Tomorrow it is 62 years ago, that 9.343 people drowned in the Baltic seas ice cold water.
Last week I promised to proof, why we never had a greater time than now. and because of that, I have to ask you to open a wound. that wound is 62 years old tomorrow, and I'm gonna bet, that you aren't celebrating this day in any way, which is odd, because it happened in our own backyard. 115 kilometres east of Nexø on Bornholm in the ice green Baltic sea.



9.343 people is laying down there on the bottom of the sea, 45 metres below the grey waves.
9.343 men, women and children. Germans, you might say, and if you know your maths, you've already discovered, that those many Germans died 30. January, where world war two was taking its last breaths.
And in a way it was their fault. oh yes, they started the bloody war six years earlier, and the hate was overwhelming in the last months of the war.
Because they started it. and now they had to pay the price. And the 9.343 men, women and children were German men, German women, and German children, that all had to die. That would learn them a lesson!

And they did. out in the Baltic sea 30. January, 62 years ago. Oh how they learned it. Their ship was named 'Wilhelm Gusloff' and were originally built as a passenger ship to demonstrate how well the Nazis took care of their workers, but when the war started, it was rebuilt as a hospital ship and later as a barracks ship for U boat crews under training. But early in the morning 30. January 1945 'Wilhelm Gusloff' left Gdynia near Gdansk headed for Kiel. Aboard were 10.582 people. The ship was built for 2.000 passengers, so the space had been very little. But Gusloff was the only way out of Gdansk, that wasn't named Gdansk at that time, because the city was German, and was named Danzig, and the majority were refugees, escaping from the Russian army
Precisely was 8.956 of the passengers refugees. The rest were 918 German officers, 373 female Technicians from the German Navy, 162 badly wounded soldiers, and a crew of 173.
And of course was Wilhelm Gusloff officially a war ship.
There's nothing to brag about there.



Captain Alexander Marinesko from the Russian U-boat S-13 broke no rules, when he launched three torpedoes against 'Wilhelm Gusloff' right after 9pm in the evening the 30. January 1945.
And all three torpedoes hit their target. In the panic that followed, many of the refugees were trampled in the rush to lifeboats and life jackets. Some equipment was lost as a result of the panic. The water temperature in the Baltic Sea at this time of year is usually around 4°C; however, this was a particularly cold day, with an air temperature of -10° to -18° C and ice floes covering the surface. Many deaths were either caused directly by the torpedoes or by instant drowning in the incoming water. Others were crushed in the ensuing panic on the stairs and decks, and many jumped into the icy, dark Baltic water. Many reports suggest children were clinging on to adults and women tried to save babies, though constant waves dragged them away from them, many not to be seen ever again. Small children fitted with life jackets for adults drowned because their heads were under water while their legs were in the air.

In under 50 minutes after being struck, the Wilhelm Gustloff sank in a depth of 45 meters (150 feet).
About 1.000 survivors were rescued by nearby ships, but 9.343 people died that night, 62 years ago.
This would make it the worst loss of life in a single sinking in maritime history.
And they are still down there, 115 km east of Nexø. Out in the backyard..

And the really fun part is, that U-boat captain Alexander Marinesko only 11 days later, the 10. February killed another 4.500 people, when his U-boat sunk the  cargo ship 'General von Steuben' with 2.000 wounded soldiers, 320 nurses, 30 doctors and about 1.000 refugees in the same ocean.
ONE man killed nearly 14.000 people in under two weeks. That's a thought one to beat. and that would explain his acceleration alcoholism, that later led to his reassignment in September 1945, and later his all to late death in 1963. All because of stupidity..

Cheers Theis..

Thanks for posting this Theis.

Quote:

Precisely. Nothing new there then.

Quote:

Sarcasm, dear Björn, Sarcasm..

beaky wrote on Jan 29^th, 2007 at 10:36am:

As I said, there was no way the Sub captain knew there were 10,000 men, women and children on board that ship. I'd be suprised if the ship even had a Red Cross painted on it (for all the good that would have done on the eastern front).

As far as premeditated attacks on civilians go, I'm afriad that the sinking of Lusitania and Mauritania during the first world war come before this one.


Edit: This is an extract from the website www.wilhelmgustloff.com
Quote:

Theis wrote on Jan 29^th, 2007 at 9:58am:


Then it came out totally wrong.

Smileys could've helped.

Quote:

Theis wrote on Jan 29^th, 2007 at 12:22pm:

Theis wrote on Jan 29^th, 2007 at 12:22pm:
.

Quote:

Ijineda wrote on Jan 31^st, 2007 at 9:38am:

Geez.. Muhammed crisis over again..
When do people learn, that it is S-A-R-C-A-S-M!!!!!!!!!!
Sarcasm!!


sar·casm      /ˈsɑrkæzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahr-kaz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony. 
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[Origin: 1570–80; < LL sarcasmus < Gk sarkasmós, deriv. of sarkázein to rend (flesh), sneer; see sarco-]


—Synonyms 1. sardonicism, bitterness, ridicule. See irony1. 2. jeer.


A form of irony in which apparent praise conceals another, scornful meaning. For example, a sarcastic remark directed at a person who consistently arrives fifteen minutes late for appointments might be, “Oh, you've arrived exactly on time!”


I feel with those who died too..

I don't really think it's hilarious that one man killed 10.000 people..
And you should know better..
Geez.. I'm glad I don't write this as often.. Always turns out the wrong way..

Here i'm trying to start a sensible debate about this event, and all there happens is persons kicking after the man, instead of the ball...

I doubt I will write something like this again, if this is the niveau! 

Theis wrote on Feb 1^st, 2007 at 4:20am:


Funny stuff that was.


P.S: People die every day by thousands. So why make a fuss about a number?

dcunning30 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2007 at 4:49pm:

Did you not read what I posted. When this ship was sunk she was painted navy grey. Also, the attack happened at night and the only thing that alerted the sub to the presence of the ship was the fact that the ship had it's nav lights turned on. You cannot, in any way call the attack vengence.

dcunning30 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2007 at 5:40pm:

In war time a nations ocean liners are quite often seized by the Navy for use as troop transports, hospital ships and sometimes as Light Cruisers. So unless the ship is white, with a big red cross painted all over it then it is a legitimate target.

Secondly you have to look at the nature of submarine warfare, and the nature of those fighting it. The job of a submarine is to cause as much disruption to enemy shipping as possible. The german U-boats for example would sink literally anything they came across from yachts to liners to battleships.

You also have to consider the nature of the war on the eastern front. It was total war. The red cross on the eastern front was little more than something to aim at and ambulances in the field were armed with machineguns. So even if the ship was white with a red cross, it probably wouldn't have saved it.

I'm afraid to say that you cannot call the submarine captains actions as anything other than his duty. He caught an enemy vessel trying to slip away during the night and he sank it. Any other submarine captain, from any nation in any war would have done the same thing.

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2007 at 5:52pm:


As you previously stated, how was the sub captain to know the ship was white with red crosses at night?

Quote:


I'm definately aware of that.  That's why I suggested the possibility of vengence, and then you rebuked me.

Quote:


I'm not in disagreement with that point.  I haven't drawn any conclusions.  I'm just exploring the possibilities based on the what facts we might know.

Finally!!

A good debate!!

beaky wrote on Feb 7^th, 2007 at 8:25am:


I got to remember that one.

Theis wrote on Feb 7^th, 2007 at 2:45pm:


Don't worry, that's my job.