The clamour for "proof" and particularly "facts" which one observes from the various replies I have received is actually a clamour for "palatable facts". Even if one could produce the hull of a U-boat in Chilean or Argentine waters with a full history of its crew and how it got there, that would not be enough to satisfy anybody. I hope to show that that is the mentality by the following exercise. When confronted with the unarguable, nobody will have the grace to admit he could have been mistaken, as we shall see.

I assume that everybody has read his copy of "Ultramar Sur", but for those who have not I will provide the necessary references so that nobody will think I am making things up.

Here is my theory of how the "Bahia" was sunk by U-977, and I invite comments.

At 0900 hrs on the morning of 4 July 1945 on the Equator at 30ºW, the Brazilian light cruiser "Bahia" came to a stop in the water to let down a float for AA practice.

This procedure took about ten minutes, but no sooner was the "Bahia" under way at slow ahead than there occurred a tremendous explosion on the poop deck which blew off the stern, and the cruiser sank within a few minutes.

Of her crew of 360, there were 36 survivors, these being 35 ratings and an engineer sub-lieutenant. Amongst the dead were four US Navy telegraphists who shared a lifeboat with some of the survivors but perished before being found. The US Navy denies the existence of these four men.

These facts are unchallenged,and are recited at length in "A Tragedia do Bahía" by Vice-Admiral Saldanha da Gama in the official Historia Naval Brasileira, Vol V, Book II, Servicio de Documentaçao Geral da Marinha, Rio de Janeiro, 1985, page 412 (quoted in "Ultramar Sur at page 352).

In his original book and at his interrogation by the Argentine Navy, Schäffer stated that on the morning of 4 July 1945 he was on the Equator and within a few miles of the place where the cruiser "Bahía" was sunk. He was travelling surfaced and wearing the disguise of a fishing vessel. The flak guns abaft the conning tower were manned and Schäffer stated that he "intended to defend himself with them should he be fired upon, he would not allow his boat and crew to be captured."

Ten survivors of the "Bahía" had been on deck starboard side at the time of the tragedy. These survivors all stated that after the ship stopped to let down the float, at 0910 hrs just as the cruiser got under way, the commander, who had been observing a strange fishing vessel about two miles off on the starboard quarter, gave the No 7 20-mm Oerlikon the order to fire a burst ahead of the strange vessel, which the officers now believed to be a disguised submarine, whose crew were hurriedly entering the vessel. A burst of four of five rounds was fired. The submarine was seen to return fire immediately from a gun immediately abaft the conning tower at which there was a tremendous explosion on the poop and the cruiser began to sink.

In my opinion Schäffer fired a few rounds from the flak to gain time for his crew to get inboard and submerge. A round impacted the depth charges stacked on the poop deck and blew up the cruiser, the first cruiser in history ever to be sunk by a flak gun. You will all know the official verdict from reading your copies of "Ultramar Sur" but if not I will go over it once I have harvested a few replies.

I invite wise but not uninformed criticism of my theory and we shall then see where it leads us.