Re: Why did the US declare war on Germany?


Michele Armellini wrote:
> <rdubose@xxxxxxx> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:dg2hfi$jvi$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> > My point is that these things were rarely as tidy as one would want.
> > When the Germans tried to make the point that the L. was in fact a RN
> > vessel ferrying munitions that also happened to be carrying passengers
> > they were not 100% wrong.
>
> But all of that is perfectly irrelevant to the provisions of the London
> Naval Protocol of 1936 that Germany had signed.
>
>
> > > > And finally, what do you think W. Churchill would have done in his
> > > > place?
> > >
> > > Employ the same tactics _after_ the enemy had done that. This what the
> UK
> > > did in WWI and, to a certain extent, in WWII. Retaliation.
> >
> > Churchill, like J. Fisher, was adamant that treaties concerning the
> > conduct of warfare were mostly silly because states are not be expected
> > to lose a war, and face extinction, rather than violate some treaty.
> > His view, I think, was that being able to claim that ones opponents had
> > violated a treaty was a handy way to put them "in the wrong", but not
> > much else.
> > In both WWs, submarines were virtually the only offensive naval
> > weapon that Germany had a way to use. G.B. could have done without a
> > submarine force altogether. So it was no great inconvenience to wait
> > for the Germans to act first in this regard.
>
> You seem to be missing an important point. the laws of war were still, in
> WWI and WWII, partially customary laws. Therefore, precedents had a
> significant weight. The fact that one side chose to ignore a treaty that it
> had signed was relevant not only from the no-holds-barred POV, but also from
> the strictly legal POV. Likewise there were provisions for retaliations,
> etc.


Well, yes. But the un-avoidable question is the one I alluded to
before: Are nations at war ever going to accept defeat and extinction
because of limitations placed on them by a treaty signed in peacetime?
Did anyone at the treaty signing have this understanding? I do not
claim to know the exact answer to the latter part. My guess is that
there was as least as much wishful thinking involved as cold cynicism.
Maybe the Germans should not have signed those treaties, but maybe
the whole exercise was pretty hollow from the start.


>
> > There were parts of both WWs when submariners were under orders to
> > act within the treaty-rules. In both situations, WSC was First Lord of
> > the Admiralty. In both cases, every effort was made to use ordinary
> > appearing civilian vessels with hidden guns as submarine traps. Sub
> > comes in close to inspect, guns are rolled out and one hit was all it
> > took. That practice got very close to the edge of the spirit of the
> > law.
>
> Maybe. Still within what was provided about ruses de guerre, by the Hague
> Conventions of 1907. By the way, the Germans employed very similar tricks.

My understanding of military law in regard to civilians and civilian
ships is that it is formed around the core notion that for
non-combatants to be spared they must not take a part in fighting.
Likewise, combatants should not pretend to be civilians. That is how it
can make military sense to spare non-combatants.
Sure, ruses de guerre have been a staple of naval warfare but ships
that tried it were not likely to be handled with kid gloves and the
next look-alike vessel could expect to suffer from the loss of trust
also. It would be the same as hiding your troops in a crowd of
civilians, dressed as civians, but occasionally firing at the enemy.
That is why doing it pushes the boundaries of the spirit of law.




>
> > Likewise, the form of blockade imposed on Germany in both cases made
> > no distinction between war material or any kind of foodstuff for
> > civilians. The logic being that soldiers ate the same food and used
> > many of the same materials as civilans.
> > I do not mean this so much as criticism of those actions. But I do
> > want to make the point that they were never seen on the German side as
> > being any more justifiable than the sorts of things Germans did. And
> > there is a point there to see, IMHO.
>
> The first justification in the policy of war zones at sea imposed by Great
> Britain in WWI is that war zones at sea were first applied by Germany in
> that same war. If this was not justifiable in the eyes of the Germans, they
> should not have done that first.

One can find or make legalistic narratives for the policy in
1914-1919, on the other hand, the RN did not need any special
inspiration to set up a blockade in a war with Germany. It was a
centuries old instinct. It was at the heart of British thinking about
the use of naval power in any war with European powers since forever.
Is there an implication here that there would have been no
drum-tight British blockade if not for German provocation?


>
> Which brings us to the core of the matter. If you want your subs to be able
> to sink anything, fine - just don't sign naval agreements and protocols. But
> it was politically handier to sign them first, and break them later.
>
> Likewise, if you think that the "terror bombing" of cities is unacceptable,
> then don't start the war by doing just that on Polish cities. And so on.
> This was the overall German attitude to the whole issue of "unjustifiable"
> things in the war - that is, they were justified as long as they themselves
> were doing them.
>
>
> >
> > Sure, but this sort of dueling took place within the ethos of
> > "Gentlemanly Conduct." Individuals striving to maintain their honor
> > could not cheat without sacrificing and negating the very thing they
> > were supposedly fighting to sustain.
> > The total wars of the 20th century ocassionally had a thin layer of
> > that sort of thing smeared over them. If one looks at German propaganda
> > directed at its own Army, there seemed to be a strong need to foster a
> > sense of being the Good Guys who fought fairly like the knights of old.
> > I find that reassuring, in a limited sort of way.
> >
>
> I expected this sort of reply. Honor etc.
> It follows however that as you don't do a proper duel with a lackey, so you
> wage a Vernichtungskrieg on the subhumans.
>
> The problem with this is that the whole concept of the gentlemen's and
> knight's honor is utilitaristic at its root. You did not kill a unhorsed
> enemy knight because
> a) you could instead make a nice profit by ransoming him, and,
> b) you could end in the dust yourself some day, so you didn't do to the
> enemy knight what you wouldn't like to be done to you that day.
> In other words, the issue is not compliance with an idealistic code of
> conduct. It's the acknowledgement that both sides will be better off if they
> both comply with some rules.
>
> This is the same soundly utilitaristic idea that supports laws of war and
> treaties. It's a trade; I will not kill prisoners if you do the same. I will
> not sink hospital ships if you do the same.
> And the 20th century wars _could_ be waged while respecting that very basic
> bargain. Sides not complying with it were punished, and deservedly.
> Interestingly, even the concept that when one strives to win in order to
> survive no holds are barred etc. doesn't hold water. The side that did
> indeed not bar holds was not the one winning.

I do not really disagree with this part but I would rephrase some of
it. I would say that treating prisoners well is especially important
and wise if one is losing a war because you are likely to be a prisoner
yourself soon and turn-about is fair play, etc.
But these considerations apply most strongly to lower ranks. The
elites who decide on the taking of extreme measures often have
different priorities.


> --
--

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Intercept Algorithms and V1.
    ... I just love Eunometic's desperate belief as soon as the Germans ... enigma 'shark' code base station was used to transmit the frequencies ... Is this the short message system or the actual late war Kurier system? ... to avoid both noise or spot jamming. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: Re: a good government
    ... Jews are a race of parasites anyway. ... Jews are an enemy race and should not be in Germany anyway, ... TO have a war in order to keep the economy going? ... against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Jewish Attitudes to Dresden Bombing
    ... If it did not help end the war then it did not help end the war. ... Gulf War hearing commentary wrt the area bombing of Bagdhad that the ... Germans more resolved as well. ... was revenge for German attacks on civilians. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Hitlers peace feelers to Britain after the defeat of France 1940
    ... Hitler is not a top military man, ... The British had to take the threat seriously, in case the Germans ... If Hitler had not gambled on a possible war with Britain and France, ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Why wasnt the British army semi-elite?
    ... but by the same token the Germans don't have ... >short shift in favour of the big ships the German admirals realy wanted. ... Point 1) the great convoy battles really occurred in the middle of the war ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)