Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Rules of War governing U-Boats.
120 views
Skip to first unread message
MANITOBIAN
Jan 25, 2013, 1:13:27 AM1/25/13
to
Many times when some thing is written about the U-Boat war there is
a comment about the il-legality of their tactics when attacking
merchant or passenger ships.
These comments are in a book that I just read. It is
NIGHT OF THE U-BOATS by Paul Lund and Harry Ludlam.
It is the story of convoy SC7 of October, 1940.
While writing about a U-Boat attack they commented that the merchant ships
did not have any defensive guns forward, because these guns were
prohibited by International Regulations.
How is that for sticking to the rules?
Many survivors of the torpedoed ships were picked up, and saved.
And that was odd, because most comments about convoys being sunk
state that no seamen in the water could be picked up.
Later in the war, however there was usually one ship that was
designated as the HF/DF ship and pick up ship.
a comment about the il-legality of their tactics when attacking
merchant or passenger ships.
These comments are in a book that I just read. It is
NIGHT OF THE U-BOATS by Paul Lund and Harry Ludlam.
It is the story of convoy SC7 of October, 1940.
While writing about a U-Boat attack they commented that the merchant ships
did not have any defensive guns forward, because these guns were
prohibited by International Regulations.
How is that for sticking to the rules?
Many survivors of the torpedoed ships were picked up, and saved.
And that was odd, because most comments about convoys being sunk
state that no seamen in the water could be picked up.
Later in the war, however there was usually one ship that was
designated as the HF/DF ship and pick up ship.
Mark Sieving
Jan 25, 2013, 9:17:47 AM1/25/13
to
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 01:13:27 -0500, MANITOBIAN <rsve...@mts.net>
wrote:
>While writing about a U-Boat attack they commented that the merchant ships
>did not have any defensive guns forward, because these guns were
>prohibited by International Regulations.
I don't think there were any laws or regulations prohibiting defensive
guns forward. US plans for arming merchant ships included at least
one gun aft and one forward. But the guns were often not available,
and if only one gun could be mounted the preference was to put it aft.
Merchant ships would generally be running away from U-boats, not
towards them.
wrote:
>While writing about a U-Boat attack they commented that the merchant ships
>did not have any defensive guns forward, because these guns were
>prohibited by International Regulations.
guns forward. US plans for arming merchant ships included at least
one gun aft and one forward. But the guns were often not available,
and if only one gun could be mounted the preference was to put it aft.
Merchant ships would generally be running away from U-boats, not
towards them.
Michele
Jan 25, 2013, 10:42:54 AM1/25/13
to
"Mark Sieving" <mark.s...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:9235g8pcdq7llbs2k...@4ax.com...
general laws of war concerning merchant vessels. I.e., they should have
first ordered them to stop to be boarded and searched, or seized without
bloodshed if flying an enemy flag. Only if the merchant vessel "persisted"
in not stopping and trying to avoid the submarine, or offered "active
resistance", the submarine could immediately sink it.
The submarine could also scuttle a merchant ship after having boarded it -
if they made sure that the civilian crew was safe (and just being in a
lifeboat was not being safe, unless proximity of land, or of other ships,
and weather conditions, made it so).
That was true for civilian merchant vessels. Once these were fitted with
guns, however, they were no longer merchant vessels, they were converted
into auxiliary warships - and thus fair game. The Kriegsmarine also deemed
that once the British merhcant ship commanders were under standing orders to
take evasive maneuvers, to report any sighting of submarines by radio and to
try and ram any submarine that came close, it was to be expected as a
standard reaction either a persistent refusal to be boarded or active
resistance, or both. Thus all enemy merchant vessels could be sunk without
warning, and without taking care of the crew's safety.
It has to be said that the Kriegsmarine issued such orders even before the
Admiralty had issued theirs, and that the U-Boote were under standing orders
to sink without warning _neutral_ merchant ships of certain nationalities;
neutrals, naturally, had not installed guns on their merchant ships and had
not ordered the skippers to ram submarines.
So, there were rules against guns on merchant ships that wanted to maintain
their rights as such - but it's not as if they forbade forward-firing guns,
they forbade all guns. Alternatively, all merchant ships could be fitted
with guns and be ordered to resist submarines in other ways - but at that
point they lost their rights as civilian merchants.
Given the policies with which the submarines began the war, it was just as
well that the merchant ships were armed and took their risks as converted
warships.
news:9235g8pcdq7llbs2k...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 01:13:27 -0500, MANITOBIAN <rsve...@mts.net>
> wrote:
>
>>While writing about a U-Boat attack they commented that the merchant ships
>>did not have any defensive guns forward, because these guns were
>>prohibited by International Regulations.
>
> I don't think there were any laws or regulations prohibiting defensive
> guns forward.
Of course not. The rules were that submarines should have complied with the
> wrote:
>
>>While writing about a U-Boat attack they commented that the merchant ships
>>did not have any defensive guns forward, because these guns were
>>prohibited by International Regulations.
>
> I don't think there were any laws or regulations prohibiting defensive
> guns forward.
general laws of war concerning merchant vessels. I.e., they should have
first ordered them to stop to be boarded and searched, or seized without
bloodshed if flying an enemy flag. Only if the merchant vessel "persisted"
in not stopping and trying to avoid the submarine, or offered "active
resistance", the submarine could immediately sink it.
The submarine could also scuttle a merchant ship after having boarded it -
if they made sure that the civilian crew was safe (and just being in a
lifeboat was not being safe, unless proximity of land, or of other ships,
and weather conditions, made it so).
That was true for civilian merchant vessels. Once these were fitted with
guns, however, they were no longer merchant vessels, they were converted
into auxiliary warships - and thus fair game. The Kriegsmarine also deemed
that once the British merhcant ship commanders were under standing orders to
take evasive maneuvers, to report any sighting of submarines by radio and to
try and ram any submarine that came close, it was to be expected as a
standard reaction either a persistent refusal to be boarded or active
resistance, or both. Thus all enemy merchant vessels could be sunk without
warning, and without taking care of the crew's safety.
It has to be said that the Kriegsmarine issued such orders even before the
Admiralty had issued theirs, and that the U-Boote were under standing orders
to sink without warning _neutral_ merchant ships of certain nationalities;
neutrals, naturally, had not installed guns on their merchant ships and had
not ordered the skippers to ram submarines.
So, there were rules against guns on merchant ships that wanted to maintain
their rights as such - but it's not as if they forbade forward-firing guns,
they forbade all guns. Alternatively, all merchant ships could be fitted
with guns and be ordered to resist submarines in other ways - but at that
point they lost their rights as civilian merchants.
Given the policies with which the submarines began the war, it was just as
well that the merchant ships were armed and took their risks as converted
warships.
Padraigh ProAmerica
Jan 25, 2013, 12:32:44 PM1/25/13
to
You will note that Grand Admirals Raeder and Doenitz were not charged
with these offenses at Nuremburg.
Early in the war a U-Boat sank a passenger vessel. The U-Boat surfaced;
many survivors came up onto the deck. Tne Captain broadcast a message
'in the clear' (unencrypted) asking for ships to pick up the survivors
and giving the location. Coastal Command responded by sending a
Liberator that dropped depth charges, ignoring the survivors.
This incident caused Doenitz to issue an order that U-Boats were no
longer to stop for survivors, and provided a defense for some charges at
Nuremburg (which is why Raeder an Doenitz weren't hung).
--
"A man who can own a gun is a citizen. A man who cannot own a gun is a
subject."--
Unknown
with these offenses at Nuremburg.
Early in the war a U-Boat sank a passenger vessel. The U-Boat surfaced;
many survivors came up onto the deck. Tne Captain broadcast a message
'in the clear' (unencrypted) asking for ships to pick up the survivors
and giving the location. Coastal Command responded by sending a
Liberator that dropped depth charges, ignoring the survivors.
This incident caused Doenitz to issue an order that U-Boats were no
longer to stop for survivors, and provided a defense for some charges at
Nuremburg (which is why Raeder an Doenitz weren't hung).
--
"A man who can own a gun is a citizen. A man who cannot own a gun is a
subject."--
Unknown
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Jan 26, 2013, 10:27:49 AM1/26/13
to
In article <5102a42a$0$26776$4faf...@reader2.news.tin.it>,
definition of traditional prize rules. These largely originated in the
fact that captured ships were worth money. WW1 proved that the rules
were totally impractical for submarines to use as the Merchant could not
only be mounting a bigger gun or guns than the sub or even be a Q-Ship.
As a result all submarine using nations had tacitly abandoned the rues
by the start of WW2. Note for a neutral ship to receive any benefits it
had to be sailing independently, neutral ships in an enemy convoy did
not count as neutral.
As I said all nations in WW2 with a submarine force used unrestricted
warfare, it was just that some were better than others.
Ken Young
SPAMmiarmelNOT!@tln.it (Michele) wrote:
> Of course not. The rules were that submarines should have complied
> with the general laws of war concerning merchant vessels. I.e., they
> should have first ordered them to stop to be boarded and searched, or
> seized without bloodshed if flying an enemy flag.
Those rules applied to all raiding ships prior to WW1 and were a legal
> Of course not. The rules were that submarines should have complied
> with the general laws of war concerning merchant vessels. I.e., they
> should have first ordered them to stop to be boarded and searched, or
> seized without bloodshed if flying an enemy flag.
definition of traditional prize rules. These largely originated in the
fact that captured ships were worth money. WW1 proved that the rules
were totally impractical for submarines to use as the Merchant could not
only be mounting a bigger gun or guns than the sub or even be a Q-Ship.
As a result all submarine using nations had tacitly abandoned the rues
by the start of WW2. Note for a neutral ship to receive any benefits it
had to be sailing independently, neutral ships in an enemy convoy did
not count as neutral.
As I said all nations in WW2 with a submarine force used unrestricted
warfare, it was just that some were better than others.
Ken Young
Michele
Jan 26, 2013, 10:28:37 AM1/26/13
to
"Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:2646-510...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
1. Doenitz and Raeder were charged with unrestricted submarine warfare
policies at Nuremburg.
2. You might have wanted to claim that Doenitz was not found guilty of that,
as opposed to not being charged. That would also be wrong. Doenitz's penalty
was not assessed on the basis of his unrestricted submarine warfare orders
exactly because of the considerations I already mentioned in my previous
post, but the IMT's opinion and judgment about him specifically finds that
those policies were a violation of the London Naval Agreement clause about
submarines.
3. The incident you describe seems a very badly mauled account of the
Laconia incident. The mention of a Liberator in particular makes me think
so, as well as the usual pro-Nazi excuse that that was the reason of the
order to U-Boote captain to disregard their duties under the international
commitments their country had undertaken. But:
3.a the Liberator didn't belong to the Coastal Command but to the USAAF,
3.b the incident did not take place early in the war but in late 1942,
3.c assuming you are thinking about another incident really involving
Coastal Command in the early war, then the aircraft couldn't be a Liberator,
3.d in any case, the pro-Nazi excuse has always been a falsehood. Indeed:
4. While Doenitz did issue a so-called Laconia order in late 1942, that only
reiterated and hardened criminal orders that Doenitz had already issued as
early as late 1939, well before the Laconia and well before the British
merchant vessels had begun sporting guns.
All of this is fairly well documented in the IMT minutes. If you insist on
writing about the IMT proceedings, read them up before taking to the
keyboard.
news:2646-510...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
> You will note that Grand Admirals Raeder and Doenitz were not charged
> with these offenses at Nuremburg.
>
> Early in the war a U-Boat sank a passenger vessel. The U-Boat surfaced;
> many survivors came up onto the deck. Tne Captain broadcast a message
> 'in the clear' (unencrypted) asking for ships to pick up the survivors
> and giving the location. Coastal Command responded by sending a
> Liberator that dropped depth charges, ignoring the survivors.
>
> This incident caused Doenitz to issue an order that U-Boats were no
> longer to stop for survivors, and provided a defense for some charges at
> Nuremburg (which is why Raeder an Doenitz weren't hung).
>
Sigh.
> with these offenses at Nuremburg.
>
> Early in the war a U-Boat sank a passenger vessel. The U-Boat surfaced;
> many survivors came up onto the deck. Tne Captain broadcast a message
> 'in the clear' (unencrypted) asking for ships to pick up the survivors
> and giving the location. Coastal Command responded by sending a
> Liberator that dropped depth charges, ignoring the survivors.
>
> This incident caused Doenitz to issue an order that U-Boats were no
> longer to stop for survivors, and provided a defense for some charges at
> Nuremburg (which is why Raeder an Doenitz weren't hung).
>
1. Doenitz and Raeder were charged with unrestricted submarine warfare
policies at Nuremburg.
2. You might have wanted to claim that Doenitz was not found guilty of that,
as opposed to not being charged. That would also be wrong. Doenitz's penalty
was not assessed on the basis of his unrestricted submarine warfare orders
exactly because of the considerations I already mentioned in my previous
post, but the IMT's opinion and judgment about him specifically finds that
those policies were a violation of the London Naval Agreement clause about
submarines.
3. The incident you describe seems a very badly mauled account of the
Laconia incident. The mention of a Liberator in particular makes me think
so, as well as the usual pro-Nazi excuse that that was the reason of the
order to U-Boote captain to disregard their duties under the international
commitments their country had undertaken. But:
3.a the Liberator didn't belong to the Coastal Command but to the USAAF,
3.b the incident did not take place early in the war but in late 1942,
3.c assuming you are thinking about another incident really involving
Coastal Command in the early war, then the aircraft couldn't be a Liberator,
3.d in any case, the pro-Nazi excuse has always been a falsehood. Indeed:
4. While Doenitz did issue a so-called Laconia order in late 1942, that only
reiterated and hardened criminal orders that Doenitz had already issued as
early as late 1939, well before the Laconia and well before the British
merchant vessels had begun sporting guns.
All of this is fairly well documented in the IMT minutes. If you insist on
writing about the IMT proceedings, read them up before taking to the
keyboard.
David H Thornley
Jan 27, 2013, 11:50:01 AM1/27/13
to
Michele wrote:
> That was true for civilian merchant vessels. Once these were fitted with
> guns, however, they were no longer merchant vessels, they were converted
> into auxiliary warships - and thus fair game.
Sure about that? I looked at the relevant Hague conventions, and could
> That was true for civilian merchant vessels. Once these were fitted with
> guns, however, they were no longer merchant vessels, they were converted
> into auxiliary warships - and thus fair game.
find nothing of the sort. Where does it say that an armed merchant
ship is a warship?
The Kriegsmarine also deemed
> that once the British merhcant ship commanders were under standing orders to
> take evasive maneuvers, to report any sighting of submarines by radio and to
> try and ram any submarine that came close, it was to be expected as a
> standard reaction either a persistent refusal to be boarded or active
> resistance, or both. Thus all enemy merchant vessels could be sunk without
> warning, and without taking care of the crew's safety.
>
law.
In WWI and WWII, the laws of war regarding submarine warfare against
surface ships were highly unrealistic, and were largely ignored by
the Germans in WWI and pretty much everybody in WWII (the Germans,
US, and Brits being the most effective at it).
The pre-WWI restrictions were reaffirmed by the Washington Naval
Disarmament treaty, but were promptly ignored in WWII.
IIRC, Doenitz's council at Nuremberg asked Nimitz what Nimitz
thought about the legality of unrestricted submarine warfare,
and that helped his defense. (The "you did it too" defense
was explicitly excluded at the IMT.)
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Rich Rostrom
Jan 27, 2013, 5:46:33 PM1/27/13
to
David H Thornley <da...@thornley.net> wrote:
> Michele wrote:
> > That was true for civilian merchant vessels. Once these were fitted with
> > guns, however, they were no longer merchant vessels, they were converted
> > into auxiliary warships - and thus fair game.
>
> Sure about that? I looked at the relevant Hague conventions, and could
> find nothing of the sort. Where does it say that an armed merchant
> ship is a warship?
I think this is a specific application of
> Michele wrote:
> > That was true for civilian merchant vessels. Once these were fitted with
> > guns, however, they were no longer merchant vessels, they were converted
> > into auxiliary warships - and thus fair game.
>
> Sure about that? I looked at the relevant Hague conventions, and could
> find nothing of the sort. Where does it say that an armed merchant
> ship is a warship?
the general principle that those without
arms are non-combatants and therefore not
to be attacked.
This applies to their persons, not property
such as buildings, vehicles, or ships - but
any act against such property should be
conducted without violence to the people,
who being unarmed cannot interfere.
However, if they have arms, or if there are
armed military personnel present defending
the target, then immediate attack without
regard for the people is permitted.
In the case of the armed merchant ship, I
don't know that there was an absolute
distinction between "warship" and "merchant
ship". However, there were "armed merchant
cruisers" with significant firepower.
Once there are _some_ guns aboard the ship,
I don't see how one can draw the distinction
between a few guns, more guns, and lots of
guns - a de facto warship.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Roman W
Jan 28, 2013, 10:49:58 AM1/28/13
to
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:46:33 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
> Once there are _some_ guns aboard the ship,
> I don't see how one can draw the distinction
> between a few guns, more guns, and lots of
> guns - a de facto warship.
But such distinctions were made e.g. in Napoleonic times, when almost
<rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
> Once there are _some_ guns aboard the ship,
> I don't see how one can draw the distinction
> between a few guns, more guns, and lots of
> guns - a de facto warship.
every ship carried some weapons to defend themselves from occasional
petty pirates.
A merchant ship will simply carry a merchant banner, have merchant
papers and behave accordingly.
RW
Michele
Jan 28, 2013, 10:51:48 AM1/28/13
to
"Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Once there are _some_ guns aboard the ship,
> I don't see how one can draw the distinction
> between a few guns, more guns, and lots of
> guns - a de facto warship.
Correct, especially once you consider that a totally unarmed tugboat
belonging to the Royal Navy is entirely fair game for the Kriegsmarine. It
is a "warship".
Being armed or not is less relevant than the service you are carrying out
and the orders you are operating under.
Consider indeed the case of an unarmed enemy merchant vessel that, having no
guns, tries anyway to sink your submarine by ramming it. IIRC, Fryatt's ship
in WWI had no guns installed.
The London Agreement's clause specifically allows you to fire upon it and
sink it immediately. It's taking hostile action. Guns or no guns.
Suppose you are a foot soldier in an enemy country, on a road. A civilian
truck appears. The civilian driver, having identified you as an invader,
tries to run you down. The truck sports no guns, but it is being used itself
as a weapon. Are you allowed to shoot? Yes.
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Once there are _some_ guns aboard the ship,
> I don't see how one can draw the distinction
> between a few guns, more guns, and lots of
> guns - a de facto warship.
belonging to the Royal Navy is entirely fair game for the Kriegsmarine. It
is a "warship".
Being armed or not is less relevant than the service you are carrying out
and the orders you are operating under.
Consider indeed the case of an unarmed enemy merchant vessel that, having no
guns, tries anyway to sink your submarine by ramming it. IIRC, Fryatt's ship
in WWI had no guns installed.
The London Agreement's clause specifically allows you to fire upon it and
sink it immediately. It's taking hostile action. Guns or no guns.
Suppose you are a foot soldier in an enemy country, on a road. A civilian
truck appears. The civilian driver, having identified you as an invader,
tries to run you down. The truck sports no guns, but it is being used itself
as a weapon. Are you allowed to shoot? Yes.
Michele
Jan 28, 2013, 10:53:11 AM1/28/13
to
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:JeKdnZyx2pjmJp7M...@giganews.com...
apparently. It's good enough not to be given any penalty for that specific
guilt, however. That's how it went. I'm not claiming that it should have
gone otherwise or anything; I'm just correcting the record.
1. Doenitz was charged with unrestricted submarine warfare,
2. Doenitz was found guilty of violating the London Agreement, even if he
spent not one day behind bars for that.
Note for a neutral ship to receive any benefits it
> had to be sailing independently, neutral ships in an enemy convoy did
> not count as neutral.
>
> As I said all nations in WW2 with a submarine force used unrestricted
> warfare, it was just that some were better than others.
>
Yeah, and some more ruthless than others. AFAIK, the USN wasn't operating
under orders to sink Portuguese or Swedish ships in the Indian or Pacific
oceans on sight; the Kriegsmarine, at a time when Greece was a neutral, were
under orders to sink Greek ships on sight, and yes, that includes when not
in convoy.
news:JeKdnZyx2pjmJp7M...@giganews.com...
> In article <5102a42a$0$26776$4faf...@reader2.news.tin.it>,
> SPAMmiarmelNOT!@tln.it (Michele) wrote:
>
>> Of course not. The rules were that submarines should have complied
>> with the general laws of war concerning merchant vessels. I.e., they
>> should have first ordered them to stop to be boarded and searched, or
>> seized without bloodshed if flying an enemy flag.
>
> Those rules applied to all raiding ships prior to WW1 and were a legal
> definition of traditional prize rules. These largely originated in the
> fact that captured ships were worth money. WW1 proved that the rules
> were totally impractical for submarines to use as the Merchant could not
> only be mounting a bigger gun or guns than the sub or even be a Q-Ship.
> As a result all submarine using nations had tacitly abandoned the rues
> by the start of WW2.
"Tacitly" and universally is not good enough not to be found guilty,
> SPAMmiarmelNOT!@tln.it (Michele) wrote:
>
>> Of course not. The rules were that submarines should have complied
>> with the general laws of war concerning merchant vessels. I.e., they
>> should have first ordered them to stop to be boarded and searched, or
>> seized without bloodshed if flying an enemy flag.
>
> Those rules applied to all raiding ships prior to WW1 and were a legal
> definition of traditional prize rules. These largely originated in the
> fact that captured ships were worth money. WW1 proved that the rules
> were totally impractical for submarines to use as the Merchant could not
> only be mounting a bigger gun or guns than the sub or even be a Q-Ship.
> As a result all submarine using nations had tacitly abandoned the rues
> by the start of WW2.
apparently. It's good enough not to be given any penalty for that specific
guilt, however. That's how it went. I'm not claiming that it should have
gone otherwise or anything; I'm just correcting the record.
1. Doenitz was charged with unrestricted submarine warfare,
2. Doenitz was found guilty of violating the London Agreement, even if he
spent not one day behind bars for that.
Note for a neutral ship to receive any benefits it
> had to be sailing independently, neutral ships in an enemy convoy did
> not count as neutral.
>
> As I said all nations in WW2 with a submarine force used unrestricted
> warfare, it was just that some were better than others.
>
under orders to sink Portuguese or Swedish ships in the Indian or Pacific
oceans on sight; the Kriegsmarine, at a time when Greece was a neutral, were
under orders to sink Greek ships on sight, and yes, that includes when not
in convoy.
Michele
Jan 28, 2013, 10:53:55 AM1/28/13
to
"David H Thornley" <da...@thornley.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:ELadnSsqtOEvx5jM...@posted.visi...
warships. It doesn not say that the conversion requires installing guns, but
I suppose that that would be a given if one wants a warship.
Note that any ship carrying out hostile behavior - say, attempting to ram
you and sink you - either is a pirate ship or a warship of an enemy
combatant. That's the understandable take of the Germans during WWI, as we
know very well because exemplified concretely by Fryatt's case.
Between the two, if I were a merchant vessel's skipper I'd prefer to be
treated as an enemy soldier entitled to POW status than as a pirate.
> The Kriegsmarine also deemed
>> that once the British merhcant ship commanders were under standing orders
>> to
>> take evasive maneuvers, to report any sighting of submarines by radio and
>> to
>> try and ram any submarine that came close, it was to be expected as a
>> standard reaction either a persistent refusal to be boarded or active
>> resistance, or both. Thus all enemy merchant vessels could be sunk
>> without
>> warning, and without taking care of the crew's safety.
>>
> That's plausible reasoning, but I don't see any basis in international
> law.
>
Naturally. Nevertheless, it was, ex post facto, good enough for the IMT not
to assess the penalty for Doenitz on the orders to carry out unrestricted
submarine warfare against armed merchant vessels, which is mentioned in the
opinion and judgment. Which IMHO has some weight.
> In WWI and WWII, the laws of war regarding submarine warfare against
> surface ships were highly unrealistic, and were largely ignored by
> the Germans in WWI and pretty much everybody in WWII (the Germans,
> US, and Brits being the most effective at it).
>
> The pre-WWI restrictions were reaffirmed by the Washington Naval
> Disarmament treaty, but were promptly ignored in WWII.
>
In fact. That's also mentioned in the same opinion and judgment.
> IIRC, Doenitz's council at Nuremberg asked Nimitz what Nimitz
> thought about the legality of unrestricted submarine warfare,
> and that helped his defense. (The "you did it too" defense
> was explicitly excluded at the IMT.)
>
Formally, it was. In practice, in this case, it seems to have carried some
weight.
Note however that there is a difference between the unrestricted submarine
warfare carried out by the USN and the one carried out by the Kriegsmarine.
The former only applied to enemy merchant vessels. The latter, to neutral
vessels too. Which are by definition unarmed and not fair game.
news:ELadnSsqtOEvx5jM...@posted.visi...
> Michele wrote:
>> That was true for civilian merchant vessels. Once these were fitted with
>> guns, however, they were no longer merchant vessels, they were converted
>> into auxiliary warships - and thus fair game.
>
> Sure about that? I looked at the relevant Hague conventions, and could
> find nothing of the sort. Where does it say that an armed merchant
> ship is a warship?
>
Convention VII is entirely dedicated to merchant ships converted into
>> That was true for civilian merchant vessels. Once these were fitted with
>> guns, however, they were no longer merchant vessels, they were converted
>> into auxiliary warships - and thus fair game.
>
> Sure about that? I looked at the relevant Hague conventions, and could
> find nothing of the sort. Where does it say that an armed merchant
> ship is a warship?
>
warships. It doesn not say that the conversion requires installing guns, but
I suppose that that would be a given if one wants a warship.
Note that any ship carrying out hostile behavior - say, attempting to ram
you and sink you - either is a pirate ship or a warship of an enemy
combatant. That's the understandable take of the Germans during WWI, as we
know very well because exemplified concretely by Fryatt's case.
Between the two, if I were a merchant vessel's skipper I'd prefer to be
treated as an enemy soldier entitled to POW status than as a pirate.
> The Kriegsmarine also deemed
>> that once the British merhcant ship commanders were under standing orders
>> to
>> take evasive maneuvers, to report any sighting of submarines by radio and
>> to
>> try and ram any submarine that came close, it was to be expected as a
>> standard reaction either a persistent refusal to be boarded or active
>> resistance, or both. Thus all enemy merchant vessels could be sunk
>> without
>> warning, and without taking care of the crew's safety.
>>
> That's plausible reasoning, but I don't see any basis in international
> law.
>
to assess the penalty for Doenitz on the orders to carry out unrestricted
submarine warfare against armed merchant vessels, which is mentioned in the
opinion and judgment. Which IMHO has some weight.
> In WWI and WWII, the laws of war regarding submarine warfare against
> surface ships were highly unrealistic, and were largely ignored by
> the Germans in WWI and pretty much everybody in WWII (the Germans,
> US, and Brits being the most effective at it).
>
> The pre-WWI restrictions were reaffirmed by the Washington Naval
> Disarmament treaty, but were promptly ignored in WWII.
>
> IIRC, Doenitz's council at Nuremberg asked Nimitz what Nimitz
> thought about the legality of unrestricted submarine warfare,
> and that helped his defense. (The "you did it too" defense
> was explicitly excluded at the IMT.)
>
weight.
Note however that there is a difference between the unrestricted submarine
warfare carried out by the USN and the one carried out by the Kriegsmarine.
The former only applied to enemy merchant vessels. The latter, to neutral
vessels too. Which are by definition unarmed and not fair game.
Rich Rostrom
Jan 28, 2013, 4:30:24 PM1/28/13
to
"Michele" <SPAMmiarmelNOT!@tln.it> wrote:
> Consider indeed the case of an unarmed enemy merchant vessel that, having no
> guns, tries anyway to sink your submarine by ramming it.
> ...The truck sports no guns, but it is being used itself
> Consider indeed the case of an unarmed enemy merchant vessel that, having no
> guns, tries anyway to sink your submarine by ramming it.
> as a weapon. Are you allowed to shoot? Yes.
Those cases are instructive, but the key point with
submarine warfare is: may the attacker fire on the
target without warning?
If the target is armed, then yes. It is not defenseless,
and not entitled to be treated as civilian.
Roman W
Jan 29, 2013, 12:02:46 AM1/29/13
to
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:53:55 -0500, "Michele"
<SPAMmiarmelNOT!@tln.it> wrote:
> Note that any ship carrying out hostile behavior - say, attempting
to ram
> you and sink you - either is a pirate ship or a warship of an enemy
> combatant. That's the understandable take of the Germans during
WWI, as we
> know very well because exemplified concretely by Fryatt's case.
> Between the two, if I were a merchant vessel's skipper I'd prefer
to be
> treated as an enemy soldier entitled to POW status than as a pirate.
How would a privateer be treated? Did people still carry letters of
<SPAMmiarmelNOT!@tln.it> wrote:
> Note that any ship carrying out hostile behavior - say, attempting
to ram
> you and sink you - either is a pirate ship or a warship of an enemy
> combatant. That's the understandable take of the Germans during
WWI, as we
> know very well because exemplified concretely by Fryatt's case.
> Between the two, if I were a merchant vessel's skipper I'd prefer
to be
> treated as an enemy soldier entitled to POW status than as a pirate.
marque during WW2?
RW
Bill Shatzer
Jan 29, 2013, 1:07:22 AM1/29/13
to
Roman W wrote:
>
> How would a privateer be treated? Did people still carry letters of
> marque during WW2?
Privateering and letters of marque were abolished by the 1856
>
> How would a privateer be treated? Did people still carry letters of
> marque during WW2?
Declaration of Paris. While not a formal treaty, by the end of the 19th
century, all the significant maritime nations had either acceded to the
Declaration or announced that they would observe its provisions despite
the lack of formal accession.
Apparently the last letters of marque were issued by Bolivia during the
1879 War of the Pacific.
Certainly no letters of marque were granted as late as WW2.
Michele
Jan 29, 2013, 10:07:40 AM1/29/13
to
"Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-...@mx05.eternal-september.org...
> "Michele" <SPAMmiarmelNOT!@tln.it> wrote:
>
>> Consider indeed the case of an unarmed enemy merchant vessel that, having
>> no
>> guns, tries anyway to sink your submarine by ramming it.
>
>> ...The truck sports no guns, but it is being used itself
>> as a weapon. Are you allowed to shoot? Yes.
>
> Those cases are instructive, but the key point with
> submarine warfare is: may the attacker fire on the
> target without warning?
>
> If the target is armed, then yes. It is not defenseless,
> and not entitled to be treated as civilian.
Definitely. But the cases above are important because Doenitz's counsel, the
>
>> Consider indeed the case of an unarmed enemy merchant vessel that, having
>> no
>> guns, tries anyway to sink your submarine by ramming it.
>
>> ...The truck sports no guns, but it is being used itself
>> as a weapon. Are you allowed to shoot? Yes.
>
> Those cases are instructive, but the key point with
> submarine warfare is: may the attacker fire on the
> target without warning?
>
> If the target is armed, then yes. It is not defenseless,
> and not entitled to be treated as civilian.
very effective Flottenrichter Kranzbühler, managed to demonstrate that,
given the standard policies employed by the enemy and the standard orders
issued to merchant ships, the submarine commanders were justified to expect
hostile behavior as a default reaction - that is, of course, by merchant
ships of enemy nations, it still does not justify the deliberate warningless
sinking of neutrals.
>From the Opinion and Judgment of the IMT:
"The evidence further shows that the rescue provisions were not carried out
and that the defendant ordered that they should not be carried out. The
argument of the defence is that the security of the submarine is, as the
first rule of the sea, paramount to rescue and that the development of
aircraft made rescue impossible. This may be so, but the Protocol is
explicit. If the commander cannot rescue, then under its terms he cannot
sink a merchant vessel and should allow it to pass harmless before his
periscope. The orders, then, prove Doenitz is guilty of a violation of the
Protocol.
In view of all the facts proved and in particular of an order of the British
Admiralty announced on the 8th May, 1940, according to which all vessels
should be sunk at sight in the Skagerrak, and the answers to interrogatories
by Admiral Nimitz stating that unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on
in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day that nation
entered the war, the sentence of Doenitz is not assessed on the ground of
his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare."
Michele
Jan 29, 2013, 10:08:37 AM1/29/13
to
"Roman W" <bloody_rabb...@gazeta.pl> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:almarsoft.7484...@news.plus.net...
I don't know because there were none, but my guess would be, as a pirate.
Fryatt was no privateer yet he was treated as a pirate.
Did people still carry letters of
> marque during WW2?
>
No. They had disappeared both by treaty and by customary law.
news:almarsoft.7484...@news.plus.net...
Fryatt was no privateer yet he was treated as a pirate.
Did people still carry letters of
> marque during WW2?
>
0 new messages