Talk:Laconia incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
  1. There could not have been “over 2,000 people struggling in the water”, as there were only about 1,100 survivors from 2,700 passengers, crew and prisoners on board the Laconia.
    • Just because only 1,100 were rescued doesn't mean that there couldn't have been more in the water that drowned.
  2. Hartenstein, commander of the U-156, asked for a temporary cease-fire in the area surrounding the Laconia, but he never received any agreement for such a cease-fire either from the Allies or from the commander of U-boats, Karl Doenitz.
  3. Harden, flying the B-24 from Ascension Island, had three passes at the U-156 which resulted in failure to release any bombs or depth charges, perhaps due to Harden’s inexperience at anti-submarine warfare. It took until his fourth pass before the bombs and depth charges were successfully released. During Harden’s first three passes, Hartenstein, the commander of the U-boat, was not sure if Harden meant to attack or not.
  4. After the Laconia incident, on September 19, 1942 Hartenstein sank an Allied ship called “Quebec City” and offered assistance to the survivors.
    • Honourable Germans.
  5. After his attack, Harden incorrectly reported that he had sunk the U-156. In fact, U-156 did not sink until five months later when it was attacked by an Allied aircraft in March 1943 near Barbardos. U-156 went down with the loss of all men, including Hartenstein.
  6. The statement “now that it was apparent that the Americans would attack rescue missions under the Red Cross flag” is inaccurate. The Laconia affair is the only such incident in the Battle of the Atlantic in WWII.
    • How many times did it need to happen? Once was enough. The order had been given and the precidence was set.
    • Of course it was the only such incident, because Donitz's orders after the incident prevented it from ever happening again - he was then convicted for these orders. -Lommer | talk
  7. Many Allied officers opposed the conviction of Karl Doenitz for war crimes, knowing that Allied submarines had operated under similar procedures.
    • A good point, but he got convicted allt the same.
  8. During the Laconia affair, Doenitz instructed the U-boat commanders to rescue only Italians from the Laconia, but the U-boat commanders responded by rescuing all nationalities, including British, Polish and Greek.
    • German honour again. I wonder if the Brits ever thought about that while dropping bombs on women and children.
    • I suspect it was also difficult to identify the nationality of a survivor until they had pulled him out of the water, and at that point it would be a war-crime to throw them back overboard. -Lommer | talk
  9. The perception that U-boats routinely machine-gunned shipwrecked survivors during the Battle of the Atlantic is not accurate. Only one such incident in WWII (among over 5,000 patrols by German U-boats) was documented -- the machine-gunning of “Peleus” survivors in 1944. There are numerous incidents recorded of U-boats offering assistance to shipwrecked survivors.
    • And I suppose the Mustangs didn't machine gun survivors of Dresden either, huh?
  10. Doenitz did not serve “11 years and 6 months in prison”. He served 10 years and 20 days.
    • He was sentened to 11 years and 6 months, he served slightly less.

The preceding is from stonn@jps.net, Feb. 25, 2004

I've cleaned up this list a bit and responded to a few criticisms. -Lommer | talk 19:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Time in prison

Dönitz did serve that long in prisson. The 10 years and 20 days part is from his book. Quoting from the article on him: " His memoirs, Zehn Jahre, Zwanzig Tage ("Ten Years and Twenty Days"), appeared in Germany in 1958 and became available in an English translation the following year. This book recounted Dönitz's experiences as U-boat commander (ten years) and President of Germany (20 days)" He was imprissoned from May 1945 to October 1956.

[edit] NPOV Dispute

Someone added the POV dispute tag to this page, but neglected to comply with the linked policy, which states

"If you add the above code to an article which seems to you to be biased, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article."

If a description of what is considered acceptable is not added by 1 February 2005, I will remove the tag. ➥the Epopt 14:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No description of what whoever-it-was considers unacceptable — no {{Long NPOV}} tag. ➥the Epopt 03:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] War Crime category

I support this article being in the War Crimes category -- as a direct result of this incident, Dönitz was convicted of a war crime. Whether the right war criminal was convicted can be left to the judgement of the reader. ➥the Epopt 20:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why Robert C. Richardson III wasn't ever prosecuted as a war criminal for giving an order to attack ships that were flying a red cross while rescuing survivors? It seems like a double standard to me.

The above was left by 161.97.202.93. In response I'd repeat the old a adage that the winners write the history. It is a double standard but that's the way it happened. -Lommer | talk 19:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Dönitz was not convicted of War Crimes regarding the submarine warfare. He was practically aquitted on these counts. He was found guilty of other crimes like participating in preparation of a war of aggression and sentenced for these. 213.191.70.226 14:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"Can anyone tell me why Robert C. Richardson III wasn't ever prosecuted as a war criminal" Easy. The Allies won. And, yeah, it belongs in [[Category:War Crime]]--because of Richardson's action, not Dönitz's. Notice Dönitz (via his skippers) was trying to rescue survivors. Don't tell me about the Red Cross; tell me why the usual practise, placing ships in rescue operations immune, was violated. Trekphiler (talk) 13:00 & 13:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Just a comment: I read in the article that he clearly saw four U-boats with red cross flags actually rescueing survivors... and still he gave the order to attack. I know that considering the geneva convention it's not a war crime to attack an enemy military vessel, but if one of the U-boats is crowded with hundreds of civilians, you must be pretty cold to start bombing it. And since he was in a bomber, the U-boat was no real treat to him. So the order of Karl Donitz not to rescue survivors anymore is pretty solid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTE (talk • contribs)

  • It doesnt seem just to convict someone for just saying dont let them kill you while you help there people.
Read the explanation about the Hague Convention. A military vessel can't just throw out a bedsheet with a red cross painted on it. The treaty does not protect such vessels, as it could be a ruse. The military vessel's only legal option under the conventions is surrender and stand down. Thus, Richardson (who was ashore) was legally right to order the attack -- which took place the day after there were survivors being obviously rescued. Whether he was ethically right is a matter of opinion and perspective. We cannot know if he would have given the same order knowing the full circumstances. As for "no real threat", the submarine was an offensive capability of a belligerent power, thus a fully appropriate target. From the Allied perspective, the bomber was obligated to attack it, since it could (and did) attack Allied vessels in the future, and there was no way of knowing whether the survivors were POWs or more Axis sailors. As for the Donitz order, I think it was wrong to prosecute him on that point given the identical American policy; but he was acquitted. --Dhartung | Talk 18:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If I say "no real threat" I mean that the light aa gun on deck won't have much affect on a bomber that has enough armor to resist such a gun. Also they had to fly back in order to attack the sub so they had already passed it and the U-boat didn't fire its aa gun. The survivors on the deck of the U-boat all had civilian cloathing (There were woman and children too and I don't think Germany used children as u-boat crew) which Richardson of course had seen (otherwise he's blind and in need of discharge). If it were german, british or whatever civilians doesn't matter. It were civilians and he knew it. And like I said before, it was his good right to attack the U-boat, I'm not denying that. But, like I also said before, you must be pretty cold to bomb a submarine crowed with unarmed civilians who were just resqued. And I don't know where you get the fact that he was acquitted for the order, cause he was not... I quote: "Time magazine, on 24 September 1956, in an article headed "The Lion Is Out," repeated old smears of Dönitz, attributing to him remarks which he never made. On 22 October 1956, Time published my rebuttal. Terming their article "so much hogwash," I stated that "Dönitz, a capable professional naval officer, was 'convicted' by the illegal Nuremberg tribunal for exactly the same 'ruthless' acts committed by U.S. and British admirals. The only difference is that Germany lost the war."[57] He was convicted for the order. 213.49.145.54 15:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we discussing ways to improve the article, or are you just giving your opinion of an event that happened half a century ago? --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I gave my opinion and dicussing it, that's why the page is called "discussion"... got a problem with it? Please, do let me know 213.49.145.105 17:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Thus, if you have specific changes you think the article needs, especially verifiable and citeable sources, please feel free to bring those to the forefront. --Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
"Please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article"

Exactly what I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.145.105 (talk • contribs)

Look, I'm not spanking you; there is no need to rebut my request. I am asking you what specific improvements you think the article needs. --Dhartung | Talk 00:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I suggested it in my first comment: "The order of Karl Donitz not to rescue anymore survivors is pretty solid." So that would be: "..., survivors were to be left in the sea. Considering this incident, the order was pretty solid."213.49.209.6 12:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it has been suggested few lines back and nobody made an objection, don't reverse without posting here please.

I reverted the unsourced, highly POV personal opinion about the phase of matter Doentiz's order was in. Unsourced material can (and will be) reverted without extensive discussion. ➥the Epopt 02:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The phrase has been added twice by closely-related IPs. The phrasing is similar to the user above. In any case it is not Wikipedia's place to say whether the order was "solid", only to describe the facts. The user wishing to make this edit should review our neutral point of view policy. --Dhartung | Talk 05:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My grandfather, Tadeusz Walczak, was one of the survivors from the Laconia. He was also in the History Channel documentary, "The Laconia Incident". If it wasn't for the Hartenstein or Dönitz I would not be here, nor my father or uncle. He wrote about his life in a book called "Zycie nie tylko wlasne" and vividly recalls what happened that night. He had finished his rota guarding over the Italian POWs and was in the shower when the ship was hit. He had just enough time to put on some underpants (which were too big for him and kept falling off as they were not his) and his glasses and run up to the top deck when the second torpedo struck. He and two colleagues found some lifejackets. As the boat was keeling over on its starboard side to such an extent, only half the lifeboats could be used (17 of 34). He heard screams, yells and even shots fired. Stuck on the ship with no light apart from a full moon to guide them, they could see lifeboats rowing away. He writes that his whole life flashed past him as he made the decision to dive into the water. A strong swimmer, he needed to get as far away from the boat as possible to avoid being sucked in my the vortex of the vessel. The boat sank barely an hour after the first torpedo hit. He swam for an hour shouting from time to time, "help! I am a Pole!" He was saved by one of the cooks on the ship recognising him. He was pulled in on one of the lifeboats naked, as his underpants had fallen off in his frantic swimming! There were no Italians on the lifeboat. My grandfather heard that those who tried to get on the lifeboat were either beaten back with oars or some even had their hands cut off. The lifeboat only contained English soldiers and sailors, and two Polish people: the cook and my grandfather. The sailed during the day and rowed at night. The organisation was "Spartan": each person was only allowed 50 grammes of water per day in order to make rations last 30 days. Small pieces of chocolate were also given out. Five days in, a plane flew over the boat and spotted them stranded on the vessel. Not long after, the French vessel, "Gloire" came into view having sailed from Dakar. Under German command, Dönitz had ordered the ship to sail to save the remaining survivors. In all 70 Poles were saved by the ship: 33 were missing. They were left in the hands of the Vichy in Casablanca, and then sent to a prisoner of war camp in Qued-Zem. He died 5 years ago, but this experience gave him such a vigour for life that he never relented or relaxed. 1,600 people died that day. Only 1,100 survived - the numbers would have been far worse without Dönitz's decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valky78 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Assessment

B-class for detail - the original orders in German and translation, etc. Still a bit short though. I wonder if there are any pictures obtainable? LordAmeth 11:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this should be added, it lends weight to the argument for attacking the Laconia. In the book 'One common enemy' Jim Mcloughlin tells us that Hartenstein asked him if he was in the RN. Jim said he was, whereupon Hartenstein asked him why was a passenger ship armed? If it wasn't armed, I would not have attacked. Hartenstein had thought it was a troop transport, not a passenger ship. This is not heresay, this is in the aforementioned book, Jim is alive and well living in Adelaide, South Australia.

I really must make mention, that the Capellini was not seen until the following day, and did not help anybody that was not Italian.