The American Commander who Screwed Up Sub Warfare

Factual Questions
1

This is vague because I saw a documentary on it a long time back and cannot recall the dates.

During the beginning of WW2, German U-boats used to approach ships like cargo carriers and such, give them warning, then let the crew abandon them before sending them to the bottom. Sometimes, even after a fire fight, German U-boats would surface, assist survivors and some times tow them in life boats to islands or within distance of land.

It was not uncommon for them to take wounded aboard the sub and treat them. They did not blast survivors in the waters.

There was a German U-boat which sank so many ships that it had quite a trail of survivors not only being towed in life boats, but crowding the sub itself and was taking them towards land or to intersect busy shipping lanes where they would be picked up.

They passed within quite a distance of an American air base on some island and were spotted by a reconnaissance flight, who reported them to the base commander. Mention was made of the long trail of life boats the sub towed. The commander, whose name I do not recall, ordered the sub to be sunk. The pilots, flying armed aircraft, questioned the order because of the many civilian survivors being towed, and the American commander still ordered the sub to be sunk.

They attacked and the sub abandoned all of it’s survivors and escaped. The attack killed quite a few survivors, but none of the sub personnel. Then, the adrift boats had to wait out there for days before being spotted because the American commander would not send a rescuer for them. They were discovered by a passing ship.

From what I found out, this jerks attitude stopped German U-boats from helping survivors after that. The German command decided that if the Allies were going to shoot at U-boats assisting their own people, then they were not going to risk a sub and it’s crew in such an effort.

This guy never was chastised for his action. Nothing was ever mentioned about his deliberately setting up civilian survivors to be killed in an effort to get one U-boat and then leaving them to the sea afterwards. It was disclosed that because of his action, previously unheard of, survivors of submarine sinkings were left to die instead of being helped.

Why was this cad never brought up on charges? I was surprised to find out that it was an American commander who did this, even after being told that the boat was towing civilian survivors.

Anyone know if this idiot was ever relieved of command, horse whipped, jailed, or, hopefully, shot?

2

They probably made him an admiral. :rolleyes:

3

You sure know a lot about the incident. Why don’t you know the name? Was it marked out in the reports you read?

4

I recall the event you are referring to. I have read about it in two independent sources, one of which was Time-Life Books’ “Wolf Packs,” and the other in World War II magazine.

Trouble is, in both cases, the only account of the event was from the German side. I don’t think anybody knows who piloted or crewed the B-24 Liberator that attacked the German sub you’re referring to.

A couple of details in my memory are different from those in your memory. First, it was in fact quite uncommon for German sub commanders to rescue their victims. The German submarine commander in this case, prompted partly by the fact that he had sunk a ship containing Italian POWs as well as numerous civilians, broke Doenitz’* standing order not to surface to aid survivors of torpedoed ships. Doenitz consented to this exception to the policy, and the German commander radioed all ships in range to help him rescue survivors, promising that he would not fire on any Allied ship that came to help in this cause. Several ships did come to assist in recovering survivors; some were Italian, I don’t recall if any Allied ships were participating.

A B-24 showed up and flew away. Some time later, a B-24 appeared again and attacked the German submarine; it is unknown whether this was the same B-24 or a different one. Both items that I read indicated that the German sub commander had draped a large red cross across his submarine bow, so the B-24 crew should have been aware of the submarine’s humanitarian mission. The German sub, lightly damaged in the attack, then ordered the survivors back into the water and submerged. Thereafter, Doenitz enforced his no-aid-to-survivors policy strictly.

I repeat that this is only the German version of events. I have never seen an Allied version, nor do I know if any of the survivors confirmed or denied this story.

Doenitz’ policy of denying aid to survivors was later charged against him at the Nuremberg trials, but I believe the charge was dropped when American submarine commanders offered to testify in his defense, stating that the same policy was commonplace in the U.S. fleet. Doenitz was convicted of other war crimes and sentenced to prison.

*Admiral Karl Doenitz was commander of the German submarine fleet; he later succeeded to command the entire Kriegsmarine and was briefly Reichsfuehrer after Hitler’s death, just long enough to surrender to the Allies.

5

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-13/tgmwc-13-125-03.shtml

google yields this site which describes a similar incident but says it was a US plane not a ship that attacked a towing U-boat carrying/towing survivors.

6

I’ve never heard of any submarine taking prisoners. Even leaving aside the problems of the scarcity of supplies and the risk of interference, there would almost literally be no room aboard the sub for prisoners.

I believe in the early days of WWI, there were attempts made to honor the 19th century practice of warships warning unarmed ships that they were going to be sunk and allowing the crews to abandon the ships via lifeboats. However, this practice was ended when it was found it made submarines too vulnerable to counter-attacks.

7

Little Nemo, there was a brief period in the beginning of the war where warnings were issued, crews were allowed to abandon ship etc. This had the added benefit form the sub commander’s point of view that he could leisurely sink the target with his deck gun instead of using an expensive and hard-to-replace torp. (Ok, my source, “U-boats in action” is primarily German, but even so - there are photos etc.).

Obviously, trying this practice against a defended convoy would be a complex & spectacular suicide.

S. Norman

8

The documentary dealt with submarine warfare on the German side and the name of the American commander was mentioned, but I no longer remember it. I do remember being impressed with how casually he ordered the sub to be attacked, knowing it towed a chain of lifeboats.

From the documentary, it seems that during the early years of the war, sub commanders often would assist survivors, not always towing them, but sometimes surfacing to discharge some supplies of food and water or medical gear. The sub mentioned had sunk a ship far out of normal sea lanes so it towed the survivors closer to well traveled areas. I do recall it being mentioned that the commander broadcast his intentions to any allied ships in the area.

Now, when the English started shoving Q-ships at the subs, the commanders stopped warning potential victims of being sunk. Surfacing to fire a shot over their bows and to hail them could get them sunk by the disguised weapons on these ships. Interestingly enough, these Q-ships only accounted for a very small amount of sub sinkings, but due to their presence, probably caused the deaths of thousands of Allies by stopping subs from surfacing to warn crews to abandon their ships.

I don’t recall the sub bearing the red cross, but if it did, that compounds the crime even more by the American commander ordering his pilots to fire on it.

9

I’m going to play devil’s advocate here- a sub is not a hospital ship, it is a weapon of war, and thus a legitimate target. What if the Allies passed up a chance to sink it and it later torpedoed 5 more ships? If the Bismarck had picked up survivors of HMS Hood would that have precluded the Royal Navy from sinking her when they got the chance?

10

I’m with nebuli here.

We mustn’t lose sight of the fact that a war was being fought, and the allies had to fight to win. The sinking of supply ships costs lives. It cost lives if the allies went short of fuel and ammo for fighter planes to defend against bombers. It costs lives if resources which could make more tanks and planes had to be used to build replacement ships. At their peak, the U-boats were sinking around a million tonnes of shipping a month. Think about that for a moment.

It’s hard to put figures to this, but it’s quite possible the war would have ended much sooner if the Germans hadn’t sunk any supply ships in the Atlantic.

In the early stages of the war, the U-boats were operating almost with impunity. There was no airborn radar, no effective sonar, no destroyer escorts, no broken Enigma code to allow us to locate them. Chances are, that commander saw an opportunity to save a lot of lives and went for it. It’s not fair to dismiss him as a jerk or a criminal for making what may have been a very tough decision.

11

The incident being referred to in the OP is the aftermath of the sinking of the Laconia, by the German U-156 on September 12, 1942. The documentary Jetassisted saw was possibly this one.

Laconia, a British armed merchant ship, was transporting about 1800 Italian POWs to Canada. She was struck by a torpedo fired from U-156 (during a nighttime surface attack). The sub commander, Kptlt. Werner Hartenstein, heard Italian voices among the survivors, and took the remarkable decision to undertake a rescue of not only his Italian allies, but also the crew of the Laconia and the British/Polish guards–some 400 people in all. (Another 1000 or so were picked by by Vichy French ships out of Dakar).

Here is a photo of the survivors crowding the deck of U-156, the morning after the sinking of Laconia.

There are a few points in the OP which should be addressed: first, the captain of U-156 did not break any operational order by effecting the rescue; in fact Donitz, although unhappy with the situation, gave his blessing to continue the operation, and even ordered two more U-boats to the area to assist. An Italian submarine also showed up to help.

Plain language (that is, non-coded) radio broadcasts were made by U-156, the text of which is given as

This same site, which has an excellent account of the incident, states that the German subs were flying the Red Cross flag.

A USAAF Liberator bomber from 343 Squadron of the 98th Group, based on Ascension Island, sighted the U-156 and survivors, and circled the scene, while radioing back to base for orders on what exactly to do. The pilot was ordered to attack with his depth charges, regardless of survivors. The Liberator did so, and a number of the survivors were killed as a result.

As a result of the incident, Donitz issued the so-called “Laconia Order,” specifying to the U-boat service that survivors of torpedoed ships would not be rescued or assisted. Donitz was tried for a war crime at Nuremburg based on this order, but he was acquitted (but convicted on other charges).

Q-ships were a First World War weapon used by the British to sink U-boats, which often stopped single merchant ships by firing a deck gun, and allowing the crew to take to the boats. I don’t think that Q-ships were used by the British in the Second World War–does anyone have a cite on this?

The Germans did have some success with the Q-ship idea in the Second World War, with their surface raiders, in particuar the Atlantis.

The attack on the U-boats and survivors seems incredibly harsh to us today, but remember that in 1942, the U-boats were taking a terrible toll on shipping to and from Britain. It was really a life-or-death struggle to defeat the U-boat threat–Churchill later said that the U-boat was the only thing that really frightened him during the war. An opportunity to attack four enemy subs on the surface apparently outweighed the humanitarian concern of rescue.

A very tough call indeed, most of all for the pilot of that Liberator: he most certainly would have been court-marshalled for not obeying orders had he refused to attack, and as Nebuli and matt have pointed out, how many allied ships did those subs sink subsequent to the Laconia incident? I have seen a British survivor of Laconia interviewed: he praised the German sub commander highly, but pointed out that prior to the rescue, U-156 had “tried their best to kill us.”

12

Please provide more information on warships flying the Red Cross flag.

These subs could cruise around looking for ships to sink, then put up a Red Cross flag and be safe from retaliation? How many planes passed them when the sub flew a Red Cross flag while hunting for someone to sink?

Think of the lives that could have been saved [on our side] if our bombers, while returning from a mission, could put a Red Cross flag out and safely return to base. Ok, maybe only if they had a wounded man on board.

13

starfish, IIRC from the documentary, the U-boats only raised the Red Cross flag after the ship was sunk, and the rescue operation had begun; the Captain likely felt (with some justification) that he was engaged in a misson of mercy.

I have never heard it claimed that a U-boat flew a Red X flag in an attempt to deceive; very, very few captains (in any Navy) would ever contemplate sinking so low. The German raider Atlantis flew Neutral or Allied flags at various times, in order to deceive enemy ships (a ruse going back at least 300 years); but it woud have been a matter of honour to strike the false colours and raise the Kriegsmarine flag when opening fire.

14

starfish - you argument doesnt make sense. these are subs, in an era without any effective means of detecting a submerged sub actively avoiding detection. if they merely wanted to rome around undetected while hunting they could very well do that on their own. Also they were plainly trying to assist survivors and radioed for further assistance and had stated that they would not fire unless fired upon, enacting a cease-fire of sorts…

15

I agree that flying an enemy flag in an attempt to decieve if a different situation.

My point about the old subs is that they do have to cruise regularly on, or near the surface, to recharge the batteries. Flying a Red Cross flag would help during those times.

I still find it strange that a warship carries Red Cross flags and can put them up when they want to.

16

The Red Cross (or Crescent) must be displayed in good faith. NO armed person, vessel or vehicle may display it, nor may a person, vessel, or vehicle undertake combat and then display the Red Cross.

A B-17 flying towards Germany displaying the Red Cross could have been fired at without warning, as a B-17 is an armed warplane and in that case would obviously be participating in the conduct of the war.

The Red Cross is, in and of itself, not a “Get out of the war free” card; it’s a way of showing “this vehicle isn’t a combat vehicle.” You cannot fire at a hospital ship whether it’s showing the Red Cross or not; the purpose of the Red Cross is to clearly and unambigiously indicate that the vehicle/person/ship in question deosn’t want to be shot at. The behaviour and actions of a ship, plane, vehicle, or person displaying the Red Cross can negate the protection the Red Cross offers.

In the case of the Laconia sinking, Commander Hartenstein was attempting to clearly indicate that he was engaged in non-combat operations and, through the radio message, was trying to effect a non-combat zone around the Laconia; hence his promise not to fire if he wasn’t fired upon. It’s not unknown in war for troops or ships to arrange truces of that sort to assist the shipwrecked or wounded. That’s the only reason he flew the Red Cross.

As pointed out, the Liberator that attacked them DID radio for instructions. They didn’t just blast away, nor did they fly away saying “Welp, Red Cross, can’t shoot them.”

Had U-156 just been flying it to get away from a battle, they’re a legitimate target.

Commander Hartenstein had done this sort of thing before on at least one occasion, giving food and maps to shipwrecked crews in their lifeboats and wishing them a safe journey. He was an extremely talented officer, and he and U-156 sank 19 ships totally more than 90,000 tons of shipping. He was awarded the Knight’s Cross, Germany’s higher battle honor, and was to all accounts a decent man and an honorable warrior. A British survivor of one of the ships he sank even wrote a book about him.

U-156 didn’t put to sea for six months after the Laconia incident while they repaired the damage from the Liberator attack. On their first patrol back out, U-156 was sunk by an airplane and the entire crew was killed.

17
  • only the pilot didn’t choose, but instead got his orders and really can’t be blamed for following them. This is one of these exceptional cases thet the treaties really does not allow for.

IANAL, but I believe the sub skipper had no legal right under the conventions to fly the Red Cross flag. While wounded and/or shipwrecked people have the right to be protected by the Red Cross, the only ships having “protected status” in the conventions are hospital ships (and their lifeboats etc.). In other words, the sub was a combattant and the people rescued by it were out of luck.

Obviously, a sub flying the Red Cross while recharging batteries or performing reconnaissance (sp?) would be in clear violation of the treaties, a combattant and a legal target.

I too find it peculiar that the sub carried the flag, but it might have been improvised. And no, a warship can’t put up the Red Cross flag when it wants to. As far as I have read, a warship can’t put up the Red Cross flag, period.

In short, a guy trying to do the honorable thing got caught in a rotten situation and other people suffered for it. War sucks.

S. Norman

Post-preview: RickJay put it better than me. Curses.

18

Normally a German sub surfaced to recharge batteries (and to hunt for enemy merchant vessels) at night, when a Red Cross flag wouldn’t be useful anyway.

19

starfish said:

That’s because he probably has a selective memory. Many of us are great at remembering general facts or stories or descriptions that we find interesting, but have trouble with certain specific details, like names, dates, shoe sizes, the cube root of 3.

20

1.44225