How long can Britain hold out without Lend Lease?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: How long can Britain hold out without Lend Lease?

#76

Post by Rob Stuart » 16 May 2014, 18:23

When one country chooses not to export its own products to another country it is NOT an act of war. (For example, the refusal of EU countries to sell the drugs used in executions to the US is not an act of war.) On the other hand, using one's navy to blockade the ports of a country you're not at war with is an act of war against that country, and arguably an act of war against any third countries whose ships are interfered with.

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: How long can Britain hold out without Lend Lease?

#77

Post by South » 16 May 2014, 22:34

Good afternoon Rob,

You're dealing with the correct subject matter but your points and example are not correct.

Check the definitions. One source might be "Restatement-Foreign Relations Law of the United States". Don't have ISBN readily available.

A blockade of ports by naval vessels is surely an act of war. An act of war can also be exercised by eg banks and insurance companies. The overall picture must be looked at.


Warm regards,

Bob


User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: How long can Britain hold out without Lend Lease?

#78

Post by LWD » 20 May 2014, 16:16


South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: How long can Britain hold out without Lend Lease?

#79

Post by South » 20 May 2014, 22:32

Good afternoon LWD,

For the definitions we are using here......especially focused to warfare and not eg transnational safety matters.....recommend not to cite Wiki and glance at eg Black's Law Dictionary and eg "Restatement: Foreign Relations Law of the United States".

For an example, review how the JFK administration handled the Cuba situation. It clarifies much.


Warm regards,

Bob

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: How long can Britain hold out without Lend Lease?

#80

Post by LWD » 20 May 2014, 22:50

If you are refering to the missile crisis that was a blockade as well as an Embargo. The wiki definition is consistent with the other three which are not wiki. If you care to produce a quote supporting your position I'll at least consider it.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: How long can Britain hold out without Lend Lease?

#81

Post by RichTO90 » 21 May 2014, 03:42

South wrote:Good afternoon LWD,

For the definitions we are using here......especially focused to warfare and not eg transnational safety matters.....recommend not to cite Wiki and glance at eg Black's Law Dictionary and eg "Restatement: Foreign Relations Law of the United States".

For an example, review how the JFK administration handled the Cuba situation. It clarifies much.
Yes, indeed it does. An embargo may be a part of war or threatening hostilities, but it is not itself considered an act of war. Neither is a quarantine, which was the careful language used for the Cuban Missile Crisis. On the other hand, a blockade, by international law, is considered an act of war.

Black's defines embargo as (with citations): "A proclamation or order of state, usually issued in time of war or threatened hostilities, prohibiting the departure of ships or goods from some or all the ports of such state until further order. The William King, 2 Wheat. 148, 4 L. Ed. 200; Delano v. Bedford Ins. Co., 10 Mass. 351, 6 Am. Dec.132; King v. Delaware Ins. Co., 14 Fed. Cas. 510.

Embargo is the hindering or detention by any government of ships of commerce in its ports. If the embargo is laid upon ships belonging to citizens of the state imposing it,it is called a “civil embargo;” if, as more commonly happens, it is laid upon ships belonging to the enemy, it is called a “hostile embargo.” The effect of this latter embargo is that the vessels detained are restored to the rightful owners if no war follows, but are forfeited to the embargoing government if war does follow, the declaration of war being held to relate back to the original seizure and detention. Brown.

The temporary or permanent sequestration of the property of individuals for the purposes of a government, e.g., to obtain vessels for the transport of troops, the owners being reimbursed for this forced service. Man. Int. Law, 143."

Britannica defines Blockade as: "an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy’s coasts.

Blockades are regulated by international customary law and by international treaty law. A blockade must be declared in advance by notification of all neutral powers, and it must be applied impartially against ships of all states. Mere declarations of a blockade or “paper blockades,” common in the 18th and early 19th centuries, have no legal effect; the blockading state must make the blockade effective by maintaining naval or air forces in the area in sufficient strength to prevent ingress or egress from the enemy’s ports. Once the blockade ceases to be effectively maintained, the legal state of blockade lapses and can only be reestablished by due notification and enforcement.

Penalties for breach of blockade are seizure of ship and cargo and their possible condemnation as lawful prize. Neutral ships may not be destroyed for blockade running.

The law of blockade, in common with other laws of war, has evolved historically to meet the needs of major powers. The development of submarines and aircraft, in particular, made it impossible to station blockading warships in constant positions off an enemy’s coasts to maintain close blockades, and it has subsequently been accepted that long-range blockades (maintained by naval forces out of sight of the enemy’s coast) are legal if they effectively prevent ingress and egress.

There is little legal authority, however, by which the meaning of “effective blockade” may be precisely defined under conditions of modern naval warfare. There is authority for the view that risk of seizure for ships running the blockade must be substantial, entailing the presence of patrolling ships.'

Britannica also defines embargo as: "a legal prohibition by a government or group of governments restricting the departure of vessels or movement of goods from some or all locations to one or more countries.

Embargoes may be broad or narrow in scope. A trade embargo, for example, is a prohibition on exports to one or more countries, though the term is often used to refer to a ban on all commerce. In contrast, a strategic embargo restricts only the sale of goods that make a direct and specific contribution to a country’s military power; similarly, an oil embargo prohibits only the export of oil. Broad embargoes often allow the export of certain goods (e.g., medicines or foodstuffs) to continue for humanitarian purposes, and most multilateral embargoes include escape clauses that specify a limited set of conditions under which exporters may be exempt from their prohibitions.

An embargo is a tool of economic warfare that may be employed for a variety of political purposes, including demonstrating resolve, sending a political signal, retaliating for another country’s actions, compelling a country to change its behaviour, deterring it from engaging in undesired activities, and weakening its military capability."

Again, it may be a tool of economic warfare, but it is not construed under international law as an act of war.

I am curious where you find Restatement of the Law (3d) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States defines an embargo as an act of war. Restatement of the Law simply discusses the sources of international law and its place in U.S. jurisprudence according to case law. Do you have a fuller citation?

I am also curious where you see only a "Wiki" reference given you? I see references to Proportionality in International Law
by Michael Newton and Larry May and Halleck's International Law by Henry Wager Halleck and George Washington Cullum.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: How long can Britain hold out without Lend Lease?

#82

Post by Rob Stuart » 21 May 2014, 22:47

I agree that an embargo is not an act of war in and of itself. The UN has some significant embargoes in place against Iran and other countries at the moment, and they are certainly not acts of war. Furthermore, a Canadian decision in 1941 not to sell nickel and other things to the US if its desired price was not paid, and similar decisions by London concerning exports to the US from territories it controlled, would not have constituted embargos, since they weren't imposed by any third party. To point to a current example, the US policy of not selling F-15s to Russia is not an embargo, and certainly not an act of war. It's simply an export policy choice of the sort any sovereign nation can legitimately take.

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: How long can Britain hold out without Lend Lease?

#83

Post by South » 26 May 2014, 10:27

Good morning Rich,

Your narrative contains support in re my position. Going beyond some presented sentences is dealing in semantics and rhetoric.

There are embargoes well beyond ships and ports.

Ocean vessels can be third nation owned. Ditto: aircraft.

I was not / am not delving into what international law determines as an act of war re embargoes - and I'm on record here to a belief that "international law" does not exist.

Yes, RESTATEMENT "discusses". Again; "international law" is more about comity and third party reactions to the transactions, less publishers assembling a corpus of material that's semantics and rhetoric.

Focus on the ITARs and EARs as to how an embargo operates. BNA's "Export Weekly" offered clarifying opinions.

For the record to demonstrate I'm open-minded to others' views, circa 1960, the US Government embargoed the pharamceutical "Thalidomide" from entering US customs territory. The regulatory prohibition inadvertantly failed to work. The United States was not at war with the United Kingdom.


Warm regards,

Bob

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: How long can Britain hold out without Lend Lease?

#84

Post by RichTO90 » 26 May 2014, 18:16

South wrote:Good morning Rich,

Your narrative contains support in re my position. Going beyond some presented sentences is dealing in semantics and rhetoric.

There are embargoes well beyond ships and ports.

Ocean vessels can be third nation owned. Ditto: aircraft.
Bob, you do realize that random disconnected assertions of facts and speculations do not actually constitute a rational argument? Perhaps if you care to flesh some of those out you might be able to expand your argument to something more than your own semantic and rhetorical sentences. I've been polite enough to do so, but if you actually can't be bothered to present a coherent argument in return, please let me know so I can stop wasting my time.
I was not / am not delving into what international law determines as an act of war re embargoes - and I'm on record here to a belief that "international law" does not exist.
I see, so since you believe something doesn't exist it enables you to define reality as you please. How convenient. However, it might surprise the signatories of various international treaties that actually define what that international and customary law is. Including the United States.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Yes, RESTATEMENT "discusses". Again; "international law" is more about comity and third party reactions to the transactions, less publishers assembling a corpus of material that's semantics and rhetoric.

Focus on the ITARs and EARs as to how an embargo operates. BNA's "Export Weekly" offered clarifying opinions.
Yes, ITAR's and EAR's are part of the CFR. Please explain where they define an embargo as an act of war.
For the record to demonstrate I'm open-minded to others' views, circa 1960, the US Government embargoed the pharamceutical "Thalidomide" from entering US customs territory. The regulatory prohibition inadvertantly failed to work. The United States was not at war with the United Kingdom.
Uh, sorry, Bob but you earlier claimed that "embargoes - are deemed an act of war. That's why nations use other actions". So then, according to you the U.S. actually did undertake an act of war against the UK by banning thalidomide? How nice that the UK did not take umbrage. Why weren't we smart enough to "use other actions"? Perhaps we could then have stopped the inadvertent spread of thalidomide from entering US territory. :roll:

Or are you now claiming that embargoes are not acts of war?

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: How long can Britain hold out without Lend Lease?

#85

Post by South » 26 May 2014, 21:07

Good afternoon Rich,

I've presented the view that embargoes, within the context of the situation, are a specific action. My concluding sarcastic example re the thalidomide "embargo" to fortify my view, was missed. I did try. Again, look at the context of the environment.

The Cuban "quarantine" by the US .....an initial example I offered.....allowed for much "flesh" to understand my point. Again, please review my Cuban example.

Also, again, with a preface that I will not insult or waste one's time, I am staying on historical events and related points as much as realistic, I did not write "international and customary law". I wrote "international law". I also mentioned "comity". No insults involved; no efforts to overload your inbox to waste your time.

My solitary view that international law does not exist places me in a small bloc.....if the bloc can be measured.....of commentators believing that it does not exist.

I'll conclude by asking you to review the second Arab embargo. My point should be as visible as white light passing through a prism. Your contrary view is accepted. We're not involved in first time events.

US regulations do not necessarily define terms-eg an embargo. Look at the surrounding circumstances and political requirements...eg the Cuban quarantine...and then glance at the second Arab oil embargo. I did mention BNA and their pub "US Export Weekly".

I'm omitting much re commentary since it's just not healthy to argue points with pre-existing disagreements.

A couple of feet notes;

You'll appreciate FOREIGN AFFAIRS and the CONSTITUTION, Louis Henkin, 1972, Lib Congress 72-94348, 1972. This obscure book has a foot (actually an end of page) note exactly on point....at least to my position:

"But President Cleveland is reported to have said in 1897 that if Congress declared war on Spain on account of Cuba he would refuse to order the Army and Navy to fight." pg 107 (You had referenced the US Constitution.)

.......

"In fall 2008, the Treasury could have issued debt to fund emergency actions, but that would have been politically difficult, says Richmond Fed economist Robert Hetzel. 'If you think that fiscal policy should be subject to democratic monitoring because it's in the spirit of the Constitution, that's exactly the sort of political debate you want to have. But it's painful".

From: When the Fed Conducts Credit Policy", David A. Price, REGION FOCUS Magazine, First Quarter, 2012, Pg 6. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, ISSN:1093 1767.

......

"As part of the assistance package, the United States and Mexico entered into an oil agreement to ensure that in the event of a default by Mexico, the United States would be repaid both in principal and interest from oil export revenues that flow through an account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. ..."

MEXICO'S FINANCIAL CRISIS, Origins, Awareness, Assistance, and Initial Efforts to Recover, GAO/GGD-96-56.

...........

The reference to the Constitution you provided in re our above discussion is slightly out of date.


Warm regards,

Bob

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: How long can Britain hold out without Lend Lease?

#86

Post by RichTO90 » 26 May 2014, 22:08

South wrote:Good afternoon Rich,

I've presented the view that embargoes, within the context of the situation, are a specific action. My concluding sarcastic example re the thalidomide "embargo" to fortify my view, was missed. I did try. Again, look at the context of the environment.
Of course embargoes are "specific actions" - I'm unclear why you think that relevant to your assertion that "embargoes - are deemed an act of war. That's why nations use other actions", which is what you have repeatedly avoided addressing.
The Cuban "quarantine" by the US .....an initial example I offered.....allowed for much "flesh" to understand my point. Again, please review my Cuban example.
I know the Cuban Quarantine example quite well thank you very much, we use it as a case study. And it was called a quarantine embargoing the importation of weapons into Cuba precisely because it avoided the problem of a casus belli.
Also, again, with a preface that I will not insult or waste one's time, I am staying on historical events and related points as much as realistic, I did not write "international and customary law". I wrote "international law". I also mentioned "comity". No insults involved; no efforts to overload your inbox to waste your time.
No insult taken, just bewilderment at your apparently deliberate unwillingness to answer the quite simple question you were asked.
My solitary view that international law does not exist places me in a small bloc.....if the bloc can be measured.....of commentators believing that it does not exist.
Very small indeed. There are also small blocs who refuse to believe that the world is an oblate spheroid or that man landed on the Moon or that the Twin Towers were taken down by airliners crashing into them. However, I'm afraid I take their beliefs with the same rather large grain of salt I take yours.
I'll conclude by asking you to review the second Arab embargo. My point should be as visible as white light passing through a prism. Your contrary view is accepted. We're not involved in first time events.
Sorry, no light can be visible when your comments remain so opaque as to be unintelligible. Was the Arab Oil Embargo - either one - a declaration of war? Did the US describe it as such or use it as a casus belli?
US regulations do not necessarily define terms-eg an embargo. Look at the surrounding circumstances and political requirements...eg the Cuban quarantine...and then glance at the second Arab oil embargo. I did mention BNA and their pub "US Export Weekly".
No, they don't since the definitions are considered common usage...none of which describe an embargo as you did "embargoes - are deemed an act of war. That's why nations use other actions".
I'm omitting much re commentary since it's just not healthy to argue points with pre-existing disagreements.
Yes that's something that's becoming painfully obvious.
A couple of feet notes;

You'll appreciate FOREIGN AFFAIRS and the CONSTITUTION, Louis Henkin, 1972, Lib Congress 72-94348, 1972. This obscure book has a foot (actually an end of page) note exactly on point....at least to my position:

"But President Cleveland is reported to have said in 1897 that if Congress declared war on Spain on account of Cuba he would refuse to order the Army and Navy to fight." pg 107 (You had referenced the US Constitution.)
Sorry, but what does that have to do with your assertion that "embargoes - are deemed an act of war. That's why nations use other actions"? Cleveland imposed an embargo on shipments of arms to the Cuban rebels in 1895 and insisted on strict neutrality while apply diplomatic pressure on Spain. While Henkin's footnote is on point with regards to the issue of American neutrality as expressed by Cleveland at the end of his term, it has nothing to do with your claim that an embargo is an act of war...unless your position is that Cleveland wished to declare war on the Cuban rebels?
"In fall 2008, the Treasury could have issued debt to fund emergency actions, but that would have been politically difficult, says Richmond Fed economist Robert Hetzel. 'If you think that fiscal policy should be subject to democratic monitoring because it's in the spirit of the Constitution, that's exactly the sort of political debate you want to have. But it's painful".

From: When the Fed Conducts Credit Policy", David A. Price, REGION FOCUS Magazine, First Quarter, 2012, Pg 6. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, ISSN:1093 1767.
Sorry, but what does commentary on the Treasury's fiscal policy have to do with you claim that "embargoes - are deemed an act of war. That's why nations use other actions"? I really would appreciate it if you would let me know if you're just going to continue to pull random quotes out of...wherever with the claim they are somehow relevent.
"As part of the assistance package, the United States and Mexico entered into an oil agreement to ensure that in the event of a default by Mexico, the United States would be repaid both in principal and interest from oil export revenues that flow through an account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. ..."

MEXICO'S FINANCIAL CRISIS, Origins, Awareness, Assistance, and Initial Efforts to Recover, GAO/GGD-96-56.
Ditto.
The reference to the Constitution you provided in re our above discussion is slightly out of date.
Really? So I missed an amendment or a Supreme Court decision? Which one?

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: How long can Britain hold out without Lend Lease?

#87

Post by South » 26 May 2014, 23:07

Good afternoon Rich,

I think the Cuban "quarantine" involved more than arms, ammunition and impliments of war. It's been relaxed over the years but it's more than involving guns and Cuban cigars.

Rich, the dialog here is approaching a dash of volatility. Let me add some specific, rambling comments as a reply and then, may I recommend, we close our conversation on this thread. There are "strict constructionist" views and "broad interpretation" views. These antagonistic views won't develop anything here - although they are needed in actual settings.

There were more than 2 oil embargoes.

Was not discussing - and it's obvious as of now - there was no declaration of war against the nations exercising the oil embargo. (I do recall in "modern" times, the US avoids declarations and says "a state of war exists".)

How the oil embargo was described in public; we both, ... all here ... , have access to the material. What was described in closed sessions on Capital Hill, I do not know. Obviously enough, it was a casus belli. However, do note that the recipient determines the "red lines". Recall Japan straffing the USS Panay in 1937 China, with USN wounded. A classic casus belli - but FDR was not ready for war and the Panay event had to be "buried" from the public.

My "feet notes" related to your cite from the US Constitution.

You did miss - more - than an amendment or a Supreme Court decision. The document now involves the "Fed".

.....

Speaking of Cuban quarantines......some years ago, representing a veterans' organization, I applied for US Treasury authorization to go to Cuba to attend the 100th anniversary of the surrender closing down the Spanish-American War. The location was the Santiago Surrender Tree. ... Did not go; the tree died [ but the fence and cannons were repainted] and the organization saved much. The US Interests Section, Swiss Embassy, Havana, sent me a large picture of the tree. If we ever arrange a "AHF Virginia get-together", will bring the photo.


Warm regards,

Bob

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: How long can Britain hold out without Lend Lease?

#88

Post by RichTO90 » 27 May 2014, 02:47

South wrote:Rich, the dialog here is approaching a dash of volatility.
No volatility at all Bob, but quite a bit of disappointment at your continued unwillingness to address a very simple question. Since you are unwilling to actually discuss what you mean and would rather ramble down rabbit holes, I think my initial impression of the uselessness of further conversation with you was correct.

Have a most ricky-tick evening.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”