Lusitania & Other ships

Schroeder · 06-20-10, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cohaagen

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 06-20-10, 06:10 AM

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 · 06-20-10, 09:19 AM

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 · 06-21-10, 05:01 AM

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

06-20-10, 06:10 AM	#2
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,660 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

06-20-10, 09:19 AM	#3
NeonSamurai Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Socialist Republic of Kanadia Posts: 3,044 Downloads: 25 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ SH3 Newbie Guide Links and other helpfull stuff

06-21-10, 05:01 AM	#4
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,773 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	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