Wikipedia - Word of Warning

[mike kemble]

I was looking something up in Wikipedia a couple of months ago and noticed an article on Captain Frederic John "Johnnie" Walker RN the single most successful reason we won the U Boat war in the Battle of the Atlantic. Not just with his successes, but his tactics, which were adopted across the entire Royal Navy. Anyway, the article was obviously written by a brain dead amoeba with the skills of a left wing anti war slug. I actually related the contents to Captain Walkers grandson, himself a Naval Captain, who I actually know as I have done mountains of research into Walker and of HMS Kite. Needless to say he was furious. Luckily I edited the trash out of the article myself.

The writer had not done any research of his own and related that Captain Walker must have been a war criminal and should hve been hung as such because ' he pushed prisoners back into the sea'. Idiot!!

What Captain Walker actually did do, if the writer had eyes to see was, when he sank a U boat and managed to rescue survivors. When they were to be rescued he would call down, what is the name of your Captain and your boat pennant number. If they refused to reply he would tell his lads to throw them back, this ploy worked and he recorded the relevant information in his log. NO prisoner was ever thrown back nor NOT rescued. Indeed, if one were to succumb to injuries received in the attack, this prisoner would be buried at sea, with full military honours, attended by both German & British sailors. Indeed, due to a negligent discharge of a pistol by a guard, a German prisoner got wounded. The sailor concerned was heavily punished, the other prisoners were ASKED to write an account of what happened and this was forwarded to both the Admiralty and the Red Cross. The wounded man was treated by the ships doctor and was non the worse for his untimely ordeal.

Do not necessarily believe what you read in such as Wikipedia, try and accompany any findings by authentication from other, official sources, and not a publically contributed verssel of opinion and some fact.

[t-geronimo]

Are you talking about this single sentence?

"In a film on the submarine warfare Andrew Williams interviewed a crew member of Walker´s destroyer who witnessed that Walker had given orders to push surviving German submariners back into the sea when they did not immediately disclose the number of their U-boat and the commander´s name. They soon divulged the relevant details and were all picked up."

--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_John_Walker

[frontkampfer]

I remember a Documentary on either Military Channel or History Channel about The Battle of the Atlantic. When they interviewed a gentleman who I believe was a member of Walker's crew he stated that they had that order and in one instance he had a German U-boat crewman's hand and was told to let him go because they did not give up the boat number and it's captain's name. He said that the man's hand slipping out of his was something he remembered to this day. Based on this interview it must have happened at least once!

[mike kemble]

Are you talking about this single sentence?

"In a film on the submarine warfare Andrew Williams interviewed a crew member of Walker´s destroyer who witnessed that Walker had given orders to push surviving German submariners back into the sea when they did not immediately disclose the number of their U-boat and the commander´s name. They soon divulged the relevant details and were all picked up."

--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_John_Walker

I wrote that - its replacing the original. As to the documentary, I remember now, it was used by the 'leftie' to blacken his name. It was merely a ploy to gain the necessary. Unlike the accuser who said that the sailors were left behind, totally false.

[celticmarine10]

I dont have anything to say other than "Typical Wikipedia". I understand that they are now banning people who trash some articles. Whenever you edit something, there is a list of your edits as well as your IP address. Wikipedias idea is good. only it obviously doesn't work out well. Bias is everywhere.

[mike kemble]

The difference between Wikipedia and eg: Encyclopedia Brittanica. The former is written by members of the public with their own slant on things. The latter is written by 'proper people' with credentials and qualifications. I recently added two articles, which I had written myself on my own site, about two glaring gaps in my towns local history. They removed them because there were no references!!!! There isn't any because I AM the originator.

[lwd]

But you must have had some references from which to draw the information from?

[mike kemble]

emails

[lwd]

Then list your references as private comunications from the people you got the info from. If they don't want their names mentioned then list them as anonymous.

[frankwl]

I'd rather Wikepedia existed than not but I'd never take it as the final authority on anything. It's a good guide to what one should verify and research on any subject . So goes for any encyclopedia. I've known contributors to Brittanica whose interpretations and relating of "facts" was, well, a little questionable. Whoever wrote the Captain Walker article was obviously keen to enhance the rising revisionist attitude that Nazi Germany was right and the Allies were wrong. Typical of this is the condemnation of Dorecetshire and Maori fleeing a U Boat warning after rescuing just 155 sailors when Bismarck was sunk. Nobody mentions that when Glorious went down more than 900 men went into the water and all but a handful perished while Scharnhorst and Gneisenau steamed away. Walker was fighting one of the most vicious naval wars in history and did less questionable things than some elements of the U.S. navy fighting the same kind of battle in the Pacific. Whatever Walker did I bet Prien or Kretshmer would have snorted with classic German disgust at his detractors today.

[mike kemble]

Very good post and wholeheartedly agree. Anti war opinion is out of context here but does influence opinion to the extent of actual lies being told. Walker, for example, was an officer of the 'old school' - he did everything by the book and conscience. He never hated the Germans, even when they killed his son, Timothy, in HMS Parthian. But he never let up in his pursuit of subs. If a rescued german died from wounds, which the ships medics did all in their power to stop, they were given full military honours and a funeral at sea. There was NEVER any complaints from captured sailors as to treatment.

[frankwl]

Hello Mike, there are worse things to be than a Royal navy officer of the old school. This sounds so raciist, which I'm not, but if I had to be wounded and taken prisoner I'd prefer it to be on a British or American ship of war. Odd people ... do their level best to kill you then bend over backwards to save your life when you're wounded or captured. All the best.

[RF]

I'd rather Wikepedia existed than not but I'd never take it as the final authority on anything. It's a good guide to what one should verify and research on any subject . So goes for any encyclopedia. I've known contributors to Brittanica whose interpretations and relating of "facts" was, well, a little questionable. Whoever wrote the Captain Walker article was obviously keen to enhance the rising revisionist attitude that Nazi Germany was right and the Allies were wrong. Typical of this is the condemnation of Dorecetshire and Maori fleeing a U Boat warning after rescuing just 155 sailors when Bismarck was sunk. Nobody mentions that when Glorious went down more than 900 men went into the water and all but a handful perished while Scharnhorst and Gneisenau steamed away. Walker was fighting one of the most vicious naval wars in history and did less questionable things than some elements of the U.S. navy fighting the same kind of battle in the Pacific. Whatever Walker did I bet Prien or Kretshmer would have snorted with classic German disgust at his detractors today.

In fairness, Scharnhorst did stop and pick up a handful of survivors.

As for Dorsetshire and Maori - well every RN captain was hopefully well aware of what happened in September 1914 when Aboukir, Hogue and Cressy were all sunk in a matter of minutes by one very primitive submarine.

[mike kemble]

When a U boat proximity warning goes out, everybody moves!! And, there was a u boat in the area, as reported, summoned by Lindemann, for the war diary.

[frankwl]

Hello, you have to pardon my ignorance, I've never read Scharnhost stopped to rescue survivors, only that most everyone from Glorious died. And you're absolutely right about Aboukir et al and the shock wave that sent through the Empire. Discarding the fact that those obsolete ships should never have been on patrol together in the first place the perception that the Royal Navy could lose three armored cruisers in a few minutes to a German U boat had people, high anid low, wondering if they'd backed the wrong horse (as in battleships and battle cruisers). It must have been a jolt to the Royal Navy itself that had enjoyed unchallenged supremacy for a century only to discover how deadly Germans are when they put to sea. And courageous. Only the Japanese kamakaze had a higher casualty rate than the U boats of the Second World War. We forget, I think, in regarding Bismarck, Scharnhost, Graf Spee, as juggernaughts that they had to sneak out of anchorage and whatever they achieved were always on the run from that most lethal of enemies, the Royal Navy.