[horsa]

Interesting debate on the notion of morality in war.

have a question- I have heard that one reason England didn't invest as heavily into submarines/ASW warfare early on was because British naval doctorine considered the concept of a submarine attack 'dishonorable'

It must be remembered that European warfare in 1914 was regarded as a legitimate extension of politics with its own rules and notions of honour. It wasn't just a British thing. Four years of escalating slaughter, hatred and bitterness changed peoples perceptions from ideas of limited warfare to the ugly reality of Total War.

The British actually had more submarines than Germany at the start of WW1. Significantly they were seen ( by both sides) as another type of warship designed to attack warships.

It seems quaint now that the Uboats were initially used against British merchants as a reprisal for their naval blockade of Germany’s maritime trade. Incredibly there were “rules” for how this should be done. Amongst other things, the merchant was to be correctly challenged and identified, and evacuated of its crew, before sinking it by gunfire from the uboat. This requirement meant that Uboat attacks were always made surfaced. The British then retaliated with the “ungentlemanly act “ of installing small guns on its merchants. This forced more of the Uboats to attack submerged with torpedoes, leading increasingly to the loss of merchant crews. Significantly there were more “international incidents” caused by missidentified neutrals. The Germans maintained that the British had only themselves to blame for the loss of “innocent seamen” because they had “escalated” the conflict. Later, the drift into total unrestricted Uboat warfare came about because even passenger liners were perceived as carrying contraband goods ( ie war related supplies).