Hospital Ship Sinkings

[Guest]

The AH destroyer Dinara was bombed by enemy aircraft 25th May 1917 Does anybody know where this happened?

[Signals]

Hi 2ndCMR,

the Red Baron, which I guess shouldn't be part of this, I have lent out my book, THE LAST FLIGHT OF THE RED BARON, and I'm sure there is an account of someone saying the full power theory. Brown was simply given the nod as the victor for the sake of British propaganda and morale. I also have the AIF in France, Charles Bean which gives a great account as well.

As for the other moral issues, no not everyone I have found is overjoyed by the British stamping there way of life on other cultures, and this is certainly evident in Australia. So once again it is interesting to hear their views.

I had four relatives in the Great War, two in the Royal Navy submarines, one in the Scottish Blackwatch, and another in the Australian AIF in France. The Chap in the Blackwatch won the Military Cross and Bar, his view was he never hated the German soldier, in his view they were just doing a job assigned to them just as he was. One of the Royal Navy relos, well he became an air warden in WW2 in London and had the opposite view of the Germans after pulling women and children from wrecked homes during the Blitz. But in general, all these men did very little talking on what they had went through and let it be. My grandfather served with the Australian Army in the Middle East, then the Japanese, in New Guinea and Borneo. He actually fought the French in Syria, but had a dislike for the Italians, but most of his hatred was at the Japanese which he never let go. He once said to me, "you'll never understand." In the end the WW1 chaps all didn't hate a particular race, but the hate was directed at war itself.

As for the sinking of hospital ships and the likes of Lusitania, Britain would have been shuddering at the time for the simple fact that the Germans could actually take the fight to their shores and were at the time were unable to successfully stop it, but certainly winding up the disgust of the such acts via propaganda was the biggest weapon they had, and mind you a terrifically successful one at that, and that's war unfortunately.

Cheers DB.

[Clio]

Dear 2ndCMR

I have learned to apply as much scepticism to British sources as I do to German versions of events. Why ?

BECAUSE WHEN IT SUITED THEIR PURPOSES BOTH SIDES LIED THROUGH THEIR MENDACIOUS TEETH !

And let me observe that the Germans did not have a monopoly when it came to atrocities. Look up primary source accounts regarding UB 110 or U 48

[Clio]

Heard of Anthony Miers VC ?

and yes, I knew him.

[Signals]

Hi 2ndCMR,

I can't find my favourite book on the subject either, but it made the case very convincingly that he was shot down by a British NCO who was a trained AA gunner. Can't recall his name unfortunately. Definitely not Brown, and he never claimed it I believe. Well my answer to this one is put your theory as a thread on the War in the Air on this forum, as i believe you'll be the one shot down. Virtually everyone that has studied this case has given the credit to Cedric Popkin, an Aussie, and someone who was in the best position to do so. Brown, developed his story more after the war into seeing Ricthoven slump in his seat after seeing the bullets striking the red triplane.

And again, i'll say, not everyone is happy to have had the British way pushed on them, and you'll never convince them otherwise no mater what you say as that is their prerogative. Many cultures felt they were being used for financial gain, and i guess that is why there is no empire any more. When you have a hard look at both WWI & 2, is was the British Empire that suffered in the end, with the US, Germany and Japan doing a lot better out of it.

I'm talking about cultures. A bit hard to make the distinction though when you've gone through Auschwitz or the Burma-Siam railway. Can't remember his name, but the US chap who was in charge of the fire bombing B29 napalm raids on Tokyo summed things up when he suggested something along the lines of it was lucky they won the war, or else he would be done for war crimes.

I have even seen footage of Aussie Beaufighters strafing at Japanese men in lifeboats as part of a wartime documentry. The hatred was so intense from both sides, that its a little naive to concede nothing wrong was done on the Allied side in both wars.

Anyway i'll move on from here as we will go around in circles for some time.

Cheers

[2ndCMR]

Heard of Anthony Miers VC ?

and yes, I knew him.

Not until today.

Sorry, are you saying his ancestry somehow determined his personality and behaviour?

Not impossible I suppose.

[Clio]

'...timorous cringers who let pass insults and misinformation because they are either too apathetic to care or too cowardly to speak up for the truth..'

...for my part I dont believe for an instant that you fall into this category 2nd CMR...

[Signals]

Here is an interesting item, actual footage. Just put this into Google. US Submariners Machine-gunning Japanese Sailors

[John Gilinsky]

Let us stick to ww1 please. Patzig denied to his dying day that he ever deliberately fired on survivors. He probably rationalized or even considered justified in destroying any tell tale wreckage to hide the sinking - survivors were through military necessity expendable therefore.

John

Toronto

[manchester terrier]

Here's a find from t'Internet Archive

The War on Hospital Ships from the narratives of eye-witnesses, 1917

The War on Hospital Ships from narratives of eye-witnesses, and British and German Diplomatic correspondence, second and revised edition, 1918

a bit of contemporary propaganda?

cheers

baz

[2ndCMR]

A. Let us stick to ww1 please.

B. Patzig denied to his dying day that he ever deliberately fired on survivors.

C. He probably rationalized or even considered justified in destroying any tell tale wreckage to hide the sinking - survivors were through military necessity expendable therefore.

John

Toronto

A. I'll be interested to see if that post about WWII US submariners gets deleted then, or is it more a case of who's "pal" one is and how many PM complaints to moderators one can organize to suppress comments one doesn't agree with?

B. Well that would explain why he swore the crew to secrecy and didn't turn up for the sham trial. Silly really, as the other two officers "escaped" on their way to serve their purely nominal sentences. Oh, hang on, maybe he avoided being officially cashiered that way...yes, that would be a blot on his honour as an officer. [/b]

C. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "justified in.....trying to hide the sinking". If you murder someone, the motivations behind your hiding the body are quite obvious, aren't they??

Are you hypothesizing to as Patzig's motivations or is this a direct translation: "survivors were through military necessity expendable therefore"? It rather sounds like one.

Wooden lifeboats don't generally sink very well, especially when they have metal flotation tanks built in under the seats; as any good submariner would know. [/b]

[Signals]

Dear 2ndCMR,

i will be more than happy to have that US sub item pulled. If you trace back the thread it was you that brought the WW2 issue into this with your first posting. If you are suggesting that i have rallied everyone i know on this forum to have a posting of yours removed, then if that is the case that is very delusional. When you wrote some of those comments they were very incentive, and ill informed, so no one to blame but your good self for that one. Most individuals on this forum have independant views and would hardly need to do what you are suggesting.

For instance, aborigines did well you thought, well you need to read up on your history as to why there are no Tasmanian aborigines left. Your opinions and views have so far certainly confused my view on history in relation to the master race.

So the reason you are obsessed with Patzig is??????

[2ndCMR]

Dear 2ndCMR,

i will be more than happy to have that US sub item pulled. If you trace back the thread it was you that brought the WW2 issue into this with your first posting. If you are suggesting that i have rallied everyone i know on this forum to have a posting of yours removed, then if that is the case that is very delusional. When you wrote some of those comments they were very incentive, and ill informed, so no one to blame but your good self for that one. Most individuals on this forum have independant views and would hardly need to do what you are suggesting.

For instance, aborigines did well you thought, well you need to read up on your history as to why there are no Tasmanian aborigines left. Your opinions and views have so far certainly confused my view on history in relation to the master race.

So the reason you are obsessed with Patzig is??????

Dear Darren,

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding me; not hard to do when so much has been chopped out of this thread of course.

I can well imagine who our complainers were, and I never thought you were one of them, and no, I'm not imagining that process. I have it on good authority.

My comments were not addressed to you, except as they related directly to the points in your posts. We did range rather far from WWI hospital ships, but no farther than many another thread I've seen here.

Edited by Des.

Sadly, no one seems to want to enumerate any of these myths for us, so I guess we'll have to conclude there aren't any.

No obsession with Patzig here, though the Llandovery Castle is the most well-known hospital ship sinking and the only one to result in a trial or inquiry, I believe. I posted a link to some further details earlier in this thread. Patzig's behaviour in not showing up was described by the German prosecutor as given below

If there was an order to sink hospital ships it was probably not put in writing and IIRC there was no information about that given in the trials of Patzig's two officers.

I don't suppose many will trouble themselves to read it, but it is quite interesting: http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lcastl12.htm

A few salient excerpts:

"....a series of witnesses were called for the defence in an attempt to prove that the British Navy had committed atrocities at sea and that British hospital ships had been misused. Thus a German ex-prisoner said that while in Tilbury he saw hundreds of men in uniform go on board the "Llandovery Castle" itself. The fact was doubtless true, for, as is well known, British R.A.M.C. men were dressed much like combatant soldiers. The witness declared that these were combatant men, but obviously he could not have known that his was so. All the evidence was of this kind. Sir Ernest Pollock made a vigorous protest to the assistant State Attorney when the Court adjourned. The next morning both the State Attorney and the Presiding Judge reiterated the opinion which they had expressed to the defence when this evidence was first submitted, namely, that this kind of evidence was irrelevant and of no value. Counsel for the defence were warned that, if they persisted in calling such evidence, there must be an adjournment to enable the British answer to be given; these counter-charges had never been submitted to the British authorities. Defending counsel looked sheepish, asked for an adjournment to enable them to consider their position, and finally intimated that they would not submit further evidence of this kind. In its judgement the Court stated:

"With regard to the question of the guilt of the accused, no importance is to be attached to the statements put forward by the defence, that the enemies of Germany were making improper use of hospital ships for military purposes, and that they had repeatedly fired on German life-boats and ship wrecked people." The President of the Court had refused to call the witnesses on these points named by the defence. The defence, therefore, called them direct. In accordance with the rules laid down by law the Court was obliged to grant them a hearing. What the witnesses have testified cannot, in the absence of the general and exhaustive examination of the events spoken to by them, be taken as evidence of actual facts. The defence refused a proposal for a thorough investigation of the evidence thus put forward."

"....For the defence there were also called two witnesses who said that it was a universal conviction in the minds of all German naval officers during the later years of the war that hospital ships were being abused, and that, therefore, they ought to be regarded as ships of war. One of these witnesses (Dr. Trofer) went so far as to say that German submarine commanders fully believed that any destruction of enemies which would injure the enemy nations was justifiable. The other (Vice-Admiral von Trotha) declared that, as the severity of the U-boat warfare increased, submarine commanders were convinced that no feelings of humanity must be allowed to check their efforts. He added to this significant admission the naïve statement that it never occurred to a submarine commander that there would be any punishment of their duty to the Fatherland."

"....During his speech, the State Attorney commented very severely on the conduct of Patzig. "I have no doubt," he said, " that Patzig knew and knows that his subordinates are being held responsible for these events. It would be natural and his duty for him to appear to tell the truth. If Patzig believes that he, and not the accused officers, is guilty, he should come before the Court." He characterised Patzig's conduct as "colossal meanness" and "cowardice." He was convinced that Patzig's absence meant that he knew that all three officers were guilty."

"....Patzig's order does not free the accused from guilt. It is true that according to the Military Penal Code, if the execution of an order in ordinary course of duty involves such a violation of the law as is punishable, the superior officer issuing such and order is alone responsible. However, the subordinate obeying such an order is liable to punishment, if it was known to him that the order of the superior involved the infringement of civil or military law. This applies in the case of the accused. Military subordinates are under no obligation to question the order of their superior officer, and they can count upon its legality. But no such confidence can be held to exist, if such an order is universally known to everybody, including also the accused, to be without any doubt whatever against the law. This happens only in rare and exceptional cases. But this case was precisely one of them, for in the present instance, it was perfectly clear to the accused that killing defenceless people in the life-boats could be nothing else but a breach of the law. As naval officers by profession they were well aware, as the Naval Expert Saalwachter has strikingly stated, that one is not legally authorized to kill defenceless people. They quickly found out the facts by questioning the occupants in the boats when these were stopped . They could only have gathered, from the order given by Patzig, that he wished to make use of his subordinates to carry out a breach of the law. They should, therefore, have refused to obey. As they did not do so, they must be punished."

[Desmond7]

To all participants - please use good judgement, moderate language and coherent arguments to ensure that this thread is allowed to continue.

Descent into 'nationality slagging' will not be tolerated. Evidence, evidence, evidence.

Brow beating attutudes will receive no sympathy. Courtesy in all respects please. Should that mean a biting of tongues .. so be it.

Des

[manchester terrier]

2ndCMR

your link in the last post is an excerpt from "The Liepzig Trials". For you and anyone else who's interested heres a link to an online copy of the complete book, available as a pdf.

The Leipzeig trials: an account of the war criminals' trials and a study of German mentality by Claude Mullins (1921)

cheers

baz

[2ndCMR]

2ndCMR

your link in the last post is an excerpt from "The Liepzig Trials". For you and anyone else who's interested heres a link to an online copy of the complete book, available as a pdf.

The Leipzeig trials: an account of the war criminals' trials and a study of German mentality by Claude Mullins (1921)

cheers

baz

Good link, thank you. But what can we do about that unfortunate reference to "German Mentality"? Oh, dear.

Some interesting information given on pages 103-107 on the German admiralty's policy regarding sinking of hospital ships.

[Signals]

2ndCMR,

what's your spin on Q-Ship HMS Baralong in August 1915, and September 24, 1915 after she had been re named?

Cheers DB.

[Clio]

Having researched Llandovery Castle ad nauseum,

it is clear from the nature of some of the postings that participants are drinking up propaganda rather than material fact. All rather tiresome.

[Clio]

'To all participants - please use good judgement, moderate language and coherent arguments to ensure that this thread is allowed to continue...'

Better still, try to construct arguments on a foundation of primary sources rather than the verbal diarrhoea of petty nationalism

Over and Out.

[2ndCMR]

2ndCMR,

what's your spin on Q-Ship HMS Baralong in August 1915, and September 24, 1915 after she had been re named?

Cheers DB.

Well DB, my 'spin' is this. You and Clio have each managed to find one case in each of the world wars of one RN officer reportedly killing those whom they should have taken prisoner. To whit: Godfrey Herbert and Anthony Miers, though in Miers' case, he was killing combatant soldiers whom he could not take prisoner, different from sailors.

I see you have a long history in regard to Miers Clio, here for example: http://submariners.co.uk/smf/index.php?top...;prev_next=next, so I'm not going to waste much breath there. Nor am I going to repeat to you the cogent comments of one on that site, who unlike yourself no doubt, was actually alive at the time and has some sense of context.

But to return to the past: It's a long and shocking list I must say you two have compiled, and I'm truly horrified. Yes, I'm really beginning to think that you British were not really any different from the Germans. Don't you think? Just look at this and you'll see what I mean: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/3166/ There's really no denying it is there?

As for "petty nationalism" Clio, it's good to know you're not suffering from anything so plebeian as that. It helps to explain why Germany is the third largest economy in the world while the UK has withered on the vine And of course why Japan is No2. You see, whoever has the strongest tribal sense wins, for the simple reason that a closed fist beats an open hand every time. Look around the world why don't you?

If it gives you a little boost to climb on a high hobby horse and pontificate about the rights and wrongs of better men and what they should have done and you would have done, you go right ahead. Cheap therapy and a good laugh for the rest of us.

[stiletto_33853]

OK guys,

The examples you have given here with links all relate to WW2 and I note that the last warning by Des does not seem to have been taken heed of. This is a WW1 site and as such any further references to WW2 will be deleted or the thread removed until such time as a mod has the time to go through the whole thread and prune it. You have been asked before to remain on the forums theme, if you are unable to I will remove this.

Andy

[chrisharley9]

Andy

as this I my thread Im closing it - it has more than run its course

Chris