Things that bother me about "Iron Coffins"

[IanC]

Originally Posted by BigBANGtheory

I'm glad you said that, I got a 2nd hand copy off Amazon the other day and its ready and waiting to be started.

It's not considered a U-boat classic for nothing.

[mcarlsonus]

Originally Posted by IanC

The best part of Iron Coffins is when Werner casually mentions how he single handedly shot down an airplane with a WW1 water cooled machine gun! Who's da man!

Having said that, I still think his book is one of the best out there, errors and all.
Just consider it a novel if you want, the book does what it's suppose to do, and I think it does it well.

SHOOT ! That ain't nothin' !! I seem to remember a part of Thunder Below where Eugene Fluckey claimed he invaded and took over one of the islands off the Japanese mainland, planting a flag, and claiming it for the United States! That was just BEFORE he invented the atomic bomb and single-handedly punched the entire country of Japan right square in the kisser! "To the moon, Tojo!" he roared...

(oh jeez. I GOTS to get those prescriptions refilled!)

[JScones]

Truth can be hard to swallow. Now had you stated that "Das Boot" was not factual, then there'd be a public burning in this thar forum...

[JamesT73J]

The accuracy failings of 'Iron Coffins' are well documented. However, the book succeeds on it's strengths: Capturing the mood and tone of the whole U-Boat war perfectly; from triumph to disaster and total defeat. It is well written.

There are more objective accounts. Peter Cremer's U-333 is a great read, and diligently researched, but is arguably drier than Werner's work. Any student of the subject matter will read a spread of material and draw his own conclusions.

James

[Laffertytig]

ive also read iron coffins and found it a great read. ok, maybe its not 100% accurate but i still really enjoyed it

[Iron Budokan]

Yes, it's a fictionalized account of a man's life during the war. And it's a damn good book when you view it through that lens. Period.

[Elektranaut]

The post war section is bizarre,is there any truth in that?
Anyhow a great read,fact or fiction.....

[JotDora]

Hmmm strange!

i've red the german original a few weeks ago and cannot remember any distant torpedo explosions on a mission in 1945. Could you please give a page number where you've red this?

Greetings

JotDora

[Bilge_Rat]

I have not read "Iron Coffins", so cannot comment on it, but personal account or memoirs are often very subjective accounts. There are many reasons from this, not all of which are attibutable to outright lying.

1. It is based on fog of war and incomplete info. Many sub skippers on both sides reported hits or sinkings which made sense at the time, based from their viewpoint, but which could not be justified by postwar records;

2. It is based on memory. Unless someone took copious notes or rechecked the records, writing down an event years afterwards, just from memory is rarely accurate. Events get mixed up, certain aspects are forgotten, etc.

3. self-justification. more nebulous concept, but people have a hard time taking an objective look at themselves and will usually try to rationalise, justify or present their actions in a positive light.

I usually stay away from memoirs for those reasons and read thoroughly researched history books, like Blair's books: "Hitler's U-Boat War" and "Silent Victory" on the pacific submarine war.

On the wider concept of the romance of submarine warfare, I have always wondered about that as well. If you look at it objectively, the whole concept of a submarine in WW2 (whether U.S. or German) was to carry out sneak attacks on civilian ships which often resulted in the deaths of men, women and children. That is about as glamorous as being part of a bomber crew bombing enemy cities or snipers/sharpshooters in a land army.

I presume the "romance" comes directly out of WW2 propaganda. The Nazi regime glamourized U-Boat skippers and their exploits, painting them as aces and heroes. i.e:



Even Allied propaganda painted U-Boat skippers as "dangerous" and "pirates" which gave them a glamorous anti-hero image, much like U.S. gangsters in the 20's and 30's. For example:

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Iron Budokan

Yes, it's a fictionalized account of a man's life during the war. And it's a damn good book when you view it through that lens. Period.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by JScones

Truth can be hard to swallow. Now had you stated that "Das Boot" was not factual, then there'd be a public burning in this thar forum...

Originally Posted by Iron Budokan

Yes, it's a fictionalized account of a man's life during the war. And it's a damn good book when you view it through that lens. Period.

Ah! but Das Boot was written and advertised as a fictionalised account whereas Iron Coffins author purports to have written a factual represenation of his career.

They both contain some facts however both are not totally factual.

[Westbroek]

This is a bit like the "Million Little Pieces" scandal, where the guy had to go on Oprah and beg for forgiveness about lying in a "memoir" about having some teeth removed.
Perhaps we should send Werner on to Oprah and let him see how he holds up?

[Subnuts]

Whether or not the book is a "damn good read" or "somewhat fictionalized" doesn't absolve Werner from the fact that he outright lied throughout much of Iron Coffins, committing the cardinal sin of "making sh&t up" and coming across as a goody two-shoes throughout. I know all about fog-of-war and faulty memories - but how does one "remember" sinking six ships in a convoy attack that never really happened? Werner promoted this book as the Gospel Truth and we all bought it hook line and sinker.

One of these days, Iron Coffins is going to be raked over the coals in the same manner that John Parshall and Anthony Tully took Mitsuo Fuchida to task in Shattered Sword.

[sharkbit]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

The amount of blatant fabrication contained within. Werner has U-557 sinking seven ships on her first patrol, when only one was sunk in reality. He then has her sinking six ships on her third patrol, when again, only one was sunk. He then has U-230 attacking Convoy HX-229/SC-122, sinking seven ships of the 22 in total sunk from the two convoys. However, the boat never got close enough to either convoy to fire a single torpedo or shell at it! Finally, he describes attacking a convoy in January, 1945 near England, observing three distinct torpedo strikes. Official records fail to credit him with sinking or damaging a single ship during his career as a U-boat captain.

I'm currently reading Clay Blair's "Hitler's U-Boat War: The Hunters, 1939-1942" and I'm constantly amazed at the over inflation(sometimes by a huge amount) of tonnage sunk by the individual commanders and the claims of ships sunk that never were sunk. I realize that the fog of war and human failings are a big part of those excessive claims. I think that, at least to some degree, that may be one of the reasons for Werner's "over claiming" in his book. I'd still bet there was a certain amount of embellishment on Werner's part to make for "a good read".

I think it's been previously agreed in other threads on the subject that the best thing is not to use the book for any reference data.

I don't think I'll ever shelve the book forever and I'd even recommend it to people with the warning that it is closer to fiction than the truth. So many people believe everything they read in a book, even from a fiction book, as the truth.
Very good points though subnuts. I'll look forward to reading your entire review.

[msalama]

Okay, you can all hate me now.

Why? Pretty much my verdict too when I first read it...