Unfair portrayal of Admiral Lutjens in SINK The BISMARCK (1964)

Alright granted an old movie... I was just now watching it for the umpteenth time and listening to the actor portraying Lutjens having the crew do a mass Heil Hitler and talking about "tales of Nazi victories." It suddenly struck me as odd because if he was a fanatic Nazi, would the West Germans have named one of their US built Adams class DDGs for him? Turns out he was in fact anti-Nazi, refused to use the Heil Hitler salute (even in Hitler's presence!), and was half Jewish. Anyway seems like he was a "good" German, in spite of the image the Brits gave him in that film.

It was made in 1960. It's a movie, the war had been over for only 14 years. And it was British, they felt the war more strongly than we did. IIRC The Longest Day was the first really big war movie to have a more nuanced view of the Germans, it was filmed with national units and by that time West Germany was an integral part of NATO and their sensitivities had to be taken into account.

Yup, it was a movie and that part is correct as is it was a movie only made 15 years after the end of hostilities. It would be nice to have a new more accurate movie made and modern special effects would be really good with that. Using Ludovic Kennedy's excellent book "Pursuit" as a basis would be a good idea too.


The Nazi navy was the least Nazi organization in WWII. The navy kept a chaplain's corps after Hitler abolished the chaplaincy service wide. Apparently the party didn't want to deal with the navy on these issues or maybe just didn't know how "reactionary" the navy was. Under Erich Raeder the Nazi navy even had some Jewish officers.

Lutjens wasn't a party guy, and as Rick says almost always gave the navy salute instead of the Nazi salute even to Hitler. So that part of the movie, among other's was incorrect. Unfortunately he, like many, probably most in the Nazi navy weren't party members but were complicit with the "program" which was a pity. He also showed himself, when it really counted, to be a marginal fleet commander which was good for us but bad for him, his ships and crews.

I always thought that Raeder was treated a bit unfairly. Under him the Navy paid scrupulous attention to the rules of warfare, he just had the misfortune to be on the wrong side.

Hitler said he was a "coward" at sea, and his going to war in 1939 wrecked the Kriegsmarine's Z Plan which by 1944 would by 1944 would have given them a much more powerful and modern navy.
Luetjens made several serious mistakes- didn't top off his fuel tanks, of course no air cover-cf. Mussolini's comment that Italy need no aircraft carriers because the whole country was an unsinkable aircraft carrier.
One interesting little note. The actor Esmond Knight who played Captain Leach of the Prince of Wales-was on the bridge during the battle.
This May 24 is the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Denmark Strait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackhawknj

Hitler said he was a "coward" at sea, and his going to war in 1939 wrecked the Kriegsmarine's Z Plan which by 1944 would by 1944 would have given them a much more powerful and modern navy.
Luetjens made several serious mistakes- didn't top off his fuel tanks, of course no air cover-cf. Mussolini's comment that Italy need no aircraft carriers because the whole country was an unsinkable aircraft carrier.
One interesting little note. The actor Esmond Knight who played Captain Leach of the Prince of Wales-was on the bridge during the battle.
This May 24 is the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Denmark Strait.

---

After the Hood was sunk Bismarck had to make only the smallest adjustment to range on Prince of Wales. A 15" shell from the Bismarck's first salvo at Prince of Wales hit the bridge, went all the way through and exploded when it came out the other side. It killed everybody on the bridge except the captain (Leach) and the Chief Yeoman of Signals who was wounded. A splinter from that shell nearly did for Esmond Knight, who was in an air defense position above the bridge. He was completely blinded though he did recover some sight in his surviving right eye after the war. After the war he played both sighted and blind characters. He was a close personal friend of Ludovic Kennedy who was an officer involved in the chase and was on hand for Bismarck's sinking. Kennedy was married to the dancer/actress Moira Shearer. A lot of those people knew each other.

Not topping off his fuel tanks in Norway was Lutjens biggest mistake, it combined with the loss of 1,000 tons of oil due to battle damage, restricted him to barely 20 knots on his final run for home. Air cover was out of the question for German commerce raiders. Not really Lutjens fault. I'm sure he'd have liked to have had the almost completed Graf Zepplen with him languishing at a dock because Goering didn't want the navy to have any airplanes. Hard to fix dumb and big egos. Lutjens also had plenty of bad luck....or maybe fate.

The Hood was the last of Fisher's Follies-the battle cruiser. A Great Idea That Didn't Work. At the time people warned that a ship with big guns but thinner armor would be used as a battleship. The only time that battlecruisers filled their intended role-hunting down cruisers-was at the Battle of the Falkland Islands. The British lost 3 at Jutland in cataclysmic explosions while the only German battlecruiser lost-the Luetzow-succumbed after a massive battering.
The whole Bismarck-Prinz Eugen mission was very badly thought out and amateurish IMHO.

The Bismarck was originally supposed to sail with the Scharnhorst and Gneisnau which were supposed to join them from Brest. The Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Gneisnau and Prinz Eugen would have been a formidable squadron indeed. Unfortunately repair delays and the fact that the Brits kept busting up the two ships in Brest in port killed that idea but Raeder decided to go anyway. In fact he kept the operation secret from Hitler until the ships had sailed because he was afraid he (Hitler) might kill the idea. If he had, you're right, it would have been one of his better decisions.

Nothing is more underestimated than Hood's armor protection. From the time she was completed there has always been debate as to whether with her 8 15" guns and armor the equivalent of all but the most heavily protected WWI battleships she was in fact a fast battleship. The problem wasn't the amount of armor it was a critical design fault with the layout. She had a 12" thick main belt. Only had 1/2 inch less armor than Bismarck's belt armor though Bismarck's armor was much more modern advanced alloy. Her armored decks were: Fo'c'sle - 1 1/2," upper - 1 3/4," main - 2 1/2", main over magazines 3." The deck armor should have been more than adequate. The problem was the main (armored) deck should have capped the deep belt but for reasons that are a total mystery the main deck armor was angled down at a 45" before it reached the deep belt at its base so did not cap it. Everybody knew this was a big problem and was almost surely the fatal flaw since at the range (16,500 yards) from Bismarck was sunk at Hood was sunk at the decks should have been impervious. The most credible theory is that the fatal hit struck the old 5" strake armor for the original secondary guns, penetrated that and struck the angled down section of 2 1/2" deck armor section (can you say hot knife through butter) and from then it was just a few bulkheads to the secondary magazines which went up and then set off the aft 15" magazines and the rest was history. It was at least a one in a million shot, then again so was the torpedo hit that doomed the Bismarck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Art

The Nazi navy was the least Nazi organization in WWII. The navy kept a chaplain's corps after Hitler abolished the chaplaincy service wide. Apparently the party didn't want to deal with the navy on these issues or maybe just didn't know how "reactionary" the navy was. Under Erich Raeder the Nazi navy even had some Jewish officers.

---

There was no "Nazi navy" like that. Germany had a Navy. There was a "Nazi Army" but no "Nazi Navy" really. The Waffen SS was the Party "Army." No real analog for the Navy. Thus just "German Navy."

Quote:

---

Unfortunately he, like many, probably most in the Nazi navy weren't party members but were complicit with the "program" which was a pity.

---

That is a difficult, almost impossible, situation. I simply cannot imagine how I'd react if placed in the situation they were. I know I'd be angry beyond belief but I have no idea what I'd do.

Rewind to 1914. Germany is ruled by the Kaiser, and he's a dolt, but Germany itself is a place where honor matters. Rule of law matters. The German Army was quite probably the most professional Army in the world. Shortly after war one starts the Allies, mainly England as I recall but I could be wrong, spread propaganda that the Germans are "Huns." "German soldiers raped Belgian Nuns!" Really vile stuff. After that was was over it became pretty clear that it was Allied propaganda.

Fast forward to 1939. Germany is under control of the Nazis but the Nazis are still not the Nazis of 1945. As a German you're in the Navy or Army. When war starts, what do you do? Refuse to fight? Refuse to fight for your country? How many here would make that choice? Sure, there are rumors that the Nazis are doing bad things but that's simple politics. They rounded up the Communists and tossed them into concentration camps but they're not "death camps." The camps were in existence in 1936. More "political prisons" but not "death camps." When the war starts rumors get worse. "They're killing the Jews." Could this be true or is this, shades of war one, simply Allied propaganda again? They hung on to that thread. "It's probably propaganda. Hitler just wants them out of Germany. He mentioned Mozambique." At this point, if you're not familiar with it, read up on the SS St. Louis. Some of the passengers on that ship were Jews released from Dachau. Again, the "death camps" weren't really in full force.

Now fast forward to 1945. You discover the rumors were true. The Nazi party was a group of murderous thugs and did absolutely appalling things.

How do you react? You discover that you believed you were "fighting for the motherland" but discover you were culpable in the murder of millions. "But I didn't know!" "You heard the rumors right? Why didn't you believe them?"

Impossible situation.

The Bismark didn't sink the Hood. The Brits refuse to let that go.[1] Amusing. The fires on the Hood were started by the Eugen. That can be easily side stepped anyway. "The Hood sank the Hood." Whichever theory you subscribe to, that really is the answer.

[1] Much is made of observations made by a man on the Prince of Wales. Problems:
1) How he saw through the smoke of the fire already raging on the Hood is never explained.
2) Why he was supposedly staring at the Hood when his ship was fully engaged with the Bismark is never explained.
3) How the Bismark's shell had a mortar trajectory when it supposedly hit the Hood while it didn't when it hit the Prince of Wales is never explained.

Fire started by the Eugen. After that? Boom. The Hood sunk the Hood.

For those that like to insist that the Bismark sank the Hood I have a question.

If the Bismark sank the Hood, why do the Brits spend so much time trying to prove it? The Taiho sank the Taiho but if we're giving credit, the Albacore gets it. Easy peasy. When a ship sinks another ship we generally know which one did it. Not a lot of effort is spent trying to "prove" it was "this one and not that one." So why so much effort? Why such intensity to prove it was the Bismark and not the Eugen? I'd mention that where there is smoke there generally is fire. Strange that they spend so much effort trying to prove it. One wonders what motivates them? I don't wonder....

Ok,

That a design defect was responsible for sinking the Hood is the culprit is the most likely scenario. That's a fact.

I don't think it was a matter of trying to prove anything, though having the Hood sunk by a hit from an 8" gun cruiser wouldn't have been a happy occurance. Understanding that the number of people who have participated in an a surface battle between armored ships of the line we can interview is virtually zero we don't have a lot of new stuff to go on. The evidence the Admiralty had let to several scenarios ranging form too unlikely to talk about to just extremely unlikely.

The reason the man on the PoW is looking at the Hood is he was the Chief Yeoman of Signals and his job was to watch the Hood for flag and lamp signals and not waiver from it, that didn't have to be explained. Their were actually two people who saw a salvo from Bismarck fall right before the explosion and we know it was from Bismarck because P.E. had already shifted target to PoW and a 15" shell splash sure is a lot bigger than an 8" shell splash. The Chief Yeoman of Signals called the salvo a straddle (one short two over.) An observer on one of the Brit Cruisers a loooong way off called it one short and one over but vision is asymmetrical in this case so we know with some certainty it was a straddle and almost surely at least one shell from Bismarck came on board. The Bismarck had its mojo going that day and got at least two and probably three hits on five salvos (10 half broadsides actually Bismarck fired four gun salvos about two seconds apart throughout the fight after reloads.) Now eyewitness testimony (direct evidence) has its problems, especially under the very high stress of combat but there is no reason to disbelieve that the last four gun "half salvo" from Bismarck to land at a range of 16,500 yards was a straddle and a hit. Of course you can disregard the only evidence you have which is the stuff of most conspiracy theories.

So what happened???

Assuming one of the suggested scenarios is correct; my order (yours is obviously different) from least likely to most likely is:

1. A plunging round from Bismarck penetrated the deck armor (flush deck, horizontal, whatever you want to call it) and penetrated to the magazines. This one requires something truly strange happening to deflect the shell down after contact or suspending the laws of physics. As you know the impervious range of side armor increases as range increases but the impervious range of deck armor increases as the range closes and the trajectory flattens out. The 1764 pound capped A.P. projectile from the 15" 52 cal. rifles on Bismarck penetrated 16.5" of modern German face hardened plate at just under 20.000 yards but deck armor was impervious to it inside 27,000 yards due to the extremely flat trajectory of the A.P. projectiles so plunging fire was effectively ruled out barring something incredibly freakish. It's one of those unbelievable stories that refuses to die. Even Kennedy, who must have known better suggests this one, though I suspect he was simply not clear.

2. The fire from the first hit which was almost surely from Prinz Eugen spread to the magazines. This is equally unlikely unless the shell hit a handling room instead of setting off the ready use ammunition directly as was reported to the bridge by the torpedo officer (slightly more plausible but not much) or the secondary gun crews who were not in action by the way, had violated safety procedures by having the anti flash doors to the shell handling rooms propped open. This practice, used in violation of procedures at Jutland was the actual culprit that contributed to the loss of the British battle cruisers there. Of course they were all KIA so we'll never know that. So it's the second least likely.

3. A torpedo went off. This happened to a lot of Jap ships but a single torpedo going off usually didn't do the job on Jap cruisers and almost surely wouldn't have on Hood because of where they were. Possible but also extremely unlikely.

4. A shell from Bismarck penetrated the inside angled deep belt of Hood and reached the magazines. Plausible but also extremely unlikely. A shell from Bismarck hitting the Hood's 12" belt at 16,500 yards should penetrate the deep belt without decapping, but would it reach a magazine? As I said, unlikely but plausible.

5. A shell landing short "porpoised" under the water struck the Hood below the waterline and reached the magazines. More likely than three or four but very unlikely as well. (we're still talking a one in a million shot here.)

6. A shell from Bismarck hit the upper 5" armored strake penetrated it, hit the 2 1/2" 45 degree angled down armored deck section (which really isn't "deck" but a weird quasi armored angled deck/bulknead) which ran from the fop of the bulkhead right behind the deep belt to the deck at the base of the deep belt (serious design flaw) penetrated it and reached the magazines. This would have been an incredibly lucky hit with maybe a 2 foot verticle window at the very most at exactly the right spot, but would have done the job if (maybe I should capitalize if) it happened. This could not have happened had the armored deck joined the main belt at the top and caped it as nature intended!!!

So the answer is you're left with what you choose to believe is the least unlikely of several incredibly unlikely scenarios.

On the Nazi navy I'm going to make an editorial comment. Anyone who supported the Nazi government of Germany was complicit in what happened in Nazi Germany and participating in the military in any form after it became evident what was going on was complicity. As far as I'm concerned that wasn't 1945; it was after Kristall Nacht Now some few might have been dull enough, disinterested enough, uninformed enough or a combination of all three not to have gotten the memo but I guess there are always those and unfortunately they reproduce. It is also a fact that the least pleasant consequence of opposing the Nazis after the came to power was a trip to Dachau and I understand that also. The ability to overcome the desire for self preservation is extremely rare and truly I don't know what I would have done, been with the program, been too afraid to oppose the program, hell I don't know because I wasn't a 1930s era German and I'm sure not going to claim I know I would have been some kind of hero. However - the lack of organized resistance to the Nazi regime after it came to power was striking. The Germans never got to elect Hitler Chancellor but they sure piled on the bandwagon even after his true agenda became apparent. Now I'm going to say something I haven't said before. With the above in mind I am incredibly conflicted about this election. Hillary Clinton is extremely dangerous and electing her will probably put this country in a decline it will not recover from in my children's lifetimes if ever. On the other hand I suspect Donald Trump, while no Nazi very well may have fascist tendencies (seeing him have his audiences raise their right hands and swear to vote for him gives me the willies.) I'm also not wild about the verbal back slapping he engages in with Putin who he seems to think know how to do it. After truly prayerful consideration I've decided sitting it our is not an option and to roll the dice on Trump. If I mess up I am absolutely complicit in what he does but I just can't sit this one out. In the movie Gettysburg the writers have Longstreet say "this war's a nightmare. You pick your nightmare side and put your head down and go." Well to me this election's a nightmare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Art

Ok,

On the Nazi navy I'm going to make an editorial comment. Anyone who supported the Nazi government of Germany was complicit in what happened in Nazi Germany and participating in the military in any form after it became evident what was going on was complicity.

---

There was no "Nazy navy." Hitler was head of State and head of Party. The Army reported, through Army channels, to the military high command. Which reported to the Head of State. The Waffen SS reported, through Party channels, to the head of the Party. The Army and the Navy were the "German Army" and "German Navy." The Waffen SS was the Party Army.

The Luftwaffe was another thing entirely. Neither fish nor fowl but a bit of both. That had to do with the youth of the branch and that Goering was #2 in the Party.

At the end of the war, with the nation crumbling, the Nazi Party imploded. Hitler appointed Doenitz as Head of State. Doenitz appointed von Krosigk as Head of Government. So "President" and "Chancellor." Germany surrendered with the Nazi Party no longer in power. Not that it mattered much. In any event, Doenitz claimed he was unaware that the Jews were being killed. Should he be believed? More importantly, if somebody at that level can make that claim with a straight face, how likely was it that those in lesser positions would be more informed? It's easy to sit here 70 years later and imagine that they should have. Go back to the time and see if that pans out. No television and a controlled press.

Does this mean they get off scot free? No:

Quote:

---

but discover you were culpable in the murder of millions.

---

So you can sit here 70 years later and pass judgement on your crystal ball view that they knew but you have no idea whether they did or not and the accounts from the time are pretty clear most didn't.

So tell me, are you a believer in collective punishment? If a rape occurs in a city are all the residents guilty of harboring a rapist? That kind of thinking is what caused the problem we're going on about. "All Jews are guilty!" Including the 5 year olds? "They're Jews, so yes!" After the war a movement in Germany, known as "ohne mich" (count me out), existed. Loosely translated it was: "you all can do whatever you're going to do but count me out."

The Germans didn't do enough after the war to root out those responsible. Thus they did adopt some of the blame. The hangings after the war should have been numerous and frequent. To say that every German was a Nazi is bunk. To say that they all knew the Jews were being killed is bunk. Life is never easy. When the war ended, whether they knew or not, they did get to shoulder some of the blame. The amount varied. I'm sure they assigned it themselves and lived with it. I'm sure because I asked. My issue is the lack of hangings after the war.

Go back and read about the SS St. Louis. The Jews were trying to flee Germany. The US had immigration quotas and wouldn't accept them. The Jews were killed. So do the people in America get the same blame?