Laconia incident

[PeZook]

So are you ever going to address anything that I said, or will you just keep repeating your assertions?

[The Asiduo]

So are you ever going to address anything that I said, or will you just keep repeating your assertions?

You also keep repeating the same:

"It was justified within the logic of war". Perhaps, but it was a mistake.
"Even if the bombing hadn't happened...". Pseudohistory. If the germans would had Godzilla on their side, then the rescue operations would have stopped in 1941... or 1947?
"It didn't have any impact really in the allies..." Perhaps at a strategic level. In regards of the lives of the crews of the ships sunken by the germans, it had an impact: at very least, this decision cost the lifes of half of the Laconia survivors.
"What else they could have done?". Perhaps not acting in a gun-ho attitude.

That's it.

[PeZook]

I keep repeating the same because I am hoping you would address my arguments somewhat.

"It was justified within the logic of war". Perhaps, but it was a mistake.

Yes, and I agreed it could be technically called a mistake and also pointed out how it's pointless and useless to classify it as such if it was what you called an "honest mistake", that is a justified decision which happened to have a bad outcome.

"Even if the bombing hadn't happened...". Pseudohistory. If the germans would had Godzilla on their side, then the rescue operations would have stopped in 1941... or 1947?

Goddammit, I actually supported that argument with several facts. Let me spell them out again for you:

1) By late 1943, staying surfaced during the day was rapidly becoming suicidal. Staying surfaced in the immediate area during the day after you have just sank a ship was definitely suicidal. All due to rapidly increasing density of aircraft patrols which did historically happen and would've happened.

2) The Battle of the Atlantic was fought and won in convoy battles, where no rescue by a submarine would've ever taken place as it would result in the immediate sinking of the sub by, you know, the escorts. So the Allies would not be seriously hardened by subs not undertaking rescue actions, while everything would become easier (and thus less risky for everyone, from escorts to merchantmen) by sinking or even just damaging one to four subs.

"It didn't have any impact really in the allies..." Perhaps at a strategic level. In regards of the lives of the crews of the ships sunken by the germans, it had an impact: at very least, this decision cost the lifes of half of the Laconia survivors.

So you admit it didn't have any real impact on the war effort (since that's what "the strategic level" means), then turn around and say the impact was very real because some people were affected?

So which one was it? Did the Laconia Order impact the war effort or just some people? If you think wartime decisions should be made with individual considerations over strategy, what about the people who were affected by the supplies U-156 sank? They don't count? U-156 sank 97 thousand tonnes of shipping during its career.

That's separated from the fact considering individuals over strategy is utterly retarded in war. What happens when you need to sacrifice a batallion to save a division? It's 300 people or so who are affected and will die/go to POW camps.

So what...make the decision, not make the decision? What are the practical results of your judgements? What are the guidelines commanders should follow so that they don't make what you think are mistakes?

"What else they could have done?". Perhaps not acting in a gun-ho attitude.

That's it.

Even if it was a result of the "gung-ho attitude" you so despise (which you didn't prove, by the way), that is not by itself a condemnation of what happened. If the attack was justified, it doesn't matter if it was a result of any attitude, and you admitted yourself it was justified by the logic of war.

Which is, you know, what was happening in the world at the time.

So, uh, I guess you concede? Or did I read you wrong?

Also, I've never said the Laconia incident was justified by Germans being evil and that you could do whatever to Germans because of that.

[fgalkin]

Only some comments:

a) No, I don't think the "Laconia Rescue" was an "humanitarian" effort by the germans, but they were rescuing the crew anyway, regardless of the intention.

So? The point was that they could still be attacked and it would not be a war crime or a "mistake."

b) No, I'm not saying "bombing the Laconia" was a "war crime", though I'm amused with the idea that with the "war crimes" usually when is the "enemy" commiting them. are "war crimes" but when is "our beloved nation" then we get all this talk about good intentions or evil enemies.

There are plenty of things done by the Allies that could be called war crimes. This one was not one of them.

c) In any case, I think "war crime" is just a legal fiction invented post-war to judge the german leaders. I agree with Arthur "Bomber" Harris, though, when questioned about if his methods of bombing cities were "criminal" he said: "War itself is criminal".

You do realize that the concept predates WWII, or even WWI, right?

d) Again, arguing that: "even if the allies hadn't bombed the Laconia, the order blah blah" is just pseudohistory, akin to predict what had happened if the germans had Godzilla on their side: it can be funny, and it's good for alternate-history novels, but in historic arguments, is just pointless speculation. At least some hard evidence would be more clarifying in this case, but otherwise, all this is just like Viktor Suvorov arguing that "Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike": good speculation, but without hard evidence, is just that: speculation.

Why are you even bringing up the Laconia order as an example of anything? The U-boats were forbidden to render aid to the survivors of the ships they sank as per War Order 154, all the way back in 1939. The Laconia order changed absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things (and by your own argument, it is impossible to disprove they would not have given such an order anyway even without the bombing).

And, instead of some historical evidence, reading or anything, all we got is the same dialectical discourse: "the germans were the ultimate evil, we were the ultimate good guys", which pretty much justifies every stupid mistake (as Laconia or Monte Cassino) or crime commited by the allies in WW2.

Who is saying that? You will provide quotes of that, yes? In any case, I have argued that the Laconia bombing was not a mistake, stupid or othwerwise, as the survivors were a perfectly legitimate military target as per WWII precedent, and you have not refuted it, so I assume you have conceded the argument.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[The Asiduo]

All right, all right: I'll tell you what you want to hear:

- Bombing the rescue operation of the Laconia was a perfect decision. Everything turned up fine after that, and, also, we know the germans were evil, evil dudes who would have killes babies and destroyed everything, even if the Laconia bombing hadn't happened. Thank god the Laconia incident occurred. God bless America and Britain.

That's it?

In my logic, I'm just analyzing what happened: "The allies bombed, the germans retalliated issuing an order forbidding further rescue operations (which some german crews ignored)". Those are the FACTS. If you guys want to live in the realm of pseudohistory where "if we hadn't bombed the Laconia, then the germans would have blah, blah", then suit yourselves. In my country, the right-wing politics always insist that "if we hadn't had a fascist goverment in the seventies and eighties, then, the country would have fallen into civil war", to justify the crimes of their fascist dictatorship, so I'm not at all surprised with the idea of "making up pseudohistory to justify everything": it's pretty common when all the rational arguments are off.

was the Laconia a War Crime?, depends on your definition (yeah, the "idea" predates WW2, but only after WW2 began the international enforcement in some systematic way), personally, I think the whole idea of "war crime" is just a form of "victor's justice" hidden behind pretty words. Was a mistake?, yes, because the results were more harmful for the allies than the germans: that's why I compared it with Monte Cassino: another stupid mistake which only made the war more difficult for the alli... oh, sorry, I forgot that even if Monte Cassino hadn't been bombed by the allies, the germans would have bombed themselves the abbey, and then occupied it.

[fgalkin]

Except, of course, the Germans gave the order forbidding rescue operations all the way back in 1939, so who's living in pseudohistory land, exactly?

Also, enough with the "Germans is evil" strawman. No one here is saying that and it only makes you look like an immature twit.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[PeZook]

- Bombing the rescue operation of the Laconia was a perfect decision. Everything turned up fine after that, and, also, we know the germans were evil, evil dudes who would have killes babies and destroyed everything, even if the Laconia bombing hadn't happened. Thank god the Laconia incident occurred. God bless America and Britain.

Jesus christ, what the hell is wrong with you? I presented arguments for my position and none of them looked remotely like what you snidely tried to dismiss here.

I am merely saying the decision to attack was justified, and thus could not be called a mistake by any definition other than an absurdly strict one (ie. any action resulting in negative consequences). It was justified because the potential benefits outweighed the potential costs.

You accused the Allies of a gung-ho attitude and lack of consideration ; I replied to that statement by showing "deeper consideration" did not necessarily lead to your conclusion.

I will repeat: I AM NOT SAYING THERE WERE ABSOLUTELY NO NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ATTACK. That would be absurd. I am saying the negative consequences, as foreseeable at the time, were not grave enough to justify not attacking and potentially sinking several uboats. I showed my reasoning why.

That's it.

In my logic, I'm just analyzing what happened: "The allies bombed, the germans retalliated issuing an order forbidding further rescue operations (which some german crews ignored)". Those are the FACTS. If you guys want to live in the realm of pseudohistory where "if we hadn't bombed the Laconia, then the germans would have blah, blah", then suit yourselves. In my country, the right-wing politics always insist that "if we hadn't had a fascist goverment in the seventies and eighties, then, the country would have fallen into civil war", to justify the crimes of their fascist dictatorship, so I'm not at all surprised with the idea of "making up pseudohistory to justify everything": it's pretty common when all the rational arguments are off.

No, dude.

What I said were FACTS (see? I bolded mine!) as well. The Battle Of The Atlantic was fought and won in convoy battles, where no uboat rescue could've possibly taken place due to reasons entirely obvious to any fucking idiot, Laconia order or no Laconia order.

Allied maritime aircraft patrols did increase to absurd levels that made surfacing during the day (mostly) suicidal ; Also a hard fact.

ALSO as fgalkin pointed out, rescue operations were ALREADY FORBIDDEN before the Laconia Order, so the Allied commander on site had no reason whatsoever to believe the attack would've signficantly changed the overall Allied situation for the worse.

So...the potential impact of the Laconia Order was minimal, while potential gains from sinking several submarines were substantial. Therefore, the decision to attack was sound, if cold and cruel. NOT gung-ho.

Was a mistake?, yes, because the results were more harmful for the allies than the germans: that's why I compared it with Monte Cassino: another stupid mistake which only made the war more difficult for the alli... oh, sorry, I forgot that even if Monte Cassino hadn't been bombed by the allies, the germans would have bombed themselves the abbey, and then occupied it.

If you call something a mistake, the implication is that it should be avoided in the future. Therefore, if another situation like Monte Cassino surfaced in the future (where the decision-makers believe a historical structure is occupied and part of enemy fortifications), they should avoid making a mistake and not bomb it.

Do you really, honestly not see how absurd this policy is?

You could finally clarify whether or not you think the decisions made with Laconia were justified or not, instead of harping on results, since that's utterly pointless. We all know the results were bad ; The goddamned bombs missed! But that's just bad luck/poor aim: it doesn't mean the decision to attack itself was wrong, just like it's not wrong for a cop to try and arrest a mugger, even if he gets stabbed as a result.

[Isolder74]

Something else he is refusing to consider was that why these subs were violating an already issued no rescue order. The Germans were trying to garner favor with an ally by attempting to rescue and repopulate survivors that happened to be Italian POW's. If it had been a normal Allied troop transport carrying Allied Troops this rescue would never have been attempted.

The Germans here were using the Red Cross flag illegally and were doing an rescue operation with units that the Allies can't afford not to try and sink. The danger to any other Allied ship from those subs is enough to justify attacking them no matter what they are doing and the German's knew it. Why else would they bend over backwards so hard to try and pretend their operation was not legal to attack.

The attack did nothing to change how the Battle of the Atlantic was fought or how it eventually played out. The more aircraft that the Allies committed to anti-submarine patrols the more Subs would be forced to act like they did following the Laconia Incident. There was a reason that the Germans started deploying snorkels on all of their subs in the late part of the war. Any sub running on the surface, even at night, was basically dead and a diesel sub HAS to run on the surface in order to be able to run underwater at all.

[Zinegata]

Comparing Laconia to Monte Cassino is dishonest in the first place. The situation in both cases very different.

Both sides had a formal agreement at Monte Cassino - which the Allies violated.

But in the Laconia's case there was no agreement between both sides about what to do in cases like this. They had to go by precedent - and the German precedent was to leave the survivors for dead.

Monte Cassino was "We had a deal, the Allies broke it". Laconia was "The Germans are making up the rules as they go along and acted shocked when the Allies bombed them when they saw through their BS"

[PeZook]

There was an agreement at Monte Cassino? Could you point me to a source which discusses it?

I've never heard of it before so I'd like to learn more.

[Zinegata]

I read somewhere that there was an agreement between Clark and Etterlin that the Germans would refrain from using the Abbey for military purposes if the Allies refrained from bombing it, but it was an old book from a library I don't have access to anymore.

Internet searching hasn't revealed the source, but wiki says this about the bombing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino

What is now known is that the Germans had an agreement with the monks to not use the Abbey for military purposes as long as they remained. Following its destruction, paratroopers of the German 1st Parachute Division then occupied the ruins of the abbey and turned it into a fortress and observation post, which became a serious problem for the attacking allied forces.

And I suspect the Allies knew about this agreement, since th article on Etterlin says this (about his evacuation of the Abbey's treasures):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridolin_v ... d_Etterlin

Before the battle Gen. von Senger und Etterlin successfully employed the transportation facilities of, among others, the Hermann Goering Panzer Division, to evacuate the treasures of the monastery. During the several days of this action none of the trucks were attacked. There seems to have been considerable communication between the warring headquarters at this time.

Which would explain why several Allied generals - i.e. Clark - were so certain that the Abbey was empty of German troops to the point that they refused all calls to bomb the place until C-in-C Italy gave them a direct order to do it.

[PeZook]

Actually, there was some indication at the time that showed the monastery might've been used as an artillery spotting site: of course we know now that it never was, but I can't imagine it was an easy call after the first attempts to take the hill all failed miserably.

You know, fog of war and all that. Some high officers claimed to have seen radio masts et al duirng flybys ; So what are you going to do, ignore all those reports?

If there was an agreement, and the Allies believed the Germans had flagrantly violated it, what other decision could be made? Commanders frequently have to weigh conflicting reports against each other.

[Zinegata]

Never mind, found a corroborating source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/apr/04/johnezard

But Brigadier Watkins said: "Both the allied and German sides had given undertakings to the Pope that they would not destroy the monastery

They both made the promise to the Vatican. The Germans honored their promise. The Allies didn't.

[Zinegata]

If there was an agreement, and the Allies believed the Germans had flagrantly violated it, what other decision could be made? Commanders frequently have to weigh conflicting reports against each other.

I'm not questioning the men who made the decision to bomb the Abbey. It's war after all. That history shows it was clearly a mistake does not condemn the men who made the decision at a time when they were under immense pressure and receiving conflicting reports.

However, from a legal standpoint, bombing Monte Cassino can be deemed an "illegal" act as the Allies did in fact agree not to bomb it.

By contrast, the Allies' bombing in the Laconia incident was legal right from the outset - There was no agreement with the Germans that you shouldn't bomb ships trying to rescue shipwreck survivors. The rules on that were outlined in the Hague Peace Conference - but both sides had thrown all of those rules out right from the get-go. In fact the precedent displayed by the Germans was "take no prisoners" - and it's a precedent codified by an actual order.

Hence comparing the two is dishonest.

Monte Cassino represents the Allies giving their word and breaking it. Legally speaking, it was wrong. But again, a lot of shit happens in war.

Laconia represents the Germans trying to get away with rescuing Italian PoWs and whining loudly when they got bombed. Legally speaking, the Allies were free to bomb the hell out of them if they wanted to.

[ComradeClaus]

If there was an agreement, and the Allies believed the Germans had flagrantly violated it, what other decision could be made? Commanders frequently have to weigh conflicting reports against each other.

I'm not questioning the men who made the decision to bomb the Abbey. It's war after all. That history shows it was clearly a mistake does not condemn the men who made the decision at a time when they were under immense pressure and receiving conflicting reports.

However, from a legal standpoint, bombing Monte Cassino can be deemed an "illegal" act as the Allies did in fact agree not to bomb it.

By contrast, the Allies' bombing in the Laconia incident was legal right from the outset - There was no agreement with the Germans that you shouldn't bomb ships trying to rescue shipwreck survivors. The rules on that were outlined in the Hague Peace Conference - but both sides had thrown all of those rules out right from the get-go. In fact the precedent displayed by the Germans was "take no prisoners" - and it's a precedent codified by an actual order.

Hence comparing the two is dishonest.

Monte Cassino represents the Allies giving their word and breaking it. Legally speaking, it was wrong. But again, a lot of shit happens in war.

Laconia represents the Germans trying to get away with rescuing Italian PoWs and whining loudly when they got bombed. Legally speaking, the Allies were free to bomb the hell out of them if they wanted to.

There were british civilians among the survivors too. Ref: Wolf Packs, Time Life Books. Page 130, there is even a photograph in the book confirming this.

On a side note, how was the Kap Arkona a legitimate mission? Hitler qas dead, Berlin in ruin, Germany imploding under allied invasion, simply letting the Arkonma go wouldn't have hurt the British. Their motive to murder was confirmed when they strafed survivors w/ explosive cannon shells. Except, WHOOPS! The refugees weren't German (though the crew was), but prisoners freed from a concentration camp fleeing the Soviets. The brits were even informed by neutral diplomats that the refugees weren't german & the brits pwnd em anyway for teh evulz.

But the Steuben wasn't a crime, since it still had camo rather than red cross white paint & sailed w/ warships, honest soviet mistyake.

[Metahive]

The post you quote says Laconia, the title of thread features the name Laconia so why exactly did you bring up the Cap Arcona? Sure, the two names share four letters, but following the debate, as it is common courtesy to do before interjecting one's opinion, should have told you that the Cap Arcona incident is not the topic of this thread.

[ComradeClaus]

I know it's about the Laconia, If you read my first sentence, you'd see I was referencing the fact that there were actually innocent NONAXIS civilians on the lifeboats, not just Italian POWs of DOOM, so it wasn't as if bombing everything would've been a war-winning action (a thousand italian soldiers could be taken out by a single Sherman & Kelly's Heroes).

And how many ships did those Uboats even sink after that incident? Probably not that many. The Wolf Packs never truly came close to chocking Britain, it's a popular myth. Germany alone couldn't even sink 3,000 merchant ships. The UK had over 10,000 at the start of the war, while the US had thousands more supplying them while we were "neutral" Plus we built over 10,000 more victory & liberty ships (we even had enough to spare to build over 100 escort carriers [only 2 being hit by Uboats, while sinking hundreds!]). Ref: "Brute Force"-john Ellis

So the cost of actually believing the Germans claims about the lifeboats & leaving them alone is rather little. but the order to bomb probably wasn't a war crime. Something worth a postwar court marshall, perhaps a 1-rank demotion. but were the roles reversed, a german bomber attacking an allied sub towing lifeboats, the crew & airbase commander who ordered the bombing would've been shot. But then it's a fact that there is never justice for the vanquished.

And I mentioned the Arkona as an example of a TRUE warcrime (wanton killing of refugees at the end of a conflict.) The German surrender to British forces was signed the next day at Luneburg Heath, something the officers who ordered the attack were aware of. So even if the Arkona was full of SS Cyborg Supermen, not attacking wouldn't have doomed democracy & the forces of Good

It's inclusion here, to compare an alleged War Crime; the Laconia Incident (the topic of the thread), to an actual War Crime; the Arkona (& several other ships), is appropriate to put the Laconia into context. I should've mentioned it yesterday, but didn't have the time.

[HMS Sophia]

And how many ships did those Uboats even sink after that incident? Probably not that many

Convoy SC 107, October 1942 (one month after Laconia), lost 14 ships to U-boat action. In October as a whole, 258,000 tonnes of merchant shipping was lost.
November of 1942, and March of 1943 were two of the most successful months for U-boats, in which they sank 729,000 and 627,000 gross tons of shipping respectively.

The Wolf Packs never truly came close to chocking Britain, it's a popular myth.

April and may of 1940 saw the biggest imports into britain, of around one million gross tons being shipped in. By January and February of 1941, this had been cut to barely 500,000 imported tons across the two months, exactly one half of what Britain was getting before the U-boat menace truly established itself. Do you want to know how many U-boats were lost in Jan-feb 1941? none. Thats why it was known as the happy time, and it's the closest they came to choking britain. It wasn't a myth.

Plus we built over 10,000 more victory & liberty ships

This is bullshit. 534 victory ships were built, as were 2710 liberty ships. That's a total of just over 3000. Impressive, yes. 10,000 no.

Germany alone couldn't even sink 3,000 merchant ships.

The Germans sank 3,500 merchant ships, and 175 war ships, for the loss of 783 U-boats. Don't make shit up.

[HMS Sophia]

I also want to add one or two things:

we even had enough to spare to build over 100 escort carriers [only 2 being hit by Uboats, while sinking hundreds!]

Of these ships, only thirty-eight were in British service, most were part of the USN and served in the Pacific instead of the Atlantic, making your statistic blown quite out of proportion.
Also, I am very wary of you saying they sank hundreds. Where are you getting that information? The only source I can find lists U-Boat losses to aircraft as 250, which includes carrier and land based aircraft, and coastal command was making great headway by 1943.

And how many ships did those Uboats even sink after that incident? Probably not that many.

Yes, I quoted this before, but upon thinking about it I realised quite how stupid this statement was. Do you realise that the last action of the Battle of the North Atlantic was the sinking of a minesweeper and two freighters by U-boats, just before the treaty was signed? The U-boats never stopped.

[ComradeClaus]

I also want to add one or two things:

we even had enough to spare to build over 100 escort carriers [only 2 being hit by Uboats, while sinking hundreds!]

Of these ships, only 38 were in British service, most were part of the USN and served in the Pacific instead of the Atlantic, making your statistic blown quite out of proportion.
Also, I am very wary of you saying they sank hundreds. Where are you getting that information? The only source I can find lists U-Boat losses to aircraft as 250, which includes carrier and land based aircraft, and coastal command was making great headway by 1943.

And how many ships did those Uboats even sink after that incident? Probably not that many.

Yes, I quoted this before, but upon thinking about it I realised quite how stupid this statement was. Do you realise that the last action of the Battle of the North Atlantic was the sinking of a minesweeper and two freighters by U-boats, just before the treaty was signed? The U-boats never stopped.

While the British only recieved 38 carriers from the US, a number of US navy carriers killed Uboats too. Do I have to look up the wiki articles of EVERY carrier the US built & say which ones were invovled in Uboat hunting? It's an awful lot of articles to read through. USS Bogue, iirc took out at least a couple uboats. Plus if the Allies needed more in the Atlantic, it would've been simple to send them there before transferring them to fight Japan. So it doesn't matter how many the BRITISH had, but the TOTAL number the ALLIES had. And on uboat.net, iirc, it mentioned that escort carriers ALONE killed over 200 uboats, which makes "hundreds" a correct, if imprecise figure. When I have the chance, I'll post the total numbers lost to each cause AND from what other sources I can find.


'Those' Uboats meant the ones directly involved in the Laconia situation, what was the fate of them in the aftermath of the incident? how many ships did THOSE particular subs sink?

For the monthly shipping loses, John Ellis' "Brute Force" has a full chart listing tonnage sunk to tonnage recieved in the UK, while there were a few real LEAN months, the British had a few tricks up their sleeve, like the Greece/Crete operation. (They had to retreat, but forced the Germans into yet another front, thus diverting Germaan resources better spent elsewhere). if it REALLY looked like the Uboats would prevail, FDR would've, done whatever he had to to get more merchant ships diverted to supply Britain & to get the US Navy in the hunt for Uboats (ie: Reuben James), of course, the attack on Pearl Harbor resolved that.

According to wikipedia, the Uboat merchant ship kills were 2825, NOT 3,500. Other sources state this figure as well, so where'd your figure come from? If the wiki figure is wrong, it should be changed.

The figure for merchant ships built is by john Ellis, a noted historian, though he didn't difrientiate between Victory, Liberty or regular merchant ships, just their combined total. If anyone knows the right numbers, it's him.

[Sea Skimmer]

'Those' Uboats meant the ones directly involved in the Laconia situation, what was the fate of them in the aftermath of the incident? how many ships did THOSE particular subs sink?

You know if you actually had read this thread instead of just showing up and making random claims, you would have seen that I already noted that U-156 sank Quebec City on September 19th, five days after she sank Laconia and three days after she was bombed by an American B-24. On the same fucking war patrol. The allies had every possible justification for trying to sink her and her captain acted in gross violation of the laws of warfare through his misuse of the red cross. Your ramblings do nothing to change this.

[PeZook]

And of course I pointed out several times before that the Allies were not future-gazing psychics and couldn't know how many ships U-156 would go on to sink in the future, or that the uboat threat in the end wasn't as big as they thought.

[HMS Sophia]

And on uboat.net, iirc, it mentioned that escort carriers ALONE killed over 200 uboats, which makes "hundreds" a correct, if imprecise figure. When I have the chance, I'll post the total numbers lost to each cause AND from what other sources I can find.

No, what U-boat.net lists is the number of U-boat losses to aircraft, which includes all carrier, and land based aircraft, as 250. I am not going to trust that unless I see a breakdown.

if it REALLY looked like the Uboats would prevail, FDR would've, done whatever he had to to get more merchant ships diverted to supply Britain & to get the US Navy in the hunt for Uboats

Not without a much better domestic political situation he wouldn't. You realise that until pearl he couldn't openly act against the U-boats, which left him with tactics such as the neutrality patrols and such.

According to wikipedia, the Uboat merchant ship kills were 2825, NOT 3,500.

Can you link me that? Because this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... 80%931945)
and several books list the figure I use.
Oh wait, I just found your figure. Well, I found what your figure should be. The British Royal Navy lost 2828 merchant ships, which was two thirds of the total losses. So you're a lying fucker.

though he didn't difrientiate between Victory, Liberty or regular merchant ships, just their combined total.

So you used a figure and lied about what it was. That makes you a lying fucker.
Also, I still cant find a total that high. this page http://shipbuildinghistory.com/history/ ... SINCE_WWII
Has a total of 8325 ships. However, that includes coastal ships, tugs, and barges, so you can cut that number down by several hundred.

Do I have to look up the wiki articles of EVERY carrier the US built & say which ones were invovled in Uboat hunting?

Yes, please, provide me with some proof. I don't believe your numbers.

Plus if the Allies needed more in the Atlantic, it would've been simple to send them there before transferring them to fight Japan.

Wait, so they would have sent them from the pacific, to the atlantic, to the pacific again... why?

[ComradeClaus]

According to wikipedia, the Uboat merchant ship kills were 2825, NOT 3,500.

Can you link me that? Because this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... 80%931945)

Alright, the page there does say 3,500. But the page on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-boat says 2825, only one of these is right.
and several books list the figure I use.

Oh wait, I just found your figure. Well, I found what your figure should be. The British Royal Navy lost 2828 merchant ships, which was two thirds of the total losses. So you're a lying fucker.


So you used a figure and lied about what it was. That makes you a lying fucker.
Also, I still cant find a total that high. this page http://shipbuildinghistory.com/history/ ... SINCE_WWII
Has a total of 8325 ships. However, that includes coastal ships, tugs, and barges, so you can cut that number down by several hundred.

Please calm down, are those insults really necessary? I'm not lying, it's not my fault have differing sources of information. I haven't been calling you a liar or worse.

[HMS Sophia]

Please calm down, are those insults really necessary? I'm not lying, it's not my fault have differing sources of information. I haven't been calling you a liar or worse.

Yes, they are, because you put down figures without looking at what they really are. If you look at the rules on this website, I can swear and insult you as much as I want as long as I am getting my argument across. I think I did that pretty well, even while I called you a lying fucker.