Well one thing is certain. HMS Defence will definitely be joining Craddock - there is no way Churchill will be flip flopping now!
The tanker's a legitimate target, but WOW that much fuel oil will make a mess! (Even worse if they manage to set it on fire!)
Sending several of the obsolete armored cruisers could make a difference, at least in morale.
Leipzig in San Francisco is unaware of any of this at midnight of the 18th/19th. Esquimalt unaware at least until the morning some time.Does the news need to be delayed, or a reaction to the news?
We shall see!Oh, okay. Having put myself in similar positions from time to time, I'm curious to see how things shake out.
(Loosely borrowed from Baroness Orczy....Ok, ok, Von Schoenburg doesn't fit the meter, but you get the drift....)We seek him here, we seek him there,
Those Canadians seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven? — Is he in hell?
That damned, elusive Von Schoenburg
That's my thought. Take the ship, and use it to douse a target before lighting up. Nasty.
The only thing some of the old armored cruisers are useful for would be for guard duty in these locations.
The tanker is capsized, it needs to be salvaged.
With the tanker being capsized, would a boarding party be sent over, and could they access the bridge without some difficulty? The tanker's cargo might mean increased US patrols along the Pacific northwest coast and maybe 'unofficial' information sharing?
The tanker isn't capsized; it's been taken. It it also in serious violation of American law. It's a British ship. ONLY ships registered in the USA are allowed to transport cargo or passengers from one port to another, if both ports are in the United States. If the owner of the cargo protests, Germany can point out that, since it was in a British ship, it clearly wasn't going from California to Alaska. Hmmmmm....False papers?
The Jones Act hasn't been passed yet and won't be for six years so for now its not illegalThe tanker isn't capsized; it's been taken. It it also in serious violation of American law. It's a British ship. ONLY ships registered in the USA are allowed to transport cargo or passengers from one port to another, if both ports are in the United States. If the owner of the cargo protests, Germany can point out that, since it was in a British ship, it clearly wasn't going from California to Alaska. Hmmmmm....False papers?
That sounds correct, but the Germans need to be able to convey those facts to a larger audience before they're sunk. If they ultimately are interned, then those legal points will likely come to light. If they're sunk first, then the damning details get whitewashed over and the situation likely gets spun out a different way. (In the wrong hands, truth becomes malleable. Lies, damn lies, and statistics and all that...)
The Jones Act hasn't been passed yet and won't be for six years so for now its not illegal
Was a predecessor law doing the same not already in effect? I'm pretty sure an existing law already applied to passenger transport.The Jones Act hasn't been passed yet and won't be for six years so for now its not illegal
In the historical setting of this time line, I suspect a lot of people will view this type of claim in the same way they would view burglars complaining that the building they burgled didn't comply with the building code.Was a predecessor law doing the same not already in effect? I'm pretty sure an existing law already applied to passenger transport.
Thank you for this. I did not have a secret plan for this plot development, other than trying to find a good reason to put that ship in Prince Rupert harbour. But, Wikipedia gives a plausible reason why the shipping company might bend a rule, thinking it won't get caught, (the rule being whatever similar previous act governed US domestic shipping.) US shipping capacity encountered a crisis in World War One when other countries withdrew their merchant marines form servicing US markets.I thought that it was already in effect--my bad.