Bismarck survivors

[sid guttridge]

Hi Kitsune,

I agree that the provisions of the London Naval Treaty as regards submarine sinkings certainly favoured those powers with large merchant fleets.

However, it should be remembered that these provisions were not a new extension of the rights of merchant vessels, they were simply a restatement of internationally recognised codes of conduct going back hundreds of years. The difference was that instead of it being implicit that submarines had to abide by them, it was now made explicit. This was because pre-20th Century rules had not specifically mentioned either surface or submarine attackers as there were no submarine attackers.

The second point is that Germany was not forced to sign the treaty. Given that under the Treaty of Versailles it was not even allowed submarines, its adherence to the London Naval Treaty in 1930 was then irrelevant.

Thirdly, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935(?) that allowed Germany to start building submarines again was predicated on Germany's prior adherence to the Treaty of London as to their legitimate use.

Germany repudiated the Anglo-German Naval Agreement in Apri(?) 1939.

Does anyone know if Germany ever repudiated the London Naval Treaty?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Tiornu]

The Germans didn't need to repudiate the London Treaty since they had never signed it. They effectively freed themselves of all such obligations when they trashed the Anglo-German accord.
I don't see how the London Treaty favors the British in any significant way. It accepted virtual parity between RN and USN cruiser forces, which was the final factor in dislodging the British from their centuries-old throne atop the world's navies. I think both the British and the Americans were ready to outlaw submarines altogether, but the Japanese wouldn't have it. Is that ironic, or what?

[sid guttridge]

Hi Tiornu,

You seem to be saying both that the Germans had no obligations under the London Naval Treaty and that Germany released itself from such obligations in 1939. It can't be both, so which is it?

One thing is clear. Germany could not legally repudiate the 1935 Naval Agreement with Britain without British consent, which was not forthcoming. All diplomatic agreements are dependent on the good faith of the signatories. Without it they have value and the world descends into chaos.

A bit like 1939 really, when Hitler repudiated or breached several agreements - Munich, the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact, the London Naval Treaty, etc.. The most outrageous was his breaching of his Non-Agression pact with Denmark - a country Churchill had specifically told that Britain could not protect and which had had a virtually pacifist government for twenty years.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Tiornu]

Article VI of the Tiornu-Sid Treaty says Tiornu agrees to abide by the restrictions of the Sid-Kitsune Treaty. When Tiornu then launches his long-awaited plan of intergalactic conquest, he denounces the Tiornu-Sid Treaty. The Sid-Kitsune limits are effectively negated for Tiornu even though he never specifically addressed that treaty.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Tiornu,

I would refer you to Secret Protocol II (b) of the aforementioned Tiornu-Sid Treaty (known over here as the Sid-Tiornu Treaty of Mutual Admiration and Eternal Amity):

"Both signatory parties agree that each would be well advised to watch his own back in the event of a unilateral breach of Articles I-VI by the other other party. The aggrieved party is then entitled to feel rather miffed and to express impotent righteous indignation."

Yours in unbreakable peace, solidarity and fraternity,

Sid.

[Tiornu]

Hee! Ssshh, it's a secret.
I found something that should bring the point home regarding warships stopping to rescue survivors. You all know about Wilhelm Gustlov, I'm sure. Hipper was in position to go to the rescue, yet did not--the risk of submarine attack was too great. So the cruiser survived, and multiple thousands of people died.

[Visje]

Hee! Ssshh, it's a secret.
I found something that should bring the point home regarding warships stopping to rescue survivors. You all know about Wilhelm Gustlov, I'm sure. Hipper was in position to go to the rescue, yet did not--the risk of submarine attack was too great. So the cruiser survived, and multiple thousands of people died.

She did however leave behind her escort. Stopping to rescue survivors is a matter of weighing risks and humanity. Gretton had to leave behind survivors during an Atlantic convoy attack because a hole in the A/S defence of the convoy would be too much a risk. This was not an exceptional situation.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Tiornu,

I was just about to make the same point about the Wilhelm Gustloff, having found a reference to it in "Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939-1945".

Cheers,

Sid.

[Tiornu]

The Germans risked nothing larger than a torpedo boat in the rescue operations, even for the sake of their own people.

[Edelweiss.]

Really? It would seem to me that it was a Kriegsmarine U-Boat ace who initiated the greatest rescue attempt of the war. Kapitanleutnant Werner Hartenstein proceeded to rescue over 400 survivors after he had struck the liner Laconia with two torpedoes. Hartenstein even arranged for the survivors to be lined up on the deck of his U-Boat (U-156), in addition to his use of life rafts to accommodate the survivors. Hartenstein sailed on, displaying the Red Cross symbol as he went - before being attacked by two USAAF aircraft, after which he was obliged to relinquish his accommodation of survivors for the safety of his own vessel, in adherence to the laws of naval warfare.

The image below shows just how Hartenstein was able to achieve this monumental feat.



The article concerning the Laconia Incident can be found here:
http://www.uboat.net/articles/index.html?article=33

Regards,
Edelweiss

[sid guttridge]

Hi Tiornu,

According to "War and Treaties" by Arnold D. McNair (p.11).

"Perhaps the most flagrant violations of this type of treaty by Germany are the sinking of merchant ships, allied and neutral, by submarines, contrary to the London Naval Treaty of 1930, TO WHICH SHE IS A PARTY." (My EMPHASIS).

Cheers,

Sid.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Edelweiss,

I think Tiornu may have been referring specifically to the Wilhelm Gustloff incident.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Tiornu]

If he's trying to say Germany was a signatory to the London Treaty, he's obviously wrong. If he's trying to say that Germany had been bound by the restrictions in the London Treaty, that would be true as long as Germany was bound by the Anglo-German treaty. I believe.

[Visje]

If he's trying to say Germany was a signatory to the London Treaty, he's obviously wrong. If he's trying to say that Germany had been bound by the restrictions in the London Treaty, that would be true as long as Germany was bound by the Anglo-German treaty. I believe.

And before that, Germany was bound by Versailles (just for completeness)

Visje

[Edelweiss.]

Tiornu, Sid, my mistake. I apologise.

Regards,
Edelweiss

[Kitsune]

But didn't the US of A sign the treaty, too? They did or am I mistaken? Haven't they waged an similiar submarine war gainst Japanese cargo ships? Isn't this a violation of this treaty,too? Is this mentioned in the Book, from which sid quoted? Has G. Britain ever complained about this?

So many questions...