Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

[Jenisch]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WriE2b9CXQY

Perhaps some data provide is propaganda, but it surely hits the point of how mighy the institution was becoming before and after the war started. If it could focused against Hitler and Mussoline, probably things would not be good for them. Not to mention the USN.

 

[parsifal]

Lend Lease gave Britain vast amounts of military aid (aircraft, munitions, ships, financial aid) in return for access (lease) of a few islands.

Prior to lend lease was "Cash Carry" which required cash up front and that brit registered or controlled ships carry the munitions. I believe this policy was theoretically open to all belligerents, including germany, but for obvious reasons the germans never took advantage of it. Might be wrong on that score, as deliveries to Germany may have been deemed a breach of the neutrality act. Entry of Cash Carry ships into a war zone waqs not contrary to either international law, or US neutrality, since it was transpoting British goods in british ships.

To enforce US neutrality and gurantee protection of the New World, the US, with the agreement of all the other American States implemented the pan American Neutrality Zone, that was in the beginning a failry restricted area of ocean, bu moved progressively east as the war progressed. This was purely to protect "American" interests(American in the continental sense). Eventually it included Greenland, Iceland and the other Atlanitic Islands. And included the protection of all shipping within that zone. this was entirely leagal, and well within the limits set by International maritime law of the sea. The US did not make any unlawful claims on the economic resources of that area.....if German fisherman or merchantmen were found at sea they were left alone as far as I know by the pan American states. However defence aginst acts of piracy such as was occurring with the U-Boats and raiders were encountered they were to be met with force. eventually there were so many breaches of Pan American neutrality by the germans that the US issued orders to treat all German warships as hostile, whether or not they were the first to fire. This was slightly outside the terms of International law, but has been generally accepted as a reasonable resoponse to German breaches of the PanAmerican Neutrality Treaties. The US is generally seen as acting in self defence in these instances, even if by the latter half of 1941 they were shooting first and asking questions later.

The American Navy had been escorting British convoys almost to the West Coast of Ireland for 6 months prior to the war. They most
certainly did attack and depth charge u-boats. Even had a propganda campaigne to ensure Americans got their nose out of joint when a
u-boat fired back and a destroyer got sunk.

Not quite that far East, though by mid '41 it was a line about near the mid ocean of the Atlantic. I will dig out a map tonite to demonstrate.
Wouldnt descxribe it propaganda, at least in the context of WWII (though by todays standards it probably is propoaganda)....more like an information campaign.

These were called "neutrality patrols" and most certainly weren't.

Wrong. They most certainly were acts of neutrality, in both spirit and in terms of legalityu. they were acting to protect their own and other American intersts by enforcing the provisions of their own neutrality declarations. The Germans were operating in flagrant definace of those neutrality declarations by applying unrestricted U-Boat warfare (ie modern day piracy) on declared neutral shipping. Their problem, and a corner they only had themselves to blame for being backed into. Roosevelt had very cleverly outman allie

Certainly Hitler showed restraint and had plenty of reason to declare war.

Yopu have got to be kidding. Hitler (and the german Naval High Command) never showed the slightest restraint (well, to be fair Hitler hesitated for the first month of the war) in implementing unrestricted tonnage warfare in all areas of the world, against all neutral shipping (including Russian ships prior to June 1941). they implmented a policy of sink on sight, and issued illegal orders not to lend assistance to crews in distress. Unworkable rules you may argue, bu the rules of warfare that governed warfare against shipping, and more specifically wars against neutral shipping outside of a declared combat zone. The escalation in US belligerency was 100% Hitlers doing. The fact that his stupidity saved the allies the trouble of engineering US moves to war by more direct means is not the point. The point is, who casused the increased belligerncy of the US.....Hitler and his Admirals.

It would be interesting to speculate as to how damaging the lend lease funding of the British war effort and the neutrality patrols could be compared to outright war. Bomber commands efforts didn't require much manpower at all, it required bombers, foreign exchange to buy the aluminium needed for making the aircraft and the food for British workers who made them as well (and weren't exporting anymore) as well as fuel in large amounts: all of which US lend lease money could supply.

Would he have been better of NOT declaring war?

By December he had no choice. By his own impulsive actions he had placed Germany and the US in a state of undeclared war. My opinion is that within three months, even without Japanese attacks, the US and th4e European Axis would have been at war anyway, or germany forced to withdraw from the Naval blockade of Britiain, which would have MASSIVE implications on the war in all TOs.

 

[tomo pauk]

If I'm reading this right:
-It's not piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying anything to Germany, but it's piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying supplies to the UK
-Pan American neutrality (what ever that may be) is above International laws
-Protecting American interests half an ocean away is, both nominally and in spirit, act of legality. When other country protects it's interest half an ocean away, that's not an act of legality

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... If I'm reading this right:
-It's not piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying anything to Germany, but it's piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying supplies to the UK
-Pan American neutrality (what ever that may be) is above International laws
-Protecting American interests half an ocean away is, both nominally and in spirit, act of legality. When other country protects it's interest half an ocean away, that's not an act of legality..."

Substitute "Germany" for "France", "Pan American" for oceanic "Rule Britannia", tomo pauk, and you have a description of Britain's naval blockade of "continental" Europe (almost without interruption) from the 1790's until 1812. The Americans sure didn't like it when the Royal Navy boarded their vessels and "repatriated" (former) RN seamen -- they started a war over the issue that we'll be celebrating here in Canada, starting January, 2012. . Canada won.

What you have summarized certainly doesn't sound "fair". As you well know my friend, war is never "fair".

MM

 

[DonL]

To enforce US neutrality and gurantee protection of the New World, the US, with the agreement of all the other American States implemented the pan American Neutrality Zone, that was in the beginning a failry restricted area of ocean, bu moved progressively east as the war progressed. This was purely to protect "American" interests(American in the continental sense). Eventually it included Greenland, Iceland and the other Atlanitic Islands. And included the protection of all shipping within that zone. this was entirely leagal, and well within the limits set by International maritime law of the sea.

Nice Try!
Do you want to justify a reversal of evidence?
The pan America Neutrality Zone was based on nothing, it was simply a claim and declaration based on no International maritime law, no public international law, no international law or common law! In addition there was no situation from 1939 to 09.12.1942 of self-defence, after normal or international law rules, that would legitimate The pan America Neutrality Zone, compare for example the declaration of the naval blockade to Kuba at October 1962.

There is a 3 mile and a 12 mile area based on the International maritime law otherwise counts the freedom of the sea since 1609!
And in any other historical or modern war, GB and the USA accept only this rules if their interests were touched!

However defence aginst acts of piracy such as was occurring with the U-Boats and raiders were encountered they were to be met with force.

What do you want to imply with this sentence? That the U-Boats and commerce raiders equipped with uniformed soldiers and after an official declarition of war, were pirates after the rules of law? Please name the acts with sources were german submarines or commerce raider did piracy! And befor you answer this question, you should perhaps read again what piracy is!
Piracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

eventually there were so many breaches of Pan American neutrality by the germans that the US issued orders to treat all German warships as hostile, whether or not they were the first to fire. This was slightly outside the terms of International law, but has been generally accepted as a reasonable resoponse to German breaches of the PanAmerican Neutrality Treaties.

Next try to justify a reversal of evidence!
You can't breach against something, what is more or less a unilateral declaration based on no international rules, based on nothing that counts in an international common sense!

Wrong. They most certainly were acts of neutrality, in both spirit and in terms of legalityu. they were acting to protect their own and other American intersts by enforcing the provisions of their own neutrality declarations. The Germans were operating in flagrant definace of those neutrality declarations by applying unrestricted U-Boat warfare (ie modern day piracy) on declared neutral shipping.

It is new to me, that you can declare your own rules of neutrality based on international law, but perhaps you can lighten me up!

To make this clear, I don't adjudge the USA for it's single sided neutrality. It was Mr. Roosevelts politic and agenda and from his point of view ok. And everybody can have his opinion.

But at 2011, after countless of books from many serious historicans all over the world, it is near childish, to claim the USA neutrality wasn't single sided and this based on very flimsy arguments.

Edit:

What you have summarized certainly doesn't sound "fair". As you well know my friend, war is never "fair".

I agree and very wise!

But we all know the sense and the agenda behind the pan America Neutrality Zone, so why somebody writes a propaganda excuse from 1945 at 2011?

 

[tomo pauk]

"... If I'm reading this right:
-It's not piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying anything to Germany, but it's piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying supplies to the UK
-Pan American neutrality (what ever that may be) is above International laws
-Protecting American interests half an ocean away is, both nominally and in spirit, act of legality. When other country protects it's interest half an ocean away, that's not an act of legality..."

Substitute "Germany" for "France", "Pan American" for oceanic "Rule Britannia", tomo pauk, and you have a description of Britain's naval blockade of "continental" Europe (almost without interruption) from the 1790's until 1812. The Americans sure didn't like it when the Royal Navy boarded their vessels and "repatriated" (former) RN seamen -- they started a war over the issue that we'll be celebrating here in Canada, starting January, 2012. . Canada won.

What you have summarized certainly doesn't sound "fair". As you well know my friend, war is never "fair".

MM

Indeed.
Then it shouldn't be tried to sell to others as if it was.

 

[parsifal]

If I'm reading this right:
-It's not piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying anything to Germany, but it's piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying supplies to the UK
-Pan American neutrality (what ever that may be) is above International laws
-Protecting American interests half an ocean away is, both nominally and in spirit, act of legality. When other country protects it's interest half an ocean away, that's not an act of legality

Its not piracy to to stop, search and apprehend the enemy on the high seas. However there was a declared zone of belligerency, that the operations were supposed to be limited to. Within the Pan American Neutrality zone, the Germans were specifically prohibited from carrying out tonnage warfare. the Germans chose to ignore those declarations, which then allowed the US to retaliate.

The problem for the germans was where they undertook their operations (basically anywhere theyu liked) and their lack of observance of the rules of warfare on the high seas. They basically elected to shoot anything on sight (there were significant exceptions)....this evoked a response in kind from the British.

Further, the germans issued orders in 1941 to refuse any assistance to ships stricken by their hand. This was in breach of international law, and was something the British never engaged in, at least not as a matter of policy.

Ther is nothing illegal about sinking ships, or indeed taking steps to protect ones own merchant marines from enemy attack. But there were internationally accepted rules of engagement that applied to both sides (admittedly biased against the u-Boats) which the Germans chose to ignore from an early point. this gave the Americans and the British reason to respond. which they did

There is nothing illegal or wrong with mounting a blockade of enemy ports, or sinking an enemy ship. Its the way that the germans went about it that renders their operations essentially acts of modern day piracy, whilst the british and American operations remained closer to a legal compliance with the law.


It is perfectly legal for a nation, whether it be neutral, or a belligerent, to take any necessary steps to protect that shipping. The US could justify its "shoot on sight" policy against the germans because the germans were doing that to them. This has been the norm for neutral nations on the high seas since the spanish armada. The problems that caused the escalation arose because the Germans escalated the conflict to one of unrestricted warfare, and flouted the rules of the high seas by doing that. Sure the US and Britiain as major maritime nations had a significant hand in their formulation, but all maritime nations accepted these rules of enagement, whgich took several hundred years to evolve. It was Germany, not the US that decided they wanted to upend the rules, this gave the allies carte Blanche to retaliate

Tough but these are the breaks

A couple of observations.

The pan american neutrality zone was first discussed and had begun forming prewar.

The zone only extended for about 300 miles off the eastern US seabprd

 

[Hop]

If I'm reading this right:
-It's not piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying anything to Germany, but it's piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying supplies to the UK

It's wasn't piracy to board and inspect a ship, and to confiscate it if contraband was found. It could even be sunk, if contraband was found, after the crew and passengers had been made safe (and putting them in lifeboats at sea wasn't considered safe).

It was piracy to simply sink a ship without warning.

Britain had a large surface fleet which allowed them to stop and inspect merchant ships. Germany couldn't challenge the RN so used U boats, which were only effective if they ignored the rules of warfare and sank ships without warning.

-Protecting American interests half an ocean away is, both nominally and in spirit, act of legality. When other country protects it's interest half an ocean away, that's not an act of legality

I'd say it depends how they protect their interests.

The laws of naval warfare were created to protect civilians (passengers and crew). Obviously inspecting a ship didn't really put the passengers and crew at risk. Sinking their ship, especially without warning, did. Germany adopted a policy of sinking ships without warning, killing innocent civilians, because it couldn't challenge the British navy.

The US, by and large, sought to protect their civilians from that (illegal) German policy.

 

[Shortround6]

As I understand it (and could be way off) as an act of war a country could "blockade" another country. If the waters involved in the "blockade" also included routes to neutral country's or ports then the 'blockaders' had to stop and inspect the ship/cargo to try to figure out if it was bound for the country being blockaded or to a neutral, at times certain cargoes were prohibited from just being in the area. If the ship was bound for the blockaded country or carrying 'contraband' it could be seized and/or sunk and the crew incarcerated. If the ship was found to be "neutral" it was allowed to proceed to it's destination.
Submarines have a very limited ability to board ships and an even more limited ability to hold prisoners (crew of seized ship). The British had even used "Q" ships in WW I, armed freighters with hidden guns to lure U-boats in close to "inspect" them and then shooting up the U-boat at close range. Both sides knew what the "rules" were in WW I and how they were stacked against the U-boat operating like a surface ship BUT they were the rules and had not been changed or modified in any treaty between the wars.
It might have been OK to declare an "exclusion zone" (like a no fly zone) like the Germans did at times in WW I, that any ship with XX mils of the British coast was subject to sinking without warning, but nobody had figured out what a fair "exclusion zone" was. Just because the British mount more air patrols do the Germans get to push the "exclusion zone" hundreds of miles further out from the coast? How much of the Atlantic do the Germans get to claim as an "Exclusion zone". In 1940-41 Spain and Portugal were both Neutral as was Sweden. It would have been "legal" (but not smart) to sail a freighter through the Baltic to Leningrad, subject to searches by both the British and Germans.

The Germans knew from the WW I experience the problems with U-boat warfare, practical, tactical and political. They went ahead with it.

 

[parsifal]

So, what are the issues about what is legal and what is not legal on the and under the sea in WWII

This not a great source, but it kinda explains it to a tee, straight from wiki


Unrestricted submarine warfare is a type of naval warfare in which submarines sink merchantmen without warning, as opposed to attacks per prize rules (commonly known as "cruiser rules"). Cruiser rules demand submarines surface and search merchantmen,and place crews in "a place of safety" (for which lifeboats did not qualify, except under particular circumstances) before sinking them, unless the ship in question showed "persistent refusal to stop...or active resistance to visit or search".

Following the use of unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany in the First World War, countries tried to limit, even abolish, submarines. The effort failed. Instead, the London Naval Treaty required submarines to abide by "cruiser rules". These regulations did not prohibit arming merchantmen, but arming them, or having them report contact with submarines (or raiders), made them de facto naval auxiliaries and removed the protection of the cruiser rules. This made restrictions on submarines effectively moot. While such tactics increase the combat effectiveness of the submarine and improve its chances of survival, they are considered by many to be a clear breach of the rules of war, especially when employed against neutral country vessels in (or outside) a war zone.

Clearly, in the context of WWII the rules of engagement for Submarines were unworkable. However, the germans never made any attempt to even comply with some of those rules, or to adapt them so as to come close to compliance. in fact Donitz issued illegal orders to the effect that no assitance was to be offered by U-Boats (such as signalling positions where sinkings occurred, or giving directions to survivors of nearest land - something that individual U-Boat skippers had been doing up until that order was given). And whats more to the point is that the nations that owned those neutral ships that were being routinely attacked by the germans had every right to protect those ships whatever they were doing. What gets risked every time an incident occurs is that war might break out as a result of these acts......

Clearly also neutral nations can legitimately take action to stop such attacks against their ships and personnel. They are not limited to any particulalr area, but the US chose to impose that zonein the form of the neutrality zone. They didnt have to do that, but they did, I think to make clear to the belligerents that the US considered this zone to be a zone of special interest to them on security grounds.

People have raised objection of the term piracy, and asked me to provide examples of piracy undetaken by the germans. There were plenty of examples, though in the strictest sense it was more a case of privateering. A case in point is perhaps the capture of the Norwegian whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean. I think it was the raider Kormoran. norway had surrendered and whilst certain elements of the norwegian militasry were now fighting against the Germans (and were thus legitimate targets) the civilian merchant marines and civilian poulation were now under the direct care of the German military. That meant that the cargoes of these ships should have been escorted back to Norway or a neutral port for their own safety. Instead the raiders crew through the Norwegians off their ships, put in prize crews, and robbed the shipowners of their cargoes. A clear case of high seas piracy I am afraid.

The development of U-Boat policy is a clear example of the third reichs moral bankrutpcy. The following extract is taken from the following source
Submarine History 1914-1941: A Timeline of Development

The U-boat war started under "prize rules." But not for long. On the first day, U-30 sank the liner "Athenia" without warning; 122 of 1,100 passengers were killed, including 28 Americans. To their credit, the German High Command was stunned, although they tried to pretend that the sinking was caused by a time bomb planted by the British to inflame public opinion against Germany. As late as January 1940, Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels was ordering his staff "to continue running the "Athenia" propaganda . . . bearing in mind the fundamental principle of all propaganda, i.e. the repetition of effective arguments." The German public did not learn the true story until after the war.

Toward the end of September, the High Command authorized "seizure or sinking without exception" for merchant ships trying to radio for help when ordered to stop. A week later, U-boats were instructed to sink without warning any ship sailing without lights. The commanders were instructed to enter a note in the log that the sinking was "due to possible confusion with a warship or auxiliary cruiser."

By November, all pretense had been withdrawn with Standing Order No. 154: "Rescue no one and take no one aboard . . . Care only for your own boat and strive to achieve the next success as soon as possible! We must be hard in this war."

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... it shouldn't be tried to sell to others as if it was" [fair].

I introduced the term "fair", tomo pauk, because fair is so clearly NOT what is being sold .... on this Forum or by most historians. (On the other hand "unfair" is being sold all the time by social activists, liberal arts graduates and kindergarten teachers, world wide , "occupy this ..." ).

What is being advocated is that both WW1 and WW2 were ultimate triumphs (by the Allies) of the RULE OF LAW over ARBITRARY AGRESSION. For better or for worse, the english speaking world carried the heavy lifting of that triumph (Rule of Law) -- which is not synonymous with VICTORY in WW2. That glory is shared with the Soviets -- and the english speaking world respects and admires that Soviet contribution. But let's be perfectly clear, Soviet participation in WW2 had nothing to do with Rule of Law, as understood by the non-communist world.

War is not fair - we agree . The best we can hope for is Rule of Law that has broad international acceptance -- and strives to be fair (non arbitrary aggression).

Chairs,

MM

 

[tomo pauk]

michael, don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to say that everyone was evil. Germany started the war, it's atrocities were a planned systematic events, they sow the wing and reaped the whirlwind, no matter how that statement is away from a politic correctness.
It's the sudden appearance of Pan American neutrality zone (that can be comfortably expanded as seen fit by it's country of origin, USA) that is painted in the rosiest of all the rose colors. It was supposed to be above international law?? No, it was in force since it's creator was a big powerful state.
Further, to say that 'within PA neutrality zone, Germans were specifically prohibited to conduct a tonnage warfare' -by whom?? By the one that could expand 1000 x 14 or 16in shells, not by international law.
As for RN not allowing the ship carrying contraband to resume it's journey, should we than say that 100 tons of ammonia, heading for Germany, is contraband? Nope, it's a cargo, presumably paid for in advance.

But there were internationally accepted rules of engagement that applied to both sides (admittedly biased against the u-Boats) which the Germans chose to ignore from an early point.

Thank you.

For the events in 1941 influencing the events of 1939, well, that speaks volumes.

 

[Readie]

Germany started the war, it's atrocities were a planned systematic events, they sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind, no matter how that statement is away from a politic correctness.QUOTE]

Tomo, Its not a question of being PC its a statement of fact. No amount of historical rewriting and accusing the would be allies of foul play will ever alter that simple fact.
Germany was the aggressor, it made a series of high command blunders and basically made a balls up of WW2.
The victims were, as ever, the ordinary people on all sides of the conflict.
John

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... Thank you".

You're welcome, tomo pauk. I always take your posts seriously and greatly respect the insights that come from your part of Europe, and the associated historical experience.

Thank you.

MM

 

[parsifal]

michael, don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to say that everyone was evil. Germany started the war, it's atrocities were a planned systematic events, they sow the wing and reaped the whirlwind, no matter how that statement is away from a politic correctness.

This really isnt about attrocities, it was started because of a post that basically blamed the US for Germany declaring war. Said that the Americans gave the Germans casus belli to declare war, but the germans excercised great restraint....no they didnt exercise any restraint, they went straight to unrestricted warfare, ignored the declarartions of the Americans about the protection of certain partys of ocean, attacked US property and warships without warning. Of course the Americans were coralling them, but the point I make is that the germans made no attempt to avoid this situation.

It's the sudden appearance of Pan American neutrality zone (that can be comfortably expanded as seen fit by it's country of origin, USA) that is painted in the rosiest of all the rose colors. It was supposed to be above international law?? No, it was in force since it's creator was a big powerful state.

The Americans as they changed or moved their neutrality zone were reacting to German aggression, not the other way round. The Germans ignored the neutrality zones from day 1, this gave the Americans carte blanche to react, which they did.

I fail to see what the problem is of enforcing neutrality from the point of view of military strength. All the neutrals that stayed neutral were forced into that mold. Sweden, Switzerland, even Spain and turkey, were all forced to spend huge amounts on defence. The US was the biggest neutral in the world, and flexed its muscles in response to German activity, I see nothing wrong or illegal about that

Further, to say that 'within PA neutrality zone, Germans were specifically prohibited to conduct a tonnage warfare' -by whom?? By the one that could expand 1000 x 14 or 16in shells, not by international law.

The PA zone was a zone agreed upon by all of the American states, which is largely how brazil entered the war. It was perfectly legitimate for these states to say, in the adoption of the PA zone....this area is the area that our ships willbe defended, and we will enforce neutrality, with force if necessary. Its the sovereign right of any country to do that. Germany chose to ignore that (as did the brits at River Plate, which attracted a protest from the Americans, but then, what was the german raider doingt there in the first lace). Its not wrong for a neutral to protect its interests, its also open for a bellgerent to ignore those declarations, as the germans did, but to then try and say it was the fault of the US for that occurring....hardly.

Of course it was power, not the law that enforced the law. But in society, its not the law that enforces the law, its the police (a force). In this case the US was acting as the policeman, the Germans were acting like gangsters. The US operated more closely to the rules of international law, the germans did not. who was at fault, who was manouvered into a position of political and moral weakness. Roosevelt played the germans to a tee

As for RN not allowing the ship carrying contraband to resume it's journey, should we than say that 100 tons of ammonia, heading for Germany, is contraband? Nope, it's a cargo, presumably paid for in advance.

Germany and Britiain were both at war. The RN is in no way obligated to allow any German ships to pass. The Germans were also not prevented from sinking British or British controlled shipping (incidentally that is THE weak point of Roosevelts argument......who was controlling his ships and was he carrying contraband......)

What the Germans did wrong, as opposed to the British was that they (the Germans) did not observe the international rules of the sea in their prosecution of their sea war. That accusation can be applied to both their surface and their submarine operations. The British were able to conduct their war largely within legal parameter. That had benefits for the Britis that contributed to the the US entry on their side (in both wars)

The law is not the enforcement, its the standard by which we are judged, nothing more. The Germans chose (for some good reason) to ignore the standards of the law, the Allies did (well, sort of)....

Thank you.

Your welcome

For the events in 1941 influencing the events of 1939, well, that speaks volumes.

Of course the events of 1939 affected the events of 1941. The events of 1917 affected the events of 1941. The American states set up their PA zone in 1938, that affected the events of 1941. Everything is connected.

Whats your point. mine is that the germans chose to break the law, there was a price with that. they were the aggressor, not the American. The Germans chose to try and stomp on American intersts and positions. They paid a price for that.....they brought the US into the war more than anyone, and they lost that war, both events brought about by their command decisions.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... What the Germans did wrong, as opposed to the British was that they (the Germans) did not observe the international rules of the sea in their prosecution of their sea war. That accusation can be applied to both their surface and their submarine operations. The British were able to conduct their war largely within legal parameter. That had benefits for the Brits that contributed to the the US entry on their side (in both wars)

The law is not the enforcement, its the standard by which we are judged, nothing more. The Germans chose [ ... ] to ignore the standards of the law, the Allies did (well, sort of)...."

That is the nub of this argument. That speaks to a pattern of behavior that one sees in German Foreign and Military policy from unification right up to Barbarossa.
There is a strange 'quirk' in the national character that confuses logic with right . You see it again and again.

Germany wants to go through Belgium in 1914 to get to France. Germany says "let us pass and we won't hurt you. Interfere and we'll make you sorry ... very sorry ". Logic says in those circumstances, don't interfere. Courage and a sense of right says "Fight". And Germany brutalizes and destroys much of Belgium for 4 years.
"We told them what was going to happen to them" say the Germans, almost apologetically.

Germany attacks without warning the Low Countries in 1940. Bomb the hell out of the historic wooden bourse district of Rotterdam. German response when charged with atrocities: "We're sorry, but they really should have purchased modern fire fighting equipment".

The Germans PRONOUNCED their naval policy at the beginning of WW1 and WW2. These PRONOUNCEMENTS weren't legal statements - they were PRONOUNCEMENTS of German agression if they were ignored.

Again logic vs right. I tell you something you must obey. I tell you what will happen to you if you don't obey. If or when you don't obey me, I'm sorry that you got crushed but you knew what was going to happen. I told you."

Modern Germany I am happy to say, is much more relaxed but now finds itself with a different kind of challenge ....

BTB - all nationalities have quirks, eh

MM

 

[Njaco]

There is a strange 'quirk' in the national character that confuses logic with right . You see it again and again.

Its called "the Letter of the Law" verses "the Spirit of the Law".

 

[michaelmaltby]

There's another 'quirk' that is ... absolutely preoccupied with cleanliness and fascinated by excrement . Let's see you wiggle out of that Njaco.

"...the Letter of the Law" verses "the Spirit of the Law".

No. Both share the word LAW which .... we are saying ... the Germans tended to intentionally ignore

MM

 

[Njaco]

ouch!

D@mn, I'm just too tired to get into a mental sparring match. I wanted to explain myself further, but I'll just leave it at that.

 

[parsifal]

Letter and spirit are issues worth debating . Britain and the allies were criticized (rightly) for bending the rules prewar in their efforts to accommodate the germans....ie applying the spirit of the law rather than the letter ("czechoslavakia.....a creation of Versailles....has a significant minority of deutsches volk......a few slavs dont matter.....the sacrifice of a nation for the benenfit of the world....thats okay...isnt it????"). This stuff has a name, and is reviled today, with good reason. its called "appeasement"....bend a little for the greater good.....that sort of thing.

After Munich there was no bending, no spirit of the law applied. Germany was exposed as the rogue state that it was, and was dealt with accordingly, ie, application of the full letter of the law for her every move. Gurantees were given to her potential victims (and sadly could not be kept). The world shook itself and knew that a stand had to be made. That applied to the rules of war at sea as much as the rules of war on land. Trouble was, that by the time the Allies (including the US) got to that point, it was nearly too late to stop the Nazis.

The US was the only nation the Germans made a formal declaration of war on before attacks were initiated. That in itself says volumes for the german attitudes towards the rights of states that surrounded them.