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:
Ken Dunn
()
Date: April 26, 2001 10:55AM
<HTML>Hi Robin,
Yes I would. In fact if I remember correctly I have used those two examples in another post. However, in both cases the U-boats claimed that at least some of them were fair targets under their rules of engagement at the time. I say some of them because I have only read about a couple of the cases. They did report all of them.
In the case of Mexico, the ship that was the last straw (I can’t remember it’s name) claimed it wasn’t doing anything wrong at the time but the U-boat commander said she was sailing a zigzag course at night with her lights out. The Mexican ship claimed it had its lights on.
Once Mexico declared war on the Axis, her army conducted joint training exercises with the American army. Also Mexico sent fighters to the Philippines where they flew combat missions.
In the case of Brazil I don’t know if we had access to airfields there at the time but I remember reading somewhere that forcing Brazil into the war by sinking their ships was a very bad mistake for Germany because they subsequently allowed us the use of their airfields. Perhaps it was just expanded use of their airfields. But in any case, it hurt Germany.
In both cases the countries in question were aiding Germany’s enemy and therefor were only technically neutral. I have strong feelings about the “neutral†countries that helped the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. We should not have let that happen to the degree that it did. A lot of our guys died because the rules of engagement did not allow us to take out certain missile batteries and storage areas and safe havens for enemy troops actively engaged in the war. Would the war have widened? In the end we did attack these areas, the war didn’t widen, and the North Vietnamese came to the peace table, and that is where we lost the war. It seems you are dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t.
In the case of our helping Germany’s enemies during the time we were considered neutral, I think it was the right thing to do. Hitler needed to be stopped. We should however have expected to take causalities. Germany showed considerable restraint in our case even though we helped her enemy in a big way. However, declaring war on us was in my opinion a very stupid move. It allowed us to jump in with both feet.
The German rules of engagement went from very restrictive to very liberal over the course of the war.
Another interesting fact is that at least early in the war Germany announced some of the ships sunk by U-boat. I noticed a couple of American newspaper articles to that effect published in March of 1942 while I was researching the sinking of my dad’s ship. I don’t know if any of the neutral ships sunk were announced though. The next time I am in the library, I’ll see if I can find some. Those old newspaper articles are a great read.
Regards,
Ken Dunn
</HTML>
Yes I would. In fact if I remember correctly I have used those two examples in another post. However, in both cases the U-boats claimed that at least some of them were fair targets under their rules of engagement at the time. I say some of them because I have only read about a couple of the cases. They did report all of them.
In the case of Mexico, the ship that was the last straw (I can’t remember it’s name) claimed it wasn’t doing anything wrong at the time but the U-boat commander said she was sailing a zigzag course at night with her lights out. The Mexican ship claimed it had its lights on.
Once Mexico declared war on the Axis, her army conducted joint training exercises with the American army. Also Mexico sent fighters to the Philippines where they flew combat missions.
In the case of Brazil I don’t know if we had access to airfields there at the time but I remember reading somewhere that forcing Brazil into the war by sinking their ships was a very bad mistake for Germany because they subsequently allowed us the use of their airfields. Perhaps it was just expanded use of their airfields. But in any case, it hurt Germany.
In both cases the countries in question were aiding Germany’s enemy and therefor were only technically neutral. I have strong feelings about the “neutral†countries that helped the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. We should not have let that happen to the degree that it did. A lot of our guys died because the rules of engagement did not allow us to take out certain missile batteries and storage areas and safe havens for enemy troops actively engaged in the war. Would the war have widened? In the end we did attack these areas, the war didn’t widen, and the North Vietnamese came to the peace table, and that is where we lost the war. It seems you are dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t.
In the case of our helping Germany’s enemies during the time we were considered neutral, I think it was the right thing to do. Hitler needed to be stopped. We should however have expected to take causalities. Germany showed considerable restraint in our case even though we helped her enemy in a big way. However, declaring war on us was in my opinion a very stupid move. It allowed us to jump in with both feet.
The German rules of engagement went from very restrictive to very liberal over the course of the war.
Another interesting fact is that at least early in the war Germany announced some of the ships sunk by U-boat. I noticed a couple of American newspaper articles to that effect published in March of 1942 while I was researching the sinking of my dad’s ship. I don’t know if any of the neutral ships sunk were announced though. The next time I am in the library, I’ll see if I can find some. Those old newspaper articles are a great read.
Regards,
Ken Dunn
</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 |