At 1610 hours on the 19th, Rainbow was 14 hours form Dixon Entrance. So at 0330 on the 20th, when they receive the message from the SS Craigard, Rainbow is supposed to be only 2 1/2 hours away from Langara Light, but she seems to have lost an hour of travel time somewhere. From my calculated position at 0330 on the 20th, Rainbow is more like 3 1/2 hours from Langara light, or from Prince Rupert.
The Rainbow. A World War One on Canada's West Coast Timeline
- Thread starter YYJ
- Start date
At 1610 hours on the 19th, Rainbow was 14 hours form Dixon Entrance. So at 0330 on the 20th, when they receive the message from the SS Craigard, Rainbow is supposed to be only 2 1/2 hours away from Langara Light, but she seems to have lost an hour of travel time somewhere. From my calculated position at 0330 on the 20th, Rainbow is more like 3 1/2 hours from Langara light, or from Prince Rupert.
Driftless
Donor
In the court of worldwide public opinion, who gets to tell the story first makes a big difference in how the event is perceived. The Germans have virtually no way of telling their side of the story.
Driftless
Donor
To my way of thinking, a lot of propaganda has a nugget of truth at its core, and then rest of the tale is built up with artful padding and selective omission of key information. The best messengers for that kind of spin are those who believe its truth - even if the reality is different.
ferdi254
Banned
And a lot of propaganda is nothing but blatant lies but still can work pretty well or at least gain important time: „There are no russian soldiers on the Krim“ „jewish conspiracy to subvert our culture“ „Hussein undoubtly has WMDs“ „no one is planning to build a wall in Berlin“ ... could continue for a while.
Blatant lies can spring from real or perceived truth. Hussein wasn't sitting on a bunch of nukes, but had sought them and had tried to develop other WMDs. Therefore, its easy to convince people, especially post 9/11, that he was farther then he was or would ever be.
No wall in Berlin... Communist and authoritarian regimes in general have enough control over their media to create perceptions of truth.
Jewish people, due to previous oppression, didn't own land. This led to them being far more merchant/banker oriented out of necessity, thus creating a group of people that were different at the broad level. Different people are easy to paint as culturally subversive, because they do change society and do stand out. It doesn't mean that it isn't a pack of lies, but lies are really only effective when connected to real perceptions or feelings.
Even easier when everyone knew that he possessed (and had used on multiple occasions) a large chemical weapons stockpile. They may not be as flashy as nukes but they are very much WMDs in their own right.
ferdi254
Banned
I have chosen my examples carefully because in all cases reality and even the people who spread the propaganda lie originally (Putin, Ulbricht, Bush) had to admit their claim was wrong but still it gets defended. And keeping myself carefully away from people who try to explain the jewish world conspiracy.
Discussion only proves my point no matter how blatant the lie if it is only set up forcefully enough it will work.
Discussion only proves my point no matter how blatant the lie if it is only set up forcefully enough it will work.
Last edited:
Oh yes, people are going to make a murder case when the people who were shot at were soldiers of a country that said place is at war with...
ferdi254
Banned
Harry I did not say they will make a case but by all international conventions and at least all European laws I am aware of (including Germany) if a civilian takes up an arm and shoots at enemy soldiers in uniform he is a) acting completely illegal b) can be shot directly in self defense by the shot at soldiers (and self defense can include ships artillery) c) if caught has none of the rights of a POW and can be treated as a partisan d) should (very theoretical I agree) be tried for murder by his host country.
ferdi254
Banned
The famous quote of Tucholsky „Soldiers are Murderes“ is in its whole content hardly, if ever, read. Germany in WW1 had Feldjägers patroling behind the front in Germany to stop civilians taking up hunting rifles and shooting at French soldiers. Not to protect the civilians from the dangers of the frontline or the French soldiers...
but out of the mere fact that a civilian getting to the frontline and shooting a French soldier would have to be tried as murder.
but out of the mere fact that a civilian getting to the frontline and shooting a French soldier would have to be tried as murder.
I suspect that depends upon definition as for example in the US at least under US Code 246 all able bodied males between 17 and 45 are automatically part of the militia of the United States (with members of the National Guard consisting the organized militia and everyone else the unorganized militia). This obviously does not apply to Canada but I'm sure some legal slight of hand could be used should it ever become needed, not that I expect anything to come from this. Canada also has a form of the Castle Doctrine which legally allows deadly force to be used in self defence and in defence of property (watered down over the years but still in greater force in 1914).
ferdi254
Banned
As much as I understand the want to defend your country there are reasons why civilians taking up guns is not a good idea. A) an attacking army will have arty etc so just some rifles will not cut it B) the Moment civilians start shooting at enemy soldiers all civilians will effectivly become free game. Armed conflicts being carried out by soldiers against soldiers only was a good way to get war into rules.
As a militia that is one thing but that still requires certain formalities. Just taking up a gun and firing makes you a partisan (see below) and not trying to get into a political discussion of today but see how the USA has been and is treating people who were not part of a proper army who fought US troops in Afghanistan. And read up the Hague conventions of what was allowed in case of partisans for the occupying soldiers.
And if all able men are part of the armed forces then they are fair game in a war.
Of course there is one big sliphole that says that in case there was no time to form a proper militia taking up arms is ok but that would still make you a combatant so shooting at you with arty is perfectly legal. Then again see above plus you had to carry your arms openly.
As a militia that is one thing but that still requires certain formalities. Just taking up a gun and firing makes you a partisan (see below) and not trying to get into a political discussion of today but see how the USA has been and is treating people who were not part of a proper army who fought US troops in Afghanistan. And read up the Hague conventions of what was allowed in case of partisans for the occupying soldiers.
And if all able men are part of the armed forces then they are fair game in a war.
Of course there is one big sliphole that says that in case there was no time to form a proper militia taking up arms is ok but that would still make you a combatant so shooting at you with arty is perfectly legal. Then again see above plus you had to carry your arms openly.
Last edited:
Nick P
Donor
Are these civilians aware that defending their homes against an invader is technically illegal? Do they give a toss?
And how does one identify the person, of a large group, who actually fired the fatal shot?
What government that has just won a war is going to seriously entertain the idea of prosecuting their own heroes? Those brave men and women lauded in every newspaper across the land? The same newspapers the politicians need to keep onside for their own re-election?
The enemy will have lost millions of troops. Are they actually going to court over the death of a handful of men who attacked first? Are they going to risk even greater sanctions for a small legal point in a court on the far side of the world?
And how does one identify the person, of a large group, who actually fired the fatal shot?
What government that has just won a war is going to seriously entertain the idea of prosecuting their own heroes? Those brave men and women lauded in every newspaper across the land? The same newspapers the politicians need to keep onside for their own re-election?
The enemy will have lost millions of troops. Are they actually going to court over the death of a handful of men who attacked first? Are they going to risk even greater sanctions for a small legal point in a court on the far side of the world?
I think that it will enforce the rules. The German Navy has shown the world that it will act according the Rules of War. In essence it has thrown down a gauntlet at the Royal Navy. Will they follow the Rules or brake them because they can / are bigger.
Enforcing the rules is vital for the British Empire at this time, as they are trying to convince the US that the Germans are "barbaric murderers".
It will be very difficult for the British to argue their case in the court of public opinion if they are breaking the rules of war when the Germans are following those same laws to the letter.
Remember that it is still 1914 and that the events that swayed the US opinion against the Germans have not happened yet, the US is slightly pro-German at this time. (and quite a bit anti-British)
It will be very difficult for the British to argue their case in the court of public opinion if they are breaking the rules of war when the Germans are following those same laws to the letter.
Remember that it is still 1914 and that the events that swayed the US opinion against the Germans have not happened yet, the US is slightly pro-German at this time. (and quite a bit anti-British)
So the British are going to be worried that the US (THE US???) is going to be upset that citizens took up arms to defend their land. That's combining the US founding mythos with the given rationale for the constitutional right to arms. It's right in the US wheelhouse and would reflect favourably on Canadians.
I generally agree with Nick P here. Even if it's an illegal act, effectively punishing those involved would be a massive blow to morale and politically impossible. Prosecuting people viewed as heroes for defending their homes and town from the dastardly hun is going to go over about as well as oil and water.
I find it rather difficult to think the Americans will think any dissimilar to that as well. German raider attacks an isolated town, people fight back. That's a classic David vs Goliath scenario that makes it hard to paint the Germans as some honorable people even if they are following rules. The opinion of the public matters and I can't see any Anglo or American opinions agreeing with the Germans here.
I find it rather difficult to think the Americans will think any dissimilar to that as well. German raider attacks an isolated town, people fight back. That's a classic David vs Goliath scenario that makes it hard to paint the Germans as some honorable people even if they are following rules. The opinion of the public matters and I can't see any Anglo or American opinions agreeing with the Germans here.
You are right, but I think it will boil down to "don't bring a knife into a gunfight" or in this case don't bring a rifle against a cannon. Brave action but a stupid thing to do.