MovieChat Forums > Sink the Bismarck! (1960) Discussion > Bismarck tried to surrender

Bismarck tried to surrender

posted 12 years ago by WisdomThreeNine
32 replies | jump to latest

The revelation has been unearthed by author Iain Ballantyne for a book about the Bismarck which has been published 70 years after the sinking on May 27, 1941.
One account he came across was an interview Mr Byers gave to his son Kevin before he died in 2004 aged 86. Mr Byers, a gunnery officer on Rodney, saw the battle unfold through binoculars at a distance of two miles. The Rodney had closed to what was point-blank range in gunnery terms because the
(((Bismarck was no longer firing back.)))
Mr Byers said: ‘Very early on men started jumping over board. They couldn’t stand the heat. One particular fella on top of B turret was waving his arms in semaphore.
‘I saw this and I told the gunnery officer, Lieutenant Commander Crawford. He said, “I don’t want to know about any signal now”. She then flew a black flag…but he (Crawford) wasn’t having any of it.
‘Then she started blinking with her Morse lamps on the yard arm and he (Crawford) said “Don’t report anything more like that”.’
Kevin Byers, 52, from Portaferry, County Down, said: ‘Dad knew what he saw. He felt guilty he didn’t do more at the time but he wasn’t of high enough rank to be heard.
‘Something like 2,000 men died and this nagged away at him for the rest of his life'

[–] ib011f9545i 12 years ago

Interesting,but does it matter? I don't know enought about the naval history of World War 11 to say if this story is known about but in the heat of battle do you have to take prisoners?,in any case that particular sailor might have wanted to surrender but he was not in command.

[–] WisdomThreeNine 12 years ago

It matters for a number of reasons, 1) the Bismarck was no longer returning fire. 2) Something like 800 of the Bismarck crew made it into the water after it sunk, after 119 were picked up, the British ships than abandoned the rest to die, claiming that a u-boat was spotted, this turned out to be untrue. 3) German Admiral Karl Doenitz was imprisoned after the war for issueing orders "to not help survivors" of Allied ships after the "Laconia Incident"
"History is always written by the victors"

[–] ib011f9545i 12 years ago

It was not returning fire and we now know it could not do so but the Royal Navy could not know that at the time,was the report of seeing a u boat untrue or a mistake,it is not the same thing.
The German sailor making the signal to surrender could not claim to be representing the captain of the ship so I don't blame the Royal Navy for not paying any attention to it.

If every report of western allied wrong behaviour was true and 1 in 5 of German actions were true the axis would still be guilty of more wrong behaviour.
I get fed up hearing apologies for German actions.

[–] WisdomThreeNine 12 years ago

"The German sailor making the signal to surrender could not claim to be representing the captain of the ship so I don't blame the Royal Navy for not paying any attention to it."

Any sailor that went to sea knows that no crewman would dare try to surrender without the captain's approval. The British wanted revenge.

"If every report of western allied wrong behaviour was true and 1 in 5 of German actions were true the axis would still be guilty of more wrong behaviour."

The Allies aligned with the Soviet Union committed far more atrocities that the Axis. Joseph Stalin was by far a more brutal butcher than Hitler. By Nikita Krushev's own admission 20 million died in Soviet gulags between 1938-1945

I get fed up hearing apologies for German actions.

Who's apologizing?

[–] ib011f9545i 12 years ago

Yes of course Stalin and the Soviet Union killed more people than the nazis,they had more time to do it and were better organised,nazi Germany was a disorganised mess.
But I think the reason why we in the west (I am British)don't go on about the Soviet record is because they were our allies and Soviet planes never bombed Britain or sunk American ships.
Of course during the nazi/soviet pact the Soviets supplied oil and other supplies which allowed nazi Germany to invade western europe and fight the Battle Of Britain but again we were never at war with the USSR and so we are obsessed by the nazis.

Lots of people,but perhaps not you,compare the USSR and NAZI Germany and say we should never have fought World War 11,but I don't agree.

[–] Petronius Arbiter II 12 years ago

Hitler declared war on the USA first, right after Pearl Harbor. He didn't exactly leave Congress and FDR much choice in the matter.

"I don't deduce, I observe."

[–] ib011f9545i 12 years ago

Correct,but I don't see what your comment has to do with what we were talking about,sorry if I missed something.
Lots of people don't know that Hitler delcared war on the USA,it was one of his big mistakes along with the halt before Dunkirk and attacking his ally the USSR.

To me as a Brit the really interesting thing about the US involvement in World War 2 is the way that FRD(GREAT MAN)allowed the USN to help the Royal Navy to u boats in the Atlantic prior to December 1941.

People who go on about conspiracy theories linked to Pearl Harbor don't seem to know about the occupation of Iceland and the incidents involving the USS GREER and the USS REUBEN JAMES

[–] pete-293 11 years ago

old 4 stacker destroyer with U.S. flags patrolled the Atlantic. the U.S sells 50 old 4 stacker destroyers to England who uses them to patrol the Atlantic. So we have ships identical in appearance flying U.S. flags and British flags. sounds stupid doesn't it. no wonder some think the Rueben James was set up.

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

[–] Karl Aksel 12 years ago

Nazi Germany, a disorganised mess? And even if this were the case, I do not see the relevance.

[–] agapealove 12 years ago

Stalin was not better organized, and he did it in the same timeframe as the nazis. The Nazis were the better organized country at the time.

Furthermore, World War II was inevitable due to WWI;it is directly connected to the reparations that Britain and France put upon Germany, with a heavy tendency towards France due to the War reparation Tax that was being charged to Germany. The fact is the charges made to Germany at the end of WWI caused WWII. Britain and the rest of Europe never had a chance to avoid it as they helped create the Second War albeit unwittingly.

This is the reason that Hitler went after the countries he did first. It was to regain the ground that was taken from Germany (Prussia) at the end of the first war. Some of these lands even openly welcomed Germany coming in (most did not) Then he went on a revenge scheme to get back at France and in particular the Marseilles Treaty. He then, and only then went after Britain...and don't forget Britain called out "War" first on Germany.

Those are facts.

Also, the soviet did do things against other countries, and most of the wars in the last century as a whole can be directly connected to WWI, the cold war is directly connected as when they decided to break Germany apart even more than the previous time...they played a game of rape, plunder and pillage on Germany. Most of the scientists were split up between the USA and USSR, and helped create much of the technology we use today. They helped send men to the moon etc etc.

During WW2 the soviets also stole from the Allies when the Allies were in Russia trying to help train the Soviets to do things more productively...as they were disorganized. During this time 1 squadron of American bombers went "missing" soon after the soviet had planes very similar to the Americans. There was never a formal charge brought up regarding the planes, and most historians question whether they were stolen or whether the Americans left them there to be used for copying.

What I am sick of is Allied Countries trying to play innocent, and I live in one.

[–] stratton_mark 9 years ago

By the Marseilles Treaty I assume you mean the Treaty of Versailles?

Britain had to declare war on Germany as Chamberlain had promised to protect Polish sovereignty so saying Britain called out "War" first is a little bit ambiguous remember Hitler had already seized the Rhineland, Czechoslovakia and Austria without anyone firing a shot so don't call Britain the aggressor, together with France they were the only nation in Europe who could stand up to the Nazi regime.

[–] WisdomThreeNine 8 years ago

If Britain and France declared war on Germany September 3, 1939 to protect Polish sovereignty from the evil Adolph Hitler, why did the Allies abandon Poland at the end of WW2 to the equally evil Josef Stalin? Also ignoring the fact that the USSR invaded Poland too on September 17, 1939, but the Allies did not declare war on the USSR? Seems to me that there is a lot more than the official history reveals

[–] stratton_mark 9 years ago

Oh and it wasn't one whole squadron of US bombers that went missing, it was one B-29 that the Soviets kept and copied after it ran out of petrol and flew on to Russia. You really like to sensationalise things don't you.

[–] Squeeth2 11 years ago

~~~~~ Something like 800 of the Bismarck crew made it into the water after it sunk, after 119 were picked up, the British ships than abandoned the rest to die, claiming that a u-boat was spotted, this turned out to be untrue.~~~~~

It does seem to be a curious coincidence that when the British won an engagement in WWI and WWII, they always had a U-boat false alarm about 30 minutes after commencing recovery of survivors.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] stratton_mark 9 years ago

After what other engagements during either World War did this happen?

[–] Reephaman 11 years ago

My father-in-law served in the battle that sank the Bismarck. He is dead now, but he always impressed on me how sailors looked after each other once a ship went down, regardless of friend or foe. He and his comrades did all they could for the rescued German sailors, even though memories of HMS Hood's fate were still fresh in their minds, and they only felt sympathy for them. He attended several reunions with the German veterans in attendance for years after the war. To suggest that the RN deliberately let them drown is ridiculous.

[–] rglasby 11 years ago

I don't believe that Bismarck or what was left of the command on board wanted to surrender at any time.

Indeed the only information we have is that the Germans claim that the ship was not actually sunk but rather was scuttled before the RN could sink it

[–] Blueghost 12 years ago

It would be nice if other sailors and officers corroborated this. I've not heard either surviving Germans nor other British seamen state that this is what happened.

No doubt Bismark was put out of action in the battle, but I've never heard of any German serviceman stating they tried to surrender. Of the 118 or 119 odd survivors from the Bismark, you'd think one of them would have said as much.

That doesn't mean that there isn't some truth to the statement, but I question the degree of truth.

As for the COs of the KG5 and Rodney, the vessels that engaged Bismark, you'd think one of them would have stated something to the effect that Bismark looked as if she was disengaging.

I'm certain there may have been a German sailor or two who wanted the battle to stop, perhaps even signaled with their shirts, but that is not indicative of the Bismark's command staffs' actions.

In short, I doubt it. Maybe a desperate German signaled, but I doubt the Bismark herself was surrendering. I'd like more evidence.

On the other hand, the Bismark's CO was against the NAZI regime, and traditional seamen in every sense of the word, heralding from the Kaiser's Navy. A true man of honor in spite of what his country was doing. That, to me, lends credence to the OP, but not entirely.

[–] WisdomThreeNine 12 years ago

It would be nice if other sailors and officers corroborated this. I've not heard either surviving Germans nor other British seamen state that this is what happened.

No doubt Bismark was put out of action in the battle, but I've never heard of any German serviceman stating they tried to surrender. Of the 118 or 119 odd survivors from the Bismark, you'd think one of them would have said as much.

Tom Byers was very respected officer of the Royal Navy, I seriously doubt he would make this claim against his country if it were not true. As for the survivors, Bismarck was a very large ship, at one point Bismarck was unable to return fire, but the British kept schelling her. It was very likely that when a surrender was issued there was complete chaos on board, only 119 survived out of a crew of 2200. The crew that did survive only thought about getting off the ship alive didn't know that a surrender was issued. The surrendering officers all perished.

[–] ta2me92704 11 years ago

Tom Byers was very respected officer of the Royal Navy, I seriously doubt he would make this claim against his country if it were not true.

Irrelevant. Bottom line is that there is no corroboration. It is hearsay, nothing more.

My ignore list is much too long for a sig line. Do not assume you are not on it.

[–] Blueghost 11 years ago

Well, not only that, but it is war. If you want to surrender it's not enough to say you made the effort, you've got to let everyone know that you're done fighting, and would prefer not to get blown to piece or sent to the bottom of the ocean.

When you're in a fight you're in it to win. And if the other guy is unable to say "I give up", and looks like he's still got some fight left in him, then that's too bad for him.

End of story.

[–] DD-931 11 years ago

"Any sailor that went to sea knows that no crewman would dare try to surrender without the captain's approval."

I am ex-Navy, and this statement is both nonsensical and utterly ignorant. The person who posted this is not just blinded by their ideology, they are incapable of making coherent sense on the subject. They also haven't the slightest clue of what kind of carnage and chaos is involved in a surface warfare battle in the 20th century.

[–] Reephaman 11 years ago

As an update on the RN treatment of German sailors: HMS Dorsetshire and HMS Maori (my father-jn-law's ship) were rescuing the German sailors until they were ordered to move out of the area because radar had picked up enemy submarine activity that threatened the safety of their ships. 118 Germans were rescued before the Dorsetshire and Maori had to leave; the remainder were left to their fate.

[–] TerraFirma69 9 years ago

I was going to say the same thing. How blinkered and naïve can you be?

...then whoa, differences...

[–] ta2me92704 11 years ago

‘Dad knew what he saw. He felt guilty he didn’t do more at the time but he wasn’t of high enough rank to be heard.
‘Something like 2,000 men died and this nagged away at him for the rest of his life'

Such is war...

My ignore list is much too long for a sig line. Do not assume you are not on it.

[–] neverthereever 10 years ago

New books always require new material... otherwise there would be no point in writing them.

Any revisionist history has to set out to cast doubt on the official version of events. That essentially is the historian's art, to convert contemporary journalistic accounts into a fact based record of events. But to make money out of it, there needs to be a bit of juicy controversy... that's the publishers art.

[–] stratton_mark 9 years ago

The tradition at sea is if a ship wants to surrender she lowers her flag (Strikes her colours I believe the term is) the Bismarck sank with her colours flying she did not try to surrender.

[–] Pavel-Paskevic 8 years ago

I just feel sorry for loss of human lifes.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

Something like 2,000 men died and this nagged away at him for the rest of his life'

Perhaps he could contemplate the murder of six million civillians to take his mind of it.

"I don't need to believe it's real. I just need to believe it."