Talk:Laconia incident/Archive 1

Archive 1

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.

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)

Thank you for this fascinating account of your grandfather's experience. Is there anywhere suitable sources can be found for any of this so that it could be added to the article? 86.181.254.125 (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Details

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.
   • Are there any reliable sources on the number of passengers/victims? The numbers in the article are contradicting one another. One section states that there were 1800 prisoners, 268 british solders 80 civilians and 160 polish soldiers on the vessel. Thats a total of some 2000 souls on board. one of the "facts" at the top of the article states that "well over half died". Yet the "American Bombing" section claims there were 1500 survivors, which is considerably less then half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.79.19 (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
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)

Disambiguation

"The Laconia incident" could also refer to the 1917 event: RMS Laconia (1911) torpedoed and sunk 25 February 1917 by the German U-boat U-50. -- I don't know how/if to disambiguate this. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Summary and key facts? Why?

Including a 'summary' section with a list of 'key facts' is not part of standard Wikipedia format. It shouldn't be in this article. 75.62.130.32 (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at incorporating it into the article body. Wayne (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

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.

Because it is *NOT* a war crime to attack an ARMED SUBMARINE no matter what color cross it may be flying. In fact, under international law, Hartenstein was the one committing a war crime by misuse of the Red Cross insignia on an armed offensive vessel.

Oh, I dunno. Given the circumstances, and given the VERY limited resources available on a U-boat, you'd have to say that Hartenstein was being very creative. Let's judge him by his intentions, shall we? 58.168.69.62 (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

And let's not even get into the issue of the war crime that was unrestricted submarine warfare...

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)

Excellent Discussion Topic

One of the reasons so much has been written about this incident is that it clearly lays out the grey area with regard to what is a war crime or not. The “Laconia Affair” is a controversial incident because it set the precedent for the subsequent unrestricted submarine warfare for not only the German navy, but also for the allied navies. The on-going controversy comes from the level of required assistance and/or protection that military forces must afford non-combatants in war at sea. A Google Search of “Laconia Affair” returns 10 pages of links highlighting one international bestseller and numerous articles on the subject. While in today's instant communications and global reach, it is hard to imaging how desperate thing were in 1942. The Germans control all of Europe and most of North Africa. British force were barely hanging on in Egypt, the Russian were in retreat, and the Germans were winning the "Battle for the Atlantic." It raises the following points of study for not only military historians but also practitioners of war and peace to consider.

• What to do with regard to non-combatants during military combat operations at sea?
• Minor tactical decisions made on both sides can and do set precedents with current and future strategic level impact.
• In war, there are no “Black or White” answers, only grey ones made with a minimal set of facts in the heat of battle.

This Wiki article helps lays out the facts for readers to learn from and make up their own minds as to whether or not the actions taken on both sides were right or wrong. As the biographer of Robert_C._Richardson_III I have found extensive primary, secondary, and tertiary materials on the subject among his papers. One thing that stands out from all the materials is that it was not until the 1960s that all sides of the story came together under the French historian, Leone Peillard, in his 1963 international bestseller, "The Laconia Affair." It was written in French and translated into 10 languages. Anyone truly interested should read that book. The Air University Review March-April 1964 article, "Origin of the Laconia Order," by Dr Mauer Maurer and Lawrence Paszezk is also a well researched article based on primary sources. It is written as a lessons learned article from a military decision perspective. crossrich (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Crossrich

Crossrich, you should probably mention that you're Richardsons son and *might* have a *little* bias on this topic. Please, if you have to edit these topics, cite your changes, don't refer to family archives, because they can have no place in an encyclopedia. Mediterraneo joe (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right I am family, and we have long thought to write a book of the complete affair. My references of General Richardson's papers and the transcript of his official USAF interview are located in the archives at Air Force Historical Research Agency. If there is any bias it is from those who inject 21st century media conscious rules of engagement on a 1943 military tactical engagement based their causal reading of the incident from tertiary sources. It seems these individuals are all to ready to declare the English and Italians the victims, the Germans the good guys, and the Americans the bad guys. Wikipedia is about documented facts which I have sighted and not the personal opinions written above. I challenge you to sight a primary or secondary historical source that clearly state the bombing was a war crime.

The Laconia Affair has long been of interest to students of naval and international law and the complete story with regard to B-24 bomber attack took until 1964, after Peillard’s “Laconia Affair” to come together. First was Doenizt’s Nurrenberg Trial and subsequent biography. Second was Captain S W Roskill’s 1st Feb 1959 London Times Article “Mystery of U.S. Plan’s Attack.” Third was Leonce Peillard’s 1963 French, then International bestseller “The Laconia Affair.” The book led General Richardson to write Peillard about his role in the affair and Peillard hosting a party of all the survivors of the affair. This resulted in a 1963 European headline of “I ordered the bombing of the submarine, chuckled the general.” (London Express & Paris Le Mode). The actions and motivations of then Capt Richardson were not thoroughly researched and documented until 1964 when Dr Mauer Maurer (USAF Historian) and Lawrence Paszezk Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945) in their Air University Review, March-April 1964 article "Origin of the Laconia Order" sought to answer where the attacking B-24 bomber came from and why.

While there is much written to the human suffering caused by the Laconia sinking and subsequent events, only one book, Tony Bridgland’s 2002 “Waves of Hate: Naval Atrocities of the 2nd World War”, speaks directly to the war crime aspects of the Laconia Affair. Tony Bridgland (Pg 89-90) does not fault then Capt Richardson but the British authorities for not marking the Laconia as a POW transport and arranging safe passage with the Axis Powers. Of then Capt Richardson’s actions, he states:

“In war one must always beware of enemy duplicity. It was possible the apparently compassionate U-156 was nothing more than a decoy. Richardson justified the American action by saying ‘We were at war with Donitz. Nobody told us anything about Hartenstein’s message. We knew nothing of this until after the war (1963). I consulted with my deputy, Col Ronan, and we came to the conclusion that our duty was to sink the enemy.’” (Tony Bridgland’s 2002 “Waves of Hate: Naval Atrocities of the 2nd World War” Pg 90)

--crossrich (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I was very misunderstood. I do and did not edit the Laconia page, because I lack proper sources and insight in the topic. I also do not consider the bombing a war crime (which are carried out clearly by criminals), but a terrible mistake (which unfortunatly occur in war).

Neither do I intend to declare 'the Germans the good guys and the Americans the bad guys', as I am actually very grateful for the American war effort against nazi Germany.

My critisism is, that you edited and reverted the page some time ago, without any citations, and while having close personal ties to one party involved, your edits dont add much credibility to this wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F).

If you write a book about the affair, your book can be a verifiable source for this matter if cited by anyone other than you (Wikipedia:SELFPUB). Mediterraneo joe (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

When Winston Churchill was First Sea Lord, he issued a proclamation to ALL British ships, that they should make every effort to sink an enemy submarine on sight. If they were not armed, they were to try to ram it. He then sweetened the pot by saying that they would be hanged for treason if they did not obey this order. This made EVERY British ship a ship of war. So who started the unrestricted warfare? 101.161.69.127 (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

TV drama

Minor point: the "TV drama" section says "the program was shown in New Zealand on Prime television (not one of the three major TV channels) on the nights of January 6 & 13, 2013." True, but it was first shown in February 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.83.228 (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"SSS" is a code?

"SSS SSS 0434 South / 1125 West Laconia torpedoed" looks like sending "SOS" with error. If "SSS" stands for a (German/Wehrmacht military) code telling about an attack by a submarine, than that should be better noted in the text. The article SSS does not include such a code. --Helium4 (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The "SSS SSS 0434 South / 1125 West Laconia torpedoed" is the Laconia's distress signal, sent by the Laconia on being torpedoed. The 'SSS' was Admiralty code for attack by submarine, the equivalent one for attack by a surface raider was 'RRR'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A prima facie war crime?

There is no such thing as "a prima facie war crime". Whoever wrote that has little knowledge of law. Actually it was prima facie a war crime. Or more accurately "a war crime". The "has been called" is not needed.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected Incomplete Sentence

The following sentence (under section Summary of Incident), which ended with a citation note after full stop, appears to be incomplete:

For his part, Admiral Dönitz' actions in supporting the rescue were opposed by Hitler, who ordered that the sinking of the Laconia be kept secret, and most senior officers.

Can someone rephrase or complete the sentence if there are words missing after senior officers?Cloptonson (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone must've tweaked the article, as that section no longer exists. It's not, however, an incomplete sentence. What it's trying to say is that Hitler - who ordered that the sinking of the Laconia be kept secret - & most of his senior officers opposed the rescue. ScarletRibbons (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laconia incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409052122/http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/wwii-campaigns.html to http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/wwii-campaigns.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120819062108/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/juddoeni.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/juddoeni.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Friendly fire?

Is friendly fire the correct term, when the USAAF knew that this was an allied or neutral vessel?Royalcourtier (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)