You showed us that this town was attacked , yes , nice , nothing new at all ( by the way , what the IPN exhibition is really worth it showed as they presented the old , not backuped Wielun fairy tale spread by Trenckner ) , but , again , any primary sources to proove that this was a planned "terror attack" ??
If not I don't see no neccessarity to play further with you
Jan-Hendrik
Arthur "Bomber " Harris.....
Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil
-
- Patron
- Posts: 1984
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 8:42 am
- Location: Wienhausen
- Contact:
Oh I see and Wielun is now also a fairy tale.
Sorry, but you have presented no sources giving you any credibility towards claims that Frampol is a myth.
Your only action was to claim Wielun also is a myth.Again with no sources given.
You didn't present any evidence the quote is falsification.
You didn't present any evidence the photos are falsification.
You didn't present any evidence that IPN lies.
You didn't present any evidence that Polish governement lies.
We can go over Wielun, after you present your sources on Frampol, which was the main point of my post.
Or do you admit you made that statement without any basis ?
I presented several including a statement from Luftwaffe specialist, photos and official statements., but , again , any primary sources to proove that this was a planned "terror attack" ??
Sorry, but you have presented no sources giving you any credibility towards claims that Frampol is a myth.
Your only action was to claim Wielun also is a myth.Again with no sources given.
You didn't present any evidence the quote is falsification.
You didn't present any evidence the photos are falsification.
You didn't present any evidence that IPN lies.
You didn't present any evidence that Polish governement lies.
We can go over Wielun, after you present your sources on Frampol, which was the main point of my post.
Or do you admit you made that statement without any basis ?
-
- Patron
- Posts: 1984
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 8:42 am
- Location: Wienhausen
- Contact:
As this is a research forum, I kindly ask you to present sources that led you to claim historical events given as facts by renowned historical Institute of National Remembrance, quotes by Luftwaffe specialist presented in a published book and photos are myths.
Let me ask this again, you claimed they are myths based on what information ?
Let me ask this again, you claimed they are myths based on what information ?
There aren't any primary sources to give regarding the quote from Wolfgang Schreyer's book. They aren't mentioned in the notes nor the source text in the wikipedia article they and the photos are taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombardment
Since Torquez was kind enough to not post the links to other materal mentioned it's hard to check up, but I'm suspecting they're sporting that same quote....without primary sources.
Oh, and M.H. is still waiting for an answer to the question he asked you in the beginning of this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombardment
Since Torquez was kind enough to not post the links to other materal mentioned it's hard to check up, but I'm suspecting they're sporting that same quote....without primary sources.
Oh, and M.H. is still waiting for an answer to the question he asked you in the beginning of this thread.
-
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Torquez...earlier in the thread you did indeed have a quote from a Luftwaffe aerial reconnaisance veteran, saying that the town was selected for a specific mission because of its lack of AA cover, and lets face it, its SHAPE. There was NO comment in the quote that the target was SPECIFICALLY chosen because it was a civilian target. Bad quote.
Im quite sure that IF the Polish Army had been willing to formate in a geometric pattern on the ground AND not fire on any approaching bomber..then the Luftwaffe would have have been VERY happy to bomb it - because theyd ALSO have taken out the opposition on the ground.
As for your asserting that because the Polish Government declared this was a crime against the civilian population during the war....sadly I have to find THIS choice of source LAUGHABLE on your part; why? Because not very many days ago, when *I* described the Polish government in exile in London as the LEGITIMATE government, you vehemently denied that and declared that Poland had no government from 1939 until 1948! Pick a side of the fence and come down on it, straddling it for too long .....just causes prostate problems LOL
Torquez, a primary source in stances like this - "war crimes" - means a source that would stand up in court. THAT'S the sort of obligation the word "crime" means. And saying it is one doesn't make it so, that discussion has been had before. At the minute you are ALLEGING a war crime - primary sources like attack orders, operational planning, personal recollections of the partcipitants are what we're taking here, not allegations. Take the example of Cesar Vidal investigating Guernica - he was given or got access to evertything he could find, and found more evidence AGAINST the Condor Legion being aware that FRANCO intended an attack specifically on the civilian population than he found FOR them being aware. Which he freely admits was not what he expected to find.
Torquez, please be careful therefore of the words "war crime" etc., which are after all banned on the forum. As are UNPROVEN allegations of them. This is EXACTLY what this thread is about - the difference between the PERCEPTION of an airforce targeting civilians, and the reality. You are very busy showing up exactly what we've been talking about for the last eight pages, that the reality of targeting decisions is very often vastly different from what people are told, or believe. Are you trying to loose your own argument?
Im quite sure that IF the Polish Army had been willing to formate in a geometric pattern on the ground AND not fire on any approaching bomber..then the Luftwaffe would have have been VERY happy to bomb it - because theyd ALSO have taken out the opposition on the ground.
As for your asserting that because the Polish Government declared this was a crime against the civilian population during the war....sadly I have to find THIS choice of source LAUGHABLE on your part; why? Because not very many days ago, when *I* described the Polish government in exile in London as the LEGITIMATE government, you vehemently denied that and declared that Poland had no government from 1939 until 1948! Pick a side of the fence and come down on it, straddling it for too long .....just causes prostate problems LOL
Torquez, a primary source in stances like this - "war crimes" - means a source that would stand up in court. THAT'S the sort of obligation the word "crime" means. And saying it is one doesn't make it so, that discussion has been had before. At the minute you are ALLEGING a war crime - primary sources like attack orders, operational planning, personal recollections of the partcipitants are what we're taking here, not allegations. Take the example of Cesar Vidal investigating Guernica - he was given or got access to evertything he could find, and found more evidence AGAINST the Condor Legion being aware that FRANCO intended an attack specifically on the civilian population than he found FOR them being aware. Which he freely admits was not what he expected to find.
Torquez, please be careful therefore of the words "war crime" etc., which are after all banned on the forum. As are UNPROVEN allegations of them. This is EXACTLY what this thread is about - the difference between the PERCEPTION of an airforce targeting civilians, and the reality. You are very busy showing up exactly what we've been talking about for the last eight pages, that the reality of targeting decisions is very often vastly different from what people are told, or believe. Are you trying to loose your own argument?
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
So German Luftwaffe bombed a target that was lacking AA defence, military and industry. And which happens to be a civilian town.Torquez...earlier in the thread you did indeed have a quote from a Luftwaffe aerial reconnaisance veteran, saying that the town was selected for a specific mission because of its lack of AA cover, and lets face it, its SHAPE. There was NO comment in the quote that the target was SPECIFICALLY chosen because it was a civilian target. Bad quote.
Really ? Where, give specific quote. And I was talking about the post-89 one anyway...when *I* described the Polish government in exile in London as the LEGITIMATE government, you vehemently denied that and declared that Poland had no government from 1939 until 1948!
I am still waiting for any sources portaying presented facts by IPN as disputable.
IPN-a historical institute dedicated to researching war crimes in Poland presents it as such-any sources disputing this ?At the minute you are ALLEGING a war crime
Ekhem, you claim Luftwaffe didn't target civilians in September 1939 ?between the PERCEPTION of an airforce targeting civilians
Because the quote clearly speaks it did.An object withoug military defence and presence, that happens to be...a civilian town, is a civilian target, don't you think ?
Last edited by Torquez on Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Patron
- Posts: 1984
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 8:42 am
- Location: Wienhausen
- Contact:
I already provided proof.Torqi , we don't need any blabla , if it is so easy to proove your claims why didn't you still present any ?
Waiting for your source that claim historical facts presented by IPN are disputable. IPN is a respectable historic institute and I am sure they researched it well.Anyway quote from Luftwaffe specialist as to nature of the orders is enough anyway.
They are already two solid facts.
You didn't present even a single doubt.
Please present any source disputing statements regarding the nature of orders towards bombardment of Frampol and disputing IPN statement.
Last edited by Torquez on Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Patron
- Posts: 1984
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 8:42 am
- Location: Wienhausen
- Contact:
-
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
No. And you betray a sad lacking of knowledge of things military if you believe that. Just because something doesnt have a military presence or defence doesnt make it a CIVILIAN target. What on earth would you call the empty Seigfried Line from 1939 to 1944??? By your logic - because it had no military presence or defence it was a civilian target.What is a stretch of woodland....but a civilian target...put a defending force in it, and its a military target. Once the fighting has rolled by...is it a military target or a civilian one again...??? Answer? a military one - because it has had military significance before and who can say the war will not roll back over it? Or - how about a civilian airport - with a military compund beside it? Like so many then - and now. Are they a military target...or a civilian one?
IF you actually intended to use the word CLAIM there, then put the word "alleged" in front of war crimes, please. Thats the site rules.
Ahem yourself - "claims"? Come down off that fence.IPN-a historical institute dedicated to researching war crimes in Poland claims it was
IF you actually intended to use the word CLAIM there, then put the word "alleged" in front of war crimes, please. Thats the site rules.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
What I provided were statements of facts, not claims.You provided some claims
Do you have any source stating that those historical events presented by IPN and quote by Luftwaffe specialist, photo of destroyed civilian town are disputable and thus should be treated as claims ?
???? What language is this ?nisch woar ?
I am sure they did.If the IPN so clearly states this claim they had for sure presented primary sources to document this claim
You are free to contact them if you doubt it:
Address:
00-839 Warsaw
ul. Towarowa 28
Poland
Because it wasn't me that prepared the scholary exhibition.If you believe IPN lied in the exhibition, you are free to contact them and try to defend Luftwaffe's good name.Why you are not able to present them ?
Good luck.
Well what is a town full of civilians.If that is not a civilian target then what ?
Just because something doesnt have a military presence or defence doesnt make it a CIVILIAN target.
Was Frampol-a town full of civilians, elderly, children, crippled, infants-part of Siegfred Line ?What on earth would you call the empty Seigfried Line from 1939 to 1944??
-
- Patron
- Posts: 1984
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 8:42 am
- Location: Wienhausen
- Contact:
One last try ....
You brought in the allegation of a "terror attak" with the example of Frampol.
You were unable to proove this by bringing in hard facts or primary sources .
You only presented secondary sources with contains only claims on this topic , and , at least , even hear-say .
And know you dare to ask me to organize the requested primary sources ??
It was your claim , so its you who has to proove it , if not it will stay here only as another claim by Tourquez ...
Jan-Hendrik
You brought in the allegation of a "terror attak" with the example of Frampol.
You were unable to proove this by bringing in hard facts or primary sources .
You only presented secondary sources with contains only claims on this topic , and , at least , even hear-say .
And know you dare to ask me to organize the requested primary sources ??
It was your claim , so its you who has to proove it , if not it will stay here only as another claim by Tourquez ...
Jan-Hendrik
I brought statements of Luftwaffe specialists and IPN that Frampol indeed was made just for researching how effective killing and destruction was by bombing, including photos of the terror raid.
Sorry but it is you goes against widely accepted historical statement.
It falls on you to show any evidence that your extraordinary claim(mainly that Frampol is a myth) is in any way credible.
Frankly between choosing a statement of renoknown and respected historical Institution like IPN and a word of anon user that idolises German Reich I prefer the statement of this historical institution, rather then claims of anonymous fan, whose claim he hasn't been able to support with any source.
What I provided were statements of facts, not claims.
Do you have any source stating that those historical events presented by IPN and quote by Luftwaffe specialist, photo of destroyed civilian town are disputable and thus should be treated as claims ?
Sorry but it is you goes against widely accepted historical statement.
It falls on you to show any evidence that your extraordinary claim(mainly that Frampol is a myth) is in any way credible.
Frankly between choosing a statement of renoknown and respected historical Institution like IPN and a word of anon user that idolises German Reich I prefer the statement of this historical institution, rather then claims of anonymous fan, whose claim he hasn't been able to support with any source.
Nope I didn't provided any "claims"It was your claim
What I provided were statements of facts, not claims.
Do you have any source stating that those historical events presented by IPN and quote by Luftwaffe specialist, photo of destroyed civilian town are disputable and thus should be treated as claims ?
-
- Patron
- Posts: 1984
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 8:42 am
- Location: Wienhausen
- Contact: