Talk:Cap Arcona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cap Arcona article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] "193 Fighter Squadron"

This bit doesn't make sense. If this is meant to refer to an RAF squadron, then it should be No. 193 Squadron RAF. And is an article from China Daily, through the Chinese state propaganda agency, really a credible source? 195.173.13.125 (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Source : "The Typhoon's Last Storm," by Paris-based US film maker Lawrence Bond, includes shocking testimony by rare survivors recounting how Royal Air Force planes returned time and again to strafe swimmers who survived the initial attacks.

3 instead of 8 ? No, there were the No. 198 Squadron and the No. 193 Squadron, based in Ahlhorn (Großenkneten), led by Squadron Leader Donald Murray Taylor.

" Donald Murray Taylor joined the RAF July 1937. Posted to 11 FTS, Wittering Sept.18 and was on staff at 5 Armament Training Station at Penrhos from May 7, 1938. In early 1940 he went to 64 Sq. at Church Fenton. Over Dunkirk on May 31, 1940 he destroyed a Bf 109 and on July 1st he shared in the destruction of a Do 17 and on the 10th damaged a Bf110. He was shot down in a surprise attack on July 17 by Lieutenant Wick of 1/JG2 whilst on Convoy Patrol. He was wounded when he crashed at Hempstead Lane, Hallsham, in Spitfire P9507. He was taken to Eastbourne Hospital. He commanded 195 Sq. from Nov.16, 1942 until Jan.1944 and then 197 Sq. from Jan-.July 1944 and was awarded the DFC (5.9.44) and later commanded 193 Sq. from April 1945 until disbanded on August 31, 1945. "

(86.64.182.240 (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Changing external links

Dear anonymous contributor who repeats to change the external links:

Please don't change the URLs to [[http://www.something.com]], as those will display as [[1]] - which is very ugly. Either leave them without any brackets like they are now, or change them like this with a description on what to find at the link: [http://www.something.com Website showing something]. See also our Manual of style.

Every time you change it to the ugly looking style it will be reverted to the previous one anyway, so there is no point to continue to do that. Thank you. andy 13:31, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of the Reason for loading the Concentration Camp Prisoners Aboard the Ships

Someone has also removed the text stating why the prisoners were actually onboard the ships in the first place. They weren't going on a pleasure cruise - the ships were to be taken out into the middle of the Bay of Lübeck and then scuttled with the prisoners locked below decks so as to drown them. This was stated at the war crimes trial of the men responsible and the officer in charge (Max Pauly, ex-Commandant of Neuengamme) along with several others, was hanged. 82.111.65.142 13:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

"the ships were to be taken out into the middle of the Bay of Lübeck and then scuttled with the prisoners locked below decks so as to drown them."
This claim is unsubstanciated and illogical. Why should they walk the prisoners from Neuengamme to Luebeck, put them on ships and wait for them to be sunk by the British? They killed 55,000+ in Neuengamme, so why wouldn't they go on and kill 7,000 more? The claim that the ships were to be scuttled is nothing but a lame excuse of the RAF (sinking ships with prisoners was more than a little embarrassment ...) 141.13.8.14 11:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
the claim is also impossible as the middle of the bay is not deep enough to sink a ship as big as the Cap Arcona. It would partially be left standing on the bottom sticking out of the water. See here: http://data.ecology.su.se/baltic96/depth.htm
surre
Given that the RAF strafed survivors of the sinking to ensure that they did not reach shore alive, and the words of Allan Wyse make clear that this was ordered and that those being strafed were known to be noncombatants, this claim rings more than a bit hollow. --7Kim 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to write 'with the imprisoned prisoners below', that is the one job of a prisoner, and by god they will be captive.

However illogical the arugment of them drowning prisoners of wars, if it was stated in the Nuremburg Trials, it should be regarded as fact as many other articles use what went on during the trial as fact, unless someone wishes to contend that part of the Nuremburg was false. Either way, it's going to need a citation.

Günther Schwarberg states in his book "Angriffsziel Cap Arcona" (which is, incidentally, listed as one of the sources for this article) that 'Cap Arcona' had effectively been handed back to the Hamburg-Süd line, after the ship's engine systems had been ruined during her last trip as a refugee-ship. She was then confiscated again, this time by the SS, and the prisoners were brought aboard. The involvement of Graf Bernadotte must, under these circumstances, be seen as pure whitewash: She would not have been able to make any crossing under her own steam. On the other hand, it seems highly probable that she was indeed intended to be sunk with the prisoners aboard; the camps had in fact been dissolved primarily for the purpose of disposing of witnesses- many of whom perished by being marched across Germany, with little food or water. Towing her further out to sea and opening the seacocks would have been quite possible, and would be very much in tune with the usual efficiency of the SS in murdering people. Towing her all the way to Sweden would have been a different thing altogether. However- if she was intended to be scuttled, she would not have been towed to the middle of the Bay of Lübeck, but further out altogether. As for the British military authorities- I wouldn't be able to say what exactly they did or did not know; but there are some good reasons to assume that they did know quite a few things. They were able to deciphre radio-messages coded with one particular model of the 'Enigma'-coding-machine to the point were they could translate 75 % of the intercepted messages within 15 minutes after intercdeption, and the remaining 25 % within a few hours. That particular 'Enigma'-model had originally been in use with the Luftwaffe, but had been replaced by a newer model; the model in question (Enigma-D, I believe) was then primarily used by the SS, the German postal service, and the Reichsbahn.

(Source: "Entschied Ultra den Krieg?", 1981, ISBN 3-8033-0314-1; Original version of this book: "Ultra goes to war- the secret story" by Ronald Lewin, Hutchinson / London , 1978)

The Wehrmacht was extremely distrusting as far as Radio-communications were concerned; they preferred cable-links such as Telephone and Telegraph for their communications. The result was that the Telephone-system within Germany was constantly overloaded; subsequently the Reichsbahn- charged with organising rail-transportation of troops and materials not only within Germany, but also throughout the occupied territories- had to rely increasingly on using Radio-transmitters for their own communications. These communications were coded with the very Enigma-codes the British were able to de-code as described above. That means they were able to see exactly when a train with prisoners was to leave, what route it would take and where it was destined: It was the Reichsbahn who were responsible for most of the prisoner-transports, including those destined for the death-camps. Many of the 'Cap Arcona'- prisoners were not transported by train, but some of them were- and, as I said, the SS was using the same Enigma-machines at any rate. That means the British *must* have known- or so logic would dictate. 83.71.24.140 (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A crucial sentence in need of clarification

I have trouble with the first paragraph of the Sinking section. <<On April 26, 1945, she was loaded with prisoners from the Neuengamme concentration camp near Hamburg and, together with two smaller ships, Thielbek and Athen, was brought into the Bay of Lübeck.>> So far, so good. But the next sentence is rather unclear, and needs clarification: <<During these days, informed by British Intelligence, Count Folke Bernadotte, vice-president of the Red Cross, gained much goodwill leading a rescue operation transporting west European deportees to hospitals in Sweden, of whom some were French-speakers transported aboard the Cap Arcona.>> What precisely is being meant? Yes, Bernadotte has goodwill via the White Buses operation, ok. Is the point & crux of the matter that "British intelligence" (hopefully not an oxymoron at the time) had concrete knowledge about who was on board the three ships (and nevertheless went on to the sinking & killing of 7,000 people)?

From the French Web site : http://www.michel-hollard.com/ "Michel Hollard : En février 1944, il est arrêté par la Gestapo à Paris en compagnie de deux de ses subordonnés. Torturé, emprisonné à Fresnes et condamné à mort, il est déporté au camp de concentration de Neuengamme. Il est sauvé miraculeusement du naufrage du Cap Arcona, en baie de Lubeck, que l'ennemi sabordait intentionnellement. Ce sauvetage est dû au Prince Bernadotte qui, informé par l'Intelligence Britannique, envoya une vedette sur place et obtint le salut de quelques prisonniers de langue française." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Hollard

[edit] Hoisting of the White Ensign

Quoting from the Sinking-paragraph: "After the first wave had attacked the ships, the Cap Arcona hoisted the white ensign without any effect." This is not confirmed and rather unlikely, especially concerning the Cap Arcona. Whether the Athen hoisted a white flag is at least questionable but also not confirmed. Where does this information come from? holsteiner 10:22, 29 January 2007

[edit] Infobox header

Sorry, I may be asking a question that is obvious to people with specialised knowledge, but why is the word 'Career' the title of the infobox? If it's intentional and appropriate, could it be wikilinked to the nautical definition so the uninitiated can understand why it's used? Anchoress 01:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is This English?

This article is incredibly hard to read. Having read it twice, I'm still hazy. It is not made clear that this was a boat as part of an operation by Count Bernadotte rescuing concentration camp victims (is that correct? I'm not sure I even understand the article correctly). What does Hitler's suicide have to do with anything -- the sentence that mentions it doesn't make any sense? Was any justification at all given for the British action? The quote about "That's war" notwithstanding, surely some purpose was given?

This article needs some serious love, guys. I would try to help, but I don't know anything about the subject. 67.175.166.240 03:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is awful and should not have been featured on the Wiki main page. ScubaSteve2k1 06:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)ScubaSteve2k1

This article does need serious cleanup. Look at this sentence from the article: "Photos of the burning ships; listed as Deutschland, and Thielbek, Cap Arcona, swimming survivors were taken on a reconnaissance mission over Bay of Lübeck by F-6 aircraft of the USAAF's 161st Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron around 5:00 PM, shortly after the attack." Can someone put the cleanup infobox on this article? Rstandefer 13:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


I've just read this page through 3 times and I'm only JUST starting to understand what it's all about! I'm going to have a go at re-writing it, but I don't know how good it will be, I just feel some of it needs to be re-worded a bit! Let me know how I get on! LookingYourBest 21:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at re-writing the first couple of paragraphs of 'sinking', I think it makes SLIGHTLY more sense now! Let me know what you think! LookingYourBest 08:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Great job. i made a couple of small changes for clarity, but the article is 100% better in my opinion. Rstandefer 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOR and poor referencing

This section:

The RAF has sealed the records about these attacks until 2045.[8] No convincing explanation of why the attacks were carried out in the first place has ever been given - the war in Europe was for all intents and purposes already over, and the sinking of these unarmed ships would have served no tangible purpose even if they had been empty.

Is perfectly fine in general (Something should be found to mention there was no obvious reason, but it should be backed up) but is poorly worded, reading like OR and the only ref is a commercial link. Anyone wanna fight for its continued existance or can we all agree to delete it until someone wants to acctually 'adopt' it and properly write it up? (or someone can do that tag that labels it as being possibly OR and poorly referenced, can't remember the blasted shortcuts) Narson 16:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"I asked for more information but the RAF declined to give it to me on the grounds the investigation is still open - 55 years later," Bond said.

According to at least one of the references (http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/history/00-03-07/f02-uk.html) the RAF understood that "the ships carried Nazi leaders and troops trying to flee crumbling Germany to make a last stand in Norway, then still in German hands." This conflicts with the article which speculates that the reason why the records have been sealed is "the war was effectively over and the destruction of these non-military targets was of no discernible strategic value."

Also, I think the records have been sealed under a British Government rule, not an RAF one. However, to be sure of this I would need to do some digging. Greenshed 20:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2045... the war was effectively over

"The RAF has sealed the records about these attacks until 2045.[8] This may be due to the fact that, by this time, the war was effectively over and the destruction of these non-military targets was of no discernible strategic value." I think this needs to be changed. At first I thought this was a typo and that the records were actually sealed until 1945, when the war was effectively over. Then I realized that the records are - in fact - sealed until 2045. "by this time..." is referring to the time of the attacks, not the time of the unsealing.
How about: "The RAF has sealed the records about these attacks for 100 years, until 2045.[8] This may be due to the fact that, by the time of the attacks, the war was effectively over..." Trigam41 18:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Or... I suppose you could delete the line altogether... sure.
I do think we should expand MoD to Ministry of Defense. We don't have ministries in America, and it might be nice to expand the abbreviation. Trigam41 21:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Records Sealed

I have contacted the MoD regarding the supposed "sealed files" and neither the MoD nor the National Archive can find any sealed records. Those files which do exist have been placed in the National Archive and are free to view.

Of particular interest is the War Office investigation by No 2 War Crimes Investigation Team, led by a Major Till, into events at the Neuengamme Concentration Camp. Prisoners from this camp were placed on the Cap Arcona by their German guards, and as a consequence Major Till and his team also examined the circumstances surrounding the sinking of this vessel. This report is held by The National Archive under the reference WO 309/1952.

Also on deposit in the National Archive are the Operational Record Books of 2 TAF, 83 Group and the squadrons involved. Details of the operation and the reasons for conducting it are in the files held in the National Archive.

Unless anyone can find conclusive evidence of "sealed files" then I will delete the references to them, since they are unsubstanciated rumours as far as I can tell.

--J.StuartClarke 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


"I asked for more information but the RAF declined to give it to me on the grounds the investigation is still open - 55 years later," Bond said. China Daily, 2000-03-07 .(86.64.182.240 14:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

That article was written in March 2000. I requested the files under the FIOA, which only came into force in Janurary 2005, and there are none that aren't in the public domain. --J.StuartClarke 18:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The present RAF, not this old report : See The 100-Year Secret: Britain's Hidden World War II Massacre. The Lyons Press, October 2004. Page 170, 171.(86.64.182.240 08:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)).

That book was published on 1st September 2004. If the FOIA only came into force on the 1st Janurary 2005 then I'm not quite sure how the writer came to those conclusions. The fact that he has written a book does not make him right. --J.StuartClarke 02:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This report (Major Till) has been accessible by the authors in 2003; the book speak about it several pages. The most interesting remains the RAF's Archives, legally accessible at most in 2045.(86.64.182.240 09:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

Which report? The report by the War Crimes unit is in the National Archive, as are the operational logs of the Air Group involved. --J.StuartClarke 14:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The most interesting remains the RAF's Archives, legally accessible at most in 2045 : the other documents that are not in the Till's report.


British Army Major Till, who was the post war investigator into the sinking of the ships in Lubbeck Bay on 3 May 1945 including the Cap Arcona, asked the RAF in writing several times for their documents and complained that he was not given them. The British judge at the trial of Max Pauly in Hamburg also stopped survivor Philippe Jackson from giving any testimony on the event restricting him to his accounts of Pauly's actions at Neuengamme. I requested these RAF files on the sinking of the Cap Arcona from the RAF in 2000 and received a response in writing saying the event was still under investigation and would not be released at that time. I did have full access to Major Till's investigation since he was a lawyer working for the war crimes investigation unit and not the RAF.
The RAF has also never released any gun camera footage of the attacks even though all the pilots I interviewed who flew the attacking planes claim their planes were equiped with these cameras and they functioned correctly.

Lawrence Bond


This is what the MoD sent me, when I requested it under the FOIA:

"Dear Mr XXXXXXXXXXX

While we are aware of that rumours persist of the existence of closed file or files relating to events on the 3 May 1944, neither the Ministry of Defence nor the National Archive can find any files on the subject of the sinking of the Cap Arcona, the Thielbeack and the Deutschland by aircraft from 83 Group on 3 May 1945 other than those which are already in the public domain. The files on the matter have been deposited in the National Archive at Kew in London and are listed in the catalogue of the National Archive which is available on the internet. If you are unable to visit the National Archive yourself I suggest that you contact the Search Department who, for a fee, will undertake research for you and send you photocopies of the relevant documentation.

The information contained in The National Archive is on open access to members of the public. Of particular interest is the War Office investigation by No 2 War Crimes Investigation Team, led by a Major Till, into events at the Neuengamme Concentration Camp. Prisoners from this camp were placed on the Cap Arcona by their German guards, and as a consequence Major Till and his team also examined the circumstances surrounding the sinking of this vessel. This report is held by The National Archive under the reference WO 309/1952. Also on deposit in the National Archive are the Operational Record Books of 2 TAF, 83 Group and the squadrons involved. Details of the operation and the reasons for conducting it are in the files held in the National Archive and, under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act, I would ask you to consult these documents.

Yours sincerely

XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX Air Historical Branch(RAF)

If the information enclosed does not address your requirements or you wish to complain about any aspect of the handling of this request, then you should contact the member of the Air Historical Branch who has sent the reply in the first instance. Should you remain dissatisfied, then you may apply for an MOD internal review by contacting the Director of Information Exploitation, 6th Floor, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB. If you are still unhappy following an internal review you may take your complaint to the Information Commissioner under the Provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review process has been completed."


Either the MoD is lying or they really don't have anything. --J.StuartClarke 13:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Appointment and answer in 2045.(Page 170, 171).(86.64.182.240 13:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

It doesn't exist. I fail to see what more proof you need. --J.StuartClarke 14:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

These British laws do exist.

Yes, they do. However, under the FOIA there has to be both an acknolegment that the file exists and a reason for it being withheld. Neither were given for the above request, so the file cannot exist. --J.StuartClarke 13:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

These laws (2045) are the laws of the page 171 ("The 100-Year Secret: Britain's Hidden World War II Massacre". The Lyons Press, October 2004).

62 years of investigation : "I requested these RAF files on the sinking of the Cap Arcona from the RAF in 2000 and received a response in writing saying THE EVENT WAS STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION and would not be released at that time." : grotesque !

The FOIA only came into force in January 2005. --J.StuartClarke 15:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a couple of lines of conjecture from the article and added a citation tag for one of the sentences that claim to have documents proving the British Government knew it was at fault. Can't go throwing accusations like that around without backup! Lol! LookingYourBest 11:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove that reference, since the research was done prior to 2001 when the FOIA came into effect. I have shown above that the RAF have no files on the subject and all known files are in the public domain. Just because a man has written a book does not make him right. We must be selective of our sources, and carefully analyise all of them. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Hell Ship"?

This is a untrue and loaded term, it needs to be replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also what comes to mind from the strafing the shipwreck survivors in the water, on purpose, isnt that a war crime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with your first point here, it seems that the term Hell Ship was reserved for Japanese POW ships. Googling "Arcona Hell Ship" only throws up this article and copies of this article. I'd suggest changing it to Prison ship and removing the Cap Arcona reference from the Hell Ship article as well.
I don't really understand your second point though, sorry! LookingYourBest 09:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


From the Web site : http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/rz3a035//arcona.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.182.240 (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Provisional toilets were installed on the deck of the Thielbek and embarkation started on the 20th April. The Swedish Red Cross were present and all concentration camp prisoners except the Russian prisoners received a food parcel which, with the combination of malnutrician and thirst, caused terrible suffering. The water supplied from the ship's tank was totally insufficient. Twenty to thirty prisoners died daily and were removed by lorry. All prisoners, except the political prisoners, remained one or two days on board before being transferred to the Cap Arcona by the Athen. The SS personnel were gradually reduced and replaced by 55 to 60 year old territorial army members and marines. There was straw on deck for the holds there being no beds. There were large stocks of provisions under tarpaulin on deck but distribution was disorganized. The sick and the Russian prisoners received little. The latrines were inadequate. Buckets were lowered into the holds and raised when full. The stench was terrible. Gastroenteritis raged.

... Gehrig was to escort the prisoners to their deaths aboard the Cap Arcona. He ordered captain Nobmann of the Athen to take 2,300 prisoners and 280 SS guards on board and to ferry them to the Cap Arcona. Captain Nobmann initially refused but obeyed when threatened with being shot following a drumhead court martial. The SS and Kapos drove the prisoners on board with yells and blows. They had to climb down rope ladders into the deep holds of the ship. In the haste many prisoners fell and were seriously injured. There was hardly room to move in the dark, cold and damp holds. There were no toilets or water. After some hours the fully laden ship left the harbour for the Cap Arcona anchored off Neustadt. Captain Bertram refused to take the prisoners on board even after the SS came aboard. The Athen remained off Neustadt overnight and returned to Lübeck next morning, the 21st April, the prisoners having been given nothing to eat or drink.

... On the 27th April the Athen arrived in Neustadt with 2,500 prisoners from Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp who were transferred to the Cap Arcona. For three days the Athen journeyed to and fro between Lübeck harbour and the Cap Arcona. There were finally 6,500 prisoners on board and 600 SS guards. There was hardly anything to eat or drink and prisoners continued to die. A launch brought drinking water and took the dead back to Neustadt daily. The Russians received the worst treatment being locked in the lowest hold without fresh air, light or food. The number of dead grew ever larger. The Athen made its last journey to the Cap Arcona on the 30th April but this time to take prisoners off as the Cap Arcona was so over crowded that even the SS could no longer endure the starvation, stench and dead." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.182.240 (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Sluzzelin) In response to the original poster's concerns, I cared neither about truth nor loadedness when I removed the wikilinked attribute "hell ship" from the article on Thielbek.
My own concerns with this metaphor are ambiguity and verifiability in reliable sources. Following common usage, "hell ships" linked to the article on a different category of ships. This was misleading. I find no reliable references to the Thielbek as a "hell ship" or "Höllenschiff". The passage cited above describes conditions that could be called infernal in an essayistic text, or compared to Imperial Japanese Jigoku Sen, but it doesn't make this comparison or mention the word "hell ship". I asked user:Clio_the_Muse to dig in and see what could be found.
"A search of the Cambridge catalogue under 'hell ships' only calls up Raymond Lamont-Brown's Ships from Hell: Japanese War Crimes on the High Seas. Beyond that there is one other source that I know of: Death on Hell Ships: Prisoners at Sea in the Pacific War by Gregory F. Michno. I have absolutely no doubt at all that conditions on these Nazi ships were indeed hellish by any reasonable measure, as indeed they were on the Trans-Atlantic slave ships; but the point remains that the term 'Hell ships' has come to refer to a particular historical phenomenon. To use it more widely thus risks confusion over issues of interpretation. I hope this is useful."
Unless someone finds a notable reference to the Cap Arcona or Thielbek as a "hell ship" or "Höllenschiff", I suggest removing the attribute "hell ship" from both articles. The link under "See also" can stay, in my opinion. If a notable author's comparison to Japanese hell ships is found, the link might be worked into the article. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third-worst maritime disaster in history

Not correct: "The loss of life on the Cap Arcona make it the third-worst maritime disaster in history," as there seems to be other ships that have gone down with as many or more.

Maritime disasters of the 20th and 21st centuries CNN 6 February 2006:

  • November 1948, Six thousand people die when a Chinese army evacuation ship explodes and sinks off south Manchuria.
  • December 20, 1987 The Dona Paz ferry and an oil tanker, Victor, collide in Tablas Strait, the Philippines, killing 4,341 people

Also

  • RMS Lancastria (June 17 1940) was bombed and sunk with the death of 3,000-7,000 men.[1][2]
  • Armenia(November 7, 1941) The latest Russian sources put the death toll at 7,000[3]
  • Toyama Maru (June 29, 1944) The vessel was carrying over 6,000 men of the Japanese 44th Independent Mixed Brigade from Kyushu to Okinawa. As the torpedoes hit, thousands of drums of gasoline exploded turning the holds into a fiery hell. There were about 600 survivors, a death toll of around 5,400. [4]

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Also these two already in the see also section but unsourced on this page

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Source Junyō Maru : [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.182.240 (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs some serious work ...

There's a huge amount of stuff in this article that is either not sourced or is sourced to sources of dubious reliability - personal websites and the like - or to unpublished sources (RAF reports etc). In addition, it concerns me that some of it may fall under Original Research - drawing non-trivial conclusions from the sources without any supporting source for those conclusions.

I suspect part of the reason is simply because much of this text was written before our requirements for citations became as rigorous, and the information can in fact be found within the linked published sources, but there are some things on here that seem a little unproven.

I'm also wondering whether this article should be split into one about the ship itself and one about the sinking and its circumstances - as it is the latter wholly dwarfs the former and the article is not really about the Cap Arcona itself very much at all.

Thoughts? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You can see the American photos (Photos of the burning ships, listed as Deutschland, Thielbek, and Cap Arcona, and survivors swimming in the cold Baltic Sea (seven degrees Celsius), were taken on a reconnaissance mission over the Bay of Lübeck by F-6 aircraft of the USAAF's 161st Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron around 5:00 PM, shortly after the attack.), if you pay. See www.militarygnome.com. (86.64.182.240 (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)).
I'm afraid that in my opinion a statement that a commercial photo archive contains a picture of something is NOT a published source for Wikipedia's purposes. (Neither are FOIA requests, for that matter). I feel that this article suffers from two problems.
The first is that there are things people want to put here that are not available in any published sources, even if they might be true (or at least supported by some documentation, whether accurate or not). Wikipedia's sourcing requirements require that information here be supported by published sources of reasonable quality - which generally does not include personal websites unless the website is by a recognised expert in the field.
The second is that there isn't that much in the way of published work or criticism of it available. The books cited in the article appear to be pretty much the sum and total of what there is out there. A search of academic databases I did turned up essentially nothing related to the Cap Arcona, which is surprising given the Holocaust association. This leaves us with a small number of books produced by people with strong interests in the subject matter, and few to no published sources analyzing the quality of the research of those books. Furthermore, all the published books appear to precede the wider accessibility to UK archives recently made available under the freedom of information act there.
Also, much of the work on this article appears to have been the work of a very small number of people with websites about the sinking and the events around it - the textual similarities with at least one site out there are striking. I fear that these people aren't necessarily best versed in what a Wikipedia article should be, and are instead trying to get their website content out to a wider audience by republishing it here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Has the "Till Report" ever been published?

Wikipedia needs published sources. Has the Till Report ever been published? My impression from what I'm reading here that it hasn't been, and it's been only available through the National Archives. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


This excerpt (from National Archives, since January 1 2005, see upper "Records Sealed") can be read in the Benjamin Jacobs and Eugene Pool's book, The 100-Year Secret: Britain's Hidden World War II Massacre. The Lyons Press, October 2004. ISBN 1-59228-532-5.(86.64.182.240 (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)).

Documents available in the National Archives are freely available. People can either go to Kew themselves or if they can't be arsed or don't live near enough they can request that photocopies or electronic copies of the documents are sent to them. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)