While killing off those cruisers is probably a good thing, doing one in while in neutral waters sure isn't. The Dutch are highly sympathetic to the Germans at this point and while unlikely to actively declare war they'll now be even more inclined to let the German's use their ports for blockade busting.
 

SsgtC

Banned
While killing off those cruisers is probably a good thing, doing one in while in neutral waters sure isn't. The Dutch are highly sympathetic to the Germans at this point and while unlikely to actively declare war they'll now be even more inclined to let the German's use their ports for blockade busting.
Agreed. That was a huge mistake on the part of the British. The location of the wreck will prove where the battle took place regardless of the fact that Dutch forces weren't there to witness it. The UK is screwed on that. The Dutch will not be happy that the RN blatantly ignored their neutrality and entered their territorial waters to start a battle.
 
Agreed. That was a huge mistake on the part of the British. The location of the wreck will prove where the battle took place regardless of the fact that Dutch forces weren't there to witness it. The UK is screwed on that. The Dutch will not be happy that the RN blatantly ignored their neutrality and entered their territorial waters to start a battle.

The Germans ship was flouting that Neutrality to its own ends therefore.....are the Germans not equally screwed?

As the Dutch had not the means to enforce said Neutrality and the German Vessel despite being given the opportunity to abandon ship and an offer to be transported to a Dutch port refused to strike colors it was fair game.

Had the roles been reversed the German Admiral would have done the same thing. Hell A Dutch Admiral in the same situation would have done the same thing.

Unless it's only the British who have to obey international law?

Just checking like.
 

SsgtC

Banned
The Germans ship was flouting that Neutrality to its own ends therefore.....are the Germans not equally screwed?

As the Dutch had not the means to enforce said Neutrality and the German Vessel despite being given the opportunity to abandon ship and an offer to be transported to a Dutch port refused to strike colors it was fair game.

Had the roles been reversed the German Admiral would have done the same thing. Hell A Dutch Admiral in the same situation would have done the same thing.

Unless it's only the British who have to obey international law?

Just checking like.
The German ship was in Port less than 24 hours, which was allowed under International Maritime Law. Warships of belligerent nations could enter neutral ports for a period not to exceed 24 hours or such time as needed to effect the minimum repairs necessary to make the vessel seaworthy. What you were not allowed to do is pursue an enemy vessel into the territorial waters of a neutral power and engage them. By law, the British should have waited just outside the 12 mile limit, then fired upon von Spee when he exited the harbor
 
No-one is screwed here. The Dutch will kick up a fuss and the British government will apologise and make some cursory reparation. The Admiralty will publicly reprimand Patey and secretly congratulate him. The Dutch will move a little closer to Germany but won't enter the war. The German squadron is gone, the RN goes home, and we await an interesting North Sea battle.
 
And the result after extra time...
Patey: 1 fleet
von Spee: 1 rowing boat
:)

No, seriously; Blucher would outclass Minotaur on her own, while Patey shouldn't have allowed Australia's focus to be drawn by Scharnhorst in the later stages.
A tactical error, but perhaps an understandable one given that Blucher was seen to be heavily on fire, and they wanted to make sure the other ship didn't escape.
TBH, I'm mostly surprised Australia took any serious damage at all, considering the performance of the Invincibles at the Falklands.
 

Deleted member 94680

Had the roles been reversed the German Admiral would have done the same thing. Hell a Dutch Admiral in the same situation would have done the same thing.

Unless it's only the British who have to obey international law?

Just checking like.

Come on man, you should know by now. The World Hates The British and at any point in history they were just waiting for The Perfect Opportunity to dogpile the Perfidious Albion. Any and all historical examples the opposite is true should be ignored as anomalies to this Universal Truth.
 

SsgtC

Banned
No-one is screwed here. The Dutch will kick up a fuss and the British government will apologise and make some cursory reparation. The Admiralty will publicly reprimand Patey and secretly congratulate him. The Dutch will move a little closer to Germany but won't enter the war. The German squadron is gone, the RN goes home, and we await an interesting North Sea battle.
Obviously not militarily. But diplomatically, this could really come back to bite them in the ass. Particularly with isolationist elements in the US Congress. Those Congressmen now have a concrete, recent example of the British flagrantly ignoring intentional law and the territorial integrity of a neutral (incidentally the exact same thing, legally, that the Germans did triggering the British DoW). Isolationists in Congress now have ammo to use to in accusing the British and Germans of being two sides of the same coin and that the United States should maintain strict neutrality and restrict access to loans and militarily useful supplies to both sides.
 
Obviously not militarily. But diplomatically, this could really come back to bite them in the ass. Particularly with isolationist elements in the US Congress. Those Congressmen now have a concrete, recent example of the British flagrantly ignoring intentional law and the territorial integrity of a neutral (incidentally the exact same thing, legally, that the Germans did triggering the British DoW). Isolationists in Congress now have ammo to use to in accusing the British and Germans of being two sides of the same coin and that the United States should maintain strict neutrality and restrict access to loans and militarily useful supplies to both sides.
The UK sank a warship in neutral waters the Germans invaded and occupied a neutral country the scale of said breaking of neutrality is several orders of magnitude different
 
The German ship was in Port less than 24 hours, which was allowed under International Maritime Law. Warships of belligerent nations could enter neutral ports for a period not to exceed 24 hours or such time as needed to effect the minimum repairs necessary to make the vessel seaworthy. What you were not allowed to do is pursue an enemy vessel into the territorial waters of a neutral power and engage them. By law, the British should have waited just outside the 12 mile limit, then fired upon von Spee when he exited the harbor

He wasn't in a port - he was aground off the coast.

Which arguably counts as a roadstead so you do have a point.

However international maritime law also states (or words to the effect of) that a Neutral nation must be able to enforce its Neutrality - that is to be able to ensure that a given combatant taking refuge only carries out the minimum repairs necessary to restore seaworthiness and be able to intern said vessel if it abuses the law in this regards or exceeds the allowed period before it has to leave - ie 24 hours!

In this case as the writer pointed out "but with no Dutch forces in the area to enforce neutrality" it's a moot point and by my understanding the British knowing this did nothing wrong

Of course even a bad lawyer could argue either point of view.

Shrug!
 

Deleted member 94680

But diplomatically, this could really come back to bite them in the ass. Particularly with isolationist elements in the US Congress. Those Congressmen now have a concrete, recent example of the British flagrantly ignoring intentional law and the territorial integrity of a neutral (incidentally the exact same thing, legally, that the Germans did triggering the British DoW).

What, I don’t know, something like a continent spanning blockade that flouts the word of the Law and bends the intent so far as to make it almost unrecognisable? Oh yeah, I’m sure everyone will want to abandon their support or favouritism for the British over the sinking of a belligerent vessel that has been engaged in combat mere hours previously.

- - - - -

Also, doesn’t the vessel seeking protection of the neutral nation have to request it? With no Dutch representative present (the Blücher wasn’t in port, after all) the German vessel can also be said to be illegally in the waters of Dutch territory. The British gave them ample time to leave, after all.
 
While killing off those cruisers is probably a good thing, doing one in while in neutral waters sure isn't. The Dutch are highly sympathetic to the Germans at this point and while unlikely to actively declare war they'll now be even more inclined to let the German's use their ports for blockade busting.

Agreed. That was a huge mistake on the part of the British. The location of the wreck will prove where the battle took place regardless of the fact that Dutch forces weren't there to witness it. The UK is screwed on that. The Dutch will not be happy that the RN blatantly ignored their neutrality and entered their territorial waters to start a battle.

The Germans ship was flouting that Neutrality to its own ends therefore.....are the Germans not equally screwed?
As the Dutch had not the means to enforce said Neutrality and the German Vessel despite being given the opportunity to abandon ship and an offer to be transported to a Dutch port refused to strike colors it was fair game.
Had the roles been reversed the German Admiral would have done the same thing. Hell A Dutch Admiral in the same situation would have done the same thing.
Unless it's only the British who have to obey international law?
Just checking like.

The German ship was in Port less than 24 hours, which was allowed under International Maritime Law. Warships of belligerent nations could enter neutral ports for a period not to exceed 24 hours or such time as needed to effect the minimum repairs necessary to make the vessel seaworthy. What you were not allowed to do is pursue an enemy vessel into the territorial waters of a neutral power and engage them. By law, the British should have waited just outside the 12 mile limit, then fired upon von Spee when he exited the harbor

No-one is screwed here. The Dutch will kick up a fuss and the British government will apologise and make some cursory reparation. The Admiralty will publicly reprimand Patey and secretly congratulate him. The Dutch will move a little closer to Germany but won't enter the war. The German squadron is gone, the RN goes home, and we await an interesting North Sea battle.

Lots of excellent points here, I'm glad you've all picked up on them.
As JamesHunter and KingAugeas say, it might well increase Dutch sympathy for the Germans. However, they can't and won't do anything immediately...

Legally, it's a somewhat grey area:

-Blucher entered Dutch waters and may have been making repairs to ensure she was seaworthy. Nothing illegal about that.
-She could have stayed 24 hours (the time permitted, as SsgtC says).
-She was under no legal obligation to accept Patey's demands.

However:
-The British believe (but can't prove) that Goeben entered Dutch waters while engaging the Bacchante, so this is just 'returning the favour'. Not a legal argument, but a possible diplomatic one.
-They could argue the Blucher was making repairs to improve her combat effectiveness (which would be illegal), and that Patey's demands were made to ensure neutrality. Can't be proved either way, but it's a nice argument.

-As Cryhavoc says, the Dutch had no forces in the area to enforce either Blucher's ejection or internment. The British might therefore claim hot pursuit. This does allow enemy vessels into neutral waters to engage, if the locals lack the means or the willingness to enforce the 24 hour rule. It's a pretty remote coast, so they might claim that Blucher could outstay her 24hrs without the Dutch even knowing about it.

-The flaw in this argument is that Patey didn't wait 24 hours, so Blucher hadn't yet violated neutrality (although he might believe she intended to, as she didn't respond to his offer).

Under these circumstances, I don't doubt von Spee would have been seeking internment, which the British would regard as less than ideal. However, he wouldn't have had the chance to make that clear to Dutch authorities before Patey acted - so legally that's a hypothetical too.

Ultimately, of course:
Man with battlecruiser gets to decide where the grey areas are.
 
TBH, I'm mostly surprised Australia took any serious damage at all, considering the performance of the Invincibles at the Falklands.
Her damage isn't all that serious - a turret unable to fire due to the sights being damaged (the turret itself is fine). Another turret temporarily jammed during the battle following a hit (not unusual). Splinter damage to boats, funnels and upperworks - ugly, minor effect on speed, but not crippling. Worst bit is the fire in the secondary battery.
Nothing a dockyard can't put right in a few weeks.

I'm going from memory here - but I recall Invincible was hit by quite a few shells, most of which did little damage, but one lucky shot did reach a bunker close to one of her magazines. If it had exploded, she might have too.
 
Her damage isn't all that serious - a turret unable to fire due to the sights being damaged (the turret itself is fine). Another turret temporarily jammed during the battle following a hit (not unusual). Splinter damage to boats, funnels and upperworks - ugly, minor effect on speed, but not crippling. Worst bit is the fire in the secondary battery.
Nothing a dockyard can't put right in a few weeks.

I'm going from memory here - but I recall Invincible was hit by quite a few shells, most of which did little damage, but one lucky shot did reach a bunker close to one of her magazines. If it had exploded, she might have too.
Fair enough. Your narration and how much of a pain in the ass the fight was for the Brits made it seem worse than it was.
 
Fair enough. Your narration and how much of a pain in the ass the fight was for the Brits made it seem worse than it was.
Trying to keep it dramatic!

Have also checked and I have slightly mis-remembered; Invincible was hit 22 times, but the worst of it seems to have been a flooded bunker. I must be confusing the unexploded shell with something else. Kent suffered a potential fatal flash fire at the Falklands and was saved by a quick-thinking RM.
 
The Wiki article is curious:

So a non-contact explosion. But how? No magnetic fuses. Is the wash of a large ship sufficient to trigger a contact fuse? You hear stories about torpedoes exploding in ships' wakes, but the turbulence of propeller outflows sounds like a different beast from the more placid environment underneath the hull.

I have the book Wikipedia references, so I'll have a look see. Unfortunately I won't be home for a few days.
[/QUOTE]
Not much extra detail in the book, but two interesting snippets.
Apparently there was no significant water column thrown up, suggesting the explosion was under the ship; 'one report says 16 feet' (to quote the book - no further details given). Also the way flooding spread into the centre ER suggested damaged to the lower edges of the bulkheads (and therefore possibly an explosion under the ship).
 
Trying to keep it dramatic!

Have also checked and I have slightly mis-remembered; Invincible was hit 22 times, but the worst of it seems to have been a flooded bunker. I must be confusing the unexploded shell with something else. Kent suffered a potential fatal flash fire at the Falklands and was saved by a quick-thinking RM.
OTL Invincible had a diving shell penetrate the coal bunker and be stopped by the bulkhead between the bunker and magazine for P & Q turrets, says McNally's Coronel and the Falklands 1914.
If it had exploded, it might have caused as fire in the coal bunker that would have required flooding, but it would have needed to penetrate that bulkhead as well to jeopardise the ship.

@Coulsdon has a reference to an article by the gunnery officer at the time who says the shell exploded, but to no effect as the below-waterline penetration meant the bunker flooded immediately.
 
OTL Invincible had a diving shell penetrate the coal bunker and be stopped by the bulkhead between the bunker and magazine for P & Q turrets, says McNally's Coronel and the Falklands 1914.
If it had exploded, it might have caused as fire in the coal bunker that would have required flooding, but it would have needed to penetrate that bulkhead as well to jeopardise the ship.

@Coulsdon has a reference to an article by the gunnery officer at the time who says the shell exploded, but to no effect as the below-waterline penetration meant the bunker flooded immediately.
Thank you, my faith in my memory is partly restored ...
I only re-checked Bennett's Coronel and the Falklands (which is clearly a little brief on damage but otherwise excellent).
 
Top