Lusitania blocked from sailing because of war materials.

Has anyone done a TL about the Lusitania being stopped from sailing by the US government because war material was reported loaded on the ship in violation of the rules of war?

Could Irish longshoremen have reported to the German Embassy loading war materials onto the Lusitania and the German Ambassador asking the State Department to forbid the sailing of the ship?

Would/Could the US legally prevent the sailing to the ship?

If the sailing is stopped, what effect would that have on British/American relations, also would it have affected German/American relations?

Thanks,
MrBill
 
......also would it have affected German/American relations?......
This is probably the big one, was the US really in the dark about what was loaded OTL or did know but just didn't really care as long as GB paid ?

Would/Could the US legally prevent the sailing to the ship?
Its a civilian ship in US jurisdiction they can do anything they want legally (as long as they don't mind annoying GB)
 
Has anyone done a TL about the Lusitania being stopped from sailing by the US government because war material was reported loaded on the ship in violation of the rules of war?

Could Irish longshoremen have reported to the German Embassy loading war materials onto the Lusitania and the German Ambassador asking the State Department to forbid the sailing of the ship?

Would/Could the US legally prevent the sailing to the ship?

If the sailing is stopped, what effect would that have on British/American relations, also would it have affected German/American relations?

Thanks,
MrBill

It would have made it hareder for the Pro-War Americans to get the US into WW1. UK US relations will be cold but UK can't do much they need our materials. If the US changes it's sympathy it could change the out come of the war. US German relations would be much warmer the US had a large German population.
 
The premise is that the German government has formally brought this specific shipment with supporting papers. Wilson's administration could not ignore it.

So, with this as a given, how far do you think the butterflies will go? Not to far and things proceed as in OTL, or do they grow large and range wide over the oceans and make big waves?
 
The premise is that the German government has formally brought this specific shipment with supporting papers. Wilson's administration could not ignore it.

So, with this as a given, how far do you think the butterflies will go? Not to far and things proceed as in OTL, or do they grow large and range wide over the oceans and make big waves?

During war time why would the Germans ship arms on the Lusitania? Why would the British accept them? Forgive me I am missing something.
 
During war time why would the Germans ship arms on the Lusitania? Why would the British accept them? Forgive me I am missing something.

The Germans wouldn't be shipping arms, but presenting evidence to American authorities that the British were doing so, which would be cause to get the ship impounded, if I'm following this correctly.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Please correct me if I am in error :)

IIRC some war material was not considered contraband e.g. small arms ammunition, shrapnel shells. So far neither manifest nor examination of the wreck has come up with evidence that banned weapons / ammunition were shipped on the Lusitania.

If we accept the not unreasonable premise that contraband arms were being "smuggled" - and there is heresay & circumstantial evidence that hints there may have been, and we Brits can be kinda sneaky - in addition to the legal stuff, then there has to be both a desire by the US to investigate claims properly, and the British have to be far less expert at concealment than they were IOTL.
 
The bill of lading was very clear and what has been discovered by divers on the wreck has confirmed it. The ship was NOT carrying contraband arms. Yes, it was carrying small arms ammunition and shell cases, but those shell cases were not filled. It was also carrying artillery fuses. These are all legal cargo for a civilian ship under the Hague Convention.
Over the years there have been umpteen conspiracy theories, including the theory that she was carrying gun cotton. The problem is that nothing like that has ever been found in the wreck or on the seabed anywhere near her.
The main cause of all these theories is why she sank so quickly and what caused the second explosion. This has been ascribed to a steam explosion from a ruptured boiler to a coal dust explosion.
 
What if the Germans publicly want a official search to assure that the ship is realy a passanger liner and not the auxillary cruiser it was listed as.
If then some differences between offical manifest and loaded cargo are found, as I think there were, then the thing could get sticky in some ways.
 
What if the Germans publicly want a official search to assure that the ship is realy a passanger liner and not the auxillary cruiser it was listed as.
If then some differences between offical manifest and loaded cargo are found, as I think there were, then the thing could get sticky in some ways.
If they start insisting like that then one of two things is likely to happen:
  1. The Germans start burning up their credit with the US goverment, since they are apparently trying to use the US governmental apparatus to harass a civilian ship going about her lawful occasions. Unless anything major was found on such a search, the US would just write it off as a clerical error and any future German attempts to get searches made would be flat refused. This is by far the most likely case, simply because such demands from the Germans look exactly like harassment.
    In any case, the status of the Lusitania is of no interest to the US government - the laws of war relating to contraband at the time merely state that the US government must take responsibility for contraband shipped in US-owned hulls (or arguably weapons sold directly or knowingly to combatants). The Lusitania was neither - she herself was not a warship sold by US citizens to the British, nor was she US-owned. You could stuff her to the gunwhales with weaponry and the US government would have no interest in her, beyond noting that she was liable to seizure by the German Navy as a blockade runner and then condemnation in a German prize court if they could capture her.
    The most the German Embassy could do is what they actually did - place newspaper ads warning people not to travel on the Lusitania.
    lusitania.gif
  2. If the US somehow starts acting as an arm of the German government, then things probably start getting a bit sticky for US merchant ships around the world. The RN is the most powerful navy in the world at the time, and is enforcing a major series of blockades on German forces around the world. To date they have been enforced in a manner consistent with US doctrine (as applied during the Civil War - indeed the Admiralty was assiduously taking notes in case they needed to apply a blockade on US shipping in future). The UK tended to be quite polite when it came to dealing with US merchant ships and cargo trying to travel to Germany by various means, and they could change this substantially. This is clearly in the interests of the Germans, and equally clearly NOT in the interests of the United States.
 
The problem I see here is that Lusitania was officialy listed as an auxillary for the RN. If that is so, she would be a legitimate target as a warship...

So Imo it would be asking the USA to make sure that it is a civilian ship that is leaving port. Not a warship. Because if it would be a warship, then carrying civilians would be the wrong thing to do.

And if that is using the USA as a arm of the German gov. then I don't know what is not... because Imo it would be a legitimate question.
 
Emergency actions

I suspect that, although the US government had no concern under international law about what was being transported, that loading high explosives (I'll assume she was carrying contraband for this reply) would be a violation of various laws regarding ship's manifests and safety laws. If so, the ship and owners could be prosecuted under state laws, and detained.

Alternatively, could the USA ban Americans from taking passage aboard?

Both are consistent with international law.

Or--if Germany has good evidence, and the USA doesn't act on it, PUBLISH it. Post an ad saying "Lusitania is carrying weapon, and as such, is subject to destruction."
 

Deimos

Banned
Please correct me if I am in error :)

IIRC some war material was not considered contraband e.g. small arms ammunition, shrapnel shells. So far neither manifest nor examination of the wreck has come up with evidence that banned weapons / ammunition were shipped on the Lusitania.

If we accept the not unreasonable premise that contraband arms were being "smuggled" - and there is heresay & circumstantial evidence that hints there may have been, and we Brits can be kinda sneaky - in addition to the legal stuff, then there has to be both a desire by the US to investigate claims properly, and the British have to be far less expert at concealment than they were IOTL.
If Colin Simpson's research on the Lusitania can be trusted, then the small arms ammunition carried by the Lusitania was declared as hunting ammo in order to avoid the contraband laws and wikipedia writes that there were suspicious amounts of butter (unrefrigerated) and furs (curiously provided by an explosive manufacturer) on board.

Wikipedia further describes that an unexploded depth charge was found in the wreckage of the Lusitania (even with video proof from a Discovery Channel documentary), indicating that there have been deliberate attempts to destroy whatever was left of the original cargo.
 
Wikipedia further describes that an unexploded depth charge was found in the wreckage of the Lusitania (even with video proof from a Discovery Channel documentary), indicating that there have been deliberate attempts to destroy whatever was left of the original cargo.
Ummm... the indication there is rather suspect - it was very common for wrecks to be depth-charged during WW2 because the showed up very similarly to an ASDIC contact on the bottom (indeed, when their location was known they were often still depth-charged because they were suspected as hiding sites for submarines). A number of Hedgehog mortar bombs (unexploded ones) have also been found on the Lusitania site.
If they were trying to destroy it they'd have used rather different weaponry (much heavier charges), and would only have done it to the Lusitania rather than to very many different wrecks in the same area.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Ummm... the indication there is rather suspect - it was very common for wrecks to be depth-charged during WW2 because the showed up very similarly to an ASDIC contact on the bottom (indeed, when their location was known they were often still depth-charged because they were suspected as hiding sites for submarines). A number of Hedgehog mortar bombs (unexploded ones) have also been found on the Lusitania site.
If they were trying to destroy it they'd have used rather different weaponry (much heavier charges), and would only have done it to the Lusitania rather than to very many different wrecks in the same area.

Yes, the age of the depth charge would nail that one.
 
that there have been deliberate attempts to destroy whatever was left of the original cargo.

If they tried to cover up something illegal why would they fail ? This is the RN we are talking about they have massive numbers of ships to conduct 'life fire ASW exercises' with in peacetime so close to UK...
 
IIIRC the depth charge has already been investigated. The dive/survey of the wreck from twenty years ago inventoried a large part of the debris field & there was not much evidence of systematic depth charge damage. & the damage identified was only suspect & not well confirmed as later damage. Ship wrecks start collapsing from the moment they start to sink & it takes some analysis to judge if a section has collapsed from corrosion, stress of sinking, internal detonation, or external detonation.

...
Wikipedia further describes that an unexploded depth charge was found in the wreckage of the Lusitania (even with video proof from a Discovery Channel documentary), indicating that there have been deliberate attempts to destroy whatever was left of the original cargo.

Its very unlikely, nearly impossible in my opinion, depth charges would destroy cargo as evidence. While these large explosive charges would crack or break apart a large structure. smaller objects would be pushed about on the bottom, or driven into the silt. without a lot of further damage.

....
The main cause of all these theories is why she sank so quickly and what caused the second explosion. This has been ascribed to a steam explosion from a ruptured boiler to a coal dust explosion.

Probablly both. The torpedo hit was just outside a forward coal bunker, which was probally nearly empty & would have had several hundred kilos of coal dust & small chips on the deck. That would have detonated within a few seconds of the torpedo detonation. Some witnesses placed a second detonation after the first by many seconds or even minutes. That is more likely a boiler/steam pipe or turbine abruptly releasing pressure. However there is a third more pedestrian factor at work. Witnesses from the bridge survivors claim the captain ordered a turn towards land, and did not order a reduction in speed. Maintianing speed, about 18 knots or more, would have caused pressure from the passing water on the internal bulkheads next to the torpedo. It is possible the hull around the hole was acting as a scoop & increasing the pressure. The result would have been immediate and large scale damage to the internal bulkheads thus increasing the water intake significantly. SOP for torpedo hits was to imeadiatly halt the ship, or at least slow it to take pressure off the damage. The Lusitanias captain may not have understood this, or forgotten. Whatever the case the effect of keeping up speed & making the turn would have been to drive the ship under far faster than otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Top