Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Today is the 96th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. :mourn:

Discussion in 'Free Fire Zone' started by C.Evans, Apr 14, 2008.

  1. redcoat

    redcoat Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,523
    Likes Received:
    142
    Actually it is.
    German U-boats were sinking passenger liners even on the first day of the war, complaining that the Soviets were doing it after 5 years of unrestricted submarine warfare is a little unfair


    In his reports on the sinking its quite clear he didn't know the identity of the vessel.

    Remember, the Gustloff was carrying over 1000 members of the German armed forces, this makes the fact it was transporting refugees and wounded (around 182 ) irrelevent in international law




    I've heard the claim, but there's no truth in it.

    Vladimir K. Konovalov, commander of the Soviet submarine L-3 sank the liner GOYA of 5,230 tons, leading to the deaths of around 7,000 refugees. He later became a Rear-Admiral in the post war Soviet Navy.

    [
     
  2. Shangas

    Shangas Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    16
    I'm fairly sure there's something in the Geneva Conventions that states that a vessel painted in the colours of a hospital ship (white, with red crosses on the sides & flying red cross flags) was to be marked as a *non*-combatant and that therefore it should be left alone by enemy shipping and/or submarines. The same goes for ambulances and doctors on land.

    To my knowledge, the Gustloff had no such hospital markings on it, which meant that the U-boat captain could've fired on it and claimed it was a legitimate target. While the Gustloff was not a legitimate target as it did not pose a threat, it did not have the colours painted on it which would have offered it some kind of protection. It was its own fault it got fired on.

    Furthermore, the Gustloff did not sail the route outlined as best for it. To stay close to land and to kill all unnecessary lights and to sail in a zig-zag pattern. Instead, the Gustloff sailed in open waters with lights blazing and in a straight line. That's a pretty easy target for a submarine. I reckon the Gustloff brought about its own demise through bad luck and stupidity.
     
  3. redcoat

    redcoat Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,523
    Likes Received:
    142
    he had no need to 'claim' anything, it was a legitimate target.

    The ship was carrying over a 1000 members of the Kriegsmarine, nearly all of them members of the U-boat arm, on arrival in a western port these men would most probably been assigned to U-boats and sent out to sink our ships, or used as part of the naval land forces, either way these men were a threat.

    To have painted the ship in hospital colours and then use it to transport healthy members of the German armed services that in itself would have been a war crime.

    To complain about the Soviets sinking a passenger liner without warning and even knowing it carried refugee's, is ignoring that all the other submarine fleets also operated a unrestricted submarine warfare policy.

    Any other submarine, be it German, British or US, would have fired on that type of ship in similar circumstances, that is without question.

    War is not nice
     
  4. Matthew

    Matthew Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wow, 96 years already? Time certainly goes by fast. R.I.P to all of the people who lost their lives that day.
     
  5. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    857
    [[[I have nothing to say about Vlad, I do not know anything about this guy to be able to argue about.]]]]
     
  6. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    857
    Hi Mathew, you said it Bro, may they Rest in Peace.
     
  7. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,469
    Likes Received:
    2,208
  8. tikilal

    tikilal Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    66
    The saddest thing about this event is that I now have to watch a complletely sappy movie with the wife from time to time.

    But seriously, it is a tragedy.
     
  9. Skipper

    Skipper Kommodore

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    24,985
    Likes Received:
    2,386
    Maybe global warming isn't so bad after all . It makes the icebergs melt :)

    More seriously every sunk ship is a tragedy, whether peace time or not, accident or act of war. There is little difference: people die and survivors mourn
     
  10. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    857

    Hi Tik, if you want to see a movie that is both truthful and well-made, watch: "A Night To Remember" which stars: Kenneth More, as Mr. Lightholler, David McCallum and soem other good actors. This movie came out in 1957 or 1958. Another excellent movie about the Titanic that came out in the 1950's is: Titanic, w/ Richard Basehart, Robert Wagner, Barbara Stanwyck and Clifton Webb. This movie came out in 1953, and was the movie that made me become a big fan of both Stanwyck and Webb. I was already a big fan of Richard Basehart and Robert Wagner. This version though a great movie, is not as accurate as A Night To Remember is. Also, there is still yet another version of Titanic-which came out in 1943-and was German made. I've seen this version and is entertaining but, is far from being factual and his lots of nazi propaganga in it. BTW, the Director of this version, "dissappeared" after the movies release.

    Though I liked the Cameron version of Titanic, I agree, it's got too much garbage in it.
     

Share This Page