Unpunished Royal Navy war crimes of WW1 & WW2

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004, 21:54
Location: Arlington, TX

#46

Post by WalterS » 12 Apr 2004, 21:11

fknorr wrote:
If you served this country (which I doubt), and had any notion of what it means to serve on a ship you'd possibly have a different opinion. I will enlighten you. 90% of crew members on any ship (including warships) are non-combatants
Well, I have served the country and have served on several US Navy ships, some in command positions, and I will say that this statement is wrong. All personnel (except medical) serving on US navy warships (and ships with a primary mission other than combat such as oilers, repair ships etc) are, indeed, combatants.

All personnel contribute to the mission of the ship. There is no distinction between the missile techs who service the missile launchers, the operations specialists who track the battle, the command and control personnel who direct the battle and order the firing of weapons, and the engineers who provide power and propulsion, the damage control personnel who repair the ship, the cooks that feed the crew. Everyone aboard a warship is, by definition, a combatant (except medical).

When a ship fires at another ship, the weapon makes no distinctions, it just hits.

Now, once a ship is abandoned and survivors are in the water, things change. Attacking helpless survivors in the water is prohibited unless said survivors are taking an action that can harm one's ship or otherwise aid the enemy. Swimming ashore to escape capture and join one's colleagues on the beach to "fight another day" is problematic at best, although retreating soldiers during land combat can be shot at. Survivors in the water who don't surrender are still combatants, even though their ship is gone. A tank trooper who abandons his tank can still fight.

Still, the above mentioned episode with the German destroyer being sunk and then survivors allegedly being shot at while in the water is, to me, fuzzy and grey at best. As the CO of a ship in a running surface engagement I would no longer pay attention to the enemy sailors in the water once I determined that their ship was no longer a threat. Shooting at them while an action was still in progress would be stupid, if not criminal. Apparently the Brits later justified this by claiming the Germans were making for shore and constituted a future threat. That seems thin to me.

Regarding the other mentioned action, U-852 sinking of SS Peleus, there is no doubt in my mind that the German commander in that situation definitely committed war crimes.

Ostuf Charlemagne
Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: 18 Dec 2002, 13:33
Location: Honduras

#47

Post by Ostuf Charlemagne » 12 Apr 2004, 22:08

Well ,despite whatever may say some readers , it is a fact that the Royal Navy have a strange conception of the naval honor , from the time of the failed raid of the spanish Great Armada (1588) when for instance , Lord Howard pursued the spanish ship San Lorenzo up to the french beaches of Calais .After having extermined the spanish crew ,the british sailors launched a raid against the french civilians of Calais (who had nothing to do with this war ) and stolen them ,until the french opened fire with their cannons against the brits who runned away ...
( Source : report of Richard Thompson ,vice –commander of british ship “Margaret and John” where he stated : “ Some of our men are so crude that they do not make any difference between friends and foes .They have stolen the jewels of the frenchs as they would have done to enemies .After that we are unwanted in all europeans harbours .”)

... up to 1982 when the brits let die in a frozing sea the sailors of the argentine battleship Belgrano . In between of 1588 and 1982 ,we can mentione the following honorable deeds : the infamous “pontons” , which were cages inside the sea where were jailed ,with water up to the torso ,the frenchs sailors of Napoleon who have been captured ... this infamous torture ,largely utilized by the vietnameses against US POWs (see the movie “The Deer Hunter”) is not a communist invention but a Royal Navy one ...
At the end of WW1 ,according to the allies “diktat” ,70 german warships were supposed to rally the british naval base of Scapa Flow .The germans did it ... But inside the british naval base ,the german sailors scuttled their whole fleet . This way the german fleet sunk “ having choised her own grave “ (admiral Von Reuter ‘s dixit.)
In reprisals ,the brits would keep those german crews as POWs until ... 1920 !

During WW2 the “heroic “deed of their treasonous attack at Mers-els-Kebir plus their well evidenced war crime against the Laconia ( I’m surprised that Panzermahn didn’t bring up this story ...) lead me to think that if the III Reich had won the war ,and the Nurnberg trial has been set up for the allies ,more than one british admiral would have stood up there .

So I won’t enter the discussion about the Royal Navy because I find that their crimes are too much documented and it would be a too easy topic for us .(Even if it seems that Panzermahn and Knorr don’t have access to a full information ,there .To any newbee : Instead to start grumbling , go to the motor and try a search by the name of “Konrad Loercke” ,you will find what I’m talking about ...)

So I pass over this moot point . But ,in sake of a good discussion with our “allies” friends , let’s talk about the US Navy ( or better say ,the US Coast-Guard) for a while :

At the end of the war ,the german submarine U-234 ,under command of captain Fehler ,sailed to Japan in a secret mission ,loaded with military secrets ( in particular about infra-red technology ) ,210 tons of the most recent german waeponry ( a dismantled Me-262 was on board ), radars prototypes ,samples of Panzerfausten , new kind of explosives ,and 23 metalic boxes with 560 kilos of uranium to allows Japan to pursue the german research on nuclear weapons.
Even during day May 8th 1945 ,they received a message of Doenitz ,ordering them to carry on their mission and that his orders of surrender for the submarines where not concerning the U-234...
But two days later ,Fehler learn by the radio that Japan have broke his ties with Germany and that in Japan ,the germans residents was arrested ...Then they picked up an allied message proclaiming that all german U-boots on sea were ordered to surrender in an allies harbour ,if not they would be considered as “pirates” since their government has capitulate .
On board of U-234 ,the officers had a difficult decison to make .Some wanted to carry on the mission to Japan . (which I think they should have done “for the honor” ; two japaneses officers were on board .Feeling betrayed by the germans they committed suicide .) , some others wanted to reach a neutral country ,but at the end captain Fehler opted to surrender to the US Navy because of the uranium they were transporting .He tought that this would help the americans in the ,soon to come ,“cold war” against the russians . Now the USA were perceived as a wall against bolshevism ,just as Germany has been on the eastern front . A political fantasy that coasted the life of more than one german officer ... the following events were pretty sad and demostrated how much Fehler has been wrong :

By May 14th 1945 the war was over for the U-234 which surrended to the US detroyer SUTTON (DE771) . The german crew and officers were treated fairly by the american sailors of the Sutton . But by May 19th they were transferred to the US Coast-Guard ship “Argo”. There a coasty beated Fehler by a butstroke to the jaw because Fehler didn’t smiled to him . It was only the beginning of mistreatments . After the war ,Fehler will says that he and his men were treated “like animals “ by the Coast-Guards of the “Argo”) ... when the CG ship reached Portsmouth and Fehler and the german officers was about to leave the ship ,captain Charles Winslow , commander of the “Argo”, yelled to them : “ Out of my boat ,you nazis gangsters !”

( It seems that Winslow has this attitude because of the presence of journalists in the harbour’s docks .He wanted ,maybe ,to see his “historical” words in the next day press...Personnally I think that the Coast-Guards – at last the ones of the “Argo” – where uneasies about their un -warrior roles . Few Coast-guards ships have seen real action during the war ,and like many cushies in many armies ,they needed to bragg about their “valour”. In this case against defenseless POWs .)

The german officers and crew of the U-234 were jailed at the prison of Boston ( Charles street.) There Fehler will earch the endless awls of somebody repeatdly beated .He learned later that it was captain Fritz Stienhoff ,commander of U-873 ,who was many time tortured by US guards . Scared and desmoralized ,Fehler tried to committ suicide ,he broke his glasses and cutted his veins . Brehme ,former medic of U-873, asked the US guards for a blood transfusion of emergency .This operation was delayed the most by the prison’authorities ,but at the end ,Fehler was saved ,thanks to the first aid of german medic Brehme .

After the war ,in a declaration in 2001 , Fehler will says : “What a difference with the gentlemanly fashion we had treated our POWs aboard the “Atlantis”) - Fehler has served on the Atlantis before on the U-234 - he also declared that he had committed a mistake in surrending to americans and that if he had to do it again ,he would go to Japan or to a neutral country ... Enough said .

Now I guess that most readers ,starting with our friend Thompson , will try to argue that according to retroactive post-war“rule of war”number xxx ,parragraph bla-bla-bla- those deeds was technically no war crime .Or they will try to dismiss it as an “incident” ... They will say :“But they weren’t killed .They survived ,don’t they ? ”
Indeed . Just like many jews survived Auschwitz .
They will cry about how evils was the nazis ,and they will end teaching us lessons of democracy ,human rights , and how nice were the allies , because they have the self-proclaimed moral right to do it . And because ,as said our Lord ( and that comes handy in this Easter time ) they always look at the straw in the eyes of the others ones ,and are experts to forget the trunk in their own eye .

But Thompson knows that I am generally overdocumented and that I always keep some ammo in reserve .(Long time that I wasn’t desafying you in duel ,Thompson ...)

En garde ! by the way ,before you ask ,my sources about Fehler and the mistreatments are double :

book “ Germany’s last mission to Japan ,the failed voyage of the U-234 “ by J. Mark Scalia - a former US seal and expert in naval themes - published by the Naval Institute Press , Annapolis ,USA .

and the declarations of captain Fehler to the french historical magazine “Aventures de l’Histoire” number 4 ,April 2001 , published monthly by editions Didro .


User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

#48

Post by redcoat » 12 Apr 2004, 23:49

Ostuf Charlemagne wrote: During WW2 the “heroic “deed of their treasonous attack at Mers-els-Kebir
To have been treasonous the RN would have had to attack the french fleet without the permission of the British government..... seeing that wasn't the case :roll:
plus their well evidenced war crime against the Laconia ( I’m surprised that Panzermahn didn’t bring up this story ...)
Possibly because he is aware the RN had nothing to do with the Laconia incident (the subs involved in the rescue were attacked by a US aircraft under orders from its US base).
So I won’t enter the discussion about the Royal Navy because I find that their crimes are too much documented and it would be a too easy topic for us
:lol: :lol: :P

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004, 21:54
Location: Arlington, TX

#49

Post by WalterS » 13 Apr 2004, 00:31

Ostuf Charlemagne wrote
Well ,despite whatever may say some readers , it is a fact that the Royal Navy have a strange conception of the naval honor , from the time of the failed raid of the spanish Great Armada (1588)

Obviously, our friend Ostuf Charlemagne has his mind made up about things and refuses to let facts get in the way, even to the point of bringing into the discussion an alleged episode from the 16TH BLEEDING CENTURY to further his assault on all things non-Nazi. Having lost the original argument about alleged Royal Navy crimes in WWI and II, he reaches back into the Middle Ages in an attempt to bolster an argument that has no validity in support of a cause without merit or morals.


... up to 1982 when the brits let die in a frozing sea the sailors of the argentine battleship Belgrano
The Belgrano (a cruiser, by the way) was torpedoed and sunk by a British submarine during the Falklands conflict, a conflict which was started by Argentine aggression. (sound familiar?)The British submarine was under no imperative to surface and take prisoners. I see no tears shed by Mr. Charlemagne for the thousands of merchant seamen left freezing and drowning by German U-Boat attacks.


Nope, having lost the argument about the RN, Charlemagne dismisses the whole discussion with references to 16th and 19th century episodes ending with a haughty

So I won’t enter the discussion about the Royal Navy because I find that their crimes are too much documented and it would be a too easy topic for us
This is a common debate tactic used by someone who has lost. Charlemagne changes the subject (RN actions in WWI and II) to something not under discussion (RN actions since 1588), posts a few unsubstantiated allegations, declares himself the winner, and moves on to attack something else not under discussion, namely the US Coast Guard. Talk about a "wandering thread."

What Mr Charlemagne's debate tactics really boil down to is the old "splatter em" strategy. That is, hurl as much mud as you can, regardless if there's any truth or relevance in it, in the hope that some will stick. If some of the mud sticks, if some readers begin believing that there really was no moral difference between what the Nazi government did and the Allies did, then Mr Charlemagne will consider the exercise a success.

Hop
Member
Posts: 571
Joined: 09 Apr 2002, 01:55
Location: United Kingdom

#50

Post by Hop » 13 Apr 2004, 04:13

... up to 1982 when the brits let die in a frozing sea the sailors of the argentine battleship Belgrano
Cruiser, not battleship.

The Belgrano was accompanied by two destroyers, the Bouchard and the Piedra Buena. Neither of these escorts were attacked, and they should have been able to take off the survivors from the Belgrano. They both fled the scene as fast as they could, without bothering to rescue anyone.

The British submarine was under orders not to attack the escorts, for the very reason that they would be needed to rescue the crew of the Belgrano.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#51

Post by David Thompson » 13 Apr 2004, 05:10

Ostuf. -- The Laws and customs of war were not systematically codified until the first Hague Conference in 1899. Going back as far as 1588 to look for evidence of what would be considered war crimes three hundred years later seems -- well, a little unfair. It's sort of like like blaming the man for his acts as a child -- he did it all right, but did he know any better?

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

#52

Post by Panzermahn » 13 Apr 2004, 15:43

Yeah, Ostuf Charlemagne is correct, the Royal Navy attack on the Mers-el-Kebir was a war crime with such brutality that almost 1,000 French sailors were killed

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

#53

Post by redcoat » 13 Apr 2004, 20:34

panzermahn wrote:Yeah, Ostuf Charlemagne is correct, the Royal Navy attack on the Mers-el-Kebir was a war crime with such brutality that almost 1,000 French sailors were killed
panzermahn, your total inability to understand what is, or is not a war crime is a source of constant amusement to me :lol:

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004, 21:54
Location: Arlington, TX

#54

Post by WalterS » 13 Apr 2004, 21:14

panzermahn wrote:
Yeah, Ostuf Charlemagne is correct, the Royal Navy attack on the Mers-el-Kebir was a war crime with such brutality that almost 1,000 French sailors were killed
Please explain how this qualifies as a "war crime."

fknorr
Banned
Posts: 189
Joined: 30 Jan 2004, 22:25
Location: Pa USA

#55

Post by fknorr » 13 Apr 2004, 21:19

redcoat wrote:your total inability to understand what is, or is not a war crime is a source of constant amusement to me :lol:
Can we get your definition of a war crime?

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#56

Post by Andreas » 13 Apr 2004, 22:01

fknorr wrote:
Andreas wrote: as soon as you have addressed the points raised by David ... Until then, you don't have a leg to stand on...
I thought I was quite clear re: shooting unarmed people in the water (ranting or not), so if you do not get it, why should I continue (beating a dead horse so to speak)
Well yes, that is quite clear. What you have failed to clear up to this observer's mind is why for you there is no difference between:

a) a soldier and a civilian in the water
b) a battle and a non-battle situation
c) a confirmed attempt at killing the whole lot, and an inference that this was attempted (but clearly failed)

Your previous post was attempting to portray 90% of the soldiers on a ship as civilians. Now that Walter has demolished that idea, please explain further. I am all ears.

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004, 21:54
Location: Arlington, TX

#57

Post by WalterS » 13 Apr 2004, 23:08

fknorr wrote:
Top my stuff above off w/Donitz being tried as a war criminal for basically nothing that all the other submarine commanders didn't do
Tried, yes. Convicted, no.

In view of all the facts proved and in particular of an order of the British Admiralty announced on the 8th May, 1940, according to which all vessels should be sunk at sight in the Skagerrak, and the answers to interrogatories by Admiral Nimitz stating that unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day that nation entered the war, the sentence of Doenitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/juddoeni.htm

A trial doesn't equal conviction.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#58

Post by David Thompson » 13 Apr 2004, 23:12

fknorr -- A war crime is a violation of international law, relating to the laws and customs of war on the land, sea and air. There is a thread giving links to these laws posted at the top of the first page. It may be found at:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=26829

Posters claiming that one or another act is a war crime should be prepared to document that claim by showing the law which was broken, and why the complained-of act violated the law. Panzermahn has been notoriously bad about this in the past, and he failed again to do the basic required research in the post above. Consequently, redcoat's critique of his claim for that very reason is well-taken.

Because the term "war crime" has a well-established meaning, there is no need for redcoat to explain it to you or anyone else, unless you are somehow confused and need additional clarification. The burden of proof to show a war crime in this instance is on Panzermahn.

Ostuf Charlemagne
Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: 18 Dec 2002, 13:33
Location: Honduras

#59

Post by Ostuf Charlemagne » 14 Apr 2004, 04:40

Well,so far nobody entered the topic about the "deeds" of the Coast-Guards . Interesting .

Difference between a cruiser and a battleship : Yes I know .I beg your perdon ,english is not my mother tongue ,so the mistake was linguistical ,not technical.

Laconia : Yes.It was the US Air Force .

Comrade Panzermahn ,the victims of Mers-els-Kebir were more than 1200....

Of course ,like Mr Redcoat (the colour of british uniforms during hundreds of years ,here their nicknames "redcoats" ...a guarantee of impartiality ,Mr Redcoat ?) put it in such a delicate fashion ,an english war crimes is not a war crime as soon as the british government orders it ( or cover it ...).

Since you states that a war crime is not so if ordered from the government ,will this magical formula works for the Conference of Wannsee and the so-called "holocaust" ???

We wait impatiently for your embarrassed explainations , Mr Redcoat .

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#60

Post by David Thompson » 14 Apr 2004, 05:02

Ostuf -- Please start a new thread if you change the subject. There's no reason for a casual reader to suspect that a thread called "Unpunished Royal Navy war crimes of WWI & WWII" would have allegations about the US Coast Guard in it.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”