Talk:Wilhelm Souchon
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wilhelm Souchon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
Admiral in Photo is not Souchon
edit1. Souchon returned to Germany in September 1917, and so he cannot have been photographed on the Goeben in October 1917. 2. Souchan had been promoted to Vice Admiral in 1915, but the Photo shows a Rear Admiral. 3. Souchon had dark hair and wore a moustache. Summary: the photo does not show Souchon, but his successor in Turkey on the occasion of Field Marshall Liman von Sanders' official welcoming visit on board the new admiral's flagship. (P.S. The same photo recently appeared in the German Wiki and is, of course, equally wrong there.) --Cosal (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comparing the photo in question (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Otto_Liman_Von_Sanders_with_daughter_and_Wilhelm_Souchon.jpg) with other photos (photo search in a current browser), it is easy to see that it is indeed Souchon (nose, chin, mouth, ears ...). He apparently only sported a beard in his younger years. But it is also true that he is depicted as a rear admiral. My guess: The photo was taken in 1915, when Souchon was still a rear admiral. By then Liman was already in Turkey. Nor does Souchon wear the Pour le Mérite, which he received in 1916.--Kuhl-k (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Sources from the 1930s
editI want to delete the text regarding the Kiel mutiny 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 relatively 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.). Czech-Jochberg joins the ideologically motivated critics, who assumed Souchon could have quelled the uprising by more energetic measures. This is meant primarily to distract from the conduct of the military and naval authorities. Already Tirpitz' concept was based on shaky assumptions, and a critical discussion was inhibited (see Werner Rahn: Deutsche Marinen im Wandel (German navies in transition)). The treatment of the sailors in the big ships was outrageous. After the mutinies in Wilhelmshaven, Souchon was surprised by the deployment of the III. Squadron to Kiel. Kiel was a tinderbox in which it had come repeatedly to strikes and labor unrest. The spies of the Navy reported a late October planned major strike for peace (Federal Archives). That the navy command sent the potential and actual mutineers to this harbour was a big mistake or worse. Souchon had had in some instances the possibility to act more decisively (especially if his staff the backbone to admit in time the seriousness of the situation). But the dice had fallen with the unification of the workers and sailors. Souchon deserves the credit for having embarked on negotiations. --Kuhl-k (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
prut
editplease check if the Prut was a minesweeper or a minelayer. pietro151.29.189.70 (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)