U-581

[August]

New U boat found.

http://gizmodo.com/nazi-sub-portraye...ere-1791970995

[daft]

It always makes me wonder how writers of such articles know that the particular U-boat they are writing about was a member of the Nazi party?

Anyways, very interesting find.

[Von Due]

Originally Posted by daft

It always makes me wonder how writers of such articles know that the particular U-boat they are writing about was a member of the Nazi party?

Anyways, very interesting find.

Surely you have seen the photo from Nurnberg in the 30's with thousands of uboats with their periscopes in a nazi salute, the tanks too with their raised guns and them planes lifting their right wing. (Yeah I too find it 'interesting', this notion that machines had concepts of ideology built into them and it does tick me off ever so slightly).

As for the link: Nice find! Also, I had no idea Spielberg rented the mock-up from the Das Boot production. Nice little piece of movie history too that.

[Aktungbby]

Also in the OP link was this footnote to history-the loss of USS Conestoga (AT-54) :http://gizmodo.com/mysterious-disappearance-of-the-uss-conestoga-finally-s-1766876364 Happened March 25 1921, right outside San Francisco Bay off the Farralon Island Marine Preserve...great white infested feeding grounds. The First World War-era tugboat disappeared without a trace after setting off for Tutuila, American Samoa, by way of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Its discovery shows that the ship never made it very far, sinking in stormy weather just 30 miles (48 km) from its departure point. A mistaken report out of Pearl Harbor that the vessel had arrived there as planned meant that it took weeks before anyone had even realized the Conestoga was missing.
Until now, now one knew where the wreck was located, or what happened. Despite an extensive search, the only trace found of her at the time of her loss was a lifeboat bearing the initial letter of her name found near Manzanillo, Mexico. After the Navy realized that the Conestoga had not, in fact, arrived in Oahu, the military focused its search for the missing ship around the Hawaiian Islands, ultimately deploying about 60 vessels—“including the entire destroyer fleet at Pearl Harbor and submarines”— only 2000 miles off course!


. It still matters to families after after 95 years: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/discovery-uss-conestoga-researchers-have-solved-naval-mystery-was-nearly-100-years-old-180958538/

[Rhodes]

Pitty that the U-26 (WWII) was never a type VIIC or even that, a type VII...
Besides that, saw this in a news site here, since it was sunk in our waters and one crew member did swim 6 Km (I think) to the island. But why the discover, since it was know that the sub was sink in that location.

Originally Posted by daft

It always makes me wonder how writers of such articles know that the particular U-boat they are writing about was a member of the Nazi party?

Anyways, very interesting find.

Roll my eyes every time as well.
I know this is common (naming) practice in the US, and maybe elsewhere, but it doesn't make much sense in the end I think.
I mean, we could also speak about Democrat m4 Shermans then... But we don't, because designating a military craft after the countries political course is just silly.

[August]

Well I know there's an understandable tendency around here to separate the U-boat service from the politics that sent them to sea but associating a machine with a cause or creed is done all the time. Not only was there such a thing as a nazi u-boat there were also such things as commie tanks, confederate cannon, samurai blades, falange machine guns and even a royal navy ship of the line or three.

Tools are just inanimate items until a hand wields them for a purpose. Combining the two is just a handy way of adding some context to their discussion.

[Catfish]

My opinion is that speaking of "NAZI" xyz stuff makes not much sense, and is unhistorical as well. It was ok as long as it was used for propaganda, but has no room in historically correct reports.

"Nazi" describes exactly what? A member of the Nazi party? All germans ? All soldiers? It is being used as a term for gremans at a certain time, so i guess there can be no Nazi after may, 1945? A lot of people did not believe Hitler, and another lot did. So are they all "Nazis"? What makes a "Nazi"?

[August]

In this case it describes who was responsible for that submarine being there. Who caused it to be built? Who ordered it taken to the sea to sink ships and kill people? Whose flag flew from it's mast? Whose symbol did it's crew wear on their chests?

'Nazi sub' is shorter than 'WW2 German submarine'. And they can't assume that their readers know what a 'Uboat' is. Catchy headlines beat historical accuracy. This is Gizmodo, not the Journal of Contemporary History

[Aktungbby]

Apparently Kapitänleutnant Werner Pfeifer was not a very ardent Nazi; and his crew reflected this at post-capture interrogation http://ww2today.com/2nd-february-1942-the-unpopular-u-boat-officers-from-u-581 The crew 'spilled their guts to interrogators and were not happy sailors. Some insightful stuff here: http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-581INT.htm

It would appear that "U 581's" Commanding Officer gave the order to abandon ship soon after the first attempt to ram had been made and the Engineer Officer had accordingly opened all vents to accelerate the sinking. Pfeifer estimated that there were some 50 tons of water in the boat at the time of her sinking and she was almost unmanageable. He said that, when he abandoned ship, water was already entering through the conning tower hatch. He also stated that the attacking destroyer fired two rounds at his craft in between the ramming actions. The entire crew were wearing life-saving jackets when they jumped into the water, which they described as warm, and some of them were of the opinion that they could, given a favourable current, have succeeded in swimming ashore. There was no evidence, however, of any of them except Siedeck wanting to escape capture. On the contrary, it was frequently stated by non-commissioned ranks that they were only too pleased to be rid of their unpopular officers in this way. H.M.S. "Croome" and H.M.S. "Westcott" rescued 41 out of a total complement of 46, One of the officers, Leutnant zur See (Sub-Lieutenant) Werner Siedeck, managed to swim to Pico Island, doubtless much to the disgust of "U 581's" Commanding Officer and Engineer Officer, who displayed great apprehension lest he should report, not only the unpleasant atmosphere that always characterised :U 581," but also on the unsatisfactory handling of the boat during the whole of her last cruise. The Commanding Officer of "U 581" lodged an official protest regarding what he claimed to be unlawful capture while in neutral waters. This protest is reproduced in Appendix II of this report.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Catfish

My opinion is that speaking of "NAZI" xyz stuff makes not much sense, and is unhistorical as well. It was ok as long as it was used for propaganda, but has no room in historically correct reports.

"Nazi" describes exactly what? A member of the Nazi party? All germans ? All soldiers? It is being used as a term for gremans at a certain time, so i guess there can be no Nazi after may, 1945? A lot of people did not believe Hitler, and another lot did. So are they all "Nazis"? What makes a "Nazi"?

Originally Posted by August

In this case it describes who was responsible for that submarine being there. Who caused it to be built? Who ordered it taken to the sea to sink ships and kill people? Whose flag flew from it's mast? Whose symbol did it's crew wear on their chests?

I think most importantly, everything should be considered in the correct context. To each their own.

Obviously not the luckiest of boats, only one patrol and a single sinking of 364 tons.

[Von Due]

My main beef with the moniker "nazi uboat/tank/plane" etc is not really a matter of accuracy for the sake of accuracy but really all to the fact that there are voices speaking up here and there for all German made equipment to be destroyed, erased from history, for being "nazi equipment".

That would be a terrible mistake lest you plan on repeat history. It's short sighted and not at all a good idea to wipe out traces of history. To anyone who see the importance of keeping these artifacts, as a reminder, I won't mind calling these or hear them being called "nazi uboats". Like been said, it's a short for German WW2 hardware.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by August

Well I know there's an understandable tendency around here to separate the U-boat service from the politics that sent them to sea but associating a machine with a cause or creed is done all the time. Not only was there such a thing as a nazi u-boat there were also such things as commie tanks, confederate cannon, samurai blades, falange machine guns and even a royal navy ship of the line or three.

Tools are just inanimate items until a hand wields them for a purpose. Combining the two is just a handy way of adding some context to their discussion.

Originally Posted by Catfish

My opinion is that speaking of "NAZI" xyz stuff makes not much sense, and is unhistorical as well. It was ok as long as it was used for propaganda, but has no room in historically correct reports.

"Nazi" describes exactly what? A member of the Nazi party? All germans ? All soldiers? It is being used as a term for gremans at a certain time, so i guess there can be no Nazi after may, 1945? A lot of people did not believe Hitler, and another lot did. So are they all "Nazis"? What makes a "Nazi"?

Originally Posted by Von Due

My main beef with the moniker "nazi uboat/tank/plane" etc is not really a matter of accuracy for the sake of accuracy but really all to the fact that there are voices speaking up here and there for all German made equipment to be destroyed, erased from history, for being "nazi equipment".

That would be a terrible mistake lest you plan on repeat history. It's short sighted and not at all a good idea to wipe out traces of history. To anyone who see the importance of keeping these artifacts, as a reminder, I won't mind calling these or hear them being called "nazi uboats". Like been said, it's a short for German WW2 hardware.

It can be difficult to separate equipment from the country and it's policies that created them like the rest of you are saying. Most here are intelligent and insightful enough that we can admire the technical prowess that created sophisticated machines like the Me-262 or U-boats and yet sharply disagree with the Ideology and policies that put these machine to sea and air.

As technology progresses. I'm sure other U-boats will be found as well. Great read.

[eddie]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Roll my eyes every time as well.
I know this is common (naming) practice in the US, and maybe elsewhere, but it doesn't make much sense in the end I think.
I mean, we could also speak about Democrat m4 Shermans then... But we don't, because designating a military craft after the countries political course is just silly.

From what I understand from a friend in Germany who knows a lot of Luftwaffe history, that many pilots hated seeing the swastika on the tail of their aircraft. Including Galland. To them it was a political symbol, nothing more.