Is it a war crime?

[Letum]

If you sink one then 1000 will have to think twice before leaveing port!
This makes it well worth the ammo.

[AntEater]

Historically, by deck gun or ramming, or by boarding and scuttling with charges or simply by setting it on fire.
Many crews made a lot of fun out of such "pirate style" boarding.
German VIICs in the med often sank small motor sailboats by ramming, off the Lebanese/Palestine coast. I suppose none of these was manned by british.
British boats did the same in the aegean.
US submarines used flak guns or main guns for sampans, or small arms of the crew.

[Einsamer Wolf]

Originally Posted by xrvjorn

I meant historically, IRL.

I am speaking historically, and in game play.

EW

[Highbury]

Well considering the original question is on the legality of attacking these ships, the answer is NO it is not a war crime.

The RAF regularly engaged small fishing craft of the enemy while on 'rhubarbs' (short offensive sweeps). The reasons for this as given by Douglas Bader were to prevent them signalling, and because they are supplying the enemy.

Branch of the service, or country you serve are irrelevant. Clearly fair game, in SHIII and in RL.

[Luuraja]

Personally, in game, I do not attack any fishermen ship if its not armed. If it's armed - PERSSE (it's same as Dowly's PERKELE), its better to search for more suitable targets.
My granddad was fisher in these stormy days of WWII.

And I do not attack passenger liners. No matter if these are in fact troop transports.

[Einsamer Wolf]

Originally Posted by Luuraja

Personally, in game, I do not attack any fishermen ship if its not armed. If it's armed - PERSSE (it's same as Dowly's PERKELE), its better to search for more suitable targets.
My granddad was fisher in these stormy days of WWII.

And I do not attack passenger liners. No matter if these are in fact troop transports.

Ocean liners are obviously a military target, since they are converted troop transports.

EW

[CWorth]

Originally Posted by Einsamer Wolf

Ocean liners are obviously a military target, since they are converted troop transports.
EW

Actually you are incorrect...

According to Hitlers Directive #5 of Sept.30,1939

All Passanger Liners were considered off limits.

Directive #5
Trade War will in general be waged in accordance with Prize Law with the following exceptions:

Merchant ships and troopships definitely established as being hostile may be attacked without warning.

This also applies to ships sailing without lights in waters round England.

Merchantmen which use their radio transmitters after being stopped will be fired upon.

Attacks on passenger ships, or large ships which obviously carry considerable numbers of passengers in addition to cargo,are still forbidden.

http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/proc/proclamtion.htm

WAR CRIMES = something your enemy does, but you dont !!

[jasondef]

WAR CRIMES = something the losers of war are guilty of, but the victors of war are immune to!

[Einsamer Wolf]

Originally Posted by CWorth

Actually you are incorrect...

According to Hitlers Directive #5 of Sept.30,1939

All Passanger Liners were considered off limits.

Directive #5
Trade War will in general be waged in accordance with Prize Law with the following exceptions:

Let me rephrase--an ocean liner alone probably civilian. An ocean liner in a convoy is presumed to be a military target. Some converted liners were sunk, if memory serves me correctly.

EW
Merchant ships and troopships definitely established as being hostile may be attacked without warning.

This also applies to ships sailing without lights in waters round England.

Merchantmen which use their radio transmitters after being stopped will be fired upon.

Attacks on passenger ships, or large ships which obviously carry considerable numbers of passengers in addition to cargo,are still forbidden.

http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/proc/proclamtion.htm

[JScones]

Originally Posted by jasondef

WAR CRIMES = something the losers of war are guilty of, but the victors of war are immune to!

So, so true...

[Khayman]

The Directive #5 that was quoted was early in the war. I believe the reason that passenger liners were off limits was because Hitler thought he could come to peace with the Western Powers and killing a large number of civilians would not help that cause. There was also US, and indeed worldwide, revulsion to take into account.

However I believe these rules were relaxed. It must have been by September 1940 anyway when the U-48 of Heinrich Bleichrodt sank the 11,000 ton British liner City of Benares which was crowded with 400 passengers. Rather than be admonished he was praised for his patrol. (The City of Benares was unmarked, darkened and in an unescorted convoy)

So I think Passenger Liners were off limits for political reasons, but when those reasons vanished they were legitamate targets.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by Einsamer Wolf

Truth be told, I am an old-school Nazi sympathizer a la Joerg Haider and Ernst Nolte.
But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Moral excesses are to be condemned on both sides. If I condemn the Allies for certain abuses, the standard should be applied the same on the other side.

Erm...

Naziism featured, as an inherent part of its doctrine, the idea that the Jewish race was subhuman, and that genocide was a valid way of purifying the community. I find it difficult to understand how you could say on the one hand that you support Naziism (which has 'moral excess' as an inherent part - perhaps the driving force - of its policy), while on the other hand you claim that 'moral excesses' are to be condemned on both sides.

Is it that you believe that Naziism was not inherently genocidal, or is it that you believe that genocide is not morally excessive?

[Kapitän Cremer]

Hmm

Wasn't Churchill who said : " History will be kind to me, because I intent to write it" ?

Also, the allied carpet bombing against German cities and civilian targets were never mentioned as a war crime. It was an approved way of getting Nazi Germany to surrender.

Much like the german blitz on London by bombers and V-1 and V-2 rockets...

Only difference is, that history reflects the german blitz as inhumane and brutal....


Hmm....really does seem that the victorious county writes the history

[Beery]

Originally Posted by Kapitän Cremer

Hmm....really does seem that the victorious county writes the history

That's always the case. It's clear that war crimes were committed on both sides, as is often the case. The victor always decides two things - the difference between criminal acts and necessary evils, and the difference between traitors and patriots. Justice is rarely fair to both sides after a conflict. If Britain had won the American War of Independence, George Washington would probably have been hanged as a traitor, and Benedict Arnold may have been hailed as a hero.