Talk:German submarine U-552

Untitled

As of the 27 November 2006, this page is being routinely reverted by an unregistered user who insists on pushing an unsourced and incorrect version of events surrounding the sinking of the David H Atwater. Repeated attempts to prevent the user from doing this have met with failure, and this is a warning to those who read it not to believe all that is said here. A more balanced version presenting both sides of the issue can be seen here. Should this dispute be resolved at some point could the parties who resolve it please remove this warning from the talk page. --Jackyd101 17:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC) |}

Unused parts of old article

Her keel was laid down December 1, 1939 by of Hamburg. She was commissioned December 4, 1940 with Oberleutnant zur See Erich Topp in command. Topp commanded her until September 1942 (receiving a promotion to Kapitänleutnant in the process). He was relieved by Kptlt. Klaus Popp, who commanded the boat until he was relieved in July 1944 by Oblt. Günther Lube. Lube commanded the boat until her loss at the end of the war.

Her kills included the first US Navy ship lost in World War II, the destroyer USS Reuben James. (This sinking took place six weeks before war was declared between Germany and the United States, but US Navy ships had been escorting convoys and the U-552 attacked the Reuben James in a case of mistaken identity.)

A warning

An unregistered user has repeatedly changed this article in ways which violate WP:POV. The section regarding the sinking of the David H Atwater was a balanced section discussing both impressions of the incident but has been repeatedly changed by to reflect a biased and unsourced point of view by aforementioned User 71.75.217.133. I will revert the article once more, but if it is changed again I will request protection to prevent unregistered users making edits. Consider this fair warning--Jackyd101 03:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Atwater sinking

I’ve removed the account of the Atwater sinking, as it was biased and unsourced, and replaced it with a previous account; I’ve also made a couple of changes for neutrality.
This is not the first time this account has been foisted on the article, seeking to whitewash what happened, but it needs to stop. The current account is backed up by reputable sources, the anonymous editorializing is not. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

---

User: 75.181.153.57: Again, you have replaced this account of the Atwater sinking with your own.
Your account is criticized for being biased and unsourced; It is also highly editorial (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), which is not acceptable.
If you have any comment on these charges, please say so here. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No reply:
Your addition is still unacceptable because it breaches NPOV, which says "you should assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves".
The facts of the Atwater sinking are that Topp fired without warning on an unarmed civilian ship; he expended nearly half his magazine on her, targeting the bridge, and therefore crew areas, and giving the crew no chance to abandon ship. As a result was all but 3 of the crew were killed. (See U-boat.net webpage for U-552 here if you don’t believe that). And it is a fact that the action is controversial. So what's your problem?
On the sources you gave;
The only Robert Browning in my library writes poetry, so what does your source actually say about this?;
And adding a link to a 20 page whitewash from uboatnet is not a credible or un-biased source. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The uboat.net link doesn't even mention this incident (or indeed U-boat) anyway.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake; the link should’ve gone to the David H Atwater page in the "ships hit" section here;

The phrase is “Topp had followed her underwater, surfaced and began to shell the vessel without warning and never allowing the crew to abandon ship. 93 shots were fired from 600 yards distance, hitting her with about 50 shots and set her on fire.” Xyl 54 (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that the link added to the article in defense of the POV version didn't mention this incident or U-552.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah! And yes, it doesn’t seem to mention U 552 at all. But in the interests of balance maybe it ought to stay; I’ve put a link to a web page which takes a different view. Xyl 54 (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

---

User:Jackyd101: I have made some changes to your account for neutrality. Please tell me if you have any objections to these. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no objections at all, I wrote that some years ago when I was new to Wikipedia and it needed a copyedit.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Recent edits (Oct 08)

As the neutrality of this article is disputed, please discuss any changes on the talk page before making them. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Reuben James

I've restored the previous version of this section: Pease say why you wish to make your changes. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My changes were properly referenced and added information, so I am surprised to find them undone in favor of a previous version with no citations - and the wrong convoy name listed. Salmanazar (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted this because of the neutrality dispute. Under the circumstances, it’s best to do these things decently and in order.

I don’t have any major quarrels with your account, though I couldn’t make out yesterday what you’d done; the edit history looked like the whole section had been re-written.

But it was HX.156, according to Blair, and Milner, at least; where do you get HX.105 from?(Sorry, misread it!)

And the comment about "unsecured depth charges" sounds like victim-blaming, as it stands.

If you fixed those points I for one would say put it back. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Morison reports, "as it went down several depth charges exploded, killing survivors in the water." It's likely that the depth charges were fused and ready for firing - but he doesn't actually say so, therefore I'll remove the word "unsecured" as it is just my unsubstantiated inference. Salmanazar (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

David Atwater

I've restored the previous version of this section also:
This was added:
"the David H. Atwater's master had disregarded instructions and sailed from the Chesapeake in the afternoon, therefore could not make the run to the Delaware Capes before nightfall."
Why? are you saying it was the master’s fault she was sunk?

This was deleted:
"Handheld machine guns were also fired as the submarine rapidly closed the range between the ships, one of her first shells destroying the bridge and killing all of the officers"
Again, why? are you saying it didn’t happen? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In Morison's words (from History of United States Naval Operations in World War II), "Her master had disregarded instructions and sailed from the Chesapeake in the afternoon, hence could not make the run to the Delaware Capes by nightfall".

Re the other item - "handheld machine guns" implies machine pistols, which would only be of use at relatively short range. Official accounts just state that the ship was strafed with machine gun fire.

Again, the previous version has no citations whatsoever.

Salmanazar (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I’m not questioning the source of the first comment, only it’s relevance. By including it, you are suggesting it was the master’s fault the Atwater was sunk, not Topp’s. Is that what you mean?

And the previous version specified "hand-held MG’s and "small-arms fire; it’s only your supposition it wasn’t used. Presumably the original author had a source; it can be tagged for a citation if you are querying it.

And there was a citation, to Bridgland’s book. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The implication of the first comment is that the Atwater's master took a big risk by disregarding advice and sailing when he did. So in a sense he could be said to be at fault, since U-boats preferred to make night attacks due to the risk of being spotted by aircraft.

I was being a little over-pedantic re the machine guns; it's a common fault in many mass-market books to use "machine guns" as a catch-all term for machine guns and machine pistols; "small arms fire" is used, which would imply machine pistols, 6 of which were carried on this type of U-boat.

I have amended my edit slighly; please let me know if you think changes are needed, rather than reverting. Salmanazar (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I think we should start with the status quo ante, and go from there.

You are querying the statement about hand-held weapons, and I’ve proposed request for a source (with the implication it can be removed if it can’t be substantiated).

And you want to add a sentence shifting the blame for the sinking to the master, rather than Topp, which is unacceptable. The article is about U 552, and the action which resulted in an allegation of war crime and that’s what the section should focus on. What you want to put in should belong on a page on Atwater herself.

And “the men panicked"? More victim-blaming?

If you feel the account lacks neutrality, or fails to stick to the material facts, then please say so. But please stop trying to diminish Topp's actions. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The "status quo ante" contains errors. It would have been more helpful to amend my edit rather than just reverting to the earlier version.

I had in fact added a {{fact}} tag to the "hand-held weapons" mention.

I have removed the reference to the men panicking. I was not trying to blame the victims, just relaying an account which had them understandably panicking when their captain was shot, and abandoning attempts to launch lifeboats.

I have also removed the mention of Topp disregarding his sailing instructions. For the record, I was not trying to diminish his actions, but it is clear that he put his ship in harm's way by doing so.

Temporary revised version here. Salmanazar (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit looks OK (and I don’t think the existing version is fine, I just think it’s the starting point); BTW I took the liberty of clarifying the references, to read them.
But you now seem to be saying that Topp fired on the lifeboats, then follow with a comment that it was finding the bullet-riddled lifeboats that gave rise to an atrocity allegation, as if that’s some kind of excuse. I already took out a comparison to Eck of U 852, who machine gunned life-rafts, but not, apparently the men on them; are you now saying that is what Topp did?
I’d substituted a comparison to v Ruckteschell, who acted with un-necessary brutality, which is what Topp is accused of by Bridgland. Do your sources (I haven’t seen them) say different? Xyl 54 (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just dropping in to say that I was the one who originally wrote this text (over two years ago!) and although I don't have Bridgland to hand, I can have it back in about a week and can then properly source these bits. As far as I can remember, Bridgland was not able to definitively say whether the shooting at the liferafts was deliberate or not, only that they were definately hit, that bullets (or possibly AA gunfire) struck the crew crowded at the lifeboats killing many and that firing continued after the ship was clearly sinking. I don't believe he directly accuses Topp of deliberately shooting survivors. I'll clarify Brigland's comments when I get the book back.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Xyl - my personal impression is that the lifeboats were hit before they were launched, when Topp's crew were strafing the ship. That the Atwater's crew abandoned attempts to launch the boats when Captain Webster was shot implies that none were properly launched. I agree upon rereading it that my edit seems NPOV in that regard, and seems to imply that Topp machine-gunned men in boats. I included the reference to the boat "riddled with gunfire" discovered later by the Coast Guard as possibly being one of the sources for the stories of U-boats machine-gunning survivors. Have amended my version accordingly.

Jackyd101 - would very much like to see what Bridgland wrote. Salmanazar (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the NPOV is in suggesting that because the Atwaters crew jumped overboard when fired on , Topp was somehow less culpable, and that finding the bullet-riddle boats without bodies means it’s all somehow been misconstrued. I see you've now taken out the comment about firing on the boats, but left in the explanation of why it's all a mistake.

My issue is to corroborate whether Topp fired on the men in boats or not. Even if he didn’t, this was a heavy-handed attack, like the ones that got v Ruckteschell 7 years; if he did, then it was like Eck, who was shot. Xyl 54 (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I'm out to whitewash Topp's actions like the previous revisionist :) I fully agree that his attack was brutal, whether he fired on men in boats or not, and I thought that the fact that the crew had to jump overboard or die was a point against him, if anything. Anyway, the consensus seems to be that his crime was not giving the crew a chance to abandon ship and firing on the Atwater as they tried to launch the boats. There seems to be no mentions of any deliberate massacre of survivors as performed by Eck.

See for example "War Crimes Committed Against Merchant Seamen During WW II"[1], a subsection of Testimony in support of H.R. 23, the “Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act of 2007 - which one would expect to mention any deliberate slaughter, given that it includes a short account of Eck's actions among others - just says that "The crew was not given any chance to abandon ship, and when they tried to do so, their lifeboats were riddled by machine gun fire."

So, should I insert the current revision of my edit in the main article now, and make any further amendments there rather than in a sandbox? More people will see it there and have a chance to edit it themselves.

Salmanazar (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I'm being over-sensitive on the subject; go ahead (and thanks for being patient!). I'm probably still waiting for the other shoe to drop here. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've actually read (instead of skimming) those debatable anonymous edits from back in the day I don't blame you for being suspicious of my motives! Salmanazar (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, I have secured Tony Bridgland's book Waves of Hate. On P.216 it says "Topp . . . had dived to stalk the unsuspecting David H. Atwater, then surfaced at 2115 to attack her in the safety of darkness. The crew were given no chance. As they prepared to launch their boats and abandon ship, the U-boat opened up on them with her 88mm gun at a range of 600 yards, followed by sweeps of machine gun fire. Ninety three shots were fired by the Germans, fifty shells of which struck the ship, killing the master, Captain Bill Webster. Not waiting for the boats to be launched, most of the freighter's crew jumped into the sea. US Coastguard Cutter No. 218, Legare, heard the gunfire and saw the flashes. She raced onto the scene, arriving at 2130 to find only two feet of the David H. Atwaters mast still showing above the water, a few dead bodies and just three survivors from the cre of twenty seven. In one of the lifeboats was a dead body and the other boat was riddled with bullet holes. There was no sign of the Red Devil [meaning U-552], which had quietly slunk away from the scene." Later on the same page, he directly accuses Topp of the "machine-gunning of the Atwater's survivors." On P.224, there is a blurb about Topp's future career, in which he writes "Erich Topp, whose men killed many of the crew of the David H Atwater, never seems to have paid any penalty for his crime."

I have no memory of what I based what I originally wrote on beyond this text, but I may have read accounts on the internet somewhere that I did not record in the article (I was very new to Wikipedia then and did not understand RS etc.) Thankyou very much for dealing with the IP that kept changing the article and I hope a good medium can be found.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jackyd101. I was curious to see what Bridgland said; it seems to mostly be in line with other accounts, though he appears to have confused the Legare and Coast Guard Patrol Boat USS CG-218. Salmanazar (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

recent edit, Oct-Nov

This:
"Some sources say that handheld machine guns were also fired as she closed with the David H. Atwater."
was removed without explanation by the anonymous editor at 75.181.153.57. I’ve put it back, as it’s waiting for a citation. If one isn’t forthcoming it’ll be removed, but not before proper discussion.
75.181.153.57: If you have anything to say, please say it here. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

---

This:
"in a particularly brutal attack, characterized by some sources as a naval atrocity"
about the Atwater sinking was removed without discussion. I’ve put it back because Bridgland does, in fact, characterize this attack as an atrocity.
75.181.153.57:If you object to this, state your reasons.Xyl 54 (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The neutrality tag seems to have disappeared somewhere along the line; I’ve put it back, as the neutrality of this article is still in doubt, so long as it is getting edits without explanation of discussion from an anonymous editor (ie 75.181.153.57, or whichever address he’s using) which are of unknown/dubious motive. Xyl 54 (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Now our revisionist contributor from 75.181.153.57 wants to add that the belief Topp fired on the lifeboats was "incorrect". Well, that really begs the question, doesn’t it?
The evidence was there that he did, but it was inconclusive, which makes it an open question; and thats what the article says. If you have a credible source that exonerates him, lets hear it. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Machine guns?

The "handheld machine guns" part was originally due to my pedantic quibbling. While Bridgland (as reported by Jackyd101) says "sweeps of machine gun fire" I have found a source which suggests he may be referring to the sub's 20mm automatic cannon. The book "U-boats against Canada" refers to the cannon as a "machine-gun" (in connection with a ship sunk by Topp in January 1942): "At this point Topp's only usable weapon consisted of the 2-cm machine-gun." (Google Books link). Referring to cannon as machine guns seems a fairly common error in many books; while in a sense a 20mm cannon is indeed a heavy machine-gun, generally speaking anything over 20mm is over is referred to as a cannon.

So, I would suggest changing "and opened fire with her 88mm deck gun and machine guns without warning" to "and opened fire with her 88mm deck gun and 20mm cannon without warning" would be more accurate. The line beginning "Some sources say that handheld machine guns were also fired..." should be ditched altogether as there seems no indication this was the case.

Salmanazar (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about "machine guns" referring to 20 cm cannon, I don’t know; but while the sources refer to machine guns then "opened fire with her 88mm deck gun and machine guns without warning" covers both eventualities, while changing to "20 cm cannon" is an assumption.

As for ""Some sources say that handheld machine guns were also fired..."

I put it back partly because it was removed by 75 without the courtesy of an explanation or any attempt to take part in the consensus process, which makes his/her edits of questionable value.

As for the issue, we were waiting for a source for the use of hand-held machine guns; I haven’t found one that’s definitive; (Bridgland makes the allegation about "machine gunning the Atwater survivors" but doesn’t give his source, and David White in Bitter Ocean talks of a case of survivors being machine gunned, but doesn’t name Topp). We could set a deadline, or check with the original editor (was that Jackyd?) if he’s OK to take it out.

But I would still be against any change that is outside the consensus process, by anyone that is outside the consensus process. Xyl 54 (talkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) 18:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's wait and see if Jackyd has an opinion. Salmanazar (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I missed this. Since we have no definite source which explicitly claims that Topp used handheld machineguns on lifeboats I can't see any justification for keeping it in the article. I would be wary about explicitly mentioning 20mm cannon unless we have a source that directly indicates that they were used.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've taken it out. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Atwater, again

I’d like to look at this again; there are two issues to my mind, and they are not sufficiently distinguished in the current version.
First, Topps attack was brutal and heavy-handed, in the same manner as v Ruckteschells; that alone would have qualified it as a war crime..
Second, the possibility that he fired on survivors in lifeboats. It seems there was some evidence he did, but it isn’t conclusive/open to interpretation.
I think the two parts to this need clarifying; what do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the problems have been reduced to the following revisions [2]. Whatever the deal with this IP (who still refuses to discuss things here), I think everyone involved must retain a cool head and not say things they may later regret (not that I think anyone has yet, just an attempt to prevent it happening). The three changes in the diff are 1) whether it can be called an atrocity and if so, who said so 2) The quote and 3) the issue of whether the belief of shooting survivors was incorrect. I think the first has been proved by some sources and I've yet to see an RS that presents a convincing rebuttal so as phrased I think the article is OK (although I'd put the reference at the end of the sentence). Although I did two years ago, I would not now provide comparisons with any other German "crimes" (or indeed use the word crimes) unless a reliable source can be found which does so (as with Bridgland above). These sources should then be named in the text and quoted if possible to provide indisuptable evidence of who is saying what (and if a rebuttal can be found that too can be included). The second point is inexcusable providing that the Doherty quote is correct: there are no other grounds for tampering with a direct quote. The third is more of a grey area. Whether or not Topp deliberately targeted the boats (and there is no way now to be sure), the event did (according to the sources) spread the impression that the Germans were massacring survivors. However, I think we all would agree that there was no deliberate Kriegsmarine policy of shooting survivors comparable with that of the SS on the Eastern Front or in the Japanese Navy and that apart from a few isolated incidents (like this) there were remarkably few documented "attacks" on lifeboats by German ships. I think therefore that since we cannot know Topps intentions or actions, we should quote and attribute the avaliable viewpoints to clarify whose views are being represented. With RS and Verifiability on or side, The IP will have to either join in and assist, or put up and shut up.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Topp's "crime" - as far as it went - was firing on people as they tried to abandon a sinking ship. This is generally accepted as being pretty brutal, but he had to sink the Atwater as quickly as possible; as it is, the Coast Guard heard the gunfire and turned up only 15 minutes later. There are no indications that he fired on survivors actually in the water or in floating boats like Eck, in which case it would definitely have been classed as a war crime. I don't believe the Atwater is even mentioned in Topp's autobiography, suggesting no charges were ever made against him over it. The Brian Herbert quote (I assume Jackyd101 means this when he says "the Doherty quote") just says that the lifeboats were struck as the crew tried to abandon ship - I assumed it meant as they attempted to launch them.

If you take a look at the photo of the Atwater, the superstructure and lifeboats are all concentrated at the stern, so if the U-boat was firing on the superstructure (to stop a distress signal being sent) it seems hard to see how they could miss the lifeboats.

Either way, it was commonly believed at the time that U-boats were machine-gunning survivors, and the "riddled" lifeboat found by the Coast Guard lent strength to this belief, even though it seems safe to assume it became riddled while the crew tried to launch it. I also ran across a recollection from someone who witnessed the bodies being landed who said "The survivors of the Atwater were machine gunned to death in their life rafts by the Germans." which indicates the widespread nature of such beliefs. Whether such beliefs were deliberately left unchecked for propaganda purposes is an interesting question, since enemy atrocities have always been played up in the interests of propaganda.

Salmanazar (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I hadn't realised our anonymous editor had altered the Herbert quote! I have now returned it to what it was. Herbert's quote (taken from his book) can be read online here. Salmanazar (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(I've put the page back to the last agreed version, as there were a number of edits by 75 that were still there. I need to respond to this, but I'm out of time, if you'll bear with me. Xyl 54 (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

On the subject of this being a crime; unrestricted submarine warfare was, and still is, against international law, so this was a crime from the outset; just that everyone in WWII was engaged in USW so all submarine commanders were equally culpable.

But I didn’t pick von Ruckteschells name out of a hat. Most raider captains ( and sub commanders engaging on the surface with guns) approached their victims with a warning, fired only when resisted, allowed the crews to abandon ship, and then sank them with a few well-aimed shots. Von R stalked his victims, attacked at night without warning, deluged them with gunfire and hitting ship, survivors and lifeboats alike. The comparison with Topp’s attack is striking. If v R could be indicted as a war criminal for this, then others (and this is just one of half a dozen similar incidents ) who did the same were lucky not to be treated the same way.

That’s the aspect of this which is getting lost in focussing on the lifeboats issue.Xyl 54 (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Atwater - my final thoughts

Sad to say, I find myself agreeing with our anonymous editor.

The first paragraph, for example: only Bridgwater (who is an reliable source, given his errors) thinks it was "one of the more controversial actions of the Kriegsmarine during the Second World War", and he appears to be the only one to label it a "naval atrocity". I'd be interested to see what sources he references - if any. Maybe Jackyd can take a peek at Bridgland's Bibliography?

Also, the last sentence is just as bad, "whether the attack on the liferafts was deliberate, or an unfortunate and unintended consequence of a nighttime attack has been heavily debated". Where exactly has it been "heavily debated" - apart from here?

In conclusion, I am amazed at how much time we've spent on one small section of an obscure page - a section that IMHO might as well be removed altogether, since the Atwater sinking seems to have made no great impact in the press at the time it happened - when one would expect them to be all over an alleged atrocity given the feelings at the time - and which doesn't appear to even be mentioned in Topp's memoirs.

Salmanazar (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In a spirit of putting an end to this, how about the controversial sentence in the lead and the "Erich Topp directed his crewmen to continue" be changed to something closer to the IPs version as suggested by Salamanzar. Most of the other smaller things either don't matter or will be taken care of by this change. There is however no excuse for changing a direct quote.

In an additional note, I find the attitude of this IP very bizarre. They have stuck at this "editwar" for over two years, are sometimes prepared to compromise and sometimes will fight over the most pointless things and makes strange accusations about people that are clearly not true. I not seen anything like this elsewhere and I cannot understand why this article is a particular target, I really can't imagine that anyone is that big a fan of Erich Topp.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason why we are spending so much time on "one small section of an obscure page" is because there is a persistent effort to whitewash an atrocity allegation; and I object to editors from the 3rd Reich fan club forcing their opinions without the courtesy of an explanation or a discussion. If the guy from 75 etc has an opinion on the matter he can declare it; if it's valid we can produce a consensus version. But I disagree with making concessions to his point of view if he's not prepared to show any good faith here. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

PS As far as the lifeboat issue goes, "whether the attack on the liferafts was deliberate, or an unfortunate and unintended consequence of a nighttime attack" seems a pretty neutral statement. I don’t want the article to be saying categorically he did this, because I think it’s an open question (I think there is evidence, but also reasonable doubt); but neither do I want it bending over backwards to make excuses for him. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Topp is considered something of an admirable commander by the U-boat fans, which may explain our anonymous friend's edits. But it is undeniable that Topp was responsible for the deaths of the Atwater's crew -

• Firstly, it was his decision to surface and sink the Atwater with an amazing amount of gunfire simply to save his torpedoes. Possibly, if he had torpedoed the Atwater instead, less deaths would have resulted, but we can never know.
• Secondly, his order to continue firing as the Atwater sank caused casualties among the crewmen on the ship's rather cramped superstructure - including her captain - as they tried to launch the lifeboats, which in turn forced the survivors to try to save themselves by jumping into the sea. Indeed, Hickam notes that "Topp, however, used little discretion in his attack"
• Thirdly, Topp's decision to stand off at 600 yards rather than approach closer (as noted by Hickam) must have made it difficult to see what was happening aboard the Atwater in the middle of an April night. However, he couldn't have failed to guess that the crew would try to launch boats when the Atwater began to sink.

The "atrocity allegations" at the time would appear to centre around an initial perception that the crewmen and boats had been fired on in the water, based on the "riddled" lifeboat found afterwards; Hickam says in this connection, "the incorrect but widespread belief that U-boats were deliberately murdering the survivors". It does not seem to be suggested anywhere that the deaths among the Atwater's crew resulted from anything other than the continuing fire from U-552 as they tried to launch the boats, which was and is rightly considered brutal, and which was as noted carried out on Topp's orders.

Salmanazar (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Why wasn't Topp prosecuted?

The Allies prosecuted, and in some cases executed, German naval officers after the war for firing on shipwreck survivors. Assuming arguendo that Topp intentionally continued firing on the ship after it was clear that the ship was sinking and the crew was attempting to abandon ship, and that he also ordered his crew to fire on lifeboats and shipwreck survivors in the water, why was he not prosecuted as a war criminal in 1945 or 1946 along with the others?

I am not, repeat not, saying that it didn't happen as many of you say it did. What I am asking is that if it did happen as you say, the Allies knew about it in 1945 and they knew that Topp had been in command of U-552. Why wasn't Topp prosecuted in 1945 or 1946 like the others?

Was Topp ever asked about this? There was obviously no way for him to know in 1941 that the Reuben James was an American destroyer escorting a convoy of war supplies to England, rather than an English destroyer escorting a convoy of war supplies to England, when he sank the Reuben James, but whatever Topp did when attacking the merchant ship he obviously did know what he was doing there -- whatever his perceptions and intentions were.

Can any of you experts in this area clarify why Topp was not prosecuted while other German naval officers were being prosecuted and executed for firing on lifeboats and shipwreck survivors in the water? Thanks. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC))

Changes

I've deleted Belgian Soldier and all detail from the 'Raiding history' table, as according to the U-553 page, she sank that ship on 3 August 1942, (its referenced), so its unlikely that she was damaged by U-552 on the same day. I've inserted Lochkatrine from the uboat.net source instead. I've also inserted Maro. If they're wrong, please change it.

RASAM (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on German submarine U-552. 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/20120823044501/http://www.uboatarchive.net/ESFWarDiaryApr42APP8.htm to http://www.uboatarchive.net/ESFWarDiaryApr42APP8.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/3166/

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) 01:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)