Talk:Kiel mutiny

Errors

This page contains some errors; see November Revolution, chapter sailor's revolt: the mutineers were not carried to Kiel, the number of killed is not correct, Steinhäuser survived, the firts soldier's council was not formed by the III. squadron, the prisoners were released by the gouvernor... --Kuhl-k 22:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this article is deleted, because the events are already covered by the november revolution article. --Kuhl-k 22:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As Kuhl observed, there are several factual errors in this article, and it also confuses events from several different venues. Since I'm already working on the "Germany Project" I'll add this one to my list and try to work on it soon. If you have specific things you think should be included, leave me a note here. Thanks, and I'll get to this as quickly as I can. Wood Artist 07:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not until today that I realized that you like to keep this article. So I added two important scientific references on which I also based my remarks above and those parts which I wrote for the "German revolution". Kuhl-k (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to suggest that the mutiny led to the collapse of Germany and was therefore a prime cause. German collapse came about because of military defeat on the Western Front by Britain and France combined with a successful British naval blockade. Surely the mutiny was a symptom of German collapse not a cause. Any ideas for changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.105.180 (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to go down to very prime cause you have to look far beyond that. Just have a look at this part of a lecture from Hans-Rudolf Boehmer (Viceadmiral rtd., German navy inspector 1995-1998): "Imagine the imperial navy officers, mainly being of bourgeois origin, had recollected the liberal, national disposition of their fathers from 1848 and had put themselves at the forefront of the sailors' mutiny in Kiel - an Admiral had proclaimed the republic and carried away the German bourgeoisie - maybe German history had by that time starting from Kiel taken a more fortunate course. But exactly this is unimaginable, because with the foundation of the Empire Bismarck had once and for all dishearten the German bourgeoisie, or as Graf von Krockow puts it in his biography about his peer Bismarck: 'It was not until Bismarck that he had stolen the nation, so to say as a thief of format, from the encampement of civil liberty and carried it over to the conservative adverse encampement.' Since the foundation of the Empire national attitude has been equalled to Kaisertreue (loyalty for the Emperor). Thus Kiel's most important contribution to German history, the outbreak of the 1918 revolution will be viewed here at the Niemannsweg [street in the former officers' town quarter in Kiel, KK] until today as an embarrasment rather than as a necessary decisive turning point of German history." From: Hans-Rudolf Boehmer: "Kiel und die Marine", lecture at the RC-Kiel, May 2005 Kuhl-k (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"During the night from 28 to 30 October 1918..." That must have been a long night, lasting three days! It should be "29 to 30 October". TDKehoe (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Background -- morale section starts "Following the Battle of Juttingland in 1918"; Is this meant to be a reference to the very famous Battle of Jutland. That happened in 1916 (and does have a page in Wikipedia). But I can find no reference to Juttingland - even as a place name. This is an area where I have no expertise and I may well be missing something. alacarte (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

uhh, it started in Wilhelmshaven, not Kiel

In Wilhelmshaven we had a "pure" mutiny of soldiers without any attempt to gain power. In Kiel, where there was a large number of workers, (Wilhelmshaven did ot have such a number of workers) we had a rebellion. The soldiers were supported by the workers and both took over the military and political power in Kiel. They also initiated the council movement (14 items of Kiel, were taken as an example by many councils). Parsecboy deleted text which is supplied by the German Bundesarchiv together with the photo. The full text reads: Description: Zentralbild/IML Novemberrevolution in Deutschland, Mit dem Aufstand der Matrosen und Arbeiter am 3.11.1918 in Kiel beginnt die November-revolution. Am 6. November greift die revolutionäre Bewegung auf Wilhelmshaven über. UBz. den Soldatenrat des Linienschiffes "Prinzregent Luitpold" (Our photo shows the soldiers council of the "Prinzregent Luitpold"). Extra information: Matrosen vom Linienschiff "Prinzregent Luitpold" an Deck des Schiffes mit Tafel "Soldatenrat Kriegsschiff Prinzregent Luitpold. Es lebe die sozialistische Republik" The photo shows the soldiers' council of the "Prinzregent Luitpold" possibly in Kiel. We should not delete the text but could probably transfer the photo to the paragraphs regarding Kiel. --Kuhl-k (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilhelmshaven? Why Wilhelmshaven?

Isn't this normally called the Kiel Mutiny in English? Here is an English source from 1980 calling it that: [1] (last paragraph).
German WP calls it Kiel, as do all the other WP's with articles on the mutiny.
Only English has this screwy "Wilhelmshaven mutiny" name. Why?
Varlaam (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In German history we talk about the Wilhelmshaven mutiny (the sailors did not obey orders to lift anchor etc.); regarding Kiel we talk about a rebellion (Kieler Matrosenaufstand), because in Kiel the sailors - supported by the workers - overthrew the old powers and their newly established councils took over political and military power. The events in Kiel are usually seen as more important (however the starting point was in Wilhelmshaven). So I would support the proposal to change the title to "Sailors' revolt in Kiel", like the subtitle in "November revolution 1918". --Kuhl-k (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not important where the Matrosen were rebelling. Historical events already have names in English language history books. That is all we care about. This is not an obscure little incident that only Germans know about. We are giving the events their traditional and conventional names, not "fixing" history by renaming things. The Americans say the Battle of Bunker Hill, knowing that their battle was not fought on Bunker Hill, because that is the name the battle has always had. Renaming it is just pedantry which achieves nothing.

If there is a disjunction between the conventional name and the historical events, then that gets clarified in a paragraph at the beginning of the article. It does not lead to a renaming of the historical incident, because that already has a name.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Canadian history books say "Seven Years' War". American books call it the "French and Indian War". In that case, there are distinct names in English language usage. So the article uses one, and makes a note about the other. But we don't invent a "better name".

Varlaam (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The reference given talks about the sailors of Kiel revolted ... This is actually in line with the German terms. So to my opinion the best heading would be: Sailors' revolt in Kiel; and this would also cover the mutiny off Wilhelmshaven. --Kuhl-k (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the following procedure: I copy the current article and put it under the new heading: Sailors' revolt in Kiel. I also copy this discussion page. Thereafter someone could delete this article (Wilhelmshaven mutiny). --Kuhl-k (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sailors' revolt in Kiel vs. Kiel mutiny

In the discussion below we had two contributors opting for 'revolt' instead of 'mutiny'; two resources were given that Kiel experienced a revolt rather than a mutiny (one of them: wikipedia German Revolution of 1918–19 -> chapter 'Sailors' revolt, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319#Sailors.27_revolt There was one contributor opting for Kiel mutiny, WHY was this minority vote followed without giving any reasons? --31.16.202.124 (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In short: because "Sailors' revolt in Kiel" is horribly awkward. The primary concern of the nominator (and those participating in the discussion) was the fact that the events at Wilhelmshaven were not as important as those in Kiel, and having "Wilhelmshaven" in the title was strange or even idiosyncratic. "Kiel mutiny" is the most common name for this subject in English, and infinitely more succinct than "Sailors' revolt in Kiel," which almost sounds like a machine translation of "Kiel mutiny." I made an executive decision (there's a massive backlog at WP:RM these days) and moved the article accordingly. If you have a problem with this move, you are free to start another Wikipedia:Requested move entry. --Hadal (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Move to Sailors' revolt in Kiel?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to Kiel mutiny, as reasoned by the discussion below. -- Hadal (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Wilhelmshaven mutiny → Sailors' revolt in Kiel –

I have undone a cut-and-paste move of the article to Sailors' revolt in Kiel. Please discuss the issue here first and do not move articles by cut-and-paste. I have no position on the move itself. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is above, I just copy the major arguments and the result:

Isn't this normally called the Kiel Mutiny in English? Here is an English source from 1980 calling it that: [2] (last paragraph). German WP calls it Kiel, as do all the other WP's with articles on the mutiny. Only English has this screwy "Wilhelmshaven mutiny" name. Why?

In German history we talk about the Wilhelmshaven mutiny (the sailors did not obey orders to lift anchor etc.); regarding Kiel we talk about a rebellion (Kieler Matrosenaufstand), because in Kiel the sailors - supported by the workers - overthrew the old powers and their newly established councils took over political and military power. The events in Kiel are usually seen as more important (however the starting point was in Wilhelmshaven). (See Dirk Dähnhardt's thsis Revolution in Kiel, 1978) So I would support the proposal to change the title to "Sailors' revolt in Kiel", like the subtitle in "November revolution 1918".

The reference given above [3] talks about the sailors of Kiel revolted ... This is actually in line with the German terms. So to my opinion the best heading would be: Sailors' revolt in Kiel; and this would also cover the mutiny off Wilhelmshaven. --Kuhl-k (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support, but prefer Kiel mutiny - that's the most common English term for these events (based on my personal experience and what Google Books says).--Kotniski (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

I would suggest moving this article to the High Seas Fleet mutiny of 1918. As have already been noted, this page describes events in both Kiel and Wilhelmshaven while High Seas Fleet mutiny would cover both. It is true that the more serious revolt began in Kiel has been noted above, but after that the uprising spread to the entire navy. Second, that is a term that is often used in English-language history books, which might make this page easier to find. Finally, I would suggest adding the date because there was an earlier mutiny in 1917, which at present appears to lack a WP article.

On an additional note, the background section is rather skimpy. There should be something about the horrible way that officers treated the sailors as way of explaining these events. Naval officers seemed to have taken a sadistic pleasure in making the lives of the sailors as miserable as possible during World War I. It is impossible to understand the mutiny without knowing that background. Along the same lines, more needs to be said about the "death cruise" plan, which called for a senseless battle in a war that was already lost. Furthermore, it needs to pointed that this planned "death cruise" was to be launched only for political reasons-namely that it would be hard to influence the Reichstag to spend money on the Navy like it did before 1914 unless the Navy was seen winning "glory" on the high seas by fighting in a big battle, even that battle should result in the High Seas Fleet being destroyed. Just some ideas. --A.S. Brown (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The mutiny did not spread to the entire navy before 4 November, and the mutiny became a rebellion, actually replacing the old power in Kiel, because there were huge numbers of workers in Kiel who joined the struggle.

Dirk Dähnhardt (who wrote a PhD thesis on this subsject said: Triggering pulse of the revolution was the Wilhelmshaven mutiny, of a revolution in the true sense we can speak only after the central power was overthrown in Berlin. Kiel was the link between these two fixed points. Here, the conflict extended to the workers, from here, the impulse to spread the unrest given. It seems therefore justified, to define the events in Kiel as an uprising with a revolutionary character and a tendency pointng beyond Kiel. This is underlined by the fact that in many garrison towns in Germany, the 14 points were accepted and that the equal representation of the workers' council became model for many other councils up to the Council of People's Representatives in Berlin. --Kuhl-k (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources from the 1930s

I want to delete the text "At the outbreak .... to ... oncoming transport." and replace it by a new one. The former text was based on literature from the 1930s. Especially the book written by Erich Czech-Jochberg: Die Politiker der Republik (1933) cannot be seen as a genuine scientific source. He doesn't use any verifiable source in his book but praises Hitler as the saviour of Germany. There is scientifically sound new literature available (Dirk Dähnhardt: Revolution in Kiel, 1978), which is based on research in the German military archive (espaecially pages 67, 74, 82 ff.). --Kuhl-k (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed copyediting banner

I've gone over the article and improved some phrasing issues, nothing major. As such I don't see the need for a big copyediting banner at the head of the article anymore.

--Doncurzio (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)