"Saved By A U-Boat" - The Laconia Incident told from survivors

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Brigadier General Robert C. Richardson should have been tryed for, and convicted of, war crimes, not Karl Dønitz.

The precident for sinking ships involved in saving life goes back to the first days of submarine warfare and it was the German Navy that established it.

On 20 September 1914 U-9 (KK Otto Weddigen) torpedoed the Cressy Class armoured cruiser HMS Aboukir off the Dutch coast. Aboukir's accompanying sisters HMS Hogue and HMS Cressy stopped to rescue Aboukir's crew believing she had struck a mine. Weddigen then torpedoed Hogue and Cressy in quick succession, most of Cressy's crew were killed since all of her boats and rafts were already in the water. Over 1400 British sailors were killed, many young reservists and new recruits.

Would Hartenstein have started rescue operations had Laconia not been carrying Italian POW's? Not likely by most accounts but that is purely speculative. We do know that before the Laconia incident his actions towards survivors were typical of the older first-wave of U-Boat captains.

The stamp of ruthlessness that comes with the submarine was applied early. U-156 and the other boats involved rescuing Laconia survivors were legitimate targets of Allied ASW forces and the Allies at no time promised a local truce. Particularly as how U-Boats would not hesitate to attack an escort or dedicated rescue ship stopping to save lives in a convoy battle.

Hyperbolic comments about war crimes add nothing to the discussion.

Edit: I suspect that if you look at the actual rules under which the Red Cross operated in WW2 you will find that no armed ships could legally fly the Red Cross under any circumstances. Also a look at the transcipts from Nuremburg fail to show any such declarations by Doenitz regarding the Geneva Convention and the Laconia affair. But I might have missed it.

This is something that we'll just have to agree to disagree on without animosity.

In all actuality, what was done was done, and nobody's perspective on right or wrong can impact the results. So, in that sense of things, you win, Randomizer.
On changing the outcome of events, my perspective isn't even worth 2 US Cents.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

Edit: I suspect that if you look at the actual rules under which the Red Cross operated in WW2 you will find that no armed ships could legally fly the Red Cross under any circumstances. Also a look at the transcipts from Nuremburg fail to show any such declarations by Doenitz regarding the Geneva Convention and the Laconia affair. But I might have missed it.

On uboat.net/forums there was a nice exploration on this very topic. Worth reading if this interests you.

[Lt.Fillipidis]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

On 20 September 1914 U-9 (KK Otto Weddigen) torpedoed the Cressy Class armoured cruiser HMS Aboukir off the Dutch coast. Aboukir's accompanying sisters HMS Hogue and HMS Cressy stopped to rescue Aboukir's crew believing she had struck a mine. Weddigen then torpedoed Hogue and Cressy in quick succession, most of Cressy's crew were killed since all of her boats and rafts were already in the water. Over 1400 British sailors were killed, many young reservists and new recruits.

The incident you describe was commited legaly since not HMS Hogue nor HMS Cressy were flying a Red Cross flag, nor they had been rescuing civilians.
They were warships that had been rescuing combatants hence eligible for attack.
Speaking purely out of experience from other similar incidents.

Now, on the Laconia incident besides the Red Cross flag, the American High Command was already informed about the situation and the German effort to save civilian lives but still the order was given for the bomber to attack.

Besides that, i agree with you that hyperbolic comments about war crimes add nothing to the discussion but we all know that many allied war crimes were either covered up, taken lightly or even never reached the surface since the victorious force had the power to blame everything to the defeated. And i think thats what Snestorm is trying to say.

Originally Posted by Lt.Fillipidis

The incident you describe was commited legaly since not HMS Hogue nor HMS Cressy were flying a Red Cross flag, nor they had been rescuing civilians.
They were warships that had been rescuing combatants hence eligible for attack.
Speaking purely out of experience from other similar incidents.

Now, on the Laconia incident besides the Red Cross flag, the American High Command was already informed about the situation and the German effort to save civilian lives but still the order was given for the bomber to attack.

Besides that, i agree with you that hyperbolic comments about war crimes add nothing to the discussion but we all know that many allied war crimes were either covered up, taken lightly or even never reached the surface since the victorious force had the power to blame everything to the defeated. And i think thats what Snestorm is trying to say.

Read the actual convention:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/225?OpenDocument

Protection of the Red Cross at sea applied only to neutrals engaged in saving life or designated hospital ships conforming to the provisions of the conventions. As belligerant warships U-156 and the other subs involved in the Laconia rescue were neither and so had no claim to protection. They were every bit as legitimate targets as were Cressy and Hogue in 1914.

However distasteful the actions of the Allies in the Laconia rescue efforts may be to some, I would submit that there is no crime without an offence. There was no offence because the Red Cross displayed by a belligerant warship for any reason had no legal status. My $0.02.

As I understand it the Vichy French warships that came in response to the plain language distress calls from U-156 and BdU could have legitimately flown the Red Cross and so been immune to attack under the provisions of the convention. I stand corrected as I had thought no armed vessel could use the Red Cross but Neutrals could when actively engaged in lifesaving or when carrying survivors to a neutral port. Belligerant warships cannot use the Red Cross under any circumstances.

Originally Posted by Lt.Fillipidis

The incident you describe was commited legaly since not HMS Hogue nor HMS Cressy were flying a Red Cross flag, nor they had been rescuing civilians.
They were warships that had been rescuing combatants hence eligible for attack.
Speaking purely out of experience from other similar incidents.

Now, on the Laconia incident besides the Red Cross flag, the American High Command was already informed about the situation and the German effort to save civilian lives but still the order was given for the bomber to attack.

Besides that, i agree with you that hyperbolic comments about war crimes add nothing to the discussion but we all know that many allied war crimes were either covered up, taken lightly or even never reached the surface since the victorious force had the power to blame everything to the defeated. And i think thats what Snestorm is trying to say.

Thank you. Your communication skills are far above my own.

[Lt.Fillipidis]

Anytime Snestorm.

@ Randomizer
I've read the text you provided me but i havent seen any clear refferences that prohibit the use of a Red Cross flag by belligerent warships.
Although the following articles give me the impression that belligerent warships ARE eligible to assist the sick, wounded and shipwrecked thus being shown some tolerance.(which applies to both U-156 and Cressy and Hogue incidents equalizing the scales, although i personally put more weight on U-156 since they were rescuing civilians that belong to the enemy)

Art. 16. After every engagement, the two belligerents, so far as military interests permit, shall take steps to look for the shipwrecked, sick, and wounded, and to protect them, as well as the dead, against pillage and ill-treatment.
They shall see that the burial, whether by land or sea, or cremation of the dead shall be preceded by a careful examination of the corpse.


Art. 17. Each belligerent shall send, as early as possible, to the authorities of their country, navy, or army the military marks or documents of identity found on the dead and the description of the sick and wounded picked up by him.
The belligerents shall keep each other informed as to internments and transfers as well as to the admissions into hospital and deaths which have occurred among the sick and wounded in their hands. They shall collect all the objects of personal use, valuables, letters, etc., which are found in the captured ships, or which have been left by the sick or wounded who died in hospital, in order to have them forwarded to the persons concerned by the authorities of their own country.

U-156 and the other uboats where fully covered by these articles since all involved forces were informed about the incident a few hours after it occured.
Assuming that they were forbidden to use a Red Cross flag, makes them a legal target to attack.
Legally Robert C. Richardson may not be guilty of war crime but in the moral code, it's certain he's guilty as much as it's certain that the bomber attacked.

Edit: Typo.

@Lt.Fillipidis
First off thanks for keeping the tone of the discussion level-headed and polite.

As to use of the Red Cross by belligerents, the provisions of Article 5 seemingly restricts the use of symbols to indicate military hospital ships one of which is the Red Cross flag. Article 6 goes on to state:

Art. 6. The distinguishing signs referred to in Article 5 can only be used, whether in time of peace or war, for protecting or indicating the ships therein mentioned.

Since the only ships mentioned therein Article 5 are hospital ships I infer that belligerent warships are excluded from protection of the Red Cross.

That being said I will not attempt to dispute the morality of the Allied actions since any such opinions would be driven by purely subjective and highly emotional considerations.

The general consensus that Richardson was a war criminal of the worst sort can, I believe, be countered by the text of the very Conventions that he is accused of violating. My only reasons for posting in this topic at all were to place the Allied actions on a legal rather than ethical footing. We all should know that there are actions which may be legal and immoral at the same time.

I rather look upon the entire Laconia affair as symptomatic of total war as practiced in the 20th Century.

Cheers

[Lt.Fillipidis]

Aye. Its not being said crystal clear, thats why i didnt noticed it.
Anyway, its just like you said. Wartime actions can be legal and immoral at the same time after all. But im in better terms with morality than law
so i cant just accept such things as symptomatic. For example, i put less weight to Otto Weddigen's attack (although not justifying it) because these three ships were the first sinkings of his career, if im not mistaken, he hadnt seen any live battle thus being inexperienced and maybe even eager for his first sinkings (i just speculate. wasnt in his head to know what he was thinking). On the other hand though, you have Robert C. Richardson, who at the time was almost 60 years old, had served already in WW1 and had seen the horrors of it before. Taking into account that he was already informed about the situation leads me to the conclusion that he valued more one submarine than some hundrends of human lives, enemy or not.

All the above are my personal point of view based on morality.
Under a law-based point of view, you already said it all.

Cheers.