From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Libertarians in WW2
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:34:41 GMT

In article <1ecjopINNgr3@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.232015.24734@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@dial.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>|> In article <1e9sdfINN6in@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

>|> >I see we are back to the "would have" arguments.

>|> >There's nothing so hypothetical about the history of the
>|> >two world wars that requires this kind of speculation.

>|> >The UK declared a blockade of Germany, and they did board and/or
>|> >seize ships carrying contraband to Germany.    This is in
>|> >accordance with applicable International Law.

>|> >However, they did *not* randomly sink ships, nor did they engage
>|> >in unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral shipping.

>|> Only because they didn't have submarines and didn't need to, having a
>|> powerful surface navy.

>Tnis is an even more reckless "would have" argument than the first
>one.   Now you are claiming that the British didn't sink neutral
>ships "only because they didn't have submarines and didn't need to,
>having a powerful surface navy."

>Two problems with that:

>    1.	They did have submarines, but they used them against enemy
>	warships, not neutral shipping.

>    2.	What gives you the idea that a powerful surface navy can't
>	sink neutral ships just as well as submarines?   the British
>	could have engaged in a guerre de course if they wanted to, 
>	but they chose not to.
	
Of course it could have.  You're working backwards.  A surface navy can
sink ships.  Submarines can't board them.

You're not arguing that the Germans in WW1 sank enemy ships because it
was fun, are you?  So why did they, if it wasn't neccessary (for them to
enforce their blockcade?)

>|>                            The Germans didn't really have much else they
>|> could do to enforce their own blockade against Britain -- they couldn't
>|> stop ships and board them from submarines, so they had to sink them to
>|> do what they were doing.

>This is the same argument that the Germans used after the Great War.

Was it inaccurate?

>	"We had to sink neutral ships without warning because that's the
>	only way you can conduct effective submarine anti-trade warfare"

>Tne trouble with this argument is:

>    1.	International Law lays down rules for naval blockades.

>    2.	These rules prohibit sinking neutral ships without warning.

What meaning does international law have?  What relevance does it have?
In particular, would the argument be any different if international law
did not say this?

>In other words, the Germans chose to use a weapon that they knew in 
>advance could only be used effectively in violation of intenational
>law.   No-one forced Germany to use a weapon that could only be used
>illegally.   They could have decided not to use it, as they decided
>not to use poison gas - in WWII.

They didn't use it because it isn't an effective military weapon, not
because they were nice people, as I think they proved quite well.

They chose to use submarine warfare because it was the only weapon they
had to enforce their blockade.

>This argument, that Germany was forced to break international law
>in its use of submarines, is similar to another argument that says 
>"Britain's guarantee of Beligian neutrality made it impossible for 
>Germany to occupy Belgium legally in 1914, so it was actually Britain
>that forced Germany had to occupy Belgium illegally".

But occupying Belgium *started* the war (with Britain).  If they hadn't 
occupied Belgium, nothing would have happened.  But they were already
fighting when they began using submarine warfare.

Surely you understand the difference between me using a gun to defend
myself against you attacking me, because its the only weapon I own, and
me choosing to break into your house one night to attack you.

>|> I'm not defending them, but I'm just saying that they weren't doing it
>|> because they were morally inferior to the British, but because that was
>|> the only means at their disposal.

>That's funny.   I thought we decided at Nuremburg that their actions
>actually were "morally inferior".   Didn't we?

>What other German actions in WWII do you consider took place "because that 
>was the only means at their disposal."?

Don't be stupid.  I'm talking about their naval actions, and I'm talking
about WWI.  I don't think the Allies were exactly that morally superior
in WWI.  

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23879 talk.politics.misc:60305 tx.politics:7361