minelayer Hannonia, a violation of Geneva Convention?

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Kriegsmarine except those dealing with the U-Boat forces.
bertamingo
Member
Posts: 260
Joined: 19 Apr 2014 08:49

minelayer Hannonia, a violation of Geneva Convention?

Postby bertamingo » 25 Apr 2015 11:42

Hello people, I come across a picture of the minelayer schiff 11/111 on Ebay, which was the ex-Estonian cargo ship Hanonia. The ship bore fully civilian appearance, and still bore the 'Estonian' symbols. The ship later slipped into Netherlands and Norway to secretly lay mines under the disguise. To my understanding, this is a kind of violation to Geneva convention, right?



The German merchant raiders were different, though they also pretended to be allied or neutral ships, they would raise KM flag and showed their guns before a battle. But schiff 11/111, as well as others in a similar function: Passat, Doggerbank, Adjucant, would continue to pretend as an allied or neutral ship while they laid the mines.




Thanks!!!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Atrevida
Member
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 20:47

Re: minelayer Hannonia, a violation of Geneva Convention?

Postby Atrevida » 25 Apr 2015 16:48

As I understand the Convention, a warship must show her true flag when challenged and before she opens fire. I do not believe that the Hanonia was in breach of the Convention by wearing false colours merely to lay mines.

You do not state the dates when this occurred and if Hanonia was in neutral waters, where minelaying would be in breach of the Convention, although the British ignored the Convention by mining, or setting out with intention to mine, the Norwegian Indreled in April 1940.

bertamingo
Member
Posts: 260
Joined: 19 Apr 2014 08:49

Re: minelayer Hannonia, a violation of Geneva Convention?

Postby bertamingo » 25 Apr 2015 17:26

Thanks for the reminder, I think a better form of the question is: were those minelayers under civilian disguise (Hanonia in Norway, Passat, Doggerbank and Adjutant in Southern and Pacific oceans) in violation of the GC when they started mining operations in open and legal combat zones? Mining is, imo, basically the same like opening fire, because the action will lead to damage to enemy vessels and casualties to enemy personnel.

For Hanonia's operations in the NL, when she was mining in NL, NL was still neutral, so she would have been in violation of the GC even if she were not under disguise.

User avatar
stril
Member
Posts: 2494
Joined: 10 Jul 2003 10:37
Location: Norway

Re: minelayer Hannonia, a violation of Geneva Convention?

Postby stril » 25 Apr 2015 20:29

Is the picture still for sale ?
regards
Stril

bertamingo
Member
Posts: 260
Joined: 19 Apr 2014 08:49

Re: minelayer Hannonia, a violation of Geneva Convention?

Postby bertamingo » 26 Apr 2015 02:51

stril wrote:Is the picture still for sale ?
regards
Stril


Unfortunately no. It was listed for sale at the beginning of the month, and I only found it thru google image search after the auction was expired.

User avatar
stril
Member
Posts: 2494
Joined: 10 Jul 2003 10:37
Location: Norway

Re: minelayer Hannonia, a violation of Geneva Convention?

Postby stril » 26 Apr 2015 19:45

Unfortunately no. It was listed for sale at the beginning of the month, and I only found it thru google image search after the auction was expired

Ok, thank you for your reply :-)
Regards
Stril


Return to “Kriegsmarine surface ships and Kriegsmarine in general”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users