Fallenkezef

Respected Foes

141 posts in this topic

11 minutes ago, Fallenkezef said:

 

I've always had a soft spot for Guderian, picked up a translated copy of Achtung Panzer! a decade ago, his vision was fascinating.

agreed but if you want another good read... Kesselring is a very good choice!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The likes of Ulatersk thrive on being as arrogant and rude as possible and he has not made any attempt to contribute to the thread other than his efforts on the minutae of how a tiger died. However I suspect he is incapable of respect so would be unable to contribute to such a thread.

 

Individuals straight-up insulting people here, and I am rude. That is a hilarious projection.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect the balls of the U-Boat crews even if they were carrying out orders that were essentially war crimes....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Been_Benuane said:

I respect the balls of the U-Boat crews even if they were carrying out orders that were essentially war crimes....

 

No they where not, targeting merchant vessels carrying goods to a hostile nation was legitimate.

 

Even the Royal Navy spoke in defence of the tactic during the Nuremburg trials.

 

Attacking American shipping was a grey area, however it can be argued that America violated neutrality by supplying Britain with weapons

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fallenkezef said:

No they where not, targeting merchant vessels carrying goods to a hostile nation was legitimate.

Says who?

I'm pretty certain that targeting and attacking civilians is a war crime under international law without exception. Especially civilians of neutral nations.

Edited by Been_Benuane
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Been_Benuane said:

Says who?

I'm pretty certain that targeting and attacking civilians is a war crime under international law without exception. Especially civilians of neutral nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraband

Civilian ships carrying contraband could be seized, crew imprisoned (preferably alive if they do not resist) and ship sunk.

Being civilian is no card blanché to transport war goods.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then all city bombings would be a war crime from 1939 to 1945. Eh no, especially since neutral civilians would be warned to embark on ships of a war participating side. 

lusitaniawarni08lk5scp6b.jpg

Such warnings were posted in the newspapers in ww1, after ww1 in the London Naval Treaty it was declared U boats should act according to prize rules. So surfacing, stopping and searching enemy merchant ships, a thing which is impossible to do against guarded convoys and/or armed merchantmans in general.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What a funny rule and who would profit of it, purely coincidence i guess. ;)

Not even the US Navy acted with its submarine warfare campaign in the Pacific accoriding to this rules, in fact no one did. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraband

Civilian ships carrying contraband could be seized, crew imprisoned (preferably alive if they do not resist) and ship sunk.

Being civilian is no card blanché to transport war goods.

LOL are you oblivious to the fact that Germany's unrestricted U-boat campaign did not give any opportunty for goods to be seized, crews to surrender, etc?

 

U-boat's just sunk shops and killed civilian crews (including nuetrals) without warning. That's why it was a war crime under international law.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, _Sev_ said:

Then all city bombings would be a war crime from 1939 to 1945. 

 

Not relevant. This is not some weeing contest, even if the bombing comings were war crimes that does not change the fact that unrestricted submarine warfare is a crime. I'm not talking about war crimes I'm only talking about the U-boat crews.

Edited by Been_Benuane
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Been_Benuane said:

LOL are you oblivious to the fact that Germany's unrestricted U-boat campaign did not give any opportunty for goods to be seized, crews to surrender, etc?

 

U-boat's just sunk shops and killed civilian crews (including nuetrals) without warning. That's why it was a war crime under international law.

I'd say both happened. It'd be generalizing to say only one happened.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

I'd say both happened. It'd be generalizing to say only one happened.

As far as i know both did indeed happen, even in WW 1...after the british started using Q-ships or decoy merchantmen that would be in contact with nearby destroyers, the U-boats generally stopped surfacing, halting, searching and then sinking the vessel. If i recall correctly, the law at the time was that enemy merchant shipping was a legitimate target, but that you had to ensure the rescue of the crew..ofcourse, unrestricted submarine warfare, wich invovled attacking neutral vessels if they entered the warzone without knowing if they carried contraband, was illegal.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ryle1 said:

As far as i know both did indeed happen, even in WW 1...after the british started using Q-ships or decoy merchantmen that would be in contact with nearby destroyers, the U-boats generally stopped surfacing, halting, searching and then sinking the vessel. If i recall correctly, the law at the time was that enemy merchant shipping was a legitimate target, but that you had to ensure the rescue of the crew..ofcourse, unrestricted submarine warfare, wich invovled attacking neutral vessels if they entered the warzone without knowing if they carried contraband, was illegal.

this

48 minutes ago, Been_Benuane said:

Not relevant. This is not some weeing contest, even if the bombing comings were war crimes that does not change the fact that unrestricted submarine warfare is a crime. I'm not talking bout nay rices I'm only talking bout the U-boat crews.

Jawn, totaly relevant :

1 hour ago, Been_Benuane said:

Says who?

I'm pretty certain that targeting and attacking civilians is a war crime under international law without exception. Especially civilians of neutral nations.

 

Which is not, it is only not allowed to target the civilians only. Bombing a city is rightfull as it is to sink an enemy merchantman, machine gunning down the crew in the lifeboats not, using artillery against a village with enemy in it is allowed, use of artillery against a so called "free" or "open" village/town/city not. 

After your argument is shooting at a civilian house i get fire from a war crime since there could be also civilians i am then attacking with my response fire, which is ofc BS. I can drop bombs on it, burn it down with thermobaric bombs or flamethrowers (also not forbidden), use a MBT to shoot the house to rubble, doesnt interest anyone if there are civillians in it or not as long as the enemy uses it as position.  

Only in newer times for example NATO Missions and others act under the self-imposed law of Proportionality, to use the weapon that is likely to inflict the least collateral damage, this means a MBT shoots as long there are only handweapons used against friendly forces only the coax MG, while for example the Apache will use the 30mm autocannon in any case because it is the collateral damage "friendliest" weapon. 

 

Admiral Raeder and Dönitz were both accused of giving orders "to sink merchantmen without warning" and both cases were dropped, most importantly because Admiral Chester Nimitz made a written witness testimony in the trial that even the US Navy and the USA had signed the London treaty, did not act accordingly to this but sunk Japanese ships without warning and didnt rescue the surviving crew.

So no international law (whatever that means, maybe humanitarian rights, at that time geneva convention?) and not a war crime as long as a warpartys ship was targeted. 


 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My most 'respected & admired foe',if you can call him that,would have to be none other than General George S. Patton,Jr.,'Ol' Blood & Guts' himself. No need to tell you what he's done...all you people out there read books,saw documentaries,& saw the movie bio-pic on him! For every reason,Patton gets my vote as ' the ultimate bad-a**'of WW2...Sure he's done the stuff that ruffled more than a few feathers everywhere,but when there's a task to do,he didn't wait to get orders...he just sent his units under his command out & saw to it that they were done...regardless of casualties. It's no wonder that the 'Patton' series of tanks was named in his honor.Say whatever you want about General Patton...I know where I stand!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Warbirdpeter said:

My most 'respected & admired foe',if you can call him that,would have to be none other than General George S. Patton,Jr.,'Ol' Blood & Guts' himself. No need to tell you what he's done...all you people out there read books,saw documentaries,& saw the movie bio-pic on him! For every reason,Patton gets my vote as ' the ultimate bad-a**'of WW2...Sure he's done the stuff that ruffled more than a few feathers everywhere,but when there's a task to do,he didn't wait to get orders...he just sent his units under his command out & saw to it that they were done...regardless of casualties. It's no wonder that the 'Patton' series of tanks was named in his honor.Say whatever you want about General Patton...I know where I stand!

 

He was a cavalry officer in every sense of the term.

1 hour ago, Warbirdpeter said:

My most 'respected & admired foe',if you can call him that,would have to be none other than General George S. Patton,Jr.,'Ol' Blood & Guts' himself. No need to tell you what he's done...all you people out there read books,saw documentaries,& saw the movie bio-pic on him! For every reason,Patton gets my vote as ' the ultimate bad-a**'of WW2...Sure he's done the stuff that ruffled more than a few feathers everywhere,but when there's a task to do,he didn't wait to get orders...he just sent his units under his command out & saw to it that they were done...regardless of casualties. It's no wonder that the 'Patton' series of tanks was named in his honor.Say whatever you want about General Patton...I know where I stand!

 

He was a cavalry officer in every sense of the term

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, _Sev_ said:

this

Jawn, totaly relevant :

 

Which is not, it is only not allowed to target the civilians only. Bombing a city is rightfull as it is to sink an enemy merchantman, machine gunning down the crew in the lifeboats not, using artillery against a village with enemy in it is allowed, use of artillery against a so called "free" or "open" village/town/city not. 

After your argument is shooting at a civilian house i get fire from a war crime since there could be also civilians i am then attacking with my response fire, which is ofc BS. I can drop bombs on it, burn it down with thermobaric bombs or flamethrowers (also not forbidden), use a MBT to shoot the house to rubble, doesnt interest anyone if there are civillians in it or not as long as the enemy uses it as position.  

Only in newer times for example NATO Missions and others act under the self-imposed law of Proportionality, to use the weapon that is likely to inflict the least collateral damage, this means a MBT shoots as long there are only handweapons used against friendly forces only the coax MG, while for example the Apache will use the 30mm autocannon in any case because it is the collateral damage "friendliest" weapon. 

 

Admiral Raeder and Dönitz were both accused of giving orders "to sink merchantmen without warning" and both cases were dropped, most importantly because Admiral Chester Nimitz made a written witness testimony in the trial that even the US Navy and the USA had signed the London treaty, did not act accordingly to this but sunk Japanese ships without warning and didnt rescue the surviving crew.

So no international law (whatever that means, maybe humanitarian rights, at that time geneva convention?) and not a war crime as long as a warpartys ship was targeted. 



 

 

 

The British also conducted unrestricted attacks on German and Japanese shipping.

 

RAF coastal command was very active against German, Norwegian and Danish merchant traffic for instance and shut down routes from Norway and Denmark forcing them to use the Baltic to supply Germany

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Fallenkezef said:

 

The British also conducted unrestricted attacks on German and Japanese shipping.

 

RAF coastal command was very active against German, Norwegian and Danish merchant traffic for instance and shut down routes from Norway and Denmark forcing them to use the Baltic to supply Germany

You mean before Germany invaded these countries right? I mainly know of the allies mining the waters around there. I'm fairly sure after the German invasion the Norwegian merchant fleet largely joined the allies (it is often quoted as being an important asset, shortening the war by adding a great deal of shipping to the allies).

 

edit : no idea about the Danes though...i don't think their merchant fleet escaped the Germans.

Edited by Ryle1
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Been_Benuane said:

Not relevant. This is not some weeing contest, even if the bombing comings were war crimes that does not change the fact that unrestricted submarine warfare is a crime. I'm not talking bout nay rices I'm only talking bout the U-boat crews.

you do know that the US waged UNRESTRICED SUBMARINE WARFARE IN THE PACIFIC THEMSELVES!

 

Admiral Nimitz admitted it when they tried to use Laconia against Großadmiral Dönitz... the Laconia-Order having been only issued becuase US B-25s bombed the Submarines that were rescuing the survivors... which afaik is also considered a War Crime...

Edited by RohmMohc
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ryle1 said:

You mean before Germany invaded these countries right? I mainly know of the allies mining the waters around there. I'm fairly sure after the German invasion the Norwegian merchant fleet largely joined the allies (it is often quoted as being an important asset, shortening the war by adding a great deal of shipping to the allies).

 

edit : no idea about the Danes though...i don't think their merchant fleet escaped the Germans.

 

Yea most of the Norwegian ships made it out but not all.

 

After the occupation Germany got allot of iron ore and other such material from Norway so Britain went after any shipping.

 

Some awesome photos knocking about of Beifighters doing rocket attacks on merchantmen

4 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

you do know that the US waged UNRESTRICED SUBMARINE WARFARE IN THE PACIFIC THEMSELVES!

 

Admiral Nimitz admitted it when they tried to use Laconia against Großadmiral Dönitz... the Laconia-Order having been only issued becuase US B-25s bombed the Submarines that were rescuing the survivors... which afaik is also considered a War Crime...

 

Bit late to the party there. That point has already been made

Edited by Fallenkezef
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the same, OP. There's a reason why those commandments are remembered. Even if some of them are merely entertaining nowadays, rather than practical. Individual Luftwaffe pilots also earned respect for their chivalry, but the only group I can think of being near an equal footing with the Fallschirmjäger would probably be the Afrika Korps.

 

Sadly, I found Achtung-Panzer! to be about as interesting as a departmental memo, but that's really my fault for expecting a very different kind of text. Funny man, though, big sense of humour. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, aWildBarbas said:

Probably the same, OP. There's a reason why those commandments are remembered. Even if some of them are merely entertaining nowadays, rather than practical. Individual Luftwaffe pilots also earned respect for their chivalry, but the only group I can think of being near an equal footing with the Fallschirmjäger would probably be the Afrika Korps.

 

Sadly, I found Achtung-Panzer! to be about as interesting as a departmental memo, but that's really my fault for expecting a very different kind of text. Funny man, though, big sense of humour. 

 

The desert war was fascinating. Rommel described it as "war without hate".

 

No other campaighn in WW2 had the same level of respect and camaraderie as the Afrika Korps and 8th army.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

I'd say both happened. It'd be generalizing to say only one happened.

No. In second world war only one thing happened: German U-boats would indiscriminately target and attack any merchant shipping they encountered and without any prior warning and this would result in the deaths of merchant sailors, often from neutral nations.

17 hours ago, Ryle1 said:

As far as i know both did indeed happen, even in WW 1...after the british started using Q-ships or decoy merchantmen that would be in contact with nearby destroyers, the U-boats generally stopped surfacing, halting, searching and then sinking the vessel. If i recall correctly, the law at the time was that enemy merchant shipping was a legitimate target, but that you had to ensure the rescue of the crew..ofcourse, unrestricted submarine warfare, wich invovled attacking neutral vessels if they entered the warzone without knowing if they carried contraband, was illegal.

We're talking about the second world war. What was legal was: Stopping ships, searching their cargo and then either destroying said cargo ar sinking ship (ensuring the safety of the crew).

 

So yes, Germany's usage of U-boats was illegal (as was the unrestricted nature of it) and actually a war crime.

16 hours ago, _Sev_ said:

Jawn, totaly relevant :

*interrupting* Not it isn't.

What is the topic of this thread? "Respected foes". I said respect the German Uboat crews for their balls irrspective of the war crimes they carried out (under orders).

 

That is the topic, not allied bombing. And this is not some war crime comparison, lose the inferiority complex.

Unless you state that you respect the allied bomber crews, don't mention them again.

 

Oh and P.S. The word is yawn, not "jawn".

13 hours ago, RohmMohc said:

you do know that the US waged UNRESTRICED SUBMARINE WARFARE IN THE PACIFIC THEMSELVES!

Nah I never knew that (sarcasm)

 

I have to explain this to another German (rolls eyes): This is not some war crime comparison.

Do you respect the US submarine crews? If not, don't mention them again.

16 hours ago, Warbirdpeter said:

 

Edited by Been_Benuane
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fallenkezef said:

The desert war was fascinating. Rommel described it as "war without hate".

 

No other campaighn in WW2 had the same level of respect and camaraderie as the Afrika Korps and 8th army.

Actually most of that lack of contempt between the enemies was due to the larger (yet overlooked) Italian component of Rommel's forces.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Warbirdpeter said:

 

 

My most 'respected & admired foe',if you can call him that,would have to be none other than General George S. Patton,Jr.,'Ol' Blood & Guts' himself. No need to tell you what he's done...all you people out there read books,saw documentaries,& saw the movie bio-pic on him! For every reason,Patton gets my vote as ' the ultimate bad-a**'of WW2...Sure he's done the stuff that ruffled more than a few feathers everywhere,but when there's a task to do,he didn't wait to get orders...he just sent his units under his command out & saw to it that they were done...regardless of casualties. It's no wonder that the 'Patton' series of tanks was named in his honor.Say whatever you want about General Patton...I know where I stand!

How was Patton your "foe" if you're Canadian?

 

And he didn't "get it done" on several occasions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Been_Benuane said:

How was Patton your "foe" if you're Canadian?

 

The Canadians were conspirators trying to slay the USA from the inside.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Been_Benuane said:

No. In second world war only one thing happened: German U-boats would indiscriminately target and attack any merchant shipping they encountered and without any prior warning and this would result in the deaths of ivorians, often from neutral nations.

We're talking about the second world war. What was legal was: Stopping ships, searching their cargo and then either destroying said cargo ar sinking ship (ensuring the safety of the crew).

Got some examples or sources for that? I know only of one example, the Athenia, out of the top of my head.

As far as I read further allied freight ships attacked were either part of a convoy, armed or trying to call for allied naval forces (which is arguably an act of defense which is allowed to be fought down under prize order).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.