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

[Catfish]

... more about the political and naval background, it is not a book about U-boat technics). However i know of no book that is that detailed, and thoroughly researched. Be aware this will put WW1 and its causes in a (for me) new dimension, it is however equally hard and fair to the main opponents of WW1.

Title is "Die U-Boote des Kaisers", and it explains in detail why and how those first U-boats were used, against what and why. This pulls away the internationally accepted cover and dust of almost a hundred years, showing that politics of that time are those of today. It also ends the discussion if the german Kaiser was a helpless marionette, or a monstrous tyrant, and why he had reacted in the way he finally did. It also explains in detail England's politics and plans of ostracizing Germany, and as well the reason for the Entente treaties in 1905 to 07. Since i am aware that the causes for WW2 go directly back to WW1 and its outcome this is a must read. It is as non-revanchistic as politically incorrect, at least for my generation .
The price is quite low imho (bought it for 13,95 Euro in a Decius store), and it is only in german, but in one of the critiques there is some hope expressed to have this translated into english soon.

http://www.amazon.de/Die-U-Boote-Kai.../dp/3763762353

http://www.historio-graphus.de/Presseschau.htm

Greetings,
Catfish

[Monica Lewinsky]

Hey bubba,

No intent of messing with you post, but, about a year ago. I completed the book called:

Hitler's U-Boat War by Clay Blair.

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?

just a FYI.

[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

[horsa]

all this this is probably hard to accept.

I'll accept anything if its backed up by reliable evidence and reasoned impartially.

[peterloo]

[off-topic]AAH I've read Hilter's U boat war a year ago, when I borrowed it from a public library. Quite a good book and it's pretty informative [/off-topic]

No surprise that U boat captains use desk guns to sink targets - the torpedoes lack enough explosive charge (warhead is half of that in WWII while enemy ship size is similiar), the shortage of torpedo supply which means torpedoes had to be saved for large targets, means desk guns are necessary to sink ships, and that's why British could employ Q-ship successfully. Without luring a Captain to surface the boat and uses his gun, any hidden guns won't work

[Catfish]

Hello,
apart from the not-so-effective torpedoes (the book mentions that a half of them missed the target, and some did not explode, if only a few) there is another point regarding the law of nations (or international public law), and war crimes.

Through a periscope it was not easy to decide whether the target was a neutral, an enemy or a Q-ship. Since german U-boat commanders were instructed to thoroughly examine what kind of ship it was before an attack, this was a time consuming and dangerous task. The larger boats were fast enough and could stop any but very fast ships with the deck gun.
The boats of the Flanders flotilla were slow and had no deck gun, so they could not stop or outrun an enemy - they were to sink obviously hostile ships submerged, identified only by periscope.

Prize regulation according international public law :
- Enemy warships: These were allowed to be attacked without warning anywhere but in neutral harbours.
- Enemy trade ships (merchants): Allowed to be sunk anywhere with regard to international public law, the so-called prize regulation treaty.
-Neutral ships - they had to be stopped, searched, and its papers controlled, and only if the ship had contraband, weapons or whatever on board it was allowed to sink them. Again the crew was allowed to leave the ship.

The exception to this generally accepted practice was the unrestricted, or "total" war, as it was termed by England, which seems to have fought this kind of war since the beginning. Trade ships were sunk without warning, even in neutral harbours, together with designated hospital ships. The US protested against this kind of warfare, but to no avail.
Germany limited the unrestricted U-boat war to certain regions around England, but even then most U-boat crews again stopped the ships and let the crew leave before sinking it against the declared will of the Reichsmarineamt (Reichs Naval Office). Again this "unrestricted war" did only take place for a short time, and it was not so unrestricted, since there were hundreds of exceptions and regions where sinkings were not allowed.

The "Q-ships" were a u-boat trap in a double sense - if a boat remained at the surface because its course was crossing an "american" or other neutral ship that suddenly opened fire, it was mostly sunk within minutes. If a boat would have sunk an american ship suspecting it was a "Q-ship" there would be instantly an international uproar, probably drawing the US into the war. The Baralong Q-ship incident was one of those atrocities witnessed by american passengers, but it was then played down by the Entente propaganda.

Anyway all "Q-ships" did not have the impact that had been intended, and despite using them, the german U-boats still followed international prize regulations - indeed the tonnage sunk per month was even bigger than during the months of the unrestricted U-boat war.

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

[Catfish]

Hello,
what i learned at school in Germany during the 1970ies was indeed that "we" started all major wars, and certainly were guilty of all war crimes ever committed.
Everyone even asking would be instantly declared as revanchistic and ultra-right - which in Germany simply means nationalistic and Nazi. It simply was and is a big "No" touching those themes.

As well Germany was (and often still is) equated with Prussia, which is certainly wrong since 1872, when Prussia became one state within numerous others. As well major parts of the former "Prussia" are now Poland.

It is as someone else mentioned, that WW2 and the atrocities against the so-called inferior races as well as concentration camps had blurred the view at the historical happenings before the 3rd Reich, and made all additional propaganda seem right -as if this additional propaganda would not even have been superfluous after what had happened alone from 1933-45 ... in that way we can "thank" Hitler for the view the world had and has towards Germany.

Who started the war ... the situation in Europe resembled a powder keg, and the assassination in Sarajevo ignited the spark. From a technical point of view it was Austro-Hungary, but this monarchy did not intend to fight anyone else than Serbia, which alone was certainly wrong enough.

It is just that the causes for England to join the war at France's side were not so unselfish as it seems. They did not like to have another nation join the "exclusive club" of colonial powers (England, France, Belgium), and the armament of the german fleet who had just become the second largest fleet after the UK's posed a threat on the seven seas, even if "Britannia..." still "...ruled the waves".

Indeed William 2nd intended to use the fleet internationally for securing the colonies, and german warships like the "Emden" and "Nuernberg" helped smash riots overseas - as other colonial powers certainly also had, and did.

Greetings,
Catfish