Talk:Operation Teardrop

Torture by any other name...

It's amazing, what lengths pro-military types on Wikipedia will go to deny past crimes of Western imperialism. Even 'small' ones, like here. The firebombing of german and japanese cites -- and the atomic warcrime, of course -- etc., are something else again entirely, huh? Still -- someone had to just come out and say it finally, in this article, if for no other reason but that it is incontrovertible fact. Yet still attempt to justify it.

We're still not quite out of the Dark Ages yet, are we..?

I think this article remains a tad distant from any 'final' state of objectivity.

Pazouzou (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the references I consulted labeled the treatment of the German POWs 'torture'; the strongest wording is that it was a "singular atrocity", and that's been included in the article. Intererstingly enough, the historian who used this term (Philip K. Lundeberg) was actually a survivor of the ship which the submarine sank... Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I felt that the language describing the treatment of prisoners was weaselly. They were tortured.Keith-264 (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a source which calls it 'torture' then by all means change the wording. I tend to agree, but am constrained by what the sources I've been able to find say. Nick-D (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think the use of euphemisms is a reflection of the time the action took place. Morrison, for example, states that the crew would not talk until they "enjoyed a little "hospitality" in the Marine Corps brig". --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Western imperialism? You do realize Germany is considered part of the "West", yes? These were all Western powers fighting each other, not noble little brown people of bon sauvage mythology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.11.162 (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Your point? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Who killed the last U-boat?

It seems the article of this ship USS Varian (DE-798) claims it disabled and forced the U-boat to surface.--Operation Teardrop (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC) It seems that five destroyers engaged the U-boat at the same time, Varian, USS Pillsbury (DE-133), USS Chatelain (DE-149), USS Neunzer (DE-150) and USS Flaherty (DE-135), the combat being described in this article, but...not one reference!--Operation Teardrop (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Ok, that entire combat description was lifted from here [1] --Operation Teardrop (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Background

The Background section says the information came from the interrogation of a spy named Oscar Mantel. The Operation Elster page says those spies, Gimpel and Colepaugh, gave this information. Was Mantel one of these people, or was he a different captive giving the same story. Anybody know? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Factual error

U-881 was the last German submarine to be sunk by the U.S. Navy during World War II.

I believe this is wrong. See Actions of 5/6 May 1945 and U-853. I believe the above statement should be amended to mention that these subs were the last two sunk in US waters. It is not clear which was the last one sunk as the events happened at about the same time, and nobody knows which shot sank U-853 during the lenthy attack it was subjected to. Jehochman ^Talk 04:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Escort

There has been some mention of carriers and destroyers in the article, which I've corrected. Escort carriers (CVE) are much smaller than the ships usually called carriers, fleet carriers; and destroyer escorts (DE) are smaller and slower than (fleet) destroyers (the Royal Navy classified them as frigates rather than any sort of destroyer). Cheap, expendable, ships produced in huge quantities. Pol098 (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Teardrop. 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/20090905150207/http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-546.htm to http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-546.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) 19:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)