3 ms·

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 Br

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.