Das Boot Mystique

[sharkbit]

Originally Posted by Paul Riley

Never tried B&N or Borders
Stick to Amazon mate,you can't go far wrong with them

Believe me-B&N or Borders will never see a dime of my money!

[Paul Riley]

Then I reckon they wont see a 'penny' or 'pound' of mine

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

Careful lest the Das Boot fans tar you as a heretic and run you out of town. Buchhiem's novel has achieved mythological status with many here and one should always be careful questioning dogma.

I'm quite possibly the film's most vocal supporter here, and every time someone brings up the fact that Buchheim complained about the things Petersen changed for the the movie, I'm the first one to point out that more than one u-boatman has said that the book has very little to do with what it was really like.

Yes, it's only a novel. On the other hand he did make that one patrol and the book reflects his own thoughts and feelings about what he experienced. What makes the movie great for me isn't the cliched nonsense that takes place (the scene with Johann makes me cringe every time I see it), but the recreation of the boat itself, with all its crowded claustrophobia.

No, this ultrafan won't tar and feather, but will agree with you completely. Love it, but don't take it for history.

[Paul Riley]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

(the scene with Johann makes me cringe every time I see it)

Which scene is that Steve,the part where his nerve went and he tried to open the hatch when they were submerged?

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

No, this ultrafan won't tar and feather, but will agree with you completely. Love it, but don't take it for history.

One should not assume that I am down on either the book or the Petersen film in its assorted incarnations, rather the opposite actually. My badly worn, dog eared copy of U-Boat, the title in the first paperback English languge editions (and subsequently changed to "The Boat" to cash in on the movie's success), was bought new in 1976. My oft-read paperback edition of Iron Coffins replaced an early hardcover edition bought while I was in high school in the sixties and lost in a minor flooding accident. So I am intimately familier with both, I grew up with these two works and consider them indispensible to any Battle of the Atlantic library.

My issue is with those who read nothing else and accept them unreservedly as "Historical Fact", and sadly there are a significant number of Members of this Forum who tend to do just that.

Anybody who reads Buchheim should make the effort to read its best (in my opinion) Allied counterpart, Nichlolas Monsarrat's The Cruel Sea or at least have a movie marathon and watch Das Boot and the 1950's Jack Hawkin's movie based on Monsarrat's book back to back. Two sides of the Battle of the Atlantic coin by eloquent veteran's of that conflict. Both should be considered historically important for context but essentally useless as reference material.

The supposedly factual Iron Coffins is like many unsourced autobiographies and first-person narratives, it's both entirely self-serving and full of easily debunked errors and inconsistancies that throw the credibility of the author into a poor light over those parts of the book that do not have independent corroboration. As an aside the bulk of U-Boat veterans treated Herbert Werner much the same as they treated Buchheim and for many of the same reasons. I find it more than a little ironic that two German authors, largely shunned by their veteran peers at home should find themselves so lionized by their former enemies.

For novels, The Cruel Sea and Das Boot certainly deserve inclusion with great war fiction, sharing memorable company with All Quiet on the Western Front, The Red Badge of Courage, August 1914, A Rumor of War, Good Soldier Svejk, Bomber and Run Silent Run Deep.

Being a good story is not the same thing as being good history.

Edited to correct one factual error, A. Solzhenitsyn's great book of the Battle of Tannenburg is titled August 1914 not just 1914. My error, had to check the bookself to make sure.

[sharkbit]

Excellent post, Randomizer!

[maillemaker]

I'm big into medieval history and reenacting. Every time a "medieval" movie comes out, people cry about how it's hollywhood and not historical.

I don't care. I realize going in that it's not a documentary. I'm in it for the story.

One of my most favorite medieval movies is "Excalibur". Completely ahistorical. But a wonderful telling of the Aurthurian Tale.

I love Das Boot. It's well acted, gritty, and believable. It allows for suspension of belief. That's the best a good fictional work can do.

Steve

[frau kaleun]

Reminds me of a list I saw somewhere after "Gladiator" came out, someone was ranting about how he hated hated HATED the movie and gave as his reason some 200+ alleged historical inaccuracies he had noted in the film.

The question was, how many times did he have to watch this movie he hated so much to come up with that list?

Originally Posted by maillemaker

I'm big into medieval history and reenacting. Every time a "medieval" movie comes out, people cry about how it's hollywhood and not historical.

I don't care. I realize going in that it's not a documentary. I'm in it for the story.

One of my most favorite medieval movies is "Excalibur". Completely ahistorical. But a wonderful telling of the Aurthurian Tale.

I love Das Boot. It's well acted, gritty, and believable. It allows for suspension of belief. That's the best a good fictional work can do.

Steve

I really enjoyed Excalibur as well, in fact me and The Boss watched it back to back with The Queen, sort of a Helen Merrin marathon seeing her morph from young Hottie in Excalibur to... well... the Queen of England!

I can only pick crap movies apart for historical errors, the good ones so should absorb one to the point where such things are easily ignored. So the riveting Das Boot gets a pass and the execrably bad U-571 does not. Gladiator is in the win column in my book as well.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Paul Riley

Which scene is that Steve,the part where his nerve went and he tried to open the hatch when they were submerged?

Yep. I've seen it somewhere before, and it feels like a cliche to me, not to mention the fact that the hatch opens outward and thus cannot be opened underwater.

Originally Posted by Randomizer

For novels, The Cruel Sea and Das Boot certainly deserve inclusion with great war fiction...

If you ever get the chance, read Monsarrat At Sea. It includes his original wartime writing, some short stories and the truth about The Cruel Sea.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...9&postcount=90

Originally Posted by sharkbit

I'm at that same point now. It's interesting how Gannon points out that what was about to fall upon the American coast will be a bigger catastrophe than the attack on Pearl Harbor, yet is not widely known.
It's a shame how petty rivalries, back-stabbing, glory seeking, anti-English sentiment, and politics made this a catastrophe waiting to happen. The US Navy was tottally unprepared.

The best of The US Navy was sent to The Pacific, where USA was having her head handed to her.

Although the tanker harvest was on USA's East Coast, it hurt Engand more than it did USA.
Japan was busy conducting invasions on US Territory, including The Aleutians (Alaska!).

As high as the price tag was in The Atlantic, The Pacific was more important to USA at the time. And USA was loosing, big time.

Admiral King has been portrayed in all manner of negative light, mostly by British and some Canadian naval historians and there is some merit in their arguments. However, these are mostly one-sided and rarely is the situation regarding convoying on the East Coast looked at through the eyes of CINCLANT and the office of the CNO.

- Clay Blair has showed the movements and availablility of every US escort during this period and pretty much demolishes the myth that everything that floated was sent to the Pacific.

- The Eastern Sea Frontier forces were sailing convoys, troopship convoys to Newfoundland, Iceland and the UK while maintaining their share of the escort duties West of the MOMP and Saint John. This destroys the myth that he did not believe that convoys were the answer.

- King was a trained submariner and to him, an unescorted convoy was seen as a gift to an aggressive submarine commander. He over estimated the ability of a submarine to make multiple attacks and under estimated the difficulty in locating convoys as opposed to independantly routed merchants.

- He over estimated the ability of the Army Air Corps to conduct effective anti-submarine patrols in coastal waters, the role that the USAAC had demanded and won during interservice political squabbles in the thirties.

- He prioritized his escort assets to protect what he considered the high value targets, the troopships.

- Not learning from the British experiances is no worse than the British dogmatically ignoring American (and other people's) innovations until crunch time has come and gone. All military services are prone to the "That won't happen to Us" mindset and always have been.

He may well have been an S.O.B. and rabid Anglo-phobe but these traits had little to do with the naval disaster that unfolded off America's east coast. The British would do well to remember that many of King's operational doctrines had been theirs and that in late 1940 when there was no solution in sight to defeat the night-surface attack, a number of prominant RN admirals considered abandoning the convoy system entirely. This in light of the demonstrated ability of U-Boats to make multiple attacks against a poorly defended convoys is exactly what King anticipated would happen.

Ernest King was certainly wrong about a great number of things but not because he was a hide-bound, Brit hating idiot. He was wrong because he went with his training and experiance, because the Air Corps could not do the job they had demanded be theirs and because he prioritized the lives of US servicemen over merchant ships and material.

There's plenty of blame to share, King has a big piece but does not own it all.