As a long-time WWII amateur historian, I’ve had a deep interest in understanding the course of the war militarily. One of the critical campaigns in the war was the Battle of the Atlantic. A key question about that campaign has been whether the Germans could have cut off British merchant shipping and, in doing so, forced the United Kingdom into starvation and surrender. Clay Blair’s answer is a firm no; the Germans never even came close.
He provides this answer in a 1400-page two volume account, the first of which I’m reviewing here. I managed to complete it, but doing so took an effort that few, if any books, have ever required. My first 200-page attempt stalled. I restarted and managed to complete 600 pages, took a break, and then completed the last 100.
I had once thought that a book like this would be everything I ever wanted. Unfortunately, the promise of Blair’s book is undercut by his execution. (This review is of the 1996 hardcover first edition).
This volume covers just about every U-boat mission from the start of the war through August 1942. Blair intersperses the German side of things with Allied strategic discussions and technological developments. The problem is that Blair never really sets out the terms of his review: why cover every U-boat mission? What sort of narrative do these individual sailings form, and what type of composite picture do they present?
While Blair doesn’t overtly do so, it becomes clear that anecdotes about the ace submariners is a key part of the myth that surrounds the U-boat effort, including much of its post-war historical writing. For every ace, there seems to be some commander who sailed and -- whether due to bad luck, inexperience, lack of aggression, or all of these things -- failed to locate or sink any merchant ships. While much of U-boat historical writing seems to focus on the all-stars like Prien, Kretchmer, and their kin, it's hard to ignore that some sub commanders were simply unlucky or bad. Lemp, for example, was arguably catastrophic, sinking the Athenia on the first day of the war (which could have been the Lusitania all over again), and then surrendering his boat to an airplane and failing to destroy both his sub or the Enigma machine.
Throughout, Blair relentlessly counters U-boat commanders’ claims vs their actual ships sunk. It seems that Doenitz was all too ready to accept these claims from his submariners. As one example, Blair shows that some commanders in the Mediterranean who were only marginally successful received Knight’s Crosses anyway as a propaganda effort designed to promote German naval success in that theater, corresponding with Rommel’s efforts. Peter Cremer, the famous memoirist, earned his Knight’s Cross, but he also sank a German blockade runner, which led to a court martial hearing. Several other commanders, we learn, sank neutral ships.
So, despite the fascination with U-boat aces, even their records can be called into question, as Blair does. At best, the U-boat arm was perhaps like many other modern organizations, with a few savants producing the majority of results, with many others simply showing up to work. Even so, the high-performing aces ended up either killed, captured, or reassigned to shore duty. The absurdity of the German position in this vein is that they risked a U-boat to rescue ace commanders from Canadian POW camps (notably Kretschmer; this attempt failed). As a result of this attrition and the expansion of the German U-boat fleet in 1942, we start to see at the end of this volume many U-boats sailing with inexperienced captains and crews, a good number of whom died on their maiden voyages.
This alternate picture of the U-boat force, proven again and again through Blair's anecdotes, is important because it supports Blair's statistical analysis of the Battle of the Atlantic. By looking at hard numbers, Blair shows that the U-boats simply never came close to cutting off Britain’s supplies. This is even true during the critical period before US involvement through 1941.
The critical realization is that British-controlled shipping actually increased by the end of 1942. Britain was producing its own merchant shipping, of course (a fact that often gets overshadowed for some reason by American production), as well as incorporating ships from Hitler's European victims into its own convoy streams. As a result, by December 1941, Great Britain had 617 more ships, or 2.9 million more tons in shipping capacity, than when it started the war in September 1939. Part of the reason is that the U-boats (and other weapons) were able to make only a small dent in shipping by destroying them. Through December 1941, the British lost only 291 of the 12,057 of ships reaching Great Britain in convoy via the North Atlantic routes. This amounts to 2% of the total for the period.
It is perhaps useful to step back and consider that much of the history (books, magazine articles, documentaries) on the battle have tended to focus on German operational successes – PQ17 or Operation Drumbeat come to mind.
Drumbeat was no doubt a success. Blair notes that the U-boats sank about 25% of all Allied tonnage off the Americas. As he says, it is "the high-water mark of the U-boat war." A major reason for this is that the US Navy was slow to adopt merchant convoying. One major reason for this is that the Americans lacked the escorts to conduct convoying. Blair notes that such escorts may have been available but for the fact that the Americans had loaned about 60 destroyers to the Canadians and British. (Blair makes this assertion without really going into figures, which is suspicious because it is otherwise so uncharacteristic of his entire approach; also, note how in making this assertion he neatly points a finger of blame at Roosevelt and the British at the same time. Blair defends King a lot and blames Roosevelt and his administration for just about every pre-war naval decision, and Blair also spends much prose defending the US Navy against British historians).
Moreover, the Americans had one simple doctrinal reason not convoying merchants: King prioritized his available blue-water Atlantic escorts on defending troop transports, an effort that Blair notes was almost completely successful and for which King gets little credit. In any case, a consequence of the lack of convoying, the Drumbeaters were able to devastate shipping in the Americas for several months. That said, the problem with focusing on this clearly successful effort is that it provides an incomplete and inaccurate picture of the entire U-boat effort.
The same can be said for individual convoy battles. If one reads or watches an account of a single, dramatic convoy battle where U-boats were involved, one can come away with the impression that many such Atlantic convoys were equally savaged by the U-boats. However, focusing on the many, many convoys where little or even nothing of consequence happened simply makes for boring reading or viewing, even though boredom is often war's handmaiden.
Yet, this is what Blair's figures illustrate. Through December 1941, 19 Allied convoys lost six or more ships. (This six threshold seems to be Blair's criterion of measuring whether a convoy took serious losses, although admittedly this does not take into account the percentage lost in each convoy based on the overall ships in each one). These 19 convoys may seem like a lot, except that a total of about 900 convoys sailed the Atlantic in that same period. This means that only 2% of these 900 convoys had losses of 6 or more ships, a number that aligns with the the total tonnage lost with the period, mentioned earlier. While a convoy battle in which the U-boats sank 6 or more merchants makes for exciting reading, the reality is that most convoyed merchant ships sailed the Atlantic without serious interference from the U-boats, and that the Germans were -- despite some tactical successes -- never close to cutting Britain's supply lines at the operational or strategic level. Although PQ-17 was an unmitigated disaster for the Allies, and it figures prominently in WWII naval lore, it's important to remember that this happened in the Arctic, and while tonnage was lost, the convoy was headed to the USSR, not Great Britain.
Furthermore, focusing on isolated German successes ignores German mistakes in other areas. For example, the Germans continually diverted submarines to Norway and the Mediterranean, which dispersed their concentration of force in a constant hunt for "weak links" that certainly led to individual sinkings, but only for a time. The aces, too, may have achieved a lot on their own, but looking at them in isolation provides a misleading picture of the entire campaign.
What also goes acknowledged in many accounts, including this one, is basic flaws in German strategy. For one thing, by declaring war on the USA, Germany exponentially expanded the pool of Allied shipping that it had to destroy. For another thing, by primarily focusing on merchant shipping, the German U-boats would, as a consequence, not be making any substantial dent into Allied warships. Presumably, and as events were to prove, both Allied merchant ships and warships would increase further through production, and the Germans could never sink enough Allied ships, or build enough U-boats, to keep up.
And yet another point becomes clear from this account: the Allies were able to bring diverse assets to the battle area in a better combined arms effort (namely, aircraft and ships, but also intelligence and search technology). The Germans were largely fighting with just one weapon system, the U-boat. While much is made of Allied material superiority, not enough credit is given to Allies to successfully coordinate all of this wealth into a winning military campaign. By contrast, the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine couldn't even work together in the Atlantic, and the German surface fleet spent most of the war in port.
At best, the U-boat menace may have slowed Allied delivery of materials due to convoying restrictions, and forced them to divert resources into convoy protection and sub hunting. Blair makes these points somewhat loosely and without providing figures. Even if they're true, the net effect was minimal, as the Allies were able to ground down the German U-boats in what amounted for Germany to be a lost campaign in a lost war. All of this becomes plain by the end of this volume (August 1942), and thus well before Doenitz pulled the U-boats out of the Atlantic in the "Black May" of 1943. If the Germans were fighting the U-boat war to delay or inconvenience the Western Allies, it's hard to see what they actually gained by the attempt, as events through May 1945 prove. The German U-boat war thus seems to be a shining example of the absurdity and futility of the Third Reich's entire war effort, which was painfully drawn out at the cost of human lives on both sides, civilian and military, for nearly six years.
Much of this overarching narrative I have had to overlay onto Blair’s text, because his own is haphazardly constructed. For example, I found his two-part structure confusing. He divides the U-boat campaign into a first effort against Great Britain, and then the second effort against the Americas.
I’m not sure that this makes complete sense; one could argue that all of the U-boat operations were directed against Britain for most, if not all, of the war, regardless of where the U-boats operated; the tonnage war wasn’t really aimed at starving the USA. Then, too, why are U-boat operations in the Mediterranean, the Arctic, and West Africa included in the Americas section? It would have been better to segregate all of these theaters and provide them their own separate narratives. Including them amid operations on the American East Coast and the Caribbean interrupts the narrative for that section, and so his framework for analyzing events becomes, as a result, somewhat disjointed by these excursions.
Without a smooth-flowing narrative to bind it all together, it’s easy to get lost in the Blair’s weeds detailing every U-boat operation. It’s also questionable how much Blair’s work is a resource for historians. He does not footnote his work. This is somewhat ironic, because not including footnotes is sometimes acceptable in a popular history to improve readability; here, the lack of footnotes doesn’t add anything to readability. The volume also does not include a topical index. While I can find every U-boat and Allied ship named in indexes, it’s almost impossible to find his discussions of general topics like Allied intelligence breakthroughs or convoying decisions on the American East Coast. The lack of such an index makes his book even harder to read, revisit, and study.
Thus, while Blair offers a few insights and conclusions from his study, and he breaks the mythology surrounding the Battle of the Atlantic, those takeaways are undermined by his lack of memorable narrative and other guides to the reader. It's a classic case of an author that focuses on research and dumping facts onto the page without considering the reader. Every U-boat cruise is covered, and while I may have wanted this when I set out, all of this detail comes at the price of readability, understanding, and enjoyment.
While I found it on balance "just OK," I'm left wondering if his attempt to sink the myths surrounding the Battle of the Atlantic in the popular mind has backfired, simply because this first volume is so difficult for even a dedicated reader like myself to complete.