Talk:MS St. Louis

Return from Cuba
This may be the wrong paragraph to add this, but .... It appears, and has been mentioned in several accounts, including http://heritagevision.org/350/look/look2.htm,  that, on the return from Cuba and the US, Capt. Schroeder seriously considered running the ship ("accidentally", of course)  aground in the English Channel so it's occupants would be evacuated by French and English rescue boats, rather than bringing its passengers back to Germany. Some versions of the story even have him giving the ship's helmsman instructions to this effect, but that detail is improbable in light of the fact that the message accepting the refugees in Belgium and Holland came at least a full day before the ship would have reached the English Channel. 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(New York before Havana)
on setting sail it was always the intention to dock in Havana not NY (although the intentions of the passengers may well have been to emigrate to the US after a few years)Discussions seem to suggest that its first port of call was intended to be NY, however this is not the case-many people already had relatives in Cuba and VISAs for Cuba( all be it fake). This is why everyone had Visas for Cuba and not the US. Also please see below for the real reason for the departure of the ship:

The Nazi party used the setting to sail of 900+ Jewish passengers as a propoganda exercise. Firstly it would appear that the Nazis were allowing the Jewish refugees a new life in Havana. However, the Nazi party were aware that with rising anti-semitism (stirred by Nazi party officials) and unofficial visas that they would be unable to alight in Havana. Subsequently, having been refused entry in Cuba, if the allied Nations were to refuse entry for the refugees it would force the world to admit their was a 'Jewish problem'. With no one allowing the passengers entry they would be in no position, in the future, to morally object when Germany dealt with their 'problem' jewish population. --Philm101 (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of survival figures
This article says that Thomas and Morgan-Witts estimate the number of the passengers killed in the Holocaust as between 200-300. According to the article for Voyage of the Damned, a film based on Thomas and Morgan-Witts' book, however, the film claims that it was more than 600 who lost their lives in the concentration camps. Can anyone resolve this discrepancy? -- 209.6.177.176 22:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like the movie (or some editor who may have made an error about just what the movie said) is just taking the number of people who debarked on the continent and then assuming they all were killed, which wasn't the case. The 2006 Ogilvy-Miller book should be a good (probably the best) source, but I don't think anyone has used it here yet. (I added it to the refs a few months ago; just checked, google has a limited preview now - on p 35 it says that at the beginning of their research they had already gotten down to 350 (/ 937 ) unaccounted, didn't find the more interesting final "unaccounted" number) It goes to some pains to track individual survivors.John Z (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would be cool if someone could look into this further. I was watching an interview with Arthur Miller and he brought up this incident. He said that according to the research he had done, that the ship had returned to Germany and as far as he knew all the passengers were killed, it is likely he's wrong though, but if someone could go to a library or something and try to find out more about this.

New York before Havana
The ship was not permitted to land in New York Harbor as it came from Germany and as a consequence left towards Cuba. I will try to look up the source for this but help is appreciated. -Antonio.sierra 20:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not correct. The ship was planning to dock in Havana. Most of the passengers wanted/planned to eventually come to the US, but not on the St. Lous. After Cuba refused to allow the ship to dock, there were efforts to go to the US instead but this was not allowed.  HarveyMotulsky (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Twice scrapped??
It appears to be scrapped in 1952 (intro table) and again in 1956 (last paragraph). Amazing, dun you think?

619 or 620
I don't know if there's much we can do about this but the article currently gives both 619 and 620 as the number accepted in continential Europe. I think 619 is correct since 937 original - 288 UK + 29 Cuba + 1 died during voyage = 619. The 620 probably arises because the source was not aware or neglected to take account of the 1 who died during the voyage. However since it appears to be a direct quote and the source uses 620 there's perhaps not much we can do Nil Einne (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I calculate the numbers as follows - 937 embarked - 1 died en route of natural causes leaving 936 who arrived at Cuba - 22 Jews who had visas were admitted, as were four Spaniards, two Cubans, and one attempted suicide, leaving 907 who left Cuba. Of those, 288 were accepted by the UK, 224 by France, 214 by Belgium, and 181 by the Netherlands.Alekksandr (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

More than 901 Jewish refugees
The reference in the lead to the vessel carrying "more than 901 Jewish refugees" seems rather strange. If the precise number is unknown then why not "more than 900"? Later in the article there's mention of "more than 900" being refused entry into Cuba so this suggestion would improve consistency. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Title and overview
The title (sort of) and overview first paragraph (entirely) is about the boat the MS St. Louis. The rest of the article is about the 1939 voyage of the St. Louis. I think the article should be renamed, and the intro redone, to focus on the voyage that made the boat notable.

Another possibility is to have one page about the boat (with the quick facts table) and another about the voyage.

HarveyMotulsky (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)