New telling of Laconia incident...

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