Did you ever think about it?

[AirborneCZ]

I really have not found anyone calling the u-boat crews as heros.

well anyway discussion has moved that way. And I have the guts to call them HEROS koz Im not tied with some politcal correctness issues.

As much as the USN crews, as much as RAF &USAF & Luftwaffe crews & pilots, as much as anyone who didnt fight that war because of stupid ideologies but simply because they were doing their best to survive and did extremely well under extreme conditions.

You can hate someone in the heat of the battle, but you gotta respect them if they fight fair. That of course counts only for some. On all sides. And all conflicts. Up to now.

[CCIP]

Alright, that's fair enough then. On a personal level, holding some bitterness at lost family members is acceptable. And I read further up and definitely agree with you on the point of the merchant seamen, they definitely deserve praise above all.

But I think the side they fought on shouldn't be dismissed outright. 'Heroes' might not be a totally appropriate term depending on how you define heroes, and certainly I don't think sinking Allied merchant ships is something you want to take as an example of heroism to future generations. It's not. But some of the things done on U-boats might be far more admirable, if you can look past the side of the war they fought on.

I'd be the last to bring Nazi forces up as heroes of course. To put it in likewise-personal perspective, I was born in the city of Leningrad - that should say something about what I feel about the war. But you can't look at it as some war machine that was composed of completely brainwashed millions. It was not. It was composed of people. Again, this is also very personal to me, being of mixed Russo-German-Finnish ancestry and with my family having lost a lot of kin in the war in all sorts of awful ways - from dying of wounds, to dying of hunger, to dying in a concentration camp.

I'm completely and utterly opposed to the 'demonization' of even the highest Nazi leaders in that way. If we don't acknowledge what they did as part of the fabric of humanity, then we've learned nothing from the war. Even the worst enemies of our sense of humanity have something to teach us about being human. Forget U-boats, crewed mostly by 20 year olds who couldn't begin to make sense of what they were getting into, nor had any logical way of avoiding it. Cursing them on the battlefield is acceptable, cursing them some 60-odd years after the fact is just plain rude. As long as the survivors acknowledge that their country's cause was criminal, they deserve none of this dehumanization today. And if they do, then so does every other wartime submariner in history.

[Subwolf]

Well AVGWarhawk...

This just confirms that you got little knowledge about U-boats. Half sunk? Okey maybe if it's damaged. Otherwise a U-boat is a much more seaworthy and safer vessel than a surface ship...

But again, I'm really surprised that some of you can really honor the U-boat crews. No thanks

[Ole]

Here's the problem: How do you reach a political solution with a person/group who's only goal in life is to literally kill you, destroy your culture, society, and country, and impose their religion and views on you and the rest of the world? The source of the problem is that from their point of view, there's no compromise possible. I'm in Iraq, I've been here for over 2 years. I've seen enough first-hand to know something of which I speak.

your problem is a war in a country, where terrorist from all over the world travel to, to fight against you. for me, these terrorists can all be erased, got no problem with that. but if you think this is the only way it goes, well, your opinion. the process going on in the arabic countries, is a process like it has been in europe over 500 years ago. for me, regarding their society structures, they are far behind us, but they overhaul. this process is more comprehensive than you might think. in the history of europe, many wars have been fought by religious causes, it was part of our history to achieve what we got today. our problem today is: we sell them weapons, train them in terror-tactics, financiate them and finally wonder when they turn against us. thats the point we should think about.
i say, leave them alone, don´t help them, sell them anything, let them pass their cultural developments on their one. but this is much more complex as to explain here in short form.

It's ironic that you consider the Nazis "barbarous men", yet you apparently believe the right thing to have done after 9.11 was to reach some sort of political compromise. The 9.11 attacks weren't barbaric? People being forced to jump out the window, to certain death, to avoid being roasted alive, isn't barbaric? Think for a moment what it must have been like for them, being forced to make that choice. If that's not barbaric, I don't know what is.

read again, i didn´t say what you are trying to assume.

We're supposed to sit down, negotiate, and reach a political compromise? Polical compromise didn't work with Hitler, either, did it?.

study the history, and you´ll find out, that in the beginning of the expansion politics of the Nazis, their neighbours neglected political sanctions. the only action was a condemn in the league of nations. thats not consequent and it is like today. the UN does realy not condemn any countries actions or even impose a sanction.

As far as "a government sending their people into a war, is ruthless and worthless.", Britian and France were the ones who declared war on Germany, not the other way around. So, by your definition, the British and French governments were ruthless and worthless.

you only read want you want. i wrote every country. not only british and french. a war is always battled on the back of the underclass, thats the point i was talking about.

Please, think about what you're saying, and what would be the logical outcome of your views. Throughout history, there have always been people/groups who wanted to impose their views on others.
I'll grant you, democracy is a sometimes messy and inefficient form of government, but it's the best one so far, for protecting the rights of it's members. Trying to reach a political compromise with dictators and tyrants is just not possible. Just remember, the only reason you can have these discussions with your British friend, and post your views here, is because of democratic goverments. Do you really want to give up those rights?

you make me angry, you should become a advocate. i didn´t wrote anything about abolishing democracy, so why do you say that? Yoi say a political compromise with dictators is impossible? so why did your government work together with saddam hussein against iran since 1979? i hope you know about it.

to come back to the main statement: a war is always bad, for the country attacking, defending, it doesn´t matter. i think every country should always try to prevent a war as good as possible. actually this is not happening today, that is sad.
and please stop assuming such bull****, thx.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Subwolf

But again, I'm really surprised that some of you can really honor the U-boat crews. No thanks

I think you're still a bit touchy on just what we mean by that, I don't think most of us 'honor' them in the way you'd assume. Chill out. None of us are building a cult of U-boat worship, I think

I'll put it this way - I'll respect any good soldier, not because of what they fight for, but in a pure sense of military honour. It's an idea that's been around since the most ancient times you know, doesn't even have to be humanist in the sense that I take it.

At the same time, if by some chance I lived in World War II, and I ended up near a U-boat with some potent weapon? You bet I'd be trying to sink it.

[Dan0859]

First,
Somebody please tell me how to make those boxes you use when you quote someone.
Second, I had a friend of mine who served in the merchant marine during WW2. He survived a number of attacks, including one that sank the ship he was on. What was interesting to me, was that he made a definite distinction between the war and the German U-boat sailors. His view was that the sailors were doing the job they were ordered to do, and he never expressed anything but respect for them. I think it's possible be against Hitler and what he stood for, yet to respect the average sailor (or soldier) who was trying to do the job he was given.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Dan0859

First,
Somebody please tell me how to make those boxes you use when you quote someone.
Second, I had a friend of mine who served in the merchant marine during WW2. He survived a number of attacks, including one that sank the ship he was on. What was interesting to me, was that he made a definite distinction between the war and the German U-boat sailors. His view was that the sailors were doing the job they were ordered to do, and he never expressed anything but respect for them. I think it's possible be against Hitler and what he stood for, yet to respect the average sailor (or soldier) who was trying to do the job he was given.

The first thing I did was click my mouse on the small box marked "quote" at the bottom right corner of your post

BTW colleagues this is an interesting thread...but I fear there will be no conclusion that will be satisfactory to all contributors

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Subwolf

Well AVGWarhawk...

This just confirms that you got little knowledge about U-boats. Half sunk? Okey maybe if it's damaged. Otherwise a U-boat is a much more seaworthy and safer vessel than a surface ship...

But again, I'm really surprised that some of you can really honor the U-boat crews. No thanks

Ah ha! Subwolf, looking at the u-boat and it's characteristics can be looked at like a glass of water, is the glass half full or half empty. In comparison, is the u-boat or submarine half afloat or half sunk? You be the judge. Maybe sunk is not the proper work, how about submerged? Let look at it, the tanks were filled with water producing close to negative boyancy or the inability to float. Once the additional water was added to the tanks the negative boyancy was enough to sink the u-boat or submerge it. So in my opinion, the u-boat was a vessel that was an half sinking vessel with the ability to create positive boyancy to float. This is what I ment by half sunk vessel. You have to admit one turn of a valve or two and the vessel is sunk or submerged in under 30 seconds.

As far as honoring the crew, the honor and respect was for how they accomplished the task with what little mechanical knowledge of engineering we enjoy today. This also applies to the Allies. This was the only thought provoking question I proposed on this thread.

Now onward and upward. I had three family members in the war. Edward Schultheis was a torpedo mechanic and aircraft mechanic in the PTO aboard aircraft carriers. He is still living today. Jean Schltheis was a WAVE and in charge of 35 nurses in the PTO. Charles Schultheis was a B-17 pilot with the 94th Squadron, 410th bombardment group. Charles was shot down over Kiel Germany June, 13th 1943. Guess what, he was going after the sub pens. That day he was the lead ship and protocal stated the lead ship was to have all rated officers. Charles was put in the tail gunners seat. This was his first and last mission. Do I feel anamosity towards the Germans, no. Sure, I would love to have my Uncle around but this was a different time and place. Over time, you learn to understand and accept. Below is the State Departments account of June, 13th 1943.

The Demise of "Klo-Kay"

"Klo-Kay," aircraft #42-29715, was one of nine ships lost by the 94th Bomb Group on June 12, 1943. All aboard were killed in action with the exception of 410th C.O., Capt. Bolling H. Rawlinson, who miraculously survived, was captured and finished the war in captivity. In October of 1945 he was interviewed by Army Intelligence and this is the essence of his story.

Target time was approximately 0810. About 20 minutes prior to that time heavy German fighter attacks began. The #2[inboard port side] engine was set on fire, and the prop feathered. Shortly thereafter, the ball turret gunner [S/Sgt. Harold S. Hilts of Anthony, Kansas] reported that he was being forced to abandon his post due to extreme heat and smoke. Capt. Arthur J. Hebert was sent to report on the condition of the ship [Hebert, the pilot, was flying in the left hand seat, while Rawlinson occupied the right hand seat as command pilot].He immediately returned with word that fire was advancing through the bomb bay. Rawlinson rang the bail-out alarm, but the intercom was not functioning. All the while German fighters continued to attack. Capt. Hebert and the top turret gunner [T/Sgt. Edward H. Cameron of Mexia, Texas], both wearing chest type parachutes, headed through the catwalk toward the nose hatch. Flying at 28,500 feet, Rawlinson made a turn off of the I.P. toward the target with the intention of releasing bombs from the cockpit prior to abandoning ship. Short of bombing-point the plane exploded. Rawlinson, wearing a seat-type parachute, was blown clear, deployed his parachute, and quickly lost consciousness. On the way down, floating in and out of consciousness, he observed one other parachute from an unknown source. He landed at a spot approximately four miles WSW of Kiel, was taken into custody and transported to hospital along with an American sergeant from another aircraft.

While in captivity, another prisoner reported to Rawlinson that he had observed one man bail out of "Klo Kay", but the man became caught on the tail assembly prior to the explosion. In light of the enemy fire hitting the armor plate behind him and the number of bullets passing through the cabin and out the windshield, Rawlinson surmised that men in the rear of the plane must have taken heavy casualties prior to the explosion. At any rate, all would have perished in the explosion.

Rawlinson was eventually assigned to Stalagluft III, where he remained until war’s end.

Source: Hq. AAF Redistribution Station No. 2, Miami District AAFFDC, Intelligence and Security Division, Miami Beach, Florida. 17 October 1945. Document and photos provided by Mr. C. Gossweiler, nephew of 2nd Lt. Charles Schultheis, who
was killed in the action described.


That is my uncle in the middle with this hat off to the side, squating in the middle.






Here we have the German records of the night before June 13th 1943, the day of and the day after. I also have several pictures of the German pilots that had flown against the 410th on June 13th. Unfortunate they were sent to me as a Rich Text Format and I do not know how to upload to photobucket. The point is, I investigated, learned, question and came to grips with how my Uncle was killed at the age of 22 over Kiel, Germany. I have learned to accept that this was a different time and place in history and that both sides, although had some diabolical individuals, also had some very human individuals that loved, laughed and cared for family. I do not sit on a high horse and point my finger at Germany and what happened. I accepted what was called "duty" weather right or wrong for both sides.

My Uncle remains were taken and buried in England. His remains were then disentured and move to Flushing Cemetery, Flushing NY. His American Flag that draped his casket is flown every Memorial Day over the Cemetery. After I had dug further into my Uncles past, I found out his military headstone had the date of KIA as June 13th 1942. This was less than 4 years ago. I contacted the State Department for Veteran Affairs and they gladly had another headstone created with the correct date and shipped it to Flushing. This was all done at no expense to me. The stone was rededicated to the Lord and the record set straight. To me, this was the one best thing I could do to honor my Uncle and all others on both sides that had family caught up in the conflict. As a result, I'm better able to understand and accept both friend and foe and realize both side had some very human people...not much unlike you and me.

[Dan0859]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

The first thing I did was click my mouse on the small box marked "quote" at the bottom right corner of your post

BTW colleagues this is an interesting thread...but I fear there will be no conclusion that will be satisfactory to all contributors

Well, let's see what happens...

Cool!!! Thanks, Jim!

[AVGWarhawk]

Dan,

Open forum is for discussion like this in hopes to enlighten all who participate, weather any or all points are agreed upon, this is what separate us from the animals and keeps us at the top of the food chain.

Although some responses will be inflamatory, that is to be expected in discussions like this, I urge all to fire away and bring some deep though to any question imposed.

[Dan0859]

Originally Posted by Ole

your problem is a war in a country, where terrorist from all over the world travel to, to fight against you. for me, these terrorists can all be erased, got no problem with that. but if you think this is the only way it goes, well, your opinion. the process going on in the arabic countries, is a process like it has been in europe over 500 years ago. for me, regarding their society structures, they are far behind us, but they overhaul. this process is more comprehensive than you might think. in the history of europe, many wars have been fought by religious causes, it was part of our history to achieve what we got today. our problem today is: we sell them weapons, train them in terror-tactics, financiate them and finally wonder when they turn against us. thats the point we should think about.
i say, leave them alone, don´t help them, sell them anything, let them pass their cultural developments on their one. but this is much more complex as to explain here in short form.

I agree, leave them alone, don't help them, and don't sell them anything. But, they won't leave us alone. For 25 years, they've been attacking the West. They've said publicly, many times, that their goal is to destroy Western civilization, so Islam can become the universal religion and law throughout the world. Yes, it's terrible that religion has been used to justify so much war, death, and destruction over the centuries. Does the fact that this happened in Europe 500 years ago, mean that we must accept these attacks today?

read again, i didn´t say what you are trying to assume.

This is what you said: Nazis are "barbarous men". I agree 100%. Also, you said earlier, that "i had a lot of discussions with a friend from britain about 9.11 and afghanistan. my education is to solve a problem political, find its sources to achieve a solution." I'm not trying to assume anything. Either the 9.11 attack was barbaric, or it wasn't. I'm pretty sure you'd agree it was. So, my point is, you condemn Nazism as barbaric, yet you say we should solve the 9.11 attack politically, find its sources to achieve a solution. Sorry, but I don't think it's possible in this case. We know what their solution is, they've already told us.

study the history, and you´ll find out, that in the beginning of the expansion politics of the Nazis, their neighbours neglected political sanctions. the only action was a condemn in the league of nations. thats not consequent and it is like today. the UN does realy not condemn any countries actions or even impose a sanction.

I do study history and what history shows, is that engaging Hitler in the political process didn't work. As far as other countries neglecting political sanctions, that's a "what if" scenario. Who knows what would have happened then? I agree, in today's world, the UN is often ineffective in dealing with these problems.

you only read want you want. i wrote every country. not only british and french. a war is always battled on the back of the underclass, thats the point i was talking about.

I'm only reading what you wrote. Again, "a government sending their people into a war, is ruthless and worthless.". Now, you say every country, not just British and French. So, you're saying every government that sends it's people into war is ruthless and worthless? Because America sent people to war against Germany, America is ruthless and worthless? "A war is always battled on the back of the underclass, that was the point I was talking about.". Well, it's not what you said. Also, define "underclass". My grandfather was a successful businessman. His sons fought in WW2, and one of my uncles is buried in France. My father was a successful businessman, and both my older brothers fought in Vietnam. I have a university degree and a successful career. My oldest son was in the Marines, and my middle son is in the Marines as we speak. Especially now, given that the Western military forces are volunteers, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. No one is being forced into military service.

you make me angry, you should become a advocate. i didn´t wrote anything about abolishing democracy, so why do you say that? Yoi say a political compromise with dictators is impossible? so why did your government work together with saddam hussein against iran since 1979? i hope you know about it.

Why do I make you angry, and why does that mean I should become an advocate? I didn't say you wrote anything about abolishing democracy. What I said is that if you simply give in to dictators and tyrants, you lose your rights. Yes, we supported Saddam against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War. This was after Iran assaulted and seized our embassy and took our citizens hostage. We also supported Stalin against Hitler, even after Stalin killed millions of people in his own country, before the war even started. In both cases, we shared a common foe. This is why people say that politics makes strange bedfellows.

to come back to the main statement: a war is always bad, for the country attacking, defending, it doesn´t matter. i think every country should always try to prevent a war as good as possible. actually this is not happening today, that is sad.
and please stop assuming such bull****, thx.

I agree that war is bad. It sucks. It sucks especially for the civilians caught in the middle. Sometimes, however, the alternatives are worse. Finally, why the profanity? Why are my views and opinions bull****? The only thing I did was to disagree with some of what you wrote.
Dan

[AVGWarhawk]

Dan/Ole,

You both have valid points and all good ones. But would you not agree that political solutions are always the best but sometimes the breakdown in communication and wants of each country far out exceed the expectation of each and the only answer is a military response?

[Dan0859]

AVGWarhawk,
That's a very good way of putting it. Certainly, I respect everyone's right to his opinion, and his right to express it. I do agree with both of you, that war is something to be avoided. My point is that avoiding war at any and all cost is a recipe for the oppression of the weak by the strong. Therefore, even though war is bad, sometimes it's necessary. The fact that we wish to avoid war, as you say, doesn't guarantee our wishes will come true.
I do object to sweeping generalizations and absolute statements, especially when unsupported by any facts. I also object to profanity, insults or personal attacks when one person disagrees with another. I'm more than happy to discuss or debate most any topic, but all who take part need to observe basic rules of civility and conduct.
Just my opinion, but that's how I see things.
Thanks,
Dan

[Kuzz]

I'd just like to thank AVGWarhawk for one of the best inputs I have read thus far. That is a very realistic, mature and probably the grim reality that war is. I look up to people like you that can, altough having lost family members, say that you understand what made you loose a family member, and not just take the easy way out by pointing fingers.

Hating the enemy does not defeat him, understanding him does.

Take Hartenstein and the Laconia catastrophy... Whom was right at that point? The bombers that attacked his uboat, Hartenstein whom at other times killed allied soldiers or... no one? The latter is probably the most reasonable explenation, since a war, or a single event, is far to complex to just judge as "good" and "bad". As the same with the U-boat war, a war in which all our scandinavic countries lost men as well, even Swedes whom at other theaters were neutral. I still don't blame everything on the German U-boat commanders... they did what they had to do. I'm just glad the lost the war.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Now onward and upward.... <snip> ...As a result, I'm better able to understand and accept both friend and foe and realize both side had some very human people...not much unlike you and me.

Man, what a great post. Here's to the bravery of your uncle and his sacrifice. I will make sure I lift my glass to him tonight. (company Christmas party, so there will be plenty of opportunities to!)