During WW1, was US right in accepting British blockade of Germany but ignoring German blockade of Britain?

SSDD said:

The 3rd parties who suffered most were Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Netherlands and yet they didn't stop trade with Germany, instead kept doing trade as much as possible even when their civilian ships were being sunk until Allies forced them. Were they morally right in doing trade with a country that was sinking their ships indiscriminately?

What does it tell you? Even for neutrals, earning money from trade with Germany was more important than stopping trade in protest of Germany's unrestricted war.

Yes, Germany should be condemned for sinking neutral ships but should not neutrals too be questioned for not stopping with Germany?

Click to expand...

Okay seriously this has moved into "She was asking for it" territory.

The Netherlands and Denmark shared land borders with the Reich and by 1914 neither was strong enough to defend themselves in a land war. Thomas Aquinas had laid down one of the key principals of a just war is that the would be participant believes they can win. This was not the case for either of these two countries and they both risked occupation as a result.

The risk of occupation was lower for Norway and Sweden but neither hand large navies, their largest warships were coast defence ships with armaments equivalent to armoured cruisers. The threat of war was entirely against them exposing their Baltic and near German coasts to attack and their merchant fleets to greater attack.

The neutrals that joined the war as a direct result of German submarine attack Brazil and United States (though not in that order) both had dreadnoughts. They were also distant from German invasive measures. That is they had the military means to materially affect Germany's fortunes and could do so without putting their civilian populations at undue risk.

You have consistently argued that it was wrong for the British to ride roughshod over the rights of neutrals though they did so to a lesser degree but right for Germany to do so to a much greater and more murderous degree. This speaks volumes.

SSDD said:

Submarine commanders are bound to follow orders from HQ. Do you have any evidence that British HQ ordered captains to sink ships indiscriminately as German Q-Ships were roaming there and yet British submarine captains for humanitarian reasons refused to do so?

Click to expand...

So you are now arguing against yourself that unlimited submarine warfare was entirely a matter of choice. You are the one trying to argue the British were worse or at least as bad or almost as bad or....do you any longer have an argument?

Why should any of the rest of us find evidence for a non-argument you are trying, entirely unsuccessfully from your own resources, to make?

SSDD said:

It is highly unlikely Germany would attack those neutral countries given they had their hands full. Do you have any evidence that shows those neutral countries stopped trade and then Germany threatened to invade and forcing the neutral country to open trade again?

Click to expand...

@Olleus was correct, you are reduced to moving the goalposts. You originally asked why these countries did not retaliate by force to attacks upon their trade. I answered that question.

SSDD said:

Kindly check, Post. No. 139, I never said Norway or Sweden should have attacked Germany but stated they should have merely stopped trading. Where does goal post shifting come here?

Click to expand...

edit*Oh I missed that*please read note belowbut with whom should they have stopped trading they still needed to import goods for their own needs. Further there was always a latent threat from Germany. They also needed to earn the means of payment for goods from abroad. Apparently Sweden leaned German early into the war but that eventually led to the collapse of the government. Interestingly the destination of most Swedish iron ore switched from Germany pre-war to the allies. The thread title was asking why the difference in US approaches, that difference having good reason should by now be amply clear.

One of the follies of German policy was that they chose to go to war with countries that just prior to the war supplied 800,000 tons plus of their wheat and in the case of Russia alone over 700,000 tons of their animal feeds. 70% of Germany's rapeseed consumption came from India for example, due entirely to pre-war German planting choices.

Due to German mismanagement of their labour resources the they went from having surplus rye production to a shortage.

Due to the norms of commerce warfare established above over around 1300 of Germany's ocean going merchant ships were lost or confined to foreign ports.

Germany hit its own food production at the same time as it hit its means of importing food.

*Edit note: Actually upon reading my response whilst undistracted by away from keyboard matters I realise I did in fact address the question. The neutral powers in question could exercise only the most limited threat of withdrawing trade due to Imperial Germany's ability to threaten retaliation with force.

SSDD said:

You stated British captains stuck to war norms in spite of potentials of facing German Q-Boats whereas in same situation German captains decided to sink ships without warning.

Now, German captains were under order from their HQ to sink a ship as German HQ believed u-boats were vulnerable to ships so I am asking if British admiralty ever issue any order to their captains to sink ships without warning and if British captains decided to stick to Cruiser Rules in spite of that?

If you can show that I will change my position that German captains too should've ignored their HQ order and should have warned ship first, regardless of dangers they faced.

Click to expand...

The question is immaterial. The British stuck to war norms. That is they stuck to the understood legal methods of war. This was noted by among other the US.

Which is what this thread professes to be about.

SSDD said:

The 3rd parties who suffered most were Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Netherlands and yet they didn't stop trade with Germany, instead kept doing trade as much as possible even when their civilian ships were being sunk until Allies forced them. Were they morally right in doing trade with a country that was sinking their ships indiscriminately?

What does it tell you? Even for neutrals, earning money from trade with Germany was more important than stopping trade in protest of Germany's unrestricted war.

Yes, Germany should be condemned for sinking neutral ships but should not neutrals too be questioned for not stopping with Germany?

Click to expand...

Greeks rank ahead of Danes, Dutch and Swedish.

SSDD said:

Point is, caliber of guns here don't matter. A British naval trawler has even smaller cannon but it is still classified warship and it still can pose significant threat to a submarine so it is only natural a bigger merchant ship with 2 slightly bigger guns will posses bigger threat.

Click to expand...

I was just being pedantic about terminologically.

SSDD said:

Firstly a submarine is not a stable gun-platform. It is always shaking because of sea-wave and it also doesn't have any gun-stabilization machine. So a submarine fires a shot scores hit in first attempt on a cargo ship 2 km away in high seas is very unlikely.

Click to expand...

None of the merchants had gun stabilization. Tehe SUbmarine had teh advnatgeof suprise and initaiingthe enganeenrt. Gun crews have to getthe guns. Trained crews are goingto get a few shoy off pretty quick. Merchants are not armoured, does not take many.

And most merchnats do not have guns.

SSDD said:

Secondly, cargo ships can absorb large number of hits, so it is not that a submarine scores a hit and the cargo ship immediately starts to sink.

More ever why did Wilson block a Congress proposal to warn American citizens from travelling in armed belligerent ships on account of it would violate rights? If the said proposal talked about banning American citizens from travelling that would be a violation but a mere warning doesn't amount to violating any right. Why not even issue a warning? Case in point, even now US Govt often issues travel advisories that X country cause of political unrest is unsafe to travel so American citizens should avoid traveling to that country. US Govt. in these cases doesn't insist on protecting right of American citizens to to travel to that political unrest torn country.

View attachment 63751

American Foreign Relations Since Independence​

By Richard Dean Burns, Joseph M. Siracusa, Jason C. Flanagan

Click to expand...

Page Number. gonna quote stuff do it properly.

SSDD said:

It does not take a genius to see American establishment wanted American civilians to travel in armed ships and suffer so that American public becomes inflamed and appeals to join war so that Germany can be finished.

Click to expand...

No. It;s reading something into something that is not there.

Olleus said:

Right. Germany decided to break international law, because it was convenient for them. In turn, this upset neutral powers who were having their shipping sunk and their civilians killed to the point that they were no longer neutral. Perfectly rational from the Germans - perhaps even moral if you believe that killing civilians in order to win a war is a necessary evil - but illegal anyway. And the reaction of third parties to this is even more logical, and entirely predictable, and irrefutably legal.

But we've been here already, eg, #110. Are the goal posts going to be moved again so we continue this circle, or can we end it here? Sadly, my prediction for the rest of the thread is:

• Ok, so the Germans could have chosen not to enforce a blockade through illegal means, but the British started it by defending their merchant ships illegally.
• Ok, so the British defence of their ships was legal, but the Germans were not obliged to incur a risk to their ships in order to enforce the blockade legally.
• Ok, so legally the burden of risk was on the Germans, but it's ok because the British were doing things just as bad off the coast of Norway.
• Ok, so British weren't doing the same thing, but they had a better navy so the Germans had no alternatives.

Anyone want to start a betting pool for how many times we're going to go around this?

Click to expand...

It would almost seem like somebody had a bone to pick.

Saphroneth said:

While I agree that that has a lot to do with the pressures involved, at the same time I think it's quite feasible for countries to accept limitations on their operations and stick to them for moral rather than practical reasons. Of course the fear of "international outrage" and consequent problems can always be cited as a practical reason, and it may even be correct, but the moral dimension also gets involved both in defining why this would cause international outrage and why the individuals involved do not take the action.

The British in many cases did not bombard certain towns in the Crimean War (I believe Helsinki was one of them) and the Russians didn't seize British-owned financial assets in their country. I believe they even continued making the dividend payments.

Click to expand...

OK, almost certainly there was that too, especially when it came to countries that were more sensitive to international assessments and to their own internal public opinion - that is, generally speaking, democracies. Other government systems are probably less preoccupied with these considerations.

But I maintain the first matter (first both in terms of chronology and of importance) is interest. YMMV.

SSDD said:

A merchant ship can keep gun-crews stationed at gun-emplacements. A submarine can't. A submarine's deck-gun can't be manned when it is submerged. The submarine crew has to climb ladder, open hatches and get to the gun.



True but how does a submarine get to know it?







Nothing else makes really sense otherwise. Warning citizens is not same as infringing their rights.

Click to expand...

Okay most of what you are arguing about is irrelevant. Either a ship of war has the capacity to complete its mission or it does not. Germany's enemies are under no obligation to help her gain advantage or even equality in combat. This thread has touched upon how war is normally conducted according to rule but jus in bello is not the same as Marquis of Queensberry rules.

As for how a submarine gets to know, it stops a ship in order to search it or is fired upon. A submarine except in the instance of certain cargo submarines such as two employed by German in World War 1 and numerous research and rescue vessels are warships.

Finally you asserted the US were endangering the lives of their citizens to gain an excuse to enter the war. Rather than admitting the possibility they were simply allowing them to conduct their lawful business according to their own judgement of the risks.

SSDD said:

I don't deny those scenarios but if neutrals stopped trading with Germany and kept trading other neutrals say US till entry into war, they could have largely got what they required. Like Sweden exports high quality iron-ore to US and imports coal.

More ever if Germany ever attacked Sweden, there was always Royal Navy to seek help from plus Russians too.



The question is not immaterial. Take food import into Germany. Food was not contraband by itself but could be considered contraband provided it was destined for armed forces. Now how did British know that each and every ship going to Germany with wheat was destined for German military that they imposed total blockade and caused starvation deaths? Just like how the Germans considered all merchant ships were armed therefore were fit to be sunk without warning. How can unrestricted submarine warfare be illegal (note: I never denied it was not illegal) but causing starvation deaths by imposing total food blockade was legal? When international law only asks food to be contraband provided if that is destined for military?

Click to expand...

Did Britain cause the starvation or did Germany inflict starvation upon itself?

"The area of land under cultivation fell over the course of the war, by 32.3 percent for wheat, by 23 percent for rye, and 31.3 percent for potatoes.[41] Hardly surprising, since two-thirds of the male labour force in agriculture joined the army.[42] Women, children, old men, and prisoners of war were unable to compensate for the lack of labour. In addition, the army requisitioned horses, depriving farms of their draught animals."

1914-1918 online

Further the specific aim of unlimited submarine warfare was to cause starvation!
"Based on the assumption – already mentioned – of a monthly destruction of 600,000 tons of shipping space by unlimited submarine warfare and on the expectation – described in the enclosed document – that through unlimited submarine warfare at least two-fifths of neutral shipping will be scared away from travelling to England at all, we can calculate that after five months English sea traffic will have been reduced to approximately 39% of the present amount. England would not be able to tolerate this, neither in regard to its expected condition after the 3 war nor in regard to the possibility of continuing the war. Today, England is already facing a shortage of foodstuffs, which is forcing it to attempt to introduce the very same measures to extend its supplies that we, as a blockaded country, were compelled to adopt in the course of this war. The preconditions for such an organization in England are completely different, that is to say, incomparably worse. England lacks the officials, the authorities, and has not educated its people to fall into line and to accept such constraints. And there is another reason why the proportional and uniform reduction of the bread ration for the population as a whole can no longer be carried out in England. In Germany this reduction was possible at a time when other foodstuffs were temporarily available to offset the sudden decrease in the bread ration. This moment has passed in England and cannot be brought back. With only approximately threefifths of the maritime traffic, the supply of foodstuffs cannot be sustained without a proportionally strong rationing of the consumption of bread grains if the war industries are to be maintained at the same time. The argument against this, that England might have enough grain and raw materials in its own country to get through the dangerous period until the next harvest, is refuted in detail in the enclosed document."

Admiral von Holtzendorff

SSDD said:

Germany enemies are under no obligation to help Germany so how Germany can be held responsible for fighting biasedly when their people are starving? At least if the case was there was no food embargo on Germany and Germany still decided to sink ships without warning, your point would have merit.



I meant from submerged position.



Once again, issuing a mere advisory is not same banning citizens from doing anything. If US Govt. starts broadcasting "Alcohol is injurious to health" then it is not same as outright prohibition.

Click to expand...

Germany had the means to feed itself, its military leadership chose to sacrifice those to frontline military advantage.

If a submarine cannot ..... the identity and cargo of a merchant ship then under the understood laws of war it should surface and send across a boarding party.

Once again what evidence of intent to wilfully endanger US citizens to justify a course of foreign policy action can you present?

SSDD said:

Just like the same way Britain stopped trade of food thinking that food would be destined for German military similarly, Germany thinking all merchant ships are armed started to sink them.

Click to expand...

One of these things is legal (conditional contraband), the other is not.