New telling of Laconia incident...

[Captain Nemo]

Interesting news thanks for posting longdog499. Apparently filming started on this production on 12 September the 67th anniversary of the sinking of Laconia. It's going to be a two part drama each 90 minutes in length. More information when available will be posted on the BBC website here http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/comingup/sinkingofthelaconia/ . Nothing on there yet but probably worth keeping an eye on.

Nemo

[Ancient Mariner]

So really the pilots/commanders of the us airbase should have been tried as war criminals? If it was obvious a rescue mission was underway and the bombing/depth charging happened wouldnt that be in direct violation of the rules of engagement?

[Schroeder]

Depends on whether you win or loose the war.

[Ancient Mariner]

well as from a neutral point of view,fact remains the germans were helping to rescue people

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Ancient Mariner

well as from a neutral point of view,fact remains the germans were helping to rescue people

Exactly my point too, it shouldn't matter what side you came from, at the end of the day, a war crime is a war crime......
I understand there was investigations and trials into war crimes committed by the allied forces as well at Nuerenberg, with a lot of those receiving court martials......court martials for killing people? hmmmm......

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.

[Red Heat]

This is the story about her:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

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.

I thank you for your compliments.......
I guess we all would like to believe that in WW2 there were human beings on both sides of the war who "attempted" to do the "right and humane " thing, so it seems in this case, indeed there were countless stories and heroic attempts to save lives of the enemy, can a human being be judged for attempting to do the humane and right thing to save as many lives as possible, and furthermore in admitting their own mistake and attempting to repair or as best as possible attempt to "minimise" the effects that mistake has caused. There is no doubt that the decisions by the U-Boot commander to firstly admit error and secondly to transmit his mistakes and to advise in the most spoken language in the world that a rescue mission would ensue is and was the "right" and "humane" thing to do........"draping" the deck with the red cross..........well, was that a "mistake"? I think once again, the innocent notions behind that move should be clear.........
What would I have done? The same.......
Please note: I am in now way attemtping to hijack this thread or attempt to start something here, not my intention.....this was, as history states a "unfortunate" (very) incident, and my fullest respects to the lives lost.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

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.

I'm not sure about that. Military paramedics also wear a red cross badge, yet they are armed to defend themselves if they should get under attack. i'm not sure about vehicles and vessels though.

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I'm not sure about that. Military paramedics also wear a red cross badge, yet they are armed to defend themselves if they should get under attack. i'm not sure about vehicles and vessels though.

Although I would submit that this is an apples and oranges comparison, the fact that a medic is armed makes him (or her) a legitimate target. Having said that the reason medics were armed in the first place is for self defence since there is no realistic way to consistantly tell them from combattants and so they became de facto targets on the battlefield.

Sanctioning the use of the Red Cross by any armed warship under any circumstances effectively nullifies the reasons for claiming protection of the Red Cross in the first place

If a warship rescuing people can claim protection, then can any warship carrying the people just rescued also claim protection? If not, why not?

Carrying this argument to its logical conclusion would allow any warship with survivors and flying a Red Cross immunity from attack and opens the door to using the survivors as human shields. Use of the Red Cross was never intended to facilitate military advantage on any belligerent.

Note that this is based entirely on legal and not moral factors and that in practice there is often a huge gap between what is law and what is "right".

One question about the whole affair that nobody ever seems to ask is: "Would KL Hartenstein have commenced rescue operations had Laconia not been chock full of Italian POWs, Italy being Germany's ally at that time?"

If so, why? She had been a troop ship and so a legitimate target for attack without warning.

If not, why not? Once a person goes into the water, from a life-saving perspective it matters not at all how they got there or what their nationality might be.

$0.02

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

One question about the whole affair that nobody ever seems to ask is: "Would KL Hartenstein have commenced rescue operations had Laconia not been chock full of Italian POWs, Italy being Germany's ally at that time?"

• Fair question, I'm sure it has been asked before, perhaps not here, guess we will never know since we don't know what sort of a person Hartenstein was.......i would assume that by the time he found out about that, that he would also have been aware possibly that there were also British and Polish onboard as well, which may, and I do stress may indicate something......
  

If so, why? She had been a troop ship and so a legitimate target for attack without warning.

If not, why not? Once a person goes into the water, from a life-saving perspective it matters not at all how they got there or what their nationality might be.

• Guess without "beating all the for and againsts to death", we can really only assume that Hartenstein was the sort of human being that had compassion to all human beings, ie was one of those "good guys", a bit like Rommel (I would "like" to believe that).
  

On the flipside, we can pose the question about the pilot of the bomber...what sort of a "person" was he? (and i'm certainly not being sarcastic or "against" the pilot, only genuinely asking the question, as it seems throughout history more have been asked of Hartenstein than of the bomber pilot)
Was there any sense of "regret" and "compassion" either at the time of the bombings or years later?
I would assume so.
I am treading carefully here, as I do in most things in life, and it seems to me that the real reason that this incident is so controversial is that Karl Doenitz was actually charged with a war crime over the "giving" of the Laconia order (i won't go into that as we all know what that order was), and he received 11 and a half years for that.......even though the U.S also "practiced" similar actions in relation to the refusal for want of a better word to pick up and/or initiate rescue actions in Submarines.
Anyway, this is not intended to come across as a history lesson, far from it, it's purely a view point, based on hystorical facts, and once again all i can "see" from this most unfortunate incident is that at the end of the day, human error was involved, and that this led to the loss of many lives, however also that it was attempted to rectify this error in the best possible way to save lives, and should there be questions and hypotheticals posed as to why this was done? Let's (and I say this with the fullest respect to those that lost their lives) see it for what it was......the acknowledgement of a mistake and the attempt to save lives.

[nikbear]

Originally Posted by Ancient Mariner

So really the pilots/commanders of the us airbase should have been tried as war criminals? If it was obvious a rescue mission was underway and the bombing/depth charging happened wouldnt that be in direct violation of the rules of engagement?

Thats what I've always thought,since that was one of the accusations levelled at Doenitz at his warcrimes trial,that his 'Laconia order' amounted to an order to commit murder and open fire on survivors,surely the American commander could have the very same accusation levelled at him

[ReallyDedPoet]

This thread will stay open as long as folks are civil in their discussions.
This topic has been discussed many times here

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by nikbear

Thats what I've always thought,since that was one of the accusations levelled at Doenitz at his warcrimes trial,that his 'Laconia order' amounted to an order to commit murder and open fire on survivors,surely the American commander could have the very same accusation levelled at him

I agree!

Doenitz received defense at Nueremberg for the giving of the order by
some of the most respected figures in the US Navy, Admital Chester Nimitz who came to his defense and said that the United States had operated under the same engagements of unrestricted warfare.

Despite the order, some U-boat commanders continued in their practice to aid survivors of their attacks.

[Lt.Fillipidis]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

Having said that the reason medics were armed in the first place is for self defence since there is no realistic way to consistantly tell them from combattants and so they became de facto targets on the battlefield.

Actually, the medics were a preffered target in the war since it was calculated that a man killing a medic would subsequently kill 10 more soldiers (if my memory serves me well). I cant remember where i learned about this or where the numbers are based on but i have the faint idea that these are the right numbers.