Quote:
Originally Posted by guntherprien
Is it only me who finds submarine warfare a particularly cowardly form,especially against unarmed merchantmen?
I mean,come on,it's hardly trench warfare is it?
It riles me when I read of commanders getting medals for sinking merchant vessels and leaving the crew to die,I would be ashamed of myself.
I mean,look at 'Mush' Mortons escapade,when he slaughtered all the Japanese troops in the open water,
to name but a few.
Wreford-brown was hardly a hero sinking the Belgrano relatively recently was he?
No,I'm sorry,I don't rate it heroic one bit.Dangerous? Very,but heroic? No.
Flame away,comrades......  |
FLAME!!! Sorry, but I did my finals on the morality of submarine warfare for my NCO promotion course.
The London Naval Treaty signed before the war, by Germany and Britain, meant that subs could not attack shipping while submerged. They had to surface, stop the vessel, inspect its cargo, then move the crew to a 'place of safety' before sinking it (known as Prize Regulations). Putting them in lifeboats did NOT count as a 'place of safety'.
However, in order to recieve this pretty robust legal protection they had to be civilian ships. And if they carried ANY guns or ANY military personnel (as most did) OR communicated with the navy AT ALL (as practically every ship did after the outbreak of war, they lost their protection.
So legally, the vast majority of merchant ships were naval auxiliaries and legitimate targets.
Realise this doesn't quite answer the point about cowardice/bravery, and I hope people don't take this as a flame. I'm just trying to point out a factual error in the assertion that merchantmen were 'unarmed'.