our policies: no edit warring. Need I remind you it is one of the reasons you are already up for ArbCom.

--Jadger 22:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it involves teaching policy to users who try to abuse it. Stop inserting unreferenced OR into the articles. PS. In case you will complain about my removal of your "references": 1) the first one is not about this event but about Silesian Uprisings; your connecting it to this event is complete OR and 2) second is a wiki; wikis are unreliable per WP:RS, WP:RSEX, WP:ATT/FAQ and etc. PS2. My reverts are in accordance with WP:V. Your reverts are in violation of WP:V and WP:OR. See the difference?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow Polski, I guess the only thing I insert that won't be deleted is if I stated that Poland is the greatest nation in the world, and among Poles, PP is greatest. you ask for a reference to the fact that Polish civilians crossed the border and engaged in fighting during the Silesian uprising, then you delete any reference that I give. Shame on you, yet another reason you are under ArbCom

--Jadger 23:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop acting like you don't understand our arguments. We ask you for a reference that compares Operation Himmler to incidents during Silesian Uprisings. Your own 'drawing the dots' and claims it is similar is not allowed on Wikipedia; you could as well compare it to Polish invasions of Teutonic territory during 15th century Polish-Teutonic Wars, Wielkopolskie's Uprisings, Polish participation in Napoleon's invasion of Russia or Mongol invasions of Europe for all I care: but unless you give us refs that make those very connections, it is not enough to claim the similarity in our article. PS. All your two "refs" ([4], [5]) are old Wikipedias forks, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources (per WP:RS), and old forks are even worse - so you cannot even claim your claims were referenced at all. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, stop waving the book at me telling me the rules in it when you yourself dont know how to read. You asked for a reference that Polish citizens crossed the border during the Silesian Uprisings and engaged in combat, I gave a couple of references. Now, you want references for something the statement I inserted doesnt even say. du macht nein sinnvoll Before you delete stuff, you should look at what it says.

P.S. They arent all old wikipedia forks. stop trying to defame anyone that doesnt agree with you that 2+2=5

--Jadger 23:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside your personal attacks and claims that we didn't ask you for what we had several times (ex. [6]): Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Events" (and the Wikipedia logo is hard to miss at the bottom, "GNU Free Documentation License 1.2" and see [7] and 1921 in Germany (yes, simplifiedwiki is one of GFDL violators for not stating clearly it is leeching our content, but nobody who has seen several forks should be fooled by it).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I didnt say you didnt ask me for it, under the current version of the sentence in question it is n/a as you would be asking me to cite a subject that is not in the article.

--Jadger 00:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Article protected until we can resolve this dispute

Jagder, I'm sorry but I agree with Piotrus on this. The best statement of the problem so far is:

We ask you for a reference that compares Operation Himmler to incidents during Silesian Uprisings. Your own 'drawing the dots' and claims it is similar is not allowed on Wikipedia; you could as well compare it to Polish invasions of Teutonic territory during 15th century Polish-Teutonic Wars, Wielkopolskie's Uprisings, Polish participation in Napoleon's invasion of Russia or Mongol invasions of Europe for all I care: but unless you give us refs that make those very connections, it is not enough to claim the similarity in our article.

Here's another way to look at this: You can insert assertion A and source it. You can then insert assertion B and source it. That does not allow you to link A to B without also sourcing the linkage.

Thus, all the references regarding the Silesian uprisings establish "A" - that Poles entered German territory to incite and support the uprisings.

The reference to the Nuremberg trials establish "B" - that Germans rigged the Gleiwitz to look like Poles had entered German territory.

The problem is the linkage of A and B. It does seem plausible that the Germans might have decided to do B because they remembered A. However, to state so without a reference is OR. Why? Because you don't know this for a fact. You're just assuming and speculating that it is true. Ideally, you would put the words smack in the mouth of Alfred Naujocks or some other Nazi official. That would end all discussion. Alternatively, you could try to find a reputable historian who has come to the same conclusion that you have.

Please either find the requisite reference ASAP or signal your willingness to have the offending sentence removed until you are able to find it.

With all due respect, --Richard 06:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we've been around this block before. In a different article, we discussed whether Selbstschutz was a reason for the expulsion of Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia. Even if the existence of Selbstschutz is established, it does not prove the linkage between Selbstchutz and the expulsions. Different article, different situation, same kind of OR problem.

--Richard 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is all explained in WP:V. I do not see why we need to turn this talk page into a training program for Jadger that would enable him to learn and understand Wikipedia policies. I certainly don't have time to participate in such a program. As an admin, I would have expected you to come down harder on a user that is violating policy in such a blatant way. Jadger's blatant violation of 3RR should also be acted upon (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR). Balcer 13:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. When a single user is disrupting the page, and violating 3RR, the solution is not to protect the page, preventing others from contributing, but to block the offender so he learns why revert warring is not recommended. Since Jadger has so far refused to provide sources for his claims, and the current version of the article protects his revision, I don't see why he wouldn't be content with the article staying protected forever, and when unprotected, breaking 3RR to ensure his version is always visible.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So, at the price of taking a 24 hr break (via the 3RR block), Jadger has ensured that his version of the article will stay up for a week (or however long the article remains protected), despite objections of everyone involved in the discussion at the moment except him and despite breaking a vital Wikipedia policy. Looks like a pretty sweet deal from his point of view. Is this what you want to accomplish here, Richard? Letting a single user hold an article hostage via his manipulation of Wikipedia mechanisms?

Also, could you please insert a template indicating that the article is now protected? This is very important, as me must give an indication to the readers that the current version of the article is highly disputed. If you cannot do it, maybe Piotrus can. Balcer 01:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bslcer, I am sure it was not Richard's intention (protection is not an endorsement of any version); I do agree as I wrote above that in this case protection of an article is not optimal: protection should be used when two sides cannot reach an argument; not when a single user is breaking 3RR against comments of several.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard has been very reasonable here and I am certain his intentions are good. Nevertheless, the results of his administrative action in protecting the article are as I described. I am merely suggesting that maybe a different approach more targeted at influencing the sole user who is going against concensus and violates Wikipedia policies would be more productive here. Balcer 14:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

With that I believe we are in complete agreement.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see rather than cooperate and work productively on the article, users would rather have those who dont support their nationalist views entrapped then blocked, good thing their are admin to protect pages that become targets of notorious revert warriors like you two. It's also nice to see that Balcer is willing to lie to admin in order to have me blocked, going straight for the jugular eh? Then you try blatant kiss-assing of the admin who stopped you from revert-warring on this page in the first place.

• you cannot base consensus off of two people, so stop claiming so Balcer.
• There is no problem with verifiability in the current version, perhaps PP can cite the passage he is referring to that bans reliable sources?

--Jadger 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal pages can't be used as source per Wiki policy. Britannica is allowed however, yet I read the whole link and couldn't find any mention about what Jadger claims in that articles. Perhaps he could give citation here from that online source-because I see no mention about Gliwice radio station attack there. I am looking forward to that citation thank you in advance. --Molobo 22:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In my view Jadger's edits are bad faith, to say it mildly. He is also sticking together completely unrelated issues probably trying to make some strange point. - Darwinek 23:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see the cabal has been rallied. Molobo, you need to subscribe to Brittanica in order to see the article.

--Jadger 02:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know that. Where in the Brittanica article is there a mention of your theory. I don't see anywhere anything about Gliwice. Could you say what sentence makes this claim ? --Molobo 12:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are misunderstanding, I never said it was about Gleiwitz, it was about the Silesian Uprisings. Also, read this Wikipedia article, [Edmund Charaszkiewicz] fully referenced, clearly stating that high ranking Polish military personnel performed subvertive operations trying to make the populace rebel, and smuggling weapons in before the plebiscite took place, before the uprisings were happening.

--Jadger 17:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article, the last time I checked, was about Gleiwitz incident, not Silesian Uprisings. Feel free to add your content with refs to SU to SU article, but it is not related here. Unless you can provide a ref showing that GI was based on SU, as you claim, it is OR and should not be added here. As for Charaszkiewicz article (sadly missing inline citations), I am not suprised that there was Polish intelligence (Polish Military Organisation?) operations during SU (and I'd expect German intelligence was active there as well - neither side was foolish), but again this is not related here unless you can provide a ref that states that GI was modeled on the SU-era Polish intelligence operations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

PP said: but again this is not related here unless you can provide a ref that states that GI was modeled on the SU-era Polish intelligence operations but that is not what the sentence in the article states. perhaps you should re-read what it says before starting a revert war over it. The article does not say it was modeled on it at all.

--Jadger 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Jadger can we get finally some source comparing the action in Gliwice with clandestine actions during Silesian Uprisings ? I am not sure they were similar and no source you gave claims this to my knowledge, unless I missed something. --Molobo 18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Jadger, it clearly states: "The operation was very similar to Polish actions..." - please provide a ref that makes this connection. As I and other wrote above, we - the editors - can discuss many connections, but unless they are referenced we cannot include them in article (see WP:OR). Further, there is a second disputed and unreferenced statement, notably about "Polish actions that had ignited three previous Silesian uprisings" - citations that it was purely Polish, and not German, actions, that lead to the uprising would be nice - although in any case they don't belong to this article, but to SU one.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection lifted

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)

Recap

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)

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)

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)

UK TV / Schindler

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)

Note # 1 as a reliable source

This reference is a link to 911review.com [8]; the portal is a 9/11 conspiracy site, and the referenced article lists no author. It seems to be excerpted from [9]. Novickas 23:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

RFC

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)

References

Incident never mentioned in 1939

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)

found an independent source which confirms that this incident happened by citing original documents: http://wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/deutsch/archiv/dokuvorgeschichte/dvk41.html

"4. Meldung des Polizeipräsidenten Gleiwitz. Gegen 20 Uhr wurde der Sender Gleiwitz durch einen Trupp polnischer Aufständischer überfallen und vorübergehend besetzt. Die Aufständischen wurden durch deutsche Grenzpolizeibeamten vertrieben. Bei der Abwehr wurde ein Aufständischer tödlich verletzt." Nowowiejski (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Gleiwitz incident

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)

New source document

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)

Is it available online? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

testimony was made under pressure

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)

B-class review

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

German propaganda using Gleiwitz

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)

Just More Allied Lies

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)

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)

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)

Is the article reliable?

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))

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)

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))

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

merge proposal

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)

Naujocks' is inconsistent on when this happened.

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)

Source of 22 August Hitler quote

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)

Story

What about a reference to the C.S. Forester story, “Evidence”? It is about this. 2A00:23EE:1518:262:7040:925A:41CF:3BB (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)