Japanese submarine in Montréal ?!

Discussions on all aspects of the Japanese Empire, from the capture of Taiwan until the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
Igor Geiller
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Jan 2004, 14:08
Location: Brest, France
Contact:

Japanese submarine in Montréal ?!

#1

Post by Igor Geiller » 24 Apr 2005, 12:01

Hello

On a French forum, somebody spoke about a Japanese submarine which would have sailed in the St. Laurent river, then opened fire on Montreal. I do not believe at all in this history. I know that U-boote attacked in the St. Laurent river, I know too that Japanese submarines attacked the western canadian coast.
But what do you think about Japanese submarine in the St. Laurent river ? Was it possible ?
Thanks.

Regards
Igor

Larry D.
Member
Posts: 4103
Joined: 05 Aug 2004, 00:03
Location: Winter Springs, FL (USA)

#2

Post by Larry D. » 24 Apr 2005, 13:54

It never happened, but that is not to say that there was never a plan to do something like that. A number of Japanese submarines made the trip from the Pacific to the Bay of Biscay during the war, so there might have been some sort of plan at one time to cross the Atlantic, sail up the St. Lawrence submerged, and then surface and fire a few shells at Montreal. It's just that it never happened.


User avatar
Igor Geiller
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Jan 2004, 14:08
Location: Brest, France
Contact:

#3

Post by Igor Geiller » 25 Apr 2005, 11:09

Ok Larry, thank you very much for your answer. :wink:
Regards
Igor

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

#4

Post by Simon Gunson » 30 Apr 2005, 04:45

Igor I have read quite a bit about submarine voyages between Asia and France. Frankly they carried such high value cargoes that it is unlikely they would have risked themselves that way. The only Japanese submarine likely to have had the luxury of deviating so far from it's course was I-8 and I have no reason to believe I-8 made such a deviation. A Japanese I-class sub did surface off Newcastle NSW in Australia to bombard the shore.

There is a website called http://www.combinedfleet.com or similar (since corrected) which contains detailed almost day by day, blow by blow accounts of the voyages of all japanese submarines of WW2. This includes the I-29, I-52, I-8, I-34, and I-30 which are the submarines relevant to your quest Igor.

There is however the mysterious disappearance of the Sercouf which had some involvement with capture of Miquelon in the St Lawrence area from the Vichy government for De Gaul's Free French. She disappeared soon afterwards. Sercouf had a huge gun capable of shore bombardments. You may unwittingly have uncovered a clue to the Sercouf's fate Igor.
Last edited by Simon Gunson on 04 May 2005, 00:16, edited 1 time in total.

Larry D.
Member
Posts: 4103
Joined: 05 Aug 2004, 00:03
Location: Winter Springs, FL (USA)

#5

Post by Larry D. » 30 Apr 2005, 14:10

Hmmm....... That web site is an Asian consumer sales site offering loans, automobile insurance, computers, etc.

User avatar
Igor Geiller
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Jan 2004, 14:08
Location: Brest, France
Contact:

#6

Post by Igor Geiller » 30 Apr 2005, 18:53

Simon, thanks for your answer.
About the submarine "Surcouf": it was probably sunk by mistake by american planes. Mr Claude Huan wrote an excellent book about this warship, called "Le croiseur sous-marin Surcouf (1926-1942)", published by Marines éditions.

Regards
Igor

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

#7

Post by Simon Gunson » 03 May 2005, 08:04

Hmmm....... That web site is an Asian consumer sales site offering loans, automobile insurance, computers, etc
As I said "or similar".

http://www.combinedfleet.com/sensuikan.htm

It has tabular day by day records of voyages by most japanese subs in WW2. *personal comment edited by Moderator*

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

#8

Post by Simon Gunson » 03 May 2005, 13:24

"Surcouf": it was probably sunk by mistake by american planes.
Well the thing is that rumours persist that after a rebellion by her crew about the same time she was in the St Lawrence area was put down, she was refitted at Portsmouth NH, USA. Then she sailed for intended duty in the Pacific and disappeared. The suggestion is made that she suffered a further mutiny by her french crew and went rogue. It is possible that she bombarded the coastal areas of the St Lawrence trying to stir some sort of Quebecois uprising...

De Gaul claimed she was deliberately sunk by the Americans. Often cited was a confidential intelligence report dated 18 June 1942 by 1st Lt F.P. Halcomb, assistant naval attache Tangiers. He reported the widow of a French sub commander claimed a friend of hers was shown a document at the admiralty in Casablanca in which the Americans admitted sinking Sercouf. Recall at this time Roosevelt deeply despised De Gaul, whilst Churchill was propping him up.

British and Americans were not seeing eye to eye over Free French wishing to elbow into Algiers. De gaul wanted to be recognised as the undisputed leader of Free French forces whilst the Allies preferred to retain the existing Vichy commander there.

Roosevelt had by 1942 developed a very soured view that de Gaul could not be trusted. De Gaul had an agenda it seems to rouse French outside of France to rebel not only against the germans but also against British and Americans. De Gaul certainly had unfinished conflict with the British over liberation of St Pierre and Miquelon in the St Lawrence waterway.

A further document dated 15 september 1942 from R/Admiral H Pott, naval attache Washington DC made an extraordinary suggestion that the Sercouf had been ordered destroyed and the orders were then concealed for reasons of wartime diplomacy.

Mr Oliver Hull with the US Coast Guard had been aboard Sercouf at Portsmouth NH. He later claimed the Sercouf had sunk an allied vessel off Florida and was in turn attacked by the sub USS Marlin. An article from Warship International in 1979 made these claims.

it is quite possible therefore that Sercouf sailed north from Portsmouth NH back to the St lawrence to stir rebelion against the British in Quebec. That it was hunted unsuccessfully by american planes and driven back into the Atlantic where it then turned it's vengence on American shipping where she was finally dispatched by USS Marlin.

I would love to know more of your original lead ?
Sercouf certainly was a sub designed for shore bombardment. the Japanese were unlikely to have been in the St Lawrence waterway, but Sercouf could have been there.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

#9

Post by Simon Gunson » 04 May 2005, 01:19

This is the text of a previously cited British Intelligence report about Sercouf:
The following is a memorandum received from Vice Consul King at Casablanca
to the effect that the Officers of the French Navy were spreading the rumor
that the Free French submarine NARVAL had been sunk by the British; and that the
SURCOUF was deliberately sunk by American Naval forces,
because Its crew was not considered loyal and reliable by the Americans",
Last year the widow of Commandant Drogou, the Commander of the Free
French submarine MARVAL, which was sunk in action in the Mediterranean, came
in and reported that officers of the French Navy in Morocco were spreading
the rumor that the NARVAL had not been sunk by enemy action but had been
sunk by the British because it had attempted to return to France, i.e., to
desert the British forces while at sea. Madame Drogou reported that the
following statement had been made by, the local Admiralty "That Commandant
Drogou,. finding himself to have been mistaken in his ideas of duty and misled,
attempted to return to France and was thereupon assassinated, with all his
crew, by the British, who sent two vessels after the NARVAL and sank her with
•all hands". This was communicated by the Consulate to the American Embassy'
•in London by a note dated October 1, 19U1. The reply of the American Embassy
dated November 25, 19U1, included a statement by the Chief of the Free French
Forces which praised most. highly Commandant Drogou*s courage and fidelity and
declared that the NARVAL had been sunk in the course of operations against
the Axis Powers.
Madame Drogou called again this week and reported that following the
loss of the SURCOUF, the French Navy in Casablanca had circulated the rumor
that it had been sunk by gunfire by an American cruiser while the SURCOUF
was on patrol duty in the North Atlantic. She stated that a friend-of hers
had gone to the Admiralty in Casablanca and there had been shown a paper in
which it was stated definitely that the American .Navy admitted sinking the
SURCOUF under these circumstances and had made this admission to Vichy, This
friend was informed that the SURCOUF had been resting on the surface when the
American cruiser sighted it and sank it without warning. This information has
had a disturbing affect on De Gaullist and pro-American French in Casablanca.
They state that they cannot understand either why an American warship should
be ignorant of the presence of the SURCOUF in, a given patrol section, or could
mistake its peculiar silhouette. Nor can they understand why the American
Government should communicate directly with Vichy regarding the loss of a Free
French submarine. The comments made by local naval officers naturally are
derogatory to the American Navy. The Admiral commanding the French Fleet in
Morocco, Admiral d»Harcourt, apparently is cognizant of the reports spread
concerning the SURCOUF and has not attempted to check them. It may be noted
that he adopted the same attitude in regard to the reports circulated previously
in regard to the NARVAL.
Since that time the Consulate has -learned that certain officers of the
local Navy are circulating further rumors to the effect that the SURCOUF was
deliberately sunk by the American Navy, because "its crew were not considered
loyal or reliable by the Americans". It, appears needless to comment on the
effect that these rumors are-likely to produce.
Madame' Drogou 'is in touch with a number-of French-women in Casablanca
whose husbands are serving in the Free French Navy. These women fear that their
may have been on SURCOUF as her crew frequently was changed,
and have asked her to obtain the' casualty list. Madame Drogou also, is in
touch with two women in France, whose husbands were known by them, to have been
on the SURCOUF These women have informed her that they made inquiries regarding
husbands at the American Consulates in Lyons and Marseille, .but were told
that no information could be' given them.
It is suggested that prompt action be taken .to dispel the rumors now being
circulated regarding the loss of the SURCOUF.
NOTE: Astalusna Tangier, has. requested.Gibraltar for list of survivors and
Jcasulties casualties for the benefit of the relatives.
PREPARED AND FORWARDED BY _
F. P. HOLCOMB.
1st .Lt. USMCR.
Assistant Naval Attaché,
Copy to: J.I.C. Gibraltar
It also appears that three Free French corvettes and Sercouf mounted a surprise attack on St Pierre and Miquelon from St Johns Newfoundland without prior warning to the Americans or British on 25 December 1941 under orders from De Gaul.

The Americans especially were outraged by this breach of the Monroe doctrine that European powers could not intervene on the American continent. USA sent two Destroyers to oust the Free french and these engaged in a fire fight resulting in the death of an American sailor.

Her crew previously in August 1940 fled from Brest to England where she refused a demand to surrender to the British. her crew were subdued by a violent struggle resulting in four deaths. At some point numerous Frenchmen in Britain whose allegiance was to the Vichy Government were boarded on a British Hospital ship. This was sunk by U-boat and the inference was made that the British had somehow arranged the sinking. The crew of the Sercouf blamed the British for this tragedy as they waited at Holy loch during 1941. From there she was sent to Canada and USA for a goodwill visit.

This was when Sercouf began to irritate the Americans. There is also some suggestion that De Gaul intended her use to liberate martinique from Vichy rule aswell. The Americans were opposed to this. A rumour persists that she was sunk in Long Island sound by the USS Marlin.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

#10

Post by Simon Gunson » 04 May 2005, 01:40

A picture of Sercouf and her big guns. Interesting resemblance to a Japanese I-class boat with an aircraft hanger. If there were truth to the story about a sub in the St Laurent river near Montreal then this resemblance could have been the cause for confusion or worse a deliberate disinformation that it was a Japanese sub. When was this japanese sub supposed to have appeared near montreal Igor ?

Also what chance is there that she was part of a goodwill visit during 1941 ?
Attachments
surcouf.jpg
surcouf.jpg (62.18 KiB) Viewed 2564 times

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

#11

Post by redcoat » 04 May 2005, 22:11

Simon Gunson wrote:This is the text of a previously cited British Intelligence report about Sercouf:
The following is a memorandum received from Vice Consul King at Casablanca
to the effect that the Officers of the French Navy were spreading the rumor
that the Free French submarine NARVAL had been sunk by the British; and that the
SURCOUF was deliberately sunk by American Naval forces,
because Its crew was not considered loyal and reliable by the Americans",
Last year the widow of Commandant Drogou, the Commander of the Free
French submarine MARVAL, which was sunk in action in the Mediterranean, came
in and reported that officers of the French Navy in Morocco were spreading
the rumor that the NARVAL had not been sunk by enemy action but had been
sunk by the British because it had attempted to return to France, i.e., to
desert the British forces while at sea. Madame Drogou reported that the
following statement had been made by, the local Admiralty "That Commandant
Drogou,. finding himself to have been mistaken in his ideas of duty and misled,
attempted to return to France and was thereupon assassinated, with all his
crew, by the British, who sent two vessels after the NARVAL and sank her with
•all hands". This was communicated by the Consulate to the American Embassy'
•in London by a note dated October 1, 19U1. The reply of the American Embassy
dated November 25, 19U1, included a statement by the Chief of the Free French
Forces which praised most. highly Commandant Drogou*s courage and fidelity and
declared that the NARVAL had been sunk in the course of operations against
the Axis Powers.
Madame Drogou called again this week and reported that following the
loss of the SURCOUF, the French Navy in Casablanca had circulated the rumor
that it had been sunk by gunfire by an American cruiser while the SURCOUF
was on patrol duty in the North Atlantic. She stated that a friend-of hers
had gone to the Admiralty in Casablanca and there had been shown a paper in
which it was stated definitely that the American .Navy admitted sinking the
SURCOUF under these circumstances and had made this admission to Vichy, This
friend was informed that the SURCOUF had been resting on the surface when the
American cruiser sighted it and sank it without warning. This information has
had a disturbing affect on De Gaullist and pro-American French in Casablanca.
They state that they cannot understand either why an American warship should
be ignorant of the presence of the SURCOUF in, a given patrol section, or could
mistake its peculiar silhouette. Nor can they understand why the American
Government should communicate directly with Vichy regarding the loss of a Free
French submarine. The comments made by local naval officers naturally are
derogatory to the American Navy. The Admiral commanding the French Fleet in
Morocco, Admiral d»Harcourt, apparently is cognizant of the reports spread
concerning the SURCOUF and has not attempted to check them. It may be noted
that he adopted the same attitude in regard to the reports circulated previously
in regard to the NARVAL.
Since that time the Consulate has -learned that certain officers of the
local Navy are circulating further rumors to the effect that the SURCOUF was
deliberately sunk by the American Navy, because "its crew were not considered
loyal or reliable by the Americans". It, appears needless to comment on the
effect that these rumors are-likely to produce.
Madame' Drogou 'is in touch with a number-of French-women in Casablanca
whose husbands are serving in the Free French Navy. These women fear that their
may have been on SURCOUF as her crew frequently was changed,
and have asked her to obtain the' casualty list. Madame Drogou also, is in
touch with two women in France, whose husbands were known by them, to have been
on the SURCOUF These women have informed her that they made inquiries regarding
husbands at the American Consulates in Lyons and Marseille, .but were told
that no information could be' given them.
It is suggested that prompt action be taken .to dispel the rumors now being
circulated regarding the loss of the SURCOUF.
NOTE: Astalusna Tangier, has. requested.Gibraltar for list of survivors and
Jcasulties casualties for the benefit of the relatives.
PREPARED AND FORWARDED BY _
F. P. HOLCOMB.
1st .Lt. USMCR.
Assistant Naval Attaché,
Copy to: J.I.C. Gibraltar
Hasn't anybody else noted that these rumours were started in Vichy controlled North Africa, by members of the Vichy navy who would would've used any dirty trick in the book to discredit both the Free French and the Allies.
To me, it appears its to be nothing more than Vichy 'black' propaganda, attempting to cause trouble between the Free French and the Western Allies.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

#12

Post by Simon Gunson » 05 May 2005, 12:39

The fact that somebody has an agenda to make a claim, or some reason to profit by that claim does not of itself make that claim baseless. It is a fact that there was huge hostility from Roosevelt towards De Gaul for intervention at Miquelon et St Pierre. It is also a fact that Roosevelt at that time did not see eye to eye with Churchill on the question of the role of Free French forces. The British felt excluded by US motives over North Africa and British Intelligence therefore was itself curious about scraps of information about Sercouf's fate.

A subsequent British report acknowledged that the US Gov't had ordered Sercouf's destruction as she was perceived a threat to US national interests.

In the deafening silence from other sources, these reports take centre stage.

User avatar
Igor Geiller
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Jan 2004, 14:08
Location: Brest, France
Contact:

#13

Post by Igor Geiller » 05 May 2005, 21:10

Hello

In the excellent book of Mr Claude Huan, a page is devoted to the rumours concerning the "Surcouf" (with a u and not a e, Simon :wink: ). For example, on January 2nd 1941, the admiral Muselier (chief of the Free French Navy) was arrested by Scotland Yard. He was suspected of wanting to deliver the "Surcouf" to Vichy. It was absolutely wrong. In the Canada, where the public opinion was pro-Vichyst, it was told that the submarine torpedoed the Allies convoys instead of escorting them. On August 1941, the Free French officier in Montréal asked to admiral Muselier to publish a denial.
There were also problems with the british members of the crew. The life on board was difficult, and the crew was partly inexperienced. After the loss of the submarine, rumours affirmed that it had been deliberately sunk by the Allies. And the refusal of the allies to carry out a true inquire did not arrange the things.

Regards
Igor

User avatar
Igor Geiller
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Jan 2004, 14:08
Location: Brest, France
Contact:

#14

Post by Igor Geiller » 05 May 2005, 21:30

Two pictures of the "Surcouf" :
Attachments
Surcouf 2.jpg
The same day, after a visit of général de Gaulle and amiral Muselier
Surcouf 2.jpg (109.78 KiB) Viewed 2490 times
Surcouf 1.jpg
In Devoport, on December 5th 1940
Surcouf 1.jpg (131.44 KiB) Viewed 2488 times

User avatar
davethelight
Member
Posts: 1691
Joined: 21 Dec 2002, 08:52
Location: Australia

#15

Post by davethelight » 07 May 2005, 10:46

The Sercouf sure did have big guns for a submarine. Does anyone know what size they were exactly, when they were fired in anger, and what the results were?

Post Reply

Return to “Japan at War 1895-1945”