How to treat armed merchants and their crew

[_Seth_]

When the merchants started carrying guns, and became so called "armed merchants", was their crew considered soliders or plain sailors? Did they in that case have the same rights (similar to the later 1948 geneva-convention) as a combattant, or was they treated as non-combattants? I just have to ask, or else i cant get to sleep...:hmm:

[melnibonian]

Seth hi

I'm not quite sure about that but I think they were not treated exactly as combattants. They were protected by the geneva convention (or the treaty of the period) but I don't think they had the same rights as the military personel.

[_Seth_]

Originally Posted by melnibonian

Seth hi

I'm not quite sure about that but I think they were not treated exactly as combattants. They were protected by the geneva convention (or the treaty of the period) but I don't think they had the same rights as the military personel.

Sounds resonable, mel! Those merchant guys were a tough breed, thats for sure..

[TarJak]

The germans considered them all to be combatants and valid targets regardless of whether they were armed or not.

On the British armed merchants, the guns were crewed by DEMS gunners (Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships). These guys were considered part of the Royal Navy, however due to the way the Brits interpreted the Articles of War, there was a problem in their minds if the personnel were considered miltary, then the DEMS would have to be considered warships and not merchants.

This article talks a bit more in depth about it: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/annemariepurnell/dems.html

If I recall correctly from my reading, gun crews were trained military personel not merchant sailors.

Now as far as treatment (and I'm assuming you mean after their ship was sunk and they were in life boats or on rafts) survivors were probably treated fairly equally. Early in the war U-boat captains would hand out medical supplies, give food and directions to land, etc. As the war progressed, this became impossible because the safety of the u-boat was their priority.

Also, there was no room on a u-boat to take on survivors no matter what their classification might be; this made it necessary to leave survivors stranded at sea. Most seamen on both sides were very respectful of other shipwrecked sailors.

To my knowledge, there was only one documented case where a u-boat captain gave orders to sink all lifeboats and rafts so as not to leave a trace of a sinking by u-boat. This of course killed many of the survivors. Three lived to be rescued and tell of their ordeal. The u-boat captain as well as several officers having been capture by the British, were identitified, tried and convicted after the war.

There was another famous situation where a u-boat sank a ship named the Laconia. After which the u-boat captain determined the ship to have had Italian prisoners, Polish guards, British service personel as well as a few women and children on board. The u-boat captain radioed BdU and immediately began a rescue mission. Two other u-boats as well as a few Italian ships were directed to help. In the process the surfaced u-boat with a makeshift red cross flag laying on the deck was bombed by a US bomber. Ultimately a large number of survivors were rescued. Then Donetz issued the order that u-boats were no longer allowed to rescue survivors.

I hope this answers your question.

[Rocketsocks]

The original treaties and agreements were pretty awkward when it came to sub warfare. The London Naval Treaty of 1930 required a target merchant ship's crew and passengers to be first delivered to "a place of safety" before the vessel was sunk, and I don't think many Captains were too interested in cruising up to a potentially armed ship and asking the crew if they'd get off, more so with widespread radio allowing for quick reinforcements.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by von Zelda

Then Donetz issued the order that u-boats were no longer allowed to rescue survivors.

From which he got 10 years in Nuremberg trials, regardless of US navy officer testifying that the submarines in the Pacific had virtually the same orders. Sucks to be in losing team...

[_Seth_]

Thanx to all, its much clearer for me now! Im impressed by the level of knowlegde this forum offers!!! Please, continue this discussion if you feel like!

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by _Seth_

When the merchants started carrying guns, and became so called "armed merchants", was their crew considered soliders or plain sailors? Did they in that case have the same rights (similar to the later 1948 geneva-convention) as a combattant, or was they treated as non-combattants? I just have to ask, or else i cant get to sleep...:hmm:

Actually I believe these men who manned the guns were navy personel not the merchantmen. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. I do recall reading a book that said the men on the guns had rank and were part of he navies.