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:
Walter M.
()
Date: April 30, 2001 08:17PM
<HTML>Dear Sirs,
war is war, not just a bold football match.
Any submarine skipper on operational chase-patrol considered a probable target any boat worth the price of a torpedo and acted accordingly. He had good reasons to behave like that: Q-ships and abuse of neutral flag were pretty common in both WW. Many neutral ships were usually carrying something that could be considered war cargo or were sailing in water declared to be “war zoneâ€. I believe that when a really neutral and international-law-abiding ship was mistakenly sunk, the War Department could always pretend she was hit by an old fashioned drifting mine got lose from a minefield. Anyway some mistakes were recognized by both sides and usually a matter like this was settled by monetarian compensation.
The sinking of Brazilian and Mexican ships was, technically speaking, legal because they were used on behalf of a belligerent Power. Many (but not all) of the Latin American States declared war upon Germany when her defeat was clearly foreseeable just to have an excuse for seizing the German assets within their territories. (Guatemala too, and then the famous “Nottebohn case†was started).
Regards.
Walter M.
</HTML>
war is war, not just a bold football match.
Any submarine skipper on operational chase-patrol considered a probable target any boat worth the price of a torpedo and acted accordingly. He had good reasons to behave like that: Q-ships and abuse of neutral flag were pretty common in both WW. Many neutral ships were usually carrying something that could be considered war cargo or were sailing in water declared to be “war zoneâ€. I believe that when a really neutral and international-law-abiding ship was mistakenly sunk, the War Department could always pretend she was hit by an old fashioned drifting mine got lose from a minefield. Anyway some mistakes were recognized by both sides and usually a matter like this was settled by monetarian compensation.
The sinking of Brazilian and Mexican ships was, technically speaking, legal because they were used on behalf of a belligerent Power. Many (but not all) of the Latin American States declared war upon Germany when her defeat was clearly foreseeable just to have an excuse for seizing the German assets within their territories. (Guatemala too, and then the famous “Nottebohn case†was started).
Regards.
Walter M.
</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 |