Dissent is good and one of the purposes of this forum.

I understand that it is your position that during the rescue operation the U-156 "was not able to be used for military purposes..."

I disagree. There was nothing but the decisions of the Commanding Officer on the U-156 that would prevent the U-156 to remain a viable combat vessel. The U-156 was not disabled nor were any of its offensive or defensive weapons impaired.

Further more, It is my position that the Commanding Officer of the U-156 considered his vessel to continue to be a viable combat vessel.

Reference a enclair transmission by the Commanding Officer of the U-156.

"If any ship will assist the ship-wrecked Laconia crew, I will not attack providing I am not being attacked by ship or air forces. I picked up 193 men. 4, 53 South, 11, 26 West" [uboat.net]


This would indicate that the U-156 was capable of offensive or defensive military operations but that the commanding officer was choosing not to engage in military operations.

I do not believe, I may be wrong, that Article 25 of ""Rules concerning the Control of Wireless Telegraphy in Time of War and Air Warfare" (1929) would consider a decision by the commanding officer to choose not to engage in military operations to qualify as a protected object (vessel).

It would be unreasonable to expect adversaries to be able to detect and interprete command intentions in such a case.

I would, however, be very interested in why you think that the U-156 was, in your words,"not able to be used for military purposes" during the rescue operation.

Respectfully,

Thomas