Q Ships

[Mohoender]

Hello guys, it seems that the "Foster" is starting boiling around here. I'm entirely foreign on that subject but if I may, I'll try to ease things a bit.

If you really want to know about what happened, I would advise you to go and try to have access to the military archive (I don't know how that work in Australia, here they are in free access with only the need to ask). You might get more. Also I'm sure there are plenty of good books, authors are always running after their income and, therefore, they leave little room for neutrality.

I understand all of you and can understand why you seem a bit tense on that. I understand Targan's point. Also I disagree with his will for revenge as I already told him (no need to get back on that). I understand the others point as well but don't be too arsh. Funny enough that both of you seem to express things from your heart. As a result, the Whisky idea seems to be a good one. If I ever come to Australia, I'll offer you a beer instead (I don't like whisky, hé hé). If you come to France I'll do that too.

I know of the events of course but I don't know all the details. However, what I'm sure off is that facts of that type are never one sided. I'm sure that the loss was a terrible one, especially at the time. I'm also sure that sailors from both country were highly skilled and fought with bravery (On that matter, I would praise them both, don't throw the bottle, No! No! ).

From what I know of the battle, the fact that all hands on the Sidney were lost would suggest me that they did their best to save the ship and remain on board until it was too late (One more point for their bravery).

About revenge, that was not carried out by Australia at the time (In my opinion people who were alive at that time remain the only one with a full right to claim it; no offense Targ). From my point of view the fact that the German sailors finished the war as POWs is a strong point toward Australia's Grandeur.

One thing is very true on Targan's side: the type of war carried out by the Kormoran had been banned before 1914 and privateers were no more than pirates. As a result, they could have been all executed as such. Again Australia should be proud of how it reacted as, if they were not innocent, I hardly see any justification to kill young men obeing orders. Unless you are willing to execute many soldiers from all sides in all wars.

However, in a way, revenge had been carried out as Erich Raeder (the man behind these orders) was sentenced to life imprisonment at Nuremberg (one of the charge was his use of privateer war, and he was condemned for conspiracy, crime against peace, war crime and crime against humanity). You can criticize the fact that he was released for health reason in 1955 (he died in 1960) but again that's not for us to judge (IMO).

An interesting point is that Karl Dönitz was only sentenced to 10 years for war crimes (and war crimes only). He died in 1980 and the sentence seems fair to me as the allied were also carrying out submarine war (that was not illegal).

[O'Borg]

Whilst the actions of the Kormoran were sneaky, underhanded and devious, I don't doubt they were any less so than a lot of other things that both the Axis and Allied powers did.
(Compare Operation Chariot or most other Commando raids)

IMO, much of the fault has to lie with the Captain of the HMAS Sydney for failing to take proper precautions when approaching a ship acting suspiciously and failing to give proper recognition signals in wartime.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by O'Borg

Whilst the actions of the Kormoran were sneaky, underhanded and devious, I don't doubt they were any less so than a lot of other things that both the Axis and Allied powers did.
(Compare Operation Chariot or most other Commando raids)

Not false but, on naval matters, the allies have not been guilty of piracy.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Not false but, on naval matters, the allies have not been guilty of piracy.

the allies operated q ships -in fact a British term if I recall correctly - some with French crews Mohohender!

disguised guns aboard merchant ,and dubious flag/symbols to confuse the observer ships etc that were used to try and lure enemy u boats and warships to approach and then open fire on them .

Also , the raid on the German prisonship Altmark in Norwegian waters ( neutral at the time ) has legal implications and could be deemed piratical.

It is my understanding that the rules state that the colours flown should clearly identify nationality and that unmarked warships/disguised warships posing as civillian craft are in fact in breach with conventions - unless they signal intent.

[Mohoender]

HQ you are right but we are not talking about the same thing. Allied Q-ships were used as protection against military vessels (subs...). This was perfectly legal. Of course, Germany never depended on atlantic see lane for its survival. Consequently the allied had no reason to use Q-ships against merchant ship but who care.

The German ships, however, were commerce raiders and they were intended to chase and capture merchant vessels. That is privateering and this was banned in 1856 at the congress on maritime law in Paris.

Despite that congress, Germany, France and England used privateer ships during WWI. As a result, Germany was never charged for that after the end of the conflict. Such charges would have had to be brought against Britain and France as well, and that would have been silly, don't you think?

On the other hand, during WWII, Germany was the only country to use merchant raiders and, therefore, it was the only country to be charged with it. Military Vessels attacking merchant ships is an entirely different thing. That is perfectly legal (and still is) as long as you don't attack neutral ships. Actually, you can attack and sunk neutral ships as well: "Oops sorry we made a mistake". That stand as long as you are the winner. If you lose the war that quickly becomes a crime again. Donitz had been charged with war crime because he ordered the German U-boot to leave no surivors. Several allied subs had the same type of habits (where would you put the survivors anyway?) but the allies won! Moreover, the Nazi crimes were so important that nobody was really paying attention to the ones comited by the allies.

As a conclusion, you can't use civilian motor boats armed with Cal.50 to attack a cargo (that's a crime!!) but you can gladly use a nuke to wipe out an ennemy merchant convoy (that's a perfectly legitimate act of war).

[O'Borg]

I was reading the Wikipedia entry on the use of False Flag during war, and it seems it was considered acceptable practice by both sides that as long as the false flag was lowered and the national flag raised before engaging in combat.
The Kormoran cut things rather fine, but no more so than the HMS Campbeltown did at St Nazaire a few months later.

If the situation regarding the Kormoran and the Sydney was reversed and an Australian Q-Ship had suckered an unwary German light cruiser, I'm sure the Aussies would be treated as national heroes.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by O'Borg

If the situation regarding the Kormoran and the Sydney was reversed and an Australian Q-Ship had suckered an unwary German light cruiser, I'm sure the Aussies would be treated as national heroes.

Except that Australia didn't operate Q-ships like that and I doubt we ever would. Cowardly tactics in my opinion.

And as for that previous crap about it being a war crime to shoot the crew of the Kormoran, it wouldn't be a war crime because the Kormoran's crew were pirates. I'd be happy to drop the hammer on scum like that.

I've exercised a great deal of self control in this thread this week. This debate could go on talking about the Sydney vs Kormoran battle for a year but I won't be changing the way I feel about the matter.

[headquarters]

but in the action in question here ,the Germans skillfully did what the allied q ships were unable to do ,lure a powerful warship in and then at the last minute hoist battle ensign and open fire.

This can no more be a war crime then the allied attempts of the same in the Atlantic .If the wwar ships is a u boat or a destroyer doesnt really mater as far as I can judge .

Originally Posted by Mohoender

HQ you are right but we are not talking about the same thing. Allied Q-ships were used as protection against military vessels (subs...). This was perfectly legal. Of course, Germany never depended on atlantic see lane for its survival. Consequently the allied had no reason to use Q-ships against merchant ship but who care.

The German ships, however, were commerce raiders and they were intended to chase and capture merchant vessels. That is privateering and this was banned in 1856 at the congress on maritime law in Paris.

Despite that congress, Germany, France and England used privateer ships during WWI. As a result, Germany was never charged for that after the end of the conflict. Such charges would have had to be brought against Britain and France as well, and that would have been silly, don't you think?

On the other hand, during WWII, Germany was the only country to use merchant raiders and, therefore, it was the only country to be charged with it. Military Vessels attacking merchant ships is an entirely different thing. That is perfectly legal (and still is) as long as you don't attack neutral ships. Actually, you can attack and sunk neutral ships as well: "Oops sorry we made a mistake". That stand as long as you are the winner. If you lose the war that quickly becomes a crime again. Donitz had been charged with war crime because he ordered the German U-boot to leave no surivors. Several allied subs had the same type of habits (where would you put the survivors anyway?) but the allies won! Moreover, the Nazi crimes were so important that nobody was really paying attention to the ones comited by the allies.

As a conclusion, you can't use civilian motor boats armed with Cal.50 to attack a cargo (that's a crime!!) but you can gladly use a nuke to wipe out an ennemy merchant convoy (that's a perfectly legitimate act of war).

[Mohoender]

HQ you are right.

Actually, that's a good point and the charge was brought on the fact that this ship (and several others) attacked merchant ships before. The Kormoran had sunk 10 merchant ships before it was scuttled. My mistake on that point.

I don't know if the following statement is true but I find it interesting:

In 1999, an Australian Parliament Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade stated that: "[t]he statement of differing views [on the fate of HMAS Sydney] has become a dialogue of the deaf rather than a fruitful exchange within the norms of historical discourse."

O'borg, you are right but privateering was, nevertheless, forbidden and it is considered a very different thing. As HQ pointed out, using Q-ship is fair when used against combat vessels (and even more fair when used against submarines). However, the use of such ships against merchant ships has to be considered an act of piracy and was ruled as such (That charge was brought against Raeder not for that specific battle but because he issued the order that brought these ships to be uses as merchant raiders: a total of 12 ships).

An other point is that the Kormoran was a very well armed ship with a firepower similar to that of Sidney, especially at short range as it was the case.