This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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
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
I've moved much of the text in the "Sinking.." section to a "Controversy" section, and changed the name to "Fate", to match the layout on other U-boat pages. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at this section the more I think it’s a bloody cheek.
Is it an attempt to throw some mud, to see if it’ll stick?
Is this even notable?
This isn’t by any means the first, or the only instance in the Battle of the Atlantic of survivors not being picked up; and Folkers, in U-125, sank 17 ships without offering any assistance at all to the survivors.
U-boats invariably fired on ships without warning, and made no provision for survivors afterwards; U-boats also generally fired on ships that stopped to pick survivors up, which is why DEMS instructions were to refrain from picking up their own men, let alone enemy sailors.
So why would they or anyone else expect different?
Is it even controversial?
If the U-boat Arm had acted within the “deeply-held code of conduct at sea”, or even within international law, they might have had some complaint. As it is, it’s maybe more remarkable that Snowflake was prepared to pick them up at all.
This isn’t supported by any reference saying that it is controversial, so who is it thinks it is?
Did it even happen?
There’s no reference here to say this even happened in this instance, and I’ve never seen it mentioned in regard to U-125. Neither Kemp nor Neistle mention it in their accouonts of U-125’s end, and neither does Gannon, who’s probably the definitive account of the ONS-5 battle.
So can anyone give a good reason for it to stay? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
