From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
Subject: Re: Libertarians in WW2
Date: 18 Nov 92 05:19:21 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

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.
	


|>                            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.

	"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.

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.

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".

|> 
|> 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."?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot