Page images
PDF
EPUB

took part in the interrogation, and confirm that no proof was obtained of the misuse of the Llandovery Castle.

After the examination was completed the command "Ready for submerging" was given. Whether these actual words were used or whether the command was differently worded, such as "Below," the witnesses do not recollect. At all events, the whole of the crew went below deck, as is the case when the order to be ready for diving is given. There only remained on deck Commander Patzig, the accused, as his officers of the watch and, by special order, the first boatswain's mate, Meissner, who has since died. It is doubtful whether the latter first went below and was then called on deck again, or whether he remained on deck. At any rate, the witness Knoche, who had the same post as Meissner when the boat was under water, never saw him again in the control room of the boat. The statement of witness Ney, who is supposed to have heard from a third party on the following day that Meissner had been ordered on deck, because one of the officers had hurt his hand, is not sufficient for any definite conclusion to be drawn. Moreover, Ney knows nothing about Meissner, only having gone on deck after the firing had begun. Firing commenced some time after the crew had gone below. The witnesses heard distinctly that only the stern gun, a 8.8 c/m gun was in action. While firing, the U-boat moved about. It did not submerge even after the firing had ceased, but continued on the surface.

The prosecution assumes that the firing of the U-boat was directed against the lifeboats of the Llandovery Castle. The court has arrived at the same conclusion as the result of the evidence given at this time.

The suggestion that firing was directed against some enemy vessel which appeared suddenly on the surface during the night may be at once dismissed. It is true that, according to the report of the expert, Corvette Captain Saalwächter, it was advisable to have the boat ready for submersion, and accordingly to send the crew below deck, as after the torpedoing of the Llandovery Castle, it was necessary to reckon with enemy operations, which might have been the consequence of a wireless call from the sinking ship. He also states that it has often happened that a U-boat has fired a few shots at an enemy vessel coming in sight, so as to make it retire or at least to delay it. But what remains inexplicable is that, if there really was an enemy in the neighborhood, the U-boat was not submerged at once after firing, in order to evade the attack of such enemy in the surest way. There is absolutely no evidence that there were any special circumstances, which would render impossible or superfluous the readiest method of escape, which was submersion. As regards the firing, the fact that diving was not resorted to thus acquires a certain amount of importance, although the command "Ready for diving" is not always, or even generally, followed by submersion.

The further possibility must be considered that the commander of the Uboat may have been deceived by some object floating on the water, and that

he may have mistaken it for an enemy vessel. Such deceptions do occur at night on the open sea. However, they would but seldom occur in the case of an experienced commander, such as Patzig is reported to be. And it is hardly likely that such a mistake would have induced him to fire. It seems impossible that the conduct of Patzig was founded on such an error, if we consider the circumstances, which point to deliberate firing on the lifeboats. In this connection we must refer to the opinion of the actual witnesses, both English and German. With the exception of a few German witnesses, who adduce nothing to the contrary, but simply abstain from expressing any opinion at all, they all, from their own impressions, describe the firing as being directed against the lifeboats. In the case of the occupants of the captain's boat, the fact must not be overlooked that the impartiality of their opinion may have been affected by their excitement as the result of the sinking of their ship, and by the mistrust, which was prevalent on both sides during the war of the enemy and his method of carrying on war. But it is all the more significant that the witness Chapman, whose clear and impartial attitude has been specially mentioned above, did not at first assume that the two shots, which went far over the captain's boat, were directed against it, but that he finally became convinced that the firing from the U-boat was intended to destroy the lifeboat, because of what he subsequently observed. The crew of the U-boat have the same conviction. During the following days they were extremely depressed. A subsequent collision with a mine, which placed the U-boat in the greatest danger, was regarded as a punishment for the events of the 27th of June. It is certainly to be taken into consideration that experienced crews, as is well known, easily believe mere rumors; but here also we have again two witnesses, who, by virtue of their position and their personal character, must be regarded as apart from the rest of the crew, and whose opinion is therefore of special value.

The witness Popitz, though a helmsman, was acting in the U-boat as third officer of the watch. In his previous examination he gave his evidence hesitatingly, and it was only after he had been sworn that he committed himself to an unreserved statement. In this trial he has given the impression of being a quiet and cautious man. He was on deck when the lifeboat was hailed, but went below before the order to prepare to dive was given, in order to work out the position where the torpedoing had taken place. After this, he lay down in his bunk, as he was no longer on watch. From then onwards he heard the shooting. He enquired the reason from a member of the crew, and received the reply that there was nothing the matter and that the crew were to remain below. On account of this the witness did not go on deck, although that was his post in the event of a fight. Under these circumstances he took it for granted at once, as there was no question of any other enemy, that the lifeboats were being fired at.

The witness Knoche was the chief engineer of U-86. He also was below when the firing took place, but he also assumed that it was connected with

[graphic]

the lifeboats. He says that he set the idea aside, as he did not at all like it. He did not want to know what was going on on deck. Some days later he was talking to Patzig about the occurrence and told him that he could not have done "That;" Patzig answered him that he could never do it a second time. It is unthinkable that this conversation could have related only to the torpedoing of the Llandovery Castle, and not also to the subsequent shooting which took place, even though the witness now says that it related only to the first occurrence, namely, the sinking.

The evidence of the witnesses brings out a further damaging feature of importance, and this is the behavior of Patzig as well as of the accused. Only slight importance is to be attached to the fact that the latter, on finding that they would be called as witnesses, when proceedings were first being taken against Patzig alone, refused to give their testimony, on the ground that their utterances would lay them open to the danger of punishment according to law. But it is very much to their prejudice that, in the further proceedings, and then also in this trial, they have refused, when called upon, every explanation on essential points, on the ground that they had promised Patzig to be silent with respect to the occurrences of the 27th June, 1918. The accused, Dithmar, has only added that he disputes the fact that he did anything deserving punishment. In the course of the proceedings, he also pointed out that he never operated the after gun, which was the one in action. The accused Boldt has said a little more. He likewise repudiated any guilt, and specially denied having fired. He then went on to say that, whatever part he took in the events in question, he was always under the orders of his commander. He says that it was not known to him that these orders contained anything for which punishment would be inflicted, or that by carrying them out he rendered himself liable to punishment.

This refusal of the accused to give any adequate explanation of the matter might, perhaps, be understood, if it were only a question of a decision being given with regard to the torpedoing of the Llandovery Castle. But the promise of silence which, according to their joint testimony, they gave to Patzig, extended also to the subsequent events. This can only lead to the conclusion that they also have reason to fear the light of day, as events which deserve punishment did actually take place. This can only have been the firing on the lifeboats. If the firing could be explained in any other way, it cannot be imagined that the agreement of the accused to maintain silence could prevent them from denying the firing on the boats, without entering into other matters.

Similarly, the conduct of Patzig can only be explained on the supposition, that he does not regard himself as guilty only of the inexcusable torpedoing of the Llandovery Castle. It is clear that by every means he has endeavored to conceal this event. He made no entry of it in the vessel's log-book. He has even entered on the chart an incorrect statement of the route taken by the ship, showing a track a long way distant from the spot where the tor

pedoing occurred, so that, in the event of the sinking of the Llandovery Castle becoming known, no official enquiries into the matter could connect him with it. But his precautions extended further. The promise to maintain silence, which he extracted from the accused, has already been put in its true light. If it covered no more than the quite well-known fact of the torpedoing, Patzig would certainly have found ways and means of releasing his subordinates from this promise, after proceedings had been instituted against them. But, on the contrary, he endeavored to bind to silence the remainder of the crew of the U-boat with regard to the events of the 27th June. He called them together on the following day and made a speech to them, in the course of which he requested them to say nothing about the happenings of the previous day. He laid emphasis in his speech on the fact that, for what had taken place, he would be responsible to God and to his own conscience. It is hardly necessary to draw attention to the fact that behavior of this nature on the part of a commander towards his crew is unusual and striking. Although Patzig in this speech may have made no special mention of gunfire, he certainly would have alluded to it, specially had not his request for silence covered the subsequent firing. The view of the crew that the shooting was directed entirely against the lifeboats cannot have been hidden from him. It was also entirely within his power to correct this opinion when he was speaking to them about the events of the 27th June, and to explain to them, if their opinion was wrong, the real object of the firing.

The promise which the accused Boldt exacted from the two English prisoners, who were in the U-boat (the witnesses Potts and Crosby), to the effect that they should keep silent until the end of the war with regard to their detention on board the U-boat, is not of importance. A promise of this kind must, as the naval expert points out, necessarily be given by prisoners on board a U-boat. There is, therefore, nothing remarkable about this incident.

The naval expert has also to admit that the whole episode, as set forth in the evidence, is very much to the discredit of the U-boat, and that it compels the impression that all was not as it should be. He himself admits that his own efforts to explain away the circumstances, merely as signs of negligence on the part of Patzig, are not entirely satisfactory. The only way, in which he can suggest that a conclusion of deliberate intention can be avoided, is by a refusal to recognize the force of the overwhelming evidence. The firing on the boats on a dark night—though with good visibility-may not furnish complete proof of their destruction. Perhaps, if the U-boat had approached the lifeboats and had thrown hand-grenades at them, there might have been a better chance of success. But there was always the possibility of their object being attained in the way which the officers chose to pursue. So it is not inconceivable that Patzig, in the position in which he found himself placed as the result of the torpedoing of the Llandovery Castle, adopted a

method whereby there was a constant risk of something miscarrying. How easy it was to fire on the boats, is shown by the threat made when the captain's boat was stopped, as has already been mentioned, to the effect that, if it did not approach it would be fired on with the big gun. The number of the boats and their position must have been quite well known to Patzig, when one takes into account for how long a time he had been cruising around. The fact that the captain's boat rowed away may easily be explained by the darkness of the night. The attempt of the U-boat did not meet with full success. The English prisoners on board the U-boat were not able to give a definite account of the events. With reference to them, the fact must not be overlooked that it was not until after the war was over that they could be in a position to state what they had seen and heard.

If finally the question is asked-what can have induced Patzig to sink the lifeboats, the answer is to be found in the previous torpedoing of the Llandovery Castle. Patzig wished to keep this quiet and to prevent any news of it reaching England. He may not have desired to avoid taking sole responsibility for the deed. This fits in with the descriptions given of his personality. He may have argued to himself that, if the sinking of the ship became known (the legality of which he, in view of the fruitlessness of his endeavors to prove the misuse of the ship, was not able to establish), great difficulties would be caused to the German Government in their relations with other powers. Irregular torpedoings had already brought the German Government several times into complications with other states, and there was the possibility that this fresh case might still further prejudice the international position of Germany. This might bring powers, that were still neutral, into the field against her. Patzig may have wished to prevent this, by wiping out all traces of his action. The false entries in the log-book and the chart, which have already been mentioned, were intended, having regard to his position in the service, to achieve this object. This illusion could be, however, of but short duration, if the passengers in the lifeboats, some of whom had been on board the U-boat, and who, therefore, could fully describe it, were allowed to get home. It was, therefore, necessary to get rid of them, if Patzig did not wish the sinking of the Llandovery Castle to be known. Herein is to be found the explanation of the unholy decision, which he came to and promptly carried out after his fruitless examination of the boats.

On these various grounds the court has decided that the lifeboats of the Llandovery Castle were fired on in order to sink them. This is the only conclusion possible, in view of what has been stated by the witnesses. It is only on this basis that the behavior of Patzig and of the accused men can be explained.

The court finds that it is beyond all doubt that, even though no witness had direct observation of the effect of the fire, Patzig attained his object so far as two of the boats were concerned. The universally known efficiency

« PreviousContinue »