U 977 - 66 days Submerged Is Proved Fiction

[ohrdruf]

Heinz Schäffer never claimed that his boat U 977 ran for 66-days submerged on the voyage from Norway to Argentina when interrogated by US naval inteliigence.

See: http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-977INT.htm

U 977 left Bergen on 10 May and judging by the diving and DFs seems to have sailed on the surface until the end of May. According to the US Navy version, the boat arrived in the Cape Verdes on 14 July and was therefore short on time to have made the entire trip submerged.

The ORIGINAL book about the voyage was Heinz Schäffer's GEHEIMNIS UM U 977 published in the German language in Argentina only in 1950. The Argentine Navy was presented with the Spanish language volume for internal circulation.

To get a wider readership in Europe, Schäffer had to cut out some of the facts and dates to satisfy the various Allies and what everybody has relied on to date as gospel is the expurgated version published in German, Russian, English, French and Finnish in 1952.

GEHEIMNIS UM U-977 has been translated into Spanish and is published this year in Argentina. The unabridged text provides some very interesting details for the reader to peruse, and the voyage of U 977 was not what it has seemed until now.

[VEDAT]

@ohrdruf; it's very interesting - have you got more informations?

[ohrdruf]

I have bought the book. It is entitled:

Heinz Schäffer: El Secreto del U 977, published by Ciudad Autónomo de Buenos Aires, HISMA (Historia Militar Alemana). I also have a record of the Argentine naval intelligence interrogation of Schäffer. This was declassified in 2002 and coincides with the book.

There is reason to believe that the US-Navy intelligence report issued 19 September 1945 contains incorrect information in order that the position of U 977 should not be known during the voyage.

It seems clear from the Argentine naval intelligence interrogation held at Mar del Plata 20-22 August 1945 that the Argentines had full knowledge of Schäffer's activities in their waters.

In the original version of his book Schäffer states that he loaded a major cargo at Frederickshavn, Denmark. This cargo was stored in the interior of the boat and caused many problems with regard to the trim. Living in the boat was insufferable. It was probably the reason why a third of the crew disembarked in Norway, and even then with only 32 aboard the voyage was close to intolerable.

Schäffer admits that he crossed the Equator at 30ºW on 4 July 1945 and was off Rio de Janeiro on 10 July. After that his narrative is silent, and the next 38 days are unaccounted for.

[Simon Gunson]

The crew of U 977 were handed over for interrogation shortly after they arrived in Argentina. Schäffer never denied being in the vicinity of the cruiser Bahia on 4 July 1945.

On this website some of the explanation may be hinted at:

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/goldp9.html

The Bahia was sunk by U 977, which surrendered at Mar del Plata, Argentina on 17 August 1945, and was turned over to the US for testing. Four US radiomen: William Joseph Eustace, Andrew Jackson Pendleton, Emmet Peper Salles, and Frank Benjamin Sparksere were aboard the Bahia and were killed. The US Navy still lists the men as missing in action. Brazil ascribes the sinking of the Bahia to an onboard explosion.

The article in Pravda was based on information from Argentina researchers Carlos De Napoli and Juan Salinas. They claim that a fleet of almost 20 U-boats sailed from the Norwegian port of Bergen, between May 1st and May 6. They joined another group of U-boats coming from the US coasts around Cape Verde. There they learned of the surrender. Some scuttled their boats, others surrendered, and still others set course for Germany. However, at least six of the U-boats proceeded for Argentina. Further, the article claimed that the Argentina Navy was ordered to stop attacks on German U-boats operating close to Argentina beaches, on orders from Churchill. Farago for one has confirmed that the Argentina Navy was issued such an order by Peron. He does not however, mention that the order came from Britain.

Clearly for the USN to claim that U 977 was at Cape Verde Islands on 14 July was an attempt to distance Schäffer in time and location from the Bahia, but then the question becomes why would the USN lie to cover up for U 977 ?

The question then might be asked why did the USN give U 977 a false alabai and what was in it for USA ?

[Curious George]

You know something that always gripped me was why was Ritter von Greim and the lady pilot in the Führerbunker near the wars end... and why did Schäffer (U 977) report to the SS HQ days prior to sailing 2 days before wars end.

And seeing as Germany was so near to colapse at that moment, why does Schäffer refuse to accept the transmitted radio messages to them reffering to them as being from Dönitz as 'out of the question' and that the messages weer 'irreconcilable' with his outlook a few days before [any right thinking man would know the end was near and such messages, or messages like them, would come] So then our commander sails for Argentina.

I'm not normally one for silver-foil hat wearing but the nazi leaders knowing the end was coming, did they plan to get people or funds out? [what sort of mission did Schäffer expect to sail on with the war being so visibly near its conclusion?]

[ohrdruf]

Kiwikid asks "what was in it for the United States" to collaborate with the Argentines and the U 977 commander in fictionalizing the report of U-977 whereabouts. The answer is:

(1) The principal purpose was to conceal the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the cruiser "Bahia".
(2) The Argentines, though not giving two hoots about the "Bahia", did not want worldwide speculation regarding U 977 being at large in Argentine waters for over a month in July/August 1945 when "Hitler and other members of the Nazi hierarchy could have disembarked on Argentine soil."
(3) It was proven at the initial interrogation of Schäffer by the Argentines that if there was no 66-day voyage submerged, he must have refuelled at least twice to get him to Argentina. Facilities for refuelling German U-boats in mid-Atlantic in JuneJuly 1945 is an undesirable fact of life for Allied military historians, since it suggests a Kriegsmarine replenishment organisation capable of handling the movement south of numbers of U-boats.

Therefore it was in the interests of both the United States and Argentine to falsify details of Schäffer's voyage.

As regards U 530, the recently declassified US Navy interrogation of Wermuth and eight crew from the US archive provides us with an even better documented mystery.

[Optiow]

That is odd. I have read from 'The Admiral's Wolfpack' by Jean Noli and he checked his facts to be genuine, and it did say that they had stayed submerged for that amount of time.

[ohrdruf]

Your quoted author said he checked his facts - but do we know with whom?

You can call up the official USN Navy Report for your own information by entering "uboatarchive.net/U-977" in Yahoo Search.

You wil observe from this "Report on the Interrogation of Prisoners from U 977 Surrendered at Mar del Plata on 17 August 1945" that:

1) U 977 sailed from near Bergen on 10 May 1945
2) U 977 "made for the Iceland Passage on course 300º diving once on sighting a plane and once on sighting a ship, she was also DF'd many times late in May." Therefore during May, U 977 was surfaced from time to time.
3) "On 14 July 1945 the boat anchored at Branco in the Cape Verdes."

Please explain what was the period of 66 days always submerged.

[Tanker Mike]

The Bahia was sunk by U 977, which surrendered at Mar del Plata, Argentina on 17 August 1945, and was turned over to the US for testing. Four US radiomen: William Joseph Eustace, Andrew Jackson Pendleton, Emmet Peper Salles, and Frank Benjamin Sparksere were aboard the Bahia and were killed. The US Navy still lists the men as missing in action. Brazil ascribes the sinking of the Bahia to an onboard explosion.

The book Black Flag, The Surrender of Germany's U-Boat Forces states the the U 997 arrived with is full load of torpedoes and the Bahia was sunk by it's own hand during AA target practice. An Oerlikon 2 cm cannon had not been fitted with stops to prevent it from being lowered to a point where it could fire into depth charges mounted on the stern. As the target kite descended, the cannon kept firing until it hit the depth charges. The depth charges exploded and blew off the stern.

Mike

[Axel N]

Hi all,

I have to confess that I find the discussion about U 977 becoming more and more ridiculous. Unless people tend to question all and everything, we have the following information on hand:

1) the boat sailed from the area off Bergen on 10 May and arrived off the the Cape Verdes on 14 July. Simple calculation makes this 66 days!
2) the boat surrendered on 17 August with all ten torpedoes still on board. No German Type VIIC boat carried more than this number of torpedoes on patrol in 1945. With no torpedo expended, obviously no torpedo could have been fired against the Bahia!
3) No one has ever come up with substantial information to prove all this Hitler and high-ranking Nazi crap reported in connection with U 977. In fact, all of this has originated from people seeking some kind of publicity for whatever reason.
4) Schäffers book on U 977 was published at a time when the great majority of official documents, especially German records, were not available to the public. The only sin made by Schäffer was that he sometimes boosted his own curriculum vitae in the book by adding some obvious lies or exaggerations to make things even more interesting as they actually were. In this, he is in good company with many other authors presenting biographies or thelike.

Conclusion: some people need to raise suspicions without presenting good reasons to do so in order to keep the ball running. Interestingly, this kind of stuff feeds a lot of people who just like this kind of entertainment. Otherwise, daily TV programmes could be reduced to just a few hours daily to transmit the really important news and information!

So, keep clicking on threads like this if you like this way or just pick out the real stuff.

Cheers

Axel

[Mikko H.]

The alleged sinking of Bahia and related claims were already discussed in this thread:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &p=1242735

[ohrdruf]

In reply to the points made by Axel N:

(1) The claim is 66 clear days "always submerged". Since the boat sailed late on 10 May and touched land on 14 July one must discount one or both these days which leaves the count short of 66 days. However, the fiction is that U 977 was always submerged. It is clear that for a major part of May 1945 she must have been on the surface in order to have to dive for ships and aircraft. Even if U 977 surfaced only briefly for one day the claim cannot stand because of the words "always submerged".

(2) Contrary to what Axel N suggests, there is no claim that Hitler or any other non-military persons were aboard U 977. The problem for the Argentines was that if U 977 was in their waters undetected for over a month, there would be an obvious temptation for sensationalist journalists to claim that Hitler had been aboard. This happened in any case.

(3) Schäffer's original manuscript suppressed in 1949 was published in 2006. In the Preface, he states that upon disembarking at Mar del Plata on 17 August 1945, the base commander said to him at once: "Did you have Hitler or Eva Braun aboard?" to which Schäffer replied "No".
He was then asked "Did you sink the Bahia?" to which he also replied "No".
The base commander asked to see his charts and exclaimed: "If these charts are correct, at the time when the Bahia was sunk you were not within 50 miles of the sinking". The Argentines wanted Schäffer as far as possible from the sinking of the Bahia at the Equator on 4 July because at the time he was under suspicion for having sunk her. As per the USN report, U-977 is not supposed to have reached the Cape Verdes until 14 July, ten days later.

(4) The question arises about the sinking of the cruiser Bahia. U 977 arrived at Mar del Plata with the correct issue of torpedoes. It has never been seriously suggested that Bahia was sunk by torpedoes.

The official Brazilian Navy version of the sinking is that the cruiser was engaged in AA practice and during a pause while a float was lowered into the sea five or so rounds from an Oerlikon cannon were fired accidentally into a stack of depth charges on the poop. As a result there was an explosion which destroyed the ship.

This account of the tragedy is based solely on the evidence of engineering officer Sub-Lt Torres Dias, who was at all material times in the engine room and saw nothing. In his deposition he said he had just received a telegraph order to put the ship to slow ahead, and a minute or so later he heard Oerlikon Nr 7, which was above his head, fire the fatal rounds.

Of the survivors on deck at the time of the incident, ten witnesses, all ratings, were on the starboard quarter watching the target float astern. The board of enquiry refused to hear any of these witnesses. Why? All ten claimed to see what happened next. A submarine under a disguise appeared two miles off the stern. The Bahia commander ordered Oerlikon No 7 to fire a burst ahead of the submarine to bring it to a stop. The Oerlikon fired and hit the submarine which replied at once from a gun on the platform on the after deck. The Bahia then blew up.

The entire mystery surrounding the U 977 voyage resulted from this encounter. A round, not from the cruiser's Oerlikon, but from the submarine, hit the depth charges and the cruiser blew up. Depth charges are not supposed to explode if hit by stray rounds in action or they could never be carried on deck by cruisers and smaller ships.

Defective depth charges manufactured in the United States - proved defective in later testing - were sold to Brazil, and led to the loss of a cruiser with many lives. Who would want this fact broadcast far and wide? If the submarine was Schäffer's, he sank the Bahia by accident. He was attacked and his submarine hit, but he could not have expected to sink a cruiser merely by firing a round from a flak gun in her general direction. The entire incident had to be covered up by the US and Brazil and U 977 placed officially as far from the Equator on 4 July as possible.

When U 977 berthed at Mar del Plata she had her full complement of torpedoes, but no flak ammunition. Schäffer had ditched it all at sea. He could not explain to the Argentines why he had done this.

[Ironmachine]

The entire mystery surrounding the U 977 voyage resulted from this encounter. A round, not from the cruiser's Oerlikon, but from the submarine, hit the depth charges and the cruiser blew up. Depth charges are not supposed to explode if hit by stray rounds in action or they could never be carried on deck by cruisers and smaller ships.
Defective depth charges manufactured in the United States - proved defective in later testing - were sold to Brazil, and led to the loss of a cruiser with many lives. Who would want this fact broadcast far and wide? If the submarine was Schäffer's, he sank the Bahia by accident. He was attacked and his submarine hit, but he could not have expected to sink a cruiser merely by firing a round from a flak gun in her general direction. The entire incident had to be covered up by the US and Brazil and U 977 placed officially as far from the Equator on 4 July as possible.

Am I missing something, or does the following argument:
"We sold defective depth charges to Brazil. They should not have exploded when hit by some stray rounds. So, instead of saying that they exploded when hit by some stray rounds from a submarine, let's say they were hit by some stray rounds from Bahia's own gun. Yes, we have the perfect cover-up story."
sound rather silly?

[ohrdruf]

Iron Machine wrote: "Am I missing something or does the following argument (fit the bill)?:
"We sold defective depth charges to Brazil. They should not have exploded when hit by some stray rounds. So, instead of saying that they exploded when hit by some stray rounds from a submarine, let's say they were hit from some stray rounds from "Bahiá´s" own gun. Yes, we have the perfect cover story".

I think Iron Machine has got it right at last. You see, he is clever where nobody else has been. What nobody ever asked was why the ten deck witnesses to the submarine were never called by the board of enquiry.

It was simply because of the nature of what their evidence would have been. It was a cloudless, clear tropical morning with visibility unlimited to the horizon. Suddenly a submarine disguised as a fishing boat appeared within two miles of the "Bahía". It had not surfaced. One second there was empty sea, and within a split-second there was a fully surfaced disguised submarine on the starboard quarter. They were all perfectly certain of this.

This is why the eye witness testimony could not be called, and the farce of the "own goal" presented for the public and AHF readers to believe in.

Please note that it is NOT MY FAULT the Brazilian eye witnesses said this in their depositions. Just as I have been accused of being such by a "financing member", all of these Brazilian heroes were "a total waste of bandwidth", whatever that is. My source is Salinas and De Napoli.

Ohrdruf

[Ironmachine]

Well, thanks for all the praise, I suppose, but if I'm so smart then (with all due respect) you're not much... you did not get my point.
You quote me as saying:

Iron Machine wrote: "Am I missing something or does the following argument (fit the bill)?:

when in fact I wrote:

Am I missing something, or does the following argument: [...] sound rather silly?

There is a significative difference.
What I was trying to say is that your argument about the explosion being caused by a projectile fired from the submarine and then being blamed on the cruiser's own gun to hide the fact that the depth charges were defective, i.e.

A round, not from the cruiser's Oerlikon, but from the submarine, hit the depth charges and the cruiser blew up. Depth charges are not supposed to explode if hit by stray rounds in action or they could never be carried on deck by cruisers and smaller ships

simply makes no sense...
If a depth charge is not supposed to explode if hit by stray rounds in action (and that is a big if), then it is not supposed to explode whatever the nationality of the projectile. So if the United States was trying to hide the fact that the depth charges were defective and exploded when hit by some stray rounds, it simply makes no sense to say that the depth charges exploded when hit by some stray rounds from the cruiser's own guns...
Regards.