Talk:Günther Lütjens/Archive 1

WW I service
Can he have served on SMS König Wilhelm (1868) as claimed here if that ship was decommissioned in 1904 as the WIKI entry on that ship states? Which is correct, which is wrong? Cosal 09:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC) For visitors to this page: Konig Wilhelm was on active duty until 1904, then used as a barracks ship 1904-1907. She was rebuilt (again) and used as training ship 1907-1917.

assessment
Just a few notes on my assessment of this article

1: It's in bad need of citations. I know that most of the stuff in this article is true (or I'm somewhat sure that it's true), but unless you cite it, it can't be a B-class article.

2: "Ships named after Lütjens" seems to be a somewhat awkward topic. You might want to do what other articles in this project do, and put it as either "Trivia" or "Legacy", one or the other, however, "Ships named after Lütjens" seems to be a weird way of putting it, especially if there's only one sentence. Find some other "Trivia" or "legacy" stuff and then put it all under that category.

3: Some info, as mentioned earlier in the talk page, seems to contradict info on other wikipages. The bit that he is supposed to have served on a ship in WWI that was apparently decommissioned in 1904 being an obvious example. This may just be a case of not citing the source.

If you have any questions about my assessment, please post it on my talk page, and I'll get back to you.

Cam 02:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy?
ìI question the accuracy of this article on several counts, I will go into this later. PatGallacher 10:27, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

Why did you put a factual dispute warning up if you do not provide the reasons why you did it? TruthCrusader

Sorry, tardiness on my part, I will sort this out by the end of the weekend if not earlier. PatGallacher 14:19, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

My main source is Kennedy's "Pursuit: The Sinking of the Bismarck".

(1) Basically, while as Kennedy points out there are some legitimate arguments for saying that L. would have been better advised to pursue PoW, this is being very wise a long time after the event. The sudden appearance of Hood, which German intelligence had told him was in Africa, and a KGV class battleship told him intelligence was unreliable. It may be there was some disagreement with Lindemann at this point, but this story could have grown a great deal in the telling, most senior German officers were killed a few days later. If I may add a few points of my own, L. hardly knew what was over the horizon, and if he had attempted to pursue PoW he could even have run into KGV in a short time. He did not know how badly damaged PoW was, Bismarck was significantly damaged itself and relatively low on fuel.

(2) It certainly was very foolish of L. to send the long radio message, we do not know why he did so, but the suggestion that Bismarck was picking up British radar signals is only one theory. I know of no evidence that Lindemann advised against it.

(3) Saying that L. went down with his ship implies that he drowned, maybe he did, but he could have been killed in shelling or subsequent fires.

Maybe these issues are better dealt with in the main Bismarck article. PatGallacher 14:44, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

I believe the reason Lütjens broke radio silence was beacuse he believed the British had not lost him after detaching Prinz Eugen, thus sending the radio message would not matter. Furthermore, according to Gerhard Junack, Lütjens was pessimistic about the outcome of the operation. His speaches to the crew did little to improve moral, saying "we will fight to the last shell" implies the the situation was beyond his control - this was said before the torpedo hit sealed Bismarcks fate. From the literature available, it seems Lütjens was killed when a shell from King George struck the bridge killing most of the senior officers. Some German survivors claim that Captain Ernst Lindermann survived and saw him go down with the ship. Dapi89 (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some questions on that:


 * (1) "Bismarck was significantly damaged itself and relatively low on fuel"

What damage are you referring to? As far as I know the only damage Bismarck took during the battle were two hits into the  fuel-bunkers scored by POW. Those were the main cause of the fuel-shortage. But that does not count as "significantly damaged", the Bismarcks fighting-capability was unimpaired.


 * (2) "He did not know how badly damaged PoW was"

L. must have noticed that POW was retreating, that her artillery-fire was weak as 80% of her heavy guns where out of action due to technical problems. He should have been able to deduct the POW situation from that, an admiral cannot expect to get more        information on his enemys situation. He clearly missed an oppurtunity he should not have missed. The only argument in his favor could be that he feared to take damage that would have hampered his primary objective of convoy-raiding (he probably didn't know that he had already received such damage). 85.176.95.8 22:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, I will be removing the neutrality tag in a short period of time. Dr. Dan 14:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that all the German officers concluded Prince of Wales was King George V; Tirpitz didn't join Bismarck for the sortie, as she was still working up. The Germans assumed the British wouldn't deploy PoW for the same reasons.

--

The questing of sinking the bismarck doesn't have a clear answer, but according to the people who know best, the ones on the ship, she was sunk by her own crew. The research made by the man who found the wreck, Robert Ballard, supports this claim.

early service
The article states that L. served aboard the armed cruiser SMS König Wilhelm from 1910 to 1913; on the other hand, the article about the ship says that the ship was decommissioned in 1904, and used later as a barracks hull. What kind of service did L. have aboard this ship? or could it be a mistake? thanks for clearing things up, Zkip (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly conflicting attitudes
Anyone reading this article may notice the seeming contradiction in the text regarding Lütjens attitude toward Hitler and National Socialism in general. I should point out that I am responsible for this and I will explain:

The article states the Lütjens greeted Hitler with a naval salute rather than a Nazi one (there are photographs of this). This is true. Some of the officers on board Bismarck, in the Navy, and survivors themselves, commented on Lütjens lack of enthusiam for the Nazi cause. The contradiction can be seen, or assumed, in the messages Lütjens sent Hitler; the promise to fight to the end for the Führer etc. I believe the reason Lütjens did this was because he wanted to to be remembered in Germany as an honourable Admiral. He was doomed along with his ship, and given the fact the outcome of the war was in doubt, wanted to leave behind a positive legacy. On top of that, what else was Lütjens to do? He had family back in Germany and could not really surrender or allow his ship to be captured.

I don't believe, therefore, that this text does contradict itself and the statements made by Lütjens before Bismarck's final battle were superficial and did not have any deeper meaning. Dapi89 (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

duplication
There is a huge amount of duplication of material cross a number of articles, namely the German battleship Bismarck, the Last battle of the battleship Bismarck, the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Operation Rheinübung, Ernst Lindemann and Günther Lütjens for starters. I propose that each portion of the material be concentrated in detail in one or other article, and then the other articles all reference across to the main article in question, rather than the extensive duplications we currently have. Any objections? Wdford (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see discussion at . Wdford (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)