Cowardly Tub
Located. It’s the dastardly Nazi raider that was masquerading as a Dutch freighter when it sank HMAS Sydney with loss of all on board. An Oz govt-funded search seeking Sydney found the filthy schnitzel bucket 8,000 feet deep in the Indian Ocean off Western Australia. SMH.
Meanwhile, Nazi Kriegsmarine bastard survivor who’s managed to live to a ripe old age speaks ill of the dead, blames Sydney’s skipper because he fell for Kormoran’s act of piracy in November 1941.
Both ships sank. All 645 Aussie swabs lost, while 300 Germans made it ashore, a circumstance that raised eyebrows but led to no formal accusations. I don’t know how it works at sea. Doesn’t attacking under false pretenses, false colors mean war crime, drumhead trial, summary execution?
According to this Australian War Memorial account, the Krauts revealed themselves for what they were at the last moment. Unclear whether that’s according to the spiketops themselves or a transmission from a more reliable source, such as the doomed Australians.
Topics: Australia
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:34 pm on Sunday, March 16, 2008
7 Responses to “Cowardly Tub”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
“Doesn’t attacking under false pretenses, false colors mean war crime, drumhead trial, summary execution? ”
Nah, they get habeas corpus, govt. paid defense lawyers, years of appeals, no death penalty, etc.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:03 am
If in fact, the Kormoran indicated it would surrender to lure the Sydney in, then you have a case, but short of that, it was a clever ruse of war. Used by both sides. See “Q-ships”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship. Perhaps the Sydney was not wary enough. It does not make the Aussies any less brave, but lapses in caution have exacted costs on all military forces.
The fact that the sunken ships were found 12 miles apart would seem to me to indicate the Germans had NOT nefariously done away with the Sydney’s crew after it sunk.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Bad link, Eric. Try here.
Also, the Allies used Q ships as an anti-submarine defense, luring them in close for a kill. The Kormoran was was not acting as a submarine defense as, IIRC, there weren’t many British or Australian submarines (if any) operating around Australia that early in WWII. Some, yes, not that many.
Further, the Kormoran was not operating anywhere near Axis supply lines, which is where the Allied Q ships did their hunting. The use of surface raiders fits in nicely with the German naval strategy during that time, which was one of utter ruthlessness in attacking enemy shipping of any type.
There’s a big difference between a Q ship luring in a submarine (which operated on the principle of “ambush”), and a surface raider sneaking up on a war ship by flying false colors. IMHO, the Kormoran was in fact acting as a pirate; at least Nazi sub crews could claim to flying under true colors. The Kormoran could not.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Thanks for fixing the link.
“There’s a big difference between a Q ship luring in a submarine (which operated on the principle of “ambush”), and a surface raider sneaking up on a war ship by flying false colors.”
There is? What is it? Q-ships portrayed themselves as non-combatants, even if under their own colors. Soldiers operating as civlians would violate LOAC. However, since merchant ships were always fair prizes as sea, I don’t see any violation by the Q-ships — or by the Kormoran. Same-same. (Also note that the Kormoran did not “sneak up” on the Sydney — the Sydney interecepted an unknown ship (much as we do today). Apparently the Sydney was suspicious of it, gave it the challenge, but seemed to be prepared enough for the “wrong” answer — or maybe they were just unlucky. That cranky old kraut from the Kormoran may not have been polite, but he might have had a point.)
“…at least Nazi sub crews could claim to flying under true colors. The Kormoran could not.”
I am baffled by your statement– the question is not about the subs. My argument is that the Q-ships and the Kormoran used similar, apparently legal, tactics; disguising themselves as merchant ships when in fact they were warships. The only issue might be whether flying the Dutch Flag (if they were flying a flag at all) was legal or not. Since I did not read of any trial of the Kormoran’s captain or crew for violating LOAC or laws of the sea, I would say that Aussies didn’t see a violation either.
Apparently the Kormoran was a lot more successful than the Q-ships, since the Kormoran’s actual targets were other un-or lightly defended merchant ships, not warships/subs.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Made a hash of the 3rd sentence in the second para. Should read:
Apparently the Sydney was suspicious of it, gave it the challenge, but seemed to be NOT prepared enough for the “wrong” answer — or maybe they were just unlucky.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
“I am baffled by your statement– the question is not about the subs. My argument is that the Q-ships and the Kormoran used similar, apparently legal, tactics; disguising themselves as merchant ships when in fact they were warships.”
The difference is their intent and approach.
The Q-ships themselves were bait for submarines, which attack by surprise. Their intent is destroy submarines. Thus, the deceit is focused on a confirmed warship (i.e., a sub), and only the crew of the Q-ship is at risk.
Raiders (such as the Komoran) fly under false colors, just as pirates do, with the intent of destroying any and all shipping (as was the Nazi naval strategy). Raiders are not bait in any fashion, and their attacks was focused largely on civilian vessels, which were either unarmed or lightly armed. Raiders approach their prey in disguise, and destroy when the timing is right. Thus, the raiders are at minimal or no risk when attacking civilian vessels. When the Komoran attacked they Sydney, they got their clock cleaned but good, although the Sydney didn’t survive. Unfortunately.
So equating Q ships and commerce raiders is not logically correct, nor morally valid. Q ships sucked in warships, commerce raiders targeted civilian shipping.
That the Kormoran sailed under naval orders merely means that the Nazis condoned piracy when it suited them.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Conversion of Merchant Ships into War Ships (Hague VII); October 18, 1907
Art. 2.
Merchant ships converted into war-ships must bear the external marks which distinguish the war-ships of their nationality.