Lusitania & Other ships

[shamuboy1]

On the afternoon of May 7, 1915, the British ocean liner Lusitania is torpedoed without warning by a German submarine off the south coast of Ireland. Within 20 minutes, the vessel sank into the Celtic Sea. Of 1,959 passengers and crew, 1,198 people were drowned, including 128 Americans. The attack aroused considerable indignation in the United States, but Germany defended the action, noting that it had issued warnings of its intent to attack all ships, neutral or otherwise, that entered the war zone around Britain.

When World War I erupted in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson pledged neutrality for the United States, a position that the vast majority of Americans favored. Britain, however, was one of America's closest trading partners, and tension soon arose between the United States and Germany over the latter's attempted quarantine of the British isles. Several U.S. ships traveling to Britain were damaged or sunk by German mines, and in February 1915 Germany announced unrestricted submarine warfare in the waters around Britain.

In early May 1915, several New York newspapers published a warning by the German embassy in Washington that Americans traveling on British or Allied ships in war zones did so at their own risk. The announcement was placed on the same page as an advertisement of the imminent sailing of the Lusitania liner from New York back to Liverpool. The sinkings of merchant ships off the south coast of Ireland prompted the British Admiralty to warn the Lusitania to avoid the area or take simple evasive action, such as zigzagging to confuse U-boats plotting the vessel's course. The captain of the Lusitania ignored these recommendations, and at 2:12 p.m. on May 7 the 32,000-ton ship was hit by an exploding torpedo on its starboard side. The torpedo blast was followed by a larger explosion, probably of the ship's boilers, and the ship sunk in 20 minutes.

It was revealed that the Lusitania was carrying about 173 tons of war munitions for Britain, which the Germans cited as further justification for the attack. The United States eventually sent three notes to Berlin protesting the action, and Germany apologized and pledged to end unrestricted submarine warfare. In November, however, a U-boat sunk an Italian liner without warning, killing 272 people, including 27 Americans. Public opinion in the United States began to turn irrevocably against Germany.

On January 31, 1917, Germany, determined to win its war of attrition against the Allies, announced that it would resume unrestricted warfare in war-zone waters. Three days later, the United States broke diplomatic relations with Germany, and just hours after that the American liner Housatonic was sunk by a German U-boat. On February 22, Congress passed a $250 million arms appropriations bill intended to make the United States ready for war. In late March, Germany sunk four more U.S. merchant ships, and on April 2 President Wilson appeared before Congress and called for a declaration of war against Germany. On April 4, the Senate voted to declare war against Germany, and two days later the House of Representatives endorsed the declaration. With that, America entered World War I.

U-20; http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/germany/u_boats/ww1/u_20/sms_u_20_01.jpg

Lusitania: http://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/lusitania201.jpg

Also, if you would like, post other passenger ships that were sunk during World War 1 and World War 2 due to the acts of U-Boats and other submarines.

and another thing, is this isn't in the right forum, could you please move it? Thanks. :)

[Stealth Hunter]

I like the concept of this... but do we have to stick just to passenger liners? I'd love doing a summarization of my own on ships that participated in and were sunk during the Battle of Jutland, which has it's 94th anniversary coming up this May 31st-June 1st.

[shamuboy1]

I like the concept of this... but do we have to stick just to passenger liners? I'd love doing a summarization of my own on ships that participated in and were sunk during the Battle of Jutland, which has it's 94th anniversary coming up this May 31st-June 1st.

No we don't have to, feel free to post a Cargo Ship, War-Ship, Hospital Ship, whatever! Go right ahead!

[Catfish]

Hello
yes, the Lusitania was torpedoed "without warning", as it did not use the corridor for passenger ships, it was camouflage-painted grey (the paintings of the sinking Lusitania picturing a black, white and yellow ocean liner are propagada, again) and had ammunition and troops aboard. Following a zigzag course (which was not allowed for neutral and hospital ships), it was misidentified as a troop ship, and sunk. Only its last zag brought the L. before the tubes of the U-boat, which would have stood no chance against a ship running at 20+ knots.
News from the long-closed british admiralty archives make it seem possible that Churchill had intended to use the "Lusitania" to lure the US into war at England's side, in the british admiralty not warning the captain of the L., in spite of knowing the exact position of the U-boat being in the L's direct path which then sunk her.

The US were on the brink of declaring war to England, due to the US had "guaranteed free seas for all" in the early war, and Wilson was furious about the british blockade, and the famine in Germany. Remember there were a lot of germans and people of german ancestry, in the US. When the one german trade U-boat rendered the blockade useless, there was an outcry in England in that the US should be forbidden to trade with Germany.

As you rightly said passengers were warned in US newspapers to board the "Lusitania" because of its well-known "secret" of being an auxiliary cruiser run by the british navy by its original papers (it had been a trick by the company for getting money from the government to build it, but at that time this could only be known in the inner circles - to all else and Lloyd's the L. was a military ship, and certainly used as such). Some of the US passengers even complained that the L. obviously carried troops and war material, thus threatening their lives.

British freighters, tankers of all kinds and hospital ships were often (ab)used as being "neutral" in wrongly running false flags during WW1, even using hospital ships as ammunition and troop transports, in the mediterranean.
German hospital ships anchored before Kiel and other coastal cities were sunk in the baltic sea, by british "submarines", no reluctance here but seldomly mentioned. (According to Churchill the good ones were the "submarines", while the bad buddies were to be called "U-boats"). The propaganda war is indeed one of the less "heroic" efforts, of WW1.

The "unrestricted" U-boat war of Germany was "unrestricted" only for a few months (b.t.w. an unrestricted war, be it U-boats/submarines or surface units, was led by England right from the beginning).
Kaiser William 2nd failed to communicate this clearly to the US against british propaganda, because he feared the reaction of the german population, being angry about the british declaration of war (why had they?). After the famine in the hunger winter killing 750.000 civilians due to the british blockade (Germany was dependent on sea trade as much as England was), the population expected an unrestricted war against the agressor as they saw it, which was not led (!); but telling this officially would have isolated William 2nd even more, for being too pro-british.

Even during the two months of unrestricted U-boat war by Germany, most ships were still hailed and stopped, since most U-boat commanders refused to sink ships without warning, according to international treaties - even if they were not being followed by England. The almost only exception were the smaller boats of the Flanders flotilla with its tiny coastal boats, not being fast enough to chase even the slowest freighters - a hailed and warned ship ordered to stop, would just open up steam and run away.

The thing is, german U-boats sunk more ships in a month, that they did in the two of the "unrestricted" war.


So if you talk about the "Lusitania" and repeat the propaganda of the time, you might as well mention the "King Stephen" with the L-19 airship, and the Q-ship "Baralong" incident. ;)

Greetings,
Catfish

[SteamWake]

So if you talk about the "Lusitania" and repeat the propaganda of the time,

Wow hey now who dident see this comming :haha: :O:

[Catfish]

Wow hey now who dident see this comming :haha: :O:

Hey, i just could not let this stand uncommented :O: :D

Greetings,
Catfish

[KnightsCross]

Very Interesting reading
On my side of the world the Lusitania is shown painted white with a huge red cross on the sides and under full lights, even our newspapers of the day print the official English versions and discount the US witnesses version as profiteering, especially with Baralong incident
Being a military man myself, I carried on me a small plastic card with the basic rules of the Geneva Convention. I find it sad that these rules seem only to be applied with Victors justice
Darren

[breadcatcher101]

Turner had been hampered by fog and upon seeing the Irish coast wanted to get a fix as he wasn't sure of his precise location. Coke sent him a coded message which Turner til his dying day insisted it instructed him to devert his course to Queenstown and safety. This move put him right into U-20's path with a shot of 750 meters.

From what divers have reported the bow had blown out. With this in mind it was the rifle and artillery shells that sank the ship. The torpedo exploded just aft of the bridge, flooding the almost empty coal bunker. This put the ship at a 15 degree starboard list but by itself would not have resulted in the loss of the ship. All boiler rooms were still watertight until the second explosion.

Wilson, upon hearing the news, went out and played a round of golf.

[Cohaagen]

Hey, i just could not let this stand

Yeah, I feel the same way when reading posts like yours above. Those poor Germans - always getting stabbed in the back!

It's a bit of a amateur masterpiece of that school, actually. Nevertheless, since someone (sadly) seems to have swallowed it whole the more ridiculous points need to be addressed.

it was camouflage-painted greyAll those photographs showing her leaving New York in black/white/red livery must be forgeries by the dastardly Britishers! They are experten at this, you know.

Following a zigzag course (which was not allowed for neutral and hospital ships)Leaving aside the fact that Lusitania wasn't either neutral or a hospital ship this is, for obvious reasons, not true.

the british admiralty not warning the captain of the L., in spite of knowing the exact position of the U-boat being in the L's direct path which then sunk herReally? How did they know the "exact position" - satellite photos?

The US were on the brink of declaring war to EnglandI am speechless. It was just as well then that the nefarious Admiralty plot to sink the Lusitania came off without a hitch, causing America to immediately declare war on Germany two years later.

When the one german trade U-boat rendered the blockade uselessIndeed, the Deutschland seems to have been so successful that the Germans converted her to a standard U-boat after just two trips. And unless her captain was Jesus Christ, I think it unlikely that he performed a feeding of the 80 million with several hundred tons of metals and synthetic rubber.

it had been a trick by the company for getting money from the government to build itNot another Tommy trick!

Well, no. It was, in truth, common knowledge that the government had paid costs towards the Lusitania's building after specifying certain aspects of her design. It's called a subsidy.

Some of the US passengers even complained that the L. obviously carried troops and war material, thus threatening their lives.Why would Britain be shipping troops from the USA to Britain? Did the perfidious Englanders have a secret garrison in New York as well?

German hospital ships anchored before Kiel and other coastal cities were sunk in the baltic sea, by british "submarines"Atrocities so foul they have never been mentioned in any WWI history book ever. They do mention, however, the nearly dozen British, Australian and Canadian hospital ships sunk by Germany in that war.

Oh, the RAF did later brass up an unlit Nazi hospital ship as a result of incompetence and trigger-happiness. Which, as Doenitz handily pointed out at his trial, meant Germany was fully justified in retaliating by sinking of British hospital ships before the incident even happened - there's no service like self-service...

Kaiser William 2nd failed to communicate this clearly to the US against british propaganda, because he feared the reaction of the german population, being angry about the british declaration of war (why had they?)I dunno, Bill, maybe it was something to do with invading Belgium?

(Germany was dependent on sea trade as much as England was)There are strong geographical reasons why an island nation is rather more dependent on sea trade than a largely land-locked one.

Last edited by Catfish; 05-17-2010 at 10:16 AM. Reason: typoes I think a better reason for editing would be fabulism, poor taste, and some very dodgy conspiracy theory logic.

By the way: rifle ammunition does not explode, regardless of quantity, a fact that has been proven many many times, not least during an inquiry into the very suspicious death of Dag Hammerskjold - a matter, unlike this, where "alternative" theories may have some factual authority. Even if a round of ammunition cooks off it is incapable of even penetrating a layer of heavy cloth. As for the fabled explosives Lusitania was supposed to be carrying, the actual evidence to support the idea - that is to say, none - puts that one firmly with Hitler in Brazil and Elvis working in the chip shop.

[Schroeder]

Leaving aside the fact that Lusitania wasn't either neutral or a hospital ship this is, for obvious reasons, not true.

What's the point then in arguing. If it was neither a hospital ship, nor neutral, it must have been a legit target then. Discussion closed.
:yeah:


I am speechless. It was just as well then that the nefarious Admiralty plot to sink the Lusitania came off without a hitch, causing America to immediately declare war on Germany two years later.
Well, I heard about that in a documentary too. Whether it is true, I don't know.


Why would Britain be shipping troops from the USA to Britain? Did the perfidious Englanders have a secret garrison in New York as well?
Volunteers?
I don't know whether any have been aboard but it isn't that far fetched is it?


There are strong geographical reasons why an island nation is rather more dependent on sea trade than a largely land-locked one.
If you are surrounded by enemies you de facto become an island.;)
And that's why Germany was as much depending on sea trade as the UK.

I think a better reason for editing would be fabulism, poor taste, and some very dodgy conspiracy theory logic.
How about you wait for his sources before saying something like that.
It's true that I couldn't find evidence for a few of his claims either but maybe he knows a few things that we are not aware of. If he can't produce evidence though then you might call it poor taste etc.


By the way: rifle ammunition does not explode, regardless of quantity, a fact that has been proven many many times, not least during an inquiry into the very suspicious death of Dag Hammerskjold - a matter, unlike this, where "alternative" theories may have some factual authority. Even if a round of ammunition cooks off it is incapable of even penetrating a layer of heavy cloth. As for the fabled explosives Lusitania was supposed to be carrying, the actual evidence to support the idea - that is to say, none - puts that one firmly with Hitler in Brazil and Elvis working in the chip shop.And what caused the Lusitania to explode? The single WWI Torpedo would surely not have enough power to send her down in 18 minutes.

[Skybird]

Some days ago somebody mentioned the Lusitania and another naval incident in a discussion with me, in the Gaza thread. I admit that I heared the name Lusitania, of course, but never learned any specifics about it from a documentary or book, since I never had any special interest. Thus, I refused - and still refuse - to form a personal opinion on these incidents. I lack any information or knowlege basis about it that I would trust, since I never educated myself about it. Being told many different versions of the story just tells me that there are several different versions of the story - it does not tell me the story's historic truth itself.

However, I certainly note that wherever the Lusitania incident gets mentioned, narration about the why and how that led to it'S sinking widely vary, according to the narrator's intention or willingness to define kind of a difference between warfare that is considered "acceptable" and determined warfare that crosses a line and is seen as "unacceptable". To me, such things make no sense. The difference to me is (ignoring the chances of misidentifying targets or bad intel) whether or not the destruction of a taregt like the Lusitania makes miliutary sense, or not. If it does, then it is just that: it makes military sense. If it does not, then the destruction is not necessary. The intended targetting and killing of civilians in itself is an act that I see no military value in as long as these civilians do not directly or indirectly interfere with any of the fighting sides (supplying intel, sabotage, hosting fighters, hiding weapons, voluntarily willing to serve as human shields, giving any form of support for the enemy, etc). Such killing of civilians is not needed and must not be done. However, if it is true that the Lusitania had been loaded with ammo supplies as well, then this made it a valid military target, and the loss of civilian life in this case was not intentional but what is called collateral damage - killings that are not intended but that get accepted as an unavoidable side-effect of acchieving the military goal. Whether or not churchill set up the Lusitania as a trap to lure the US into the war, like later Roosevelt gambled over a Japanese attack in order to bring the Us into WWII, is something political that in principal does not change the military logic in attacking the Lusitania.

War is neither fair, nor just. Never. You do the killing that is needed, and you must not do the killing that is not needed to achieve victory, defined as the achieving of military objectives up to a totality that the enemy breaks down. If that is not sentimental enough for somebody, or is too tough - he would be well-advised to be very hesitent about going to war. But he should be aware that although he may not seek war, war possibly can find him nevertheless.

[NeonSamurai]

It is well known that she was carrying ammunition, about 4.5 million .303 rounds, and a couple of thousand 3 inch shrapnel shells and fuses. This is listed on her second cargo manifest, and from more recent dives on her.

As for the 2nd explosion, other contenders are a boiler explosion, or a coal dust explosion.

[Catfish]

Hello,
re Cohaagen

" ... Those poor Germans - always getting stabbed in the back! ..."

Now that you say it - yes there must be a reason "we" always lose "our" wars. One other point may be this firm belief in phantastic complicated machinery that is as brilliant as it is militarily pointless (ahem).
But it is neither "we" or "mine", nor "yours", there is almost no person left of the "Central powers" or "The Entente" of the time.

That said i really could not let the first post go uncommented, this is why i was a bit polemic in my answering. Just because the first post is this prayer mill-like quoting of the british and later US propaganda departments without taking any other opinion into account, along with recently discovered information.
It's probably good to remind what happened historically ("lest we forget") so i did not want to "shoot" at Shamuboy1, at least not personally. Indeed this is a good idea. I also do like heated arguments sometimes, but it does not help understanding history if not done with some historian's distance.


A lot of log books of german U-boat commanders of WW1 have only recently been made available to the public, along with major portions of the british admiralty's archives that have been locked away for 100 years, and which rests will only appear publicly in 2018, if ever. There is also a good chance that it will be just destroyed. This is no conspiracy theory, it is done. It might also reveal more details that could blame even more atrocities and guilt on Germany, who knows.

I base my claims posted above on several english and german books, on a recent BBC documentary, on Churchill's memoirs, at Fisher's and Asquith's biographies, notes and speeches, on Whyttle's biography on Kaiser William 2nd, and John Roehl's biography on the same, but also on propaganda texts of the time, along with reports of survivors. The last book i read about WW1 and the U-boat war was "The U-boats of the Kaiser", which is unfortunately german and might thus destroy its credibility in your eyes.

But before you accuse me of calling this propaganda and telling bullsh!t, please inform yourself of the propaganda departments, and their influence or better control on the media of the time, also on "independent" publishers who still write this stuff into some schoolbooks of today.
Good keywords are the "rape" of Belgium, the "bayonnetting of belgian babies" and the "crucification of canadian officers". As soon as "they" rape women, kill children, and especially torture and kill clerical people (those monks being hanged on laterns, bound to chuch bells and rung to death) one should instantly become very careful, and think about which purpose those stories serve. Using such paraphrases is and has always been used to dehumanize an enemy and make own good soldiers kill bad others without mercy.

As well please do not confuse WW1 and WW2, neither the political systems nor the conduct of naval warfare, nor anyone's objectives of the time. No Nazis or Doenitz in WW1.
I do not say that Germany violating Belgium's neutrality was an excuse for England to enforce its own objectives, but the question should be allowed, if it would have developed in a world war without England's declaration of war. Maybe even then.

Will come to the single points in my next post, but i'm currently not at home and really should do quite some other stuff ;)

Greetings,
Catfish