A First: New book about WW1 subs (but ...

[Catfish]

Hello,
i have heard a lot of Clay Blairs's "Hitler's U-boat war", i did not yet read it though. Seems to be a modern approach to this scenario, and most of the critiques were indeed positive.

[" ... I found it interesting how the the first chapter is devoted to what Germany "learned" from WWI. I found one statistic interesting. The working theory is everything sunk was via a torpedo. But the statistics for WWI U-boats were 70% of what was sunk was by the DECK GUN according to Mr. Clay Blair's records and documentation. Interesting, egh? ... "]

Hmm maybe it is because of my (german) language, but i do not quite understand this. You mean that most sinkings during WWI were caused by U-boat's deck gun fire (right), while most sinkings in WWII were caused by torpedoes (right), and the question is what Germany learned of WWI ? :hmm:

For my understanding Blair does not mean this fact by "learning" of WW1, the circumstances in WW2 were much different. Most merchants were fitted with guns after 1941, and even if there is only one known damage of a U-boat by a merchant's deck gun it sure prevented the U-boats from surface attacks at daytime.
In the first days of the 2nd worls war when international laws were still kept, U-boats indeed stopped and searched merchants before sinking them.
Maybe he means "they" learned something else, like tactics, how to use U-boats with more effect, and the developing technology ?

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[Monica Lewinsky]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Hello,
Hmm maybe it is because of my (german) language, but i do not quite understand this. You mean that most sinkings during WWI were caused by U-boat's deck gun fire (right), while most sinkings in WWII were caused by torpedoes (right), and the question is what Germany learned of WWI ? :hmm:

Hmm maybe it is because of my (german) language, but i do not quite understand this. You mean that most sinkings during WWI were caused by U-boat's deck gun fire (right),

YES

while most sinkings in WWII were caused by torpedoes (right),

YES

and the question is what Germany learned of WWI ?

YES

I am just a plain, simple YES girl. :p

Originally Posted by Catfish

For my understanding Blair does not mean this fact by "learning" of WW1, the circumstances in WW2 were much different. Most merchants were fitted with guns after 1941, and even if there is only one known damage of a U-boat by a merchant's deck gun it sure prevented the U-boats from surface attacks at daytime.

You are CORRECT on the learning part. I was just pointing out the folklore of subs in WWI sinking ships left and right via a torpedo is NOT accurate. The Deck Guns on the WWI subs did most of the sinking.

Sir .....
HIGHLY recommend that book. It is almost 1,000 pages. True, your passion might be WWI, but that book is DARN GOOD! anyway.

PLEASED to meet you!


I hope your next patrol gives you TONAGE!

I wish you success!

[Catfish]

Hi,
" ... I hope your next patrol gives you TONAGE! ..."
Thanks dito, i never thought i would ever talk to Mrs. Lewinsky about WW1 in a Subsim forum
Greetings from Germany,
Catfish

[Monica Lewinsky]

Originally Posted by Catfish

i never thought i would ever talk to Mrs. Lewinsky about WW1 in a Subsim forum
Greetings from Germany,
Catfish

Technically it is MISS not Mrs. :p
Greeting from the U. S. of A.

[Catfish]

Hello,
i have not yet finished reading the book, but ...

As it is explained in this book William (or Wilhelm) the 2nd was not crazy, nor did he draw the rest of the world into a war. The situation in Europe and parts of Asia were on the brink of war regarding a lot of nations, indeed Wilhelm as the rest of the german military did not believe England would enter a war, and he himself most probably would not have without Sarajevo. After all he was a direct descendant of the British Royal family (and i always wondered where his spleen came from hrrrm), and had helped the British Commonwealth in China.

It was France that had declared war to Germany, because of the Russian declaration of war towards Austro-Hungary. After the Austro-hungarian declaration of war against Serbia, Russia instantly declared war to Austro-Hungary, and thus to Germany, having treaties to help in case of war.

The official reason for England to join the war was the german march/invasion through Belgium, and this violation was due to the doctrine that Germany never expected to be able to win a war even at two fronts, let alone against the "rest" of the world.

The doctrine of the german military staff was to make a hopefully quick victory against France at all costs to buy time for gathering equipment for the war against Russia. England was not expected to support France and join the war, which certainly throws some light at the awareness and intelligence of german politics of the time. It indeed seems that England only waited for a chance to join a confrontation against Germany, the plans for the channel crossing and the "far blockade" were already done in 1907. As well Asquith seems to have intentionally used the declaration of war to keep his party at power in 1914.

The Kaiser: He was certainly a flaring monarch, as the rest of the royal world was at that time. The royal family in England preferred some distance to him because they did not want to be involved in Wilhelm's failure, and lose their own position in the British society. The US had already proven there was no real need for a expensive king or Kaiser in a modern society any more.

The Reichstag and a lot of Lobbyists as well as the "classic" military staff tried to influence Wilhelm, but it was not before the german chancellor left the stage in 1917 that he would listen to some military advisors - who seem to have been wrong for the whole time of the war right from the beginning.

Greetings,
Catfish

[horsa]

Thanks Catfish.

I take it there isn't ( as yet) an english translation of the book so I can't comment on its views.

If your review accurately represents the book then all I can say is OK its a point of view. I would certainly agree that WW1 wasn't such a clear case of "baddies v goodies" as ww2 has become, but I would still take some persuading that a somewhat neurotic head of state presiding over an autocratic system of government didn't destabalise europe into a major war.

[Catfish]

Hello,
Horsa thanks fo your comment, i believe all this this is probably hard to accept.
I have already posted some more parts of a "review" over at the aerodrome forum, if anyone is interested:
http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/bo...-new-book.html
The contents of the book maybe highly controversial, but it is well worth a read. Schroeder does not really describe his point of view, but mostly quotes correspondence and witness reports that paint a different picture about WW1 than i thought i knew. I am almost thinking of translating the whole thing, but 400+ pages ...
Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[Crinius]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Hello,
It was France that had declared war to Germany, because of the Russian declaration of war towards Austro-Hungary. After the Austro-hungarian declaration of war against Serbia, Russia instantly declared war to Austro-Hungary, and thus to Germany, having treaties to help in case of war.


Catfish

Thats the reason why I never in my live understood why Germany is accused of being igniting WWI. I recently read a book about Prussia. Theres a new study from US students. They found out that between 1800 and 1940 there were about 270 wars. Prussia/Germany was only involved in 8% of these wars. Guess what: Britain 28% and France 26%.

[Buddahaid]

That's because the winning side always writes the history in their favor.

Buddahaid

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Monica Lewinsky

The Deck Guns on the WWI subs did most of the sinking.

It is perhaps worth to mention on a side note that many ships were not sunk only by gun or torpedos. In many instances they were stopped and sunk with blasting cartridges or by opening the sea valves.

[Deamon]

Catfish you are from germany ?