General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: Penants for neutrals sunk
Posted by:
J.T. McDaniel
()
Date: April 24, 2001 05:17PM
<HTML>By the time of that incident, US neutrality was decidedly one-sided. The original \"cash and carry\" policy, for instance, was literally neutral, in that it allowed sales to any country that could pay for the products and haul them away. Its effect, however, was less than neutral in the sense that only Britain had the merchant vessels available to collect the goods, while Germany, even if they had the ships available, would not have been able to get them home with the entire Royal Navy bent on stopping them. (It might be a major task to hunt down a raider, which could range over the whole ocean, but a merchantman would have to deliver its cargo to a German port, and the access points could be blocked with relative ease. Prior to the fall of France, just blocking the Skagerrak would have been sufficient.)
Lend-Lease was clearly not neutral, of course. Neither was the arbitrary extension of the US maritime protection zone beyond the traditional 3-mile limit. (Now 12, of course, China\'s opinion to the contrary.) Dönitz noted that, at one point, the zone had been extended so far into the Atlantic that it actually included other countries\' territories within it. The US Navy was given a pretty free hand in \"protecting neutrality,\" which mostly meant they could attack German warships and would ignore the British ones.
In any event, despite being technically neutral, Reuben James was acting the part of a belligerent. It was Germany, in this case, that was generally trying to exercise restraint and avoid doing anything that might provide an excuse for Roosevelt to ask for a declaration of war. The fact that both the US and Britain were using the same class of destroyer for escort service further confused the issue, and ultimately led to this incident.
J.T. McDaniel</HTML>
Lend-Lease was clearly not neutral, of course. Neither was the arbitrary extension of the US maritime protection zone beyond the traditional 3-mile limit. (Now 12, of course, China\'s opinion to the contrary.) Dönitz noted that, at one point, the zone had been extended so far into the Atlantic that it actually included other countries\' territories within it. The US Navy was given a pretty free hand in \"protecting neutrality,\" which mostly meant they could attack German warships and would ignore the British ones.
In any event, despite being technically neutral, Reuben James was acting the part of a belligerent. It was Germany, in this case, that was generally trying to exercise restraint and avoid doing anything that might provide an excuse for Roosevelt to ask for a declaration of war. The fact that both the US and Britain were using the same class of destroyer for escort service further confused the issue, and ultimately led to this incident.
J.T. McDaniel</HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
Penants for neutrals sunk
|
Dave McQueen | 04/24/2001 10:33AM |
|
RE: Penants for neutrals sunk
|
Ken Dunn | 04/24/2001 12:19PM |
|
RE: Penants for neutrals sunk
|
Dave McQueen | 04/24/2001 12:59PM |
|
RE: Penants for neutrals sunk
|
J.T. McDaniel | 04/24/2001 05:17PM |
|
RE: Penants for neutrals sunk
|
Robin Edwards | 04/26/2001 01:27AM |
|
RE: Penants for neutrals sunk
|
Ken Dunn | 04/26/2001 10:55AM |
|
RE: Penants for neutrals sunk
|
Rich Mickle | 04/26/2001 07:53PM |
|
RE: Penants for neutrals sunk
|
Walter M. | 04/30/2001 08:17PM |