Arming merchant ships and military contraband on passenger liners were both perfectly legal under the accepted naval laws in this period.fwilliam wrote:
You are so right that domestic economic factors, mainly the result of the Royal Navy's "illegal" blockade, more than military ones led to Germany's seeking of the armistice.
I say "illegal" only because the British, masters of the seas for 400 years, demanded that Germany's uboats adhere to the so-called "law of the sea" in conduct of their operations. In other words, surface, warn the target you were about to sink her, allow the opposing captain to evacuate the crew and then, after sinking the target, radio the coordinates so that a rescue could be effected.
Now at the same time, Britain proceeded to secretly arm her merchant ships in direct violation of international law AND regularly shipped military contraband about passenger ships as on the Lusitania. Yet, "unrestricted submarine warfare" if often cited as a primary causus belli for the pro-British Wilson. Admittedly the Zimmerman Telegram was a "gaffe" worthy of our current presidential candidates, but the blockade of Germany was clearly aimed at innocent civilians. Yet seldom is that factored into the equation. Either memories are selective or the adage that "He who controls the message, controls the debate" as clearly demonstrated by Britain's code breaking abilities. Of course it didn't hurt their cause as the four separate trans-Atlantic cables passed through the British Isles at some point.
It also supports the maxim, "The winners write history."
Eismann
The problem for the Germans was that the rules were written before the advent of submarines, therefore the problems they faced attempting to stop ships far larger and more powerful than them were not recognised in the rules.
