Iron Coffins Redux

[RoaldLarsen]

There was a thread at the end of March / early April about the book Iron Coffins by Herbert A. Werner, a u-bootwaffe officer who survived the war. The thread was closed after it had, in part, degenerated into a squabble about whether the book was accurate. With some trepidation, I reopen the topic to provide some specific references.

I have recently obtained a copy of the book, and have begun reading it. But rather than just reading it through cover to cover, I thought I'd treat it as a research project, and compare its claims with other sources, such as the FdU KTBs, the databases at uboat.net, uboatarchive.net and ubootwaffe.net and with various books, such as Blair's two volumes. I checked sailing dates, dates of engagements, sinking claims, award of medals and promotions, and postings.

The innaccuracies, exaggerations and falsehoods start on the cover page. The author is identified as "Commander Herbert A. Werner". I can find no record that Werner was ever promoted higher than Oberleutnant zur See. The equivalent American rank is Lieutenant, Junior Grade. Werner has promoted himself three grades.

Werner claims that his first u-boat assignment was to U-551. No precise date is given, but the assignment was delivered to him at least one day after "a day in late April 1941". U-551 was sunk on March 23, 1941. BdU was aware that U-551 was missing as of the next day, considered her existence doubtful on April 1, 1941, and had ceased to list her as present on patrol by 15 April 1941. It seems unlikley to me that a Faehnrich would be assigned to a u-boat already considered lost.

Werner claims that KptLt. Paulssen grew up in the same town and went to the same high school as Werner. Werner claims he grew up in two small towns in the Schwarzewald in southern Germany. The only biographical information on Paulssen I could find claims he was born in Berlin-Charlottenburg. It would be unusual for somebody born in the capital to move to a rural area of the south-west.

Werner claims his duties when first assigned to U-557 included assisting the IIWO in decrypting "top secret messages". It is my understanding that top secret messages were only seen by senior officers. Werner probably did assist with decyphering regular encrypted traffic.


The timelines between Werner's graduation on "a day in late April 1941" and the arrival of U-557 at Kiel on April 26 1941 don't add up. Between those two dates Werner claims

1 day of travel to Kiel
"Several days passed" and he heard of the loss of U-551
"Nothing materialized after several more days."
"The next day" he gets his assignment to U-557.
One day of travel to Koenigsberg.
One day at Koenigsberg.
A five day voyage from Koenigsberg to Kiel, arriving on April 26 1941.
if "several days" means no more than three, then from graduation to arrival in Kiel is 1+3+3+1+1+1+5=15 or more, so "a day in late April 1941" can be no later than April 11.

Werner gives May 13 1941 as the date of departure for U-557's first war patrol. This corresponds with other sources.

Werner claims U-557 sank a 7000 ton ship on May 19, at a location SW of the Shetlands at latitude 59 degree. I can find no record of such a sinking being attributed to U-557, and position records of U-557 do not show her being this far south on her outbound leg.

Werner claims U-557 sank three ships in a convoy on May 25 1941. No such loss is recorded. In fact on the previous day BdU had ordered U-557 to move to AJ68 for arrival on May 25

Werner claims U-557 visited the site of the sinking of the Bismark on May 29 to look for survivors, but found none. Position records for U-557 have her just south of Greenland at the time, where she is credited with her only sinking on this patrol: Empire Storm, in convoy HX-128. BdU KTB archives agree that one ship of this size is all that was claimed by U-557 on this patrol.

The day after "an afternoon in early June" Werner claims U-557 sank a large fast freighter travelling independantly one day's sailing from AK50 . There is no record of such a loss and position records for U-557 show it operating further south-east at this time.

After the above sinking, Werner claims U-577 was directed westward to AJ94 and arrived two days later. In fact, U-557 had been travelling southward and then moved eastward. Werner claims an order to refuel from Belchen arrived at this time. BdU records show the order was issued on May 29.

Two days after this, Werner has U-557 refueling from Belchen 80 miles south of Greenland. Given the chronology of the previous two paragrpahs, the earliest this could have been was June 6. Belchan was sunk on June 3. Uboat.net shows Belchen refueling U-577 on June 2. Werner claims to have seen three London class cruisers in the area. In fact there were two Fiji Class cruisers.

Werner claims an attack on U-557 by a British Thames Class sub. Fdu has a record of this report.

Werner has U-557 operating in BB90 and CC36 in "mid-June". This seems correct.

Werner claims a ship sunk by U-557 in a convoy late on June 24th, followed imediately by an attack by escorts on U-557. There is no record of such a sinking or attack.

Werner clams U-557's commander Oblt.zS Paulssen was promoted to KaptLt during this patrol. In fact, this promotion came through after U-557's second patrol.

That's it for Werner's account of U-577's first patrol. For this one patrol alone he claims six sinkings that did not exist and were not claimed by the boat, a detour that did not take place, fails to mention the one sinking that did occur, (because it happened when he claims U-557 was elsewhere?), gets dates and ship identities wrong and makes up patrol assignments and a promotion. The pattern of fictional aggrandizement continues for the account of the second patrol, which is as far as I have yet read.

Clearly there are a lot of statements in this book that are inaccurate. Probably there are several accurate statements as well. The problem is to identify which unprovable statements are correct. Some of the inacccurate claims may be simple confusion or error due to faulty memory or missing notes. Others are clearly fabrications. Given that many of the inaccurate claims are of a type which Werner must have known to be untrue, we cannot rely on any of his other statements that do not have outside corroberation. Therefore I would suggest that it would be unwise to rely on this book as providing any useful insight into life on u-boats or of the times.

Iron Coffins is a work of fiction masquerading as fact.
In contrast, Das Boot, a work of fiction that never claimed to be fact, probably comes closer to communicating some truth.

[Platapus]

I like reading Iron Coffins.

[mookiemookie]

Iron Coffins has long been known to be full of inaccuracies. Werner most likely knowingly made up many of his anecdotes. I was with you up until this statement though:

Therefore I would suggest that it would be unwise to rely on this book as providing any useful insight into life on u-boats or of the times.


I disagree. Though many of the events have been made up, one indisputable fact is that Werner did serve as the captain of a U-boat. While I would say read Iron Coffins as a fictional novel written by someone with firsthand knowledge of the subject matter, I wouldn't go far as to say he offers no insight on what it was like on a U-boat.

[RoaldLarsen]

Iron Coffins has long been known to be full of inaccuracies. Werner most likely knowingly made up many of his anecdotes. I was with you up until this statement though:
Therefore I would suggest that it would be unwise to rely on this book as providing any useful insight into life on u-boats or of the times.
I disagree. Though many of the events have been made up, one indisputable fact is that Werner did serve as the captain of a U-boat. While I would say read Iron Coffins as a fictional novel written by someone with firsthand knowledge of the subject matter, I wouldn't go far as to say he offers no insight on what it was like on a U-boat.
And I didn't go so far as to say he offers no insight on what it was like on a u-boat. I said it would be unwise to rely on the book as providing useful insight.

Yes, Werner had experience in u-boats, as a junior officer, and executive officer and a commanding officer. Undoubtedly he had insights. Probably at least some of these are written in the book. But which ones are they? Which ones are useful information and which are self-serving B.S.? When you read the book and come across what you think is a gem, how can you tell if it is genuine?

By his own admission, Werner had an agenda: "If I have succeeded in handing down to the reader the ancient lesson that every generation seems to forget - that war is evil, that it murders men - then I consider this my most constructive deed." This book was published in the USA in 1969. Remember the context.

As I understand it, other surviving u-boat captains have little time for Werner or his book, because it does not represent the war as they knew it.

Because of his experience, Werner undoubtedly has much he could tell us. Because of his lies, we will never know which part of what he has told us is the truth, except that which is supported by other sources. Hence, we don't rely on Werner, we rely on the other sources.

[Stiebler]

One must remember that, at the time of writing, Werner could have had no access to official sources, such as KTBs, to verify facts. All these primary documents were locked away, for reasons unknown*, in the vaults of the British and American admiralties.

Werner was writing more than 20 years after the events he described. He claims himself that he is writing from memory, and, inevitably, he tends to focus on events that made a big impression on him. How much can SubSim members recall of events 20 years ago in their own lives? In fact, Werner has done a remarkable job of recall.

The British Admiralty sent trained interrogators to interview U-boat crews immediately after the German surrender in May 1945. Although the U-boatmen now lacked any reason to give false information, most of it was hazily inaccurate when cross-checked against actual events. A leading military historian of the British Admiralty's Naval Historical Branch once told me that he would not trust eye-witness accounts spoken just 2 years after the event without cross-checking, let alone after 20 or more years.

Werner's account should be read as being just as accurate and honest as memory permitted - and his memory was surprisingly good. His book can scarcely be beaten as an account of what it was like to be at sea in a U-boat, for which specific facts are not required, only general impressions. The only items of contention today are his heavy criticism of the direction of the U-boat war by Doenitz and BdU. Generally speaking, most other U-boatmen are less critical of Doenitz and BdU. With the considerable advantage of hindsight, I think that Werner had better insight than his fellow U-boatmen. BdU made some rather elementary blunders.

[*Well, maybe we can guess. The naval authorities lacked sufficient staff to read every KTB and related material to check that none contained references to Allied decryption efforts, which might have been too accurate for comfort, when Russia remained a large threat. So they released none of these records until other reports of the decryption of German codes were publicly released in the 1970s. After that, there was no point in delaying release of the KTBs.]

Stiebler.

[Hitman]

I heartly support this thread as long as it keeps civil, the idea of confrontating the facts narrated in teh book versus real life records is good.

Having said that, I would like to add my 2 cents about the book here:

-Writing an interesting book is not easy, specially if you are narrating historic facts. Life aboard an U-Boat was most of the time boring, and it is logical that Werner spiced up things a bit. The book must be understood in its full object, it depicts well first years of glory and then hell, both in the U-Boat and outside it, as well as how people evolved and changed during the war.

-When Werner wrote the book, most of the historical facts and figures were not available to him. If he just sat down and started writing off his memory, it is understandable that many things came up being inaccurate. I would have troubles being completely exact in remembering important things that happened ten years ago, so I guess for Werner it was the same.

-Werner's position and functions in the U-Boat would not always have allowed him the best picture of the battle. Probably many of the things he narrates were in fact just heard by him, not seen directly.

-Werner doesn't entitle himself with a higher rank, in the german Navy it was customary to call the skipper the "Kommandant", which is frequently translated to english using the similarly looking word "commander", but has a slightly different meaning. For the britians, a commander is a military rank mostly, if referring to the guy who commands a ship they use rather "skipper" or a generic "captain" (Not referred to the real military rank). A german Kommandant is therefore simply the skipper, and you can confirm this if you look at the WW2 german navy ranks and notice that there is no rank called "Kommandant" (There is a captain though, the "Kaptain zur See").

Cheers

EDIT: I cross-posted with Stiebler, but we ended up saying more or less the same! Cheers!

[Paul Riley]

Just thought I may as well give my vote on the book,which I have had a few years now,and as Platapus said,I enjoyed it.Admittedly it does feel more like a novel in areas,but it did at times give me a sense of what it would have been like aboard a UBoat,especially the terror felt when under air attack,mainly in the chapter 'above us hell'.

Some useful charts and statistics are to be found at the rear if I remember rightly.

[nikbear]

I would also like to agree with Hitman on the commander title,its just a problem with the translation not with him giving himself promotion,he's just the chap in charge,skipper,captain....so no problem there,as for the date's,there are bound to inconsistencies due to the time that has elapsed.For comparison I cant even give you date's accurately from things 'I' did last year:oops:never mind 20 or 30 years after a traumatic event so where thats concerned I think we can cut him some slack.As for the number of ships being sunk then it becomes harder to quantify.Unlike us playing a game like SH3 and waiting for ships to sink to earn renown:nope:Most U-boats when attacking ships got the hell out of dodge after fireing there eels and counldnt cofirm there sinkings,we now know that they far over estimated they're tally of ships sunk by quite a margin,this can be put down to a few reasons 1,end of run detenations were sometimes confused as strikes and hits when they weren't,problem being you couldn't go up top and confirm this,Bdu new about this and took it into account when trying to work out just what had been sunk 2,It was not unkown for Bdu to get its signals/decripts confused when gathering info as to what had been sunk.What with hazy info relayed to them from the actual U-boat concerned,the reading of RN ciphers,and the actual radio messages from stricken ships its no wonder that they got things crossed up at times.There are plenty of reports of ships being sunk multiple times by different U-boats attacking the same convoy at different times in the atlantic:oagain confirming anything in the heat of battle is a hard thing to do.Finally the 3rd and most important thing to consider,PROPAGANDA:03:Both sides used it in various ways and not always in ways that are apparent or would be considered logical,both sides lied through there teeth about the battle for the Atlantic at various points,and with good reason and I think that has to be taken into account when it comes to criticising a book written in good faith by a combatent,they aren't always privvy to the actual facts of a certain battle and sometimes are under pressure from publishers to"Spice things up" and thats hardly suprising.Actual combat is limited at best,I've heard it described as 90% boredom and 10% sheer terror and that doesn't sell books,You only have to look at 2 examples we know so well,Das Boot and SH3.Das Boot was originally shown as a series and had to edited to be shown as a film cause it showed the sheer boredam that the crew went through for most of the time,to boring for the average filmgoer:03: And as for SH3,ships show up far to frequently,plainly because if it was totally accurate,90% of us wouldn't be playing it cause we wouldn't sink a damn thing in our to short careers:haha:.....All in all I think certain things have to be taken into account when reading any book about combat,or any book at all come to think about it,you are reading always someone else's point of view,and that is always singular and original to them and it might not always be what you want to read or agree with,or even the true facts of events as they happened,always and only as they saw them at the time.And that has to be taken into account and put into context:yeah:

[Paul Riley]

Well said nikbear,some good points there,justifying these so called 'inconsistencies'.I totally agree about not getting everything SPOT on due to all this happening 60 odd bloody years ago,and in the heat of such a terrifying experience its no wonder some of the details may be out,or even exaggerated.
I for one can sympathize with the real veterans (both sides),and must commend the book solely for its attempt at engaging the reader,at least I was when I first read it.

[Coyote88]

Nikbear! Paragraphs, please please please! :D

Back to the topic, then. I don't think the Fog of War explanation works in this case. It's not just that Werner claimed more ships than actually sank - he made claims that his own commander at the time never made.

There are numerous discrepancies, I'm told, between U-Boat claims and Allied records, which is only what one would expect (for all the reasons stated). However, here we're talking about discrepancies between Werner's account and his own commander's account.

On the other hand, I would absolutely expect 20 years to have thoroughly confused dates and places. I would even expect the different patrols to get confused with one another. I worked many summers at a seasonal job where the location and faces changed from year to year, and believe me, it gets to tough to keep track of when you knew whom and where such-and-such an event took place.

[nikbear]

Sorry about the paragraphs,or lack of,my train of thought was distracted by trying to recall actual reading material to do with the subject at hand:03::oops:
Won't happen again:up:
Oh I would agree with you that he may have embroidered his tales a bit,that is natural and has been a part of old soldiers tales since warfare began,but having read some books recently it seems endemic right from the top down.
I don't think anyone person during the war was ever in possession of the full facts regarding any matter you care to choose,
Just regarding the Atlantic war you get the allies lying to the public about the early disasters at sea,you get Donitz lying to the Hitler and exaggerating the successes in order to get better funding for the U-boat program,
And you get Donitz Lying to his crews about there losses and about they're sinking's tally in order to make them try harder:shifty:
Its no wonder that people who were actually there experiencing all that going on being totally confused then and more so later:03:
I think as long as the reader is intelligent enough to read with an open mind and take on board the circumstances in which all the events took place,and there place in time,then I don't see the need to criticize to harshly,
the fact remains that we weren't there,we don't know what it was like,and 99.9% of historians don't either,although sometimes they would have you think otherwise by the way they write and by the uncalled for accusations they so cheaply throw around :nope:

[Platapus]

I said it would be unwise to rely on the book as providing useful insight.




I think the same can be said for pretty much any memoir one might read.

By its very definition a memoir (from the French: mémoire from the Latin memoria, meaning "memory") is the author's remembrances and impressions. It is not, nor intended to be, an academic research project. It is, by its nature a biased account.

This is why memoirs seldom have citations or bibliographies associated with them and why memoirs are cited with caution, if at all, in other academic works.

I think you are being a bit hard on Werner.

[FIREWALL]

I think his book adds spice to SH-3.

[AVGWarhawk]

I liked the book. Read it twice. I believe many books who's subject is the author himself will have some incorrect dates or events and how they happened. Memories get muttled and things lost in translation. Even so, I believe it to be a good book on the uboats.

[ReallyDedPoet]

I liked the book. Read it twice. I believe many books who's subject is the author himself will have some incorrect dates or events and how they happened. Memories get muttled and things lost in translation. Even so, I believe it to be a good book on the uboats.

:yep:

[GoldenRivet]

In the kriegsmarine, when an officer was placed in command of a U-boat or ship he was referred to as a "commander" even though his rank might only be comparable to a Lt. Jr Grade.

in fact it was not uncommon for an officer that junior to be a u-boat commander.

[Sailor Steve]

Not uncommon in any navy. US PT-boat 'Captains' were indeed J.G.s a good deal of the time, with even the ocassional Ensign.

[Rockin Robbins]

Interesting that not one disagreement with the OP actually disagrees. Excuses don't constitute accuracy. The book is not accurate. The reason for the inaccuracies are irrelevant. The question is, what is the nature of Iron Coffins and what is it good for? RoaldLarson's research is pretty impressive and I look forward to further installments.

The difference between Pacific war and Atlantic war aficionados is quite interesting, with the Pacific people looking at a variety of sources and having no sacred cows, but the Atlantic people defending their Das Boot and Iron Coffins like some holy scriptures. They are not. They are a small part of the body of works which must be considered as a whole to try to determine the truth about the past. Filtering everything through flawed works, written for non-historical purposes makes no sense whatever. It is like trying to reconstruct the American Civil War through Gone with the Wind.

Is Gone with the Wind a good and entertaining book? Sure, I guess. That doesn't make it valid source material on which to base our impressions of the Civil War. Perhaps Ubi should recreate the Battle of Atlanta in a new game. And gamers could call it the "Gone with the Wind" experience, as some have called SH3 the "Das Boot experience." The Das Boot experience is not the World War II U-Boat experience. Nothing wrong with living within that fantasy, but might as well buy that Star Trek uniform and practice your Vulcan salute.

[nikbear]

" The difference between Pacific war and Atlantic war aficionados is quite interesting, with the Pacific people looking at a variety of sources and having no sacred cows,"
And what would those sources be? The ones written by the victorious allies perchance,:hmmm: Well they will be balanced and unbiased won't they:nope:
Or the japanese,sadly they're records are few and far between if surviving at all.It seems strange that anything written by the vanquished is fair game for criticism and derision and is obviously the work of fiction,where as the the allies have only ever written a balanced,fair and honest account of our tremendous victory:shucks:(Apart from the Ruskies,Stalin,communism,cold war and all that:shifty:)
Unfortunately thats not strictly true,Even the official history's of the allies contradict each other,and at times have blaring inconsistencies that are laughable if they were not so ridiculous.
My point being is that were are you going to get a fair,true and unbiased account of these type of events,its just not going to happen.
The official accounts carry to much hand wringing and patriotic flag waving,the unofficial accounts by the allied soldiers themselves are marginalised and pushed to the fringes for fear that they may put blots on the big picture:nope:
And as for the losers,can they ever be hoped to have any account that they write to be taken seriously and honestly,Hardly ever.
The stigma and tarnish of nazism and Japanese imperialism means that most are dissmissed out of hand as being fictional at best,self serving at worst.
I suppose the biggest problem I have with all the criticism that is levelled at works like this,is the justification that we should not trust it cause it is self serving and inaccurate,and to prove it,here is a document or book written by someone else which is unbiased,true,honest and in no way written by someone with an axe to grind:nope:
Please,do me a favour,where do you think they got they're facts from.

[Onkel Neal]

Iron Coffins has been my favorite U-boat book since I first read it in the 70s. I would not be surprised if it has inaccuracies, intentional or not, most memoirs do, as several here have pointed out. Still a great work.

Another thing to keep in mind, U-boat and US sub commanders frequently claimed sinkings and hits that did not happen. Not out of deceit, but often in the heat of battle they would assume an explosion was a torpedo hit and a stricken ship was sunk. After the war JANAC stripped a lot of sinking from the records of US skippers. So, Werner may have heard from Paulssen or Siegman that such and such ships had been hit and sunk, etc.

What would have triggered my BS detector would have been a lot of unsubstantiated claims of sinkings when Werner was in command of his boat. He didn't.

Iron Coffins, always sticks in my mind for the best last line of any book I ever read.

[ReallyDedPoet]

I would not be surprised if it has inaccuracies, intentional or not, most memoirs do, as several here have pointed out. Still a great work.


Yes, well put Neal.

So before people get all bent out of shape over this ( again ), and there has already one thread closed due to this ( Hitman alluded to this earlier in this thread ). Take Iron Coffins for what it is, a book from one U-Boat Commander regarding his experiences in the Kriegsmarine. Just one contribution to the massive Battle of the Atlantic history.

[Hitman]

Interesting that not one disagreement with the OP actually disagrees. Excuses don't constitute accuracy. The book is not accurate. The reason for the inaccuracies are irrelevant. The question is, what is the nature of Iron Coffins and what is it good for? RoaldLarson's research is pretty impressive and I look forward to further installments.


Of course I agree with part of your statement, you are right in that accurancy is not perfect in the book, and it is not intended as an excuse.

But, using the same criteria with Richard O'Kane we could say that neither "Wahoo: The patrols of america's most famous submarine", or "Clear the Bridge!" are then historically correct books either. O'Kane described sinkings that, according to JANAC and Clay Blair simply didn't happen. In fact, you can notice in some chapters of the book a bit of irony when he describes certain sinkings, insisting in how wrecked the target was and how certain he was. When you read that in the book...you will know that it is a sinking denied by JANAC ;)

Anyway, sinkings and specific operations apart, Iron Coffins does a great job of telling us how the author felt during the war, and how many of his commarades felt. The historical accurancy in that point can't be discussed, I think.:yep:

So my point is:

Want historical data about operations or sinkings? Forget Iron Coffins or Clear the Bridge! and pick Blair's or Gannon's impressive researches.

Want historical data about feelings and impressions? Look no further: Iron Coffins and Clear the Bridge are it.

:up:

[mookiemookie]

Iron Coffins, always sticks in my mind for the best last line of any book I ever read.

:damn: You would have to say that while I'm at work and don't have my copy to see what you're talking about. :rotfl:

[don1reed]

Whenever reading first-hand wartime accounts, the expression, "Hours of boredom, punctuated by seconds of terror," comes to mine. It is, what it is.

Eye-witness accounts of crimes often go awry in court as well. A tip-o-the-hat to H. Werner for "strapping it on" for his country.

[Subnuts]

How interesting. I found the review I wrote of Iron Coffins back in early 2005, more than a year before I started writing for Subsim! Perhaps I should read the book again and re-review it. Here's my original review, completely unedited:

"...What a miserable, obscene war, where able-bodied men and sophisticated machines were employed to exterminate the helpless and the harmless... Death on a gigantic scale had become so routine that life itself seemed rather odd and irrelevant, and all the once commonplace joys of life seemed abnormal, ludicrous, and weird...

Background
Iron Coffins is one of those stories that just seems to incredible to be true. 75% of crews assigned to German U-boats never returned. But perhaps none of the other 25% were so lucky as Herbert Werner.

At the age of 19, Werner, a "newfound warrior, all full of wind and smoke" enlisted in the German Kriegsmarine. In 1941 he was assigned as a petty officer onboard U-557. During the next four years, he served aboard four other German submarines. He survived thousands of depth charges and aerial bombs, participated in several major convoy battles, escaped to Norway in the last surviving French-based U-boat, and lived to tell about it.

He commanded his own boat in the war s last desperate months, while nine in every ten boats that put too sea never returned. Werner s memoirs may be one of the most remarkable survival stories of the Second World War. It is also a story of the futility of war; by the end, Werner has lost everything he knew and loved, and is thoroughly disgusted with his nation s policies and the war itself. But which parts of his story are actually true, and which are made out of whole cloth?

The Story (as Werner tells it)
Iron Coffins begins in April 1941, when young Herbert Werner is assigned to the 5th U-boat flotilla in Kiel. He joins the crew of U-557, under command of Ottokar Paulshen. It is not long before U-557 begins its first war patrol in the Northern Atlantic.

U-557's first three forays into the North Atlantic are nearly identical. Each time, U-557 participates in wild nighttime surface attacks on allied convoys, destroying merchant vessels with devastating precision. Each time, the Allied escort vessels prove ineffective in their counterattacks. When U-557 returns to port, the crew are hailed as heroes, and get all the wine and women they could possibly want.

After three grueling patrols, Werner is promoted to Oberleutnant and assigned as first Watch Officer aboard U-612, commanded by Paul Siegmann. In August of 1942, U-612 is struck astern by another U-boat, sinking with the loss of two men. The surviving crew is quickly re-assigned to U-230.

After a long absence from the sea, February 1943 finds Werner in a new war. The British have begun installing radar on their patrol planes, making the Bay of Biscay more difficult to cross. Despite the increased Allied presence, U-230 is still able to tear away seven merchants in a series of epic convoy battles.

The next patrol brings U-230's crew closer to death than ever before. Much of it takes place during May 1943, during the infamous (for the Germans) "Black May" anti-U-boat counteroffensive, during which 38 U-boats were destroyed. Miraculously, U-230 survives concentrated allied aircraft and destroyer attacks, each time escaping by the skin of it's teeth. The tide of the Battle of the Atlantic has suddenly turned...

Commentary
Iron Coffins can be viewed as an allegory for the rise and fall of Nazi Germany. In the beginning, we see Werner as a handsome young sailor, drunk with victory and unceasing in his belief of a crushing allied defeat. By the end, he is an old man at 25, commanding a dilapidated submarine on hopeless missions for uncaring superiors.

For much of the book, I wondered just why Admiral Donitz kept sending poorly-trained men to their deaths in obsolete diving machines, with little hope of stopping allied war material from pouring into Europe. Did the U-boat men honestly believe that their sacrifices were truly worthy, that they could turn the tide in the last few months?

Again and again, Werner and his comrades are promised new wonder weapons that will decide the war in Germany's favor. They never come, and one by one, the U-boat force is reduced to a pitiful shadow of its former self.

The last third of Iron Coffins reads more like a continuous cliff-hangar than a methodically-paced submarine warfare tale. In a span of perhaps 18 months, Werner manages to survive mining Chesapeake Bay, the Straits of Gibraltar, an aborted attack on the Normandy invasion fleet, incompetent chief engineers, air raids, and hundreds of depth charges. Did I mention he survived the Allied blockade of the Bay of Biscay and commanded the last U-boat to escape from France?

So What's wrong?
Earlier in this review, I mentioned that parts of Iron Coffins seemed to be "made out of whole cloth". For quite some time, I took Iron Coffins to be the "gospel truth" of life aboard a German U-boat in World War II. A little research proved me dead wrong; in fact, it seems that Werner outright invented entire convoy attacks, leaving me to believe that the entire book may be outright fabrication.

In actuality, U-557 sank a single 7,000 ton merchant on her first patrol. Werner has included a prolonged nighttime convoy attack, inflating the patrols total to seven merchants sunk, for 37,000 tons. On her third patrol, Paulshen & crew sank a single 4,000 ton merchant. Once again, Werner has U-557 engaging in a night surface attack, sinking six ships for 32,000 tons.

The fabrication doesn't end there. During U-230's first patrol with Werner as first watch officer, a single 2,800-ton merchant was sunk. Somehow, this has been increased to seven for 35,000 tons. The narrative of U-230's fourth patrol also omits the sinking of two British Tank Landing Ships. Finally, Werner describes attacking an Allied convoy in January 1945, observing at least three distinct torpedo hits. Official records fail to credit him with damaging or sinking a single vessel.

In Conclusion
U-boat historian Jurgen Rohwer said of Iron Coffins, "If one were to pencil in with red all the factual mistakes in this book, it would look like a bloodbath". Perhaps he is right. Herbert Werner has created a gripping and ultimately tragic story, but is it simply a novel?

I cannot help but wonder why Werner felt the need to falsify the successes of his former commanders. Paul Siegmann and Ottokar Paulshen were not the Aces of the Deep that the author makes them out to be.

It's somewhat of a shame really. Iron Coffins is one of the few memoirs written by a German military officer who survived the last violent months of the war. For once, people got a chance to see German submariners as actual human beings, not inhuman piratish thugs. It also gives a vivid account of a crumbling Germany, and how the war affected civilians, including Werner's own family.

The emotional scars from World War II still affected Herbert Werner in 1969. In his introduction, he dedicates the book to seamen of all nations who died in the war. He goes so far as to say the book is a lesson, "that war is evil, that it murders men".

However, I do not feel that gave him reason to outright lie about his war record. It is with some trepidation that I give Iron Coffins the title of wartime fiction. A remarkable story of survival, yes, but still a novel.

It is not a particularly difficult book to read, though the English translation is a bit clumsy at times. Most readers should be able to finish it in under a week. If you have no interest in submarine warfare, you'll probably find yourself bored with this book. If you eat it up, give it a look, but don't take it as 100% truthful. I give it four stars based on it's value as a war story, not as a memoir.

[Rockin Robbins]

" The difference between Pacific war and Atlantic war aficionados is quite interesting, with the Pacific people looking at a variety of sources and having no sacred cows,"
And what would those sources be? The ones written by the victorious allies perchance,:hmmm: Well they will be balanced and unbiased won't they:nope:
I'm glad you know my library. I've lost a book, in fact and wonder if you could tell me where it is? Operation Thunderhead is the title. In fact my library does contain Japanese books and they are invaluable. But you knew that.:D Why resort to personal attack when we are talking about a difference of behavior in people which is neutral. By the way, have you read this book here, The Threshold of Hell, by Albert Rupp of the Grenadier, or Torpedoman, by Ron Smith? Surely you would sing a different tune than sarcasm if you had. I've found a similar well-rounded collection of books in a plurality of Pacific War afficianados.

But a monocular concentration on Iron Coffins or Das Boot dominates U-Boat fans. There is SO MUCH more out there, and it will increase, not decrease your appreciation of those two as you divide truth from fiction, appreciating both in those two utterly dominating and iconic works. They've sucked all the oxygen out of the air, much to the detriment of U-Boat fans.

It's unpredictable when a single book or movie will capture a critical mass of people's imaginations and drive a tunnel vision mentality. Star Wars did it and it was considered a lightweight movie when it came out, nothing special. Until people actually started seeing it and speaking to friends who had seen it. Star Wars achieved critical mass and is an economic powerhouse today. It would be foolish to say that because so many have formed an obsession with and been thoroughly entertained by the Star Wars universe that Star Wars represents accurate history or authentic experience. But that is the rationale of Iron Coffins and Das Boot fans. To them the U-Boat experience IS the Das Boot or Iron Coffins experience. Nothing wrong with that, but people should admit it and that the books are not reliable factually without getting personally defensive as if somebody burned their Bible.

I would compare Iron Coffins with Edward Beach's Run Silent Run Deep trilogy: Run Silent Run Deep, Cold is the Sea and Dust on the Sea. Except that Edward Beach does not pretend to be writing anything but fiction. And he wasn't polishing his resume. Writing an intellectually honest book, Beach fills all three volumes with enough information to turn you into a great sub captain in Pacific or Atlantic, with all the "do it in your head" rules of thumb and calculations laid out in beautiful simplicity. He obviously used incidents from real submarines, but didn't feel the need to take credit for others' accomplishments or embellish his own record. The RSRD trilogy is what Iron Coffins could have been if written with honesty. I wonder why it didn't occur to Werner to just be honest by writing a book of historical fiction. Oftentimes, more of the flavor of the experience can be transmitted authentically through historical novel than through a non-fiction history. (I especially reference Newt Gingrich's incredible Gettysburg: a Novel of the Civil War.) Werner certainly would have avoided the near unanimous scorn of U-Boat veterans. It is hard to imagine that their scorn is not earned.

[Rockin Robbins]

Iron Coffins, always sticks in my mind for the best last line of any book I ever read.
For me that spot has for forty years belonged to the last sentence in HG Wells' War of the Worlds, "But the strangest thing of all is to look at my wife and know that I have considered her, and she has considered me, among the dead."

That may not be a perfect quote, but it's close. And unforgettable.

[Peto]

After the war JANAC stripped a lot of sinking from the records of US skippers.


I feel it is worth noting that JANAC was re-evaluated and some claims stripped from submarines were given back. (Now if I only had proof of this at my finger-tips :03:).

One of the biggest problems with JANAC was the people (branches of service) involved with crediting ships sunk. To the best of my recollection, there wasn't a submarine officer on the board. Use Barb's foray into that shallow harbor that earned Fluckey the CMOH: Most of those sinkings were stripped by JANAC. Why? Because the Navy Air went in there and bombed the hulks that were sitting on the bottom. Planes got JANAC credit. Eye-witnesses of the actual events say the ships were sunk at night by a submarine...

Other problems JANAC itself had to cope with was the abysmal record keeping of the Japanese regarding sinkings. One of the reasons for this problem was that Japan had three merchant fleets. One for the Army, one for the Navy and one for general mercantlie trade and cargo hauling. These 3 divisions seldom communicated with each other (one the reasons for poor convoy practices) and the records of what sank when were scattered all over. And the Japanese had a penchant for not writing down losses.

I will not dispute that there were many over-claims and errors made when claiming ships sunk. There were :yep:! But US submarines most likely did better than JANAC credits allow. The true score will never be known because of the problems of record keeping I already mentioned. Allied (and German) records were much better and there is less doubt as to scores in the Atlantic.

Back to Topic: I like Iron Coffins. I got it from my 1st order from the Military Book Club when I was (I think) 13-14 years old--about 36 years ago. There is no doubt that is "spruced up" to make it a better read. Without doubt, it is fiction. For accuracy, I have a few other books like Hitler's Uboat War. Dry reading but accurate ;).

Now I'll try to find some proof of what I've written (or maybe not :haha:).

[RoaldLarsen]

I have to agree that the amount of elapsed time between the events and the writing of the book, plus the paucity of notes, were a real handicap and explain all sorts of minor inaccuracies of dates and sequencing. I also agree that one can hardly expect a memoir to be written to the same standard as a history (though see Alan Brooke’s memoirs as an example of a memoir that is of a higher standard than some histories, but he had access to his own detailed diaries.) Please understand I am not criticizing this book merely because it is not entirely accurate. Under the circumstances many inaccuracies can be forgiven. My criticism is that Werner has passed off as fact things that he must know are false.

I know in which half of which month I graduated, even though it has been more years than elapsed between Werner’s graduation in Flensburg and when he wrote the book. I can remember my professions’s equivalent of how many sinkings occurred on my first patrol, 28 years ago. I expect that most retired quarterbacks can tell you how many touchdown passes they threw in their first professional game. (or professional strikers tell you how many goals they scored.) I doubt that many would remember six if they only had one in their first game and never had six in a single game in their entire career. I doubt that there are very many people who have vivid memories of seeing six ships sink on their first patrol, when only one ship was actually sunk. He claims more sinkings on his first patrol on U-557 than occurred in all of his patrols on that boat put together. This is not a matter of mistaken memory or mixing up dates.

His claims are also not a matter of ships claimed sunk that the crew of U-557 thought were sunk but turned out to be end of run detonations, non-fatal hits, or hits by other boats. They are not hits that were reported to him by others. The claims are ones he says he saw with his own eyes. He describes feeling shockwaves on his face. He described debris raining down around him. He describes the impacts, the damage to the target, the manner in which the ships sank. These are not “hazily inaccurate” recollections. These are crystal clear. And they are false. And he knows it.

His claims are not ones that he got second-hand from Paulssen and Siegman. We know this, not only because of Werner’s descriptions of the sinkings, but also because we have records of what Paulssen and Siegman reported back to BdU. On the first patrol, Paulssen radioed a claim of one sinking. It occurred at a time that Werner claims U-557 was surveying the oil slick at the site of the Bismark’s sinking. We know from the position reports of U-557 and from the record of orders issued by BdU to U-557 that it was never at that location. And we know from the records of HX-128 that the ship Paulssen claims to have sunk was indeed sunk when and where he claims it was sunk.

It is just not reasonable, Stiebler, Hitman, and nikbear, to discount his lies about sinkings as honest error. Werner's account should not be read as being “as accurate and honest as memory permitted”. There is no way his writings about sinkings, the deviation to the Bismark sinking site, or some other events can be explained as honestly mistaken memory. Neither is it reasonable to put it in company with the majority of military memoirs, which though they contain error, do not contain claims which the authors must know to be false. Yes, there are some self-serving dishonest military memoirs, but I condemn them too.

So if Werner lied about the number of kills made by his first two commanders, why didn’t Werner deliberately exaggerate the number of his own kills? Because to claim successes at the time he was in command would run contrary to his thesis. He needs a large contrast between his experience in the earlier part of the war and the later part. His own actual experiences don’t have such a great contrast, so he makes it up. We know he exaggerates many fold the successes of the u-boats at the start of his career. I suspect he also exaggerates the dangers faced late in his career.

As to the relatively minor point about the use of the term “Commander” next to his name on the cover, I don’t know whether it is even Werner’s fault. Generally the publisher is responsible for cover design. My understanding is that the English language version of Iron Coffins is the original. It is not a translation of a work first published in German. It was published (and probably written) in English. Therefore the use of “Commander” on the cover is not a simple matter of (mis-)translation from the German or of appropriation of German usage. When an American publisher uses the term “Commander John Doe” to identify somebody it is understood to be a designation of rank, not a description of responsibility. If they wanted to convey the fact that he had been the commanding officer of a u-boat they should have (and I think would have) said “U-boat Commander John Doe”. ”. I note that at least one edition of the book gives the author as simply Herbert. A. Werner, without the “Commander”.

This does get to the question of who is responsible for the untruths (not the mistakes) in the book. If it is, as was suggested by nikbear, the publisher who pressured Werner to “spice things up”, I would have to say that an honourable man would not give in to such pressure. On the other hand, if Werner lies about the number of sinkings he was involved with, it is not unreasonable to assume that he may have mislead his publisher about his rank as well.

I think that Subnuts' review comes close to summing it up.

[nikbear]

I'm sorry if my comments RR came across as some sort of personal attack,they were not meant as that
I was just trying to get across the fact that any book,regardless of who wrote it,whether it be official or personal,whether it was written at the time or written sometime later in a library,by a dusty historian with facts and figures at his fingertips,doesn't make it any more true or worthy just because it happens to fit the accepted or ones own personal version of events
After reading many personal accounts of combat the first thing that strikes you is how different they are from the official accounts,there is confusion,chaos and half the time utter FUBAR all over the place.
To give you two examples,the first "The battle for Normandy 1944" by Robin Neillands in which he give's you the official account,both American and British,and then gives you interviews with soldiers who were there corresponding with each phase of the battle.
And the one thing that strikes you time and again is how incorrect the official accounts are,and how angry veterans get by the inaccuracies and the implied friction between the allied forces,something the men on the ground never felt or experienced.
The other example is "The forgotten soldier" by Guy Sajer.Its his account of war on the eastern front while fighting with the Grosse Deutschland division in Russia.
In it there are inaccuracies,dates wrong and passages in which he freely admits that he can't tell you what happened,who he killed or where he even was.
So total was the colapse of the eastern front that barely an official account exists,Front lines and scratch divisions were formed and overun before they could even be drawn on a map.His account matches no official account for what exists,because how could it? All around him was a state of constant flux,nothing was permenant.
Does it make it any less truthfull or worthy cause the things he talks about and saw are supposed not to have happened.No
Does the anger felt by D-day vets at the incompetence of they're leaders and the after war blame game they used to deflect blame from them selves any less worthy because it doesn't tally with the official account,No
If anything just these two out of a miriad of millions of accounts prove that if anything,they are far more worthy than any official account could ever be,or any historian could ever write!
And if they don't tally with the Official account of events,then thats fine by me,I would rather read it from men who were there,at the sharp end where it all happened,inaccuracies and all,Than read it from a thousand statatitions,pencil pushers,library historians or johnny come lately armchair warriors who re-fight long won wars from the comfort of their front room or college class room.

[Rockin Robbins]

...I would rather read it from men who were there,at the sharp end where it all happened,inaccuracies and all,Than read it from a thousand statatitions,pencil pushers,library historians or johnny come lately armchair warriors who re-fight long won wars from the comfort of their front room or college class room.

Now THAT sounds like a lot that I've written. However your analogy of the ground pounder account of an action vs. the official account doesn't tally with what we have here. Those are more like the accounts of the torpedo man or engineer serving aboard a boat he does not command. Find and read Torpedoman, by Ron Smith for a perfect example of what you are talking about. Now, this is a piece of historical fiction, but a cursory reading reveals that there is a lot more real life here than Mr. Smith lets on. It's a poorly written book, language-wise, a bit crudely executed and that lends an authenticity unmatched by sterile after war analyses.

However, as mentioned before, Werner claims perfect knowledge. What he "remembers" are things that no captain could ever forget. I like the analogy of the football quarterback not remembering how many touchdown passes he threw. The numbers and experiences Werner misrepresents are of central importance and unforgettable to the man. The near unanimous opinion of his fellow U-Boaters is that he did not write an honest book. When in doubt I default to respecting his peers. However, in this case, doubt is not a problem.

That doesn't mean that Iron Coffins is not a terribly engaging, entertaining, rip-roaring book full of good generic portrayals of U-Boat life and appropriate moral commentary. It is a very good read, and a great introduction to learning about the U-Boat war. But it is the beginning, not the end of that process. In the pursuit of that process the opinions of RoaldLarson, Subnuts and the rest of the U-Boat sailors of all ranks will be shown to be true. There is no conflict between saying that the book is a good read and questioning the honesty of the author when he claims to be writing a book of non-fiction and it can be shown that central facts, which he must have known intimately, were misrepresented.

[Hitman]

It is just not reasonable, Stiebler, Hitman, and nikbear, to discount his lies about sinkings as honest error

That's not exactly what I said. I said that some erroes might be honest errors, and other irrealistic episodes are there to spice up the book. :yep:

The thing is, leaving aside the sinkings described in the book, I still think it offers a good representation of how the life was for the U-Boat men, and specifically their feelings. I believe that's the ultimate message of the book, not the concrete sinkings or successes, which honestly never bothered me too much as they were IMO always a secondary matter.

[AVGWarhawk]

In Conclusion
U-boat historian Jurgen Rohwer said of Iron Coffins, "If one were to pencil in with red all the factual mistakes in this book, it would look like a bloodbath". Perhaps he is right. Herbert Werner has created a gripping and ultimately tragic story, but is it simply a novel?

I cannot help but wonder why Werner felt the need to falsify the successes of his former commanders. Paul Siegmann and Ottokar Paulshen were not the Aces of the Deep that the author makes them out to be.

It's somewhat of a shame really. Iron Coffins is one of the few memoirs written by a German military officer who survived the last violent months of the war. For once, people got a chance to see German submariners as actual human beings, not inhuman piratish thugs. It also gives a vivid account of a crumbling Germany, and how the war affected civilians, including Werner's own family.

The emotional scars from World War II still affected Herbert Werner in 1969. In his introduction, he dedicates the book to seamen of all nations who died in the war. He goes so far as to say the book is a lesson, "that war is evil, that it murders men".

However, I do not feel that gave him reason to outright lie about his war record. It is with some trepidation that I give Iron Coffins the title of wartime fiction. A remarkable story of survival, yes, but still a novel.

It is not a particularly difficult book to read, though the English translation is a bit clumsy at times. Most readers should be able to finish it in under a week. If you have no interest in submarine warfare, you'll probably find yourself bored with this book. If you eat it up, give it a look, but don't take it as 100% truthful. I give it four stars based on it's value as a war story, not as a memoir.


Now this is a very interesting conclusion. My only beef is not with this conclusion, I just find it interesting. My beef is...what is the purpose of ripping the author and this book apart? A means to what end? It is a great book and provides a good picture of what happened in the boats. Would the book have lost any of it's meaning if the attack accounts were omitted? I would say no. Some classify it as fiction..well perhaps in the passages concerning the attacks but the overall depiction of the wars end and what the uboats crews were enduring is not IMO fiction. I would say it is darn close to what one man endured and experienced.

[nikbear]

The thing that fascinates me most is out of every book I've read about submarine/U-boat warfare,from both world wars,There is not a single account of a commander who hasn't claimed to have sunk at least one ship of which there is no historical record of a ship being lost on that day,of that Type,that position:hmmm:
I know that by its very nature,submarine warfare precludes confirming everything that goes on in the heat of battle,but can it really be that submariners are prone to telling whoppers when they get back to port:06::rotfl:

[AVGWarhawk]

There is not a single account of a commander who hasn't claimed to have sunk at least one ship of which there is no historical record of a ship being lost on that day,of that Type,that position:hmmm:



I would have to say the same thing Nikbear come to think of it.

[mookiemookie]

Now this is a very interesting conclusion. My only beef is not with this conclusion, I just find it interesting. My beef is...what is the purpose of ripping the author and this book apart? A means to what end? It is a great book and provides a good picture of what happened in the boats. Would the book have lost any of it's meaning if the attack accounts were omitted? I would say no. Some classify it as fiction..well perhaps in the passages concerning the attacks but the overall depiction of the wars end and what the uboats crews were enduring is not IMO fiction. I would say it is darn close to what one man endured and experienced.

I agree 100%.

You can read Blair and Patterson's books on U-boat operations and know the actual true events that happened in terms of patrols, attacks and ships sunk, but it seems very removed from the actual feel of being on a boat and almost clinical.

For that, we turn to books like Iron Coffins, Das Boot and Steel Boats, Iron Hearts. While the misremembered or fabricated details of which ships were sunk where and inflated tonnage numbers are evident, that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. These books give you an insight into the mindset and life on the boats.

Excuses don't constitute accuracy. The book is not accurate. The reason for the inaccuracies are irrelevant.
I disagree because that's a pretty blanket statement to make. Sure, you can take Werner to task by intentionally lying on some of the facts, but does that mean he was inaccurate when he said that the boat was filthy, mechanical breakdowns were common and the crew was fearful for their lives? I doubt it.

The difference between Pacific war and Atlantic war aficionados is quite interesting, with the Pacific people looking at a variety of sources and having no sacred cows, but the Atlantic people defending their Das Boot and Iron Coffins like some holy scriptures.

Having read a fairly wide selection of books on the U-boat war, both academic and biographical, I take some offense to that statement. You could just as easily say that Pacific war fans cling to Clear the Bridge and Thunder Below as their holy scriptures to the exception of all else.

While I agree that Das Boot and Iron Coffins are not the be all and end all, there's much in those books that frames the U-boat war in a human perspective and that's what I'm looking for when I read those books. I've got quite a collection of U-boat books and have read the books by guys who were there like Teddy Suhren, Peter Cremer and Hans Goebbler and the picture they present isn't far off from what I've read in Das Boot and Iron Coffins. If I want factual information on who was where at what date and what they did there, I'll go to Blair. If I want a feeling of what it was like to be there, I'd say Das Boot and Iron Coffins are not inaccurate places to start.

[RoaldLarsen]

It is just not reasonable, Stiebler, Hitman, and nikbear, to discount his lies about sinkings as honest error.That's not exactly what I said. I said that some erroes might be honest errors, and other irrealistic episodes are there to spice up the book. :yep:

I'm sorry, Hitman. You did indeed refer more than once to inaccuracies and spicing things up. My wording was clumsy and could leave the impression that I thought you were excusing all his false statements, but I know you were not.

My original draft had many quotations from several replies to my OP, but I editied them out because I thought it was making the new post unreadably long. Instead I referred by name to three of the posters who suggested possible reasons why Werner might have been mistaken. This could be taken to mean that they thought that Werner's false claims were honest error.

What I was mostly concerned about in your post was when you said
-When Werner wrote the book, most of the historical facts and figures were not available to him. If he just sat down and started writing off his memory, it is understandable that many things came up being inaccurate. I would have troubles being completely exact in remembering important things that happened ten years ago, so I guess for Werner it was the same.and especially -Werner's position and functions in the U-Boat would not always have allowed him the best picture of the battle. Probably many of the things he narrates were in fact just heard by him, not seen directly.


While this could be true of "many of the things he narrates", it cannot be true of the falsely claimed sinkings or the fake trip to the Bismark sinking site, or some other false reports. I was concerned that your wording could be taken by some to reinforce the claims of others here which seek to excuse all inaccuracies as honest or understandable error, even though you do not actually do so yourself.

[Rockin Robbins]

Having read a fairly wide selection of books on the U-boat war, both academic and biographical, I take some offense to that statement. You could just as easily say that Pacific war fans cling to Clear the Bridge and Thunder Below as their holy scriptures to the exception of all else.

Clear the Bridge and Thunder Below do not dominate the Fleet Boat book pantheon like Das Boot and Iron Coffins do. Who has EVER referred to Silent Hunter 4 as "The Thunder Below Experience" or the "Clear the Bridge Experience?" Nobody has ever criticized Silent Hunter 4 saying it just doesn't convey the flavor of Thunder Below or Clear the Bridge. We get multiple threads about whether SH3 authentically conveys the Das Boat experience.

I think the timing and qualities of these two U-Boat books was such that they riveted the attention of essentially the whole world on those two works to the exclusion of all others. Where their proper function is as gateway books to all the others, including the ones you cite, leading to a deeper understanding of the U-Boat experience and a deeper appreciation of Das Boot and Iron Coffins, even as it reveals the inaccuracies within those works.

My statements above were meant to be general expressions of a plurality of U-Boat and Pacific War afficianados, not criticism of specific individuals. Of course, there are Pacific buffs who base their entire conception of the sub war on Thunder Below or Operation Petticoat for that matter!

Of course there are some U-Boat fans like you who own a well-balanced collection of books relating to the U-Boats and rightly judge Das Boot and Iron Coffins as two small pieces of a much larger and richer puzzle.

[AVGWarhawk]

If I were to pick a book on the fleets and view it as golden:

'Wolf Pack. The American Submarine Strategy That Helped Defeat Japan'. Steven Trent Smith

[RoaldLarsen]

I'm sorry if my comments RR came across as some sort of personal attack,they were not meant as thatNo worries, nikbear. I'm not feeling personally attacked. We are just having a lively discussion about how to interpret a popular book about the u-boat war. As I proceed to torpedo your entire convoy of arguments, I hope you'll not take it as an attack on you personally, either. :03:

I was just trying to get across the fact that any book,regardless of who wrote it,whether it be official or personal,whether it was written at the time or written sometime later in a library,by a dusty historian with facts and figures at his fingertips,doesn't make it any more true or worthy just because it happens to fit the accepted or ones own personal version of events
Absolutely.

What makes it true or worthy is whether the author actually believes what he is saying. This is different from the issue of whether the book is a useful source. What makes it a useful source is whether what it portrays is accurate. What I am arguing is that Werner can not possibly believe what he has written with respect to the number of sinkings, and some other important specific claims. That in turn must cast significant doubt on whether other claims in the book are accurate. This doubt renders the book useless as a reliable source for understanding what it was like on a u-boat in 1942-45. And I say this because there are those who persist, in this very thread, in claiming that Iron Coffins is a useful source for understanding what life on a u-boat is like.

Then there is the question about why he deliberately misleads the reader. As Neil Stevens correctly points out, Werner doesn't manufacture sinkings when he is finally in command of a boat. No, what he manufactures is dangers faced. My sugestion is that Werner is deliberately trying to portray an ever greater change in fortunes of the ubootwaffe than actually existed. And that means we cannot take as reliable what he portrays as the feelings of u-boat men toward their commanders or about their situation. I do not go so far as to say that he misrepresents these feelings. Only that we cannot accept them as being a reliably truthful account.


After reading many personal accounts of combat the first thing that strikes you is how different they are from the official accounts,there is confusion,chaos and half the time utter FUBAR all over the place.
To give you two examples,the first "The battle for Normandy 1944" by Robin Neillands in which he give's you the official account,both American and British,and then gives you interviews with soldiers who were there corresponding with each phase of the battle.
And the one thing that strikes you time and again is how incorrect the official accounts are,and how angry veterans get by the inaccuracies and the implied friction between the allied forces,something the men on the ground never felt or experienced.I was going to say "I haven't read this particular book." because I didn't recognize it from your description. However, after I looked up the book on the internet I discovered that not only have I read it, I own a copy of it in my collection of Normandy histories. I don't think that his book does what you think it does. It does not contradict any offical histories. It contradicts historical interpretations by a certain school of historians like Carlo d'Este, Max Hastings, and Norman Gelb, and moreso it seeks to correct a set of popular misconceptions fostered by the American entertainment industry. I like most of Neillands' interpretation, and his methodology. He relies on primary sources as much as possible. That includes interviews with veterans, but it also includes references to historical records.

I cannot say I have been struck by how incorrect the "official accounts" are. I don't know which offical accounts you are referring to. I have read some of the official histories of the Normandy campaign, some personal acounts, and some other histories of the campaign. I have come away with the impression that the official history of the Canadian Army is the most accurate.

Personal accounts of soldiers on the ground are a very different animal from offical accounts of a whole campaign. Personal accounts of soldiers are usually almost useless for any historical purpose, except undertanding what it felt like to be there. (one of many exceptions is George G. Blackburn's three volume memoir of his experiences as the longest serving allied FOO on the Western Front.)

However, let us take the case of the memoir of an American corporal who descibes how his platoon sergeant destroyed two SS Tiger tanks on the beaches of Normandy at about 09:30 on the day of the invasion, by dropping hand grenades down their hatches. It would seem you would rather believe his account, because he was there on the beach, than the offical accounts that say that the first German tanks to be engaged were Mark IVs of the 21st Panzer Division who counterattacked on the night of June 6th between the Canadians and the eastern British beachhead.

The problem with this corporal's account is that nobody else wrote about these Tigers, that the sergeant in question didn't say he had destroyed any tanks at this time, that aerial reconnasiance photos taken shortly after show no wrecked Tigers on the beach, that it is an objective fact that there were no Tigers within several kilometers of the landing beaches until days after the invasion and that Tigers were employed against the Canadians and British weeks before any came into contact with Amercans. What reason do we have to believe anything else this corporal has to say about what it was like to be on the beaches on D-Day?

That is the Normandy equivalent to Werner's fictional claims. Non-existant destructions of notable objects which provably were not there. You cannot explain away his lies by citing fog of war, confusion, FUBAR and discrepancies between other personal accounts and official histories.

The other example is "The forgotten soldier" by Guy Sajer.Its his account of war on the eastern front while fighting with the Grosse Deutschland division in Russia.
In it there are inaccuracies, dates wrong and passages in which he freely admits that he can't tell you what happened,who he killed or where he even was.
So total was the colapse of the eastern front that barely an official account exists,Front lines and scratch divisions were formed and overun before they could even be drawn on a map.His account matches no official account for what exists,because how could it? All around him was a state of constant flux,nothing was permenant.
I have highlighted the two very significant differences between Sajer and Werner's cases. Sajer freely admits he can't tell you what happened. He does his best to recollect what happend and admits he might have part of it wrong. Because there is no reliable historic record we don't know which part of Sajer's recollections are inaccurate so we have no way of knowing whether Sajer has attempted to mislead us. Werner on the other hand, gives vivid descriptions of events in great detail. There is a reliable, accurate historic record of sinkings of ships in convoys that proves that what he decribes did not happen. This is corroborated by the records of BdU.

Does it make it any less truthfull or worthy cause the things he talks about and saw are supposed not to have happened.No

The fact that there is no offical record of what happend does not mean that what Sajer describes is "supposed not to have happend". It means that there is no official record that contradicts Sajer. Therefore Sajer's account is not disproven. We don't know whether we can rely on it, except that Sajer himself say that in certain ways we cannot rely on it.

Does the anger felt by D-day vets at the incompetence of they're leaders and the after war blame game they used to deflect blame from them selves any less worthy because it doesn't tally with the official account,NoI can't really comment much on this because you haven't explained which "offical" accounts you claim it contradicts. In his introduction Neillands doesn't claim to contradict any "official" accounts. He sets out to bust myths that have propogated (particularly in American popular culture but which have spread into the historical consciousness of English-speaking countries.) However I will observe that you seem to be confusing the usefulness of historical interpretations with those of primary sources. Nellands is challenging certain (not all) historical interpretations. He relies on official records that constituted primary sources. Werner is contradicted by primary sources, not just by subsequent interpretations.

If anything just these two out of a miriad of millions of accounts prove that if anything,they are far more worthy than any official account could ever be,or any historian could ever write!
They prove no such thing, of course. (Well maybe they do - You haven't defined what you mean by "worthy", nor what you mean by "official account".)

So I ask, of what relevance are the Neillands and Sajer books to Werner? Are you suggesting that just because Neilland may have found some discrepancies between post-war interpretations of a land campaign and the recollections of some vets that we should doubt primary source documents we have from both sides that corroborate each other? Neillands doesn't. He cites primary source documents. Are you suggesting that just because some first-hand accounts are inaccurate because of fog of war and limited perspective and that some cannot be disproven because of a lack of records that we can't prove that Werner is lying?

And if they don't tally with the Official account of events,then thats fine by me,I would rather read it from men who were there,at the sharp end where it all happened,inaccuracies and all,Than read it from a thousand statatitions,pencil pushers,library historians or johnny come lately armchair warriors who re-fight long won wars from the comfort of their front room or college class room.
I too would much rather have first-hand accounts from reliable sources than second-hand interpretations. However, I don't assume that just because somebody was there and tells an exciting story that he is telling me the truth. When somebody lies to me about one thing, I have no reason to believe he's telling me the truth when he talks to me about a related matter.

[mookiemookie]

That in turn must cast significant doubt on whether other claims in the book are accurate. This doubt renders the book useless as a reliable source for understanding what it was like on a u-boat in 1942-45. And I say this because there are those who persist, in this very thread, in claiming that Iron Coffins is a useful source for understanding what life on a u-boat is like.

So because Werner was factually incorrect (whether intentionally or not) on spatial notions like dates, times, location or attacks, he therefore has nothing to offer on the thoughts and feelings he had as a U-boat commander? That makes no sense. :doh:

[RoaldLarsen]

Now this is a very interesting conclusion. My only beef is not with this conclusion, I just find it interesting. My beef is...what is the purpose of ripping the author and this book apart? A means to what end?That is a good question, a fair question and a question that deserves to be answered. You and Mookiemookie provide examples for my motivation:


It is a great book and provides a good picture of what happened in the boats. Would the book have lost any of it's meaning if the attack accounts were omitted? I would say no. Some classify it as fiction..well perhaps in the passages concerning the attacks but the overall depiction of the wars end and what the uboats crews were enduring is not IMO fiction. I would say it is darn close to what one man endured and experienced.

You can read Blair and Patterson's books on U-boat operations and know the actual true events that happened in terms of patrols, attacks and ships sunk, but it seems very removed from the actual feel of being on a boat and almost clinical.

For that, we turn to books like Iron Coffins, Das Boot and Steel Boats, Iron Hearts. While the misremembered or fabricated details of which ships were sunk where and inflated tonnage numbers are evident, that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. These books give you an insight into the mindset and life on the boats.

While I agree that Das Boot and Iron Coffins are not the be all and end all, there's much in those books that frames the U-boat war in a human perspective and that's what I'm looking for when I read those books. I've got quite a collection of U-boat books and have read the books by guys who were there like Teddy Suhren, Peter Cremer and Hans Goebbler and the picture they present isn't far off from what I've read in Das Boot and Iron Coffins. If I want factual information on who was where at what date and what they did there, I'll go to Blair. If I want a feeling of what it was like to be there, I'd say Das Boot and Iron Coffins are not inaccurate places to start.


I have no doubt that you believe what you say, AVGWarhawk:

It is a great book and provides a good picture of what happened in the boats. I just don't believe that what you say is well founded. Either part. "It is a great book". It is a book that contains lies about the most significant events it portrays. It "provides a good picture of what happened in the boats." How do you know? What does "good" mean in this context? It has a high degree of verisimilitude. It is exciting. By these standards, yes it is good. But if by "good' you mean "accurate", I ask again, how do you know? I suggest that it provides a slanted and inaccurate view of how things were in the boats; that it paints a too rosy picture early, and a too horrific picture late.


Would the book have lost any of it's meaning if the attack accounts were omitted? I would say no.
I would say yes. If Werner had accurately accounted for the attacks of his boats and on his boats, both early in his career and late, the difference would not be nearly so dramatic. The sense of despair and disillusionment he wishes to promote would not be nearly so acute.


Some classify it as fiction..well perhaps in the passages concerning the attacks but the overall depiction of the wars end and what the uboats crews were enduring is not IMO fiction. I would say it is darn close to what one man endured and experienced.
I have no doubt that it is your opinion. But it is only an opinion, not an established fact. If you want to set aside the proven lies and assume that everything else is truth, go ahead. I see no logical reason to do so. I do not suggest that everything in the book is false. I suggest we have reason to doubt that all the rest is true. I suggest that it is provable that some claims beyond the sinkings are false, and there is no reason to think that the only false things in the book are those that are provably false.

My reason, in a nutshell, is that many submarine game afficianados are basing their understanding of u-boat life on unreliable sources. I want them to realize that the impressions they have taken from these sources may not be the correct ones. I have even seen Iron Coffins cited as a source for mod design decisions. I want an accurate simulation, not something dolled up to match fiction.

You can read Blair and Patterson's books on U-boat operations and know the actual true events that happened in terms of patrols, attacks and ships sunk, but it seems very removed from the actual feel of being on a boat and almost clinical.

I agree. Blair, Patterson et al don't give the reader a lot of flavour. There is a need for different sources for the feel of being on a boat. In search of such information, many turn to Iron Coffins and Das Boot. Certainly they give the reader a lot fo "feel". But how accurate is that feel? Why should we take the word of a proven liar on the subject of u-boat matters?

While the misremembered or fabricated details of which ships were sunk where and inflated tonnage numbers are evident, that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. These books give you an insight into the mindset and life on the boats. They give you an insight, yes. How do you know they give you an accurate insight? Sinking claims are not the only lies in the book. I would suggest to you that the false claims about sinkings are part of an attempt to misrepresent the historical context. This in turn could lead to a misunderstanding of the atmosphere in which u-boat crews operated. I suggest that Werner's motivation would lead him to misrepresent feel as much as hard facts.

While I agree that Das Boot and Iron Coffins are not the be all and end all, there's much in those books that frames the U-boat war in a human perspective and that's what I'm looking for when I read those books. I've got quite a collection of U-boat books and have read the books by guys who were there like Teddy Suhren, Peter Cremer and Hans Goebbler... If I want a feeling of what it was like to be there, I'd say Das Boot and Iron Coffins are not inaccurate places to start. But I suggest that Iron Coffins frames it in a false human perspective. I would much rather rely on Suhren, Cremer and Goebbler, though IIRC Suhren got out of front boats around the end of the Second Happy Time, Goebbler was captured before D-Day so only Cremer's last combat patrol or two would match up with some of the experiences Werner describes during his commands.

I've got quite a collection of U-boat books and have read the books by guys who were there like Teddy Suhren, Peter Cremer and Hans Goebbler and the picture they present isn't far off from what I've read in Das Boot and Iron Coffins.To the extent that Iron Coffins isn't far off from these other sources, then it can be useful. However, whereever it differs, there is no reason to believe it. But that makes it totally irrelevant. It is only useful insofar as it is corroborated by other, more reliable sources. If you have the other sources, you have no need of Iron Coffins.

[RoaldLarsen]

That in turn must cast significant doubt on whether other claims in the book are accurate. This doubt renders the book useless as a reliable source for understanding what it was like on a u-boat in 1942-45. And I say this because there are those who persist, in this very thread, in claiming that Iron Coffins is a useful source for understanding what life on a u-boat is like.

So because Werner was factually incorrect (whether intentionally or not) on spatial notions like dates, times, location or attacks, he therefore has nothing to offer on the thoughts and feelings he had as a U-boat commander? That makes no sense. :doh:
No.

First of all, the "that" at the beginning of the passage you quoted does not refer to mere inaccuracies. It matters whether it is intentional or not. "That" refers to deliberately inserted inaccuracies. Lies, not mistakes. A deliberate attempt to mislead. And this lying is done for a purpose. That purpose is consistent with misrepresentation on thoughts, feelings and experiences.

Secondly, the inaccuraces are not limited to "spatial notions like dates, times, location or attacks".

Thirdly, I do not say "he therefore has nothing to offer on the thoughts and feelings he had as a U-boat commander". Certainly he has much to offer. His life experience means he has much he could offer. I say we cannot tell whether what he actually does offer is genuine, without reference to corroborative sources. As an independent source, his proven dishonesty renders him next to useless.

[sharkbit]

Not meant to be a hijack, but I'm curious if anyone has read Erich Topp's "The Odyssey of a U-Boat Commander: Recollections of Erich Topp"?

I ask in this discussion because it is another personal memoir from a much more famous commander. I'd be interested if there are any "inaccuracies" and "spicing up" in it. I just never hear any mention of this book in most discussions.

I would love to read it but it is pretty pricey on Amazon for $103.00. For that price, I want some scantily clad female to deliver it for me. :sunny:

[nikbear]

Sadly sharkbit,there are alot of books like that,that are not re-printed and are just to pricey:nope: But I must admit he's one of my favourite commanders,along with Luth and Suhren,and Kretschmer.Especially Suhren,His book "Memoirs of A U-boat Rebel" is wonderful:salute:

[AVGWarhawk]

For Christ sakes Roald that is a darn book you wrote yourself! Let see, let me go through my list of books on the uboats:

'U-Boat Commanders in WWII' Jordan Vause
'Operation Drumbeat' Michael Gannon
'Torpedo Junction' Homer Hickam
'Silent Hunters' Theodore Savas
'War Beneath the Sea' Peter Padfield(this is the best book on the u-boats I have read to date)
and
'Iron Coffins'

Roald


I just don't believe that what you say is well founded. Either part. "It is a great book". It is a book that contains lies about the most significant events it portrays. It "provides a good picture of what happened in the boats." How do you know? What does "good" mean in this context? It has a high degree of verisimilitude. It is exciting. By these standards, yes it is good. But if by "good' you mean "accurate", I ask again, how do you know? I suggest that it provides a slanted and inaccurate view of how things were in the boats; that it paints a too rosy picture early, and a too horrific picture late.



First, Iron Coffins is not the one and only book I have read on the Uboats. See list obviously. How do I know IC paints a good picture? Well, amongst the other books I have read on the subject, they all have a recurring theme. It does not matter if any attack account is true or not, the general theme is present in each book. A battle that will not be won. Each book demonstrates this whether it be from an author who did the studies and interviews or an author that commanded a boat. As far as the rosy picture early war, it was rosy. Let's face it, the uboat commanded the seas. Churchill biggest fear was the uboats and it was not unfounded in the early stages. There was the happy times. These men were treated well. Wine, women and song as it were. As far as horror towards the end of the war, yes, each book had the same theme. It was horror. What, is it 75% of the crews did not return? Crappy odds no doubt. So, lets take a look at the title of said book. "Iron Coffins". Does this title somehow equate to a book about really cool attacks whether accurate to the letter or a bit fogged over time of incidents to actual writting? With this title I would think and do think the book is not going to be pretty and the ending will be much worse. The title is exactly what the author wanted the reader to know about the uboats. These machines were iron coffins. The attack accounts are nice and fill a void to enhance the writing. If they are not accurate to the letter then forgive an old warrior for the inconsistancy.


Roald
I have no doubt that it is your opinion. But it is only an opinion, not an established fact. If you want to set aside the proven lies and assume that everything else is truth, go ahead. I see no logical reason to do so. I do not suggest that everything in the book is false. I suggest we have reason to doubt that all the rest is true. I suggest that it is provable that some claims beyond the sinkings are false, and there is no reason to think that the only false things in the book are those that are provably false.

My reason, in a nutshell, is that many submarine game afficianados are basing their understanding of u-boat life on unreliable sources. I want them to realize that the impressions they have taken from these sources may not be the correct ones. I have even seen Iron Coffins cited as a source for mod design decisions. I want an accurate simulation, not something dolled up to match fiction.


Yes, this is my opinion and not established fact. Your fact finding is the accounts of attacks as not accurate. Not a lot to go on to make this book seem worthless. Does it detrack from the overall theme? Not in my opinion. These embelishments do not take from the overall books idea of a losing battle in the authors own mind and world. Besides for some flower exciting emblishment, what would the author gain by knowingly making these attack so exciting? A few more book sales? Probably not. Was he perhaps reminicing and adding some grandure to his memory? More than likely.

As for your second paragraph above. As you can see, my list of books on the subject are a bit more than just IC. For you to say that some mods based their design decision on IC soley or just a passage is completely incorrect. I can guarantee you that the creaters of GWX have a library full of uboat information. If I really needed an answer to a uboat question I could not find my first stop would be the fellas who made GWX. These guys have studied this for years to bring the best in accurate simulation as the game will allow. If I really wanted to know convoy routes and battles I would visit Lurker and his OM mod. Lurker has information gathering skills that would make the Library of Congress blush. No, design decision were made with every shred of actual evidence they could get their hands on.

At any rate, to what end to rip this book to shreds because of some attack inconsistency? Perhaps these inaccurate accounts lead to other inaccurate accounts on how life was on the boats? Certainly but my other readings on the matter would and do dictate this is how life was on the boats, flowers or embelishment not withstanding. Therefore I still stand that IC is a 'good book' on how life was on the boats. Maybe not the most accurate but a good picture compared to my other readings.