Dear Paul

Schäffer denied consistently that he sank the "Bahía" although he was within a few miles of her at the time of the tragedy. I think I have made it clear that I was putting forward a theory. That is why I said that there seemed to be two options for the cause of the sinking: either "U-977 sank the Bahía theory" which has Admiral Saldanha da Gama's blessing, and the Official Brazilian Navy report with your drunken sailor.

I do not have "Ultramar Sur" with me but will provide you with the quote respecting the depth charges later today.

Taking what you say about the legal situation as true, it still leaves unresolved the question why "the drunken sailor" theory was fabricated. The difference between Torres Dias' report and the ten deck survivors was only that ten men saw the submarine and Torres Dias did not. Thus it was important that the submarine was out of the picture. Why?

As regards the alleged meeting between the two vessels, the incident of the disguised submarine in the rejected crew-depositions tallies with Schäffer's book. True he may have seen the report before 1950 and made it all up, but the Brazilian survivors saw what they said they saw, or do you find some reason to dispute that? Incidentally as I explained in the reply to DanO on 23 December, there is no doubt as to the provenance of the book.

There are certain other circumstances surrounding this sinking which raise questions, as you mention, particularly the nature of the damage to the ship reported by Lt Torres Dias. Presuming that 80% of the destructive force from thirty depth charges should have dissipated upwards, he expressed amazement that there should have been so much damage over the entire length of the ship, and that the bodies he saw appeared to have been subjected to some kind of whirlwind effect and were untouched by heat. He also mentioned the acrid chocolate-coloured smoke which lingered over the ship and which was new to his experience. When Schäffer arrived at Mar del Plata he had all equipment aboard except his flak ammunition which he said he had ditched on the way down.

I make it quite clear that this is a theory which you and I are simply discussing. I am not setting out to "deceive" anybody based on a "dubious" book, I could not care less whether I get a book published on the subject or not, and if what follows is correct I could not get a book published on the subject anyway.

Your questions suggest that the attack would have been premeditated and deliberate, perhaps to use some kind of experimental flak munition which he knew would destroy the cruiser. If so Schäffer would have been obliged to come up on the cruiser on the surface to fire. This would explain why he took no action to avoid the location where he knew the cruiser to be, and appeared as if from nowhere.

I have sent you an E-mail message at this point.