Talk:Heinrich Severloh

1

I cannot believe this is a fucking article. Everything in it is bullshit. The “Beast of Omaha Beach” was more or less still unknown until the last memorial reunion commemorating the landing of the Allies in Normandy. <-- when was that, 2006? Seriously. How stupid do you have to be to believe this shit? Not just believe it, but put a bot on it to protect it? This is like a comic book story. criticism and even open animosity towards Severloh is to be found amongst the descendents of these war veterans and amongst those of the fallen soldiers. <-- none of whom have ever heard of him According to experts, this resulted in an estimated 2000-2500 American deaths and injuries. Apparently Gillyweed is an "expert". Way to go dude. You invented "history". And by the way, internet forums are not "sources" you fucktard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.110.237.205 (talk • contribs).

Going over 65.110.237.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s recent contributions I found that he has previously taken issue with the subject in this edit where he removed references to the Washington Post and the Scotsman both of which are enaugh to establish this article. Agathoclea 15:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

suggesting that the scotsman and the post's "articles" (they're op-ed, human interest stories) are legitimate citations is outrageous. they were both based 100% on the same original "source", which consisted of one old man's fairy tale. that's like adding severloh bullshit to the omaha beach page, and then using that page as a reference for silly claims on this one. you people are seriously responsible for fucking up history. way to go, wikidiots. - MarcusAurelius—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.110.237.205 (talk • contribs).

Indeed 65.110.237.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to have a problem with understanding WP:notability, let alone WP:attack. I created this article after there was massive edit-warring over this subject in Omaha Beach caused by 65.110.237.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Subsequently the German Wikipedia article was translated and copied to this article space - thus providing a much more detailed article. The translator noted at the time that it appeared to take Severloh's claim at face value. I invite65.110.237.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to constructively engage with this article and write a well referenced criticism of the claims made in this article. I DO NOT claim that Severloh's claims are accurate. I simply state that he 'said them'. And given that the independent media has taken up his claims and stated they are true, means that this article is an important reference for those who wish to read both sides of the debate.Gillyweed 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

it's indeed an awful article. "Yet from time to time, when his machine gun would overheat, he had been forced to resort to his two rifles. In so doing, he moved from the detached slaughter of nameless and faceless waves of soldiers to the targeted killing of a man." What the hell? Am I reading some girlish bad written romance or an encyclopedia? Oh wait, it's wikipedia, ie a mix a both things! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.89.134.107 (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Hi - there have been two additions to the translated introduction of this page, both of which are bad grammar. The page is locked so I don't seem to be able to change them. The first is: "allowed him to allegedly kill" - I know, we all say that, but it sends a chill down the spine of any English teacher to read it, and the rest of us aren't hurt if we write "allegedly allowed him to kill". The second change is the addition of the sentence "His claims... is controversial". Claims is a plural, so it should be: "His claims... are controversial". It might also be worth restoring the links to the newspaper articles about Severloh that were there before they were removed during the translation of the German article given the attacks that have been made on the page since then. As to the veracity of the article, I would point out that it is clearly stated that Severloh's tally is "according to his own claims". A jacksn 09:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Gillyweed 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

this whole article is bullshit, unsourced and unverified information which is allegedly from his entirely unreliable autobiography -- why should any of us believe gillyweed's claim to be an expert? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.217.222.226 (talk • contribs).

Just a quick question, where do I claim to be an 'expert'? Gillyweed 22:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You Americans just can't believe that a German soldier killed so much people

Yeah, what a great achievement. As a German I am ashamed for such an idiot. The story of Heinrich Severloh - if true - is a story of a very young person, put in a place by war with no chance to get out of it (as most of the other young people on both sides). He fulfilled his questionable duty. It is not possible to blame him for this, as it is not possible to see him as a hero. If anyone should be blamed, it should be the - mostly German - politicians who started the war. What remains is the sheer horror about the circumstances in which someone can kill so many other humans. Horrible. --87.234.145.171 12:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As a german, i am ashamed about an idiot like you. He fullfilled his duty, if germany would have won, he´d be a warhero but because germany lost, he´s the beast of omaha. Its not about who to blame, it´s about if this story is true or not. On the other hand i´ve got the feeling that most of the guys who blame this article as bullshit just can´t stand the fact, that there would be a single person who owned their troops cause they are told from hollywood, that only their guys are the real warheroes with douzends of kills and so on.

Casualty numbers

I don't want to be nitpicky, but the number of casualties inflicted by Severloh given in this article just doesn't add up. The Omaha beach entry gives a total of 3000 American casualties. Ambrose in his book actully gives a number significantly lower than that (just above 2000 killed or wounded). If we accept that Severloh could only overlook a rather small sector of the beach, and also accept that a great number of casualties were inflicted in sectors other than Easy Red, and if we take into account that countless Americans were killed or wounded by mines and artillery or even just drowned when leaving their boats, the number given here does not make sense. In effect this article makes Severloh responsible for almost every single American casualty on that day at that beach. Were all the other Germans (at least one battallion) just sitting on their pants, watching one of their guys doing all the killing? Not very likely. Landroving Linguist (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, the article disagrees with itself (1500-2000 vs 2000-2500) as to the numbers. I don't have any sources, otherwise I would update the article. If someone does, it would be helpful to get some realistic claims and numbers. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he posibly have saw over 2,000 GI dying or falling to the ground from his defensive position but its difficult to believe that a single man could kill over 2,000 persons without being discovered or shot.Or maybe he really killed some 200 persons aprox , i guess.190.118.9.11 (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't belive he was counting while he fights for his own life. Noone knows the number of his kills. But we have to mention what he was claiming.--93.223.121.76 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Someone needs to nominate this article for deletion; there is not a single ring of truth to anything in it; it's an embarrassment to WP.68.144.172.8 (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC) No kidding. crap liek this is why scholars do NOT take this site seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.242.129 (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this article should be deleted ASAP. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll do some further work on this article to bring it up to scratch. I don't think there is evidence that this is a hoax. Give me a few days and I'll see if I can improve the references too. Remember that this article is mostly based on a German Wikipedia article. Unfortunately my German isn't so good! Gillyweed (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Factual Tag

I have added many further references to this article, which I believe show that this man meets the WP:Notability requirements. Therefore this article should not be deleted. The controversy will remain regarding the number of casualties caused by Severloh. The undisputed facts are that Severloh existed, that he fought in the Werhmacht, that he was at Omaha Beach, that he killed and wounded soldiers, that he was injured and captured and that he eventually wrote an autobiography claiming he killed many. I think these facts have been supported by multiple references. I intend to remove the fact tag in a few days, unless there are alternative views put. Gillyweed (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

67 years after D-Day ...

... it's more and more difficult to verify certain historical facts. Quote: "Severloh claimed that there were just 30 soldiers defending the beach. However, in WN62 alone, there were 19 men." as cited from reference [4]: The German Soldier in World War II Hart et al, Zenith Publications, 2000 p167(not p166!). Could it be that Severloh, under the impression of heavy naval artillery fire, severe aerial bombardments and the allied troops in front of him, was unable to count/remember the total of fellow soldiers around him? Not impossible! Only human ... BTW: on the same reference page 167 the authors mention "a wave of 329 American B-29(!) bombers [...] to obliterate the German coastal defences at Omaha, including WN62, with 13.000 bombs". But the Boeing B-29 Superfortress was predominantly used in World War II in the Pacific(!) Theatre. Postwar, several Royal Air Force Bomber Command squadrons were equipped with B-29s loaned from USAF stocks. So far for the correctness of a book published 56 years after D-Day.

65.110.237.205 aka(?) 71.217.222.226 had a special opinion about "unsourced and unverified information" Some years ago (2004?), Severlohs former comrade Franz Gockel made some similar statements about his D-Day defence actions using his MG42 and "killing really a lot of enemy soldiers" in German television (Spiegel TV, Vox etc.). Both of them are perhaps(!) responsible for the majority of American casualties on Omaha Beach. If Severloh's or Gockel's claims are accurate ... who knows? It happened in 1944 ... But I agree with Landroving Linguist who suggests to "take into account that countless Americans were killed or wounded by mines and artillery or even just drowned when leaving their boats".

@ Gillyweed: There are references enough. This article should not be deleted! And @ 65.110.237.205: It's NOT a f*cking article! Nothing in it is bullshit! <<<< Think a little bit about your "Kinderstube"! Especially for the children and grandchildren of those D-Day soldiers (whether they are American, British, French or German) intending to visit the graves and historical sites in Normandy it is also worth reading the article and making up their mind about the “Beast of Omaha Beach” before they can see Severloh's fox hole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.12.80.15 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Severloh probably never said or wrote that there were only 30 German soldiers to defend Omaha Beach, either it is a problem of translation or he was totally senile, when he would have said that. He meant probably the number of German soldiers in the WN62, that is close to reality. Historians estimate their number up to 35. 19 that is given here, is probably underestimated. Nortmannus (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Additions lack citations

There was a recent addition that was quite considerable in size. However, it failed to list even a single citation and so it was removed. In the future, if people wish to support or refute the contents of this article, all material MUST be substantiated with proper citations. Any information that is simply added without any reference whatsoever will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.112.90 (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That’s not quite true, I did these much needed updates & all facts were referenced with the acceptation of the general lack of belief of the whole story (which is common sense & listed above). I am still of the opinion this is a pointless article about a "Walter Mitty" type person & best left out of Wikki. Steve Bowen 11:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have updated this site with all the information I could find & referanced it all. Heinrich Severloh was a low quaility soldier who ran away from the US invading troops (& who can blame him). It seems that after watching Saving Private Ryan he decided to cash in on a story that owes very little to factual reality but does still upset the living relatives & active historians. I hope I have cleared up a few things & I know I have removed some of the silly phrases & language. Steve Bowen 18:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have read Severloh's account in a German book that was originally published in 1976 so it obviously has nothing to do with SPR. I'd advise that you keep your "it seems" out of this. 92.76.159.136 (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, what is the assertion that Severloh, or anybody else, "probably" deserted WN62 at the time WN61 was taken, doing in this article? Who says that is "probable"? Certainly not Gockel's linked German WP article, nor the linked account by Gockel.92.76.159.136 (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Low brow media" comment

"Heinrich Severloh was a soldier in the German 352nd Infantry Division, stationed in Normandy in 1944. Sometimes referred to as The Beast of Omaha by certain low brow media."

This comment just seems divisive and like a cheap shot attack. The nickname "Beast of Omaha" is known and accepted by many, and referring to it as "low brow" seems rather elitist and snobbish especially when many even get the real identity of "The Beast of Omaha" incorrect. A surprising number of sources still cite Franz Gockel as being "The Beast of Omaha". I have no issue with the re-directs linking to Heinrich Severloh. That's just logical. But this comment struck me as being unnecessary and unbefitting of a Wiki article. I'm going to remove it because of that. 67.212.40.63 (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Metzingen

Their is a mistake, it's not the Metzingen in Baden-Württemberg were he was born, it's the Metzingen near Lachendorf/Eldingen in Lower Saxony. A very small Village. The Link in the end of the article is the right one, but the link on the upper-right site of the article is wrong, it leads to the Metzingen in south Germany. I don't know how to set up th eLinks here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.4.81.230 (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Now FixedSteve Bowen 15:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Giant article, precisely one primary source: what a joke

Was this article written entirely by Neo-Nazis and German nationalists? Even the secondary sources do nothing but quote Severloh's personal claims, and yet under Wikipedia rules we're expected to simply accept them as truth? He claims them as truth and the TWO (yes, a whole two) media sources do nothing but repeat his claims. My grandfather claimed he strangled 1,000 Japs with his bootlaces, and he did serve in the Pacific, so the story sounds plausible, right? This whole article is a joke and I plan to have it recommended for deletion as non-notable. Court Appointed Shrub (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is written as an attempt to discredit his claims & goes to great lengths to describe the actual events in this area of Omaha beach. I believe it's debunking a myth, providing fact where before there was fantasy. I am neither a "Neo-Nazi or German nationalist" but I am trying my best.Steve Bowen 17:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

An article about the book

I think a WP article should be written about Severloh's book, but not about himself, because he is not known for anything else what he pretends and he is not a famous man who built something important and made a decision that changed the course of the history. No notoriety. I think something like the article The Forgotten Soldier has to be written, Severloh is nothing but a war witness and his book, exagerated or not, is a contribution to the knowledge of WWII. Nortmannus (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Total BS

Current text of article: "He became known[citation needed] when he claimed in his autobiography that as a machine gunner in a foxhole, he inflicted over 2,000 casualties,[citation needed] later officially confirmed,[citation needed] to American soldiers landing on Omaha Beach on D-Day."

The guy has 2,000 "confirmed" casualties to his credit at Omaha Beach? Amazing! The TOTAL US casualty figure at Omaha was "around 2,000" according to the D-Day Museum; Wiki's own current article on the landing at Omaha puts the figure at 3,000. This one man is responsible for between 67% and 100% of the casualties! Yup, sure sounds believable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.234.187 (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is written as an attempt to discredit his claims & goes to great lengths to describe the actual events in this area of Omaha beach. I believe it's debunking a myth, providing fact where before there was fantasy, I am trying my best. --Steve Bowen 18:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Article is a Farce

Even the math is off. The claimed casualty rate (1,000 at this writing) is absurd. Really? The normal average bullet expenditure to inflict a casualty in WWII is generally hundreds to one, and this guy gets 1 for every 12? Pull-lease! BTW, the TOTAL US casualties at Omaha on 6.6.44 is generally given as 2,000 to 3,000. Then the article claims the 12,000 MG42 rounds plus 400 Karabiner 98k rounds equals “a total weight of ammunition of over 560 kilograms.” Both the 98K and the MG42 used the 7.92×57mm Mauser round. Several variations of this ammo were used during WWII, but I understand the standard was the sS projectile (schweres Spitzgeschoß / heavy pointed bullet). It weighed about 12.8 g. So: 12,400 bullets x 12.8g = 158720g, or 158.7kg – nowhere near the claimed weight. To get “over 560 kg”, these bullets would have to weigh over 45g. each (roughly the weight of a round for the MUCH larger US .50 Browning M2hb). Everything in this article is either bull, or based on the late-life memories of an old man who clearly did not have reliable recall. It's a farce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.234.187 (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that in common with most other critics you're missing the point. The article is written as an attempt to discredit his claims & goes to great lengths to describe the actual events in this area of Omaha beach. As for the math, your quote of 12.8g is Bullet mass, the cartridge, propellant & bullet have a combined a mass of between 39g & 46g. --Steve Bowen 07:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If you believe this was written as an attempt to discredit his claims, it is not coming through in the least. Compare, for example the weakness of your last sentence in your introductory paragraph ("This claim has never been academically verified.") to the Wiki article on the Flat Earth Society, a group making claims of equal credibility ("The ideas argued by the society are widely viewed by accomplished scientists as pseudoscientific."). The first is neutral, saying only the claims have not been verified (but hey, they *might* be true if academics would just open their eyes!). The second *is* negative (if weak) stating "flatly" there is a lack of support and is widely viewed by experts as false. The length of this article by itself lends credibility to the claims being made; the entire entry should probably end after a more strongly worded Introductory paragraph. Your historical text carries little bite as presented, gets bogged down in unnecessary detail, and comes too late for the majority of readers who never get past the first paragraph. So far as math goes, while I am no ammo expert, I understand the definition of a bullet cartridge includes the bullet, jacket, primer and propellant. And the three different sites I checked each gave the weight of the WWII *cartridge* as 12.8g (admittedly, that does see rather light). Doing a search for the cartridge name with your figure of 39 grams produced no relevant results in the first few pages of returns. Apologies if I am wrong, but so far your arguments seem a little off target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.234.187 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

And you are attacking the wrong person. This article is, like all WP articles, the culmination of many authors. Perhaps rather than having a go at the authors you could try doing some editing yourself to improve the article. Gillyweed (talk)

Gillyweed, I originally added a comment to an earlier version of this article, a version which ludicrously claimed this individual accounted for 2,000 US casualties on Omaha Beach, and that the claimed casualty figure was later "officially verified." My comment was removed and I received a vague warning about "vandalizing" Wiki, suggesting I confine my comments to this page or the "sandbox" (or some such term). How "vandalizing" was my comment? I pointed out in a single sentence that given the official casualty figures, the man would have been responsible for somewhere between 66% and 100% of US casualties at Omaha that day. Anybody who believes that (or the article's current similar claim of 1,000 casualties) has ANY plausibility knows *nothing* about WWII infantry combat. Period. My comment *did* result in a rewrite of the article by someone at WIKI, considerably shortening it and removing some of the most laughable claims -- but hardly all of them. I believed, correctly or not, the individual initially responding to my post here was the author of those edits. Regardless, I am *not* in a position to provide substitute text, because that would require I actually obtain and read Severloh's book, to verify the representations made herein are actually what his book claims. I will not do so, for several reasons. But I *am* in a position to know the old (and current) text is an unbelievable distortion of ANYTHING that could have possibly happened. The article was (and is) a farce. If the article is an accurate representation of Severloh's book, than that book is a farce. Wiki's ideas of "vandalism" are also curiously limiting and fail to encourage the activity you suggest. Wiki wants to increase its credibility, and then it allows pipe-dream articles like this one here. The article needs to be rewritten and shortened by someone knowledgeable, and the article needs to be locked to avoid absurd claims from being reinserted.

I believe that in common with most other critics you're missing the point. The article is written as an attempt to discredit his claims & goes to great lengths to describe the actual events in this area of Omaha beach. If you're ''"*not* in a position to provide substitute text", don't. --Steve Bowen 18:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's not possible that the article is poorly written and poorly structured, it's just that people aren't reading it properly! Please go back and re-read my earlier comment and comparison to the Flat Earth Society. If you want a re-write of your text, I'll see what I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.234.187 (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So what if Severloh's book is a farce? It is not our job to censor incorrect claims in third party books. It is our job to provide a balanced and neutral article about the subject and I believe this is what is here. But please feel free to make changes and indeed they might be changed back if they are not neutral nor meet WP standards. But please give it a go. Gillyweed (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you ail to understand what the concept of an encyclopedia is: to provide accurate information and build knowledge among users (in this case, the general public). Encyclopedia entries are to be *balancing,* not *balanced.* And being neutral is not the same thing as being balanced in any case. And you yourself have said as much, claiming you are trying to discredit Severloh's claims. In this case, balancing the information is especially appropriate, because of certain political overtones associated with the "hero status" Severloh has among the 88s. So yes, for many reasons, you have the responsibility. It comes with the job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.234.187 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC) * * * * Forgive my lack of familiarity with your formatting techniques. Since you have stated repeatedly that your article is intended to discredit Severloh’s claims, I am sure you will appreciate that the shortened text and factual assessments provided accomplish this much more effectively than the previous text. If your hearts are set on restoring the information provided after the original introduction, I think you'll find it will flow fairly well: I tried to write it so it would still "work." I do not encourage that. I suggest you lock the document to prevent historical revisionists changing it to a more super-hero version. OF COURSE, as a guardian of Wiki's credibility, you do not want to be anything but skeptical about extraordinary achievements that are lacking any supporting documentation. I confess, not having a copy of the book, I could not provide a quote from it on the number of casualties claimed. I note the Wiki text I replaced had managed to shrink the number of casualties claimed by Severloh down to only “several hundred,” and I must wonder if that accurately reflects Severloh's text, or if it was just an effort by an editor to appease critics, regardless of Severloh’s actual claim. Regardless, that concern does raise a central question about this article: how can we possibly know with certainty how many casualties Severloh caused? And ultimately, we can’t know. But – we CAN use our brains and actually think about it. I alluded to “other facts” in my edit. One of those may provide the basis for an educated guess about the real success Severloh had on June 6, 1944. Let’s ask: on average, how many bullets did a German WWII infantryman many have to fire in order to cause a casualty? The most generous ratio I recall seeing was 250:1. Regrettably, I don’t have a cite for you, so I didn’t include it in the edited text. I suspect a more accurate ratio would several hundred bullets higher, perhaps over 1,000. In any case, applying the 250:1 ratio to the claimed 12,400 rounds of ammo Severloh used suggests the likely number of casualties Severloh caused is less than 50: 12,400/250 = 49.6 casualties. Of course, the 250:1 ratio is an aggregate, including rifles as well as MGs. Since the MG42 had such a high rate of fire, expending multiple bullets at a time, this suggests 50 casualties to be generous. Even worse, unless he was in regular practice on the gun, Severloh would waste more ammo than “normal,” giving him an even poorer ratio, resulting in yet a smaller number of casualties. And since your article says Severloh was serving as an orderly, one must wonder if his skill at controlling bursts from the MG42 were well-honed or not. As a well-educated guess, if you use the (generous) 250:1 ratio as a yardstick, Severloh might *reasonably* have inflicted anywhere from as few as 12 to perhaps as many as 70 casualties, depending on how good or bad a gunner he really was. Crediting him with even 100 casualties begins to strain credulity past the breaking point, requiring him *to be at least twice as good* as “average.” That Severloh makes greater claims is most likely the result of the fog of war, advancing age, blurring of memory by the years since the events, and perhaps “encouragement” from a ghostwriter (the book was written by one) eager to pump up book sales. Wiki, of COURSE, would not want ANY of its editors to further harm WIKI’s credibility by even suggesting – without concrete evidence – that Serverloh was more effective than “average.” Judging by some of the comments made by others and the editorial responses thereto, it seems likely that my realistic appraisal of the numbers will not sit well with one or more Wiki editors of this page. I am sure you will therefore show due restraint, and make significant changes to the new text only after careful deliberation based on concrete facts, not a sympathy to promote the questionable heroic status of a man making wild claims in his old age. Because, of course, along with having skepticism about extravagant claims, such restraint is both your job and your responsibility. Repeating the new text in case other editors need to resotre it: Heinrich Severloh (23 June 1923 – 14 January 2006) was a soldier in the German 352nd Infantry Division stationed in Normandy in 1944. He is chiefly known for a memoir, WN 62 - Erinnerungen an Omaha Beach Normandie, 6. Juni 1944. The book was first published (in German) in the year 2000, more than half a century after the events described. An English-language translation has subsequently been published. The book is noted for the authors’ claim that as a machine gunner, Serverloh inflicted a large number of casualties to American soldiers landing on Omaha Beach on D-Day, leading him to sometimes be called The Beast of Omaha. The exact number of casualties claimed by Severloh’s book is unclear, but the figures most commonly quoted are 1,000 or 2,000. Either claim is both statistically and militarily improbable. Omaha Beach’s coastal defenses were manned by at least 800-1,000 other fighting German infantry, in addition to Severloh. The landing area at Omaha Beach was five miles long, while the effective range of the MG42 machine gun (claimed by Severloh as his primary weapon on D-Day) was only about 2,100 yards – a figure that does not consider range reductions due to variables of terrain, obscured vision from battle smoke, etc. In practical terms, Severloh could fire on only a small portion of Omaha Beach. In comparison to Severloh’s claim, the generally-accepted total US D-Day casualty figure (wounded, killed, missing) from all causes (rockets, artillery, mortars, rifles, machine guns, drowning, severe psychiatric impairment, etc.) on the 5 miles of Omaha Beach is between 2,000 and 3,000, depending upon source. In addition to these and other facts, supporting documentation for Severloh’s claims (excluding his book) is either lacking or non-existent. Severloh’s claims for inflicting such high numbers of casualties are not viewed as credible and are generally dismissed by historians.

Thank you. I understand that you are not familiar with WP formatting or policies. That's fine, you can learn them quickly enough. I have restored an earlier version because your replacement removed too much information. It is far better to make changes in small steps and achieve consensus before making huge changes. If you had looked at this articles edit history you will have seen that many incremental changes had been made to come to the present version. I see no 'hero worship' in the language used. Perhaps you can provide some examples of such hero-worship. If so, I'm happy for it to go. Please be careful not to undertake original research in preparing your material - it is against WP policy. Thanks Gillyweed (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO. Thank you for proving my points about the integrity of both Wiki and the editors thereof. I'll point out you could have, as I said, kept my text as an intro and restored the rest of your text. You chose not to, instead leaving a slanted intro you had previously. Hero worship? How about insisting on giving this man credit for extraordinary success, such as claiming "hundreds" of casualties that your current text provides -- even though it seems a certainty that that is NOT what his books claims? You have repeatedly dwindled the claim to try and preserve his hero status (which you, Gillyweed, explicitly defended in earlier edits I came across, complaining about how Americans seem to think they were entitled to hero, but Germans were not given the same right). There is a Chinese fable about a man who tells his wife of a fantastic snake he saw -- 500 feet long, and 20 feet wide. She keeps expressing doubt about the length of the snake, and he keeps reducing it, until it is only 20 feet long -- at which point, the wife bursts out laughing, because he has now describing a square snake 20 feet long -- and 20 feet wide. If you don't see the analogy, it can only be because you're willfully blind. While I doubt many will bother to wade through all this discussion, I invite those who do to replace your text with mine until such time as you have an entry that is not the farce this one is. I hope, for Wiki's sake, you are someday able to find personal integrity!

Perhaps you might spend some of your time learning about how WP works rather than attacking editors. Gillyweed (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

At no point does this article suggest Hero Worship or give any credit to this mans claims & none of the editors who've contributed to this article is "willfully blind". May I (humbly) ask you to re-read the article, in its entirety then familiarize yourself again with the Five pillars of Wikipedia particularly number four. I would also like to thank Gillyweed for starting this article.--Steve Bowen 12:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Bias?

Um, guys, you seem to having a history of problems with this page. Has it occurred to you that part of the problem might be the way you are dealing with it? I’ve spent some time looking around here. At various spots on this page, you say you are NOT biased, and (most recently) that you ARE following the “Five Pillars of Wikipedia.” If allowed, I think I can prove that at least the last claim is untrue. Here on the Talk Page, editors state this article is based on the German Wiki entry on Severloh. Reading THAT, it is clear that Severloh did NOT, as your article read up until I editied it, claim to have “inflicted several hundred casualties.” In FACT, the man claimed to have inflicted “more than 2,000” casualties. Look at the FIRST Wiki Pillar. Wiki is an “encyclopedia.” There’s a link saying that means it has a“focus on factual information.” By downgrading the claim Severloh made, you are (deliberately?) distorting the fact of his claim, and wind up making Severloh’s claim sounds more believable than it is. UNLIKE the current German Wiki article, you go further, and DO NOT say anything about how neither US nor German experts find Severloh’s claim credible. Instead, you go wishy-washy, saying the claim is “not academically verified,” which means something TOTALLY different. Take these points together, and it suggests you are violating the SECOND Wiki Pillar, which requires you to be neutral, unbiased. But there’s more. Just look at your “View History page. We see editors saying things that sound pretty inappropriate if you are objective, including one who is “softening” the article to “appease doubters” (huh? Well, I guess somebody is NOT a “doubter!”). Another editor replaces an edit by returning to a “good version,” (people are telling you it’s not good, but the editor’s attitude is clear: why else use “good” instead of, say, a neutral word like “previous”? etc). Are you in fact biased? That’s not for me to say. But from the way you edit, and from the language used, I CAN say you SOUND biased. Borrowing from others here and the German entry, I drafted a new start to your article. It will be interesting to see what you do with it. It could certainly be made stronger if you really want to be "factual." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.66.10 (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits have improved the article, but this is becoming tiresome as I still believe people are missing the point. Disagreements like this one make me want to give up --Steve Bowen 17:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heinrich Severloh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614051007/http://www.omaha-beach.org/The%20Beach/TheBeach.html to http://www.omaha-beach.org/The%20Beach/TheBeach.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heinrich Severloh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120626170728/http://www.luckyjack.ch/History%20Seiten/D%20Day%201944/WN62_1944.html to http://www.luckyjack.ch/History%20Seiten/D%20Day%201944/WN62_1944.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Tidy-up

Just done an extensive tidy up. Some new material from the German page, and I've removed references to "The Beast of Omaha" (except the infobox). We need a source for who/when this moniker was created - it appears to be after his memoir? Really very silly for any simple soldier doing normal soldier stuff - he *may* have been a hero, not that he or anyone else seems to be claiming that, but he certainly doesn't deserve to be labelled as a "beast". - Snori (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)