New telling of Laconia incident...

[longdog499]

From the Daily Mirror newspaper Friday 18th July...

Boys from the Blackstuff writer Alan Bleasdale to pen new series about a Nazi submarine



By Mark Jefferies 18/07/2008 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/07/18/boys-from-the-blackstuff-writer-alan-bleasdale-to-pen-new-series-about-a-nazi-submarine-89520-20653150/2008/07/18/)

Related Articles

The writer of 80s telly classic Boys from the Blackstuff is to pen a new series about a Nazi submarine.
It will be the first drama in more than 20 years Alan Bleasdale has written for the BBC.
His new work will tell the story of the infamous Laconia Incident, which changed maritime warfare.
British vessel RMS Laconia was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat on September 12, 1942.

When its captain, Werner Hartenstein discovered the ship was carrying civilians and Italian PoWs as well as British soldiers he attempted to shepherd 200 survivors to safety against the orders of the Nazi high command. They were crammed on the top of the vessel with Red Cross flags draped over its guns to appeal for rescue.
But a US bomber assumed it was a trick and attacked, killing many survivors.
Bleasdale, 62, said: "This is an astonishing tale of bravery, humanity, warmth and near madness. Every writer must dream of being given a story such as this."
BBC2 Controller Roly Keating said: "Alan Bleasdale has written classic TV drama so it is fantastic to bring his ambitious new work to the channel."
Boys from the Blackstuff, set in Bleasdale's native Liverpool, tells the story of five jobless tarmac layers and was a bitter blast at Thatcherism. Its stars included Bernard Hill as Yosser Hughes.
Bleasdale's last piece for the BBC was The Monocled Mutineer in 1986. Laconia is a British-German co-production.

[Sailor Steve]

Sounds interesting, to say the least.:sunny:

[STEED]

You can just see Yosser standing on the docks shouting out, "Give me a job." Before he head-butts them. :rotfl:

[GoldenRivet]

sounds interesting.

am i to understand this is to be a televised event?

[longdog499]

Yes I think so. Alan Bleasdale is a great writer. The other two pieces of his work mentioned in the article were excellent especially ' Boys from the Blackstuff ' which told the story of five Liverpool lads out of work during Thatchers' reign of terror in the Eighties. The other piece, 'The Monocled Mutineer' told the true story of a British soldier who deserted from the army some time during WWI and went on the run from the law. He launched a sort of one-man crime wave and was chased the length and breadth of the UK, hiding at one time incidently in a small chapel a few miles from here. I believe he was eventually shot dead by armed police somewhere in the Lake District. Anyway with a writer of Bleasdales pedigree the new Laconia story should be well worth watching.

[Jimbuna]

You can just see Yosser standing on the docks shouting out, "Give me a job." Before he head-butts them. :rotfl:

Or...."I can do that" :lol:

If his skills at writing comedy are adaptable to non fiction, it should be well worth a viewing.

I only hope a little of the budget is spent on decent props and not poor 'a little similar looking' crap.

[-SWCowboy.]

Just the summary of the story got my attention, hopefully they air it on my cable network! :up:

[Randomizer]

The "against orders of the Nazi high command" comment is a bit of a stretch since BdU actually ordered other U-Boats to U-156's aid prior to the air attack. Still, one can well imagine what a Hollywood version might look like, hopefully this guy can do the incident justice.
Good Hunting

[Contact]

The next morning, September 16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_16), at 11:25am, the four submarines, with Red Cross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross) flags draped across their gun decks, were spotted by an American B-24 Liberator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-24_Liberator) bomber from Ascension Island. Hartenstein signalled to the pilot requesting assistance. Lieutenant James D. Harden of the U.S. Army Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Forces) turned away and notified his base of the situation. The senior officer on duty that day, Captain Robert C. Richardson III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Richardson_III), replied with the order "Sink sub."

********* *******! This is definetely a war crime :-?

[Jimbuna]

The "against orders of the Nazi high command" comment is a bit of a stretch since BdU actually ordered other U-Boats to U-156's aid prior to the air attack. Still, one can well imagine what a Hollywood version might look like, hopefully this guy can do the incident justice.
Good Hunting

He is a very well known and respected writer in the UK...so let us all hope he can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Bleasdale

[von hally]

From the Daily Mirror newspaper Friday 18th July...

Boys from the Blackstuff writer Alan Bleasdale to pen new series about a Nazi submarine





nazi submarine......talk about being tarred with the same brush........

[Randomizer]

@Jimbuna. Thanks for the link but can't say that I have heard of him before and didn't see any of his work that was familier.

The Laconia incident and the fallout from it has always struck me as one of those historical events where an accurate account would be far more entertaining than any possible dramatization. Leaving aside any hysterical accusations of war crimes it is certainly a story worth telling. I'm pretty sure that Hollywood's hack writers would produce hyperbolic garbage (but with good fx and maybe Brad Pitt as KL Hartenstein:down: ), perhaps this Alan Bleasdale can treat the story with balance and authenticity. Just my $0.02, adjusted for a fuel surcharge.
Good Hunting

[Jimbuna]

Rgr that with regard to the balance and authenticity http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif

[Sonarman]

Some news on the casting of this drama about the Laconia incident has now appeared over at broadcastnow.co.uk (http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/cox-signed-up-for-bbc2-drama/5005856.article)

[Feuer Frei!]

The "against orders of the Nazi high command" comment is a bit of a stretch since BdU actually ordered other U-Boats to U-156's aid prior to the air attack. Still, one can well imagine what a Hollywood version might look like, hopefully this guy can do the incident justice.
Good Hunting

Correct,
"Meanwhile, back in U-boat headquarters in Paris, Donitz was startled by Hartenstein’s actions. Although he ordered for no such rescues to take place, this time he not only allowed it, but nevertheless supported it. Donitz would explain many years later, “to give them an order contrary to the laws of humanity would have destroyed it (the crews morale) utterly”.

In fact:
" Admiral Dönitz, immediately ordered two other U-boats to divert to the scene".

Under the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907)

The Hague Conventions were international treaties negotiated at the First and Second Peace Conferences at The Hague, Netherlands in 1899 and 1907, respectively, and were, along with the Geneva Conventions, among the first formal statements of the laws of war and war crimes in the nascent body of secular international law....
, hospital ships are protected from attack, but their identity must be communicated to belligerents (III, 1-3) (WHICH THE U-BOOT DID), they must be painted white with a Red Cross emblem (III, 5), (OK, SO NOT PAINTED, BUT A FLAG), and must not be used for other purposes (III, 4) (WHICH THE U-BOOT WASN'T). Since a submarine remained a military vessel even if hors de combat.
Hors de Combat, literally meaning "out of the fight," is a French term used in diplomacy and international law to refer to soldiers who are incapable of performing their military function....
, the Red Cross emblem did not confer automatic protection, although in many cases it would have been allowed as a practical matter. The order given by Richardson has been called a possibleWar crime
War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including but not limited to "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoner of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devast...
, but the use of a Red Cross flag by an armed military vessel would also be a violation.(I CAN SEE WHY, BUT SURELY IT WAS PLAIN TO SEE THAT A RESCUE MISSION WAS IN EFFECT). There is no provision in either convention for temporary designation of a hospital or rescue ship. Under the informal rules of war at sea, however, ships engaged in rescue operations are held immune from attack. (PURELY DISCRETIONARY THIS ONE OBVIOUSLY).

My thoughts are that the bombing and depth-charging was "in very bad taste", that of course is a understatement to say the least, guess i'm being diplomatic.

[Captain Nemo]

Interesting news thanks for posting longdog499. Apparently filming started on this production on 12 September the 67th anniversary of the sinking of Laconia. It's going to be a two part drama each 90 minutes in length. More information when available will be posted on the BBC website here http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/comingup/sinkingofthelaconia/ . Nothing on there yet but probably worth keeping an eye on.

Nemo

[Ancient Mariner]

So really the pilots/commanders of the us airbase should have been tried as war criminals? If it was obvious a rescue mission was underway and the bombing/depth charging happened wouldnt that be in direct violation of the rules of engagement?:hmmm:

[Schroeder]

Depends on whether you win or loose the war.;)

[Ancient Mariner]

well as from a neutral point of view,fact remains the germans were helping to rescue people

[Feuer Frei!]

well as from a neutral point of view,fact remains the germans were helping to rescue people


Exactly my point too, it shouldn't matter what side you came from, at the end of the day, a war crime is a war crime......
I understand there was investigations and trials into war crimes committed by the allied forces as well at Nuerenberg, with a lot of those receiving court martials......court martials for killing people? hmmmm......

[Randomizer]

Although involved in life-saving the U-Boats were armed warships and so liable for attack under the customs and usage of international law as it was understood then.

The U-Boat waffe itself established this precedent on 20 September 1914 when OL Otto Weddigen (U-9) torpedoed the Hogue Class cruiser HMS Hogue off the Dutch coast. Having just torpedoed her sister, HMS Aboukir, Weddigen shot Hogue when she was hove to and sending out her boats to rescue the crew of Aboukir which was thought to have struck a mine. U-9 subesquently sank HMS Cressy leaving several thousand men in the water some 1460 of whom would die there.

Dedicated convoy rescue ships, warships and merchants who stopped to conduct rescues were all legitimate targets so why would U-Boats doing the same be exempt? The presence (or absence) of the Red Cross is irrelevant since Feuer Frei points out, usage of the Red Cross by an armed ship was in itself illegal.

This is a complicated story so sweeping accusations and declarations of crimes against humanity add nothing to the dialog. I actually think that Feuer Frei's comment about the attack by the Liberator being in bad taste rather than a war crime is the best description I have yet seen. In any event, the legal framework for judging unrestricted submarine warfare was the London Naval Treaty of 1930 and the Anglo-German Submarine Protocol of 1936 and not the Hague or Geneva conventions. As I understand the Treaty and Protocol, surfaced submarines were liable to be attacked without warning regardless of their activity at the time.

[Red Heat]

This is the story about her:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident

[Feuer Frei!]

Although involved in life-saving the U-Boats were armed warships and so liable for attack under the customs and usage of international law as it was understood then.

The U-Boat waffe itself established this precedent on 20 September 1914 when OL Otto Weddigen (U-9) torpedoed the Hogue Class cruiser HMS Hogue off the Dutch coast. Having just torpedoed her sister, HMS Aboukir, Weddigen shot Hogue when she was hove to and sending out her boats to rescue the crew of Aboukir which was thought to have struck a mine. U-9 subesquently sank HMS Cressy leaving several thousand men in the water some 1460 of whom would die there.

Dedicated convoy rescue ships, warships and merchants who stopped to conduct rescues were all legitimate targets so why would U-Boats doing the same be exempt? The presence (or absence) of the Red Cross is irrelevant since Feuer Frei points out, usage of the Red Cross by an armed ship was in itself illegal.

This is a complicated story so sweeping accusations and declarations of crimes against humanity add nothing to the dialog. I actually think that Feuer Frei's comment about the attack by the Liberator being in bad taste rather than a war crime is the best description I have yet seen. In any event, the legal framework for judging unrestricted submarine warfare was the London Naval Treaty of 1930 and the Anglo-German Submarine Protocol of 1936 and not the Hague or Geneva conventions. As I understand the Treaty and Protocol, surfaced submarines were liable to be attacked without warning regardless of their activity at the time.

I thank you for your compliments.......
I guess we all would like to believe that in WW2 there were human beings on both sides of the war who "attempted" to do the "right and humane " thing, so it seems in this case, indeed there were countless stories and heroic attempts to save lives of the enemy, can a human being be judged for attempting to do the humane and right thing to save as many lives as possible, and furthermore in admitting their own mistake and attempting to repair or as best as possible attempt to "minimise" the effects that mistake has caused. There is no doubt that the decisions by the U-Boot commander to firstly admit error and secondly to transmit his mistakes and to advise in the most spoken language in the world that a rescue mission would ensue is and was the "right" and "humane" thing to do........"draping" the deck with the red cross..........well, was that a "mistake"? I think once again, the innocent notions behind that move should be clear.........
What would I have done? The same.......
Please note: I am in now way attemtping to hijack this thread or attempt to start something here, not my intention.....this was, as history states a "unfortunate" (very) incident, and my fullest respects to the lives lost.

[Schroeder]

The presence (or absence) of the Red Cross is irrelevant since Feuer Frei points out, usage of the Red Cross by an armed ship was in itself illegal.

I'm not sure about that. Military paramedics also wear a red cross badge, yet they are armed to defend themselves if they should get under attack. i'm not sure about vehicles and vessels though.:hmm2:

[Randomizer]

I'm not sure about that. Military paramedics also wear a red cross badge, yet they are armed to defend themselves if they should get under attack. i'm not sure about vehicles and vessels though.:hmm2:
Although I would submit that this is an apples and oranges comparison, the fact that a medic is armed makes him (or her) a legitimate target. Having said that the reason medics were armed in the first place is for self defence since there is no realistic way to consistantly tell them from combattants and so they became de facto targets on the battlefield.

Sanctioning the use of the Red Cross by any armed warship under any circumstances effectively nullifies the reasons for claiming protection of the Red Cross in the first place

If a warship rescuing people can claim protection, then can any warship carrying the people just rescued also claim protection? If not, why not?

Carrying this argument to its logical conclusion would allow any warship with survivors and flying a Red Cross immunity from attack and opens the door to using the survivors as human shields. Use of the Red Cross was never intended to facilitate military advantage on any belligerent.

Note that this is based entirely on legal and not moral factors and that in practice there is often a huge gap between what is law and what is "right".

One question about the whole affair that nobody ever seems to ask is: "Would KL Hartenstein have commenced rescue operations had Laconia not been chock full of Italian POWs, Italy being Germany's ally at that time?"

If so, why? She had been a troop ship and so a legitimate target for attack without warning.

If not, why not? Once a person goes into the water, from a life-saving perspective it matters not at all how they got there or what their nationality might be.

$0.02

[Feuer Frei!]

One question about the whole affair that nobody ever seems to ask is: "Would KL Hartenstein have commenced rescue operations had Laconia not been chock full of Italian POWs, Italy being Germany's ally at that time?"



Fair question, I'm sure it has been asked before, perhaps not here, guess we will never know since we don't know what sort of a person Hartenstein was.......i would assume that by the time he found out about that, that he would also have been aware possibly that there were also British and Polish onboard as well, which may, and I do stress may indicate something......



If so, why? She had been a troop ship and so a legitimate target for attack without warning.

If not, why not? Once a person goes into the water, from a life-saving perspective it matters not at all how they got there or what their nationality might be.



Guess without "beating all the for and againsts to death", we can really only assume that Hartenstein was the sort of human being that had compassion to all human beings, ie was one of those "good guys", a bit like Rommel (I would "like" to believe that).





On the flipside, we can pose the question about the pilot of the bomber...what sort of a "person" was he? (and i'm certainly not being sarcastic or "against" the pilot, only genuinely asking the question, as it seems throughout history more have been asked of Hartenstein than of the bomber pilot)
Was there any sense of "regret" and "compassion" either at the time of the bombings or years later?
I would assume so.
I am treading carefully here, as I do in most things in life, and it seems to me that the real reason that this incident is so controversial is that Karl Doenitz was actually charged with a war crime over the "giving" of the Laconia order (i won't go into that as we all know what that order was), and he received 11 and a half years for that.......even though the U.S also "practiced" similar actions in relation to the refusal for want of a better word to pick up and/or initiate rescue actions in Submarines.
Anyway, this is not intended to come across as a history lesson, far from it, it's purely a view point, based on hystorical facts, and once again all i can "see" from this most unfortunate incident is that at the end of the day, human error was involved, and that this led to the loss of many lives, however also that it was attempted to rectify this error in the best possible way to save lives, and should there be questions and hypotheticals posed as to why this was done? Let's (and I say this with the fullest respect to those that lost their lives) see it for what it was......the acknowledgement of a mistake and the attempt to save lives.

[nikbear]

So really the pilots/commanders of the us airbase should have been tried as war criminals? If it was obvious a rescue mission was underway and the bombing/depth charging happened wouldnt that be in direct violation of the rules of engagement?:hmmm:

Thats what I've always thought,since that was one of the accusations levelled at Doenitz at his warcrimes trial,that his 'Laconia order' amounted to an order to commit murder and open fire on survivors,surely the American commander could have the very same accusation levelled at him:nope:

[ReallyDedPoet]

This thread will stay open as long as folks are civil in their discussions.
This topic has been discussed many times here :yep:

[Feuer Frei!]

Thats what I've always thought,since that was one of the accusations levelled at Doenitz at his warcrimes trial,that his 'Laconia order' amounted to an order to commit murder and open fire on survivors,surely the American commander could have the very same accusation levelled at him:nope:

I agree!

Doenitz received defense at Nueremberg for the giving of the order by
some of the most respected figures in the US Navy, Admital Chester Nimitz who came to his defense and said that the United States had operated under the same engagements of unrestricted warfare.

Despite the order, some U-boat commanders continued in their practice to aid survivors of their attacks.

[Lt.Fillipidis]

Having said that the reason medics were armed in the first place is for self defence since there is no realistic way to consistantly tell them from combattants and so they became de facto targets on the battlefield.

Actually, the medics were a preffered target in the war since it was calculated that a man killing a medic would subsequently kill 10 more soldiers (if my memory serves me well). I cant remember where i learned about this or where the numbers are based on but i have the faint idea that these are the right numbers.

[Captain Nemo]

I am resurrecting this thread because I saw a very brief clip, amongst other new drama programmes the BBC is producing, last night on BBC 1. It is to be broadcast sometime this year on BBC 2. Those in the UK who are interested might want to keep an eye on this link http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/comingup/sinkingofthelaconia/ for updates to avoid possibly missing this programme.:up:

Nemo

[Sailor Steve]

Cool! Wish I could see it.:sunny:

[[SJ]nailz]

should be interesting. I just watched the story today


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slBnJvsOhqo

[TarJak]

I hope the ABC buys it and shows it soon after. Looks like it would be a good watch. Alan Bleasdale is a pretty good screenwriter as well.

[Jimbuna]

Really looking forward to this.

[Panser]

I've literally JUST seen mention of this on the TV. The BBC was running one of their many "advertisements" for their own stuff just before the 10pm news with a montage of clips from various forthcoming dramas.

What jumps out at me from this but a scene of a u-boat with a deck full of people and boats in tow. I keep watching and sure enough there are civvies jumping from a burning ship and later still a scene of someone climbing the ladder in a violently rocking conning tower.

"The sinking of the Laconia" was one of the many dramas named at the end, so it's obviously going to be aired sometime soon :D

[Platapus]

An interesting discussion on the legalities of the actions of both sides

http://www.uboat.net/forums/read.php?4,52568,52568#msg-52568

[tonyeh]

"...until U-Boat Commander Werner Hartenstein (Duken) made a decision that went against the orders of Nazi High Command."

Unfortunately, it'll probably end up being crap, as is usual with WWII dramas, if the above is anything to go by. As has been pointed out Hartenstein's actions were in full accordance with the "nazi" high command.

Of course, i've no doubt that the BdU will be portrayed as goose-stepping card board cut-outs and the Allies all heroic to a man, with the decision to attack the U-boat being portrayed more as a "whoops...sorry 'bout that", rather than a calculated attack on an identified target that was laden with human cargo on a mercy mission. When the American pilot was ordered to attack U-156, the men giving that order knew exactly what they were asking him to do.

Wouldn't it be nice to, just once, have a WWII story that abandoned the usual handicapping cliches?

[Captain Nemo]

A further update on this. It is to be shown on BBC 2 during the week 1-7 January 2011. No specific time has yet been set. For more info see http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/2011/wk1/ .

Nemo

[timmy41]

The next morning, September 16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_16), at 11:25am, the four submarines, with Red Cross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross) flags draped across their gun decks, were spotted by an American B-24 Liberator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-24_Liberator) bomber from Ascension Island. Hartenstein signalled to the pilot requesting assistance. Lieutenant James D. Harden of the U.S. Army Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Forces) turned away and notified his base of the situation. The senior officer on duty that day, Captain Robert C. Richardson III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Richardson_III), replied with the order "Sink sub."

********* *******! This is definetely a war crime :-?
Any armament on a vessel nulls the protection of the red cross; attacking the submarines was not a war crime, but it was immoral.

[Captain Nemo]

The first episode has now been given a slot in BBC 2's schedule:

Thursday 6 January, 9.00-10.30pm.

No mention yet of when part two is to be shown.

Nemo

[Jimbuna]

The first episode has now been given a slot in BBC 2's schedule:

Thursday 6 January, 9.00-10.30pm.

No mention yet of when part two is to be shown.

Nemo

Will make a note of that...cheers.

[TarJak]

Let's hope the ABC's deal with the BBC gets it shown over here soon.

[Telemon]

For those who might be interested.
'The Sinking of the Laconia' is being shown on British TV, BBC2, as a two part drama. The first part is scheduled for transmission on Jan 6th 2011 from 2130hrs to 2230hrs GMT. I don't have details of the second part as yet.

Seasonal greetings to everyone.

[Jimbuna]

For those who might be interested.
'The Sinking of the Laconia' is being shown on British TV, BBC2, as a two part drama. The first part is scheduled for transmission on Jan 6th 2011 from 2130hrs to 2230hrs GMT. I don't have details of the second part as yet.

Seasonal greetings to everyone.

Already posted in #41

[Captain Nemo]

A bit of info regarding Part 2. It is scheduled for Friday 7 January starting at 9pm.

Nemo

[Vandecker]

Actually, the medics were a preffered target in the war since it was calculated that a man killing a medic would subsequently kill 10 more soldiers (if my memory serves me well). I cant remember where i learned about this or where the numbers are based on but i have the faint idea that these are the right numbers.

If I recall correctly medics were not generally targeted during the two world wars. This is I believe mostly because the job of medics is to save lives, whichever side they might be on (The more live prisoners the better), so to kill a medic may be to kill yourself later on. During this period the Red Cross on their arms granted them technical immunity from harm and none were armed (another reason at least was that there were many medics who were pacifists but still wished to help the war effort and so volunteered to be medics).

The reason these days medics rarely go unarmed (and some go even more heavily armed than regular infantry) is because the Western world now rarely fights against uniformed opponents who at least pay lip service to the Geneva Convention and as such the Red Cross no longer affords any kind of protection, the Red Cross simply remains as a means of identification.

Quite sad really.

How was the Teledrama?

[nikbear]

I watched it and though it was really good:yeah:

[stokeyblokey]

Missed the first part but the second was riveting and I intend to watch it in full on the iPlayer while I still can :)

[Bassism]

I just finished watching both parts, and I thought it was quite good.
It stays relatively close to the truth, incorporating some influences from the more well-known stories of survivors. There were of course some things that were over- or de-emphasized or changed, but nothing that I'd complain about. And as you'd expect it was well written and produced.

There's also a documentary with some footage of interviews with survivors that is very much worth watching.