Although involved in life-saving the U-Boats were armed warships and so liable for attack under the customs and usage of international law as it was understood then.
The U-Boat waffe itself established this precedent on 20 September 1914 when OL Otto Weddigen (U-9) torpedoed the Hogue Class cruiser HMS Hogue off the Dutch coast. Having just torpedoed her sister, HMS Aboukir, Weddigen shot Hogue when she was hove to and sending out her boats to rescue the crew of Aboukir which was thought to have struck a mine. U-9 subesquently sank HMS Cressy leaving several thousand men in the water some 1460 of whom would die there.
Dedicated convoy rescue ships, warships and merchants who stopped to conduct rescues were all legitimate targets so why would U-Boats doing the same be exempt? The presence (or absence) of the Red Cross is irrelevant since Feuer Frei points out, usage of the Red Cross by an armed ship was in itself illegal.
This is a complicated story so sweeping accusations and declarations of crimes against humanity add nothing to the dialog. I actually think that Feuer Frei's comment about the attack by the Liberator being in bad taste rather than a war crime is the best description I have yet seen. In any event, the legal framework for judging unrestricted submarine warfare was the London Naval Treaty of 1930 and the Anglo-German Submarine Protocol of 1936 and not the Hague or Geneva conventions. As I understand the Treaty and Protocol, surfaced submarines were liable to be attacked without warning regardless of their activity at the time.
|