Talk:German submarine U-234

Japan test and Hirschfeld's Opinions

From the article: Hirschfeld has revealed since the war that U-234 crew members were already aware Japan had allegedly succeeded in test blasting an atomic weapon before their departure from Germany in March 1945. This implies there was a test, and hence it needs rewording (there was no such test). Does someone have the link to the source of this quote? (I want the original so I know how to reword). 194.106.59.2 16:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I knew Hirschfeld from 1985 to his death in 2003 and he never believed in a German atomic weapon. In my opinion this quote is fiction. Geoffreybrooks 4 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffreybrooks (talk • contribs) 13:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese officers killed?

I just watched a show on the history channel that said the Japanese officers only fell into comas and that Fehler decided to kill them to ensure that they didn't wake up and break under US interrogation.

Also, I don't see where this article states if the boat completed or did not complete its mission. Did it ever arrive in Japan, or meet a Japanese boat at sea? Was it intercepted after it completed its mission or before?

Wrong picture

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:U-234surrender1.jpg

This is a type IX/C boat, not a type XB!!! --85.124.72.72 02:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ulrich Kessler of the Luftwaffe ?

In The Story of a U-Boat Nco 1940-1946, Ulrich Kessler was written as Kai Nieschling . which correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.208.179.141 (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Awful Canadians!

What, in fact, was the reason the boat would...ensure that Canadian units would not reach him first? Surely the Canadians didn't have that bad a reputation in 1945? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be quite simple... perhaps they thought conditions in US POW camps would be preferable to those in Canada. Salmanazar (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Salmanazar is correct. The treatment meted out was not as good as he thought it would be, and afterwards Fehler stated that he had made the wrong decision in surrendering to the US. Geoffreybrooks 4 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffreybrooks (talk • contribs) 13:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Some Students have more Common Sense

A student handed in an A+ paper identifying these 'historians/authors' as a disgrace to whatever Educational Institution they claim accreditation from. He compared them to the portion of Americans that American comedians joke STILL TODAY believe Saddam was behind 9/11 & had WMDs ready to use on America.

If anyone knows what Universities these 'authors' graduated from, please let me know, so I can steer my kids away from them.

These people seem to be trying to pass the blame for Hiroshima & Nagasaki onto anyone else but America. These 'authors' go on to claim the Japanese were somehow so much smarter than we are, that for a tiny fraction of the Manhatten Project in time, money, manpower & resources, STILL went on to successfully test one, some say even two, atomic bombs by war's end. Let alone the Germans obviously succeeding by March 1945. Seriously, if they are going to even say it was the German Uranium from that Uboat the was used in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, then how far behind the Germans were we? Comon.

As he wrote in his opening paragraph, COMMON SENSE dictates these authors are lying. If someone with Hitler's character truly had so much enriched weapons-grade uranium, that he could afford to send 2 atomic bombs worth to Japan, then why didn't Hitler use them himself?

And all this focus on the Uboat captain surrendering to American instead of Canadian officials is ridiculous. Big deal, so what? What? Canadians were known as the Gestapo-like bullies of the world or something? Comon.

The British atomic bomb program that evolved into the Manhatten Project(Leslie Groves called Churchill, not FDR, 'the greatest friend the Manhatten Project had'), had already set up Canadian Uranium & heavy water using Quebec hydro-electric power along with the European scientists like Zilard who were working with the British and Canadian effort...all going to the American Manhatten Project anyways...so who cares? What's the big deal? What? Canada sent all it's resources and program to the Manhatten Project just so they could start their own nuclear arms race with the USA? Comon.

This all smacks of 'National Inquirer' version of historical reckoning.AthabascaCree (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Uranium oxide storage

There appears to be some conflict here - was the stuff stored in "lead cubes" (as per Hirschfeld) or "gold-lined cylinders" (as per Scalia)? Scalia has some actual evidence for it being cylinders in the form of an old wartime document, but is there any evidence for lead cubes apart from Hirschfeld's memory? Salmanazar (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

P'raps they started off as lead cubes and had transmuted into gold-lined cylinders by journey's end ;) Only half kidding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.192.229 (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Why sink it?

Why was U-234 sunk instead of being installed somewhere as a museum piece? It could still be attracting tourists today, but noooo, the US Navy had to blow it up. Bizzybody (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

I'm a little concerned that the facts of U-234's surrender have been glossed over. Hirschfeld is quite clear in his book (and he should know as he was the WO in charge of the radio dept) that the US engaged in the deliberate jamming of Canadian signals in order to prevent Canada communicating with the submarine. The submarine being in that area of the Atlantic wherein German submarines should have sailed to Canadian Ports.

Also no mention of the treatment of the crew upon surrender is mentioned on the page and how with hindsight they regretted choosing the USA rather than Canada. There is also mention of a white flag having to be flown - again this is a gloss over, surrendering submarines were instructed to fly a black flag by the allies, this met with great resentment as it signified to the submarine crews that they were being considered as pirates.

I would happily add these to the article - providing appropriate references to Hirschfield's book where appropriate but my concern is that such entires would as a matter of course annoy a certain section of the editors here who decry any adverse comment about the US pre/during and WW2. It is also further evidence of the rarely mentioned US policy of undermining the economic and political well being of the Commonwealth throughout the war. Naturally I wouldn't make reference to this in the article for it is far beyond the scope this particular article however when evidence of one ally deliberately jamming the signals of an ally in order to gain economic/scientific at their expense the conclusion is unavoidable.

Hence my entry here as a RFD prior to any edit being made. PrinceElrik (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

ME 262

According to uboat.net, U-234 was carrying "...ME 262 drawings" [my emphasis] and asks:

"Me 262 fighter aircraft on board?
Update 11 Dec 2012. Despite many rumours to the contrary, U-234 was not [my emphasis] carrying any aircraft on board. A great many publications (including uboat.net for a long time) have suggested there were either one Me 262, two Me 262's or even three Messerschmitt aircraft on board, but they are all incorrect."

But the article mentions 'a crated ME 262 and a Heinkel glide-bomb'.

So, we have a bit of a dilemma; did U-234 have any aircraft loaded?

What do other editors think?

RASAM (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the claim that U-234 was carrying a "crated" or otherwise disassembled Me-262 is wholly absurd. First off, no U-boat had a "cargo hatch" of any kind; any and all items carried onboard had to be small enough to pass through either the torpedo loading hatch (660mm diameter), or the standard outer hatches (600mm diameter). In other words, the supposed Me-262 would have to have been broken down into really small pieces - and packed in pretty small crates! Note also that the US authorities denied the presence of a Me-262 jet fighter aboard U-234, and it is not present on their Loading List.

Here are some sensible words from uboat.net on this subject:

The cargo list of the last voyage of "U-234" known to us states the Uranium Oxyde and it also shows blueprints of aircraft and mis-siles. However, there are no documents available to the public (yet) that identifies the intended purpose of the raw material Uranium Oxyde in Japan, as well as the utilization of it in the USA, i.e. whatever is being said about it is mere speculation. Other than several boxes, inter alia those with blueprints of aircraft and missiles, there is no mentioning of boxes containing parts of disassembled air-craft or missiles in those lists. Moreover, the storing of such parts is hardly imaginable in those cramped conditions on board, similarly the size of the boxes simply would not fit, same as the measures of the mineshafts would not do. Unless still existing restrictions to requirements of confidentiality around the transport of such aircraft and missile parts prevent so, any statements or stories concerning those should be rejected as mere speculation. Any research to find out about the true nature of the cargo is significantly hampered, as even renowned historians apparently plagiarize without prior checking. Therefore, the myths around the last voyage of "U-234" seem to prove themselves simply through repeating allegations all over again. It rests with the U-Boat Archive to make an appeal to every historian to share a healthy mistrust vis-á-vis such firm myths and to rather meet them with information which is a based on provable facts.

Salmanazar (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German submarine U-234. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090802014237/http://www.uboatarchive.net:80/U-234INT.htm to http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-234INT.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

UBoat's on-the-nose designator

Is there any information about the coincidence that a submarine with designator "U234" has a cargo of Uranium? It seems unlikely that Germany's naval leaders were being whimsical or had a sense of humor at this point in the war.

Just a coincidence. All German submarines had a U designation (for U-Boot). They were numbered sequentially. There were only 8 Type X submarines that were used for long-range cargo transport. By that point in the war, all had been destroyed except the U-234 and the U-219. The U-219 was in the Pacific and not available. --NuclearSecrets (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)