From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: International Law and Blockades
Date: 21 Nov 1992 00:55:53 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1ef910INN6fm@manuel.anu.edu.au>, dxb105@phys.anu.edu.au (David Bofinger) writes:
> In article <1ecjopINNgr3@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com
> (Jon Livesey) writes:
> > [...] 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."
> 
> >     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 sank neutral shipping because it was taking supplies to the UK.

Anyone who gets in the way of the German War effort gets sunk?
I think we got that point.

> The British didn't sink neutral shipping bound for Germany
> because there basically wasn't any.

Wrong.   A Northern Patrol was establish between Scotland
and Iceland consisting of 25 armed merchant cruisers backed
up by four eight inch ten thousand ton RN cruisers.   By
the end of the first month of the war they seized 300,000
of supplies destined for Germany[5].

A British submarine, HMS Salmon, intercepted the German
liner Bremen, but since it could not legally intercept it,
it let it escape[5].

> >     1.	International Law lays down rules for naval blockades.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here by "International Law".

What I'm referring to is called Prize Rules.   "These rules
went back to the sixteenth Century, but they had many times
been rewritten and enshrined in International Law"[1]

> As far as the second kind of international law is concerned, the precedents
> were probably set during the Napoleonic wars or so, and one can imagine the
> Germans feeling that since their country didn't even exist then, the fact
> that somebody (presumably the British) had decided on certain rules (that,
> unsurprisingly, were to their advantage) was hardly relevant during either
> world war.

No, this is not something that the British decided on
unilaterally.  There is a large measure of voluntarism in
International Law.  A country does not have to subscribe to
a particular piece of International Law, but then their own
ships, etc. don't benefit from it.

I realise that Germany often ignored Treaties.   The Kaiser's
regime referred to Belgian neutrality as "A scrap of paper" and
Hitler referred to one Treaty as "A treacherous frippery"[2]
However, once a country has signed a Treaty accepting a piece
of International Law, if they subsequently break it, we may say
that they have.    For example, the Kaiser's regime did sign
the Treaty to guarantee Belgian neutrality that they later
violated.

In fact, Britain and Germany made several agreements
regulating naval operations in the inter-war years [3].  In
particular, the London Submarine Convention of 1936
regulated submarine operations.   Both parties agreed to
"Sink merchant ships only in accordance with international
Law: with warning to ships sailing unescorted, and only
ships sailing under naval escort to be sunk without
warning"[4]

In addition to signing this specific agreement, the Germans
themselves claimed privilege of Prize Rules when it suited
them.  For example, they cited Prize Rules when seizing the
US ship SS City of Flint on October 22, 1939[1].

However, as the war went on, Germany abandoned Prize Rules
in its own operations, and eventually, 17th May 1942,
Deonitz issued a new set of rules that ordered: that all
attempts to rescue passengers and crew from torpedoed ships
was to cease.    No water or provisions were to be given to
passengers and crew already in the water.    This order was
the basis of the Ten Year prison sentence that Doentiz
received in 1946[1].

> Actually, the British were a long way behind, which didn't stop them
> planning to use mustard gas as a last ditch effort versus Operation
> Sealion. People with their backs to a wall have no time for morals.

Three points here.   We don't know if  Britain would have
used gas.  All we know is that they didn't.

Moreover, in 1940, when according to some accounts Britain
was within a month of losing the war[*] they still did not
use poison gas, and they still didn't wage unrestricted
anti-merchant ship warfare.

On the other hand, in 1940, when Hitler claimed he had the
war against Britain already won, Germany did carry out
unrestricted anti-merchant ship warfare.   And in 1942,
when he claimed he had the war against Russia already won,
he broke International Law in Russia as well.

Can anyone explain how Hitler could be claiming he had
these wars already won, but have his back to the wall
simultaneously?

> Does anyone know how the allies justified their invasion of Iceland?

I'm not sure, but I *think* Iceland was then part of
Denmark, which had already been occupied by Germany.
Perhaps someone could correct me here.

> 
> > That's funny.   I thought we decided at Nuremburg that their actions
> > actually were "morally inferior".   Didn't we?
> 
> Not clear the poster was one of the judges at Nuremberg. :-)

Well, that's why we have history books.   Not that it appears
to help much.

> The winners of WW2 were so upset with these nazi monsters they decided
> to punish them, and legalities be damned.

Wrong again.    The Kellogg-Briand Pact, to which Germany
and Italy were signatories, formed the legal basis for the
post-war trials[6].

jon.

[1] The Atlantic Campaign.   Van der Vaat.   Harper and Row.
[2] Mein Kampf,    Hitler A.   Harper and Row.
[3] Labour Party of Great Britain, Foreign Policy.   Windrich, E.   
	Greenwood Press.
[4] The Price of Admiralty,   Keegan J.   Viking Press.
[5] The Second World War, Churchill.
[6] History of the American People.    Morison, S.E.

[*] I don't necessarily believe this, but I've seen postings 
	claiming this.
Xref: sparky soc.history:9601 talk.politics.theory:5021