Talk:MS St. Louis
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MS St. Louis article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on June 4, 2007, June 4, 2008, June 4, 2009, June 4, 2010, and June 4, 2012.|
The jews who were leaving on the St. Louis, were fleeing from the Nazi's there was no propaganda exercise.
- Yes, I would certainly like some reliable sources for this. It seems like a very unlikely conspiracy. I would not be surprised if the nazi's latched onto the fact that the ship was turned away from Cuba and America, and used it for more propaganda, but that they planned it from the start seems too unlikely to me. Would certainly like sources for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
To Cuba first
From other sites, I am under the impression that the SS St. Louis went to Cuba first and THEN to the United States. The article does not reflect this. Would someone clear this up?
I have a source, which clarifies both of your questions. The Problem is, it is in german. http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,421002,00.html has a longer Article about this. It states that all the jews on board wanted to go to the US and had numbers for the immigration lottery. Problem was, that they could not for 3-4 years. So they planned to go to Cuba for some years, because at the time you could get visa for cuba quite easily. Unfortunately most of them were forged by various parties. So Cuba denied them immigration, so did the US (at the time). When they returned to europe, the captain, who sympathised with them threatened to strand his ship at the british coast, evacuate and burn it to force entry. After that 287 were allowed in GB, 224 in France, 181 in the netherlands and 214 in belgium. About a third of them died later in concentration camps, even more at least interned. The article is quite interesting, but is not on the english version of the site. Also it does not make a good wiki source, because after some time (a month?) you can only read them for money. --184.108.40.206 13:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I just read it a year later with no problems for free, so this doesn't seem to be a problem for this article, which is generally consistent with the other sources I've read and a good source.John Z 02:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Requested move - MS not SS 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 <url>http://heritagevision.org/350/look/look2.htm </url>, 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? -- 220.127.116.11 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)
It appears to be scrapped in 1952 (intro table) and again in 1956 (last paragraph). Amazing, dun you think?
"She is often known as the "SS St. Louis", but this is incorrect as she did not have a steam engine." What is the reliable source that states that the name SS St. Louis is incorrect because she was not a steam ship. --PBS (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to research this topic, and could not really find too many answers. I am wondering if the United States or Canada every apologized to the Jewish people for refusing them entry into their countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
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)