3 ms·

As for being 'legally a war crime', that's inaccurate. The British blockade was entirely legal in line with the provisions of the 1909 Hague Convention I think

As for being 'legally a war crime', that's inaccurate. The British blockade was entirely legal in line with the provisions of the 1909 Hague Convention I think you're confusing the Hague Convention of 1907 with the London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War in 1909. Regardless, the text of that treaty does not support your assertion. Chapter 1, Article 1: "A blockade must not extend beyond the ports and coasts belonging to or occupied by the enemy."[0] Chapter 2, Article 2 deals with contraband of war - food is not on the list.[1]. The UK signed this, as well as the 1856 "Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law" - which itself was explicitly referred to as being extended in the 1907 Hague Convention. Again I quote: "2. The neutral flag covers enemy’s goods, with the exception of contraband of war; 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy’s flag;"[2] [0] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=78B780093633B347C12563CD005177B6 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/255-330024?OpenDocument https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/255-33... [2] https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Paris_Declaration_Respecting_Maritime_Law https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Paris_Declaration_Respecti...

_djo_ 4y ago
Sorry, yes. I was recalling it from memory and mixed the two up. My apologies. I meant the London Declaration. You are selectively and misleadingly quoting it, and confusing the concepts of contraband, which can be pursued on the high seas, with blockades which much be in a defined area and apply equally to neutral vessels. This is stated very clearly in the opening articles, so I don't know how you missed it. Chapter 1, Article 5 of the London Declaration: [0] "A blockade must be applied impartially to the ships of all nations." Chapter 1, Article 7: [1] "In circumstances of distress, acknowledged by an officer of the blockading force, a neutral vessel may enter a place under blockade and subsequently leave it, provided that she has neither discharged nor shipped any cargo there." Chapter 1, Article 14: [2] "The liability of a neutral vessel to capture for breach of blockade is contingent on her knowledge, actual or presumptive, of the blockade." Chapter 1, Article 15: [3] "Failing proof to the contrary, knowledge of the blockade is presumed if the vessel left a neutral port subsequently to the notification of the blockade to the Power to which such port belongs, provided that such notification was made in sufficient time." Chapter 1, Article 17: [4] "Neutral vessels may not be captured for breach of blockade except within the area of operations of the warships detailed to render the blockade effective." I could go on. The only limitation on blockades with regard to neutral states is that they may not apply to neutral ports or coasts. [5] Contraband, by contrast, is something that may be seized on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents, outside of a specific blockade zone: Chapter II, Article 37: [6] "A vessel carrying goods liable to capture as absolute or conditional contraband may be captured on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents throughout the whole of her voyage, even if she is to touch at a port of call before reaching the hostile destination." So, as I said, you've taken a complex and nuanced topic, completely misunderstood it, and are loudly proclaiming that your take on it which advances a specific political point is the correct one. That pushback you're getting isn't people unwilling to accept reality, it's people trying to help you understand what the circumstances really were. [0] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=D695BAC1D577ED8BC12563CD005177DF https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=37EA554F024A017CC12563CD005177F3 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [2] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=E3D87FA8922B7E10C12563CD00517850 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [3] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=E924A31ED6CA8F82C12563CD0051785A https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [4] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=026FB79F288CB246C12563CD00517876 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [5] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=433D5EDDE7B7403AC12563CD00517881 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [6] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=3E25C4815065C78AC12563CD005179A7 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  You're shifting goal posts and muddying the waters. My original assertion is simple - treating food as contraband in the blockade is against several treaties Britain was signatory to at the time. You picked out several passages at near random than fell back with "as I said". Your blank refusal to see this despite having the treaties in front of you - and despite many people during WWI noting it at the time - proves my point. It's more important to you to cling onto the myth that WWI was a battle between good and evil, than admit a democracy deliberately starved the civilian population of a monarchy even after they had laid down their arms. Though the usual response to this is to point to German WWI war crimes, as if they then cancel out - so I suppose it's an improvement.
  - _djo_ 4y ago
    No, the seizure of contraband on the high seas and blockades are entirely separate things in terms of international law. You’re confusing the two. Blockades have always, up until fairly recent times, legally included the blocking of foodstuffs just as sieges did. You don’t have to take my word for it, you could go and find an academic who specialises in this field and ask them. You’ll get the same answer. Honestly, you’re arguing out of ignorance here on a topic you don’t understand. On top of that you’re attempting to assign to me simplistic motives, that I don’t hold, just because it would make your preconceptions fit better.

_djo_ 4y ago

Sorry, yes. I was recalling it from memory and mixed the two up. My apologies. I meant the London Declaration. You are selectively and misleadingly quoting it, and confusing the concepts of contraband, which can be pursued on the high seas, with blockades which much be in a defined area and apply equally to neutral vessels. This is stated very clearly in the opening articles, so I don't know how you missed it. Chapter 1, Article 5 of the London Declaration: [0] "A blockade must be applied impartially to the ships of all nations." Chapter 1, Article 7: [1] "In circumstances of distress, acknowledged by an officer of the blockading force, a neutral vessel may enter a place under blockade and subsequently leave it, provided that she has neither discharged nor shipped any cargo there." Chapter 1, Article 14: [2] "The liability of a neutral vessel to capture for breach of blockade is contingent on her knowledge, actual or presumptive, of the blockade." Chapter 1, Article 15: [3] "Failing proof to the contrary, knowledge of the blockade is presumed if the vessel left a neutral port subsequently to the notification of the blockade to the Power to which such port belongs, provided that such notification was made in sufficient time." Chapter 1, Article 17: [4] "Neutral vessels may not be captured for breach of blockade except within the area of operations of the warships detailed to render the blockade effective." I could go on. The only limitation on blockades with regard to neutral states is that they may not apply to neutral ports or coasts. [5] Contraband, by contrast, is something that may be seized on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents, outside of a specific blockade zone: Chapter II, Article 37: [6] "A vessel carrying goods liable to capture as absolute or conditional contraband may be captured on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents throughout the whole of her voyage, even if she is to touch at a port of call before reaching the hostile destination." So, as I said, you've taken a complex and nuanced topic, completely misunderstood it, and are loudly proclaiming that your take on it which advances a specific political point is the correct one. That pushback you're getting isn't people unwilling to accept reality, it's people trying to help you understand what the circumstances really were. [0] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=D695BAC1D577ED8BC12563CD005177DF https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=37EA554F024A017CC12563CD005177F3 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [2] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=E3D87FA8922B7E10C12563CD00517850 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [3] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=E924A31ED6CA8F82C12563CD0051785A https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [4] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=026FB79F288CB246C12563CD00517876 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [5] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=433D5EDDE7B7403AC12563CD00517881 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [6] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=3E25C4815065C78AC12563CD005179A7 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...

LAC-Tech 4y ago
You're shifting goal posts and muddying the waters. My original assertion is simple - treating food as contraband in the blockade is against several treaties Britain was signatory to at the time. You picked out several passages at near random than fell back with "as I said". Your blank refusal to see this despite having the treaties in front of you - and despite many people during WWI noting it at the time - proves my point. It's more important to you to cling onto the myth that WWI was a battle between good and evil, than admit a democracy deliberately starved the civilian population of a monarchy even after they had laid down their arms. Though the usual response to this is to point to German WWI war crimes, as if they then cancel out - so I suppose it's an improvement.
- _djo_ 4y ago
  No, the seizure of contraband on the high seas and blockades are entirely separate things in terms of international law. You’re confusing the two. Blockades have always, up until fairly recent times, legally included the blocking of foodstuffs just as sieges did. You don’t have to take my word for it, you could go and find an academic who specialises in this field and ask them. You’ll get the same answer. Honestly, you’re arguing out of ignorance here on a topic you don’t understand. On top of that you’re attempting to assign to me simplistic motives, that I don’t hold, just because it would make your preconceptions fit better.