Talk:Heinrich Severloh

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Casualty numbers 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Factual Tag

message: ... 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)
thread_title: 67 years after D-Day ...

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Additions lack citations

message: "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)
thread_title:  "Low brow media" comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: Now FixedSteve Bowen 15:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metzingen

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Giant article, precisely one primary source: what a joke 

message: 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)
thread_title:  An article about the book 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Total BS 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Tidy-up