Chasing U-Boats and Hunting Insurgents

[Jedburgh]

A unique - and interesting - comparison from the current issue of JFQ...

Lessons from an Underhand Way of War (http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i40/i40_commentary_01.pdf)

...The soldier’s horror at “war in the shadows” and the sailor’s disgust at war “below the belt” are rooted in two sources. The first is a moral and professional revulsion against what is seen as a particularly nonheroic and inhumane form of warfare. Submarines and insurgents do not fight according the Western way of war, in which the opponents declare themselves and slug it out face to face. Because of the way submarines have been used in two World Wars, they and insurgents share a reputation for being indiscriminate. Because the U-boats refused to distinguish between civilian and military shipping, or between neutrals and enemies, they acquired the “terrorist” sobriquet. The second, more practical reason for the submarine and the insurgent’s ill repute has to do with the difficulty for the conventional sailor and soldier in finding—and therefore defeating—their respective opponents. Submarine and insurgency opponents involve asymmetric warfare; both have historically tied down disproportionately large numbers of forces. As many as 10 counterinsurgent or antisubmarine defenders can be needed for each enemy operative...

[DE_Six]

That's an interesting perspective. I had never looked at it this way.

Thanks for posting.

[Uninen]

How about another point of view: It takes more guts'n spine to be a submariner or insurgent than it takes to be a sailor or marine?
And not just saying that.. its the truth.

Because the U-boats refused to distinguish between civilian and military shipping
Yeah... just remember, when the 3rd world war begins, no ferrying weapons in civilians ships ok? :roll:

[Kilgor]

Being total war, I dont see how the author can cry foul about the uboat men hitting any decent boats they could find. And at the same time American and Brit bombers laid waste to anything below. The U boats just laid waste to anything above.

[DE_Six]

Being total war, I dont see how the author can cry foul about the uboat men hitting any decent boats they could find. And at the same time American and Brit bombers laid waste to anything below. The U boats just laid waste to anything above.

Actually, most of the critics of the submarine I read about where from pre-1914, things changed a lot after WW1, it was the coming of age of industrial warfare, the culmination of a process that arguably started with the american Civil war.

In WW2, the attitudes were still hostile, but it was more a matter of frustration than shock and disgust.

I don't think it's fair to compare submariners and insurgent in terms of courage though. They may both have a similar effect on the enemy, but submariners faced horrible fates under their nation's uniform. Insurgents try to pass off as civilians. I know it ain't much, but it does matter at some point.

[Johnny_H02]

et me say Im not impressed, comparing Insurgents to Submariners is disgracefull there is NO comparison.



the whole enemy you cant see thing being dishonorable and the hostility born from troops and service members considered conventional , can also be labeled to more then Submariners including the following groups

- Commandos were considered no better then Sabators

- Paratroopers of all sides in the second world war were hailed as the toughest to crack, they suffered for it if they were ever captured

- Enemy and Allied Airmen especially Bomber crews were seen as worse then the average grunt for thier high level bombings, the Gestapo would kill allot of Allied Airmen they could get thier hands on, two canadian Bomber crew actually ended up in Dachau befor being rescued or "Transfered" by members of the Luftwaffe who thought such a fate for fellow airmen was rediculous.

- Snipers - enough said snipers were hated on all sides.


Insurgents do not of the same yolk as
Commandos, Airborne, Snipers, Bomber crews and Airmen, So why submariners? especially after about 1942 when the Allies really turned up the heat and became more efficiant at hunting subs, where the odds were not in favor of the Germans anymore.

I simply do not agree with this article, not attacking the thread starter just expressing my disagreement.

Peace

( and if the Allies were Soooo concerned about unrestricted submarine warfare, dont pack civilian liners full of troops, Ammunition, materials for the war effort, was the Kriegsmarine supposed to do? )

[Kilgor]

"As one of the witnesses in his own defence, Dönitz produced an affidavit from American Admiral Chester Nimitz who testified that the United States had used unrestricted warfare as a tactic in the Pacific and that American submarines did not rescue survivors in situations where their own safety was in question. Despite this, the tribunal found Dönitz guilty of charges two and three, for which he was sentenced to 11 and a half years. He served ten years in Spandau Prison, West Berlin."

from wiki

[Johnny_H02]

That and a few other cases of these trials were simply nothing more then "Victors Justice" granted a Good deal of Nazi's were brought to justice, but more then a few were the Victims of a witch hunt, Donitz being one of them.

I dont even think he was sworn in as a Nazi Party member?

[towelie]

Donitz was a soldier, he did his job.

[Johnny_H02]

Donitz was a soldier, he did his job.

Correction .....


Donitz was a Sailor, he did his job.

[towelie]

you know what I mean

[Johnny_H02]

I know I was just being a smart ass