I was reading a couple of articles about Churchill on this site and from a Libertarian perspective I was wondering how the following stood up. While I agree that making war on civilians is wrong how can the comments below be squared with the fact that Germany was using U boats to do the same thing to Britian? If I posted this on a regular political site would I not be ripped to shreds?
http://mises.org/daily/2973
From the outset of hostilities, Churchill, as head of the Admiralty, was instrumental in establishing the hunger blockade of Germany. This was probably the most effective weapon employed on either side in the whole conflict. The only problem was that, according to everyone's interpretation of international law except Britain's, it was illegal. The blockade was not "close-in," but depended on scattering mines, and many of the goods deemed contraband — for instance, food for civilians — had never been so classified before.[50] But, throughout his career, international law and the conventions by which men have tried to limit the horrors of war meant nothing to Churchill. As a German historian has dryly commented, Churchill was ready to break the rules whenever the very existence of his country was at stake, and "for him this was very often the case."[51]
...how can the comments below be squared...
Two wrongs...
First of all there is the question of who begun to violate law in this regard. Did the Germans launch their attempt at establishing a maritime blockade of the British Isles via the use of their submarines only in reply to the British blockade of Germany? It seems to me it would have been clever of the Germans knowing they were weaker at sea not to start breaking body of international law governing conduct of war at sea and therefore make it far more easy for the British to do the same.