Is it a war crime?

[Einsamer Wolf]

On my return to St. Nazaire, sailing in the Bay of Biscay, the Watch Officer spots a British trawler. The weather is pristine, so I order deck and flak guns to be manned, and proceed at maximum speed towards the trawler. Once in range, the deck gun crew opens fire, sinking it in less than three minutes.
My question is--would it be considered a war crime to attack trawlers and fishcutters. They have no military value or purpose. It seems like these are exclusively civilian targets.
Should the trawler have radioed for help, and should the captain have noticed my emblem, I suppose it could be trouble for myself and my crew should Germany lose the war.

EW

[Dantenoc]

Don't worry about it... like you said, you'll only get in trouble if Germany looses the war :88) :88) :doh: :doh:

ha ha ha

On a more serious tone, if the game gives you renown for it, then its fair game :yep:

Edit: well... come to think about it, every single ship you sink is in reality a civilian ship... the strategy is one of victory through attrition, not military conflict. It was the same with strategic bombings from both sides.

[Tikigod]

in the game they will still radio in your position....you are to sink them...its all part of the fog of war anyway......

[panthercules]

certainly - sink them - they are clearly up to no good - there are any number of military purposes they could be fulfilling:

1. Spotting u-boats and other German naval movements and calling in air strikes or just reporting them to the Admiralty for tracking purposes;

2. Signals intelligence - intercepting German u-boat or other naval communications for the boys back at Blechley park to help them try to break our invincible Enigma codes;

3. Weather reports in preparation for allied air strikes or attacks like the Dieppe raid, Normandy invasion, etc.;

4. Pilot rescue picket duty for allied airmen having to ditch at sea because they're unable to make it back to their bases;

5. Catching fish that will be used to make fish and chips to be served to Royal Navy destroyer crews when in port laying over from convoy escort patrols, fortifying them to return to sea to attack your u-boat.

nuff said :)

[Ducimus]

I think their still classfied as commerce.

Local commerce granted, but a fishing trawler is still providing food to the enemy. Sinking a trawler in and ofitself isnt a crime i dont think.

[Einsamer Wolf]

Edit: well... come to think about it, every single ship you sink is in reality a civilian ship... the strategy is one of victory through attrition, not military conflict. It was the same with strategic bombings from both sides.


I do not think so. A C3 stowed with allied armor en route to North Africa is a military target. There may be collateral damage, but it is still an intrinsically valid target. I just do not feel that nailing a fish cutter or trawler is a legitimate target--unless someone can convince me otherwise.
For what it is worth, I am very critical of the actions of the Anglo-American alliance for bombing civilian targets, for colluding with Stalin (See de Zayas A Terrible Revenge), among myriad other transgression in an overall climate of astounding hypocrisy. Truth be told, I am an old-school Nazi sympathizer a la Joerg Haider and Ernst Nolte.
But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Moral excesses are to be condemned on both sides. If I condemn the Allies for certain abuses, the standard should be applied the same on the other side.
Not that I have much respect for International Law, taking such great precedent from the Siegerjustiz at Nuremberg--but does anyone know if there is any precedent on whether shooting a fishing cutter or trawler is a war crime in naval engagements like this? In addition to what I wrote, it is of interest because the U Boot Waffe in particular was quite scrupulous about these things. And I do not seem them intentionally engaging such a target with no military or strategic purpose.

EW

EW

[Ducimus]

And the thread takes a crash dive into poltics and idiology.


weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

[Einsamer Wolf]

I am just placing my query in its proper context.

EW

[Einsamer Wolf]

For what it is worth, I posted a query on uboat.net about the parameters of international law on this.

[AO1_AW_SW_USN]

If you are running IUB 10.2 look really close, some of the Tug Boats carries a deck gun and a small rack of DC's. I don't know if it's in the vanilla SH3 or in RUB, but look anyway.

During the Cold War, England and the US used fishing trawlers and sea going Tug Boats as ASW platforms called SURTASS boats. They appared to be going about doing regular civillian work like net fishing. In reality they used towed array cables with thousands of microphones listening for Soviet submarines.

I wonder if they did the same in WWII? I'll do some research. Maybe then it will justify giving those targets the “Deep-6”.

[Khayman]

No it's not a war crime. If memory serves then the prosecution at Nuremberg brought forth instances of u-boats sinking trawlers - as an example of barbarism.

I believe Donitz pointed out that all British ships, no matter their size or purpose, had been ordered to report U-boat sightings. That made them fair game.

I think the prosecution withdrew that charge. Indeed WW2 US Subs in the Pacific sank sampams and other small ships for the very same reason.

[AntEater]

Well, trawlers engage in commerce, hence they are fair game.
In WW1 the U-Boats waged a regular war on fishing trawlers in the north sea which caused the british to use Q-Ships.
In the Pacific, the US and british sank hundreds of trawlers, sampans, junks and whatever. Problematic was that except for japanese waters, most of the people killed were not japanese, but Indonesians, Filipinos, Malay or whatever. The US subs still had no restriction in sinking trawlers which MIGHT feed japanese troops, even if "friendly" natives were killed.
In the med, both sides shot up small sailing vessels, often also manned by greeks, arabs or whatever....

[Einsamer Wolf]

Anteater and Khayman,

Your responses were very informative. Thanks. I suppose a drop in the bucket rational applies--and contribution to the war time economy makes it fair game. It is one I am not sure I agree with, however.... Given that these vessels had orders to report enemy sightings, that justifies it further.
I think if Nuremberg backed down, that says a lot. I have explained how I take great exception to how Nuremberg played out. The conviction of Kurt Meyer, Karl Doenitz, Albert Speer, to name just a few, belie the courts false Siegerjustiz. That even the Nuremberg tribunal could not trump up charges based on the sinking of these targets eliminates any question whatsoever. They are fair game.

EW

[Einsamer Wolf]

Did they use torpedos or deck guns for this? A torp for a trawler seems rather expensive, unless you stumble on them on your way home and have torps to spare.

As I wrote in the initial post:

On my return to St. Nazaire, sailing in the Bay of Biscay, the Watch Officer spots a British trawler. The weather is pristine, so I order deck and flak guns to be manned, and proceed at maximum speed towards the trawler. Once in range, the deck gun crew opens fire, sinking it in less than three minutes.

Actually, a trawler would be too small to hit with a torpedo--and no its not worth the cost of a torpedo in my estimation at least. Strictly a deck gun affair.

EW[/quote]

[Sailor Steve]

Well, trawlers engage in commerce, hence they are fair game.
In WW1 the U-Boats waged a regular war on fishing trawlers in the north sea which caused the british to use Q-Ships.
In the Pacific, the US and british sank hundreds of trawlers, sampans, junks and whatever. Problematic was that except for japanese waters, most of the people killed were not japanese, but Indonesians, Filipinos, Malay or whatever. The US subs still had no restriction in sinking trawlers which MIGHT feed japanese troops, even if "friendly" natives were killed.
In the med, both sides shot up small sailing vessels, often also manned by greeks, arabs or whatever....
Exactly the point I was going to bring up. I have seen photos of American destroyers sinking sampans, and they are simple sailing vessels.

Sinking an enemy ship or boat is a part of war. If you don't sink them, you are to be praised for your humanity. If you do sink them, that's part of the job.

Personally, I don't like to waste the ammo.

[Letum]

If you sink one then 1000 will have to think twice before leaveing port!
This makes it well worth the ammo. :arrgh!:

[AntEater]

Historically, by deck gun or ramming, or by boarding and scuttling with charges or simply by setting it on fire.
Many crews made a lot of fun out of such "pirate style" boarding.
German VIICs in the med often sank small motor sailboats by ramming, off the Lebanese/Palestine coast. I suppose none of these was manned by british.
British boats did the same in the aegean.
US submarines used flak guns or main guns for sampans, or small arms of the crew.

[Einsamer Wolf]

Actually, a trawler would be too small to hit with a torpedo--and no its not worth the cost of a torpedo in my estimation at least. Strictly a deck gun affair.


I meant historically, IRL.

I am speaking historically, and in game play.

EW

[Highbury]

Well considering the original question is on the legality of attacking these ships, the answer is NO it is not a war crime.

The RAF regularly engaged small fishing craft of the enemy while on 'rhubarbs' (short offensive sweeps). The reasons for this as given by Douglas Bader were to prevent them signalling, and because they are supplying the enemy.

Branch of the service, or country you serve are irrelevant. Clearly fair game, in SHIII and in RL.

[Luuraja]

Personally, in game, I do not attack any fishermen ship if its not armed. If it's armed - PERSSE (it's same as Dowly's PERKELE), its better to search for more suitable targets.
My granddad was fisher in these stormy days of WWII.

And I do not attack passenger liners. No matter if these are in fact troop transports.

[Einsamer Wolf]

Personally, in game, I do not attack any fishermen ship if its not armed. If it's armed - PERSSE (it's same as Dowly's PERKELE), its better to search for more suitable targets.
My granddad was fisher in these stormy days of WWII.

And I do not attack passenger liners. No matter if these are in fact troop transports.

Ocean liners are obviously a military target, since they are converted troop transports.

EW

[CWorth]

Ocean liners are obviously a military target, since they are converted troop transports.
EW

Actually you are incorrect...

According to Hitlers Directive #5 of Sept.30,1939

All Passanger Liners were considered off limits.

Directive #5
Trade War will in general be waged in accordance with Prize Law with the following exceptions:

Merchant ships and troopships definitely established as being hostile may be attacked without warning.

This also applies to ships sailing without lights in waters round England.

Merchantmen which use their radio transmitters after being stopped will be fired upon.

Attacks on passenger ships, or large ships which obviously carry considerable numbers of passengers in addition to cargo,are still forbidden.

http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/proc/proclamtion.htm

[canimo]

WAR CRIMES = something your enemy does, but you dont !! :D :D :D

[jasondef]

WAR CRIMES = something the losers of war are guilty of, but the victors of war are immune to!

[Einsamer Wolf]

Ocean liners are obviously a military target, since they are converted troop transports.
EW

Actually you are incorrect...

According to Hitlers Directive #5 of Sept.30,1939

All Passanger Liners were considered off limits.

Directive #5
Trade War will in general be waged in accordance with Prize Law with the following exceptions:

Let me rephrase--an ocean liner alone probably civilian. An ocean liner in a convoy is presumed to be a military target. Some converted liners were sunk, if memory serves me correctly.

EW
Merchant ships and troopships definitely established as being hostile may be attacked without warning.

This also applies to ships sailing without lights in waters round England.

Merchantmen which use their radio transmitters after being stopped will be fired upon.

Attacks on passenger ships, or large ships which obviously carry considerable numbers of passengers in addition to cargo,are still forbidden.

http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/proc/proclamtion.htm

[JScones]

WAR CRIMES = something the losers of war are guilty of, but the victors of war are immune to!
So, so true...

[Khayman]

The Directive #5 that was quoted was early in the war. I believe the reason that passenger liners were off limits was because Hitler thought he could come to peace with the Western Powers and killing a large number of civilians would not help that cause. There was also US, and indeed worldwide, revulsion to take into account.

However I believe these rules were relaxed. It must have been by September 1940 anyway when the U-48 of Heinrich Bleichrodt sank the 11,000 ton British liner City of Benares which was crowded with 400 passengers. Rather than be admonished he was praised for his patrol. (The City of Benares was unmarked, darkened and in an unescorted convoy)

So I think Passenger Liners were off limits for political reasons, but when those reasons vanished they were legitamate targets.

[Beery]

Truth be told, I am an old-school Nazi sympathizer a la Joerg Haider and Ernst Nolte.
But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Moral excesses are to be condemned on both sides. If I condemn the Allies for certain abuses, the standard should be applied the same on the other side.

Erm...

Naziism featured, as an inherent part of its doctrine, the idea that the Jewish race was subhuman, and that genocide was a valid way of purifying the community. I find it difficult to understand how you could say on the one hand that you support Naziism (which has 'moral excess' as an inherent part - perhaps the driving force - of its policy), while on the other hand you claim that 'moral excesses' are to be condemned on both sides.

Is it that you believe that Naziism was not inherently genocidal, or is it that you believe that genocide is not morally excessive?

[Kapitän Cremer]

Hmm

Wasn't Churchill who said : " History will be kind to me, because I intent to write it" ?

Also, the allied carpet bombing against German cities and civilian targets were never mentioned as a war crime. It was an approved way of getting Nazi Germany to surrender.

Much like the german blitz on London by bombers and V-1 and V-2 rockets...

Only difference is, that history reflects the german blitz as inhumane and brutal....


Hmm....really does seem that the victorious county writes the history

[Beery]

Hmm....really does seem that the victorious county writes the history

That's always the case. It's clear that war crimes were committed on both sides, as is often the case. The victor always decides two things - the difference between criminal acts and necessary evils, and the difference between traitors and patriots. Justice is rarely fair to both sides after a conflict. If Britain had won the American War of Independence, George Washington would probably have been hanged as a traitor, and Benedict Arnold may have been hailed as a hero.

[scandium]

There was quite a bit of hypocracy in the various post WWII trials and executions, to say nothing of the thousands of germans within the occupied Russian zone who were sent off to the gulags. One example:

The only U-boat commander (along with 2 of his officers) convicted and executed for war crimes. His actions? On his maiden voyage in his new command while passing into an especially dangerous zone (where every IXc like the one he commanded that entered previously had been sunk) he torpedoed and sunk a greek steamer, then was left with a dilemna as to if he could escape before the wreckage was discovered. After conferring with his officers he decided the best chance of escaping the area undetected, and enhancing the survival chances of his men, was to destroy the wreckage.

There were about a dozen survivors in the water and in life rafts and the Commander and the men on the bridge were aware of that, but he decided anyway to try and sink the life rafts. The deckgun/flak were unsuitable so he had machine guns brought up and gave orders that the rafts were to be sunk. Four officers participated, to varying extents, in machine gunning the lifeboats but they wouldn't sink. After further deliberation it was decided to try grenades, which also failed, followed by ramming which likewise was unsuccessful.

Having wasted several hours in this unsuccessful attempt, amd with dawn rapidly approaching, he gave up and fled the area. Later he came upon a second steamer, torpedoed and sank it, and slipped away with no attempt to eliminate the wreckage. Meanwhile the allies had discovered the U-boat was in the area and undertook a massive operation to find it, and eventually they did.

Spotted by aircraft and bombed, he crash dived but had to surface 15 mins later due to the extensive damage to the boat. While allied aircraft rained bombs and machine gun fire onto the crippled uboat the commander decided his only hope was to try and beach it.

He succeeded, and as the crew poured onto the beach allied aircraft continued their strafing runs, gunning down and killing several fleeing crewman and wounding the first officer.

Anyway, to sum up the long story the CO and 4 crew members were tried and convicted of warcrimes by a British military tribunal for deliberately attacking the survivors (most of the dozen who survived the initial torpedoing of their vessel were killed in the subsequent attack on the lifeboats) of the greek steamer, 3 were executed and 2 were sentenced to lengthy prison terms (which were subsequently greatly reduced).

The defence had unsuccessfully argued that the CO had deemed it an operational necessity in order to escape undetected and thereby increase the survival chances of the men under his command. This defence was rejected despite many similar precedents lumped under the term "operational necessity" by both the British and the Americans (the Laconia incident being the most famous, where an American bomber was ordered to attack and sink a Uboat that was undertaking the rescue attempt of several hundred Italian and British survivors despite the U-boats prior repeated broadcasts, in english, to that effect and the large red cross flag draped across the bow of his ship). The Americans considered destroying the U-boat, despite the unavoidable killing of their British allies who were aboard in the process an operationa necessityl and one for which there were no later ramifications.

[scandium]

I should add, for more context, that the CO maintained it was never his intention to deliberately kill the survivors, nor was this ever established by the prosecution (which was what he was convicted and executed for) but only to destroy the liferafts so as to eliminate traces of wreckage that would be visible from the air. He did concede that in destroying the liferafts many, if not all, of the men who'd survived the initial attack upon their sunken steamer would perish. But he insisted, and was never contradicted, that he gave no orders to kill the survivors and the defence maintained that without that specific intent to commit murder he could not be convicted of that crime.

Because such practices were not unique to either side (and were very common among the Americans, particularly in the Pacific theatre, and they made no secret of it either) I think the trial was a farce: the victors needed their pound of flesh to satiate the public's need for blood and therefore the most notorious participants on the losing side paid the ultimate price. I find it ironic that the British rejected the "operational necessity" arguement while deliberately escalating their own actions from targetting initially munitions factories and such to purely civilian population centers (a practice they referred to as "dehousing germans").

[joea]

Hmm

Wasn't Churchill who said : " History will be kind to me, because I intent to write it" ?

Also, the allied carpet bombing against German cities and civilian targets were never mentioned as a war crime. It was an approved way of getting Nazi Germany to surrender.

Much like the german blitz on London by bombers and V-1 and V-2 rockets...

Only difference is, that history reflects the german blitz as inhumane and brutal....


Hmm....really does seem that the victorious county writes the history

BS IE BULL****

[Kapitän Cremer]

Hmm

Wasn't Churchill who said : " History will be kind to me, because I intent to write it" ?

Also, the allied carpet bombing against German cities and civilian targets were never mentioned as a war crime. It was an approved way of getting Nazi Germany to surrender.

Much like the german blitz on London by bombers and V-1 and V-2 rockets...

Only difference is, that history reflects the german blitz as inhumane and brutal....


Hmm....really does seem that the victorious county writes the history

BS IE b.s.

Sorry..Don't follow that...please explain :up:

[jasondef]

How about dropping a couple of nukes on a couple of cities with no military targets with maximum civilian casualties? If Nazi Germany or Japan got to it first, it would've surely gone down as the most heinous war crime in history.

I understand the logic behind it and all that, but its still an interesting reflection of perspective.

[scandium]

How about dropping a couple of nukes on a couple of cities with no military targets with maximum civilian casualties? If Nazi Germany or Japan got to it first, it would've surely gone down as the most heinous war crime in history.

I understand the logic behind it and all that, but its still an interesting reflection of perspective.

There's logic behind it? I don't see it - to me its one of the most irrational strategic decisions made in the war. Consider:

The US, in the Pacific theatre, thanks to a high powered surface and submarine Navy had achieved what Germany was nearly on the verge of in the Battle of the Atlantic in '41: laying complete seige to the island of Japan and preventing it from importing the resources and goods it would need to continue the fight, plus the defeat of its navy which ensured the American blockade would not be broken.

Additionally, its allies - Germany and Italy - had been defeated so there was no one to turn to for help or any kind of diversionary campaign elsewhere.

Surrender was not only inevitable, but at most only a couple months away. Rather than wait, however, it was decided to use the war and prior Japanese atrocities as a pretext to conduct a test of these new weapons "in theatre". The motivation was purely political and had nothing to do with operational necessity or military objectives; the US, in their agreement with Russia and Britain just prior to Germany's surrender, had carved Europe up into "zones of control" and the Americans suddenly feared that their ally of necessity, Stalin, might one day become a threat himself once Russia had recuperated from the devestation of the war, So they nuked Japan to instill fear in Russia and thereby deter any future expansionist plans Stalin (who was every bit as maniacal as Hitler, talk about your warped alliances) might dream up.

Of course they didn't forsee that Russia would soon possess the technology itself and that the ensuing arms race and massive expenditures to keep ahead of it would render their political gains moot. In any case, this kind of "live test" of a weapon as devestating as the A-bomb against a civilian population - not simply once, but twice - and against an all but defeated enemy done purely for political purposes, ranks, in my mind, as one of the most irrational and heinous acts committed in a war that was rife with plenty of both by all the major participants.

[jasondef]

I agree with you. The logic that is used for justification for using the two nuclear bombs that you hear the most is that the casulties sustained on both sides from war continuing on would exceed the casulties sustained from the two bombings itself. I didn't live in those times and didn't endure what the world endured at that time, so its tough for me to judge. All I can do is reflect back and read history books, and it does seem drastic to me.

The thought of using such a device on a civilian population today is absolutely horrifying, even one civilian casulty from a guided missile's accidental collateral damage is something the public can't stand these days. That wasn't the mindset of the public at the end of WWII however.

[Sailor Steve]

Scandium, I won't go into your arguments in detail, but from everything I've read and researched over the last forty years everything you expressed as fact is nothing more than speculation and opinion. You don't "know" that the motivations were purely political any more than I "know" that they weren't. That said, the writings of the people involved indicate that they believed their motives were (mostly) pure. The fire bombing of Tokyo killed far more people than both the atomic bombs. The other side of this coin is the "winners write the history" argument: most American and British historians admit that the fire bombings in Japan and Europe were wrong at the least, and atrocities at the worst.

Also, this discussion belongs on the General Topics Boards, not one of the gaming boards.

[scandium]

Scandium, I won't go into your arguments in detail, but from everything I've read and researched over the last forty years everything you expressed as fact is nothing more than speculation and opinion. You don't "know" that the motivations were purely political any more than I "know" that they weren't.

Which is why I prefaced that discussion with, in my very first sentence: "There's logic behind it? I don't see it - to me its one of the most irrational strategic decisions made in the war. Consider: ... "

You're of the opinion it wasn't political but, therefore, had to have been motivated for military reasons (for if not political nor military then what other motivation could there be?) - I don't see any military purpose served and don't buy the often given arguement that they "forced" the surrender of Japan because from my own research the surrender of Japan was not only inevitable but only a matter of months away.

Nor do I accept the other often given arguement that killing two hundred thousand Japanese by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki "saved" x number of american lives. I don't accept it because Japan had no capability by that time (surely you agree with this much) to inflict any damage on American soil and the worst it could do was strike out (futilely) against the blockaders - which were combatants and legitimate military targets while the 200,000 civilians bombed, in these two incidents alone, were not.

At any rate, if everyone agreed on everything life would be pretty boring and we're each entitled to our own opinions on history. From my point of view, even after 60 years have passed, history has been written very lopsidedly and while everyone is in agreement on the horror of the holocaust (the denial of which is a crime in many countries) and other Nazi excesses, not as many people appreciate the scope of allied indifference (the holocaust was not the reason any of the allies went to war with Germany, and the horrors taking place there were going on for many years before Sept 1939 and Dec '41) and the atrocies committed by the allies to win the war at any cost (to the enemy).

[kenijaru]

Admiral Dönitz was guilty of: "unrestricted submarine war" and "being the succesor of hitler" (the 2nd thing thanx to Herman "more wide than tall" gëring)
while he was under trial guess who entered the room... Admiral Nimitz... yes, the same Nimitz that commanded the fleet agains japan, and said that he had ordered the same things to the subs "leave survivors behind" and "atack merchant ships with no warning"

and as you might guess, Nimitz was told that "they where punishings the ppl that had lost the war, not the winners" he went home and herr Karl spent 10 years in jail.

thats not cool :nope:

[Khayman]

Admiral Dönitz was guilty of: "unrestricted submarine war" and "being the succesor of hitler" (the 2nd thing thanx to Herman "more wide than tall" gëring)
while he was under trial guess who entered the room... Admiral Nimitz... yes, the same Nimitz that commanded the fleet agains japan, and said that he had ordered the same things to the subs "leave survivors behind" and "atack merchant ships with no warning"

and as you might guess, Nimitz was told that "they where punishings the ppl that had lost the war, not the winners" he went home and herr Karl spent 10 years in jail.

thats not cool :nope:

According to Clay Blair in "Hitler's U-Boat War: The Hunted, 1942-1945" Donitz was prosecuted on three charges

1. Plotting to wage aggressive war
2. Waging agressive war
3. War Crimes

Donitz was acquitted of the first charge, however "in a vague and confusing verdict" he was found guilty on the second. As for the third count, the American Judge said "Germany waged a much cleaner [submarine] war than we did" and voted to aquit. However the other judges apparently thought (or so Blair says) that Donitz shouldn't get off "scot-free" and found him guilty.

Apparently his conviction caused outrage among a large number of senior Allied naval officers and over one hundred wrote to Donitz to deplore the verdict. One even said that "His conviction was an insult to our own submariners in the Pacific" which is pretty strong stuff.

So I agree with kenijaru, not cool at all

[U-104]

Nor do I accept the other often given arguement that killing two hundred thousand Japanese by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki "saved" x number of american lives. I don't accept it Did you know Nagasaki was not even the primary target of that bomb? It was a military base, but due to weather interference they had to shift to a secondary target - Nagasaki.

[scandium]

Nor do I accept the other often given arguement that killing two hundred thousand Japanese by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki "saved" x number of american lives. I don't accept it Did you know Nagasaki was not even the primary target of that bomb? It was a military base, but due to weather interference they had to shift to a secondary target - Nagasaki.

Or alternatively they could have designated another target as secondary (one that wasn't a civilian target) when drawing up the mission plan, or aborted/postponed the mission until the weather cleared up.

I don't accept this rationalization either as it seems to fall under the "we had no choice/it was the best solution we had" umbrella. There were other options.

I do recall from prior reading years ago that when the first operational plans were drawn up (under different code names), there was a Plan A that designated German cities as targets and a Plan B that designated Japanese targets. Germany was saved from Plan A by Hitler's suicide, and the subsequent appointment as Fuhrer of Grand Admiral Doenitz, who knew the war was lost and surrendered unconditionally almost immediately. Thus Germany was spared Plan A while Doenitz was derided by critics on both sides and ultimated tried, convicted, and imprisoned by the Allies for 10 years.

Japan, having not surrendered in a timely enough manner, did not escape Plan B and was twice nuked. I just don't see the justification, anywhere, in nuking the civillian populations of an all but defeated enemy no matter the motivation, political or military, you subscribe to.

It is still true today that the Americans were the only ones at the time to possess this capability, and the only ones who have ever employed it. The only "benefit" I can see from it is that they showed the world how indiscriminate (even a "military" target would have had consequences for the civilians downwind of it) and devastating these weapons are, and the terror they instilled has meant 60 years and counting of no other country ever employing them.

[GlowwormGuy]

Historically, by deck gun or ramming, or by boarding and scuttling with charges or simply by setting it on fire.
Many crews made a lot of fun out of such "pirate style" boarding.
German VIICs in the med often sank small motor sailboats by ramming, off the Lebanese/Palestine coast. I suppose none of these was manned by british.
British boats did the same in the aegean.
US submarines used flak guns or main guns for sampans, or small arms of the crew.

Ever see guns of Navarone? (or Apocalypse Now for that matter - Sampan off the port bow hehehehe...) seriously, small craft are so unrepresented in this series. That being said they should have the option to send a 'boarding party' by a picket boat for DDs or a rubber raft for SUBS aboard the other ship to scuttle it. Well I guess the animations would be a royal pain but it would sure be fun.

Trawlers were used by virtually every nation as intelligence gatherers. In many cases they were armed with small guns. I think the German term was Vorpostenboot?

Mountbatten

[GlowwormGuy]

Ocean liners are obviously a military target, since they are converted troop transports.
EW

Actually you are incorrect...

According to Hitlers Directive #5 of Sept.30,1939

All Passanger Liners were considered off limits.

Directive #5
Trade War will in general be waged in accordance with Prize Law with the following exceptions:

Let me rephrase--an ocean liner alone probably civilian. An ocean liner in a convoy is presumed to be a military target. Some converted liners were sunk, if memory serves me correctly.

EW
Merchant ships and troopships definitely established as being hostile may be attacked without warning.

This also applies to ships sailing without lights in waters round England.

Merchantmen which use their radio transmitters after being stopped will be fired upon.

Attacks on passenger ships, or large ships which obviously carry considerable numbers of passengers in addition to cargo,are still forbidden.

http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/proc/proclamtion.htm

What about RMS Queen Mary? I heard that Hitler offered a big reward to the U-boat skipper that took her down.

Mountbatten

[GlowwormGuy]

Hmm....really does seem that the victorious county writes the history

That's always the case. It's clear that war crimes were committed on both sides, as is often the case. The victor always decides two things - the difference between criminal acts and necessary evils, and the difference between traitors and patriots. Justice is rarely fair to both sides after a conflict. If Britain had won the American War of Independence, George Washington would probably have been hanged as a traitor, and Benedict Arnold may have been hailed as a hero.

Well... if he hadn't been so 'shabbily treated' - considering he was the one who really won the battle of Saratoga instead of that idiot Gates - we'd probably be sailing U.S.S. Benedict Arnold SSNs today.

However that's true - even in wartime. When SBD pilot Fleming crashes his plane into the turret of the cruiser MIKUMA it's heroism worthy of a Medal of Honor. When it's a Japanese pilot crashing his plane into an American carrier its barbaric fanaticism. When its London and Coventry it's savagery, when it's Dresden or Nurenburg - or Tokyo - it's winning the war.

War brings out the evil angels within all of us nuff said.

[GlowwormGuy]

... Laconia incident being the most famous, where an American bomber was ordered to attack and sink a Uboat that was undertaking the rescue attempt of several hundred Italian and British survivors despite the U-boats prior repeated broadcasts, in english, to that effect and the large red cross flag draped across the bow of his ship). The Americans considered destroying the U-boat, despite the unavoidable killing of their British allies who were aboard in the process an operationa necessityl and one for which there were no later ramifications.

I'm willing to bet we'll never see a movie of the Laconia incident - or maybe they will make the bomber attacking the sub British for good measure.

Seriously though, the skipper was a bit out of line even if it was an operational necessity. Machine-gunning survivors in a raft or on wreckage isn't kosher.

Then again, this was routinely done by American fighters and bombers after sinking Japanese ships - the Yamato being a case in point. Of course, those guys went home to steak and a heroes welcome.

One of the worst I think is the trial of Tomoyuki Yama****a, Tiger of Malaya and Masaharu Homma, the Anglophilic commander of the Japanese 14th Army. Their official crime - Yama****a, command responsibility for the massacres in Manila 1945 and Homma, ordering the notorious Death March (by the way there were 'death marches' at other times in history such as after the surrender of Kut Al Amarah in WW1 but this was the most famous.) Their real crime: humiliating the American Caesar Douglas MacArthur. Homma beat his army in 1942 and Yama****a held out in the mountains with his army till Japan surrendered and he had to follow suit. Both were hanged by the neck till dead. The ironic thing is Homma was 1) an Anglophile who was Japanese military attache on the Western Front in WW1 2) hamstrung by a tunnel visioned Japanese Imperial General Staff who demanded he capture Manila while destroying the American field army - you gotta choose one or the other 3) never ordered the prisoners maltreated and the many unfortunate incidents were a product mainly of the then prevailing Japanese military culture of brutality, individual decisions by officers and men on the spot and the fanaticism of ideologue Col.Tsuji. As for Yama****a he actually ordered the fanatical Japanese admiral who was planning to defend Manila to the death to withdraw as he was unsupported but because of the separation of Japanese Army and Navy he was ignored.

While the Japanese army did horrific things in the war this was more mean-spirited revenge than justice of any sort.

Mountbatten

[jasondef]

Talk about a can of worms

[dbf574]

I don't know about you but I have found (accidentally) that if you are close enough, they will fire upon you. This includes so-called fishing boats too. I use IUB 1.02 (switching to IUB 1.03). I was normally trying to avoid these so that my posit would not be reported and at one point I got tired of 'running away' from these little guys and decided to take out a fishing boat with my deck gun before it had a chance to report my presence :arrgh!: . As I closed on him I was shocked to find this supposedly harmless craft actually taking shots at me :o . This also had happened to me while running on the surface, in daylight, in heavy fog when I get the word that we are under attack and I run up to the bridge to discover a fishing boat less than 370 m actually taking pot shots at me :oops: from what appeared to be a heavy gun and I was not able to fire back because 'we' are not able to use the deck or flak gun in heavy fog :damn: (they are disabled in heavy fog). I escaped, but that just ain't right :nope: !
So, if you ask me, if they shoot at me then they are HISTORY... :rock: