Announcement

**PlaceOfBayonets** · 06-03-2011, 04:52 PM

They did not try and surrender the ship with just the damaged rudder, only when most of Bismarck's guns were down did they.

I guess even if the Brits wanted to take the surrender the submarine issue would have negated any will to do so.

W.

**blinky** · 06-03-2011, 05:19 PM

I'd say one more reason why a certain group should have just stayed home in September 1939......

**peleliuexplorer** · 06-04-2011, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Thorsten B. View Post

Your guess is illogical.

Ok arm-chair general, then please explain why a battleship would continue to fire on the enemy if they were trying to surrender the ship. Are you a revisionist too?

-Eric

**pete** · 06-04-2011, 03:20 AM

.

Well my take on it is that again we should not view history through the "very socially oriented" filter of Today when we listen and learn, or research if we want to understand History and its reasons and outcomes of the time period. People were bound to different rules, but yet were the same joe as today underneath. As well there has always been that area which is "Human" about War as well which you could understand by Reading the work of Grossmann in the book "On Killing" that explains this vets reaction. Alot of what all sides did then would be considered a War crime today and I can remember getting into it with a a guy when I mentioned Allied Crimes and what i am trying to get across here is how some people really think this did never happen, well of course now days it depends what country you are from and if they support politically motivated international courts as to what is a war crime. We won WW2 so many things will remain in the past and known only to those who had to do the deed, it did not matter the fine details and Human side as long as the enemy was defeated. Ceasing to fire on a surrendering ship could have many reasons actually. I see this story here from the vets side as somewhere between Sailors Humanity for other sailors, Military necessity (Order: Sink the ship, period) and the fact that this nation was actually trying to enslave us and everyone else, even though normal guys were just doing their job on both sides. The Leadership came out of the WW1 and before period as well when things were up close and personal in the Trenches, over the top! Chivalry aside that is how people survived this war, and alot of wars as un-humanitarian as that may seem, it seems to be the line I hear from many vets who have really been into the SXXT over a prolonged period hand to hand and up close IMHO. Not pretty but that is what they say out loud (or don't say if you know what I mean)....People now days just find all of this very unbelievable, as they look through their modern Social Filter of the World, which is very surgical actually, pretty much only what the media tells them as well as History Books written under various Opinions and then passed as Gospel. The whole world is very connected now and for a large part being socially engineered on some level, in 20 more years people will be even more different when they look at History. Many of These Fine gentlemen will be gone then, sadly.

Regards,

Pete

**PlaceOfBayonets** · 06-04-2011, 05:59 AM

I am at a loss, how does revisionism fit in here unless one would accuse the sailor who's quoated in the piece to be a revisionist?

William

**pete** · 06-04-2011, 06:12 AM

.

Sorry,

If you are commenting on my comment I was trying to (personally) elude as to how when new info like this comes up, and other similiar situations people are suprised with the views of the day (surrendering but continue to engage), and maybe the reasons for why modern day people are sometimes suprised. The theme of my post may seem a bit off kilter but not my intent!

Pete

**Hoss** · 06-04-2011, 07:11 AM

Gents I see your points but come on....Get real
Kill or be killed.
She could of displayed the worlds biggest surrender flag and sent out hundreds of messages it wouldn't of made any difference.
This event was discussed here if you gents are interested including a list of known survivors:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=518359

Being a Brit and having grown up among that generation there is no way that this ship was going to remain afloat. Remember she was but a short distance from relative safety when finally sunk.
People may think on the humanitarian level in hindsight if they wish after the ship was obviously slowed and damaged but in my mind they fail to see a nation embroiled in total war.

After the sinking I again fail to see how much longer the ships could of remained relativity dead in the water so close to the Bay of Biscay picking up survivors.

Maybe we should fight World Wars like a game with paint guns....

Eric

**Thorsten B.** · 06-04-2011, 07:56 AM

"Ok arm-chair general, then please explain why a battleship would continue to fire on the enemy if they were trying to surrender the ship. Are you a revisionist too?

-Eric"

What am I to think about that comment of yours?

Either you want and are able to discuss historical events and if so it should be with appropriate manners - or you just want to fuel people for no reason which would show to everyone that you are unable to accept history as what it is - the past - combined with your inability to learn from that past.

So it´s up to you to make your choice and I am looking forward to any possible fruitful discussion in future.

Enjoy your weekend!

**PlaceOfBayonets** · 06-04-2011, 10:59 AM

Well to play devil's advocate why not allow the German Seamen to evacuate the ship before sinking her? I mean it's not like the Bismarck was going anywhere

William

**Hoss** · 06-04-2011, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by PlaceOfBayonets View Post

Well to play devil's advocate why not allow the German Seamen to evacuate the ship before sinking her? I mean it's not like the Bismarck was going anywhere

William

Oh William
I luv ya man.

Actually, are there not reports of some U-boats allowing crews to abandon smaller cargo ships before sinking them with the deck gun?

Eric

**Don D.** · 06-04-2011, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by PlaceOfBayonets View Post

Well to play devil's advocate why not allow the German Seamen to evacuate the ship before sinking her? I mean it's not like the Bismarck was going anywhere

William

Let's see..... Uboots, land based aircraft from bases in France etc... Perhaps the British didn't want to risk their fleet to attack trying to be nice to the Germans.

**Darrell** · 06-04-2011, 12:05 PM

So ... what exactly is the point of this thread?

**Don D.** · 06-04-2011, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by 704hoss55 View Post

Oh William
I luv ya man.

Actually, are there not reports of some U-boats allowing crews to abandon smaller cargo ships before sinking them with the deck gun?

Eric

Eric, that was just so they could save torpedos. Nothing nice or humane about it. How many of those crews were picked up alive? Not many. The Atlantic is a rough place for a life boat.

**Gran Sasso** · 06-04-2011, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Don Doering View Post

Let's see..... Uboots, land based aircraft from bases in France etc...

The Bismarck was to far off land, no german airplane (land based) could have joined the battle...

**blinky** · 06-04-2011, 12:14 PM

Don, you make those poor peace-loving Germans sound so nasty!

Announcement

Bismarck sunk after Germans tried to surrender, reveals sailor.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread