Germany and Second London Naval Treaty

[Gorshkov]

Hi, there!

I have read many times that trial of Karl Doenitz in Nuremberg was unfair because Allied submarines fought exactly hard as U-boats did during World War II. The main point here is both sides violated 1936 Second London Naval Treaty with respect to submarine warfare. This treaty stated that merchant vessels which did not demonstrate "persistent refusal to stop" or "active resistance" could not be sunk without the ships' crews and passengers being first delivered to a "place of safety".

However in fact Germany violated this treaty first because in September 1939 U-boats carried-out such four lawless actions:

- 3.09.1939 - the unescorted and unarmed "Athenia" was torpedoed without warning by U-30 about 250 miles west of Inishtrahull.

- 14.09.1939 - the unescorted "Vancouver City" was hit by one torpedo from U-28 and sank about 75 miles west-southwest of Milford Haven.

- 17.09.1939 - the unescorted "Kafiristan" was torpedoed by U-53 about 350 miles west of Cape Clear. The ship had been missed by a first torpedo at 15.42 hours and was sunk by a coup de grâce at 16.14 hours.

- 24.09.1939 - the unescorted "Hazelside" was torpedoed by U-31 southeast of Fastnet. The ship then tried to get away at full speed, but the U-boat stopped the ship with gunfire and sunk her later with a coup de grâce.

Only on October 4th, 1939 Germans announced that they modified prize rules since that date. So even if both sides fought against London Treaty rules maybe Allies simply had to follow German actions to be able to wage war on equal terms?

[Raptor1]

Germany never signed either of the London Naval Treaties. And either way I'm afraid I can neither recall nor find the clause in the treaty which relates to limiting submarine warfare.

EDIT: Ah, wait, that was the first treaty. Either way, Germany didn't sign that one either.

The case for not trying Dönitz on unrestricted submarine warfare was the fact that the Allies used the same strategy against Japan, IIRC.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Gorshkov

So even if both sides fought against London Treaty rules maybe Allies simply had to follow German actions to be able to wage war on equal terms?

Actually Admirals Lockwood and Nimitz both said that their actions were no different than those of Doenitz, and that he should be given leniency on those grounds.

Originally Posted by Gorshkov

I have read many times that trial of Karl Doenitz in Nuremberg was unfair...

In a war that killed some 50-million people you might want to define what you consider as fair.

The judges at Nuremberg did not take into account the alleged violations of the Submarine Protocols so his conviction on the charges of "Crimes Against the Laws of War" were basically irrelevant.

The conviction for "Planning and Waging Aggressive War" was sort of a Catch-22 charge since he was only a Captain and essentially a Squadron Commander, a very junior appointment at the national command level when the war was planned and started. Subsequently as BdU and later Navy Commander, waging an aggressive war was his duty so this conviction is often seen as "unfair".

On the flip side, six-years of wartime propaganda had demonized the U-Boat waffe, tens of thousands of Allied sailors had died and many more had spent their war fighting the Battle of the Atlantic and keeping the sea lanes open.

How "fair" would letting the Nazi who led that fight walk away on a legal technicallity be to the veterans and victims of the naval war in the West? A campaign started by the Nazi's and dominated on the Axis side by Doenitz practically from day one through to the bitter end.

As Hitler's designated successor Doenitz solidly established his pro-Nazi bona-fides so I don't think that ten-years and twenty days was an overly harsh sentence for such a senior member of that odious regime. For the short time he was Head of State he did absolutely nothing to mitigate the Nazi excesses or even order an end to actions in the death camps, something that might have had no tangable effect but would have at least indicated a clean break with Nazi dogma. Instead one of his last acts was to authorize and attend a Nazi showpiece funeral for KzS Wolfgang Luth, commander of the naval school at Marwick and second highest scoring U-Boat commander, shot accidentally shortly after the Nazi surrender.

So, even if the actual war-crime charges leaned towards the bogus in his particular case, a prison sentence of some type was not unwarranted, all thing considered. Just one opinion...

[Gorshkov]

Once Erich Topp stated: “Dönitz certainly has been a good leader of his submariners, but he continued the ‘Battle of the Atlantic,’ when of 4 boats 3 didn’t come back, when the Allied had broken our codes, when their radar on board of planes [was] controlling the Atlantic, when their convoys were protected by High Frequency Direction Finders on board of their destroyers, and so on.”

So I do not think Doenitz was particularly clever U-bootwaffe commander during later stages of war...he simply followed Hitler's insane wishes about "Starving England", Wunderwaffe etc. even if those wishes were just impossible to achieve or were pure Sci-Fi.

Here you are more stuff: http://www.uboat.net/articles/65.html

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Gorshkov

Once Erich Topp stated: “Dönitz certainly has been a good leader of his submariners, but he continued the ‘Battle of the Atlantic,’ when of 4 boats 3 didn’t come back, when the Allied had broken our codes, when their radar on board of planes [was] controlling the Atlantic, when their convoys were protected by High Frequency Direction Finders on board of their destroyers, and so on.”

So I do not think Doenitz was particularly clever U-bootwaffe commander during later stages of war...he simply followed Hitler's insane wishes about "Starving England", Wunderwaffe etc. even if those wishes were just impossible to achieve or were pure Sci-Fi.

I think that 99 out of 100 military leaders will continue to exhort their forces to fight even when the enemy has a technical superiority.

This analysis also ignores operational and strategic issues. Despite the improved technology, overall the Allies are still expending a disproportionate effort to guard against U-boat attacks. Ceasing the attacks means the resources goes elsewhere which arguably only further worsens the German position.