Lusitania

[Readie]

A lot of talk about 'war crimes'.

The global community frowned on the RN's blockade of Germany and the attempt to starve all Germans into submission.

Blockade of Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this a 'war crime' too.


A lot of Europe was in a world of **** by 1915 and anything went..... anything.

Such is war and you cannot say that in WW1 any combatant nation was more noble than the others. Individuals may be, but not countries.

Just my thoughts.

 

[VBF-13]

1907 part 5 "CHAPTER I The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers Article 1. The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable"

?

Judging by your three posts to this point I think you have the best handle on this.

 

[GrauGeist]

Warning that you are going to commit a war crime, doesn't make it any less of a war crime.

Sorta like shooting down Sea Rescue aircraft that are painted white with red crosses on thier wings/fuselages?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

A lot of talk about 'war crimes'.

The global community frowned on the RN's blockade of Germany and the attempt to starve all Germans into submission.

Blockade of Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this a 'war crime' too.


A lot of Europe was in a world of **** by 1915 and anything went..... anything.

Such is war and you cannot say that in WW1 any combatant nation was more noble than the others. Individuals may be, but not countries.

Just my thoughts.

A lot of things that we consider criminal today, were the norm for combat then...

 

[Readie]

A lot of things that we consider criminal today, were the norm for combat then...

Its dangerous to apply 2013 morals to a situation nearly 100 years ago.

If there are any 'criminals' then I would point the figure at the generals that allowed the loss of 20,000 men a day.

But, that's another subject.

 

[Marcel]

Austro-Hungary deserves the major credit for WW1

Wrong, much of the blame lies with France and Russia and then Germany. The Austro-Hungarians were attacked, their next king was killed, what were they supposed to do. Their mistake was that they were not smart in diplomacy, allowing the other countries to use their misfortune to start a big war.

 

[GrauGeist]

Sinking hospital ship is war crime if deliberate.

The RMS Hesperian was actually not a Hospital Ship...it carried cargo, some passengers and convolescent Canadian soldiers on it's way to North America

There were 23 Hospital Ships sunk during WWI. Most struck mines, some were torpedoed and a few ran aground. The one exception to the list is the German Hospital Ship HS Tabora, it was sunk by shellfire from the HMS Vengeance and the HMS Challenger.

 

[redcoat]

Sorta like shooting down Sea Rescue aircraft that are painted white with red crosses on thier wings/fuselages?

The war crime in this case was the painting of red crosses on to search and rescue aircraft.
Under the Geneava Convention only aircraft involved solely in the transport of the sick and wounded were allowed the protection of these markings, and even these aircraft were not allowed to fly near the combat zone without the express permission of all combatants

 

[redcoat]

The RMS Hesperian was actually not a Hospital Ship...it carried cargo, some passengers and convolescent Canadian soldiers on it's way to North America

The hospital ship deliberately fired on by the U-20 was the HMHS Asturias.

 

[redcoat]

Wrong,

They wanted a war, they got a war, just not the one they wanted.

 

[redcoat]

1907 part 5 "CHAPTER I The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers Article 1. The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable"

?

I stand corrected.

 

[GrauGeist]

HMHS Asturias was sunk by UC-66, a mine-laying submarine, on 20 March 1917, off Start point.

 

[redcoat]

HMHS Asturias was sunk by UC-66, a mine-laying submarine, on 20 March 1917, off Start point.

Indeed, fortunately the torpedo fired at this ship by the U-20 missed.
However, as you point out the torpedoes later fired by the UC-66 did hit the ship.

 

[GrauGeist]

The war crime in this case was the painting of red crosses on to search and rescue aircraft.
Under the Geneava Convention only aircraft involved solely in the transport of the sick and wounded were allowed the protection of these markings, and even these aircraft were not allowed to fly near the combat zone without the express permission of all combatants

I see you accidently missed the war crime committed by the battleship Vengeance and the cruiser Challenger...

These initially were unarmed aircraft rendering aid to all flyers downed in the channel. When they started coming under attack, they armed themselves but it got to the point where they no longer conducted rescue missions under the original Sea Rescue operations. The excuse for attacking them made by Churchill was extremely thin, and many RAF pilots were saved because of the Luftwaffe rescue operations, as the British plan was sadly lacking at the start of the war.

An unarmed aircraft clearly marked with red crosses is unmistakable internationally and using your logic, would certainly constitue a "war crime" against whomever shot the aircraft down.

 

[GrauGeist]

Indeed, fortunately the torpedo fired at this ship by the U-20 missed.

Impossible...the U-20 that sank the Lusitania and the RMS Hesperian ran aground on 4 November 1916 and was destroyed by her crew to avoid being captured.

Besides, emphatically stating that the U-20 sank this or that and then follow up with "oh, it fired but missed" is doing nothing for your point...

 

[redcoat]

I see you accidently missed the war crime committed by the battleship Vengeance and the cruiser Challenger...

I didn't miss it I've never argued the British/Allies didn't commit any war crimes

These initially were unarmed aircraft rendering aid to all flyers downed in the channel. When they started coming under attack, they armed themselves but it got to the point where they no longer conducted rescue missions under the original Sea Rescue operations. The excuse for attacking them made by Churchill was extremely thin, and many RAF pilots were saved because of the Luftwaffe rescue operations, as the British plan was sadly lacking at the start of the war.

Churchill wasn't behind the orders to shoot down these aircraft, it was Dowding.
The luftwaffe was rescuing healthy aircrew from the sea, aircrew if rescued could be flying against Britain within hours of rescue

An unarmed aircraft clearly marked with red crosses is unmistakable internationally and using your logic, would certainly constitue a "war crime" against whomever shot the aircraft down.

No. The Luftwaffe was using these markings illegally, so under the terms of the treaty the British were within their rights to take action against these aircraft.

Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 27 July 1929.

Art. 18. Aircraft used as means of medical transport shall enjoy the protection of the Convention during the period in which they are reserved exclusively for the evacuation of wounded and sick and the transport of medical personnel and material.
They shall be painted white and shall bear, clearly marked, the distinctive emblem prescribed in Article 19 [ Link ] , side by side with their national colours, on their lower and upper surfaces.
In the absence of special and express permission, flying over the firing line, and over the zone situated in front of clearing or dressing stations, and generally over all enemy territory or territory occupied by the enemy, is prohibited.
Medical aircraft shall obey every summons to land.
In the event of a landing thus imposed, or of an involuntary landing in enemy territory and territory occupied by the enemy, the wounded and sick, as well as the medical personnel and material, including the aircraft, shall enjoy the privileges of the present Convention.
The pilot, mechanics and wireless telegraph operators captured shall be sent back, on condition that they shall be employed until the close of hostilities in the medical service only.

 

[redcoat]

Impossible...the U-20 that sank the Lusitania and the RMS Hesperian ran aground on 4 November 1916 and was destroyed by her crew to avoid being captured.

Besides, emphatically stating that the U-20 sank this or that and then follow up with "oh, it fired but missed" is doing nothing for your point...

I have not made any reference to the RMS Hesperian in any of my posts.

 

[VBF-13]

Warning that you are going to commit a war crime, doesn't make it any less of a war crime.

That statement assumes the fact this was a war crime. I don't know that trying to stop a vessel this size that was going by this sub at twice the sub's top speed and about to be out of position for a shot within a matter of seconds was a war crime. This from Schwieger's log on what a 1-ton torpedo striking a 7/8ths-inch steel hull did to this mammoth vessel...

"...shot hits starboard side right behind bridge. An unusually heavy detonation follows with a very strong explosion cloud (high in the air over the smokestack). Added to the explosion of the torpedo there must have been a second explosion (boiler, coal, powder). The superstructure over point struck and the high bridge are rent asunder and fire breaks out and envelopes entire bridge. The ship stops immediately and quickly heels to starboard. At the same time diving deeper at the bow..."

There was an intervening cause for this disaster...wasn't there?

 

[bbear]

On air sea rescue: Just in case anyone runs away with a strange idea about Dowding. He was firm and consistent on this point. An RAF pilot in a parachute over home soil was a potential combat re-entrant and a fair target. An LW crew member parachuting over the UK was a potential prisoner of war and sacrosanct, untouchable.

That's the rules of war i guess - about as sensible as a mad march hare.

 

[GrauGeist]

I not made any reference to the RMS Hesperian in any of my posts.

I think we're stuck in an endless loop here...

The U-20 (SM U-20) that sank the Lusitania also sank the Hesparian, those were the only two passenger ships in it's prize listing.

Both were sunk during it's time of service between 1913 and 1916.

So when you keep referring to a hospital ship, that would be the only possible candidate, because the hospital ship you referred to by name was sunk after the U-20 was out of action and by an entirely different submarine.