Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


View Poll Results: Who's side are you on?
The Central Powers 139 29.20%
The Triple Entente 187 39.29%
Neither one of them 150 31.51%
Voters: 476. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 12th, 2017, 03:22 PM   #1381
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,477

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuga View Post
.
But we can't forget that, on the Entente side, Great Britain instituted a severe sea block to Germany, forbidding boats with food to reach german ports. In 1916 between 80 000 to 100 000 germans died because of the lack of food in the country. There were commercial boats that were attacked by british navy ships, or sunk by underwater mines that Great Britain droped in the coast of Germany.
And the German practice sinking ships neutral or not on sight and maintaining unrestricted submarine warfare? That was not designed not to starve Britain into submission? Britain did not attack ships (generally) when enforcing the blockade, they were either bordered an searched or escorted to harbour and searched , contraband confiscated, and neutral ships allowed on their way. Note that at some times and places like against Turkey , Britain too pursed unrestricted submarine warfare.

Germany chose to allocate resources away form food production. Removing nitrates from fertiliser had a bad effect on German food production, in ww2 this decision would not be make and German food production would mostly be maintained. In WW1 the mismanagement of the German agriculture was a large factor in food shortages. Even if Britain had not blockaded Germany, Germany had limited foreign exchange , and would not necessarily bought food rather than war materials, within the german economy, food production was not made a high priority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuga View Post
And let's also not forget that the british ships very often would present an american flag, so they could approach german ships, and then attack them. In 1916 this was so common that the Kaiser made a protest to Woodrow Wilson about this inappropriate and ilegal use of the american flag by the british navy, to what Woodrow Wilson answered that he would demand the british not to pratice that strategy.
flags and disguises had long been part of Naval warfare and was a perfectly legal tactic. Which the Germans themselves used extensively. The Germans complained about a lot of legal things, they also complained about of lot of things that never happened. Hell they shot 6,000 belgians for crimes that never happened.
pugsville is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 13th, 2017, 02:30 AM   #1382
Academician
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: Portugal
Posts: 73

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
And the German practice sinking ships neutral or not on sight and maintaining unrestricted submarine warfare? That was not designed not to starve Britain into submission? Britain did not attack ships (generally) when enforcing the blockade, they were either bordered an searched or escorted to harbour and searched , contraband confiscated, and neutral ships allowed on their way. Note that at some times and places like against Turkey , Britain too pursed unrestricted submarine warfare.

Germany chose to allocate resources away form food production. Removing nitrates from fertiliser had a bad effect on German food production, in ww2 this decision would not be make and German food production would mostly be maintained. In WW1 the mismanagement of the German agriculture was a large factor in food shortages. Even if Britain had not blockaded Germany, Germany had limited foreign exchange , and would not necessarily bought food rather than war materials, within the german economy, food production was not made a high priority.



flags and disguises had long been part of Naval warfare and was a perfectly legal tactic. Which the Germans themselves used extensively. The Germans complained about a lot of legal things, they also complained about of lot of things that never happened. Hell they shot 6,000 belgians for crimes that never happened.
Neutral ships also were subjected to the british sea block, and they had to port to be searched by british authorities. If not, they would be attacked, or they would just hit an underwater mine, which was actually the same.

The food crisis in Germany, as a result to the sea block, was the main motivator of the imposition of work to 700 000 belgians and 25 000 french. The big majority of them workd in farms or recently created farms to increase food production. But some of them worked in factories (munition, shoes, etc.)

And the innapropriate use of a national flag in a war zone was not legal. It's still not legal. In fact, the need for the armies to identify themselves in battle was something quite established since War Law philosophers like Grotius wrote about it. The Kaiser protest was made based on Haia Convention articles.

Again i remember: i'm nost justifying the Central Powers, or saying that one was better than the other. What i said from the beggining was that there were no saints in this war.
Tuga is offline  
Old August 13th, 2017, 02:59 AM   #1383
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,477

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuga View Post
And the innapropriate use of a national flag in a war zone was not legal. It's still not legal. In fact, the need for the armies to identify themselves in battle was something quite established since War Law philosophers like Grotius wrote about it. The Kaiser protest was made based on Haia Convention articles.
Incorrect the British use was perfectly legal. The germans were doing exactly the same with their raiders.
pugsville is offline  
Old August 13th, 2017, 03:01 AM   #1384
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,477

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuga View Post
Again i remember: i'm nost justifying the Central Powers, or saying that one was better than the other. What i said from the beggining was that there were no saints in this war.
But you are implying that all nations were same. Diid the British line 6,000 innocent civilians which they knew to be innocent and kill them as a example? (and as it turns out for wholly imagined acts)
pugsville is offline  
Old August 13th, 2017, 03:03 AM   #1385
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,477

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuga View Post
The food crisis in Germany, as a result to the sea block,
It was a result of the sea blockade and the German agriculture polices. They could have kept their nitrate fertilisers in agriculture and recused their explosives production. They chose not to do that. In the second world war the Germans keep their fertiliser in their agriculture sector and did not suffer such a large drop off in agricultural production.
pugsville is offline  
Old August 13th, 2017, 03:30 AM   #1386
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,477

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuga View Post
Neutral ships also were subjected to the british sea block, and they had to port to be searched by british authorities. If not, they would be attacked,
An entirely legal blockade by accepted rules of war, compared with sinking merchants on sight without warning against the rules of war. These actions are not the same thing. How many merchant lost three lives in enforcing the bBritish blockade and the German one?
pugsville is offline  
Old August 13th, 2017, 04:04 AM   #1387
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 952

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
An entirely legal blockade by accepted rules of war, compared with sinking merchants on sight without warning against the rules of war. These actions are not the same thing. How many merchant lost three lives in enforcing the bBritish blockade and the German one?
This is nonsense. The British could afford to do a blockade without killing merchants because they had naval supremacy and could simply check merchant ships for goods. Germany wasn't able to do this and the only way to blockade UK shipping was to sink merchant ships with uboats. The passengers and crew could then be rescued once the submarine was gone. There was no other way for the Germans to do a blockade of UK goods or else they would have done it. The goal of the German blockade wasn't to kill people.

Last edited by EmperoroftheBavarians43; August 13th, 2017 at 04:06 AM.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is offline  
Old August 13th, 2017, 05:44 AM   #1388
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,477

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
This is nonsense. The British could afford to do a blockade without killing merchants because they had naval supremacy and could simply check merchant ships for goods. Germany wasn't able to do this and the only way to blockade UK shipping was to sink merchant ships with uboats. The passengers and crew could then be rescued once the submarine was gone. There was no other way for the Germans to do a blockade of UK goods or else they would have done it. The goal of the German blockade wasn't to kill people.
As most merchant ships were travelling alone, and in the north Atlantic ,when sunk few crewmen o passengers would be rescued (ships tended to go down awful quick) , the Germans adopted a policy which would by it's nature be both against the rule of naval warfare at the time and certain to result in the the deaths of many civilian seamen from many nations including neutrals. Their goal might not have been the killing of innocent non-combative seamen but it was the direct, result their policy. Equating the two policies is not exactly comparing apples with oranges.

Now the British themselves did adopt unrestricted submarine warfare in certain areas in ww1 , certainly against the Turks on the sea of Mamara and perhaps elsewhere. certainly Jacky Fisher would not have hesitated for a second to pursue unrestricted submarine warfare if the situation was reversed.
pugsville is offline  
Old August 13th, 2017, 07:38 AM   #1389
Academician
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: Portugal
Posts: 73

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
Incorrect the British use was perfectly legal. The germans were doing exactly the same with their raiders.
If the germans did it, they did an illegal act.
It was illegal then, and it's illegal now. A war ship can not use the war flag of another country.
Tuga is offline  
Old August 13th, 2017, 07:45 AM   #1390
Academician
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: Portugal
Posts: 73

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
But you are implying that all nations were same. Diid the British line 6,000 innocent civilians which they knew to be innocent and kill them as a example? (and as it turns out for wholly imagined acts)
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that all nations committed mistakes and bad actions. I'm not creating a scale of Evil.

For what i know, the british did not execute 6000 civilians.

But british soldiers commited multiple robberies and loots.

British soldiers killed unarmed german soldiers who surrendered.

The british sent egypcian workers to the french lines to build roads and communication towers, with the promisse of a determined work time, and then refused to let them go back to Egypt when that time expired and even skiped some months of salary.

Besides what i already mentioned about chinese workers.
Tuga is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
war



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A great history, a great advance, a great book! TasteOfTorment Art and Cultural History 7 January 29th, 2011 09:48 PM
The human side of war diddyriddick War and Military History 4 March 29th, 2010 09:37 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.