DAS BOOT: EINE REISE ANS ENDE DES VERSTANDES

By

PATRICK EDWIN YOUNG

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2014

© 2014 Patrick Edwin Young

To Sherry

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my mother for her love and support during my time as a graduate student, and the professors on my committee who made this all possible. My wonderful friends also deserve thanks for their constant encouragement and assistance. I am also grateful to the

University of Florida for providing me the opportunity to study in Germany and conduct research abroad.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4

ABSTRACT ...... 6

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 7

Project Outline ...... 8 Defining Vergangenheitsbewältigung ...... 10

2 WORLD WAR I & WEIMAR GERMANY ...... 13

Siegfried Kracauer and Anton Kaes ...... 13 Representations of U-Boats in the First World War ...... 17 Representations of U-Boats in Weimar Germany ...... 20 Morgenrot ...... 23

3 REPRESENTATIONS OF U-BOATS DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR ...... 33

4 THE POSTWAR ERA ...... 47

5 CONCLUSION...... 66

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 68

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 71

5

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

DAS BOOT: EINE REISE ANS ENDE DES VERSTANDES

By

Patrick Edwin Young

May 2014

Chair: Dr. Barbara Mennel Major: German Studies

In the vast literature composed about Wolfgang Peterson’s Das Boot, no scholar has yet undertaken an examination of the film’s historical implications. When compared to previous U-

Boat films, Das Boot shows a clear break from nationalistic productions from 1914-1945, as well as from postwar films seeking to absolve U-Boat sailors of collective guilt. As such, Das Boot can be understood as fulfilling Vergangenheitgsbewältigung since it confronts and corrects false representations of submarine warfare.

6

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

At its debut in 1981, the poster for Wolfgang Peterson’s Das Boot read “A journey to the end of understanding.” Indeed the film challenges the viewer to comprehend the incomprehensible, to understand the futility and the senseless of war. This film was Peterson’s largest project, and represented the most expensive film in Germany at the time. The vast monetary resources at his disposal allowed him to hire hundreds of actors, a massive supporting cast, and conduct extensive research to build extremely detailed and accurate film sets. There has been much discussion in film studies regarding the shift Das Boot represents in the era of New

German Cinema as a result of its large budget. It marked a distinct break from low-budget, small auteur-based productions by directors such as Werner Herzog, Rainer Fassbinder, Alexander

Kluge, and Hans-Jürgen Syberberg. Following Das Boot, cinema in Germany began to become reminiscent of Hollywood, incorporating large budgets and special effects, captivating audiences and bringing in huge profits.1

The literature concerning this shift in German cinema is enormous, and a further examination of it would be a superfluous contribution to an already saturated field.2 However scholars have largely ignored the shift in historical thinking that Das Boot represents. More important than representing a shift in German cinema is its unique and progressive interpretation of history. Wartime film and literature concerning the U-Boat war in general share a common theme of mythologizing war, and present battle as a heroic undertaking worthy of the highest praise. If one were to die in battle, this death would be for a noble and admirable cause, for the

1 Baer, Hester. “Das Boot and the German Cinema of Neoliberalism.” The German Quarterly 85.1 (Winter 2012): 19.

2 Hake, Sabine. German National Cinema. New York, NY: Routledge, 2008. Cooke, Paul. Contemporary German Cinema. Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press, 2012.

7

Fatherland, and for National Socialism. A heroes’ death was equated with eternal martyrdom, and through this lens death turns into a positive event. Das Boot however presents a completely contradictory image of war. It is something terrible, horrific, something that nobody desired and whose participants are only concerned with their own personal survival; dying for Germany is the farthest thought from their minds. Death in the film is not heroic, but senseless, as is war itself. In this paper I claim that this shift in representations of the U-Boat war is a significant effort at Vergangenheitsbewältigung. As such, Das Boot can be understood as not only ushering in a new direction for German cinema, but also as an attempt to work through the past and come to terms with it.

Project Outline

In order to discuss the role Das Boot plays in Vergangenheitsbewältigung, we must first place the production within German Film Studies discourse. Historically speaking, U-Boats have always been considered separate and distinct from the rest of the German Navy. After a disastrous defeat at the outset of the First World War, the Kaiser refused to allow the surface fleet to leave port without his express permission. As a result, U-Boats came to bear the brunt of the conflict, just as they did a few decades later during the Second World War. The theme of independence abounds in U-Boat films and literature, and as such it must be considered its own genre. U-Boat films cannot be considered naval films since that would include the surface fleet, which accomplished very little and was disdained by submarine sailors in both world wars. As its own genre, submarine films have gone through three major phases of

Vergangenheitsbewältigung, and they are divided into respective sections in this project. The first period occurred from 1914-1945, which includes Weimar and Nazi Germany. During this time, U-Boat films were extremely nationalistic and portrayed patriotic sailors who would willingly give their lives for the fatherland. Following the conclusion of the Second World War,

8

U-Boat films took on a moral conscience, and sailors began asking whether their actions were justified. This period of questioning the war leads to the third phase of U-Boat productions, culminating with Das Boot. This film is the first not only to question, but to contradict the war directly and reject all previous notions of heroism in battle. The viewer is presented with the futility of war and the irrational waste of life. All three of these phases share a common element: they all reach back to the past in order to work through it, a crucial element of

Vergangenheitsbewältigung.

This project will consist of three chapters, preceded by an introductory chapter to specifically define Vergangenheitsbewältigung. Following this, a section for each period of U-

Boat films will closely analyze these productions to demonstrate the precise traits that differentiate them from Das Boot, a discussion of which occurs in the fourth chapter. A conclusion will briefly summarize the main points. For the purposes of Weimar Cinema, a dialectic between two premier scholars examines whether films of this era either foreshadow the

Third Reich or reflect the First World War. In order to argue that Das Boot represents

Vergangenheitsbewältigung when compared to Weimar, one must first prove that Weimar

Cinema is looking back to the past instead of pointing to the future. Consequently a comparison to Weimar Cinema has the potential to be problematic, for if as Siegfried Kracauer states, that

Weimar Cinema was predisposed to support the Third Reich, these films could not be attempting to work through the past since they were predicting the future. By proving that Weimar Cinema reaches back to the past instead of the future, a comparison to Das Boot then be undertaken in relation to Vergangenheitsbewältigung. In order to accomplish this, in chapter two I will outline the Kaes-Kracauer opposition to demonstrate that U-Boat films of the Weimar period have roots in the past and not in National Socialism. A detailed analysis of films from all three periods will

9

follow in order to demonstrate fully that Das Boot is a distinct break from previous submarine films, and represents a significant effort at coming to terms with the past.

Defining Vergangenheitsbewältigung

Much has been written about coming to terms with the past, or

Vergangenheitsbewältigung, and as a result the term has a number of different meanings, and a clarification of terms for the purposes of this project is required before proceeding. In order to explain what exactly coming to terms with the past means, we first must define what the “past” is. According to Theodor Adorno, the past is the conditions that allowed National Socialism to come into existence and continue to function. Working through the past and coming to terms with it is the effort to eliminate these conditions and factors from contemporary society by addressing and acknowledging what truly occurred during the war.3 If they have not been purged from modern society, then the conditions that first allowed National Socialism to succeed remain, and the grave danger exists for a repetition of that genocidal history. Suppressing and ignoring the facts will only lead to denial of what happened. Adorno would argue that Germans have not yet come to terms with the past because a large number of people have what he terms a

“weak memory.”4 This weak memory is selective, and in order to avoid confrontation, chooses to remember only the positive aspects of National Socialism as opposed to the negative aspects.

Evidence of this includes people trying to come up with “balance sheets” to equalize guilt, for instance saying that those who died in the firebombing of Dresden are equal to those murdered in

Auschwitz. Another example can be seen by those who attempt to justify Hitler’s invasion of the

Soviet Union by invoking the strategy of the Cold War. They claim that Hitler saw the threat posed by communism early on, and the fact that the allies rebuilt Germany after the war shows

3 Adorno, Theodor W. Can one live after Auschwitz? Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2003. 3-11.

4 Ibid

10

that the victors realized their mistake of destroying the Nazi regime and consequently an essential bulwark against Bolshevism.5 Those who subscribe to this argument fail to realize that

Hitler’s war brought about this global threat in the first place. These are the symptoms of a weak memory, which selectively views history in order to avoid potentially harmful interpretations of the past. When this happens, the conditions that allowed National Socialism to prosper still exist because they have not been properly examined and eliminated. The weak memory “tenaciously persists in glorifying the National Socialist era, which fulfilled the collective fantasies of power by those people who, individually, had no power and who, indeed, could feel any self-worth at all only by virtue of such collective power.”6 Coming to terms with the past means examining and eliminating the causes of National Socialism in contemporary society, which defines

Vergangenheitsbewältigung.

I propose that the definition of Vergangenheitsbewältigung can be expanded to include other traumatic events, and eliminating the causes of those traumatic events from contemporary society can be considered working through the past. As such, the First World War can be included in a debate about Vergangenheitsbewältigung, and eradicating the causes of that war from society can be seen as an attempt to work through that past. Submarine films produced from 1914-1933, however, do no such thing. Instead they glorify war and praise the heroism of

German sailors, rather than probe the causes of the conflict. They portrayed heroic crews willing to sacrifice their lives for Germany without question. Films and literature made during the

Second World War extolled patriotism, and never alluded to the harsh realities of warfare. In can therefore safely be said that U-Boat films from 1914-1945 did not come to terms with the past, since they praised nationalism, patriotism, and war, all of which can be considered causes of both

5 Ibid

6 Ibid

11

World Wars. After 1945, U-Boat productions showed crews questioning the morality of their actions. References to the Holocaust and other war crimes were included in films, and U-Boat crews debated the honor of their missions. Although this was a small step towards

Vergangenheitsbewältigung, it did not represent an elimination of the conditions that allowed

National Socialism to flourish. The issues that were brought up did not directly confront National

Socialism, and instead the films attempted to absolve sailors by portraying them as martyrs, thus avoiding potential guilt and suppressing the past by replacing it with idealistic historical fiction.

Das Boot completes Vergangenheitsbewältigung by overcoming the weak memory and directly confronting National Socialism through its portrayal of Germans as victims and war as futile, thus addressing the negative aspects of National Socialism.

When compared to submarine film and literature produced before its release, Das Boot represents a clear break from these productions. Weimar Germany and National Socialist propaganda constructed the U-Boat war as a glorious, heroic struggle, where death in battle corresponded to eternal martyrdom. Films of the post-war period asked whether or not National

Socialism was acceptable, but Das Boot directly tells us that it was not. Das Boot presents an entirely different and more historically accurate picture, one where young men are sacrificed for a futile cause, and in this sense represents the third and most recent attempt at

Vergangenheitsbewältigung in U-Boat productions.

12

CHAPTER 2 WORLD WAR I & WEIMAR GERMANY

Siegfried Kracauer and Anton Kaes

Two premier scholars, Siegfried Kracauer and Anton Kaes, provide two distinctly different and equally important viewpoints on Weimar cinema, and understanding their positions is crucial to establishing Das Boot’s shift in historical thinking. Kracauer has long been the premier scholar of Weimar cinema. His famous work From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological

History of the German Film, first published in 1947, has long dominated the field of German film studies. This text seeks to prove through the lens of Weimar Cinema that the German populace was psychologically predisposed to support Hitler and the Nazis. In his introduction,

Kracauer states that “behind the overt history of the economic shifts, social exigencies and political machinations runs a secret history involving the inner dispositions of the German people. The disclosure of these dispositions through the medium of the German screen may help in the understanding of Hitler’s ascent and ascendancy.”1 This view is problematic because

Kracauer is viewing history from its ultimate conclusion. He argues that Weimar cinema is saturated with National Socialist predictors, and provides no historical basis to explain why films may have contained National Socialist indicators before National Socialism existed.

Kracauer’s argument is replete with inconsistencies and unsupported claims. For instance, Josef von Sternberg’s Der Blaue Engel (1930) is the story of a professor who falls in love with an erotic dancer. His feelings are not returned, and his unfilled passions eventually lead to his death.

Marlene Dietrich’s performance in the film sparked debates over the New Woman, and themes of love and sex in society were also discussed. Kracauer however, argues that “the film implies a

1 Kracauer, Siegfried. From Caligari to Hitler. A Psychological History of the German Film. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Presss, 1947: 11.

13

warning, for these screen figures anticipate what will happen in real life a few years later. The boys are Hitler youths, and the cockcrowing device is a modest contribution to a group of similar, if more ingenious, contrivances much used in Nazi concentration camps.”2 This is one instance of many where Kracauer forces Weimar to fit fascism. Nowhere in this film can any remote reference be found to concentration camps, mostly due to the fact that not a single camp existed in 1930. Exaggerated references such as this abound in From Caligari to Hitler, and the title of the book implies that a direct line can be drawn from the origin of Weimar cinema to

Adolf Hitler.

Anton Kaes’ Shell Shock Cinema (2009) represents a counterargument to Kracauer, arguing that not all Weimar films foreshadowed the coming of the Third Reich. To illustrate his main argument, Kaes provides a detailed history of shell shock in the medical field, discussing how numerous soldiers during the First World War were deemed shirkers, treated with electro- shock therapy, and returned to the front. Throughout the course of the war, theories of shell shock evolved and eventually it became a recognized, legitimate ailment. However, the symptoms of shell shock are not normally visible, and unlike an open wound it cannot be immediately treated. Signs of shell shock often lay dormant and manifest themselves years after the traumatic event has occurred. Kaes applies this same principle to Weimar films, arguing that although they were produced years after the First World War concluded, they exhibit symptoms of a traumatized and shell-shocked society.

Instances of shell shock in Weimar cinema include Nosferatu, where he suggests that the dirt-filled, rat-infested vampire coffin is reminiscent of soldiers being buried alive in the trenches. Another example is the hypnosis that occurs in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, where

2 Ibid, 218.

14

Kaes points out that hypnotizing soldiers was a common treatment for those who fell victim to shell shock. Fritz Lang’s Die Nibelungen exhibits signs of trauma through Siegfried’s betrayal: he represented a national hero who was stabbed in the back, reminiscent of the

Dolchstoßlegende. These comparisons are meant to illustrate that Germany did not emerge from

World War I unscathed, and that the trauma from that conflict was embedded in the German consciousness, and manifested itself through the medium of film years later. As Kaes states,

Germans relived the horror of the war through the screen, for Weimar “films work through trauma by restaging it.”3

Kaes suffers from the same problem of over-analyzing that plagues Kracauer’s work.

Where Kracauer sees fascism in all Weimar films, Kaes sees World War I references in all of

Weimar cinema. In one specific case he states that Lang’s Nibelungen “provided an artistic roadmap for Weimar’s culture of assassinations and unchecked power politics.”4 It is doubtful that a film production had any influence on assassinations in a society as turbulent and unstable as Weimar Germany. Although both authors overreach, Kaes makes a significant attempt to pinpoint Weimar Cinema’s historical roots. He views history from beginning to end, and sees

Weimar Cinema as clearly influenced by Germany’s past. This is the complete opposite stance of

Kracauer, who sees Weimar Cinema as a crystal ball through which one could predict the rise of

Hitler and National Socialism. Although Kaes overreaches, he bases his argument on facts, while

Kracauer basis his on hindsight.

It is in this debate that my comparison of Das Boot to Weimar Cinema occurs. Kaes has the stronger argument, and a thorough analysis of Morgenrot (1933), as well as other productions

3 Kaes, Anton. Shell Shock Cinema. Weimar Culture and the Wounds of War. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2009: 51.

4 Ibid, 161.

15

and literature of the period, will prove his view correct. This will demonstrate that representations of U-Boats in Weimar Germany had clear historical roots in the First World War, indicating their efforts to reach back and make attempts towards Vergangenheitsbewältigung.

This supports Kaes’ argument of looking back to the past in order to fully understand Weimar

Cinema, and goes against Kracauer, who would argue that Weimar Cinema foreshadowed the

Nazi regime. My argument is against Kracauer in that although Morgenrot exhibits many traits commonly associated with National Socialism, the film cannot be used to retrospectively predict the rise of the Nazis. Rather, as Kaes would argue, the nationalistic tendencies in this film have deep historical roots in wartime and Weimar Germany. But rather than force World War I onto the film, I will instead search for aspects that have clear links to the war. As will be demonstrated, Morgenrot is part of a long series of films and literature that exhibit common traits, most notably that they do not question war as an institution as seen in Das Boot; rather they support and extoll conflict. As such, Morgenrot cannot be seen as predicting anything, since it was clearly influenced by the past and is one of many similar works.

This argument will differ from Kaes in two distinct ways. He is inclined to see World War I everywhere in Weimar Cinema, which leads to his at times overreaching argument. My focus will be solely on films and literature that deal with the war directly, so their link with the First

World War cannot be questioned. In this sense I will provide a stronger link between Weimar

Cinema and the First World War. Secondly, while Kaes has limited his study to Weimar

Germany, by comparing this and other films of the period to Das Boot, I will be expanding the boundaries he previously established. After proving that the dynamic of reaching back is present in Weimar U-Boat films, I will undertake a comparison of Weimar productions to postwar films

16

as well as Das Boot, in order to clearly illustrate Das Boot’s role in coming to terms with the past.

Representations of U-Boats in the First World War

In order to demonstrate the link between Weimar Cinema, Morgenrot, the First World

War, Das Boot, and Vergangenheitsbewältigung, one must have a basic understanding of the conflict’s historical context. When hostilities first began in 1914, U-Boats immediately became the main weapon in German naval strategy. During the opening days of the war, three German cruisers and one destroyer were sunk in the Battle of Helgoland. This led the Kaiser to restrict the German Fleet’s movements, requiring all capital ships to remain in port and to avoid confrontation with the numerically superior British Fleet.5 This placed the burden of success squarely on the U-Boat arm. In order to support their new crucial role, propagandists began extolling submariners’ heroism, sacrifice, and bravery with literature, music, and film.

The submarine’s new central role quickly became problematic for the German Navy, for the admiralty immediately realized that if Britain’s capital ships could not be defeated, then the only way to secure victory would be to starve her into submission by sinking merchant ships.

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 established recognized international rules of war, and dictated that while warships were permitted to attack each other unannounced, certain protections were granted to unarmed merchant vessels. A warship could not sink enemy or neutral merchants without first inspecting the cargo, and if any contraband were found, the crew’s safety had to be ensured before the vessel could be destroyed. These Prize Rules, as they were called, made the situation extremely problematic for U-Boats. Submarines represented a recent technological development that questioned these outdated rules of war. The U-Boat’s

5 Massie, Robert K. Castles of Steel. Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea. New York, New York: Random House, 2003: pp. 72-121.

17

main weapon, stealth, could be used to attack warships unannounced but not merchant vessels, which were the key to defeating England. If U-Boats were to obey the Prize Rules, they would be forced to surface before sinking a ship, which would completely negate its main advantage of surprise.

German politicians decided it would be best to obey the Prize Rules in order to avoid aggravating neutral countries that could possibly join the war against Germany. This strategy would inevitably lead to defeat, for it was specifically neutral nations such as the United States that were Britain’s main supplier of war materiel. The Navy began pressuring the government to allow unrestricted submarine warfare, which the admirals believed was the only logical course of action to secure victory if the capital ships’ movements were restricted. The Navy eventually succeeded, and unrestricted submarine warfare commenced on February 18th, 1915, with the warning “All the waters surrounding Great Britain and Ireland… are hereby declared a warzone.

From 18 February onwards, every enemy merchant ship found within this warzone will be destroyed without it always being possible to avoid danger to crew and passengers.”6 This led to a number of international incidents, including the sinking of the Lusitania on May 7th, 1915. The

United States’ and other countries’ reactions to this revolutionary style of warfare led the

German government to rescind the order and revert to obeying the traditional Prize Regulations.

U-Boats would not enjoy unrestricted submarine warfare again for another two years.7

Before U-Boat films were produced, the first publications about U-Boats idolized their heroism and bravery. Otto von Gottberg’s book Kreuzfahrten und U-Bootstaten (1915) told of adventure on the high seas, with sailors doing their duty for their fatherland. His work makes clear that U-Boats were obeying Prize Rules, and that enemies of Germany were always treated

6 Edmonds, James. A Short History of World War I. London, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1951: 145-146.

7 Massie, 527-552.

18

with respect and compassion.8 Friedrich Otto’s Das Unterseeboot im Kampfe provided a general patriotic history of U-Boats in the First World War. A chapter on the future of U-Boats indicates the crucial role he envisioned them playing.9 While von Gottberg’s and Otto’s accounts are general histories, numerous other works extolled the deeds of individual commanders and turned them into eternal legends. Otto Weddigen’s U-9 became infamous when he torpedoed and sank three British cruisers in 1914. Although Weddigen fell in battle in 1915, his deeds became immortalized in songs and literature. September 22nd became “Weddigen Day,” and his younger brother published the “Life and Deeds of our Naval Hero” two months after his death. Otto

Hersing destroyed six Dutch merchants during the night of February 23-24th 1917, and books exaggerating his exploits abounded, and he rose to fame almost as quickly as Weddigen. The

Press for U-Boat Literature in Berlin published a series of books idolizing commanders and highlighting the crucial role U-Boats played in Germany’s self-defense and imminent victory.10

All of these publications are crucial for an accurate reading of Morgenrot in relation to

Das Boot. Throughout the First World War, these and other works extolled U-Boats and created a mythical image of them. The crews were portrayed as heroes, doing their noble duty for

Germany, and readily sacrificing themselves if necessary. This trend of heroic depictions continued throughout the Weimar era, and can be clearly seen in Morgenrot. As such, Morgenrot can be understood as unexceptional, in that it mimics ideas already present for years, and alongside other patriotic U-Boat productions represents a distinct difference from Das Boot.

It is important to note that all of the patriotic literature, songs, and poems produced during the First World War did not correspond with reality, especially towards the end of the

8 Gottberg, Otto von. Kreuzerfahrten und U-Bootstaten. Berlin, Germany: Verlag Ullstein & Co., 1915.

9 Otto, Friedrich. Das Unterseeboot im Kampfe. Leipzig, Germany: Amelangs Verlag, 1915.

10 Gray, Edwyn. The U-Boat War. 1914-1918. London, Great Britain: Leo Cooper, 1994: 208-214.

19

conflict. British and German estimates showed that U-Boats were not sinking the tonnage necessary to starve Britain into submission. This was partly due to the introduction of the convoy system which granted merchants better protection, as well as United States’ formal entry into the war. Nevertheless, the German government sought to keep spirits high on the home-front, and publications continued to extoll sacrifice and bravery in the U-Boat fleet. As the situation continued to decline for the German military, surface fleet sailors became increasingly agitated and mutinied in 1918. The U-Boat arm was fully engaged in the task at hand and did not take part in this action, and was therefore able to retain its honorable status after the war, adding to their already long list of heroic achievements.11

Although the war did not end as Germany had anticipated, plans were already being drawn to rebuild the Navy. Based on the exploits and successes of U-Boats during the conflict, planners envisioned U-Boats and not capital ships as forming the backbone of a new fleet.

Literature following the war would exhibit the same themes of heroism and bravery exhibited during the war in an effort to support the idea of rebuilding a strong U-Boat arm.

Representations of U-Boats in Weimar Germany

Although much of Germany lay in shame following the surrender, U-Boats were able to retain a sense of honor through both their actual and imagined accomplishments. The surface fleet was viewed as useless and ineffective while U-Boats were seen as remaining obedient, and the desire to preserve their honorable status was well represented in literature and films of

Weimar Germany. Johannes Spieß wrote Sechs Jahre U-Bootfahrten, one of the most well- known U-Boat compositions at the time. Spieß served in the Navy before the war, as well as for its entire duration, and was present for the scuttling of the fleet in Scapa Flow. His vast

11 Hadley, 45.

20

command experience lended high respect to his testament, and this work became very highly regarded within naval and military circles. As many writers of the period, Spieß placed responsibility for defeat on politicians, who had clearly neglected military necessities to win the war in favor of diplomatic concerns. In Spieß’ view, Germany’s elite could either have asked the

Navy to win the war, or obey established Prize Rules. To have both was impossible, and that is exactly what was asked of the U-Boats. The incompatibly of these desires led to the inevitable defeat of the Navy and the war. U-Boats were further hindered by the fact that they received almost negligible support from the surface fleet. His subscribed to the idea that U-Boats “‘were disgracefully left in the lurch by the crews of capital ships.’”12 With the High Seas Fleet hiding in port, the U-Boats became the sole warriors in Germany’s struggle on the sea. This theme of abandonment was repeated by numerous other U-Boat veterans. In 1937, Werner Langsdorff compiled a series of eyewitness accounts of the war at sea. U-Boat sailors all expressed the same idea, that they had fought hard, bravely, honorably, and courageously. Above all, they did not feel guilty for losing the war, but rather shifted responsibility for defeat to the surface fleet and to politicians. Langsdorff writes in his introduction: “Wir denken heute an den U-Boot-Krieg nicht ohne Bitternis, weil er besonders anschaulich das Fehlen eines unbedingten Siegeswillens der

Leitung des damaligen Deutsches Reiches zeigt…Die U-Boot-Fahrer haben die Hauptlast des

Seekrieges getragen.”13 One sailor in his work attempted to distance U-Boats from the revolting surface fleet in 1918, stating that “Wir hatten keinen Teil an der Revolte, sondern kämpften so lange, bis wir durch die Waffenstillstandsbedingungen gezungen waren, unser gutes und seetüchtiges Boot dem Engländer auszuliefern…Wir hatten den Krieg nicht verloren. Wir hatten

12Quoted in Hadley, 53.

13 Langsdorff, Werner von. U-Boote am Feind. 45 deutsche U-Boot-Fahrer erzählen. Gütersloh, Germany: Verlag Bertelsmann Gütersloh, 1937. pp. 12-13.

21

unsere Pflicht getan!”14 U-Boat sailors truly believed that in their isolation they had honorably executed impossible orders until the final days of the war.

Films of the period expressed the same sentiments of an honorable U-Boat fleet left adrift by politicians and admirals. The film U-9, released in 1927, is considered lost, but an examination of reviews and critiques published during the time period allow some insight into the film’s major themes. It depicted Weddigen’s most famous accomplishment when he sank three British cruisers in 1914. Upon transferring to his last fatal command, U-29, nobody of course knows what Weddigen’s final hours were like. The film producers took the liberty of creating their own vision of Weddigen and turned him into a hero. His boat is rammed and sits on the ocean floor, he and his crew await their slow painful deaths. However, Weddigen does not despair, and commends all of his fellow sailors for doing their duty. As one reviewer stated,

“‘locked in the cold iron of their boat deep on the ocean floor, the waves of the ocean sing their melody over U-29 that sleeps its eternal sleep deep in the ocean’s bosom.’”15

This film was one of many works of art that depicted heroism and obedience, and portrayed U-Boats as fighting to the last. Literature and cinema of the period were saturated with these recurring themes, which reflected the actual goals of military planners for a rebirth of the once powerful and dangerous U-Boat fleet. These literary and filmic references abound from the beginning to the very end of the Weimar period, with Morgenrot as the final and largest production.

14 Ruf, in Langsdorff, pp. 302-304.

15 Quoted in Hadley, 55.

22

Morgenrot

Morgenrot made its debut on February 2nd, 1933, just days after Adolf Hitler became

Chancellor of Germany. Even so, this film remains a production of Weimar Germany and cannot be considered a Nazi film. Although it exhibits many traits reminiscent of National Socialism, such as nationalism, patriotism, and glorification of death and sacrifice, these themes are simply an extension of ideas that permeated U-Boat literature during the Weimar era. For as Kracauer correctly points out, “Dawn (Morgenrot) is no Nazi film. Rather, it belongs to the series of such war films as The Last Company and The Doomed Battalion which precisely through their impartiality elevate war to the rank of an unquestionable institution.”16 However, Kracauer’s interpretation is limited because he sees the film as disconnected from the past. Viewing the film within its complete historical context, as Kaes would do, is crucial to understanding the origins of its central themes and motifs. By tracing ideas of nationalism and sacrifice backwards to the

First World War instead of attributing them to Nazism, one can clearly see that Morgenrot is a continuation of old ideas already present in the U-Boat genre, and that the later production Das

Boot is a reversal of these trends.

There are two main reasons that Morgenrot deserves special attention, one historical and one theoretical. Because U-Boats were seen as separate and distinct from the rest of the Navy, representations of them likewise need to be treated separately. Morgenrot is the only surviving

U-Boat film of the Weimar period, and when compared to the literature not only of Weimar but also of the First World War, the trends in U-Boat works become much clearer. A close analysis of the largest filmic reference for U-Boats from 1918-1933 will demonstrate that along with the

16 Kracauer, 270.

23

publications of Spieß, Gottbert, Otto, Langsdorff, and others, the film is part of a long line of heroic U-Boat productions that is only interrupted by the production of Das Boot.

Furthermore, Morgenrot is unique because it does not belong to any specific category of films.

According to Kracauer, there are two groups of pre-Hitler films, antiauthoritarian and authoritarian. Those belonging to the former group all in some way question authority, whether it be through pacifism or socialism. Traits of the authoritarian genre include “establishing a national epic which centers around the rebel and is dominated by the figure of an inspired

Führer.”17 The authoritarian tendencies of these films has led them to combine with other genres, for as Kracauer states “The power of these [authoritarian] tendencies is confirmed by the fusion of the mountain films and the national films which could take place only under the pressure of irresistible impulses.”18 Morgenrot certainly does not fit the antiauthoritarian category, for authority is never questioned in the film. However, it does not belong to the authoritarian group either. Kracauer argues that authoritarianism does not have historical roots, but rather that it existed because the population was predisposed to support a single leader. He writes that for “Hitler, there is no doubt that the preponderance of authoritarian leanings was a decisive factor in his favor. Broad strata of the population, including part of the intelligentsia, were psychologically predisposed to the kind of system Hitler offered…”19 Morgenrot does not belong to this category because its authoritarian nature cannot be ascribed to Hitler. Rather, the authoritarian leanings have deep historical roots, attributable to the honorable deeds of following orders and doing one’s duty.

17 Kracauer, 217.

18 Ibid

19 Ibid

24

Kracauer also mentions mountain films in this category, from which Morgenrot is also distinctly different. Mountain films are characterized by a battle of man against nature, which never makes an appearance in Morgenrot. While it is true that nature is present in the film, mostly in the form of the ocean, the crew is never challenged by it. It is made clear in the film through song and speech that the British are the supreme enemy and must be defeated. Never does the idea surface, as in Das Boot, that U-Boats during the war were at the mercy of numerous other enemies, including nature. Malnutrition, rust, rain, and storms all put U-Boats at risk, and if these elements appeared in Morgenrot then one could make the argument that it belongs in the same category as mountain films. But because it does not fit the authoritarian film genre, and because U-Boats historically were viewed as separate from the rest of the Navy, this

U-Boat film of the Weimar period deserves special attention. What follows is a film analysis examining the traits that link this film with past representations of U-Boats, demonstrating the continuity of nationalistic productions that cease with the release of Das Boot. This contrast illustrates the development of ignoring the causes of war to directly challenging them, signaling an attempt at Vergangenheitsbewältigung.

The film opens with the U-Boot Lied, a patriotic melody with lyrics describing a sailor leaving his sweetheart behind. The second half of the refrain describes his reason for departure;

“Denn wir fahren, denn wir fahren, Denn wir fahren gegen Engeland, Engeland.” Without knowing anything else in the film, the viewer already knows who the enemy is. The song provides specific instructions for the lovers at home should her sailor fall in battle. “Kommt die

Kunde, daß ich bin gefallen, Daß ich schlafe in der Meeresflut, Weine nicht um mich, mein

Schatz, und denke: Für das Vaterland da floß sein Blut.” By playing this well-known song of the

First World War during the very opening sequence, the film has foreshadowed the events to

25

come. U-Boat sailors will put to sea against the English enemy, and if they should perish in this heroic endeavor, their sacrifice was a worthy and noble one because they gave their lives for

Germany. The music continues to play as the train departs the small town of Meereskirch, transporting the warriors to fulfill their virtuous mission.

As the train disappears into darkness, we immediately see a U-Boat traveling through the waves. The captain orders a course of 315 degrees, which if it is assumed the boat departed from

Germany, would put it on a course directly towards Scapa Flow, the base of Britain’s fleet.

Sailing a sole small U-boat against England’s most powerful battleships could be taken as a sign of insanity, but by remembering that Germany’s capital ships had proven themselves inept and were held in port to avoid potential destruction, the U-Boats were the sole provider of Germany’s defense at sea. They fulfilled every request the Navy had, and if this meant sailing against the might of the British Navy, the gallant U-boats were ready and prepared to do so. The feeling of abandonment by the surface ships is also present when the captain is planning the mission with his First Officer. While the two hover over a sea chart, the captain sneers that “This time we have to go through without minesweepers.” U-Boats were on their own in this fight, and went above and beyond the call of duty by achieving objectives normally reserved for surface ships.

Even though they were alone in this war, the sailors in Morgenrot clearly were not afraid of the threat placed before them; rather, they awaited a chance to meet the enemy with anxious anticipation. During the first few days at sea, the captain has a discussion with the radioman, explaining to him that his duty is vital to the mission’s success, and that failure is not an option.

Meanwhile a sailor in the bow torpedo room plays the U-Boot Lied on an accordion, with others joining him in singing. This song is played repeatedly throughout the film, both on land and at sea. The film transitions between the U-boat and the home-front, where the population eagerly

26

awaits reports from the war at sea. When an announcement is made, all of the villagers gather to listen, demonstrating their support and care for those out fighting. Coupled with the patriotic sailors in the submarine, the film shows that the entire population was supportive and proud of the U-Boat effort.

Women also play a very important role in the film. In the opening scenes, they chase the train carrying their beloved sailors as it gains momentum and speeds off into the night. The same scene occurs at the end, when the train departs once more with women trailing close behind.

They wish to stay with the men as long as possible, and will chase railway cars on foot in order to secure one last glimpse of their faces. While the men are at sea, women cannot wait to tell one another about the exploits of their lovers. They are obviously proud of their men and support them entirely. Women also provide a contrast to the masculinity of the crew. While the men demonstrate their unquestionable devotion to duty and country, one elderly woman in the film symbolizes restraint and wisdom. When a report arrives detailing the U-Boat’s success, the nameless woman responds to an ecstatic man “I am happy to hear that the men on board my son’s boat are healthy and well. But there is no reason to be proud. Do you realize that? They did their duty. And the duty was a bitter one. Why should one be happy, when one doesn’t know how many men, who also did their duty, sacrificed their lives? We need to thank God that we do not need to mourn this time.” This moment seems disconnected from the rest of the film, for the plot is mainly controlled by men and their heroic deeds. Her actions demonstrate that a small minority could see through the patriotic propaganda and recognize that both sides suffered during the Great War. She represents a voice of reason that softens the masculine determination for victory at all costs. In the context of German Cinema, this moment serves as an indicator that this film is not authoritarian, for that would mean that it had indicators pointing towards National

27

Socialism. A mother refusing to rejoice over her son’s role in a decisive German victory is certainly not something the Nazis would have permitted in their works. As such, this moment helps solidify the film as a production of Weimar Cinema.

Moving away from the home front, the first encounter with the enemy on the high seas bodes very well for the German sailors. They come across a destroyer and are able to easily evade its depth charges, indicating that the Germans and not the English are the skilled seamen.

As will later be demonstrated, this theme is prevalent in film and literature of the time, but runs completely counter to the picture presented by Das Boot. Morgenrot goes one step further and portrays the English as not only inept, but devious and deceitful. After escaping from the destroyer, the captain spots an unarmed merchant, and in accordance with the Prize Rules surfaces to challenge the vessel. His very first order after surfacing is to hoist a flag, which immediately identifies the submarine as German. However, the merchant does not fly the flag of any nation, and the first officer remarks “what one can’t determine must be seen as a neutral ship.” This quote and the captain’s actions are extremely significant because it demonstrates that the German Navy was acting consistent with established rules of war. By obeying the Prize

Rules and not attacking submerged without warning, the Germans appear to be the chivalrous men in this situation. Conversely, it is precisely the British who would use unconventional tactics and be seen as violating international policies.

When the captain does not see a flag on the enemy vessel, he orders the deck gun to fire a warning shot across their bow. The captain of the British ship then orders the Danish flag to be hoisted. We then see men frantically sorting through a chest with dozens of flags from various nations, indicating that the British are violating prize rules by camouflaging themselves under false nationalities. The U-Boat captain sees the flag, accepts that the vessel is a neutral Danish

28

ship, and orders the deck gun crew to stand down and for the boat to make preparations to leave the area. Suddenly machine guns and artillery pieces appear from concealed positions on the

British ship and begin firing on the unsuspecting U-boat. After an intense gun battle, the British ship is sunk, and the U-boat captain announces that he is sending a lifeboat over with supplies.

Even after the dishonest and deceptive behavior of the British sailors, the U-boat men are still portrayed as chivalrous and humane towards their sworn enemy. Honorable U-Boats adhering to

Prize Rules was not a novel idea, but rather was a continuation of prevailing thoughts in Weimar

Germany about the honorable performance of U-Boats during the war.

It is also very important to note the camera position during this scene. U-Boats are very cramped vessels, and correspondingly men inside have very little freedom of movement. Das

Boot tries to convey this image to the viewer by never allowing the camera to exit the submarine.

In Morgenrot, however, we have the exact opposite. The camera routinely leaves the interior of the U-Boat to show the viewer what is happening in the outside world. Part of what makes Das

Boot an anti-war film is that the viewer essentially becomes a member of the crew by camera movement. When destroyers pass overhead, the camera remains in the submarine, and we only hear propeller noises, and we never know when a depth charge might suddenly rip through the hull and send the boat to the bottom. We are trapped with the crew, and our fate becomes intertwined with theirs. The camera in Morgenrot leaves nothing to the imagination; when destroyers pass overhead, we are allowed to see them, and we even get short glimpses of the

British officers debating the most effective method of attack. Most importantly, we see the

British using deception to trick a U-Boat into surfacing. As such, the shots outside of the submarine serve two purposes. Firstly, they help to denote the Germans as chivalrous, for by showing us the British using deception aboard their ship, we receive an “objective” perspective

29

by viewing what both sides are doing, and are therefore able to clearly see who is violating the

Prize Rules. Secondly, we do not feel disappointed when most of the crew perishes. Unlike Das

Boot, our fate is not linked to the men because of the disconnect created by the roving camera.

There is even a certain sense of relief felt when cuts to the home front are made, easing the stress created during battle scenes. By leaving the boat, the viewer is not trapped, and we do not feel like a member of the crew, but rather as an outside observer. We are immune to the dangers they faced and therefore do not question war, for our lives are not the ones at stake.

Before the merchant was destroyed, the crew managed to send off a radio message to a nearby destroyer asking for immediate assistance. The destroyer travels under full steam to the area, and upon spotting the U-Boat begins to attack. The U-Boat attempts to dive but cannot escape in time. It is rammed by the destroyer and sinks to the bottom. (This is oddly reminiscent of the hero Weddigen’s death, for his boat also was sunk by ramming). The boat is stuck on the bottom at a depth of 60 meters, and after the lights come back on the crew discovers that only the

Zentrale (command room) of the boat has survived. The rest of the compartments, with 21 men inside, have flooded, leaving only 10 survivors. With water in the rest of the boat it is impossible to surface, but there remains one possible hope: the Tauchretter. However with 10 men present and only 8 Tauchretter available, the captain and first officer offer to forfeit their lives and sacrifice themselves so that the others may live. The captain gives the order, “Crew, stand by to escape!” But in a very solemn gesture, even as water continues bubbling into the Zentrale, not a single man moves. One of the crewmen remarks, “It is either all of us or none of us. Heroes die together. You haven’t earned that captain.” The captain is obviously very touched, and mentions that dying is marvelous, since they will all pass on into the next life together. “Unless one of us goes to hell!” remarks a crewmen, with another responding, “Then we’re going together.” The

30

sense of camaraderie in a hopeless situation shows the deep connection and bond that U-boat sailors shared. In addition to this, although they were in mortal danger, the crew dismisses any fears they may have had and instead express their willingness to die for each other and for

Germany, which again exemplifies thoughts present during the Weimar era. The sense of camaraderie was describe by the veteran Emil Ruf, for “In solchen gefahrvollen Stunden zeigt sich besonders die Kameradschaft auf einem Unterseeboot, denn es ging für jeden, von

Kommandanten bis zum untersten Matrosen oder Heizer, auf Tod und Leben.”20

Eight men are able to survive because two crewmen shoot themselves for personal reasons, and the captain exclaims “We must live on and fight because they died for us. Our lives belong to them…We must fight to the last!” The death of two crewmen leaves the others no choice but to continue fighting in order to preserve their honor, another theme exhibited beforehand in Weimar U-Boat literature. After the sailors are rescued by Norwegian fishermen, they return home, and the film concludes with scenes of them once again parting with their loved ones to embark on another mission. The solemn song “Ich hatte einen Kamerad” plays in the background while they wait to board the train, and the final cut shows the U-Boat moving forward through the waves, ready once again to face the enemy in the name of former comrades and country. It is significant that the film is framed by movement since it reflects the desires of the naval planners as well as veterans to rebuild the U-Boat program and move forward. They wished to restore the glory days of the submarine while ignoring the destructive nature of the war, and the film begins and ends with this idea of acceleration.

All of the elements in Morgenrot, to include, patriotism, heroism, and the willingness to die for Germany, reflect themes already present in Weimar and First World War literature.

20 Langsdorff, in Ruf, p 301.

31

Combined with the historical references of abandonment by the surface fleet and obeying Prize

Rules, this clearly demonstrates that the film is reaching back to the past instead of predicting the future, thus supporting Kaes’ argument and going against Kracauer’s stance on Weimar Cinema.

Because it reaches back to the past, it is an attempt at Vergangenheitsbewältigung, albeit in the wrong direction. It exemplifies traits that allowed the war to continue, one of the most notable is the final scene illustrating acceleration, supporting the idea of continuing to rebuild and fight, thus ignoring the causes of war and resisting Vergangenheitsbewältigung.

32

CHAPTER 3 REPRESENTATIONS OF U-BOATS DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR

On March 28, 1933, just months after Hitler became Chancellor, Joseph Goebbels announced his future plans for the German film industry. He declared that film “production has become insecure. It is said that the exact opposite must now be the case for film production...there can be no doubt anywhere that the National Socialist movement will intervene in the economy and in general cultural questions and thus also in film.” He believed that “the state has the duty to step in as regulator in the event of dangerous effects of film.” He scorned

“Jewish directors,” for “art is only possible when it is rooted in the National Socialist soil. I warn against judging the German people as poorly as the other arts have unfortunately done before film. We do not intend to tolerate at all in the least such ideas, which will be destroyed root and branch in the new Germany…”

1 Goebbels made it clear at the dawn of the Third Reich what would happen to the film industry.

Undesirable directors, namely Jewish ones, would be purged from the industry, and tight censorship would ensure that only productions supporting Nazi policies would be shown on screen. The Nazis ensured this by establishing the Reichsfilmkammer, a department within the larger Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda. Anybody who wished to be involved with the film industry had to be a member of this organization, which ensured a “simple and efficient way to keep unwanted people out of the film industry, and to exert control over the people who were in it…” 2As such, U-Boat films of the time reflect the desires of Nazi officials, who wished to hide the reality of warfare from the populace. As the war at sea progressed, it

1 “Dr. Goebbels’ Speech at the Kaiserhof on March 28, 1933,” trans. Lance W. Garner, in German Essays on Film, ed. Richard W. McCormick and Alison Guenther-Pal. New York and London: Continum, 2004, 153-158.

2 Brockmann, Stephen. A Critical History of German Film. Rochester, New York: Camden House, 2010, 134.

33

became increasingly clear to the admiralty that they would lose. The Nazi government chose to ignore this reality, and instead produced U-Boat films highlighting victory and success on the ocean. These films continued until the last days of the Third Reich, indicating that they wished to impart this false sense of security onto the population until the very last minute, and as such they must be seen as separate from Weimar, for they were produced for a different purpose. Even so, they exhibit many similar traits seen in Weimar productions, such as overzealous sailors willing to sacrifice themselves for Germany. Second World War U-Boat films also expanded upon these themes, and added a sense of adventure to help attract new recruits. Because these films continued and intensified themes from Weimar and the First World War, they are still ignoring and suppressing the past by highlighting negative aspects of warfare. This represents a move away from Vergangenheitsbewältigung, and a clear contrast to Das Boot.

One of the German Propaganda Ministry’s largest projects was the Wochenschau, a weekly report on the current military situation that lasted for the entire war. Once a week

German audiences could gather in the cinema and watch “original” sequences of life at the front.

The sequences were carefully screened to prohibit a negative image of the war at home.

Numerous reels detailing the exploits of the U-Bootwaffe were produced, so many that mentioning all of them in this project would not be possible, and a brief summarization of their most important characteristics will suffice. The clips varied in length, from a short two minute report to half hour in-depth stories.3 They all began with Franz List’s Les Préludes, a tune with nationalistic overtones that was also used in the daily Wehrmachtbericht. Sometimes this song would play throughout the clip, other times the U-Boot Lied replaced it, with drumrolls interspersed throughout.

3 Hadley, Michael. Count Not the Dead. The Popular Image of the German Submarine. London, England: McGill- Queen’s University Press, 1995, 98.

34

While patriotic music played in the background, tonnage reports were constantly read aloud to indicate a successful patrol. The propaganda ministry frequently used phrases, such as

“Unsere Unterseeboote haben die Abwehr gegen die USA begonnen. Bis zum dreißigsten Januar wurden in den amerikanischen Gewässern 43 feindliche Handelsschiffe mit über 300.000

Bruttoregistertonnen versenkt.”4 Instead of broad generalizations in many instances specific names and boats were mentioned, “Und hier das Unterseeboot von Kapitänleutnant Kord, der bisher fünfzehn Schiffe versenkte,” and “Kapitänleutnant Endrass…könnte mit seinem Boot bisher 211.000 Bruttoregistertonnen feindlichen Schiffsraumes auf den Meeresgrund schicken.”5

The propaganda ministry made certain to highlight how proud the U-Boat crews were of their achievements, saying “Kapitänleutnant Müller, der mit seinem Boot bisher 112.000

Bruttoregistertonnen versenkte. Am Mast, die Siegeszeichen. Jeder Wimpel ein versenktes

Schiff.”6 The perpetual mentioning of tonnages sent to the bottom and ships sunk represent an attempt to connect the battle of the Atlantic to the war as a whole. The constant repetition of these statistics made the viewer realize that U-Boats were playing a vital role in the overall global struggle.

A further indication linking the U-Boat war to the war as a whole can be seen in sequences detailing cooperation between other branches of the military. One clip shows the

Luftwaffe sending reconnaissance planes to locate convoys, the positions of which are relayed to

4 “Deutsche Wochenschau 1942 – U-Boot Einsatz im Atlantik.” Online video clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0aRorIBlJ4&noredirect=1. Youtube. 10 June 2010. Web. 06 April 2013. [Hereafter Wochenschau Clip 1].

5 “Die Deutsche Wochenschau 1941-10-06 Kriegsmarine U-Bootwaffe.” Online video clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgm-40j8ePk. Youtube. 18 May 2008. Web. 06 April 2013. [Hereafter Wochenschau 2].

6“Die Deutsche Wochenschau – Otto Kretschmer und Karl Dönitz.” Online video clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTesDlyyc5o. Youtube. 26 February 2007. Web. 06 April 2013. [Hereafter Wochenschau 3].

35

naval headquarters, which then instructs the U-Boats to attack.7 Such cooperation was rare, since

Hermann Göring’s pompous attitude did not allow for harmonious or fluid military cooperation.

However, the propaganda ministry concealed this fact. Scenes like this, as well as those showing army detachments greeting returning U-Boats, signal that the U-Boats were not alone in this war, rather they and the rest of the German military were all fighting amicably together for the same goals. One clip displayed a map of Europe and the Atlantic Ocean during the opening sequence, showing that U-Boats formed part of the global whole.8

In addition to cooperation amongst the armed forces, a constantly growing military also formed a large theme. Numerous clips show brand new U-Boats sliding off the dock, with highly trained crews ready to sail them into battle. One Wochenschau clip from 1941 tells the viewer that “Auf den deutschen Werften laufen immer neue Unterseeboote vom Stapel. Im Kampf gegen England verstärken sie unsere Front auf dem Atlantik.”9 After many had been launched, four pristine U-Boats sit in the water, with the words “Flotille klar zum auslaufen.”10 This sequence gives the impression that one U-Boat leads to many, and these boats fighting together will lead to victory. A military that grows ever stronger would seem to be invincible, which is exactly the idea the propaganda ministry wished to impart on the home-front. Not only were new boats constantly being built, but new highly skilled captains were being forged beneath the waves of the Atlantic to command them. Whenever possible, an effort was made to identify U-

Boat commanders who were the “offspring” of famous aces. When Kapitänleutnant Endrass was

7 “Deutsche Wochenschau 1942 – Versenkung U-Boote.” Online video clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXsJ7dY-3Nw. 01 Oktober 2009. Web. 06 April 2013. [Hereafter Wochenschau 5].

8 Ibid

9 Wochenschau 2

10 Ibid

36

referred to as “der früherer Wachoffizier von Korvettenkapitän Prien,” it showed that he had served under Prien and was now following in his footsteps. These would be extremely large shoes to fill, since Prien’s claim to fame stemmed from sneaking into Scapa Flow and sinking the renowned battleship HMS Royal Oak. Nevertheless, the offspring idea showed a connection between the old and the new commanders, between the experienced and the untested, and showed that the war was producing a constant stream of able fighting men who would help each other to victory.

The propaganda ministry strove to portray crews as happy, safe, and well-fed. Every battle scene in these clips is extremely short, with the danger passing quickly and any damages to the boat are easily overcome. Men are shown fishing sharks out of the water for fresh food, and resupplying with stocks of fresh bread from U-Tankers while at sea. There are even scenes of doctors caring for sick crewmen, showing that they were in good health.11 Doctors aboard U-

Boats had actually never been a regular occurrence; the Navy briefly experimented with the idea, and ultimately determined that the high loss rate of boats led to an unacceptable deficit of highly- trained physicians that were desperately needed on the front lines. Not only this, but U-Boat crews are portrayed as sympathetic and kind individuals. After sinking a ship, one reel shows a

U-Boat providing food to the survivors in their lifeboats.12 The scene is almost identical to the scene in Morgenrot when the captain offers supplies and a life boat to stricken British crewmen.

This portrays a camaraderie between enemy and friend that did not exist in reality, especially

11 “Die Deutsche Wochenschu Nr. 610 Part 3.” Online video clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7852wBPdWw. 10 January 2011. Youtube. 06 April 2013. [Hereafter Wochenschau 8].

12 Ibid

37

during World War II. In fact, after the Laconia incident, providing survivors with any form of assistance was a violation of official naval policy and expressly forbidden by Admiral Dönitz.13

Further indications of an impending victory are recurring images of boats returning successfully from patrol, with a massive welcome-home celebration awaiting them. The absence of destruction promotes the idea that every boat returned safely, with a happy crew ready to fight again. As soon as the boats dock, medals are handed out to crew members, with Admiral Dönitz himself making numerous appearances and decorating the crew.14 It was very common for the reels to emphasize the fact that a specific captain was a Ritterkreuzträger by inserting this title before his name, indicating his bravery and success.15 The images of success and medals denoting courage under fire all impart on the viewer the idea that U-Boats were faring very well, that the war was fought by happy young men who loved medals and who could not wait for another chance to deal the enemy a crippling blow.

The propaganda ministry also made sure to connect the U-Boat war with National

Socialism. There are numerous instances where the Hakenkreuz is emphasized flying on the rear portion of the Wintergarten, indicating that the boat is fighting for and belongs to the Nazi movement. When crews depart from port, or from a meeting on the high seas, a resounding “Sieg

13 The RMS Laconia was transporting civilians and Italian prisoners of war from West Africa to England. She was torpedoed and sunk by U-156, whose captain decided to rescue the helpless victims. He called other U-Boats for assistance, covered the decks with survivors, put the lifeboats in tow, radioed on an international frequency for assistance, and flew a red cross flag to signal his neutrality. U-156 was bombed by American aircraft, and submerged in order to protect itself, leaving the survivors stranded in the water, sending many to their death. As a result, Admiral Dönitz issued the Laconia Befehl, declaring that in order to protect U-Boats from attack, rescue operations of any kind were strictly forbidden. See Dear, I.C.B. The Oxford Guide to World War II. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. 520.

14 “Die Deutsche Wochenschau – 1942.03..06 – Deutsches U-Boot vor New York. Online Video clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1x6A-pZyeE. 12 November 2011. Youtube. 06 April 2013. [Hereafter Wochenschau 4].

15 Wochenschau 2

38

Heil” can be heard until the boats disappear into the distance.16 The use of specific vocabulary also hints at connections to racial policies of the Third Reich. While aircraft from the Luftwaffe coordinate with a U-Boat fleet to destroy a convoy, the narrator comments “Durch immer neue

Angriffe unserer Flieger und Unterseeboote wird der Geleitzug völlig versprengt und vernichtet.”17 The verb vernichten, while one translation can mean “to destroy,” it can also mean

“to exterminate,” which is the same language the Nazis used to purge those they considered

“Untermenschen” from society. It is even contained in the Nazi term for extermination camps,

Vernichtungslager. This is significant because it shows that the Wochenschau is trying to connect the U-Boat war to National Socialism, thus rejecting any attempt to come to terms with the past. Instead these clips move in the opposite direction, for they directly support the falsification of reality and negative aspects of the regime that garnered the Nazis much support and helped them continue to fight.

Death and destruction are largely absent from the Wochenschau reels, however glimpses of this theme are available in other U-Boat productions, such as U-Boote Westwärts from 1941.

This film had the full support of the German Navy and Admiral Dönitz, who provided crewmembers and machines for the production. The films begins on a very positive note, with a

U-Boat surfacing after a successful attack to meet an outward-bound boat. They exchange greetings, wish each other luck, and continue on their respective missions. The boat docks with the U-Boat Lied playing in the background, which was also ever-present in Morgenrot. An officer then makes his way home, and we see him happily embrace his wife and children. This connection to family was very important to wartime audiences, for it comforted them to know

16 “Die Deutsche Wochenschau 1943-08-04 U-Tanker.” Online video clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSRGbMB7lZE. 14 November 2007. Youtube. 06 April 2013. [Hereafter Wochenschau 7].

17 Wochenschau 5

39

that although men were out fighting, they would return and live to see their loved ones again. As the war progressed and more soldiers fell in battle, family reunions became increasingly rare, and as such this film is not recognizing the realities of war and working through the past. The idea of continuation that was apparent at the conclusion of Morgenrot is also seen here. When the officer returns home to his family, his children stand in a military formation, and he inspects them to make sure their postures are correct. In this way we see a current sailor raising future warriors for the Nazis, fulfilling Hitler’s wish to produce more racially pure soldiers to continue fighting.

When the father departs on a mission, we see the U-Boat diving beneath the waves, and then the film immediately cuts to his children role-playing in the bathtub, screaming “Auf Tauchstation!” as they dive beneath the surface. This shows a desire to connect life on board a U-Boat with families on shore, conveying the idea that the two were never very distant and lessening the anxiety of separation. Connections to the home-front are also exhibited in Morgenrot, with constant cuts between the boat and the sailors’ home village. In Das Boot, no such cuts exist, and the viewer is left longing for home without any relief cuts to satisfy this desire. In this way Das

Boot works through the past, for it is eliminating a cause of war, that of falsifying the belief of an undemanding life at sea.

One of the most unique scenes in U-Boote Westwärts is when a distance-marriage takes place between a sailor at sea and his lover. We see the captain acting as a minister on the boat, while a priest at home simultaeneously performs the ceremony for his wife on shore. This is trying to demonstrate to the audience that even in times of war it is possible to take part in normal activities. To further indicate that the Nazis strived for normalcy with their fighting men, announcements are made over the radio addressing specific crewmen, congratulating them on their birthdays, births of children, and marriages. It is as if the Führer himself personally cared

40

about each of his sailors, relieving the populace at home and leading them to think that they would never be needlessly sacrificed. However, even in the face of increasingly impossible odds,

U-Boats were continually sent to sea and sacrificed for a futile cause, and U-Boote Westwärts denies this fact. It would take until 1981 before this needless sacrifice was fully acknowledged, addressed, and rejected by Das Boot.

Towards the end of the film, the captain spots a neutral freighter, and surfaces in order to inspect its cargo. The scene is almost identical to Morgenrot, when the submarine surfaces upon seeing what the captain believes to be a Dutch vessel. Thus in both films, the Prize Rules are being obeyed, portraying the crews as honorable and following the rules of war. The cargo ship’s documents indicate that it is carrying electric motors, however upon closer examination aircraft propellers are discovered. Since these represent weapons of war they are considered contraband, and the captain informs the merchantmen that he will be forced to sink their ship. The U-Boat men who had inspected the vessel place explosives in the hull, and board their small launch to return to the U-Boat. At this time a destroyer is spotted and the U-Boat is forced to dive, leaving the men in the launch to their fate. The British execute a failed depth charge run, and proceed to retrieve the U-Boat men from their small boat. The U-Boat then sneaks into an attack position, and the captain contemplates whether or not to sink the destroyer. He knows that there are fellow comrades on board, and he ultimately decides that sinking ships and winning the war is a greater priority than preserving the lives of a few seamen. His dedication to success reflects a commonly repeated Nazi ideal; that lives must be sacrificed to win the war, and it is not the individual that is important in the Nazi movement, but rather that final victory is ultimately achieved no matter the sacrifice required. After the captain sinks the destroyer, he manages to rescue a German sailor who is mortally wounded. With his dying breath, he remarks “So schön und ehrenvoll ist

41

es für das Vaterland zu sterben.”18 He is the only one to perish, and the film concludes much like

Morgenrot concluded, with the idea of continuation and acceleration. We see the dying sailor, and then there is a cut to a U-Boat sailing forward through the waves. The final scene leaves the impression that although a minority of sailors might perish in battle, the majority will survive to successfully defeat the enemy. Combined with earlier images of the father returning home to his children, this indicates that not only will the men live to fight, but that the Führer will take care of them, and they will live to see their families again. The closing images of acceleration into battle are only contradicted with Das Boot’s final scene of death and destruction.

We see these same traits in another U-Boat production from the Second World War, U-

Boote am Feind (1943). It was a joint production between Ufa and the Kriegsmarine, and appeared as a short 21-minute propaganda film. It begins, much like Morgenrot and U-Boote

Westwärts, with the idea of acceleration. The camera is set upon the bridge of a nameless U-Boat as it rushes forward through the sea, crashing through the waves as we catch glimpses of another

U-Boat speeding ahead. All the while the U-Boot Lied plays in the background, stirring up patriotic and nationalistic emotions in the first few minutes. This idea is accentuated with scenes of crewmen loading torpedoes and food aboard a U-Boat in port, all indicating that they are preparing for battle with the enemy.

Every crewman is extremely eager to face the enemy, and there is a sense of impatience and enthusiasm throughout the boat. Following the initial torpedo loading scene, there is a cut to the officers inside the submarine shuffling through a stack of paperwork. “Verdammter

Papierkrieg!” remarks one of the officers, signaling his desire to leave bureaucracy behind and instead do something meaningful for the war effort. This feeling is further emphasized by the

18 U-Boote Westwärts! Rittau, Günther. Universum Film AG (UFA), 1941. Film.

42

captain, who is disappointed when his subordinates inform him that while all of the drinking water, food provisions, and spare parts are on board, the torpedo loading is taking longer than expected. All of the men are portrayed as eager to face the enemy. The cut from the torpedo loading to the meeting is very important, for it shows that while officers and enlisted men perform distinctly different tasks, they are all equally important to secure the common final objective: victory. Winning the war is just as important as loyalty, which is seen when the captain greets his crewmen with a resounding “Heil Hitler!” The men are faithful, devoted, and excited for battle. When the captain receives a message instructing him to sail towards England, he calls the navigator and says “Bringen Sie mir die Karte von England.” “Jawohl Herr Kaleun!” replies the navigator, then asking, “Geht’s los?” The captain reponds with an enthusiastic “Ja!” to which the navigator replies, “Das ist ja großartig!” This zeal for battle exists throughout films from the Second World War, and even makes appearances in Morgenrot. However, as will be seen in Das Boot, crewmen dread coming close to the enemy, it is the last thing on their minds, for they know it will likely mean their demise.

Later in U-Boote am Feind, a gun battle takes place between the U-Boat and a lone merchant. This never would have occurred in 1943, for by that point the danger posed by allied aircraft made it extremely hazardous to lie still in the water with extra men on deck. This slowed diving times and left the U-Boat exposed and vulnerable. However this was common in the early stages of the war, and especially during World War I. By inserting this scene into the film, the viewer is led to believe that U-Boats were using the same familiar tactics that had previously brought success, and that a change in tactics to avoid lethal aircraft attacks was not necessary because no such threat existed. After the boat is forced to submerge upon spotting a destroyer, the dive plane becomes jammed, however the damage is easily repaired within a matter of

43

seconds. A jammed dive plane is one of the most deadly events a U-Boat may experience, for it will send the boat out of control to the bottom of the ocean. However the German Navy did not wish to show the true dangers of underwater warfare, and like in the Wochenschau clips chose instead to portray potentially fatal damages as insignificant and easily overcome. Consistent with other films of the period, the boat is able to effortlessly evade three destroyers and resurface without any injury to machine or crew.

The appearance of the crew is also particularly important to mention. In Morgenrot, U-

Boote Westwärts, and the U-Boote am Feind, the men are always very handsome. They have fresh haircuts, sparkling uniforms, and no beards are visible. This is a falsification of reality, for beards were very common among sailors since shaving at sea was forbidden. Uniform maintenance was a near impossibility: men were surrounded by dirty grease and oil, there were no showers (on the majority of boats), and each man was only permitted a small amount of personal items. To portray crews as clean and shaven does not accurately represent the unsanitary conditions on board.

U-Boote am Feind ends how it began, with the idea of accelerating into future battles to win the war. The crew spot a convoy of three ships, all of which the captain effortlessly manages to sink. The boat then surfaces, the U-Boot Lied plays, and the U-Boat speeds through the waves towards new success. This trait is common throughout films predating Das Boot, and the important difference in closing images has a profound impact on Vergangenheitsbewältigung.

Death is largely absent from U-Boat films made during the Second World War, since it would be difficult to garner support and attract recruits for a war portrayed as destructive and potentially lethal for its participants. One could argue that death is absent because historically speaking, it was uncommon for U-Boats to suffer individual casualties. Throughout the war a

44

number of men were wounded and taken prisoner at sea, however in the vast majority of cases, when a U-Boat sank it went down with all hands. Therefore it could be said that there is no death in films from the Second World War because they were simply filming boats that survived attacks. However, death can be incorporated into film through other mediums. In Das Boot, death is a common topic of conversation, whether it is about recent boats that have sunk, comrades lost, or the potential to die on the next patrol. Death is everywhere in speech, and towards the end of the film also in images. Rarely in films of the Second World War is a mention to death made; there are no reports of famous commanders that have been lost or the numbers of boats that were sunk. Every report is positive, highlighting how many boats are at sea and how much tonnage captains have sent to the bottom. Images of destruction are absent, for that would have gone against the propaganda ministries’ wishes. It was much easier to produce images showing happy sailors, who were well-fed, had a chest full of medals, were enthusiastic, and were fighting under experienced commanders. The nationalistic music lent credence to this idea, and cooperation between different branches of the armed forces supported the image that the U-

Boats were an integral part of the National Socialistic whole. The U-Boat war was packaged and sold to the public in a mythological bubble that isolated them from the truth about the war: that the situation was deteriorating rapidly, that more and more crews were not returning, and that they were fighting to support a policy of mass murder.

Because these films diverged from reality and chose to portray only certain aspects of the war, they are acting as a weak memory, and as such do not try and come to terms with the past.

They are selective in what they show, and do not acknowledge the grim realities of war. Das

Boot represents a dissimilar, if not an entirely contradictory picture, of wartime U-Boat films. It is for this reason that Das Boot is working through the past and breaking through the weak

45

memory, since it is directly confronting the past destroying the traits that allowed the war to occur and continue.

46

CHAPTER 4 THE POSTWAR ERA

The end of World War II left Germany searching for answers about how to deal with its past. The Nuremberg trials provided some direction as to how the U-Boat force should come to think of itself. Although a number of Nazi officials and military officers were executed and given prison sentences for war crimes and crimes against humanity, only a single U-Boat officer, Heinz

Eck, was tried, convicted, and executed in the post-war trials.1 When Dönitz was tried at

Nuremburg, he was acquitted on more serious war crimes charges of waging unrestricted submarine warfare because the British had “armed its merchant vessels, in many cases convoyed them with armed escort, gave orders to send position reports upon sighting submarines, thus integrating merchant vessels into the warning network of naval intelligence. On 1st October,

1939, the British Admiralty announced British merchant ships had been ordered to ram U-boats if possible.”2 U-Boats thus avoided being implicated in crimes against humanity, and as such, could retain some form of honor as having fought a “clean” war and not having taken part in the

Holocaust. This contradicted the philosophical discourse, most notably Karl Jaspers’ idea of collective guilt. He argued that the German people as a whole were guilty, since they simply stood idle as crimes happened before their eyes. He wrote that “every citizen is jointly liable for the doings and jointly affected by the sufferings of his own state…It is not enough that I cautiously risk my life to prevent it [a wrong or a crime]; if it happens, and I was there, and if I survive where the other is killed, I know from a voice within myself: I am guilty of still being

1 Blair, Clay. Hitler’s U-Boat War, The Hunted, 1942-1945. New York, New York: Modern Library, 1998. 558- 559.

2 Judgement : Doenitz. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Accesible at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/juddoeni.asp.

47

alive.”3 Although U-Boat veterans argued that they fought a “clean” war, the concept of collective guilt implicated them, for the Holocaust could only continue as long as Germany controlled territory, and this territory could only be controlled as long as the U-Boats continued to fight. As a result, films of the post-war period seek to exonerate U-Boat sailors. They are portrayed as moral martyrs, who recognize that the regime they are fighting for is evil, and they seek to correct this injustice, thus preserving their honor and avoiding collective guilt.

Representations of U-Boats would shift from nationalistic and patriotic messages to productions where historical reality was sacrificed in order absolve the U-Boat arm of any blame, and this falsification of history resists Vergangenheitsbewältigung. Instead of trying to come to terms with the past by acknowledging guilt, films of this period instead altered the past to fit their own ideas of an honorable and morally correct U-Boat force. Sailors were to be seen as men who not only did their duty, but who questioned whether this duty forced them to support a regime that conflicted with their moral beliefs. This is not an effective attempt to work through the past, since the past is altered just as the Wochenschau, Morgenrot, and U-Boote Westwärts also falsified the past to impart a specific message. Films of this period are not confronting the past because they are skirting around the historical realities in favor of fictitious representations, just as in films produced from 1914-1945. Not until Das Boot will a historically accurate representation of the U-Boat war be produced, and therefore also the past will be confronted, representing an effective attempt at Vergangenheitsbewältigung.

The largest and most influential U-Boat production of the post-war period, U-47 (1958) was loosely based on the exploits of Günther Prien. He became famous early in the war, when he guided his submarine into the British stronghold of Scapa Flow and sank the battleship HMS

Royal Oak. Although the warship was outdated and in need of servicing, the British suffered a

3 Jaspers, Karl. The Question of German Guilt. New York, New York: Dial Press, 1947. 46, 65.

48

massive embarrassment while the Germans enjoyed an enormous propaganda success. Prien soon became a national hero, and he still remains one of the top U-Boat aces of the war. What ultimately became of U-47 remains a mystery to this day: the boat went missing in March, 1941, and no trace was ever found of Prien or his crew. Nevertheless, his legacy remained, and commanders and sailors continued to idolize and praise his deeds for the remainder of the conflict.

The film U-47 sought not only to immortalize Prien’s accomplishments, but also to exonerate him and the U-Boat force of any blame for the Third Reich’s policy of mass murder, thus preserving the honor of the U-Boat force. The film begins like many films produced during the World Wars, with the idea of acceleration. The opening displays a U-Boat speeding through the sea, with a narrator explaining that the date is “1939 der dritte September mittags zwölf Uhr.

Seit elf Uhr befindet sich Deutschland mit GroßBritannien in Kriegszustand. Vor wenigen

Minuten ist auf alle Seebefindlichen Einheiten der deutschen Kriegsmarine der Funkspruch ergangen: beginn die Feindseligkeiten gegen England sofort.” The U-Boat then dives beneath the waves to carry out those orders. The viewer is placed on the cusp of history, where with the declaration of war Germany will begin its six year journey to ultimate defeat. On that long journey, a number of crimes will take place, which this film seeks to absolve the U-Boat arm of any blame of. The opening lines are extremely significant, for this is where the exoneration begins: the men have orders and as loyal sailors they will follow them. There is then a cut to a household listening to a radio address by Goebbels addressing the sinking of the Athenia. This passenger liner was one of the first ships sunk by U-Boats in World War II, and a large number of civilians perished. The Germans openly denied that a U-Boat committed such a crime, and the commander of the boat responsible, Fritz Lemp, was ordered to alter his log books to erase the

49

incident from the historical record. The film shows Admiral Dönitz reprimanding Lemp upon his return, and Lemp tries to explain that he mistook the Athenia for a warship. Dönitz then screams

“Wir führen einen U-Bootkrieg nach den internationalen Priesenordnung Herr Kapitäenleutnant!

Es könnte dazu kommen, dass ich Ihnen befehle, die Betreff der Seite des Kriegstagebuches auszutauschen.” This is in fact exactly what occurs. However this scene begs the question: why open with the dramatic story of the Athenia in a film about Prien when Prien had absolutely nothing to do with the ship being sunk? The answer: exoneration. The director wished to show that although mistakes were made and passenger ships were sunk, these actions were by no means intentional, and Dönitz did everything he could to conduct a war according to international rules. In order to redeem the U-Boat force on the international stage, the film shows

Dönitz pondering over a map of Scapa Flow full of warships. These were legitimate targets, and the man to strike them now enters the picture.

The first images of Prien show him returning to port after a successful patrol, and he is greeted by a full band, women, flowers, and saluting officers, reminiscent of images from the

Wochenschau of returning boats. Dönitz briefs Prien on the particulars of the operation and wishes him good luck. The first half of the film documents this mission, its success, and Prien’s subsequent return to a hero’s welcome. Prien then undergoes a transformation in the second half of the film, which begins when he meets Kille, an old friend from school. Kille, now a priest, is involved in hiding victims of National Socialism, and asks Prien to help since his fame has yielded a great deal of influence. Prien refuses outright, saying that he is a soldier and is simply trying to do his duty. On his next mission, Prien sinks a freighter and surfaces to rescue the survivors. One of them is a German refugee and asks where he is, to which a sailor responds

“Auf einem deutschen U-Boot.” The prisoner then panics, screaming “Ich will nicht mehr ins

50

KZ!” and jumps overboard to his watery grave. One of the sailors then begins asking Prien, “Ob das war ist, was der man gesagt hat?” The camera cuts to his face, and Prien stares directly into the camera. The audience knows the answer to this question already, and Prien’s expression of horror indicates that he does as well.

This scene triggers Prien’s transformation. He sits down with his Watch Officer, whose sister is engaged to Kille. Prien asks the officer how he feels about the priest’s actions, to which he responds “Ich bin Soldat.” Prien immediately retorts, “Das habe ich auch immer gesagt. Aber ich glaube, Soldat sein allein, genügt nicht.” The meeting takes place in a tavern called “Letztes

Ufer,” indicating the urgent nature of the situation while simultaeneously foreshadowing Prien’s demise.

The film cuts from the bar to Prien back in his submarine at sea. It is Christmas, and he decides to spare ships passing above in honor of the holiday. After returning from this mission, he decides to visit Kille and accept his offer to help victims of National Socialism. However the priest has been arrested by the SS and is scheduled for execution. Prien rushes to the prison, and uses his fame and high-standing to convince the commander to stay the execution until Prien returns from his next mission. Prien is allowed to visit the priest, and says he is willing to help and will free him from prison as soon as possible. This event, however, never occurs, for Prien is killed on his next patrol.

The director exercised extreme liberty when filming Prien’s final moments, for nobody knows what ever became of U-47 and its 45 crewmen. In the film, Prien’s boat is sunk, but he is rescused by British merchants. He then spots a periscope in the water and decides not to alert the

British, for he says to another survivor from his boat “Das ist ein Krieg falls du das nicht kapiert hast!” The merchant is torpedoed, and the submerged U-Boat surfaces. We see it is Prien’s

51

former Watch Officer who now commands his own boat. Upon seeing Prien’s cap floating amongst the wreckage, the officer goes into a state of shock and is unable to dive in time to avoid approaching aircraft. His boat is sunk, and the film ends with a radio report of these losses. The final scene, combined with Prien’s moral transformation, may seem like an effort at

Vergangenheitsbewältigung, since it diverges from previous closing images of acceleration.

However, a careful examination of U-47 demonstrates that it has much more in common with

Weimar and Nazi Cinema, and as such cannot be considered a serious effort at coming to terms with the past, for it still ignores the causes of National Socialism. One important example is the final scene, which is similar to the end of U-Boote Westwärts, in that the U-Boat captains both believe an enemy vessel sunk is worth more than a few German sailors. The fact that the film ends with tragedy shows that post-war productions represent a transition period in U-Boat cinema, moving towards Vergangenheitsbewältigung but falling short of truly coming to terms with the past.

One important characteristic that prevents these films from effectively working through the past is camera angles and shots. As mentioned earlier, Das Boot is unique because while at sea, the camera never leaves the submarine. While on the surface, there are shots of men on deck performing their watch duties and issuing orders. However, when the U-Boat submerges, the camera never exits the interior of the submarine. At no point in the film is there any cut to life on shore. We never see the families of U-Boat sailors, we never see the admiralty in their headquarters, and we never see proxy marriages take place. We, as the U-Boat sailors were during the war, are completely cut off from all life outside of the submarine. All previous submarine films, including U-47, provide transitions between the war at sea and the home-front, which offer a sense of relief from the stresses of combat. This sense of relief never existed in

52

reality, for U-Boat sailors could not simply, as the camera does, cut between shots of battle and comfort. They were trapped in their iron coffins, and Das Boot displays this feeling of imprisonment.

Another important difference is Prien’s personality in the film. After discussing the Scapa

Flow mission with Dönitz, he immediately tells his wife the details of the operation. This functions to display him as a loving family man who valued his relationship more than the war.

In reality, Prien’s actions would have had serious ramifications, for this assignment fell under the highest secrecy, and the Nazi government depended on it to redeem the Athenia incident. While on another patrol, Prien heard merchant ships on the surface, and decides not to attack them since it was Christmas day. This action would have been considered a dereliction of duty, for attacking ships was the only way Germany could hope to starve Britain into submission, a lesson learned during both World Wars. The portrayal of Prien as caring and compassionate represents an attempt to distance him from common perceptions of fanatic and obedient Nazi soldiers. The director would like to show that he did not blindly follow orders, but rather made his own decisions. This idea, however, would have contradicted all established naval traditions, rules, and regulations, and in reality could never have transpired. It is using fiction to create a historical reality that in fact never existed.

Prien’s moral transformation is by far the most notable historical fiction in the film. He eventually decides to help victims of National Socialism, which is an attempt to exonerate him and by extension the U-Boat arm of war crimes. However, based on Prien’s personal memoirs, he was an ardent National Socialist and fully believed in what the regime was doing. When describing the bestowal of his Ritterkreuz personally from Hitler, he writes “Was aber ist erfolg?

Man mag ihn Glück nennen oder Gnade. Das aber, worauf es ankommt unter Männern, ist allein,

53

das Herz eines Kämpfes zu haben und sich selbst vergessen zu könnenum der Sache willen, der man dient.”4 In the film, Dönitz offers him a position at a submarine training school, which would have allowed Prien to remain safe and close to his family. Staying onshore would also have allowed him to assist victims as he allegedly desired to do. However, his thirst for victory outweighed his want to help others, for Prien says in response to Dönitz, “Ich will meine

Kameraden nicht im Stich lassen,” and he embarks on his final mission. The important thing to remember is that even though Prien underwent a moral transformation, he never truly acted on it, and instead chose to continue fighting. The film attempts to depict Prien as a martyr, for he died knowing his actions were unjust. This cannot be considered Vergangenheitsbewältigung because it attempts to remove collective guilt from the U-Boat force through Prien’s moral conscience, even though historically he fully supported the regime.

Produced one year before U-47, Haie und Kleine Fische (1957) also seeks to absolve U- boats from collective guilt. The film follows the lives of several naval cadets, one of which has a

Jewish parent. Upon returning from a mission, he discovers that his father has been murdered in a concentration camp. Rather than continue to fight, the cadet decides to commit suicide, thus denying the Nazis another soldier to carry out mass murder. In his article titled The Rhetoric of

Victims Narratives in West German Films of the 1950s, Manuel Köppen terms this “retroactive justification, which indicts the crimes of the others (that is, of Nazis) through moralizing allusions…”5 These allusions are the fabrications of history in order to repress the past and instead portray idealistic images of sailors as martyrs.

4 Prien, Günther. Mein Weg nach Scapa Flow. Berlin, Germany: Deutscher Verlag, 1940. 188-189.

5 Köppen, Manuel. “The Rhetoric of Victim Narratives in West German Films of the 1950s.” Screening War: Perspectives on German Suffering. Ed. Cooke, Paul & Silberman, Marc. Rochester, NY: Camden House. 63.

54

By seeking to absolve guilt and retain honor, U-Boat films of the post-war period do not address the causes of National Socialism; instead they are being ignored in favor of personal salvation, redemption, and exoneration. This differs from earlier war-time films that simply ignored the causes of the war and sought to perpetuate it. Das Boot directly confronts the past, and instead of asking the viewer whether the war is just, we are told that it was a futile endeavor which sent millions needlessly to their deaths. Das Boot does this by showing the truth about war, and instead of fictional accounts shows the true horror of war.

The film Das Boot, based on the novel of the same name by Lothar-Günther Buchheim, was an enormous project with a massive budget and large profit margins. Scholars have argued that this film represented a dramatic shift in German cinema, but they have largely ignored the film’s historical implications. By comparing Das Boot to past U-Boat productions and against the historical record, we see a clear contrast from these films and a direct move away from them.

By confronting the causes of the war and of National Socialism, Das Boot can be understood as fulfilling Vergangenheitsbewältigung.

As outlined in the previous chapter, one of the main themes the Deutsche Wochenschau and other propaganda films tried to portray was that of nationalism. With patriotic music playing in the background (mostly in the form of the U-Boot Lied), scenes of U-Boats returning home with enthusiastic crewman receiving medals are extremely common. Swastika flags are constantly seen, and shouts of “Sieg Heil” can always be heard. However, all of this is absent in

Das Boot. The U-Boot Lied is not played even a single time, and whenever a potential for nationalism comes up, it is always scorned and ridiculed. Examples emanate from the treatment of the only patriotic crewmember on board, the First Watch Officer [1WO]. When the officers are having their evening meal, the captain begins mocking not the enemy but his very own

55

military leadership, saying “Die sind wohl in Berlin nur noch damit beschäftigt, für Churchill neue Schimpfnamen zu finden.” The 1WO makes his objection well know, stating “Dennoch.

Wir werden ihn [Churchill] in die Knie zwingen. Das ist meine feste Überzeugung.” The captain is quick to silence him, and uses this opportunity to criticize not only the 1WO but also the government and military as a whole. He blames Göring for not sending scout planes, and berates the Naval Command for sending them into areas where there are no ships to sink. The 1WO is the subject of jokes on board, for when deciding what music to play, the captain turns to him and says “Unser Hitlerjugendführer könnte mal eine Platte auflegen lassen.” The 1WO stands up angrily, and as a further insult to him and in defiance of National Socialism, the captain yells

“Die Tipperary Song, wenn ich bitten darf!,” an enemy tune that the Nazi government certainly would not have approved of. By playing enemy songs instead of nationalistic ballads, Das Boot shows one break from past films through the medium of music.

Peterson makes it clear that the 1WO and his patriotic tendencies were never fully accepted by any member of the crew. During the war uniform maintenance while at sea was not practical due to the limited space and resources on board, and we see this represented through the film. Most of the crew, including the captain, never dress in their full proper uniform. They wear pieces of it, and for replacement garments simply don tattered, grimy, oil-covered shirts and trousers. Shaving was forbidden during the war, as the restricted fresh water supply was expressly reserved for cooking and drinking. However, the 1WO constantly appears in a clean, pressed uniform with all of his medals neatly arranged. He is caught shaving, which is a strict violation of policy while at sea. Because of his odd nationalistic behavior, he is constantly alienated by the crew, which demonstrates the hesitations the men had toward National

Socialism. This contradicts previous films which displayed orderly and well-dressed men.

56

The fact that the 1WO is the target of constant mockery, and that he is the sole representation of nationalism on board, is in stark contrast to how the Wochenschau, Morgenrot, U-Boote

Westwärts, U-Boote am Feind, and U-47 portrayed U-Boat crews, and is in fact more historically accurate. Instead of embracing National Socialism, the crew criticizes it, they mock their leaders, and they doubt the victorious outcome of the war. The music in Das Boot is the exact opposite of the tunes heard in the propaganda films. Enjoying enemy songs would have incurred a severe punishment, for during the war the propaganda ministry wanted to show loyal, patriotic sailors enjoying national ballads. Instead of seeing crews returning home in clean uniforms receiving medals, we see them in oily rags mocking the sole representation of nationalism, marking a clear contrast between wartime and post-war U-Boat films.

Another contrast that Das Boot offers is that of the constant mentioning of how many tons of shipping were sunk. This was incessant in the propaganda films; however it is largely absent in Das Boot. We hear a tonnage report only once, when the officers are dining together, and the Wehrmachtbericht comes on the radio. It reports, “Sondermeldung aus dem

Führerhauptquartier, 23 Oktober 1941. Das Oberkommando der Wehrmacht gibt bekannt.

Kriegsmarine und Luftwaffe haben die Britische Versorgungsschifffahrt in der vergangenen

Nacht wiederum vernichtet. Unterseeboote versenkten im Atlantik elf Handelsschiffe und einen

Zerstörer. Dabei wurden 53.000 Bruttoregistertonnen am feindlichen Tonnage ausradiert.”

However the captain knows the truth, saying “ausradieren von Tonnage. Diese Heinis. Dabei geht’s um gute seetüchtige Schiffe.” Later on, when another report was made, the Chief Engineer of the boat screams to the radio operator “Abstellen!” According to the propaganda films, the tonnage reports were truthful and everyone was eager to hear them. In Das Boot, we see the exact opposite. The men are completely uninterested and have no desire to hear them. The

57

captain’s actions show that the propaganda ministry was lying, which in fact corresponds to the historical record. It is now known that reported tonnages differed greatly from what was actually sunk. This was mostly due to overzealous U-Boat commanders inflating their success to garner more prestige. By diverging from previous U-Boat films and acknowledging the historical reality, Das Boot fulfills Vergangenheitsbewältigung because it addresses a feature that allowed

National Socialism to survive in an increasingly futile situation. With films falsifying tonnages sunk, it made the population think the war was progressing well, when in fact exactly the opposite was occurring: Das Boot corrects this distortion.

An additional separation from propaganda and post-war films can be seen with the death motif. As discussed, death is largely absent in wartime footage, and when it is portrayed, like in

U-Boote Westwärts, death is seen as a heroic, noble deed done for the fatherland. It is largely missing since that would not serve the purpose of propaganda; to gain public support for the war and attract new recruits. Instead, what Das Boot offers is constant death. Although no crew members actually perish until the very end of the film, death is always in close proximity. In numerous depth charge attacks, the boat and crew only narrowly escape after suffering severe damages to both boat and men. During the war, portrayals of boats damaged in combat showed crews rapidly and effortlessly making repairs. In Das Boot, the damage is severe and life- threatening, with the final attack scene ravaging the U-Boat to such an extent that the crew spent hours on the ocean bottom making repairs, unsure if they would ever be able to surface again.

The men in the film lived in constant peril, for they never knew when a depth charge might suddenly rip through the hull, sending them to an unmarked watery grave.

The enemy represents one of many threats the crew faced while at sea. Nature, mostly in the form of the ocean, also presents a significant danger that did not appear in any previous U-

58

Boat films. Due to their small dimensions, U-Boats were extremely unstable vessels in rough seas. During storms to avoid falling overboard, all crewmen were required to latch themselves onto the bridge with steel belts. Even so, there are dozens of documented cases where these belts broke, and men disappeared beneath the waves never to be seen again. In Das Boot, heavy seas cause exactly this to happen, and the crewman Pilgrim is sent flying to the stern of the boat. Had it not been for the quick reactions of his comrades, he certainly would have suffered much more than a few broken ribs. His injuries and brush with death represent a danger faced by U-Boat men during the war that was not acknowledged in film until the production of Das Boot.

Death was also present in speech, for the crew openly discussed the increasing chances of being sunk, as well as other U-Boats and commanders they heard were lost. As opposed to the view presented in U-Boote Westwärts, none of the crew desired to willingly give their lives for the fatherland. During the attempted breakthrough around Gibraltar, the boat is spotted and bombed by aircraft, after which point an emergency dive is conducted. The boat sustains significant damage and quickly dives out of control, passing the maximum crush depth. The camera focuses on the depth gauge, the only thing left to do is wait for the end to come.

Suddenly the boat strikes the seafloor, and the crew struggle to contain intense flooding. They begin making repairs in the hope that they will be able to surface again, though this prospect seems doubtful at best. There is a sense of hopelessness throughout the boat, especially when

Leutnant Werner asks the captain if there is any possibility of surfacing, “Keine Hoffnung mehr?” To which the captain responds, “Es ist fünfzehn Stunden schon. Er schafft das nicht.”

Leutnant Werner then begins sobbing, describing how he never wanted this, how he only joined because of tales of heroism and glory. Even the 1WO shows displeasure in sacrificing his life.

While stuck on the bottom, he asks the captain “Gibt’s überhaupt noch eine Möglichkeit?” The

59

captain simply responds, “Gute Frage.” Throughout the entire film, the 1WO had been the only ardent Nazi on board. He wore clean, pressed uniforms, spouted patriotic rhetoric, and advocated proper military order. His actions in this scene contradict everything about National Socialism.

Nazi soldiers should be willing to give their lives without question for Führer and Fatherland.

When confronted with his own personal mortality, the 1WO rejects Nazi ideas, and represents an important break from the young sailor in U-Boote Westwärts, who on his deathbed uttered “So schön und ehrenvoll ist es für das Vaterland zu sterben.” This is another step towards coming to terms with the past, for previous portrayals of U-Boat men showed them blindly following orders, which helped National Socialism fulfill its agenda. Sailors in Das Boot are portrayed as human beings rather than mindless machines, representing another step towards

Vergangenheitsbewältigung.

A further contrast can be seen in something as simple as food. In the propaganda reels, sailors constantly eat fresh sausage and vegetables, and when they resupply at sea they receive fresh bread from U-Tankers. While U-Tankers did have on-board bakeries, the German Navy constructed very few of them since they were heavy, slow, unarmed, and therefore extremely vulnerable to attack. The allies sunk the majority of them within a few months, and so a resupply at sea was a rare event, and portraying it as a regular affair does not accurately represent a U-

Boot sailor’s diet. During the first week at sea, it is true that crews were treated to fresh meat, eggs, vegetables, and fruits. However, all perishable items had to be eaten within the first week or two of a patrol, since U-Boats had no food preservation systems on board. After the crew consumed all perishables, they reverted to powdered and canned forms of sustenance. This cycle of quickly eating perishable items and then switching to preserved foods is clearly evident in Das

Boot. At the beginning, we see the forward torpedo room stacked to the ceiling with vegetable

60

crates, while in the control room sausages hang from pipes, hammocks full of bread block the entrance to the radio room, and crewmembers carry eggs towards the stern. However, their diet quickly deteriorates, and the fresh foods disappear. Instead we see them eating canned meats, and at one point the Second Watch Officer combines canned lemon juice with powdered milk, calling it an “U-Boot spezial Cocktail.” By portraying the realities of food consumption, Das

Boot is working through the past because it is correcting the false perception of life aboard U-

Boats that existed until this point. Not even in U-47 do we see such historical accuracy, for sailors on board are seen drinking beer, a commodity that never would have been taken aboard in place of precious food and water.

The sense of camaraderie portrayed in previous productions is also absent in Das Boot and more true to reality. During the war one Wochenschau reel showed U-Boat sailors supplying the crew of a ship they had just sunk with supplies, food, and directions to the nearest shore.

Similar scenes appeared in Morgenrot and U-47. This gave the idea that U-Boat men were obeying established rules of war, that they were not monsters and would not do unnecessary harm to those who were helpless. In fact, they would do the opposite, and show kindness and compassion for those in need. In Das Boot, when the crew torpedo a tanker and are forced to dive to avoid a destroyer, they resurface later to see the tanker still burning and barley floating.

Since the allies could potentially tow the ship to port and salvage its cargo, the captain readied a single torpedo, fired, and watched the ship explode. Then one of the officers on the bridge notices movement, and screams “Da sind noch Leute an Bord!” All of the officers turn their binoculars and watch in horror as burning men jump from the ship into the oily water. Screams of “help us!” can be heard, but the captain has the engines reversed, and slowly backs away, watching the men as they are consumed by the watery inferno. Later in the officer’s mess,

61

Leutnant Werner asks why it had to be that way. The captain yells back at him “Weil ein Boot wie unseres nicht für die fünfzig Mann ausreicht, die hier gebraucht werden. Wie viele

Schiffbrüchige hätten Sie denn aufgenommen?” He asks. “Einen? Zehn? Hundert? Wir haben den Befehl Schiffe zu versenken, wo wir sie finden. Alles andere können Sie die fragen, die diesen Krieg angefangen haben.” This scene destroys the image of camaraderie portrayed during the Second World War, and shows U-Boat men as unwilling executioners, a distinct difference from wartime footage, and consistent with historical reality when compared to the Laconia

Order.

As mentioned earlier, one of the most important breaks Das Boot represents from all previous U-Boat productions is cuts to and from the home-front. In Morgenrot, U-Boote

Westwärts, U-Boote am Feind, and U-47, constant shots of the U-Boat at sea are interspersed with images of families and friends on shore. This provides the viewer with a sense of relief from the stresses of combat and isolation. This method of representation is moving away from

Vergangenheitsbewältigung because it does not acknowledge the negative aspects of the war at sea, and portrays it as romantic and undemanding. Instead, Das Boot never offers a sense of relief; while at sea, the camera is never permitted to leave the U-Boat. The viewer, like the sailors, is completely cut off from all life outside of the submarine. While submerged, we are never permitted to see the enemy above; instead we sit, wait, listen, and hope as the men do that a depth charge will not suddenly explode near the hull, sending all of us to an unmarked grave on the ocean floor. Because the camera restricts us to the boat, women also play an extremely minor role in the film. In previous U-Boat productions, women were always present and played a mostly supportive role. They cheered as reports came in of their husbands’ successes, they waited in port for boats to return, and proxy marriages even took place. All of this support is

62

absent in Das Boot, and instead women play a role only through letters and pictures that men carry with them while at sea. This leads to a feeling of longing, and a desire to survive, which the viewer shares as a result of being trapped in the U-Boat with the men. This longing and feeling of imprisonment is a direct result of restricted camera shots, which represents an attempt at

Vergangenheitsbewältigung because it highlights the negative aspects of submarine warfare.

Das Boot’s opening scene is also significant, for it contradicts all previous introductory images of U-Boats. Ominous music, as opposed to patriotic melodies, is played, and a text block appears with the words: “40,000 German sailors served on U-Boats during World War II. 30,000 never returned.” A submerged U-Boat then heads slowly towards the screen, cutting through the text and slowly approaching the viewer. Here Peterson immediately establishes the mood of the entire film; one of hopelessness, death, and devastation. The gradual dissolution of the text while underwater mimics a slow death, which many submariners experienced and which foreshadows their eventual fate in the film. The boat will not survive to the end, and instead is sunk in port on the verge of salvation. The film is therefore framed with futility: the beginning detailing the dismal chances sailors faced, the end fulfilling this prophecy. David Thompson supports this idea, arguing that throughout the film there exists an “overwhelming mood of futility and hopelessness, calculated to dispel any notion that the deadly U-boat missions served some worthwhile purpose. One device is the abrupt and violent ending of the story, which leaves the impression that the crewmen were doomed no matter what they did to avoid it.”6

The final scene of Das Boot is arguably the most important when discussing U-Boat films and Vergangenheitsbewältigung. Following the attack off Gibraltar, and after hours of strenuous repair work, the crew manage to surface the boat and sail towards La Rochelle. The crew are

6 Thompson, David. "Villains, Victims, and Veterans: Buchheim's Das Boot and the Problem of the Hybrid Novel- Memoir as History." Twentieth Century Literature 39.1 (1993): 59-78.

63

seen celebrating their miraculous survival while once again playing the Tipperary song. They are able to reach port, and the men all stand on deck waiting to disembark. They look profoundly different from when they first embarked on their patrol. Before they were smiling, waving, and cheering: now each man stands eerily silent in his grimy clothes, their beards covering any remote expression of emotion. In spite of the crew’s inexpressive appearance, there is a massive sense of relief during this scene. For the first time since the boat left port, the camera shows images of land, of women, and most importantly, of safety. In the distance we see the U-Boat bunker, a fortress meant to withstand the strongest allied bombs. Once the U-Boat crosses into the bunker, the crew could finally breathe a sigh of relief, for they would be safe at least until their next patrol. However, this safety remains just out of reach. Suddenly an air raid siren blares, followed by aircraft bombing the harbor. In the final cut, all of the crewmen we came to know over the course of the film lie dead. Leutnant Werner finds the captain, who solemnly stares at his sinking boat before he himself succumbs to his wounds. The film concludes with Werner holding the captain’s limp body in his arms.

Had the film ended without the air raid and with the crew safely disembarking, then it would have provided the same false sense of security that previous U-Boat films had done. In U-

Boote Westwärts, Morgenrot, U-Boote am Feind, and the Wochenschau clips, each one ended with scenes of acceleration. They showed U-Boats speeding forward through the ocean with enthusiastic men ready to once again face the enemy. Had Das Boot ended in a similar manner, with the crew disembarking and celebrating their successful return, it would have given the idea, as previous films did, that there was hope for these men. The reality of the situation, however, was that there was no hope for them. With the progression of the war, fewer and fewer boats would return. The situation became so desperate in 1945 that a departing crew was almost

64

guaranteed a watery grave. U-47 had a similar ending to Das Boot, but previously discussed elements of that film prevent it from truly coming to terms with the past. Das Boot’s concluding scene solidifies its place in U-Boat film as the sole U-Boat production to come to terms with the past. It demonstrates the true, destructive nature of war and the futile situations crewmen faced without trying to exonerate them. Even in port, on the threshold of safety, U-Boat men could expect only death and defeat.

65

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION

A recent German television series, Unsere Mütter, Unsere Väter (2013), delves into the personal experiences of German soldiers and civilians during the Second World War. In the second episode, a young officer rides in a truck towards the front lines. He thinks to himself,

“Die meisten Menschen denken, dass Krieg vor allem aus Kämpfen besteht. Das stimmt nicht.

Es ist das Warten – auf den nächsten Angriff, das nächste Essen, den nächsten Morgen.” His statement represents one of many reasons why Das Boot effectively comes to terms with the past. All other U-Boat films are full of faced-paced action, numerous explosions, and constant fighting; all of which are false representations of the war at sea. The past is being repressed in favor of idealistic representations of warfare. Das Boot shows the true nature of the U-Boat war as this soldier explains it. The war for U-Boat men consisted of long periods of waiting. Initially they waited to find ships, and ultimately they waited for death to find them.

The idea of the Battles of the Atlantic as deadly and destructive is a fairly recent development in U-Boat film. U-Boat films and literature of the First World War elevated seamen to the status of heroes, and portrayed them as humane and compassionate. This continued into the Weimar era, with U-Boat sailors trying to salvage honor lost in defeat. One method was to shift blame to politicians for refusing to allow unrestricted submarine warfare, and transfer responsibility for defeat to the dormant capital ships, which sat idle in port and abandoned the U-

Boats in desperate times of need.

The Second World War saw an extension and intensification of the heroic myths that first surfaced during Weimar and World War I. The Nazis never missed a chance to declare U-Boat sailors heroes, especially in the Wochenschau reels. Death was largely absent, however small glimpses of it are available, and they show that if one died for the fatherland, this death was

66

noble and praiseworthy. Tonnage reports and cooperation with other branches of the armed forces made the viewer think U-Boats were part of the greater struggle across the globe, and that victory was imminent. This is significant because these films are suppressing the past by portraying images that fit idealistic and romantic images of warfare, but ignore the historic realities. Consequently, they are not working through the past, for none of the causes and implications of war are being addressed, and they are acting as weak memories. Positive portrayals of battle were meant to attract new recruits, without whom a perpetuation of the conflict would not have been possible. Cuts between the war at sea and the home-front isolated the population from the truth, of the constantly deteriorating situation, of the exponentially increasing losses of boats and men, and that sailors perished to sustain a mass-murdering regime.

Moving into the post-war period, films began to address the idea of collective guilt by portraying

U-Boat men as moral and thus retain some semblance of honor. U-47 is a prime example of this, however by trying to exonerate sailors of guilt, these films suppress the past and do not acknowledge the true horrors of warfare.

Das Boot is the first and only U-Boat film to work through and come to terms with the past. It destroyed false conventions of happy, healthy, brave, unflinching sailors who would gladly sacrifice their lives for the Fatherland. Patriotism and National Socialism formed the background for many pre-Das Boot films, and these conventions are destroyed with Peterson’s film. Instead of asking whether the war was just as in post-war films, Das Boot tells us that it was not. We see men who constantly live on the threshold of death, completely uninterested in medals and extremely doubtful about the outcome of the war. Because Das Boot is an absolute reversal of the motifs in previous U-Boat films, and much more historically accurate, it makes a significant effort at coming to terms with the past.

67

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adorno, Theodor W. Can one live after Auschwitz? Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2003.

Baer, Hester. “Das Boot and the German Cinema of Neoliberalism.” The German Quarterly 85.1 (Winter 2012)

Blair, Clay. Hitler’s U-Boat War, The Hunted, 1942-1945. New York, New York: Modern Library, 1998.

Brockmann, Stephen. A Critical History of German Film. Rochester, New York: Camden House, 2010, 134.

Cooke, Paul. Contemporary German Cinema. Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press, 2012. Gottberg, Otto von. Kreuzerfahrten und U-Bootstaten. Berlin, Germany: Verlag Ullstein & Co., 1915.

Das Boot. Peterson, Wolfgang. Bavaria Film, 1981.

Dear, I.C.B. The Oxford Guide to World War II. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

“Deutsche Wochenschau 1942 – U-Boot Einsatz im Atlantik.” Online video clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0aRorIBlJ4&noredirect=1. Youtube. 10 June 2010. Web. 06 April 2013. [Wochenschau Clip 1].

“Die Deutsche Wochenschau 1941-10-06 Kriegsmarine U-Bootwaffe.” Online video clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgm-40j8ePk. Youtube. 18 May 2008. Web. 06 April 2013. [Wochenschau 2].

“Die Deutsche Wochenschau – Otto Kretschmer und Karl Dönitz.” Online video clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTesDlyyc5o. Youtube. 26 February 2007. Web. 06 April 2013. [Wochenschau 3].

“Die Deutsche Wochenschau – 1942.03..06 – Deutsches U-Boot vor New York. Online Video clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1x6A-pZyeE. 12 November 2011. Youtube. 06 April 2013. [Wochenschau 4].

Deutsche Wochenschau 1942 – Versenkung U-Boote.” Online video clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXsJ7dY-3Nw. 01 Oktober 2009. Web. 06 April 2013. [Wochenschau 5].

“Die Deutsche Wochenschau 1943-08-04 U-Tanker.” Online video clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSRGbMB7lZE. 14 November 2007. Youtube. 06 April 2013. [Wochenschau 7].

68

“Die Deutsche Wochenschu Nr. 610 Part 3.” Online video clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7852wBPdWw. 10 January 2011. Youtube. 06 April 2013. [Wochenschau 8].

“Dr. Goebbels’ Speech at the Kaiserhof on March 28, 1933,” trans. Lance W. Garner, in German Essays on Film, ed. Richard W. McCormick and Alison Guenther-Pal. New York and London: Continum, 2004, 153-158.

Edmonds, James. A Short History of World War I. London, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1951.

Gray, Edwyn. The U-Boat War. 1914-1918. London, Great Britain: Leo Cooper, 1994.

Hadley, Michael. Count Not the Dead. The Popular Image of the German Submarine. London, Great Britain: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1995. Hake, Sabine. German National Cinema. New York, NY: Routledge, 2008.

Jaspers, Karl. The Question of German Guilt. New York, New York: Dial Press, 1947.

Judgement : Doenitz. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Accesible at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/juddoeni.asp.

Kaes, Anton. Shell Shock Cinema. Weimar Culture and the Wounds of War. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2009.

Köppen, Manuel. “The Rhetoric of Victim Narratives in West German Films of the 1950s.” Screening War: Perspectives on German Suffering. Ed. Cooke, Paul & Silberman, Marc. Rochester, NY: Camden House. 56-77.

Kracauer, Siegfried. From Caligari to Hitler. A Psychological History of the German Film. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Presss, 1947.

Langsdorff, Werner von. U-Boote am Feind. 45 deutsche U-Boot-Fahrer erzählen. Gütersloh, Germany: Verlag Bertelsmann Gütersloh, 1937.

Massie, Robert K. Castles of Steel. Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea. New York, New York: Random House, 2003.

Morgenrot. Ucicky, Gustav von. Ufa, 1932.

Otto, Friedrich. Das Unterseeboot im Kampfe. Leipzig, Germany: Amelangs Verlag, 1915.

Prager, Brad. “Beleaguered under the Sea.” Light Motives. German Popular Film in Perspective. Ed. Halle, Randall & McCarthy, Margaret. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2003. 237- 258.

69

Prien, Günther. Mein Weg nach Scapa Flow. Berlin, Germany: Deutscher Verlag, 1940. 188-189 Thompson, David. "Villains, Victims, and Veterans: Buchheim's Das Boot and the Problem of the Hybrid Novel-Memoir as History." Twentieth Century Literature 39.1 (1993): 59-78.

U-47 – Kapitänleutnant Prien. Reinl, Harald. Arca-Filmgesellschaft GmbH, 1958.

U-Boote am Feind! Ein Film hergestellt vom Oberkommando der Kriegsmarine. Ufa, 1943.

U-Boote Westwärts! Rittau, Günther. Universum Film AG (Ufa), 1941.

Unsere Mütter, Unsere Väter. Kadelbach, Phillip. ZDF, 2013.

70

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Patrick Young completed his Bachelor of Arts in History and German at the University of

Florida, and finished his Master of Arts in German Studies at the same institution in 2014. His additional academic accomplishments include a scholarship to study at the Ludwig Maximilian

University of Munich, and a research internship at the United States Holocaust Memorial

Museum in Washington, D.C., to work on the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos Project.

71