Duikboot - Nummer 38204

[Juan Carlos Salgado]

Dear friends, I am new to the forum. First of all, please excuse me if I write in English, I can read German but I am much slower at writing. I am an author on naval and aviation subjects related to both world wars and Spain. So far, I have published two books on WW2 incidents related to the north of Spain. In my research, I used documents mostly from Spanish, German, British and American archives. I did get the microfilm copies of the Marineattaché Madrid from NARA but I did not order the corresponding KTB microfilms because the former were enough at the time to cover my needs. However, after publication of those books, I have continued expanding research with new data. Elsewhere, on one of the widely known uboat websites, there is reference to U 32 sinking Spanish trawlers Sálvora and Ons on 18 June 1940, "sunk by gunfire after the crews abandonded ship." To say the least, the documented Spanish point is quite different, but I have not seen the corresponding KTB pages. This is why I would like to ask the forum moderators or any forum members copies of the relevant pages, because I think there is here more to that than has been said. Thanks in advance to all and congratulations on the website creators and members for an excellent discussion tool. Regards, Juan Carlos

[ARANTALES]

Dear Juan Carlos,
Most of the source-material used to create DUIKBOOT is with Frans. I'll ask him for the details of U32's attack (this might take a couple of days as he has no e-mail).
For now I note that record ID#38204 in DUIKBOOT only mentions that U32 sank 2 spanish trawlers with artillery fire on June 18, 1940. DUIKBOOT does not provide the names of the trawlers, neither does it state that their crews abandoned ship. I assume that you refer to DUIKBOOT ID#38204, but also used information from other sources in your message. 
Spanish documents give a different story. Could you share with us that Spanish point of view please? It might help us in correcting DUIKBOOT. Thank you.

"Axis Submarine Successes of World War Two" by Prof.J.Rohwer (page 19) gives the names of the trawlers as "Sálvora" and "Faro-Ons".

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Walter

[Juan Carlos Salgado]

Dear Walter,

Thank you very much for the quick response. To begin with, the website pages I was referring to were

http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/358.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/357.html

On both pages, the owner is reported as "Waldino Leiros Mera". However, the 1941 Spanish Ship List reports the company name as "Leiros y C.ª (Ubaldino)", which stands for "Leiros & Co. (Ubaldino)". Waldino is a spelling variation for Ubaldino. The name can be found on the phone list in Vigo and I guess it is a relative. I shall try to contact him.

Another conflicting aspect is the name of the Faro Ons (my misspelling, but no hyphen). According to that source, the trawler was launched in 1931 as Faro de Ons (i.e., Ons Lighthouse) and then renamed Nuevo Ons (i.e., New Ons), no date given. However, the Spanish Ships List for 1941 mentions it as Faro Ons, no name changes recorded there, pages 164 and 225. See attached scans. As for the Sálvora, the Ships List, pages 173 and 225, has it as Salvora, which is actually a wrong spelling. Sálvora and Ons are two small islands NW of Vigo, see them on a Google map, just paste in the names.

As for the attack, this is the version on the website,

"At 19.12 hours on 18 Jun, 1940, U-32 stopped the two Spanish trawlers Sálvora and Nuevo Ons because they were outside of the allowed area of fishing and sank both by gunfire after the crews abandoned ship. Five fishermen from Nuevo Ons were lost and another later died. 19 survivors from both trawlers were rescued by the two lifeboats from Altair, which had been earlier attacked by the same U-boat.
All survivors were picked up later that same night by the Spanish trawler Iparreko-Izarra, which also located an empty lifeboat of Balmoralwood. The men were later transferred to the Spanish trawler Piedi and landed at Pasajes, Spain on 21 June."

I  am translating the corresponding page from my book and I will post it when I have finished. My account is based on the naval inquiry carried out, which I have to locate and I shall scan it and post it as well. The book can be found at

http://www.aresenyalius.es/catalogo/vm/colecciones-galland-books2012-03-11-11-27-43_/coleccion-clasicos/marea-roja-marea-negra-detail

and elsewhere.

Regarding Prof. Rohwer, I did pass him information on attacks on Spanish ships before he published his book, although this was not acknowledged.

I would like to see the corresponding KTB pages to know about the German version. It would not be the last time German submarines attacked Spanish shipping, sometimes under no clear circumstances.

Best regards,
Juan Carlos

[ARANTALES]

Dear Juan Carlos,

U32's KTB page (at least the relevant section) for June 18, 1940, reads:

1922 – BF1422: Aufgetaucht. Zwei Dampfer in rw. 60° Vorgesetzt. Beide mit Artillerie angehalten.

2000 – BF1423: Als Fischdampfer festgestellt. Besatzungen aussteigen lassen, anschliessend Dampfer mit Artillerie versenkt, da am Rand der Zone B.

As you read German, we didn't try to translate the KTB's text.
We have U32's KTB on microfilm (acquired from NARS) but alas no equipment that allows us to bring the requested image of the KTB-page.
We look forward reading the Spanish version of the story.

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Frans & Walter

[Juan Carlos Salgado]

Thank you very much, I do not need a hard copy. I have phoned the address in Vigo several times but I have had no answer. So I am sending them a letter to find out if they got any compensations from Germany.

To me it is obvious that someone, either the Germans or the Spaniards, even both, must have been lying because there are contradictions. Several questions still remain answered. Question one, why did the boats move from grid BF1422 to grid BF1423 in eighteen minutes? Of course, this is not the most important one, because the boats may have been just in the limits between both grids. But it can also suggest that they did not obey orders immediately. However, Jenisch did not note this on the KTB, so either he did not pay attention to the matter because it was actually not important or he silenced if for another reason.

Sections 79 and 80 of Chapter 1 of Günther Hessler's "The U-boat War in the Atlantic. 1939-1945" attached here, 'The Treatment of Neutrals', specify that U-boats had orders 'to treat neutrals with consideration,' but adds that ships should not arouse suspicion 'through alterations of course, use of radio, zig-zagging, darkening ship, or refusing to stop when ordered'. But the 28th of September order specified that 'Italian, Spanish, Japanese and Russian vessels were only to be stopped to discover the type and destination of their cargoes, and were not to be taken in prize or sunk.' The section ends 'Even with later changes in U-boat procedure, when all ships in certain areas could be attacked without warning, the above-mentioned neutrals and U.S. ships were permitted to pass unmolested through zones A and B.' These are shown in the map attached, from the same source. Of course, this would apply in 1939.

Section 82, 'Contraband Regulations' does not show any infringement on the Spanish side. What is more, these trawlers did not have radioes, did not land their catches in enemy ports and a large part of the Spanish canned fish production was being exported... to Germany, when Spain was literally starving in 1940. When you read the Danish exception in that paragraph, the rough treatment to the Spanish trawlers becomes paradox. Ten percent of the German shipping was sheltered in Spanish ports in the last quarter of 1939, safe from enemy attack...

Section 84, 'Extension of the Unrestricted Area' specifies, 12th January 1940 '(Zone B).... All ships excepting friendly neutrals, in and to the west of the Bristol Channel may be attacked without warning,' and further on '(Extension of A and B) Area A is extended to 2º E., Area B southwards and southwest to 10º 30'W. and to include the whole of the Irish Sea. Irish territorial waters extend for 10 miles.'

Section 85 specifies, 'To intensify action against Britain and France, U-boats were permitted on 24th May to operate unrestrictedly in the area west of Scotland (Zone E) and the area off the French Atlantic coast (Zone F). This last measure completed the ring round Britain. Within a strip of some 60 to 100 miles around Britain and off the French Atlantic coast all ships, apart from the exceptions already given, were attacked without warning. Outside this area operations against neutral ships were still conducted in accordance with the Prize Regulations. Ships taken over by Britain after the occupation of Norway, Belgium and Holland were considered as enemy vessels, but attacks on sight were only permitted if these ships were armed. The rules of neutrality were applied to United States' and Danish ships and other friendly neutrals.' It was not until the 17th August when 'all the waters around Britain became the "operational area" and total blockade was declared.'

Of course, the owner was aware that his ships were operating in a danger area and so were their captains, but according to the source above, there is someting strange in Jenisch's decision unless he had written orders in a different sense.

[ARANTALES]

As the discussion moves into the direction of whether U32 was allowed under the rules applying at the time and place to sink the 2 Spanish trawlers, a thing on which I have no ready knowledge and/or primary documentation, I must leave further reactions to other FMA-readers more knowledgeable in that area of expertise.

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Walter

[Juan Carlos Salgado]

Dear Walter,

Thank you very much for your help, don't worry. As a matter of fact, I have finally got the answer. I have found two documents from the M/Attaché Madrid files that I had overseen which leave the matter pretty clear. Jenisch mistook the Spanish trawlers for British A/S trawlers because apparently he had been attacked previously. The Spanish acted clumsily and each part mistook the other's reaction, panic in the trawlers after seeing Altair sink led them in the wrong direction, they did not stop when ordered and one of them sailed in the direction of U 32, so Jenisch thought it was coming in to attack. See attachments.

Could I ask you for a last favour? Could you please check whether Jenisch wrote down that A/S attack on U 32 in the KTB or not? Kenneth Wynn does not mention it although he mentions the attacks suffered on the 4th, 5th and 8th patrols. I do not think he oversaw what happened in the 6th patrol but it would be great help to have a confirmation.

[ARANTALES]

Dear Juan Carlos,

Will ask Frans to check the KTB for any mention of U32 being subjected to an (A/S) attack on 18 June 1940 (or shortly before).
As previously: thank you for your patience, as I can't reach Frans by email.

Happy Easter
Walter

[Juan Carlos Salgado]

Thank you very much, Walter. There is no hurry, take your time. A friend of mine in Vigo, a historian by profession, will look into it and try to find out how the compensation process ended.

Met vriendelijke groeten / Saludos cordiales

[ARANTALES]

Dear Juan Carlos,

I have found two documents from the M/Attaché Madrid files that I had overseen which leave the matter pretty clear. Jenisch mistook the Spanish trawlers for British A/S trawlers because apparently he had been attacked previously.

Frans checked the KTB of U32 for 16,17, 18 and 19 June 1940, and there is no mention of U32 ever having been attacked. Nor that she dived because she thought an attack was imminent.

If U32 was ever attacked by A/S trawlers it must have been even earlier and could hardly still serve as an explanation for its attack on the two Spanish trawlers.

We have the impression Jenisch attacked the two Spanish trawlers for reasons unknown (we don't know from his KTB whether he mistook them for British A/S trawlers or not) and when the German Marine Attaché in Madrid was asked for an explanation for these attacks, that the story about the - according the KTB non existing - attack on U32 was put forward as an excuse.

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Frans & Walter

[Juan Carlos Salgado]

Dear Frans & Walter,

Thank you very much for your help, it has been very useful. That was my first impression, too. Deep inside, I had not discarded it but I think it now becomes evident that the conclusion is not too difficult to reach. Jenisch spent the rest of the war in a POW camp from late 1940 to 1945, so he could thus evade some uncomfortable questions.

I will let you know how all this research ends on the Spanish side of the story and if I ever manage to get an article published, your help will be duly acknowledged.

Met vriendelijke groeten / Saludos cordiales
Juan Carlos

[ARANTALES]

You're welcome. Our pleasure.
Success with your research!

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Frans & Walter