Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hulka
That is why subs back then, and today, make an effort to determine the type and mission of the ship. . .except for Italy and Germany in WWII. I don't recall ALL belligerents engaged in unrestricted sub warfare. I believe we didn't do that.

Ah, but we did. We very specifically authorized the USN to engage in "unrestricted submarine warfare". As such, every Maru in the Pacific was fair game. And that is why public dispatches in WW II did not identify submarine capatains and crewmen by name (at least, I believe that's the case).

One target sunk by a US submarine, for example, was a "prison ship" which was transporting POWs from The Phillipines to Japan. There are several such cases, reported here.

There is simply no practical way for a submarine commander to determine whether a merchant freighter is carrying military personnel and/or materiel. But, in a war zone, an enemy-flagged vessel is presumed to do so.

71 posted on 02/01/2015 7:51:29 AM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTEAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]


To: okie01

As I recall, since Japan was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention, and they demonstrated by the way they were fighting the war, that lighting the insignia on the ship would only invite the Japanese to attack it and ships around it, so it was deemed safer to stay in a darkened ship condition.

And you are correct. We did engage in unrestricted submarine warfare.


80 posted on 02/01/2015 8:56:52 AM PST by rlmorel ("National success by the Democratic Party equals irretrievable ruin." Ulysses S. Grant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson