Sinking of the British troop ship Rohna

So the bells toll all night for the people of the village, and everyone surrounds my hut carrying torches?

Trackend, Evan and those who skip over my posting:

No one called anyone a "liar" here. I did not.

I am quite confident you know what my opinion on Erich is, and I am not going to clarify anything on that.

I simply stated my printings tell something different to what Erich presented as sources; a more different fashion of emphazising discrepancies.

I have never ever suggested, much less directly expressed, ALL allied accounts are full of lies, crap and distortions. You invented that, and not me.

There are no accusations here but facts.
The "Rohna" case is a clear and undisputable example to illustrate Britain and the USA were not that differen to Germany.

And yes, precisely, that is perhaps why i do not write, colaborate, much less co-author any history works. I am just too passionate when it comes to ram bullshit, wherever it may come from.


Evan, one last thing:

Let´s say Erich´s account is the accurate one. The allied fighters protecting the convoy managed to shoot down 6 bombers only? (out of 21)
In an attack that lasted for about one hour.

I´d then have to say something on this.

Even though the number of allied fighters (French, USA and British an Erich said) was not mentioned, the whole thing can speak for itself.

It is either allied fighter pilots were absolutely mediocre or that the He 177 was a highly capable design, able to find its out when intercepted.

A one hour air battle -over the sea- of only He 177s and He 111s against single engine fighters with such an outcome can certainly point in this direction.

There were episodes over Europe that proved German fighter pilots were capable of exterminating small formations of USAAF heavy bombers in extremely shorts periods of time.

Udet said:

Other than proving (i) Germany had the most advance rocketry technology of the planet,

Click to expand...

Agreed there is no dispute and no one has ever disputed that.

Udet said:

(ii) that German bomber crews were highly trained and skilled

Click to expand...

Allied fighter and bomber pilots were highly trained and skilled also, whats your point. As others have stated you always seem to throw things like this out and the way you make them sound like is that the Luftwaffe was the only thing worth a damn in the skies. I happen to be a fan of Luftwaffe aircraft and pilot myslef but damn man the Luftwaffe got beat so I think that says something about the allies.

Udet said:

and (iii) the allied powers were full of s**t and professional distorters and liars, the issue lacks any relevance.

Click to expand...

WHOAH, Someone needs to step down off of the high pedistal, here. This war is in the past man, you need to let your anger and agressions go and stop hating the allied powers they are your friend now. And by the way Hitler and his chronies as well as Stalin and his goons were the best at proffesinal distortion, lieing, and were full of shit even more then the allied powers were. Hello that is one reason why they lost the war.

Udet said:

I have never ever suggested, much less directly expressed, ALL allied accounts are full of lies, crap and distortions. You invented that, and not me.

Click to expand...

Though I agree with many of your posts you do have a habit of lashing out and discrediting anything from the Allies. I am sorry but the Germans did a lot of covering up too, moreso then the Allies. You say NOT ALL but deffinatly most of them.

And now I step off of my soap box.

Oh by the way every source that I have seen places the Rohna at about 8000 tons including the official memorial association to the sinking of the Rohna. Is this another example of lies from the Allied Powers?

Udet I was unaware that I had accused you of calling anyone a liar if I have I should like to see my post and I shall correct it for you.

The personel impression I get from many of your posts seem to be generally a bit biased to the effectiveness of the German forces/equipment over the allied this is of course your right and I defend you in that, but you are bound to cause a certain amount of sceptism among some members .

As for those who skip over your threads unless you have a phsycic PC you can only be assuming who does or does not read your posts I have no idea who reads mine. That is there personel choice to do so or not.

And yes, precisely, that is perhaps why I do not write, colaborate, much less co-author any history works. I am just too passionate when it comes to ram bullshit, wherever it may come from.

Click to expand...

Im not quite sure what this means Udet to me by saying you do not write history works because of bullshit, suggests that authors who do write history books are writing bullshit if that is what you are accusing them of I find that quite rude

trackend said:

Im not quite sure what this means Udet to me by saying you do not write history works because of bullshit, suggests that authors who do write history books are writing bullshit if that is what you are accusing them of I find that quite rude

Click to expand...

I agree on you with this. It makes it out to be that all historians are writing bullshit. If that is the case Udet is it only historians from allied nations or are German historians writing bullshit also? Just a question want to know your feelings on this.

Hello DerAdler:

"This war is in the past man, you need to let your anger and agressions go and stop hating the allied powers they are your friend now".

This is certainly one of the points I dislike about the net; not that this is your fault or mistake DerAdler, but one can make a wrong impression from reading the posting of a given individual. It has happened to me too.

Discussing issues with people you can not see (the expressions on their faces, the tone of the voice, etc.) can lead to situations like this. It is a natural consequence of this new fashion of dicussing WWII with people from anywhere in the world via the web.

I have no anger, no agression, much less hate against anything or anyone. Passionate could be a more proper word. As I said, we can not see the faces of every member when he is producing his posting. I can assure you I do not clench teeth and do not stroke the keys when I am replying )


I like the truth Der Adler. I push the limits when it comes to find the truth on everything that I consider either necessary or of interest. That I do not have the whole truth is true, but I keep pushing.

Trackend:

Let me clarify my comment for you. When I said why I do not write -much less co-author- any history books I was referring to my passionate style of discussing history. I repeat: PASSIONATE, which is different to being aggressive )

Still I do not let passion blind my judgement when discussing history.

I have had the chance of reading history books, seeing interviews, tv documentals and articles made by totally passionate guys, and I did not like the deposition. Those who are cold and objective when commenting history can be better writers.

So I thought to myself, "so that is how would I be sounding if being part of similar ventures...no way!".

Udet said:

I have no anger, no agression, much less hate against anything or anyone. Passionate could be a more proper word. As I said, we can not see the faces of every member when he is producing his posting. I can assure you I do not clench teeth and do not stroke the keys when I am replying )...


Still I do not let passion blind my judgement when discussing history...

I have had the chance of reading history books, seeing interviews, tv documentals and articles made by totally passionate guys, and I did not like the deposition. Those who are cold and objective when commenting history can be better writers...

So I thought to myself, "so that is how would I be sounding if being part of similar ventures...no way!".

Click to expand...

Although Ive had no part in the factual debate over the sinking of the Rohna, I would just like to add a comment here.

You're right, Udet, that the more objective an author is, the more validty his account will be accredited with by the historical community. You, however, are not one of those authors. If I were to have included any reference to anyone's opinion as 'a piece of s**t' in any of my undergraduate history essays, I would have walked away with a Third every time - and rightly so. If you're going to expect people to be persuaded by your evaluation of the veracity of 'Allied' history, you're gonna have to try harder. Show us why this is so - prove to us that there is an agenda among historians born among the Allied powers to deliberately and significantly distort accounts of the war, and I will happily engage you in a debate. But you havent provided anything to debate about. We all have our pet historical opinions, but you need to express yours responsibly if it is to be taken at all seriously. There is, as you say a place for passion in history. The dry, utterly factual brand of history can be excruciating to read. But there is also a place where passion is inappropriate, especially if allowed to cloud objective judgement. On my reading of your opinons, you would seem to be having that difficulty. However, that is down to you; this is just 0.02 from where im standing

And just to join in the factual debate: The fact that only six bombers were destroyed says very little about the fighters, the bombers, or thier aircrews. You fail to provide, for example, any information on the weather - were the conditions good for interception, or was visibility at the tome poor? And, bombers have lucky days and fighters have unlucky ones. Sometimes the facts and the expectation of the historian fail to match up...its one of the things that makes the subject so enjoyable!

Udet said:

Hello DerAdler:

"This war is in the past man, you need to let your anger and agressions go and stop hating the allied powers they are your friend now".

This is certainly one of the points I dislike about the net; not that this is your fault or mistake DerAdler, but one can make a wrong impression from reading the posting of a given individual. It has happened to me too.

Click to expand...

I will agree with you 100%.

I for one find Udet's posts extremely interesting, and while i don't agree with all of them, i'm sure none of them were directed to any other members in an insulting way. I'm just saying this because of the general reaction which i found a bit over the top.
*waves white flag*

BombTaxi:

Thanks for your very interesting deposition.

Elaborating further on what you said to me would certainly demand the opening of a new thread, for it all would go totally off-topic.

Furthermore, the issue is so interesting it could deserve a cumbersome book being written, so do not expect a customized comprehensive guide here.

It really amazes me to realize there are people here who do not detect the work of the propaganda systems of Britain and the USA; I will leave soviet propaganda aside so far.

Note the official history of WWII is totally passionate. Even more passionate than the style of this writer. It has it that the world was "saved" from slavery, obscurity and terror. Democracy and freedom were ensured when Germany was defeated.

Let´s see, after winning a war, victors are entitled, empowered to tell their peoples and the world how was it that things happened. We all agree on this, dont we?

Now, the ultimate target for this kind of propaganda is not comprised by people like most of the members of this forum. Why?

Simple: because most of us have read or researched a bit -or real deep- and have more or less a clearer idea of what happened.

The ultimate target is the mob. Those who actually do not give a crap about issues such as war or simply do not find military history interesting enough to be a hooby much less a profession but still receive the impact of information.

It is them comprising the actual target. Most of them have the notion nazi Germany in fact had plans for conquering the entire planet and to have all non-aryan races of the planet enslaved and exterminated.

bombtaxi, they in fact have manipulated and processed the recorded events of the war in a fashion sufficient to serve their interest.

I provide you with examples:

(1) The Ribentropp-Molotov pact, which among several things, included the destruction of Poland. This is public domain.

The soviet army invaded Poland from the east a mere few days after Germany´s initial struck. This is also public domain.

Bombtaxi: if two individuals conspire to make a felony, who would you try, one of them only?

So is the soviet union depicted as an agressor of dimensions equal as Germany is? The answer is no.

Germany is depicted as the sole agressor who wanted to swallow Europe -some include the entire world here- just for the pleasure of it.


(2) After Poland.

Once Poland fell, who struck next?

Soviet Union invaded Finland in the winter of 1939. This is public domain as well.

Everyone knows this, but it is noteworthy to point out the event is oddly "skipped" and the attention gets focused on the next German move: May, 1940, the attack against France and Low Countries.

So the Soviet Union did not have an expansionist agenda by means of unlawful military invasions, it was only Germany.

See my point?
And I am not even referring to concealed or hidden facts here -like the Rohna, concealed for several decades-, but to events you can see on any WWII book. It is the way the information is processed, to serve the interest of victors.

So after Poland, it was not Germany but the Soviet Union who carried out the next unlawful attack against a nation that by the time hardly had 3 million inhabitants.

It is also public domain the Soviet Union invaded the three Baltic states and that Romania saw a part of its territory occupied by soviet forces, but still fail to address the expansionist agenda of the communists.

Bombtaxi, the British and USA official history will simply never admit they had to swallow garbage and became allies of a regime that in terms of crime and unlawful actions was well ahead Hitler´s.

This is public domain too, it will just be presented in the most convinient of the fashions.

I will close the posting here, it has gotten too long.

Cheers!

Thanks for clearing up my question Udet

Udet said:

BombTaxi:

Bombtaxi, the British and USA official history will simply never admit they had to swallow garbage and became allies of a regime that in terms of crime and unlawful actions was well ahead Hitler´s.

Cheers!

Click to expand...

I think you will find that at the time when the Soviet Union was bought into the allied alliance Churchill was reminded of the appalling record of the Soviets, to this he replied he would make a pact with the devil if it meant destroying Hitler and his Nazi's. The British and the USA were no lovers of Stalin and in fact disliked him and his soviet ideals intensely but it was deemed necessary to Allie with him in order to defeat Germany.
This is (as you say) in the public domain.

As to whether Stalin was worse than Hitler this is a matter of opinion,
for me I believe the Nazi regime was vastly worse the fact the Stalin invaded areas of Poland or attacked Finland ect was an opportunist action bought on by the Nazi aggression. Hitler had a plan for world domination including the elimination and enslavement of the soviet's. You say I (or perhaps others) have put in world domination for pleasure you are incorrect Udet, I find no pleasure in believing Hitler would have not been satisfied with anything less that the domination (domination does not always require invasion) of the world alongside his Allies whom he thought inferior to himself and the Nazi's anyway.
Stalin had various purges amongst his own people and the final death toll will never be truly known but must run into many millions however it is also known that upwards of 20 million soviet citizens perished after the start of operation Barbarossa, Europe was invaded and stripped of its Jewish, political, sexual or mentally undesirable population (using Nazi propaganda supported Arian purity and blame the Jews rule of thumb) on an industrial scale. In the most calculated slaughter the world has ever seen butchery took place in the name of the Nazi's and there twisted Ideals.
Would Japan have attacked the US if it had not had an Allie in Germany. This can only be conjecture as the situation did not arise for myself I think they probably would have, although without a front in Europe the destruction of the Japanese empire would have been very much sooner than it actually was.
The release of hidden documents and cover ups will continue this is true Udet but you do use a very wide brush when condemning the British and US public being deluded in face of the facts
As for believing garbage etc there are to this day some Germans who have denied the Holocaust ever took place. that is what I call extreme delusion. This too is in the public domain.

Cheers

After explaining your point of view, it becomes somewhat understandable Udet, but I agree with trackend here. You tend to use a very broad brush in condemning the Allied public.

The public perception of the events of WWII isn't as black and white as it used to be, and as certain things are brought to light, that perception is ever so slowly changing. The danger is that it almost seems to be slowly swinging in the opposite direction. I for one attribute much of that to political correctness, as it seems to be fashionable these days to condemn the victors. Facts are facts after all, but we need to be careful here that new facts don't overshadow the old. The Nazis were brutal and expansionistc. Evil.

The Soviet Union under Stalin was indeed a brutal, expansionistic empire and very few people will deny that these days. As trackend pointed out, Churchill so much as stated that he would sleep with the devil himself if it meant defeating Hitler. There was no delusion there. The British knew exactly who they were allying themselves with, but it had to be done in order to defeat the more immediate, and even worse regime under Hitler. The Americans recognized this as well.

Udet, I was only pointing out that in your "passion", you often go off sounding like a man who is angry at the allies. That is what puts me, and others off. You can take it as a witch hunt or however you like it. The simple fact of the matter is that all of us here treat the facts as they are, facts. Sometimes thing contradict and that is part of the investigative process of history.

But keep in mind that many times you have gone on record stating that the allies have "distorted", "lied", or some other metaphor for been untruthful. ALL sides used propaganda. I don't think there is anyone here who has done any research at all can deny that there have been mistakes made in documentation, for whatever reasons.

The key is to not let your emotions over-ride the facts. That is the point I was making.

I would like to point out that Britain was willing to go to war with the Soviet Union in 1939 in defence of Finland. The alliance between Britain, the U.S and the Soviet Union was to destroy a common enemy, Germany.

If you look beyond the war, late 1945, '46 and '47 many Americans and Britain were wanting to continue the war but, now against the Soviet Union.
Britain wasn't foolish, they were gaining their allies to defeat one enemy at a time. They gladly sent weapons to the Soviet Union to let them slug it out with Germany. I don't know what was going on inside the minds of British and American politicians but maybe, behind closed doors, they were avoiding Operation Overlord for as long as possible. Let the two great fascist states destroy one another then move in to mop up the mess.

The landing in Normandy was to stop the Soviet Union encompassing the whole of Europe. This is also true of the British landing in Greece. What I want you to question is this, Germany in 1943 were willing to gain peace off the Western Allies so they could divert all efforts to the Soviet Union but the West had already stated unconditional surrender only. However, in 1944 when the Western powers landed the Germans put up a massive effort on the Western front as well as the Eastern. If Germany was so wanting to stop the Soviet Union only, they'd have eased back on the West front because the Allied armies weren't going anywhere fast and they would have thrown everything at the East. But they didn't, why?

I don't know why, to be honest, maybe they just wanted to prove to the whole world that they were still a power right up to their dying days. They maybe wanted to be definately written in the history books. Or maybe, they weren't just about stopping the Soviet Union, maybe the ruling body of Germany, the Nazi regime just wanted war by that stage.

Think, if Germany had collapsed on the West and thrown everything to the East would the Soviet Union have taken Poland? Would they have taken Hungary? Would they have taken East Germany? No they wouldn't because when those T-34s would have rolled on to the River Vistula in Poland, more likely than not M4 Shermans would have already been sat on the other bank.

The Western Allies wanted Germany's Wehrmacht destroyed by whatever means. The Soviet Union wanted to expand. In 1944, what did Germany want? Survival? I think not, that would have been better secured by a collapse in the West.

It's hard to put logic to Hitler's thinking. I wonder if he thought his new wonder weapons would change the course of the war. If you look at the planning that went into the battle of the bulge, alot of the German generals were either not liking the plan, or were kept in the dark until just prior to execution. Hitler was convinced that the troops would be able to make it ot the North Sea and drive a wedge between the Americans and the Brits.

Leaving the western front lightly defended would have been tough to explain to the German people why so much ground was being lost so quickly. If it had only been token resistance, it would have been interesting though, each army driving east. How far do you think the Germans could have gotten before the Americans and Brits took Berlin, especially with Patton and Monty so gung-ho to get there.

Patton and Monty weren't gung-ho, that advance was slow! That advance could have been much-much-much quicker. The German forces had collapsed after the Normandy break-out but the Allied forces weren't keeping up. They were giving the Wehrmacht breathing space with which they could set-up defences.

After the Battle of the Bulge they had the oppurtunity to snip off the bulges neck and encircle three German armies! They didn't though, they just pushed the bulge out.

The only reason the German generals did not like Wacht Am Rhein was the simple fact that they knew it couldn't work. Germany lacked reserves. The Ardennes Offensive would have been a perfect execution of mobile warfare if the Wehrmacht had another mobile army to throw in after the breakthrough.
All they did was breakthrough, they had nothing to exploit.

I have faith in Herr Goebbels in keeping the German people in check. A collapse in the West might well have allowed Berlin to fall to them but that would have been fine for the Germans. It wouldn't have been the post-war Germany we know today.
Even with a fall of Berlin, it's not a fall of the Wehrmacht. Germany had never assumed that the capital was the heart of a nation that is why, in 1940, Paris was not an objective. They only occupied it because France declared it an open city.

A collapse in the West, and the West conquering Berlin would move the planning to the Wolfs Lair. From there a continued effort against the Soviet Union could have taken place to hold them off until the West occupied the vast majority of Germany.

Obviously, we can only guess what would have happened, but I do wonder if the resistance had been lighter in the west, how fast the allies would have raced forward. The biggest problem was obviously the supply lines, which with armor and airplanes at the front, could be quickly outpaced.

I do see your point about continuing from Berchtesgaden. That would have been a tough place to attack if properly defended.

It certainly presents an interesting scenario. It also seems to make more sense. But then, we all know that Hitler didn't always make wise decisions and toward the end got very odd.

I don't actually know but if I were in Germany at the time, I'd much rather fall to the Western powers. The only logical thing would be to collapse in the West and put up stiff resistance in the East.

The "Wolfs Lair" is near Ketrzyn, some kilometers east at the village of Gierloz. The "Eagles Nest" taken by Easy Company, 506PIR, 101st AB was in Berchtsgaden.

I agree, I would rather have been taken by the western allies. If Germany had been kept intact it would have been very interesting. Especially when you look at the differences between east and west Germany just after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Even now there is a big disparity.

Oops, my bad on the wolf's lair. The Eagles Nest would have been a good place to be holed up as well though.

Chocks away! said:

I for one find Udet's posts extremely interesting, and while i don't agree with all of them, i'm sure none of them were directed to any other members in an insulting way. I'm just saying this because of the general reaction which i found a bit over the top.
*waves white flag*

Click to expand...

I agree with you fully, I am just trying to understand his post because he posts it in ways that can be taken in different ways.

Now back on topic. 8)

As for the Russian attrocities and such. I dont think anyone debates the fact that Stalin was much better then the Russians but as many people have stated by many the Allies need the Soviets and the Soviets needed the Allies to defeat a common enemy: Germany. Especially in the early stages of the war. Sometimes you have to decide who is the lesser of the two evils and in this case I believe the US and Britain made the right decision and cooporate with the evil known as Stalin! (drum roll) Dum Dum Dum! 8)

evangilder said:

Oops, my bad on the wolf's lair. The Eagles Nest would have been a good place to be holed up as well though.

Click to expand...

Despite who used to live there, the Eagles Nest is beautiful. I have been there several times and always enjoy making a visit there when I am in the area.