Talk:SMS Dresden (1907)

Untitled

Why isn't it mentioned that the "After a few shots were fired, the Dresden ran up a white flag " were illegal, as the ship was in a Chilean harbour which was neutral? So the shots were done ignoring the neutral status of the place where the ship was.

Err because it wasn't illegal. Dresden wasn't in a neutral harbour, she was anchored in a bay off a neutral island. If she had put into a neutral harbour, she would have been interned, that is to say the neutral country would have taken the ship over to prevent it being used as an enemy warship in the future, thus violating their neutrality. She was a German warship flying German colours. If anyone was being illegal, it was the Dresden, violating neutral territorial waters. Benea 20:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was illegal.

As my Uncle always told me, the Ship was allready officialy turned over to Chile. It was no official Harbour, but clearly in Chilenian Territory. The Engine was worne out and ther was no Cole left. My Grandfather was one the eight German Man killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.128.52.153 (talk • contribs)

Unless you have a reliable source stating that the ship was indeed already legally transferred to Chile, we cannot accept your assertions. I myself doubt such a document exists, given the ship wasn't in a Chilean harbor, and it was still flying its ensign. Parsecboy (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is very clear that the behavior of the british forces were complettly illeagal. It has nothing to do with "fairplay" - more it was the "my country first" attitude. This should be mentioned on the british wikipedia page as it is mentioned on the german wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.70.181 (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The ship was anchored within the territorial waters of Chile or the chilean island "Más a Tierra", in front of the beach, flying a white flag and definitely no ensign. " ... Im Ersten Weltkrieg stellte sich der deutsche Kreuzer SMS Dresden am 14. März 1915 nach Verfolgung durch die britischen Kreuzer Kent, Glasgow und Orama in der Cumberlandbucht der Insel Más a Tierra unter chilenische Hoheit. Die englischen Schiffe eröffneten das Feuer und die Dresden geriet in Brand. ..." The Dresden was shot without negotiations or contact, as soon as the british ships were at firing range. There was no contact of any of the german officers with their british adversaries, this is simply not true but most probably propaganda. When the SMS "Dresden" began to burn, the Captain tried to scuttle the ship. The crew had already evacuated to the island before. English rumours said it was a retaliation from Churchill, ordering to sink the SMS "Dresden" at any cost and " ... kill the crew or take prisoners, whatever you see fit", as he already had ordered to do with shipwrecked german soldiers from U-boats. The papers are in the british archives (only to be opened in 2018) and the german Bundearchiv. The surviving, then first officer of the SMS "Dresden" was the later SD-chief Wilhelm Canaris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.15.14 (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be added that the Dresden, awaiting a Chilean vessel to surrender to, had lowered and tied down her guns. This did not prevent the gallant British navy from opening up on this easy stationary target, killing, not wounding eight crew members. Of course they must have been wounded, before they died. An elucidating example that almost a hundred years after the event a WP moderator, possibly a British national, has difficulty acknowledging a historical fact. Phrases in the passive voice "some shots were fired" leave it open as to who actually fired. The Dresden with her guns tied down and the majority of her crew ashore? What did Winston Churchill, who had in all likelihood ordered the unconditional sinking of the Dresden, say about the authors of history? Ontologix (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No. of propellers

The info. box says ship had two propellers. German Wiki says four (Die "Dresden" verfügte über vier Propeller....). Sca (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

According to Gröner, she only had 2 Parsons turbines - don't know where the other two screws would have come from ;) Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That's logical. Guess Ger. Wiki is wrong ... OTOH Spanish Wiki says four, and while French Wiki says two, it also seems to say that in addition to two turbines Dresden had two triple-expansion, i.e. piston, engines — although I must admit my French is rudimentary. Sca (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

PS. English and German entries on the succeeding Kolberg-class cruisers list four propellers for those ships. Sca (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Dresden (1907)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 23:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice article, I just have the following comments to make:

Infobox

• torpedo tubes, 50cm is converted to 20 inches in the infobox but 19.7 in the article body.
  • Fixed.

Service history

• "She made her first trip overseas in September–October 1909 to participate in the Hudson-Fulton Celebration." May be worth mentioning here the event was held in New York. Alternatively, amend the caption of the image to the right of this section that she was in New York for the Hudson-Fulton Celebration.
  • Added to the prose.
• The very last sentence of this section is a bit redundant in light of the first sentence of the WWI section. Suggest amending the first sentence to refer to after meeting the Karlsruhe she was preparing to return...
  • Yeah, I had written those sections at different times and forgot to make sure they weren't redundant.

World War I

• "With the onset of hostilities, the Navy...": With the onset of hostilities, the Admiralstab?
  • Sure

Battle of Coronel

• "to position herself off the British bow...": shouldn't the bow be plural as the previous sentence refers to cruisers? (Although if it was, I think bows would read strangely). Or were they just after the Glasgow?
  • I think "bows" is correct.

Battle of the Falkland Islands

• "Lüdecke decided that his ship was no longer operational, and determined to have his ship interned to preserve it.": Lüdecke decided that his ship was no longer operational and was determined to have his ship interned in order to preserve it.
  • You can determine to do something, and I've been told many times by the FAC copyeditors that "in order to" is generally to be avoided, since it doesn't add anything to the meaning.

Aftermath

• Do we know what happened to Lüdecke? He seems to have been a competent captain.
  • He seems to have disappeared from the record after being interned in Chile - as far as I know, he remained there for the duration of the war. I have not seen his name among those who managed to escape (like Canaris).

General

• Some ranks not linked, e.g. Vice Admiral, Rear Admiral.
  • Added.
• No bracketed English translations provided for German ranks or for Admiralstab (German terms are translated in the lead).
  • Added.
• Is Vice Admiral the rank of von Spee in German?
  • No, it's Vizeadmiral
• References look good as do the tags on the images.
• No duplicate links.
• No dab links.
• Checklinks indicates there may be an issue with the weblink for citation 40 (although it works fine for me).
  • Hmm, it works fine for me (and I've used wrecksite in the past with no problems then either).

All in all, pretty minor stuff really. I'll check back in a few days for your response. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, Zawed. Parsecboy (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, passing as GA now. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SMS Dresden (1907). 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/20150406001207/http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/world-war-i/underwater-cultural-heritage-from-wwi/ to http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/world-war-i/underwater-cultural-heritage-from-wwi/

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) 06:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Lots of photos

Here, here, here, here, here, and here, sinking. Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)