Talk:MV Wilhelm Gustloff/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Book: The Damned Don't Drown

Recently I added The Damned Don't Drown by A.V. Sellwood to the list of books about the Wilhelm Gustloff. I indicated that this is a "fictionalized account" of the sinking, which means that the accounts are true but that they have been retold in a fictionalized format in order to both flesh them out and merge them together into a readable story. My wording has twice been changed by an anonymous contributor, probably well-meaning, to read that the book is a "work of fiction on the tragedy", citing the copyright page.

I don't wish to get into a revert war with this nameless person, so I'll list my reasons here.

Firstly, "fiction" implies that the characters and their stories have been invented. In fact, I can personally attest to the accuracy of one account, which is that of my own partner and her mother.

Secondly, I've checked the copyright page of my book and it doesn't mention "fiction".

Thirdly, A.V. Sellwood includes a "Personal Note" at the front of the book, in which he writes:

Today, in The Damned Don't Drown, I have attempted a reconstruction of the tragedy ...

I hope this sufficiently justifies my characterizing Sellwood's book as a "fictionalized account", yet I remain open to any evidence that justifies the opposing point of view. Ian Fieggen (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Added Sellwood book to "Further Reading"

Fictionalized accounts are by definition poor choices as sources for encyclopedia articles. But I don't know of any policies prohibiting them from being listed under "Further reading" if they are in fact about the article's subject/topic. I've added this book to "Further reading" along with the recent one by Cathryn Prince (2013). Both Prince and Sellwood's books have WorldCat records to which I've linked. ChristineBushMV (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wilhelm Gustloff

it is my opinion that the articles on the sinkings of the Willhelm Gustloff and the Goya and others should be listed under German shipwrecks because they were German ships operating in German waters - Konigsberg, Danzig, East Prussia, Pomerania etc were all a part of Germany at that time, and had been an integral part of Germany for many years prior to the WW2. 68.103.125.194 (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Malcolm Freeman

Ship history

I placed and expand tag on the ship history section. I feel that we should provide more information on the Wilhelm Gustloff prior to it's military career. Some of provided links are good sources for this. If I get a chance I'll try to add some material.Shinerunner (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Move to MV Wilhelm Gustloff

The page was recently moved (renamed) to "MV Wilhelm Gustloff". I'm just wondering if "MV" shouldn't be changed into "MS" (Motorschiff) or similar, to use the proper German abbreviation. At least I think we should be consistent in using the native language designations (is there a policy regarding this?). Please compare to the German WW1 warships, which are all called "SMS" (Seiner Majestät Schiff). What do you think? Cheers MikeZ (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It does seem a bit strange. As well as this, the ship is most notable for its sinking, at which time it was a naval vessel. Clearly it would have had different German designations during its career, so perhaps a better name would be "Wilhelm Gustloff (German ship)" or something similar. By comparison, we have:German battleship Bismarck and German cruiser Emden.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

podcast of an interview with three survivors of the sinking (available till mid-February 2009)

On a recent radio broadcast of Late Night Live (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), the presenter, Phillip Adams, speaks for almost an hour with three survivors of the sinking, along with a historian and one of the wreck divers. The program first aired in 2005 but was repeated last night. This is the link to the podcast - which are normally only available for about two weeks (which is why I'm placing the link here rather than in the links section of the article). The page also lists a book (written in Swedish) which I didn't see listed in the article. Title: Dodens Hav ('Sea of Death') Author: Claes-Goran Wetterholm Publisher: Prisma, Sweden, 2003 GlenDillon 07:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: The podcast of Late Night Live mentioned by Glen Dillon is still available after five years on the ABC website, under the link given (download and listening tested). --Zipor haNefesch (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

lead-in

explanation of my changes to the recent edit by IP editor: (1) "the Soviets" , in my view is a somewhat unencylopedic phrase - ie it was a Soviet sub, not the Soviet 'people'. Lives are not killed - people are. Lives are lost. Also - the term 'killing' may imply 'direct effect', such as those killed directly by the torpedoes, of which there was undoubtedly many. Obviously, the main cause of the loss of life was the Soviet sub's attack, but killed doesn't seem the best term. (2) Most of them 'civilians' - again- true - but this is not what made it the largest maritime disaster. (3) The term 'worst' is also unencyclopedic - because of its ambiguity. It was numerically the greatest loss of life. 'Worst' could be taken to mean other things such as 'most immoral' etc. (4) Finally - the term 'human' in 'human history' is redundant. In the context of maritime disaters, history=human history. (5) ALso - please note the number of lives. It was recently changed from 9k to 7k - without much explanation, other than a ref to the Deepimage website. (6) There is still a mismatch between the numbers stated in the intro paragraphs. I haven't attemted to resolve this, yet it is a glaring problem in the article. GlenDillon 15:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

She vs. He

Isn't it traditional in the German navy to refer to ships in the Masculine? I might be mistaken about that. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a suggestion it might have applied to Bismarck, but not that it was a tradition; but so what? This is the WP for the English language, where it is traditional to refer to ships as "she". Xyl 54 (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

German wikipedia refers to the ship in the feminine, Die Wilhelm Gustloff, Bismarck is also feminine after a review of that article, Die Bismarck. --Farkeld (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In German (my native language), as a general rule, all ships are feminine. -- HH 85.180.213.210 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The ship is actually referred to as "it" for much of the article!--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Gunter Grass dead link

I'm not sure how to edit the list of references, but no. 12 supposedly linking to the 2003 Gunter Grass article in the nytimes is a dead link. here is the active link to the article in the times' archive http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/08/books/still-intrigued-history-s-shadows-gunter-grass-worries-about-effects-war-then.html?ref=gunter_grass if a more experienced editor could fix this it would be greatly appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.164.50 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Diverted his war effort

It has been suggested that Hitler diverted a lot of his war effort in order to fulfil his (fanatical) dream of the final solution rather than resupply his army or evecuate his people.86.165.49.91 (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Jack

I think that's an exaggeration, though of course the Final Solution did use resources that could have been used elsewhere. However, it is relevant to note that Hitler delayed evacuating civilians because of his unwillingness to accept defeat, leading to this tragedy.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm,origin of German civilians

Perhaps it would be to interesting to know how it happened that a formerly Polish city without any significant German population, was suddenly full of German civilian population.Could it be that they were Nazi administrators and colonists sent to occupied Poland after 1939?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it certainly couldn't. Just have a look at the political map of that part of Europe, and you'll see that Gdingen/Gdynia (which had been a part of Germany before 1920 for about 150 years) was full of refugees from the surrounding areas which had either a substantial German population minority or even a majority (as in the case of Danzig /Gdansk, which was 95% ethnically German, and its vicinity). -- HH 85.180.213.210 (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, most of the passengers were from Danzig or East Prussia, which had had a majority of German inhabitants ever since the middle ages. Some also came from the 'Memelland' north of East Prussia, which the international community had awarded to Lithuania after WWI despite an overwhelming proportion of the population wanting to remain within Germany. Similarly, a small number originated from the former West Prussia, which had had a mixed population for the preceding few hundred years but which the Versailles treaty awarded to Poland after WWI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.106.109.24 (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It's primary mission

Wat to transport submarine crews to Kiel as per this article. What for? Were there submarines in Kiel that they were to use in fight of Nazi Germany against Allies?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There were submarines in Kiel, but at that time of the war many, if not most of them, were out of order/non-functional for various reasons, mainly lack of fuel, armament and other supplies. The primary reason those navy sailors were moved westwards was just to avoid them becoming prisoners of the Red Army. -- HH 85.180.213.210 (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not true. Germany was still fighting hard, and the redeployment of troops from pockets in the east into Germany proper was highly strategically important.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Gusloff map.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gusloff map.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"War Crime"

Despite Grass's opinions, it is commonly believed that the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff was one of the worst war crimes of the century, if not one of the worst in history.

I don't exactly disagree with this sentiment, but I'm not comfortable with the manner in which it's presented, without citations. "It is commonly believed that" is an obvious weasel-word phrase and one that can easily be abused by partisans of whatever opinion.

Certainly, the drownings of many thousands of refugees, many of them women and children, late in the war, which occurred in the sinkings of the Gustloff, the MV Goya and the SS General von Steuben, served no military purpose, and thus could arguably be classified as war crimes. However, it also can be (and has been) argued that from a strictly military point of view these ships were legitimate military targets, given the practices of the German-Soviet war, in which no quarter was given. Captain Alexander Marinesko presumably thought so.

The fact that he was posthumously named a "Hero of the Soviet Union" in the dying days of the Soviet regime, in 1990, speaks volumes about the Russian point of view and the cynicism of military thinking generally. That the Russians chose to erect a monument to Marinesko, whose primary accomplishment in World War II was drowning thousands of German civilians — in of all places Kaliningrad, the ex-German city of Königsberg — is to my mind particularly cynical and obnoxious. But all things considered, I don't know that these sinkings are generally or universally viewed as war crimes, any more than are the bombing of German and Japanese cities, which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Personally, I agree with Grass that the Gustloff sinking was "a terrible result of war" — a terrible war on both sides.

Sca (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "Hero of the Soviet Union" it might be viewed in part as a very late rectification of the strange events and incarceration after war. Typical pattern in communist Russia - hangem and declare heroes posthumously pretty much regardless of their deeds.Richiez (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding war crime or not be bold and revert anything without a reputable source. The war was terrible and in itself a war crime. Richiez (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

War is inherently immoral, in my view. Sca (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Replying here to this comment on my talkpage. The paragraph you have introduced is problematical for several reasons:

• I don't think Grass is qualified to say whether it was a war crime or not, he is neither a historian nor does he have any strong background in legal affairs as far as I know. It just does not make sense to introduce his opinion here.
• Wikipedia has standards such as WP:MOS and if you edit articles you need to respect those standards. Controversial claims can not be introduced without reliable sources. If a reliable source claims it was a war crime that source can be cited as a claim.

Richiez (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Self published sources are rarely sufficient to make controversial claims, much less those from Institute for Historical Review. I am sure you will find better sources. Richiez (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS for guidance on sources. Richiez (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Crime implies knowledge. The submarine crew apparently had no knowledge that civilians were on board. As a navy ship the Gustloff was clearly a legitimate military target. However, this issue should be canvassed in the article--Jack Upland (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Crime doesn't necessarily imply knowledge like this. Whoever crashes into a car killing someone will face manslaughter charges in most countries of the world whether or not he knew someone was inside the car.

The article should only report what reliable sources say about this. Richiez (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sinking an enemy naval ship in wartime would not normally be called a war crime. The fact that there were in fact thousands of civilians on board is crucial to the case, and it appears that the submariners did not know this. If there is a source which says otherwise, that should be reported.

The discussion above really distorts the reality of the war. The Baltic coastline was a key strongpoint of the German army. The German navy was instrumental in supporting these positions. Hitler made Admiral Donitz his successor, reflecting the value he placed on the navy's role in the last-ditch defence of Germany. To portray this as merely a refugee issue of no military significance is totally false. To state that "no quarter was given" is also false. The Red Army was accepting the surrender of German forces and had no policy of attacking refugees or civilians in general.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to stir up an argument that's already been argued at length elsewhere, but I strongly disagree with the suggestion that the Red Army in 1945 "had no policy of attacking refugees or civilians." Many thousands of German civilians were mistreated and killed by vengeful Soviet soldiers, especially during the Red Army's initial advance into East Prussia. This is voluminously documented. Furthermore, as Solzhenitsyn noted in The Gulag Archipelago —

"... all of us knew very well that if the girls were German they could be raped and then shot. This was almost a combat distinction." (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Gulag Archipelago, Volume I, New York, 1973, p. 21 [paperback version].)

That the Soviets had reason to feel vengeful goes without saying. But anyone who wants to argue that Soviet retribution didn't happen won't get another peep out of me. I'm tired of talking about it.

Sca (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

But that's not a policy. At the same time as Solzenitsyn was arrested, rapists were arrested too. Hence the above quote.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No comment. Sca (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're tired of talking about it. I think you just want to assert your opinion without question. Anyway, to prove it was a "war crime", it needs to be proved that Marinesko knew this naval ship had civilian refugees on board. That would be very hard to do.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am tired of talking about it. Not a pleasant topic. However:

During the massive Soviet offensive across eastern Germany in early 1945, Red Army soldiers were inculcated with hate propaganda by Ilya Ehrenburg, such as this passage quoted by Alfred de Zayas in "Nemesis at Potsdam":

"Germany is a witch ... We are in Germany. German towns are burning, I am happy. ... Germany, you can now whirl around in circles, and burn, and howl in your deathly agony; the hour of revenge has struck!"

"Kill. Nothing in Germany is quiltless, neither the living nor the yet unborn. Follow the words of Comrade Stalin and crush forever the fascist beast.... Break the racial pride of the German woman. Take her as your legitimate booty."

— Alfred M. de Zayas, "Nemesis at Potsdam," London, 1969, p. 201.

See the article on Ilya Ehrenburg which states this is a Nazi fabrication. Note also the Ehrenburg was muzzled by the Soviet government because of his anti-German slant. Antony Beevor's Berlin has a lot of evidence relevant to this issue, even though his interpretation of this evidence is biased (for example, he wrongly describes the Wilhelm Gustloff as a "sea-cruise liner"). However, I think this is straying off the topic of the page. As far as the Soviet submariners knew, the ship was a military transport, redeploying German troops against the oncoming Red Army. It would be quite different if the ship had been flying a Red Cross or a white flag. It was a self-identified naval vessel in one of the most bitterly contested war zones in world history. If there is evidence that the submariners knew the ship was full of civilians, then that should be documented in the article. I doubt it. And by the way it was Gorbachev, not Stalin who made Marinesko a "Hero of the Soviet Union".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

But, the Gustloff was indeed built as a kind of cruise liner, for the Nazis' "Strength Through Joy" cruises.

Re your contention that the Ehrenburg "kill" propaganda was a Nazi fabrication, I don't believe the issue has been settled in an objectively documented manner. Even the "Criticism" section of the article on Antony Beevor takes a more neutral POV than yours, which to me appears to be pro-Soviet.

You need to carefully distinguish the "kill Germans" statements and "rape German women" statement. First one has never been denied and originates from 1942 and earlier, at a time when Russian troops were 1000+ miles away from any German civilians - thus it can not be interpreted as a call to kill German civilians. The "rape German women" is clearly a Nazi fabrication according to German WP article on that. It is well known that Russian soldiers went on raping in the Russian Zone of Germany even after the Red Army introduced (and applied) the death penalty for this. Richiez (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If you reread my remarks above about the Gustloff and the other torpedoed/sunk German ships, you will see that I don't necessarily consider them war crimes per se. Rather, I agree with Grass that they were "terrible results of a terrible war" — started, it is certainly true, by Germany.

I'm aware that the Kaliningrad monument to Marinseko was erected during Gobachev's tenure. That makes no difference as to its essentially cynical and obnoxious character. (I'm not aware that Gorbachev had any personal role in the project.) It's as if the we were to erect a memorial, say, to American and British bomber pilots in Dresden — though on a different scale. But by the same token, I wouldn't accuse those Allied fliers of a war crime; it was the policy or strategy that was, in early 1945 when the war was nearly over, at fault.

Finally, I'm also very much aware the the Soviets had much more reason, on an individual basis, to hate the Germans than we in the West did. It is, unfortunately, human nature to thirst for revenge. That does not make revenge moral, in my view — and in the view of certain other teachers of ethics historically. Sca (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the ship wasn't a cruise liner when it was sunk. And that's the point. And, apparently, there is no evidence that the submariners were operating according to a "thirst for revenge".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that there's "no evidence" with regard to the crew of the S-13, who perhaps were unaware of the identity of the Gustloff and the nature of its passengers. The German Navy took no steps to provide the ship with some kind of non-naval status or identity, and indeed it carried some military personnel. In the context of the mutually savage war in East, such would have had little effect.

However, it's very likely that the Soviet Navy was aware, from aerial reconnaissance and other military intelligence, that the German ships traversing the Baltic were carrying refugees. Treks of refugees had been arriving in Danzig and Pillau for weeks, and the docks in Danzig were thronged with refugees. More than a million German civilians were ferried westward by German ships of every kind over an extended period of time, and the Soviets cannot have been unaware of this.

It’s worth noting that during WWII U.S. submarines routinely torpedoed and sank any and all Japanese ships they encountered, without warning. The same may be said of British submarines and German ships, although the latter soon were swept from the Atlantic sea lanes by the Allied navies. And of course, German U-boats did the same, with a few exceptions early in the war.

It was a terrible war for all concerned. Witness the SS Cap Arcona disaster, a result of British, not Soviet, aerial warfare.

Sca (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Put into the context of what was going on along the coast at the same time, with mile-long convoys of refugees, mostly women, old men and children, making their way on foot across the ice of the Vistula Lagoon (Frisches Haff) while being fired on from Soviet fighter planes flying at low altitude, it should become clear what sort of frame of mind led to the sinking of the Gustloff. Whether it was technically a war crime or not is quite irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.106.109.24 (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this style of argument is acceptable. Whether it's a war crime or not is relevant, and it's not a technicality. However, citing other incidents is irrelevant. Either discuss what really happened with the Wilhelm Gustloff or leave the field.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Assuming the vessel was painted and marked as a hospital ship then any deliberate sinking would constitute a war crime under the relevant Geneva convention however upon the October Revolution in 1917 the then-new Soviet Union declared all previous international treaties and agreements signed by the previous Imperial governments null-and-void, and the relevant Geneva convention was one of the treaties affected.

So the Geneva Convention did not apply to the Soviet Union - nor BTW to Japan, as they also were not signatories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The ship was armed which made her a military vessel. It was accompanied by armed escort. It was not painted in hospital colors. Therefore, it was a legitimate target. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Porthole

Can someone explain what this portion of the cutline (caption) below the photo of the recovered porthole means? — ...donated to the Museum ship Albatross in Damp 2000. "Damp 2000" ?? And where is the "Museum ship Albatross" ? Sca (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's in Damp, Germany. Transferred in the year 2000.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, a little Dorf in Schleswig-Holstein. German Wiki says it has a population of 112. Sca (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Damp 2000 is the spa resort, rehab clinic and yacht port of the village of Damp, as H. Raeder noted below. It was built in the 1970s. 'Albatros' is a museum ship laid up on the beach there. It hosted an exhibition about the "Rescue via sea" in 1945 (closed in 1999), which is probably where this porthole went. See text and map in the museum registry for Schleswig-Holstein at Museen Nord (in English).--Zipor haNefesch (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

May be you are wrong. Damp 2000 is part of the village of Damp. "Damp 2000" is a private owned yacht port (with hotels and hospitals) in the city of Damp. It was founded in the years before the year 2000. That is why they called it "Damp 2000". --Dr. Hartwig Raeder (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page Guidelines Have Been Violated

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Discussion regarding WP:FORUM

I recently removed four of the above sections from this talk page: "Diverted his war effort" "Hmmm, Origin of German civilians" "It's primary mission" "War Crime" ...These changes were almost immediately reverted by User:Dr.K. because this user thought they were "invalid" appeals to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM, which is clear: "bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article..." Threads on Talk pages that do not meet this standard cannot be deemed "invalid" by fiat, nor do they avoid scrutiny simply because they are "old." Extended discussions regarding extremely complex topics such as Hitler's grand design, war crimes, or origins of German civilian populations are clearly not the intended purpose of the Talk page for this article. This is underscored by Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." I initially placed this message on User:Dr.K. Talk page from which it was also promptly scrubbed. Hopefully others will be less reactive and more responsive, but I feel these sections should be purged --- not archived. ChristineBushMV (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC) I initially placed this message on User:Dr.K. Talk page...: No you did not. You forgot to mention the little advice you left me about putting it in my sandbox which is basically an insult. So far, we have a visit of yours on my talkpage with mentions of sandboxes, a new thread on this talkpage with an attacking title that Talk Page Guidelines Have Been Violated, followed by snide insinuations that I was "reactive": Hopefully others will be less reactive... Can you listen to yourself? And if you can, can you try to be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? Thank you in advance. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Correction: I placed this message on Dr.K.'s user page, not their User_talk: page, from which it was promptly removed---as user has absolute right to do. This was my mistake. I totally own that mistake. I am, however, otherwise satisfied that my section header appropriately represents my concern. My other comments stand on their merits and I hope that these sections will be removed in due course. ChristineBushMV (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Correction of your correction: You did not place your message on my user page. You placed it correctly on my talk page. No need to erase your correct comment. I wish to remark that your comments now are much more civil in tone. Save of course the loud section title. But that's a relatively small price to pay. I can live with that per WP:AGF. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks, yes: I checked my e-mail and see I did wind up where I intended, namely on the User_talk page. Any way, I'm just trying to sort this. Regarding section heading: what else does one say? That's my concern. I'll let my other comments stand on their merits and I hope that these sections will be removed in due course. ChristineBushMV (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC) But why delete them? It's a fine line between discussion of a topic and discussion of improving an article about the topic. All those discussions do revolve around what should be in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC) I agree. That was my take on this issue and that's why I reverted the removal of these sections. The discussions seemed relevant to me and involved good-faith editors in good standing. I just couldn't see any FORUM issues in those discussions. In any case, unless a blatant case of FORUM occurs, one should be very careful when removing other editors' comments, especially when the quantity happens to be huge; 17k bytes in this instance involving multiple threads. In all my years here I have never seen this before. Now I stand accused of violating WP:TPG as a thank-you for my wp:commonsense action. Another day on the wiki I guess. Ironically, if these discussions had been archived already it would not have been possible to delete them. Perhaps we should set-up an auto-archive system for the page. Just a thought. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC) It would be very bad to create a precedent for major deletions of talk pages.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC) I fully agree. It would also make everyone look over their shoulders for years, checking to see if someone's idea of FORUM would delete their contributions long after they were made. Participation in talkpage discussions would suffer as a result. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 10:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC) More importantly: censorship. People could claim FORUM and delete criticism of the article they didn't like.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Indeed. It would open a Pandora's box of serious problems. The amount of upheaval and edit-warring under such conditions would cause large-scale disruption. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 10:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC) We disagree in many areas: The threads I have indicated do not address themselves to existing or new sections of the article and offer few, if any, sources for their claims or as possible references. They are for the most part historical conjecture. Am I not allowed to cite WP:TPG to justify my own actions? I haven't asserted Dr.K. has violated WP:TPG, I have asserted that the authors of the comments I removed did. As to quantity: this is not a meaningful indicator of value. In fact, with regard to comments that are off-topic, the longer they go on the more reason exists to remove them. I am not trying to set precedent. I am following WP:BOLD. I think if WP:TPG were given more credence by users, that Talk page discourse would become more focused, incisive, and inclusive. If people did this, they would be in the wrong if they did so with regard to suggestions that constructively seek to improve the article. It is well established, however, that "censorship" is a routine part of knowledge production. Discussions must have scope to be productive. There is nothing wrong or dangerous about keeping a Talk page thread on topic. Removal of threads which do not address specific sections of the article provides an incentive to keep comments squarely on topic. And to be clear: I did not and do not suggest that these sections should be removed because I don't like them. As a historiographer, I am well aware of the vast discourse on war crimes, Hitler, and World War II. These are topics of immense interest and value. This talk page, however, is not where these monolithic subjects need to be scrutinized, unless they are brought to bear on improving our article about MV Wilhelm Gustloff. For example, just because a quotation from Grass is in the article does not mean it is helpful to expound on your own ideas about him here. ChristineBushMV (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC) *I think if WP:TPG were given more credence by users, that Talk page discourse would become more focused, incisive, and inclusive. On paper, your idea sounds ok, although I am not certain about the "inclusive" part, as it may scare people from participating. But in a real-life situation people would be scared to express themselves freely just in case someone might misinterpret their comments as FORUM. In practice, this would mean that people would exercise self-censorship or would just avoid entering in such discussions out of fear of rejection of their comments. In other words, in reality, such an idea to strengthen TPG would have a chilling effect on discussion and thus it would ultimately be disruptive. Add to that the subjectivity of the evaluation of what really constitutes FORUM and you have the recipe for a disaster. Some may delete comments of others but other editors may disagree and restore them back. This would lead to edit-warring and more disruption. Ideas to form need freedom of expression not a closely supervised, regimented process which stifles free expression and creativity, inhibits the free flow of information and ideas and nurtures fear. Free people come up with ideas; in turn these ideas help articles improve. Scared people hide and don't express their ideas or become indifferent. That hurts editors and articles. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Please note, thank you. ChristineBushMV (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source for claim re: casualties in first paragraph clarified

"By one estimate 9,400 people died, which would make it the largest loss of life in a single ship sinking in history." This article should cite a source to support this claim. ChristineBushMV (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It is sourced in the body of the article in the Losses section. The sources do not need to be repeated in the lead. GB fan 20:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out to what the lead referred...this resulted in untangling and clarifying numerous reference issues discovered in the "Losses" section. It is preferable to include a named reference tag wherever information that refers to it first occurs in an article, in this case the lead. (One isn't "repeating" anything in the lead because you haven't gotten to anything yet.) The whole point of the lead is to provide a summary of the article, so a reader should not have to rummage through the whole article to find the source which justifies a claim that appears there. ChristineBushMV (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Citations are often left out of the lead to reduce clutter if the material is repeated in the article (as it should be). See WP:LEADCITE. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Status and distance to shore of wreckage

The article mentions that the site is a war grave and that the Polish Maritime Office has forbidden diving within a 500 metre radius of the wreckage (but the link is dead). This implies that the wreckage is within Polish territorial waters. Poland makes maritime claims out to 12 nautical miles according to the CIA Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pl.html). However, the article also mentions the coordinates of the site and that the distance to shore is 16 nautical miles, but the coordinates are of a position about 19 nautical miles offshore. Neither 16 nor 19 nautical miles is within Polish territorial waters.

Is the wreckage actually within Polish territorial waters? Is the distance to shore 16 or 19 nautical miles? Incidentally, 16 nautical miles is about 19 statute miles, which suggests a mixup of units somewhere. Oberoende (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

German military passenger ship

"Military passenger ship" appears to be a misnomer; I would like to change to "military transport ship". Thoughts/objections? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry i'm not stalking you, our edit topics just seems to be similar this evening :) How about Barracks ship? She did spend the vast majority of her Kriegsmarine career (40-45) as a floating barracks for U-boat crews and trainees. This would also explain her poor shape in terms of facing the Baltic in January. Just a thought Irondome (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Np :-) I'd still prefer "transport ship" as that was her function in the context of the sinking, as the sentence goes on to say "...which was sunk on 30 January 1945 by a Soviet submarine S-13 in the Baltic Sea while evacuating German civilians, Nazi officials and military personnel..." Alternatively, how about simply "a German military ship"? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This has been changed several times. I think "military transport ship" is OK.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Military transport ship works best within the context of current wording. Yep, good with that.--Irondome (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both; I made the change. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

She was built as a cruise liner and served as such in the Kraft durch Freude, then she became a hospital ship and a billet. Only a single time she was used for military transport (and not even exclusively military). It was a cruise liner used for military purposes in WWII. To focus on that single occasion when she was a "military transport ship" is pretty simplistic. We do not call the RMS Queen Mary, the SS America (1939) or any other kind of vessel used by the military in wartime a "military ship". 80.136.93.202 (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: She is called a cruise ship by plenty of sources e.g.:Germany at War: 400 Years of Military History, Strength Through Joy: Consumerism and Mass Tourism in the Third Reich, The British Cruise Ship: An Illustrated History 1844-1939, Cruise Ships: An Evolution in Design 80.136.93.202 (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This was her role at the time of her sinking. What other sources describe the vessel during different timeframes is irrelevant. If the RMS Queen Mary would have been sunk during, say 1943 by some fluke with 15,000 U.S. troops aboard, she would be rightly be described at the time of her sinking as in the role of a military transport. In any case, the article mainspace and infoboxes clearly state that she was originally a cruise ship. Irondome (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

But this is an article about the ship and not only about the sinking. As the mainspace and the infobox describes her correctly as a cruise ship so should the lede: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Her role at the time of her sinking is already explained within the same sentence ("..while evacuating German ...") but that single time she operated as a military transporter doesn't change her character as a cruise ship. And what sources say is obviously not "irrelevant", maybe you could show us a source describing her as a "military transport ship". Military transport ships are a completely different type of ships. And we don't describe the RMS Laconia (1921) as an "Prisoner of War transport ship" or something like that but as an "ocean liner".80.136.83.127 (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The ship is notable for being a military transport that was sunk in that capacity. She had been taken over by the Kriegsmarine, and the majority of her time in existence was as a ship utilised by the military.If you want to create a separate article about her career as a strength through joy ship, go ahead. The Queen Mary was a troopship throughout the war. This how she would be described if she had been lost. I fail to see your point, really. Irondome (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

And I fail to see your point. We do not describe the SS Léopoldville (1929) as a military transport ship even though she was sunk as such. This is an article about the MV Wilhelm Gustloff and not just about the sinking. The Gustloff served as a military transport ship for about 8 hours in her whole career! 80.136.83.127 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

SS Léopoldville (1929) is quite clearly mentioned as a troopship. The W.G was never a conventional privately owned cruise liner in any event. She was a Nazi propaganda tool which got requisitioned by the navy and was sunk. She was always a Nazi weapon, first for propaganda, and then for more overt military tasks. I'm done here. Irondome (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few sources:

• Military transport:
  • Changing the nation

• Armed transport:
  • National Geographic.
  • War and German Memory

Add: WG is best known for having been sunk and the death toll, so it's appropriate to give proper weight to her role at the time of the sinking. The rest is background info and is discussed as such.

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Léopoldville spent most of her career as a liner, and was still civilian owned at the time of her sinking. Because she was transporting troops at the time of the sinking, the second sentence begins "She was converted for use as a troopship..." That wording seems appropriate for that article. The current wording seems appropriate for this article. If you don't like the wording of the lead, why don't you propose alternate wording? Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The first and the second source refer to state at the time of the sinking, the third source explicitly calls it a "a converted ocean liner filled with refugees and wounded soldiers." and No. 4 "the Gustloff had been built as a Kraft durch Freude cruise ship and converted...". This is exactly what I try to say, it was a cruise liner/passenger ship and it was converted/used/sunk while carrying military personnel and civilians. 80.136.83.127 (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This is explicitly stated in the second para of the lead: "Constructed as a cruise ship for the Nazi Kraft durch Freude..." . K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Leopoldville is described as a "passenger liner" converted into a military vessel. The Gustloff's current lede describes her as a military transport ship and focuses on a term of service of 8 (!) hours. 80.136.83.127 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Léopoldville was "converted for use as a troopship." The article never says she was "converted into a military vessel". "Military vessel" implies it's been commissioned into the navy. Léopoldville was never a military vessel. Gustloff was a military vessel. It's a bit simplistic to call her a "military transport ship", but we have to call it something in the first sentence, and that's what we've agreed to call it. Her full career is spelled out in the rest of the article, starting with the second paragraph of the lead. I think this is sufficient. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, she wasn't a military vessel either. The Gustloff remained property of the German Labour Front (KdF) and was operated by Hamburg Süd under the command of a civilian (Friedrich Petersen) and by a civilian crew. Heinz Schön, crew member and one of the survivors who published several books about it, was a civilian. The frictions between the civilian Petersen and the commanding officers of the U-Boot crews are well-known and played an important role in the sinking.

Btw, none of the similar articles about ships used for military transport in wartime starts with "..was a military transport ship.." they all start with "..was a passenger ship, a cruise liner, ocean liner, a cargo ship..which was converted into...". the current version gives WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to a timeframe of 8 hours. Not at last, the English version is the only one starting like that. The French, Dutch, Danish, Italian and German versions all start with describing her as a passenger ship/ocean liner. 80.136.81.17 (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

She is famous for being sunk when she was a military transport ship.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Disaster

Since in the previous topic we were on the subject of definitions, I'd like to discuss the use of term 'disaster' as applicable (or not) to the Gustloff sinking.

From Legal-dictionary: Shipwreck (redirected from Maritime Disaster) SHIPWRECK. The loss of a vessel at sea, either by being swallowed up by the waves, by running against another vessel or thing at sea, or on the coast.

Note that this does not include loss of ship due to military actions.

"Disaster" is used only once in the article in this context, so not a big issue here. But probably opens a door for the discussion on various Wiki articles, such as "Lists of maritime disasters" etc.

Here's the instance here:

• In 1942, the SS Cap Arcona was used as a stand-in for the RMS Titanic in the German film version of the disaster.

I propose to change to:

• In 1942, the SS Cap Arcona was used as a stand-in for the RMS Titanic in the German film version of the sinking.

Thought on this? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite follow why "disaster" is problematic. (As for dicdefs - why is "thefreedictionary.com" a reliable source? It doesn't seem to have any editorial information at all.) Guettarda (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not having much luck finding a scholarly definition of "maritime disaster" but here's an example of what I'm alluding to from the text of the Jones Act (also known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920):

• Secretary of Transportation shall require that the purchaser of the vessel shall keep the same insured against loss or damage by fire, and against marine risks and disasters, and war and other risks...

As you can see 'marine risks and disasters' are separate from 'war' - i.e. damage due to an act of war is not the same as a 'maritime disaster'. Does this make sense? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is it a problem to describe the sinking of the Titanic as a "disaster"? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

D'oh! I see that I was wrong. Ignore. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)