Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Forgotten American War Crime: The Laconia Incident" video.

Of course, the British should have simply sat back and allowed Germany to conquer the rest of Europe. Firstly when Germany simply chose to march into Belgium in WW1, and secondly when Germany embarked on a policy of rampant military expansion in WW2. After all, why should any decent person object to Germany, without any declarations of war, invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium? Twice, in the case of Belgium. I appreciate that you are still annoyed after all these years, herr obergruppenfuhrer, but please address two matters. 1). How would seeking to prevent a general European war have expanded Britain's 'Colonial Empire?' 2). Why do you believe that US involvement in WW2 was simply to aid Britain, when in fact it was primarily because of Pearl Harbor and the subsequent German declaration of war?
3
You don't actually know a lot about WW2, do you?
3
@theodorechill Perhaps, as you sit in your comfy chair and make pious comments about events of 80 years ago, you might consider the estimated casualty figures, both American and Japanese, for Operation Olympic? Then you might explain how a soldier who loads a bullet or shell into a weapon is a legitimate target, yet the civilian who makes the shell, or even supplies the soldier with the food to carry on fighting, is not? To help you excape from your Ivory Tower, please note that 20th century warfare had no room for civilians. Goebbels called in a famous speech, for total war, and got it. By the way, Dresden was an industrial & route centre, and the Red Army General Staff had requested the bombing to aid their offensive. I wonder if the people of numerous small Spanish towns, or Warsaw, or Rotterdam, realised that your ah was a warm hearted. kindly, individual? .
3
The video didn't point out any such thing, except in your prejudiced imagination.
3
@twillison8824 You have to love the manner in which many of these people make pious judgements from a comfortable chair, on a laptop, eighty years after the events. I wonder if they would have been quite so judgemental from the bridge of a freighter in mid Atlantic in 1942 or 1943?
2
Actually, the casualties were almost entirely Italian PoWs (1,400), British crew (100), & Polish guards (30). There were no civilians or children involved.
2
@JRyan-lu5im But you wrote : 'The bomber literally murdered hundreds of civilians to include friendly civilians with infants.' Which is simply false. LACONIA, en route from Suez to UK, carried 2, 73 2 souls: 1,800 Italian prisoners of war (with 103 Polish guards), a crew of 463, 286 members of the British Armed Forces, and 80 civilians, So, 80 civilians at most. Not your imaginary 'hundreds.'
2
@JRyan-lu5im Still wrong. All you need to do is check the Laconia's manifest. . At the time of the sinking, she was transporting mostly Italian prisoners of war from Cape Town to Freetown, under the command of Captain Rudolph Sharp. The ship was carrying 463 officers and crew, 87 civilians, 286 British soldiers, 1,793 Italian prisoners and 103 Polish soldiers acting as guards of the prisoners. 'To argue the symantics is pointless as NONE of the people where legitimate targets regardless of being civilian or servicemen.' Presumably you haven't heard of the Battle of the Atlantic. U-Boat commanders had been attacking civilian vessels and their crews since 3 September, 1939. If you wish to argue that comment, you need to have a word with Korvettenkapitan Hartenstein.
2
You mean like the women & children who weren't aboard Laconia?
2
When your noble Germans massacred Slavs, or gassed millions of assorted victims, I assume you suggest that that was done in a compassionate manner?
2
Have you actually looked at the US estimates of probable casualty levels, both American and Japanese, had an assault landing (Operation Olympic) on the Japanese homeland been attempted? Or read of Soviet requests that Dresden, a major route centre and manufacturing city, be bombed, in order to aid the Soviet offensive? Probably not. After all, isn't it far easier to spout pious condemnations, from a comfy chair, on a laptop, eighty years after the event? Don't let your coffee get cold!
1
You have the opportunity to make such pious, virtue-signalling, comments eighty years later, precisely because those men, and many like them, gave you the chance. I wonder if you would have been quite so virtuous had you been aboard a freighter in mid-Atlantic in 1942 or 1943?
1
Did they?
1
The first Q-ship victory was on 23 June 1915. Germany had embarked on a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare in February, 1915.
1
@pvtjohntowle4081 Not so. The Norwegian freighter 'Belridge' was torpedoed on 19 February, 1915, for example. Among others, the US tanker 'Gulflight' on 1 May. There were a number of other incidents. As the historian of the blockade, A. C. Gull, was to write :- ' A handful of naval officers, most of them under thirty years of age, without political training and isolated from the rest of the world by the nature of their duties, were given a vague and indefinite instruction to give a thought to politics before they fired their torpedoes.' Whatever promises German diplomats had given to Washington, serious infractions of these assurances were the inevitable result.
1
On behalf of Britain, might I apologise personally to you for the part my country played in being part of coalitions which defeated German attempts to conquer Europe twice in the 20th Century. You are clearly still annoyed, herr obergruppenfuhrer. Perhaps you are unaware that there were almost 2,000 Italian PoWs aboard Laconia? The historian Clay Blair speculated that Hartenstein may have been concerned about the effect his action would have had on German relations with Italy. Hartenstein sank around 100,000 tons of merchant shipping, without showing much humanitarian consideration for their crews, after all. Still, whistle the Horst Wessel Song to yourself, and light a candle or two in front of your print of 'der bannertrager.' It might cheer you up considerably.
1
@nickdanger3802 Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about. You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India. Still, if you are happier cutting and pasting something you probably found on google, then so be it.
1
True. There is a scene in an old British movie, 'The Cruel Sea' which makes exactly that point. The book on which the movie was based was written by someone who had served aboard a corvette during the Battle of the Atlantic.
1
U156 sank 19 merchant ships. 'God bless their souls.' Easy to write 80 years later on a laptop from a comfy chair. Don't let your coffee get cold.
1
@Exodon2020 Why do you post from ignorance? There were no British civilians aboard Laconia, apart from the Merchant Navy crew.
1
The same U-boat commander also sank 19 merchant ships. Have you considered the possibility that he acted as he did when he found out he had sunk a ship carrying almost 2,000 Italian PoWs?
1
@uteriel282 You have any proof of that? By the way, the crews of merchant ships were also civilians. You evidently are unaware of who the actual people aboard Laconia were. Just to educate you :- 463 officers and crew, 87 civilians, 286 British soldiers, 1,793 Italian prisoners and 103 Polish soldiers.
1
@uteriel282 Still doesn't work, mein herr. Laconia was not transporting military equipment or materials, but simply people. You do seem totally unable to accept the reasons for the remarkable change of heart.
1
@uteriel282 In view of the introduction of unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany, in September, 1939, all ships were seen, by them, as 'military vessels.' I suspect you would bleat a lament of a different tune were I to refer to the Wilheim Gustloff? You are still determined to avoid the issue, by the way. What proof have of of why your U-boat captain acted as he did?
1
@nickdanger3802 Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about. You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
1
@gneedraok1905 The probability is that Hartenstein reacted as he did only when he discovered that the majority of the prople aboard Laconia were Italian PoWs. The effect on German/Italian relations might have been serious, once the Allies began making details of the casualties known.
1
Brilliant idea. Name a RNLI vessel after a U-boat commander who sank almost 100,000 tons of Allied shipping. A true humanitarian indeed. Perhaps you are unaware that there were almost 2,000 Italian PoWs aboard Laconia? The historian Clay Blair speculates that Hartenstein may have been concerned about the effect his action would have had on German relations with Italy. He may, or may not, have acted for humanitarian reasons, and the attacks by US aircraft were certainly unjustified, but please do not seem to make Hartenstein into something he wasn't.
1