Contents

Talk:SS General von Steuben

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles Military history: Maritime / European / German / World War II Start‑class 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force European military history task force German military history task force World War II task force

suicide after the 1st hit — reference requested[edit]

"A lot of the wounded soldiers committed suicide, just moments after the first hit."

Sounds very touching, but I was unable to find any confirmation to that. A reference would be mostly welcome, to eliminate the suspicions of original research... BACbKA 09:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The original contribution to which this sentence can be traced had been written with so much rhetoric that I am even more suspicious... BACbKA 10:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It is also the only contribution by that user! I am removing the sentence altogether from the article. Please add back only if you've got a backing reference... BACbKA 10:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Antony Beevor on page 88 of Berlin: The downfall 1945 reports that the General von Steuben was torpedoed and sunk on the 12 February after leaving Pillau with 2,680 wounded nearly all of whom drowned. The current figures are not cited from a reference, they ought to be. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i took this out of the main article as it seemed very emotive

"The Russians knew the ship was carrying women and children and the wounded, but sunk the ship anyway. No one on the Russian submarine was ever prosecuted for a war crime."

Number of passengers and number of victims doesn't match. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.2.125.50 (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Though pretty sure he only does it to (or rather tries to, as it's failing) to irritate me, let me just note how ridiculous your move is. The ships name was, General von Steuben, Dampfschiff just means steamboat and was not part of the ships' name. You as a German, and German speaker know this. Hereby propose to move to either General von Steuben (Ship)orGeneral von Steuben (Steamer/Steamboat). Oh and matthead, the lenghts you're willing to go to irritate me while ridiculing yourself are very amusing. Thank you. Rex 20:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article exists since March 2002. I've taken the liberty to restore its old name after you moved it. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       22:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, well that explaines everthing! Would you mind explaining everyone exactly why you as a German speaker moved this article title back to its false title other than just because you saw my name?Rex 07:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the two of you can just step back from firing broadsides at each other for a moment, there seems to be a style guideline for this sort of thing, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), and it recommends the use of the English Ship prefixes in most cases. That also seems to be what most comparable articles do, see subcats of Category:Passenger ships by country. So we might consider SS General von Steuben?Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah let's do that, and quickly forget/ignore the fact that this move occured solely because Matthead saw my name and thought it was a good opportunity to provoke conflict.Rex 08:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of the article describes the sinking of the Steuben as "the fourth worst maritime disaster in history," but later the article claims it was "the third worst maritime disaster in history." So which was it----fourth or third?

Consider also that what was a "disaster" to one side was a triumph (or something) to the other. But I'm not sure there is a more-fitting word (maybe just "sinking"). Richard David Ramsey (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it is correct 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

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 17th - The only major loss during the evacuation from western France was off St Nazaire. Liner “Lancastria” was bombed and sunk with the death of nearly 3,000-7,000 men.[1][2] --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Armenia(November 7, 1941) The latest Russian sources put the death toll at 7,000[3]
• Yoshida Maru (April 26-May 6, 1944) entire Japanese Army regiment of 3,000 men and the crew lost[4]
• 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. [5]
• Cap Arcona (May 3, 1945) around 4,200[6]

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also there two from the see also section of the Cap Arcona article but unsourced on that page

• Junyō Maru - Japanese "hell ship" torpedoed while transporting about 6,000 prisoners of war and forced laborers.
• Ukishima Maru - Imperial Japanese Navy vessel sunk while transporting 4,000 to 5,000 Korean forced laborers.

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that it's next to impossible to rank these wartime sinkings by numbers of dead with any degree of accuracy. I therefore believe that we should not attempt to, and instead mention simply that it was among the worst (and link in 'See also' to other comparable incidents). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"When it became apparent that the ship was doomed, one female survivor remembers hearing the sound of "popcorn popping." After walking down the hallway where the sound was coming from, she realized to her horror that she was hearing the sound of wounded German officers committing suicide with their pistols. One told her they did not want to take the lifeboat space from the women and children."

Please ;)...We know how brave were German soldiers during the war but we don't have space for myths in Wikipedia as long as someone will not have proofs for them.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imho this is no Question of POV but unencyclopedic story-telling, even if the source could be found. Perhaps it could be a valuable Information, that it was reportet that several woundet commited suicide or killed each other, facing the fact to be helplessly stuck on a sinking ship, but not this "Popcorn"-Story (I guess Popcorn was fairly unknown in Germany at this time - so the sound of it).--WerWil (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know the coordinates for the wreck? They ought to be in the article. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Ships, WikiProject Military history

In July of this year, it was reported that the wreck had been severely damaged by looters. News reports put emphasis on the fact that diving to the wreck, while common, is illegal, and that it has become a problem for many ship wrecks in the Baltic Sea in general.

The wreck section of the article currently includes an external link to a diving video,[7] and a photo of a diver entering the wreck.[8] While both of these look clearly like useful content to me, I am concerned that they advocate diving. I don't know if I'd want to remove them altogether, but I am uncomfortable with the section in its current state. Any input would be appreciated. Renerpho (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it could give the impression that we are promoting illegal activities by linking to such material and we don't want to be associated with that. Bermicourt (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I agree that it is potentially problematical. I think "promoting illegal activities" is a bit of a stretch, but I do see there's a bit of an ethical greyish zone around reporting what it is like – which is why the photo is good – versus sounding as if we like it, etc etc. I think it's good that we report the damage, so that is already a positive. I also wondered: (a) do we know that that is an illegal diver in the photo? If so then maybe consider removing it completely, and if we know it is a government-sanctioned diver then say so in the caption. Indeed if we know that it is an illegal diver then add that fact too? Or (b) can we replace the diver image with an underwater image which does not include a diver? Because then we are still showing that it is down there but without looking like we in some way "endorse" the presence of the diver in the shot; or (c) are there any shots of or by government-sanctioned divers to which we could swap, and explain the source in the caption? Again this would perhaps give us a little more distance from the illegal activity. Sorry it's a bit waffly but that's all I have at present. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text is clear that diving into or tampering with the wreck is "illegal" and it is a "war grave" so I've no problems in that regard. The problem is with the photo. "Own work" is garbage unless the person behind the camera was taking a personal photo and is the person uploading the image. The uploading person is "Jaksel~commonswiki" and the author is stated as "Jakob Selbing" so the data is on its face not an "own work" image. Thus there is a very possible copyright issue and at the least inadequate information to defend such a charge. I see no little attribution on Wikipedia as "own work" when that is highly unlikely and, at best, in the mind of the person uploading the copy/upload process is the "work" mentioned. Best case for a photo inside such a wreck is an authorized dive of some sort, and those are not uncommon for monitoring and such. In such a case the photo is possibly owned by an organization or authority rather than individual divers. I personally think "own work" claims should face immediate challenge unless explained further. "Personal photo taken by me on X" or similar for drawings, diagrams and such. Unless "Jakob Selbing" was an athorized diver and behind the personal camera with authority to take "personal" photos during the dive any such photo is questionable on Wikipedia. This photo is questionable and someone with Commons familiarity should probably tag it for deletion unless much more information, including authority for the dive, is provided. Palmeira (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great discussion. Just to clarify, I am the original author of this photograph (this is "own work", isn't it?). I took the photo during a dive on this shipwreck. There is no organization behind it. "Illegal" in this context is a greyzone. I think it is only Germany and Poland that signed laws against diving there, and since I come from Sweden then it obviously does not apply to me. The shipwreck lies in international water but within economic zone of Poland so Polish coast guard have no right to stop anyone carrying out diving there. But OTOH if you are a polish citizen and dive there, then you may face charges. At least, this is how I think the situation is. So basically, the photo does not show anything that could be considered subject of a trial. Regarding looting and damage - this is quite a shame and makes me sad, but OTOH I am not surprised. I absolutely do not endorse that kind of activity. --Jaksel (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Engine order telgraph on wreck of SS Steuben.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from two anti-aircraft guns - all ships of all nations between 1939-1945 carried these - she was not "armed", which would suggest she was a warship. This was a liner being used for evacuations and everyone knew that, including the murderer who sank her. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:1918:6E80:F0BD:C44F (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in the Baltic Sea. 206.251.47.20 (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]