U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

[vszulc]

Just wondering...

As we can see in this thread, the world of conspiracies (Non-existing generals such as "SS Gen Kurt Gross", "black" uboats, that are somehow listed in the kriegsmarines files, etc. etc.) usually don't hold up to real historical research.

As another poster wrote: All german submarines are accounted for.

But WHY do people find nazi-conspiracies so fascinating? Why do the old fairy tales about bases in the antarctic, Hans Kammler, submarines carrying everything from Bormann and his loot to nuclear bombs and "secret" weapons STILL surface every now and then?

[ohrdruf]

Dear Vszyulc

It is clear to all researchers in Argentina that a great deal of information regarding German naval activities at the war's end is being withheld. What it is can be suspected but not proved. From this knowledge conspiracy theories arise.

It is not correct to say that "all German U-boats are accounted for". An assumption has been made by historians with regard to the loss of fifty U-boats and these assumptions have been accepted by other historians as valid.

No allowance is made for the possibility that German yards built U-boats "off the books" even though the Argentine documents suggest that possibility. No allowance is made for the possibility that a false losses were returned by the Kriegsmarine. An example here is U-235. An Argentine intelligence document states that this boat unloaded passengers at Mar del Plata postwar. The official version is that U-235 was depth-charged and sunk in error by a German torpedo-boat on 14 April 1945 near the northern tip of Denmark. We now find that ALL known German U-boat wrecks have been located in and around Danish waters EXCEPT U-235 which appears to be defying the submarine archaeologists.

In 2002 the Argentine naval archive released the 1945 interrogations of Schaeffer and Wermuth. No English-language historian has felt the need to look at these papers, probably for fear that they are going to open a very nasty can of worms. In 2006 Schaeffer's original memoir "El Secreto del U-977" was published for the first time in Argentina. This book makes it clear that the 66-days' "world record" voyage submerged was a fiction and that U-977 was the provisions boat for the Patagonian boats coming down from Norway and Germany. This book and the 1945 interrogation coincides. In 2003 Schaeffer's widow gave a TV interview in which she confirmed that U-977 had an enormous cargo of provisions aboard.

You or I may speculate who came down on U-235, and who or what was aboard the Patagonian boats, but then we would be merely adding to the conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, these theories are better grounded over the last six years than hitherto and one day we may have the whole story. That is, basically, the reason why you asked the question, isn't it?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Ohdruf,

Surely you mean "From this LACK OF knowledge conspiracy theories arise"?

Is there really a possibility that German yards built U-boats off the books? What Argentine documents suggest this is a possibility? Why would Argentine archives contain such information and nobody else's?

So, U-235 hasn't been recovered. This doesn't mean it went to Argentina, or anywhere else. Absence of evidence is not evidence.

So, the 66-day "world record" voyage submerged may have been a fiction. What of it?

So, Schaeffer's wife reportedly said nearly sixty years later, after his death, that there was an enormous cargo of provisions on board U977. Even if true, so what? I don't think the revelation of smuggling an indeterminant amount of food to Argentina after the war is likely to open a major can of worms!

Can you give us details of the archive references you say English-language reserachers have yet to see? I know of at least two who would be interested and if you openly publish source details here others might be as well.

This issue has been raised on both Ubootwaffe and Uboat.net, and in neither case has it been taken very seriously by the U-boat specialists there. Unless something more substantive is offered, I doubt it will make much progress here either.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ohrdruf]

Dear Sid

Ever the vexatious litigant you remain. There are few "experts" on the two sites you mention. Most of them are vexatious points-scorers. I am surprised that somebody with your decent degree of knowledge needs to quote the ignoramuses on other websites to support your arguments.

Conspiracy theories arise from the knowledge that material is being withheld. Do not twist the meanings of sentences to score points.

In 1942 Argentina wanted to purchase six German U-boats. Although this was agreed in principle by the German Foreign Office, Hitler intervened to prevent it on the grounds that such a sale might cause a problem for Argentina diplomatically. Argentina then decided to approach German submarine builders unofficially. How this turned out we do not have the knowledge. If you ask me nicely I shall provide you with my source.

You are correct in what you say about U-235. However, a declassified Argentine intelligence document says that the boat came to Argentina. It is a primary document upon which an historian can rely. Until we have the actual hull we cannot be certain of anything. The fact that though searched for the hull cannot be found where we expect it to be, and it was the Germans who reported the sinking, is a point to bear in mind.

I think I made the point on another site that you are lacking mentally in the department of suspicions. Your wife may have taken advantage of this. You would be a useless detective. Look here, if the 66-day submerged voyage of U-977 is fiction, and we learn that after all the naval historians have touted it as fact for half a century, it might be worth while to ask ourselves what Schaeffer and the Argentine Navy were trying to cover up. In your case with respect, getting to the bottom of historical events is less important for you than wrangling with other contributors to the forum.

If you ask me respectfully and ever so nicely I shall explain the importance of the lie, although I doubt that you sincerely want to know.

[stril]

you are lacking mentally in the department of suspicions. Your wife may have taken advantage of this.

Mr Ohrdruf..???

[LWD]

...Conspiracy theories arise from the knowledge that material is being withheld. ...

No. They arrise from the suspicion that knowledge is being withheld. Very often that suspicion is ill founded.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Ohdruf,

The two sites I mentioned are arguably the two leading internet specialist forums on U-boats. They cannot therefore be dismissed so lightly. This proposition did not find much favour on either.

I would submit that I have already asked nicely by posting: "Can you give us details of the archive references you say English-language researchers have yet to see? I know of at least two who would be interested and if you openly publish source details here others might be as well."

However, if you would care to suggest a more appealing formulation, I am prepared to try that. What do you suggest?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Bernd R]

Sid Guttridge and Ohrdruf,

may I suggest the following.

1) Even if you both might enjoy eventually the "personal style" of discussion this is not the style of AHF. So, is it possible to go on without personal insults and personal comments ? Think so.

2) It is obvious that many members find this topic very interesting ! Fascinating stuff and a high quality thread indeed !

3) So, keep up the quality and your interesting posts and leave out the polemics, please !

Thanks, Bernd / Mod

[Sid Guttridge]

Whoops!

[Bernd R]

So, one of the key questions was, if I got it correctly
"Can you give us details of the archive references you say English-language researchers have yet to see? .."

Bernd

[ohrdruf]

STRIL
....with the housekeeping budget, of course.

LWD
No. All Argentine researchers in this field have definite knowledge that material is being withheld. In 1993 President Menem commissioned a Canadian Professor of History, Ronald Newton, to examine all the naval files in the Argentine archive and to report openly on them. His report, subsequently included in a book on the subject, stated that only two U-boats, U-977 and U-530, came to Argentina. Their commanders, Schaeffer and Wermuth, had decided to seek better treatment for their crews in Argentina at the war's end. The possibility that "any German U-boat unloaded on the Argentine shore is more remote than a UFO landing on your lawn and the occupants asking you for a cup of tea." Newton also insulted the Argentine Navy, accusing them of being so incompetent as to be unable to tell the difference between a drifting stick and a periscope. As soon as President Menem went, probably out of pique the Argentine Navy declassified the 1945 interrogations of Schaeffer and Wermuth (the commanders only, not the crews. What the crews said in the interrogations remains classified sixty-three years later. The interrogation reports of the commanders and crews declassified years ago by the US archive are forgeries to serve a political purpose. These two boats were important).

From this material we know that U-977 and U-530 were never where the Allied versions put them at any stage of their voyages.

U-530 arrived at Mar del Plata on 9 July 1945 and went down the coast to Miramar that day. At Miramar there was an Etappendienst station. A U-boat's rubber dinghy was left behind in the surf. U-530 was on the Argentine coast for 24 hours, quite long enough to unload passengers or materials. (Which is more likely - U-530 having unloaded something at Miramar or a UFO landing on my lawn and the occupants....) Brazilian and US intelligence officers suspected at the time, and the photographs we have seem to confirm it, that U-530 had two commanders, both known as Otto Wermuth, one short and dark, the other blond and tall. What was the purpose of this?

The actual U-977 story would fill a small book. To tackle just one point: The purpose of the fictitious "world record 66-day voyage always submerged" was twofold: (1) It gave U-977 a very slow voyage south. It appeared that U-977 was always heading slowly for Argentina and doing nothing else. Schaeffer had loaded 80 tons of fuel before leaving Norway. On this 80 tons the Argentines calculated (for show -they knew the real story) that he could just possibly have made Argentina in three months if he had made the voyage mostly on the snorkel and batteries as he had suggested. On the other hand, because of the fuel consumption involved in the greater speed, Schaeffer must have refuelled at least twice at sea from "Milchkuh" U-boats which officially did not exist if he got to the Equator by 4 July 1945, and was off Rio de Janeiro on 10 July. From the Argentine declassified interrogations, and Schaeffer's recently published book "El Secreto del U-977" we know that the latter was true, and that is why we are certain that more information is being withheld by the Argentine authorities: and (2) to conceal the fact that the activities of U-977 are unaccounted for for thirty-eight days from 10 July 1945, whent the boat was admitted to be off Rio de Janeiro.

GENERALLY
The other two forums are not involved in this discussion. The people of "U-boat.net" for example take a line which differs from AHF and is less reasonable. They do not like people suggesting that the Allied version of events involving U-boats is imperfect.

As historians our position must be that a document declassified in a national archive is primary evidence for the historian. It cannot be discounted merely because it comes from Argentina. Nevertheless documents released by Argentine archives are not given the weight they should be by these other forums. Sid tends to be influenced by these other forums to the extent that occasionally he makes statements which require a sharp reproof. Feuerland has his beady eye on you, Sid!

A CLOSING NOTE

Many people on the forum are unable to distinguish between what is offered as fact, and what is legitimate speculation based on a degree of evidence which is not conclusive. What follows is speculation based on the available evidence.

(1) U-977 loaded a cargo of provisions at Frederikshavn, Denmark in the third week of April 1945. In his recently published memoir "El secreto del U-977", Schaeffer stated that this cargo was "barrels of butter, ham, eggs, ultimately everything imaginable. The LI protested that in his opinion, the cargo was so excessive that it would be very difficult, and perhaps impossible, for him to maintain trim. He had his answer an hour later when yet another lorry arrived, and I ordered its contents loaded aboard." (El secreto del U-977, page 186).

(2) 1 May 1945. "Admiral Dönitz had given me a mission precise and clear". (El secreto, page 190).

(3) 10 May 1945. "We put ashore 16 men of the crew on the coast of Norway. We now had only 32 men aboard (page 196)...but even so the boat was impossibly cramped. It was almost intolerable." (p.203)

(4) "We crossed the Equator at 30°W at 0900 on 4 July 1945". (Arg. Navy interrogation, 1945: "El secreto, p.221): "U-977 was off Rio del Janeiro on 10 July 1945" (p.222).

(5) There is no indication of the position of U-977 between 10 July and 17 August 1945. That is thirty-eight days. On the day when Schaeffer put into Mar del Plata, the boat was empty. Where had the provisions gone?

(6) In an Argentine TV interview in 2003, Schaeffer's widow stated that the mission of U-977 was to "provision the Patagonian U-boats". This interview was never broadcast, but we have the recording of what she said.

(7) In a declassified Argentine archive document mentioned earlier in this thread, addressed to the Division of Foreign Affairs and dated 14 October 1945, relating to an officer "who came ashore at Mar del Plata from U-235", it was stated that this boat accompanied "other German submarines arriving in Patagonia at the end of hostilities."

It is our suspicion that U-977 was the provisions boat supplying the Patagonian U-boats. There is by no means enough evidence to make an arrest, but in our group of naval detectives we all think Heinz Schaeffer dun it.

[LWD]

...
.
No. All Argentine researchers in this field have definite knowledge that material is being withheld.

All? That's an awfully inclusive comment. How many is this "all". What are some names and acedemic credentials?

In 1993 President Menem commissioned a Canadian Professor of History, Ronald Newton...
... As soon as President Menem went, probably out of pique the Argentine Navy declassified the 1945 interrogations of Schaeffer and Wermuth (the commanders only, not the crews. .... The interrogation reports of the commanders and crews declassified years ago by the US archive are forgeries to serve a political purpose. These two boats were important).

That's one interpretation. Could it not equally be that the Argentine Navy released forgeries? If the US released forgeries in 45 then there would have been a significant number of Germans who could have proved them forgeries. I'm afraid from what you've posted your interpretation is not the most likely.
[/quote]
From this material we know that U-977 and U-530 were never where the Allied versions put them at any stage of their voyages.
[/quote]
So they didn't even leave from the same ports? Sorry this just doesn't make sense. If you forge something like this you want to stay as close as possible to what really happened for as long as possible. Again it doesn't add up.

...Brazilian and US intelligence officers suspected at the time, and the photographs we have seem to confirm it, that U-530 had two commanders, both known as Otto Wermuth, one short and dark, the other blond and tall.

Where did you come by this?

...
As historians our position must be that a document declassified in a national archive is primary evidence for the historian. It cannot be discounted merely because it comes from Argentina. Nevertheless documents released by Argentine archives are not given the weight they should be by these other forums....

If it's in conflict with multiple documents held by national archives of other countries it is suspect. If it doesn't make sense then things are suspect. Also consider that a number of Argentine administrations were known for destroying and or falsifying data. It does make records that were under their stewardship also suspect.

...... There is by no means enough evidence to make an arrest, but in our group of naval detectives we all think Heinz Schaeffer dun it.

What are you talking about?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Ohdruf,

The first thing I note is that you still haven't offered any traceable documentary source, as requested.

Looking through the list of seven numbered points you give:

1) Yes, U-977 was heavily provisioned with food. This was not unusual for a U-boat on operations. It was probably the norm.

2) Yes, Donitz issued the commander with a precise and clear mission. No surprise there as any commander, not just Donitz, would be expected to do just that.

3) Yes, the boat was cramped and almost intolerable. All Type VII U-boats were cramped.

4) If I remember correctly, all the logs of the U-boat were destroyed by the commander, so is the date the boat crossed the equator verifiable in any way?

5) I would suggest that the provisions on the U-boat were used for what the provisions put on every other combat U-boat were used for - feeding their crews.

6) Schaeffer's widow wasn't aboard.

7) We already know that another U-boat surrendered in Argentina.

You posted: "Newton also insulted the Argentine Navy, accusing them of being so incompetent as to be unable to tell the difference between a drifting stick and a periscope." There is nothing insulting in this. In other much more experienced navies with far better anti-submarine detection equipment than the Argentines, such as the Royal or the US Navies, the vast majority of reported U-boat sightings were false alarms. Why should the Argentine Navy, which had much more primitive, pre-war submarine detection equipment, be any diferent?

What mystifies me is why small Type VII U-boats would even be considered as long distance supply boats, when they themselves had earlier relied on Milch Cow U-boats for resupply on trans-Atlantic operations? Besides, other larger, longer-range types were available.

I am prepared to believe anything provided it is backed by some verifiable evidence, but this proposition seems inherently implausible and doesn't appear to be backed by anything substantive.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Annelie]

What an interesting thread.

Some time ago I became acquainted with someone whom was doing research into the
Windhuk and Lejeune where this person, obviously found things of mystery.
He has spent years studing and researching his objective and his name comes up in books and even
the Library of Congress has contacted this person to ask if he had found anything related
to the ship yet?

To say that there are no unsolved mysteries today on the subject being discused here
would be a little short sighted.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Annelie,

The Windhuk was taken over by Brazil in 1942 and sold on to the US as the Lejeune. There is no obvious mystery surrounding her. She was one of over fifty German merchant ships that put into neutral Latin American ports with the intention of running home when a better opportunity presented itself. Dozens of them were take over by the Latin American host countries in late March 1941. Brazil was the last Latin American country to do so and took over other German vessls at the same time. Some fifty Italian mercant ships were also taken over by Latin American countries in similar circumstances.

This is an interesting subject not covered in English-language literature in any detail and is certainly worth investigating, but it is no mystery, just obscure.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. It would, indeed, be short sighted "to say that there are no unsolved mysteries today on the subject being discussed here". However, that is not the issue. The issue is the standard of verifiable evidence being offered on this subject, which seems to be rather lacking. We must be careful not to invent mysteries where there are none. History is more than speculation.