U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the submarine forces of the Kriegsmarine.
Post Reply
User avatar
Alaric
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2008, 00:02
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Contact:

Re: U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

#91

Post by Alaric » 19 Aug 2008, 16:54

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi Ohdruf,

I have received no PM containing your identity. Moreover, I have not asked for your identity and do not consider it of importance. We are all judged here by the accuracy of what we write. You have offered three sources, none of which actually conforms with what you claimed it contained and it is in this that you appear to be seriously wanting.

As you have failed to answer all bar one of my numerous points about your dubious representation of Schaeffer and Saldanha da Gama, I presume you are in agreement with them.

The only one you have answered is the least significant about, "..me presentó al jefe y comenzó la demostración." "Demostración" of what? Photographs? This is evidence of nothing.

The Brazilians certainly did consider the possibility that Bahia was torpedoed - and dismissed it. But that was not my point. My point was that you were claiming a source as an authority for propositions of yours when it wasn't. You certainly misrepresented the contents. I put it to you that you have never personally seen this source.

The collective position of Brazilian admirals is expressed in Volume V/II of their Historia Naval Brasileira, as cited above. Numerous of them contributed to this and the official version was and is that Bahia was lost in an accident for reasons given. Your contention that Brazilian admirals collectively doubt this conclusion is untrue.

The Bahia was actually engaged in working for the US as a rescue ship on the South Atlantic air bridge and the depthcharges that exploded aboard were of US origin. The USA was therefore involved in the Bahia affair from the start. Furthermore, as they held the two U-boat and their crews prisoner, they were the unavoidable authority on whether it was possible that either had torpedoed the Bahia. They advised not. This is not evidence of untoward US interference, but of the thoroughness of the Brazilian enquiry.

All in one box? Not according to your own quote from Salinas and De Napoli.

Nowhere in my version of Schaeffer's book does he say that conditions were unusually cramped for a submarine. If he does, what does he actually say? All submarines are cramped. It is the nature of submarines. The real problem was not unusual cramping but horrible conditions due to the exceptionally long period submerged.

Secondly, I pointed out to you that the paragraph before and after your selective quotation contains a good explanation as to why conditions were bad aboard, and I invited you to post it here. You have not done so. One reason Schaeffer gives is that because the U-boat did not surface for two months it had to store all its garbage aboard. Does your version not say that?

I see no trace of fast voyage/slow voyage inventiveness by Schaeffer. The positioning description is pretty sparse to concoct one accurate voyage itinerary, let alone two! Remember, the voyage to Argentina takes up only a about quarter of what is a relatively short book in the first place.

You have changed your tune on the Waffen-SS officer and his tour of "some Waffen-SS HQ or other". Now it is a "pantomime". Earlier you were using it as substantive evidence!

What evidence do you have that "Schäffer went to Waffen-SS HQ immediately after his interview with Dönitz"? Funny how this surfaces now!

You write "Schäffer must have been SS or SD himself". What is your evidence for that?

It seems unlikely in the extreme that if Shaeffer really was part of a plan to smuggle secret weapons to Argentina he would even touch on the subject in his publicly available book. It is also unlikely in the extreme that, on a "need to know basis" he would have been told anything about these wonder weapons!

In reply to your last three questions:

1) The cramped and inhospitable conditions on Schaeffer's submarine are explained in his book, in a paragraph I have already directed you to. I ask you again to put it up so that others can read it. If you don't, I will.

2) I don't know. How does "Schäffer say(s) that he was always 1000 miles further south than has been accepted hitherto"? What was the original version and source and what is the new version and source?

3) Who knows why Schaeffer does not say where he was between 10 July and 17 August 1945? He doesn't say where he was in dozens of other five week periods in his book either. Besides, when he was writing, he presumably didn't have access to his own log books, which can't have helped.

Absence of evidence is not evidence. I don't have to to explain where Schaeffer was as I am not disputing his original version. However, YOU do have to provide evidence that he was up to whatever nefarious activity it is you claim he was, if it differs from his original account. So far you haven't.

Cheers,

Sid.
"P.S. There is no author/editor "Ohdruf" in the British Library catalogue, which contains all books ever published in the UK. If you are unable to give your proper name, then this claim is not really admissable here. We can all claim such unverifiable things."

You most certainly did ask for his identity and you did consider it important. Why not ask again for it to be transmitted via PM since the first attempt was not received? Saying that there are no books in the British Library catalog under the obvious pseudonym of "Ohdruf" is like saying there is no author in the Library of Congress named Samuel Clemens; because he published under a different name(s). It's a non sequitur. Instead you, and another, make the insinuation that he's a liar.

I'm amused by the constant use of the term "conspiracy theorists" as a pejorative, especially by those I consider "coincidence theorists". Why is the idea that German submarines could be used for clandestine operations (i.e. "black ops") such an impossibility as you suggested earlier in this thread? American and British submarines certainly were. Let's not forget that U-530 was involved in something of a covert operation a year before the end of the war, around Cape Verde, when they met with Japanese submarine I-52 to transfer radar detection equipment. I-52 was carrying two tons of gold and 3 German technicians when she was caught on the service (U-530 had the sense to submerge) by American aircraft and sunk. U-234 was carrying a Me-262, 1235 pounds of uranium oxide, a Luftwaffe general named Kessler (who told American interrogators he intended to get off the boat in Argentina) and two Japanese officers who committed suicide after the captain of U-234 decided to surrender after Donitz order. Then there was the use of u-boats to drop off German agents on the U.S. east coast 1942-44, and the monsun boats. I think those count as covert ops.

Comparing Captain Schaffer's not saying where he was for 5 weeks after arriving off Argentina to any 5 week period of the war is just incredible. 'I don't have to account for his and his boats' whereabouts because I buy into the official theory despite evidence to the contrary' is circular logic at best. It's dodging the question, where was that boat and what were they doing for 5 weeks off the coast of Argentina, starting 2 months after their government surrendered. That is far more important that who wrote what in some obscure article. You talk of faulty American depth charges sinking the Bahia (was any American ship was ever lost to such a cause?) but fail to mention that four American sailors were on that ship, and were killed. If U-977 torpedoed and sank the Bahia, after being attacked months after the war in Europe ended, then the U.S. would have a reason to intervene with the Brazilians about not concluding it was a submarine attack. Four Americans on a foreign ship initiating an attack on a vessel whose government had surrendered two months before could be a hard sell, not to mention there was still a war against Japan and the planning for Operation Paperclip (originally Overcast) was beginning. Obviously the Americans and British were interested in knowing where his boat was for those 5 weeks, because they didn't buy his 66 day submerged run on extreme slow speed story either; not with all the extra interrogation he got.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

#92

Post by LWD » 19 Aug 2008, 17:29

Alaric wrote: ...
"P.S. There is no author/editor "Ohdruf" in the British Library catalogue, which contains all books ever published in the UK. If you are unable to give your proper name, then this claim is not really admissable here. We can all claim such unverifiable things."

You most certainly did ask for his identity and you did consider it important. Why not ask again for it to be transmitted via PM since the first attempt was not received? Saying that there are no books in the British Library catalog under the obvious pseudonym of "Ohdruf" is like saying there is no author in the Library of Congress named Samuel Clemens; because he published under a different name(s). It's a non sequitur. Instead you, and another, make the insinuation that he's a liar. ....
No he made a claim once he does so it's fair game. IE that there were books written on the subject by Ohdruf. He could have given his real name and not without revealing that ohdruf and the author of the books were the same person. This would have allowed people to find the referances and been a valid way of doing it. However by claiming to be an author of books on the topic but not giving his real name he is making unverifyable claims. It's not at all like saying their are no books by Samual Clemens in the Library of Congress because there is enough information available to quickly connect Samuel Clemens to Mark Twain and find the books.


User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

#93

Post by LWD » 19 Aug 2008, 17:35

Alaric wrote: ...I'm amused by the constant use of the term "conspiracy theorists" as a pejorative, especially by those I consider "coincidence theorists".
Care to go into a bit more detail. I think it's apparent why a number of us consider much of this thread under the perjorative defintion of "conspiracy theory".
Why is the idea that German submarines could be used for clandestine operations (i.e. "black ops") such an impossibility as you suggested earlier in this thread? American and British submarines certainly were.
I didn't see anyone on this thread say that they couldn't be so you've constructed a bit of a strawman here. What has been said is that the evidence does not support this particular case.
.... You talk of faulty American depth charges sinking the Bahia (was any American ship was ever lost to such a cause?) but fail to mention that four American sailors were on that ship, and were killed.
And that's relevant how?
If U-977 torpedoed and sank the Bahia, after being attacked months after the war in Europe ended, then the U.S. would have a reason to intervene with the Brazilians about not concluding it was a submarine attack. Four Americans on a foreign ship initiating an attack on a vessel whose government had surrendered two months before could be a hard sell, not to mention there was still a war against Japan ...
You're going to have to spell it out. I'm not sure what your point is in this.

Oh it's also not necessary to quote a whole post when only a sentance or two are relevant to your post. Rather a waste of bandwidth to do so.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

#94

Post by Sid Guttridge » 19 Aug 2008, 18:18

Hi Alaric,

If you think I "most certainly did ask for his identity and (...) did consider it important" you really ought to put up some evidence of this. You won't, because you can't, because there isn't any.

Similarly, if you think anyone is insinuating that Ohdruf is a liar, the onus is on you to provide some evidence. This is a serious accusation which you are obliged to back up. Indeed, I think you should take it straight to a Moderator.

I repeat, here on the internet we must necessarily all be judged by the content of our posts. Whether Ohdruf is really Ohdruf really doesn't matter, any more than whether you, I, or anyone else is using a pseudonym. It is the quality of what we write here that counts.

I don't have to defend positions and opinions that are not mine, but you do have to substantiate your attacks. Well?

I personally favour the term "cock-up theorist", but if you prefer "coincidence theorist", be my guest.

Naughty. You mustn't invent things I have not written. Where do I suggest the "idea that German submarines could be used for clandestine operations (i.e. "black ops") [was] such an impossibility"? It certainly wasn't any such thing. U-boats did so elsewhere, so why not Argentina? The problem is that there is absolutely no substantive evidence that they did. However, there is evidence that U-boats were forbidden to operate below the latitude of Florianopolis in southern Brazil.

(Actually the Abwehr did suggest the use of submarines to deliver agents to Argentina, but was rejected by the navy. It used a shrimp boat instead.)

There you go again, inventing things. Where did I ever " talk of faulty American depth charges sinking the Bahia...."? I didn't. Again, I don't have to defend things I haven't written.

And no, there is no onus on me to account for the movements of Schaffer's boat beyond what Schaffer himself says. The onus is on any conspiracy theorists (or others) to put together a plausible case contradicting him. This has not been done.

What is unusual about four US sailors being on the Bahia? The Bahia was operating on US behalf as a rescue ship under the South Atlantic Air Bridge.

In your short post you attribute at least four propositions to me that I do not hold and have not advanced. This is not a reputable way to proceed.

Please stop inventing things, knuckle down to the hard facts and, if you have one, put together a serious case. I am always ready to believe anything, provided substantive evidence is offered.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Alaric
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2008, 00:02
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Contact:

Re: U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

#95

Post by Alaric » 20 Aug 2008, 02:05

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi Alaric,

If you think I "most certainly did ask for his identity and (...) did consider it important" you really ought to put up some evidence of this. You won't, because you can't, because there isn't any.

I already posted your quote about no books under his pseudonym. If that's not clear enough for you, I don't know what to tell you except that you are engaging in an excercise in semantics that still makes no sense. The same with LWD's churlish comment.

Similarly, if you think anyone is insinuating that Ohdruf is a liar, the onus is on you to provide some evidence. This is a serious accusation which you are obliged to back up. Indeed, I think you should take it straight to a Moderator.

He said that he's had two books published, you claimed he didn't in that statement about not finding any book published under his pseudonym. It's pretty straightforward. You challenged him to provide his real identity, which he said he did in a Private Message. Either ask him to re-send it or let the matter end there. I think the moderators have already seen this, and unlike some I feel no need to complain to a moderator simply because someone disagrees with me. You two were both warned in this thread about insults and personal comments, I would think that would be sufficient.

I repeat, here on the internet we must necessarily all be judged by the content of our posts. Whether Ohdruf is really Ohdruf really doesn't matter, any more than whether you, I, or anyone else is using a pseudonym. It is the quality of what we write here that counts.

Yes it is. You've (collectively) turned this otherwise very interesting thread into a battle of personalities, throwing out red herrings about box 64 (have you received a replay from the naval attache' you were going to write and if so have you gone to the Argentine archives to see in person if this box 64 is indeed the only one holding information regarding 20th Century Argentine naval activities?) and the like and its degenerated into somewhat childish tit for tat long winded polemics.Both of you are better than that, and it detracts from some excellent and fascinating information (and questions) being put forth by both you and ohrdruf. No one should take such a rigid position on any issue, however controversial in nature it might be, that civilized dialogue cannot be maintained. I've seen this happen in regard to many subjects in many a varied forum, and it's most unfortunate.

I don't have to defend positions and opinions that are not mine, but you do have to substantiate your attacks. Well?

I agree. What attacks would those be, other than any hurt feelings on your part?

I personally favour the term "cock-up theorist", but if you prefer "coincidence theorist", be my guest.

If that is meant to be a vulgarity, I decline to participate. A 'coincidence theorist' is, to me, one that thinks everything happens by accident, doesn't believe or doesn't want to admit that anything conspiratorial in nature could possibly happen and takes the 'official view' on virtually everything, despite evidence to the contrary. But if that makes someone feel better, to deny other possibilities than what government reports put forth, then fine by me .

Naughty. You mustn't invent things I have not written. Where do I suggest the "idea that German submarines could be used for clandestine operations (i.e. "black ops") [was] such an impossibility"? It certainly wasn't any such thing. U-boats did so elsewhere, so why not Argentina? The problem is that there is absolutely no substantive evidence that they did. However, there is evidence that U-boats were forbidden to operate below the latitude of Florianopolis in southern Brazil.

It was actually this quote from vszulc that I had in mind when I wrote my reply:

Re: U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945
by vszulc on 18 Jun 2008 18:35

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?vszulc
Member

Posts: 82
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 05:27
Private messageE-mail

You did however post : "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?" which I probably confused with vszulc's post. I'd been up all night and neglected to go back and verify that, but should have anyway, so my apologies on that one. What is the evidence you speak of restricting u-boats to no further south than that point, when was it issued, and is it not conceivable that during a covert op such a restriction, after the German government had surrendered, would be ignored?


(Actually the Abwehr did suggest the use of submarines to deliver agents to Argentina, but was rejected by the navy. It used a shrimp boat instead.)

There you go again, inventing things. Where did I ever " talk of faulty American depth charges sinking the Bahia...."? I didn't. Again, I don't have to defend things I haven't written.

You have stated your belief in the official report of the sinking of the Bahia, which makes no mention of a torpedo attack from a u-boat. Yes, it was not faulty depth charges that was ruled the official cause of the sinking of the Bahia, but rather supposedly some idiot firing a 20mm cannon at targets thrown into the water and managing to hit a depth charge with one of the 20mm shells, setting off the other charges and destroying the ship. Again, being tired is no excuse for my not re-checking that before I hit the submit button, but that's what I did. So again, my apologies on that as well. However, my point was and is an u-boat, particularly U-977, was being suspected as the culprit and its' C.O. being interrogated at length regarding it.

And no, there is no onus on me to account for the movements of Schaffer's boat beyond what Schaffer himself says. The onus is on any conspiracy theorists (or others) to put together a plausible case contradicting him. This has not been done.

No, there isn't. However, to cavalierly disregard the importance of the unaccounted for 5 weeks between July 10 1945 and August 17 1945 by saying it's no more important than any other 5 week period in U-977's wartime career is illogical. As stated by the original poster, the purpose of this forum is an exchange of ideas. The purpose of this thread is to discuss evidence, and frankly to postulate some theories, about U-boats unloading cargo off Argentina in late July 1945. The original poster, ohrdruf, has laid out his evidence and expanded on it. You're free to question it, but please don't say that 5 weeks of unaccounted for activity by this boat at that time is no more important than any other 5 week period. I don't recall you saying whether you have the 1955 Spanish language edition (El Secreto del U-977) that ohrdruff says was published privately in Buenos Aires and differs significantly from the earlier 1950 edition; or the 1950 version. I would be interested in knowing which version you own.

What is unusual about four US sailors being on the Bahia? The Bahia was operating on US behalf as a rescue ship under the South Atlantic Air Bridge.

I didn't say there was anything unusual about it. However ohrdruf states in the early part of this thread that the Bahia was operating as an ASW craft, and that it was conducting surface target practice at the time of it's destruction. I suppose it could serve both functions, but not effeciently at the same time. Since you are a stickler for proof of everything, can you show some documentation that Bahia was on air/sea rescue duty? My point in mentioning the four American sailors I thought was apparent, that is if the Bahia was engaged in an attack on U-977 and if U-977 sank the Bahia in return, then the deaths of four Americans on this foreign ship (possibly) engaged in a post-war attack on a sub whose government had already surrendered might be something they'd not want made public at that time and could be a (at least) contributing reason to pressure the Brazilians to create an "accident" story to account for the loss of the Bahia. I do know, nor have I claimed to know, what the actual cause of the loss of the Bahia is. I simply say there is room for doubt.

In your short post you attribute at least four propositions to me that I do not hold and have not advanced. This is not a reputable way to proceed.

Four? I count two, and even those are stretching it; and I have offered apologies for those.

Please stop inventing things, knuckle down to the hard facts and, if you have one, put together a serious case. I am always ready to believe anything, provided substantive evidence is offered.

Fine. Please stop playing a victim of some alleged slight or another and step of out that serious case of denial (i.e. "I didn't ask him to identify himself": "P.S. There is no author/editor "Ohdruf" in the British Library catalogue, which contains all books ever published in the UK. If you are unable to give your proper name, then this claim is not really admissable here. We can all claim such unverifiable things." (that in my opinion is insinuating he's lying about his credentials and being a published author), stop engaging in semantics and circular logic. And before you say '(w)ell that's just your opinion' or attempt some other way to backpedal that your choice of words leaves an opening for, your intent was obvious no matter what spin you want to put on it. It detracts from whatever kind of case you are trying to make.

Cheers,

Sid.
Best Regards,

Alaric
Last edited by Alaric on 20 Aug 2008, 02:22, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Alaric
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2008, 00:02
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Contact:

Re: U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

#96

Post by Alaric » 20 Aug 2008, 02:07

LWD wrote:
Alaric wrote: ...I'm amused by the constant use of the term "conspiracy theorists" as a pejorative, especially by those I consider "coincidence theorists".
Care to go into a bit more detail. I think it's apparent why a number of us consider much of this thread under the perjorative defintion of "conspiracy theory".
Why is the idea that German submarines could be used for clandestine operations (i.e. "black ops") such an impossibility as you suggested earlier in this thread? American and British submarines certainly were.
I didn't see anyone on this thread say that they couldn't be so you've constructed a bit of a strawman here. What has been said is that the evidence does not support this particular case.
.... You talk of faulty American depth charges sinking the Bahia (was any American ship was ever lost to such a cause?) but fail to mention that four American sailors were on that ship, and were killed.
And that's relevant how?
If U-977 torpedoed and sank the Bahia, after being attacked months after the war in Europe ended, then the U.S. would have a reason to intervene with the Brazilians about not concluding it was a submarine attack. Four Americans on a foreign ship initiating an attack on a vessel whose government had surrendered two months before could be a hard sell, not to mention there was still a war against Japan ...
You're going to have to spell it out. I'm not sure what your point is in this.

Oh it's also not necessary to quote a whole post when only a sentance or two are relevant to your post. Rather a waste of bandwidth to do so.
I really don't think Sid needs you to be his advocate nor his lapdog. I've answered your redundant questions in my reply to him.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

#97

Post by Sid Guttridge » 20 Aug 2008, 13:17

Hi Alaric,

I am not responsible for what you willfully wish to misrepresent. If you wish to make accusations of this nature you should do two things - substantiate them and take them to a moderator. The fact that you are avoiding my invitation to do either tells us all we need to know about the genuiness of your accusations.

No. I was not "warned in this thread about insults and personal comments". That was directed at Ohdruf specifically because of comments he had made in his previous post. My only previous post was completely devoid of anything that could be regarded as an insult. Please check both his and my previous posts.

Box 64 was not raised by me. If it is "red herring" you should lay it at someone else's door. Similarly, if you want to refer to a quote from vszulc, please raise it with him. I can't be held responsible for the opinions of third parties.

There were no "long winded polemics" before you joined the thread. I invite others to check. Both I and Ohdruf conducted this on a sourced basis. I may disagree with Ohdruf, but at least he tried to advance his line of argument on a sourced basis. The same cannot be said of either of your last two contributions to this thread, which contain not a single new fact that might widen understanding of this subject.

The only rigid stand I am taking is on the matter of substantive evidence. I want some but you aren't offering any.

Hurt feelings on my part? Definitely. I very much object to being willfully misrepresented in the entirely unsubstantiated manner you are doing. So would anyone. You posted of me "Instead you...... make the insinuation that he's a liar." I did no such thing. That is entirely your chosen spin.

Thanks for your definition of "coincidence theorist". It excludes me very convincingly.

Again you are inventing things. I did not "say" anything to the effect that "the 5 weeks between July 10 1945 and August 17 1945" were "no more important than any other 5 week period in U-977's wartime career". So again I don't have to defend this.

No, Bahia was not operating as an ASW (presumably anti-submarine warfare?) craft. She was a light cruiser being used as a rescue ship for the South Atlantic Air Bridge in peacetime. Please read the Brazilian official naval history.

So, you see room for doubt about the Bahia's loss? Join the club. Of course there is. The ship sank without trace and there were absolutely no other witnesses beyond the survivors.

What there is not, is any evidence that a U-boat sank her. Absolutely none. Of the two U-boats still at large, it is an undisputed fact that one was too far away and an undisputed fact that the other never used any of her torpedoes.

After a full inquiry using all available evidence the Brazilians concluded that the loss of Bahia was an accident. Her stern blew off during live anti-aircraft firing exercises. These are indisputable facts. She was also not equipped with guide rails to prevent inboard firing. Another indisputable fact. Add witness statements and you have a case that, although not beyond all doubt, is arguably beyond reasonable doubt.

If you want to take a useful part in this discussion, I strongly recommend that you go back to sources as both Ohdruf and I have done. I may disagree with Ohdruf, but I do respect the fact that he at least tried to assemble a a cogent, sourced argument. However, you are not making any such effort.

If you have any substantive knowledge on this subject I would be glad to address it. But until then all you are doing is clogging up a factually-based thread with inaccuracy and unsubstantiated personal innuendo.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Bernd R
Member
Posts: 4637
Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 16:12
Location: Bavaria, Germany

Re: U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

#98

Post by Bernd R » 20 Aug 2008, 21:15

Sid, LWD and Alaric,

after reading the last postings three times and taking into account also the connections to the discussions before in this thread I come to the decision to keep them as an "intermezzo".

As you all know the characteristics of this topic, making it very interesting, not to say fascinating for many readers, are
1) Theses and Anti-theses, facts, conclusions and theories are presented with many and strong arguments, sometimes resulting in a hard and tappered off discussion style which is accepted by all parties as long as clear fouls will be avoided.
2) So many details and single points are provided, as well as sources and books are quoted, that makes it really difficult for amateurs, newcomers and ad-hoc interested readers to get the full picture and to understand every new posting.

Now, with Alaric's posting from 19 Aug 2008 15:54 a kind of self-reflection, summary of the discussions or parts of it at least and especially a talk about who said what and what was meant by that was started. This doesn't help that much as long as it is predominantly
engaging in an excercise in semantics
and not connected to facts and arguments.

If we would have a big and detailed summary of the topic, listing the arguments and points of disagreement - even in a short version, pointing out the real problematic points - the one or other interpretation of what was meant by a statement might make sense. But there are summaries inside. Eventually a short recapitulation would help nevertheless.

Alaric,
it would be very much preferable if you wouldn't quote a whole posting but instead quote a shorter passage and refer to that single point. No problem with that "put word against word style" in your second post.

You wrote :
[...]You've (collectively) turned this otherwise very interesting thread into a battle of personalities, throwing out red herrings about box 64 (...) and the like and its degenerated into somewhat childish tit for tat long winded polemics.Both of you are better than that, and it detracts from some excellent and fascinating information (and questions) being put forth by both you and ohrdruf. No one should take such a rigid position on any issue, however controversial in nature it might be, that civilized dialogue cannot be maintained. I've seen this happen in regard to many subjects in many a varied forum, and it's most unfortunate
The polemics are stopped and out, the topic wasn't destroyed by some irritations and there is no "battle" here, a very engaged ! discussion only. You re-started this all.
As you and Sid did have an exchange of arguments and statements about several points this is regarded by me as part of your free participation basically, with the possibility to express your point of view and to claim or defend a position.
Instead of making a ref call for every controversial point I'll let it up to the readers perception and judgement who of you both has the better argument or interpretation.

But Alaric,
if it comes to misrepresentations and accusations towards Sid it's at the edge of the rules just to attack him because he said something and to criticize the fact that he said something. I have to admit that you provided additional arguments and replies furtheron. But as it's you who started with partly off-topic things here (with Sid having had the fair chance to reply), we have been through, I remind you to leave out personal remarks.

I can't share your imputation that Sid is calling Ohrdruf a liar !
The relevant words by Sid
"P.S. There is no author/editor "Ohdruf" in the British Library catalogue, which contains all books ever published in the UK. If you are unable to give your proper name, then this claim is not really admissable here. We can all claim such unverifiable things."
is a critics of not providing clear information and not telling the whole truth about the name. Sid never said Ohrdruf is not an author, because he (and we) don't know that ! Ohrdruf was free to handle and/or end the name matter and there is no pressure and "challenge" about this name thing for him here in the forum !
So, there are subtle distinctions of saying things and Sid's choice should be regarded as OK and allowed in a serious discussion.

If it comes to a serious style of discussion, Alaric, this answer to LWD
I really don't think Sid needs you to be his advocate nor his lapdog. I've answered your redundant questions in my reply to him
doesn't match your own demands quoted above !


So, on base of this re-adjustment, feel free to go on with the topic and please understand that all off-topic postings will be deleted on sight by this Moderator.

Thanks, Bernd / Mod

PS : if it's the case really that you, Alaric and Sid, feel treated unfair by this moderation I tend to give you one shot free for a reply. Ask yourself please, if you can take the challenge to express your essential points in connection to the topic here and to get a potential input and progress of the discussion. Sid, don't misunderstand, you provided a lot of input here already.

ohrdruf
Member
Posts: 862
Joined: 15 May 2004, 23:02
Location: south america

Re: U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

#99

Post by ohrdruf » 22 Aug 2008, 16:33

I have abstained from posting in this forum for several months. That I enter the fray again at this point is due to a major transformation in my understanding of the situation YEARS AFTER 1945. I am not sure that this new information belongs in this thread but I am prepared to compile a posting in two Parts. The first Part I will post over the coming weekend. Depending on the quality of replies to the first Part I will post the second.

I would like to explain where I was leading with Schäffer's book "El Secreto del U-977". It is clear from this book, and the interrogation of Schäffer released by the Argentine naval archive in 2002, that there were "two voyages". The book has as its basis the "66-day always submerged" voyage accepted by historians which got Schäffer to the Cape Verde Islands on 23 July 1945. He gives his calculations for fuel and speed from there and arrives on the last drop of fuel at Mar del Plata on 17 August 1945. We know that this long submerged voyage was concocted afterwards, for even the official USN document describing the voyage does not have a clear period of 66 days from Norway to the Cape Verdes.

The "second voyage" in the book coincides with the Argentine Navy interrogation report. Schäffer includes just a couple of paragraphs which the casual observer such as Sid Gutteridge would not pick up. The important little paragraphs are these:

(1) In the opening chapter, Schäffer recounts a conversation he had with the Argentine base commander at Mar del Plata on 17 August 1945. They are both looking at the charts Schäffer has provided. Mallea states: "If these charts are correct, you were fifty miles away from the place where the Brazilian cruiser 'Bahía' was sunk on 4 July 1945." This statement coincides with the declassified Argentine Navy interrogation report of 2002.
On 4 July 1945 therefore, since 'Bahía' was sunk on the Equator, Schäffer was actually within fifty miles of the Equator when he is supposed to have been still submerged on his way to the Cape Verdes, a thousand miles to the north.

(2) In his book, after Schäffer has left the Equator on 4 July 1945 as we have now deduced, he makes a statement about his next position. He was "off Rio de Janeiro" he says, when he "heard of the surrender of U-530 at Mar del Plata." This was sensational news broadcast worldwide on 10 July 1945. We may therefore infer that U-977 was off Rio de Janeiro on 10 July 1945. He is supposed to have still been submerged on his way to the Cape Verdes on 10 July 1945. This gave rise to my observation that his whereabouts between 10 July 1945 and 17 August 1945 are unknown, and nowhere does he mention where he was. The partial Argentine Navy interrogation report is silent on his whereabouts after 4 July 1945.

Because of the new information I have received and to which I referred in the opening paragraph, it is no longer so compelling for me to attempt to discover where Schäffer was and what was aboard his boat. The mystery which does need to be resolved is that of why it was so important for everybody at the time to have Schäffer nowhere near the Equator at 0900 on 4 July 1945 when the Brazilain light cruiser 'Bahía' mysteriously blew up.

Sid Gutteridge has gone to great lengths, relying on this document and that to prove facts and suppositions which have no bearing on the allegation I made, darkly hinting at fraudulent aspects of my account, to disprove that U-977 could have sunk the 'Bahía'. This is because Sid Gutteridge, as would anyone else at his level of shallow thought, naturally thinks that "submarine sinks cruiser" must imply "torpedo".

What did the Brazilian naval enquiry consider was the proximate cause of the sinking of the 'Bahía'? A 2-mm Oerlikon was negligently discharged into a batch of depth charges on deck. These blew up. They should not have blown up, because depth charges are made so as not to blow up if MG rounds are fired into them, but this particular batch supplied by the US Navy was found to be defective. The only evidence taken by the enquiry was the report of the 3rd engineering officer Lt Diaz Torres who was in the engine room when the disaster happened. He HEARD some firing but actually saw nothing. The evidence of the witnesses on deck at the time was not called.

All deck witnesses stated that 'Bahía' had been stationary in the water while a target float was lowered. Simultaneously with the cruiser moving ahead, a mysterious vessel was spotted a few miles off the starboard quarter. It was identiied as a disguised submarine. Number 7 Oerlikon was ordered to fire a burst ahead of the submarine to bring it to a stop. As the burst was fired, the submarine replied from a gun on the after deck. The stern of the cruiser immediately blew up and the ship sank within five minutes.

Here we have the refusal of an official enquiry to accept testimony which indicates clearly an alternative possible cause for the loss of the 'Bahía'. Why? Because the submarine fired back at the cruiser and by a dreadful misadventure a round hit the defective depth charges on the poop and the ship blew up. It was obviously not the intention of Schäffer to sink the 'Bahía' but to gain time to submerge.

It is interesting that Schäffer arrived at Mar del Plata with all his weapons and ammunition intact except for the flak ammunition which had been ditched. In his book, and we know he was at the Equator ("within fifty miles if these charts are right") of the position where 'Bahía' was sunk, he stated that during the Crossing the Line ceremony he heard aircraft, presumably of the US air bridge, and had his flak manned. "If we are fired upon we shall return fire," he wrote, "we shall not allow ourselves to be taken alive."

The mystery of the 'Bahía', and some of the questions resolving the voyage of U-977 are now resolved. No action was taken against Schäffer, who innocently sank the´'Bahía', and the Argentine, Brazilian and US navies all collaborated to allow him to dock at Mar del Plata, tell his 66-day submerged story and so ensure that the matter of the defective US depth charges should be, as much as humanly possible, buried.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

#100

Post by LWD » 22 Aug 2008, 18:25

ohrdruf wrote:.... This is because Sid Gutteridge, as would anyone else at his level of shallow thought, naturally thinks that "submarine sinks cruiser" must imply "torpedo".
Was this insult really called for? Why would any sub captain in his right mind get in a gun battle with a cruiser and not fire torpedos?
... A 2-mm Oerlikon was negligently discharged into a batch of depth charges on deck.
No one used 2-mm guns in WWII. 20mm is considered a cannon by most and may have explosive shells.
These blew up. They should not have blown up, because depth charges are made so as not to blow up if MG rounds are fired into them, but this particular batch supplied by the US Navy was found to be defective.
Not necessarily defective. If you shoot at explosives sometimes they go off and sometimes they don't. If you don't want them to do so you try to minimize it but you can't eliminate it.
... Because the submarine fired back at the cruiser and by a dreadful misadventure a round hit the defective depth charges on the poop and the ship blew up. It was obviously not the intention of Schäffer to sink the 'Bahía' but to gain time to submerge.
[/quote]
Why would they even still be on the surface? A cruiser is a lot easier to spot than a sub and they should have been able to easily avoid her.
...
The mystery of the 'Bahía', and some of the questions resolving the voyage of U-977 are now resolved. No action was taken against Schäffer, who innocently sank the´'Bahía', and the Argentine, Brazilian and US navies all collaborated to allow him to dock at Mar del Plata, tell his 66-day submerged story and so ensure that the matter of the defective US depth charges should be, as much as humanly possible, buried.
Hardly it's not even clear that there was a mystery of the Bahia and why would the US go to such trouble to explain this occasion of depth charges detonating at the wrong point? Many other problems with US equipment were noted during the war and no effort was made to hide them.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

#101

Post by Sid Guttridge » 23 Aug 2008, 11:41

Hi Ohdruf,

1) I don't think you can use the statement "If these charts are correct, you were fifty miles away from the place where the Brazilian cruiser 'Bahía' was sunk on 4 July 1945." to indicate anything other than that the charts indicate that Schaffer was NOT at the site of Bahia's sinking, and by a considerable margin. If my GPS is right, I am fifty miles from France, but I doubt I am likely to be charged with any murder that takes place today in the Pas de Calais on those grounds!

2) According to your quote Schaeffer says "he was "off Rio de Janeiro"..... when he "heard of the surrender of U-530 at Mar del Plata." ". Schaffer does not say that U-530 had only just surrendered. He only reports when he first heard of it while off Rio de Janeiro. Thus you are not in a position to infer anything about his poisition when U-530 actually surrendered - only when he heard about it.

In both the sourced quotes you give, I would suggest that you are succombing to failure of logic.

Everything else you write is without any supporting evidence or sources. As I said before, I am happy to believe anything so long as you provide some evidence, but without verifiable sources it carries no weight and cannot be addressed.

The likelihood that a submarine fully equipped with torpedoes would deliberately take on a light cruiser in an entirely avoidable surface action is inherently improbable. As far as I am aware, it would be without precedent in naval history. For it then to sink the light cruiser with its first shot would be miraculous.

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. You are, as yet, providing none.

Cheers,

Sid.

varjag
Member
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002, 02:44
Location: Australia

Re: U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

#102

Post by varjag » 23 Aug 2008, 12:56

@ my friend ohrdruf''''
What did the Brazilian naval enquiry consider was the proximate cause of the sinking of the 'Bahía'? A 2-mm Oerlikon was negligently discharged into a batch of depth charges on deck. These blew up. They should not have blown up, because depth charges are made so as not to blow up if MG rounds are fired into them,
Well now, any explosive charge - is designed to do just that, blow up. Under a heavy blow, provided by a fuse or ignitor.
A 20mm Oerlikon round - is a superb hammerblow and will set off just about any HE charge. More particularly if it has a High Explosive projectile. And as BAHIA's Oerlikons were anti-aircraft guns, I'll bet my bottom dollar - they were loaded with HE.
All deck witnesses stated that 'Bahía' had been stationary in the water while a target float was lowered. Simultaneously with the cruiser moving ahead, a mysterious vessel was spotted a few miles off the starboard quarter. It was identiied as a disguised submarine. Number 7 Oerlikon was ordered to fire a burst ahead of the submarine to bring it to a stop. As the burst was fired, the submarine replied from a gun on the after deck. The stern of the cruiser immediately blew up and the ship sank within five minutes.
Come now...a disguised submarine. No matter how you disguise a submarine - it pretty much looks - what it is, a bloody submarine :)

And 'a few miles off' when BAHIA's Oerlikon is ordered to fire a few rounds across it's bow. Now 'a few' is usually interpreted as 'four'. It's certainly more than two or three - it could four or even five - but let's settle for four. There are as u know two kinds of miles on the oceans. There is the Imperial land Mile (1609 meters) - but also the Nautical Mile which is 1852 meters. If 'only' land-miles the distance between the 'disguised submarine' and the cruiser would have been at least, 6436 meters but possibly 7408.....At that distance - one simply does not use a 20mm - gun. It cannot reach that far :P . Besides, the U 977 did not have a gun on the after deck - nor on the foredeck....

http://www.u-historia.com/uhistoria/his ... t-u977.jpg

All she had - was two double 20mm's and a single 37mm on her turret, all anti-aircraft guns. Now please do not suggest that they used the heavier 37mm-gun to hit BAHIA's depth-charges.....neither of those guns were equipped with sights for firing at surface targets over those distances. Which, as the Germans counted naval firing distances in Hektometers (= 100 meters) - the Feuer Frei over 64 or 74 Hektometers - would have been Blödsinn

Best regards from Varjag
:)

ohrdruf
Member
Posts: 862
Joined: 15 May 2004, 23:02
Location: south america

Re: U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

#103

Post by ohrdruf » 23 Aug 2008, 19:52

At last! Sid Guttridge admits the existence of the statement at page 19 of Schaeffer's book that U-977 was about fifty miles from the position where 'Bahía" was thought to have sunk. The statement that U-977 was on the Equator on 4 July 1945 coincides with the interrogation report of 2002. That is the main point I have been attempting to have acknowledged all along, that the accepted history of the U-977 is false.

At page 222, after crossing the Equator, Schaeffer states "The radio reports that U-530 has entered the port of Mar del Plata".. and two paragraphs later states "I see reflected on the skyline the lights of Rio de Janeiro." Therefore he is at the Equator on 4 July, he hears the radio report of 10 July respecting the surrender of U-530, an international sensation, and then he sees the lights of Rio de Janeiro. That is the order of the occurrence in his book. He did not hear the radio report regarding the surrender of U-530 before he crossed the Equator, but after. This supports the allegation that the accepted history of U-977 whereabouts at any given time is not correct.

Accordingly, U-977 was always far more advanced southwards than people have been disposed to accept.

As respects earlier argumentation about the cramped conditions aboard U-977 or otherwise and the possible reason for them. U-977 was proceeding at reasonable speed towards the Equator submerged only by day. Schaeffer had disembarked 18 men, and so his statement at page 203 "si bien hemos desembarcado 16 hombres el espacio sigue siendo aún muy reducido" ("even though we have disembarked 16 men the space continues to be very reduced") raises a question. Since there were only 32 men aboard and the boat was operating in normal service conditions for a Type VII, why was the space "still" very reduced? The word "still" implies that there was something of a temporary nature aboard which was causing the space aboard the boat to be very reduced.

In connection with this "very reduced space" we see that at page 214 repeated at 222 is the assertion by Schaeffer that "if we are attacked by aircraft or warships we shall defend ourselves. We shall not allow the boat to fall into enemy hands." If we think about this for just a moment we see that it appears to be so important for Schaeffer to get to Mar del Plata with an allegedly empty boat that he is prepared to take on aircraft and warships to prevent "the enemy", which includes Argentina of course, obtaining possession of the boat beforehand. One must draw the conclusion that there was something aboard U-977 which had to be transferred off before he surrendered at Mar del Plata.

I did send Sid Guttridge a PM with my identity. As he did not receive it and and I see from the material above that it seems to be important to contributors in some way I think I am obliged to identify myself. As Geoffrey Brooks I am the author of two books; "Hirschfeld" (Pen & Sword/USNIP, 1997) which I wrote in collaboration with Wolfgang Hirschfeld, radio operator of U-234, and "FIPS" (same publisher, 1999) an edited translation of the autobiography of WWI U-boat commander Werner Fürbringer. I am also the translator on commission of thirty German language military books for UK publishers.

In connection with the above, Hirschfeld mentioned something to me which happened during the U-234 voyage from Frederikshavn to Norway, certain details of which he wanted kept out of our joint book during his lifetime. Until the publication of Schäffer's book I saw no reason to mention it but as there is a coincidence between the two voyages, I shall post the material as a matter of interest.
Last edited by ohrdruf on 23 Aug 2008, 20:36, edited 3 times in total.

ohrdruf
Member
Posts: 862
Joined: 15 May 2004, 23:02
Location: south america

Re: U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

#104

Post by ohrdruf » 23 Aug 2008, 20:10

Dear Friend Varjag

Respecting the defective depth charges, I will supply what I have on this if you request it. The Brazilian experts were not expecting to see the test batch explode during the tests afterwards.

The number of rounds fired by Oerlikon No. 7 and counted by Lt Torres in the engine rom was five.

The flak guns aboard U-977 had the range to hit the "Bahía". Whether or not sights were fitted is irrelevant. The intention was to gain time to submerge, not engage the cruiser in battle. That a round may have hit the stern of the cruiser was an unfortunate accident. The witnesses described the disguise of the submarine, which was seen to rapidly submerge after the incident. Schaeffer has U-977 disguised in the same manner, as he describes in his book, but he may have seen the survivors' claims before writing it.

User avatar
crolick
Member
Posts: 279
Joined: 25 Oct 2005, 21:18
Location: Warszawa, Polska

Re: U-boats Unloading on Argentine Coast, 27 July 1945

#105

Post by crolick » 23 Aug 2008, 20:32

ohrdruf wrote:The flak guns aboard U-977 had the range to hit the "Bahía". Whether or not sights were fitted is irrelevant. The intention was to gain time to submerge, not engage the cruiser in battle.
May I ask how on earth firing at a cruiser might gain time to submerge for U-boot?!

Post Reply

Return to “U-Boats”