Talk:Blockade of Germany (1914–1919)

Military history: Maritime / World War I B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	World War I task force

"American liner"

Wasn't the HMS Lusitania a British liner that Americans happened to be on?

--Rotaretilbo (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was British. It is also not HMS, but RMS. Fixed.

One thing I don't see discussed is that the British established a distance blockade, which I understand was illegal ( Hague conventions ). Also the list of items declared "contraband" by the English exceeded normal usage ( foodstuffs and other non-military items ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.181.149 (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can source that, it'd be great. Also, I recall reading somewhere (but not where...) starvation contributed to the rioting in Germany in 1918, which may (indirectly) have contributed to the rise of the Nazis.

I found the following: http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika02.htm It references other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.93.2 (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, I deleted everything not directly related to the subject, Blockade of Germany, since most of it was about the U-boat campaign against Britain... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 20:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was a blockade ever attempted in WWII?

Since World War II dealt with the same geography as World War I, did the British ever attempt blockading Germany in what was essentially a "rematch"? Seems like this would have made sense considering how much trouble the German surface commerce raiders gave the British later on. Or did airpower and submarines make the blockading tactic unfeasible? Masterblooregard (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From 1915 to 1917, Germany and Austria-Hungary were encircled and isolated in the centre of Europe, fighting against Italy and Russia, while in 1939, these two countries were commercially allied with Germany, allowing imports from the Mediterranean and even the Pacific. Besides, while the Haber process had allowed to produce fertilizer and explosives during WW1, Germans improved technologies to produce Synthetic fuel before WW2, and various Ersatz materials were known. By mid 1940, Germans occupied the coasts of Norway and France, and in early 1941, also the Balkans and Greece. Franco's Spain was not hostile to Germany, and neutral Sweden and Switzerland traded iron ore and aluminum with Germany. While the British still could control the Channel, Gibraltar, and Suez, they could hardly enforce a blockade on mainland Europe. Also, it would be the occupied countries that would suffer first from any shortage. The tide turned in mid 1941 with the attack on the USSR, cutting of an important source of supplies. In the long run, Germany could not get enough oil, steel and other goods to fight the modern mobile armoured and aerial war that consumed much more ressources than the earlier landlocked stationary war. Anyway, as in and after WW1, the British proved again that they prefer to fight against civilians rather than soldiers or industries, with Harris giving low priority to the Oil Campaign of World War II. -- Matthead Discuß 13:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British immediately blockaded Germany when World War II began but it was much less effective as Hitler had a constant supply of crucial materials from the Soviet Union until June 1941. (81.159.6.181 (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Copyviolation?

A large portion of this article seems to be copied from this site: [1] Example:

Site:The German government made strenuous attempts to alleviate the worst effects of the blockade. The Glossary - opens new windowHindenburg programme, introduced in December 1916, was designed to raise productivity by ordering the compulsory employment of all men between the ages of 17 and 60. A complicated system of rationing, first introduced in January 1915, aimed to ensure that at least minimum nutritional needs were met. In larger cities, 'war kitchens' provided cheap meals en masse to impoverished local citizens.

Wiki article: the Hindenburg Programme of German economic mobilisation launched on 31 August 1916, was designed to raise productivity by the compulsory employment of all men between the ages of 17 and 60, and a complicated rationing system initially introduced in January 1915 aimed to ensure that a minimum nutritional need was met, with "war kitchens" providing cheap mass meals to impoverished civilians in larger cities.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time coming across a case like this but the UK National Archives is licensed OGL v1 which is CC-attribution compatible, so OK for use in the text. The text is mostly paraphrased and foundational to the rest of the article. I couldn't find one solid diff where large chunks were added but it was paraphrased.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just made this edit this edit. Those pages I have seen that are under the British Open Government Licence usually specifically say so. I do not see such licensing information on these pages, so I think that unless there is agreement that they are, then the attribution template should be removed and any copied material should be deleted. -- PBS (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote any copied material should be deleted, which sections of the article are you referring to?--Woogie10w (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for posting to my talk page. My wording was a little clumsy so I will be more specific. See for example this page (Director of the Royal Artillery) that I have created today. I have copied verbatim large amounts of text from a British Government website, but I can do that because it is under the OGL v2.0 copyleft. To mark it as such I created a new template called {{OGL-attribution}} modelled on {{source-attribution}}. I then discovered that there was an old template called {{OGL-text}} that for various reasons was outdated. So I went through the half dozen articles or that used {{OGL-text}} changing them to use {{OGL-attribution}}. having done that I redirected {{OGL-text}} to {{OGL-attribution}}. In all but this case it was a simple substitution. But in this case it is not clear to me that British Government page was indeed under the OGL template. Of course if all you did Woogie10w was copy a figure from the website then that is not a copyright violation any more than it is from any other website!. I was referring to copying or too closely paraphrasing from the government web site to here if the licensing did not allow it and it was a breach of copyright. -- PBS (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I posted to this talk page at 16:59, I have looked into it further, and this page on the National Archives website does AFAICT place the article page under discussion under the OGL copyleft licence. So the only thing left to do is either add inline citations to the Wikipedia page and if there is no copyleft licensed text in the article remove the attribution template (but if there is copyleft material then leave it in place) -- simples!. -- PBS (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

legality

I always heard that a sea blockade was contrary to international law and rules of war at the time. This should be addressed in the article. --BjKa (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A sea blockade is legal under international law and always has been. Take a look at the British blockades in every war it has fought since the union in 1707. -- PBS (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The blockade was clearly illegal under the Hague Convention of 1907 which the UK had signed. (109.158.178.212 (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

There have been a number of edits recently claiming that the blockade was clearly illegal, the most recent referencing a national archives article. What the national archives article says is: Despite complaints about breaches of international law, however, most neutral merchant ships agreed.... It does not say "the blockade was clearly illegal under the Hague Convention", or anything similar. If we need to add an item about illegality of blockade, we need an article which specifies the illegality of this blockade under a specific clause, not vague references to someone complaining about breach of international law. International law isn't as simply as writing traffic tickets for speeding, so you need to find a WP:RS article which specifies the illegality, who complains and who adjudged the illegality. Tarl N. (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The German government maintained the blockade was illegal under international law, but the United States sided with the British Empire from the very beginning of World War I. (213.122.144.226 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Please cite a reliable source to support your statement, see WP:RS, Thank you.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A naval blockade was only illegal if it obstructed or prevented the movement of essential supplies such as staple foodstuffs and fuels that could only be imported via shipping - such as applied to island nations like Britain where all of their imports had to come by ship. If an alternative route over land existed - such as with Germany - by which the items could be obtained then any such blockade was legal.

Germany was in no way dependent on her merchant shipping for essential food and fuels. Britain was.