Lusitania Doesn't Sink

[JackLumber]

They'd still find the same rallying cry, assuming the Germans still began attacking US merchantmen. That would have caused war even if the Lusitania had never existed.



All loans to the Entente as of April 11917 were secured on investments in North America, so the lenders wouldn't have lost their money whatever the war's outcome.

In any case it's irrelevant as at that point neither Wilson nor almost anyone else was expecting a German victory - not even the Germans themselves, which was why the took a gamble on unrestricted U-boat warfare.

I think we have a different idea of what a rallying cry is, I was more referring to the Lusitania's role in American propaganda.

Just because they wouldn't have lost money doesn't mean they weren't personally Invested in allied victory.

The gamble seemed like a poor decision to me, Germany was looking at the very least a strategic victory if they kept the Americans out.

 

[Cheer]

Yeah, I see the points being made here. What is interesting to me is that the documentary said that prior to the sinking of the Lusitania, the general American sentiment was a pro-German one. Is there any clarification for this? Is this correct?

 

[CalBear]

Maybe not even that, the American's will just find a different rallying cry, the American's just had too much invested in allied success

Kind of a distinction without a difference isn't it?

Not really. Deserved indicates that the ship, and its passengers, deserved to die. I sincerely doubt that all 1,198 individuals aboard deserved a cold death in the North Atlantic.

 

[JackLumber]

Not really. Deserved indicates that the ship, and its passengers, deserved to die. I sincerely doubt that all 1,198 individuals aboard deserved a cold death in the North Atlantic.

I could see why you may read that and come to that conclusion but saying the ship deserved to be sunk is not the same thing as saying the people on it deserved to die.
Admittedly I could have worded it better.

 

[Mikestone8]

Yeah, I see the points being made here. What is interesting to me is that the documentary said that prior to the sinking of the Lusitania, the general American sentiment was a pro-German one. Is there any clarification for this? Is this correct?

No. American sentiment was firmly neutralist, and remained so in spite of the Lusitania, until the Germans declared American ships (not just British ones which happened to have Americans aboard) to be fair game for the U-boats - and started acting upon this declaration.

The deaths on the Lusitania certainly didn't help German public relations in the US, but it is not clear that US entry into the war was accelerated by a single day. Nor would sparing the Lusitania have averted war, unless the Germans agreed to at least let US merchantmen alone in 1917.

 

[Mikestone8]

The gamble seemed like a poor decision to me, Germany was looking at the very least a strategic victory if they kept the Americans out.

In hindsight yes, but they didn't know it at the time, and nor (save a few top men in the British Treasury) did anyone else.

They had made very heavy weather of getting through 1916, and 1917 promised to be even worse, with the British Army getting better trained and the Russian one getting better equipped. The Russian Revolution and the French Army mutinies were still in the future, and Britain's financial straits were a closely-guarded secret. Hence they were ready to gamble on US intervention, since they believed (correctly) that American power could not be brought to bear before 1918, and (incorrectly) that by then it would not matter, as the war would already be over one way or the other. They threw away victory because they did not know their own strength.

 

[RodentRevolution]

Lusitania was carrying war materiel for germany's enemies under the guise of neutrality.
It deserved to be sunk.

The Lusitania was a Royal Mail Ship, the only pretence of neutrality is the one you made up.

 

[pdf27]

I could see why you may read that and come to that conclusion but saying the ship deserved to be sunk is not the same thing as saying the people on it deserved to die.
Admittedly I could have worded it better.

You're also ignoring the fact that the international law (such as it was) of the time required the submarine to seize the ship, search it for contraband (ideally bringing it before a court to ensure that it was properly condemned as a blockade runner) and ensure that the passengers and crew were taken to a place of safety before it was sunk. That means no matter what it was carrying it isn't legal at the time to sink it without warning from a submarine and make no effort to rescue survivors.

Can you tell that the Admiralty in London wrote the rules? Note also that they had scrupulously checked exactly what the US Government did in it's blockade of the South during the civil war, and the way the UK blockade of Germany was organised was done very carefully to ensure that those precedents were followed. The German submarine blockade, however, was very much not within those rules - which is a large part of why Wilson was much more aggreived by it, no matter how many Americans did or did not die from it.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

[QUOTE="Mikestone8, post: 14052682, member: 13017"
All loans to the Entente as of April 11917 were secured on investments in North America, so the lenders wouldn't have lost their money whatever the war's outcome.

In any case it's irrelevant as at that point neither Wilson nor almost anyone else was expecting a German victory - not even the Germans themselves, which was why the took a gamble on unrestricted U-boat warfare.[/QUOTE]

This assumes those assets retain their market value. I don't see a guarantee of economic stability were the Entente to lose.

 

[Saphroneth]

Considering that the Lusitania was carrying arms and munitions to Britain IIRC, Wilson probably won't make a fuss unless he knows the outrage will allow him to cover up this blatant violation of neutrality.

Lusitania was carrying war materiel for germany's enemies under the guise of neutrality.
It deserved to be sunk.

This is something that does shock me. RMS Lusitania is treated as a violation of neutrality - it's not, RMS is Royal Mail Ship - and as if carrying munitions makes it a legitimate target for a torpedo up the jacksie.
The reason it caused a diplomatic uproar is because it was a particularly blatant violation of the norms of blockade. As pdf has noted, these were written by the British - but they were still a thing.

 

[thezerech]

This is something that does shock me. RMS Lusitania is treated as a violation of neutrality - it's not, RMS is Royal Mail Ship - and as if carrying munitions makes it a legitimate target for a torpedo up the jacksie.
The reason it caused a diplomatic uproar is because it was a particularly blatant violation of the norms of blockade. As pdf has noted, these were written by the British - but they were still a thing.

Of course carrying munitions to a belligerent power makes it a target. Why wouldn't it? It could have been arms As Well as munitions IIRC. That sort of stuff is very clearly not neutral.

 

[Saphroneth]

Of course carrying munitions to a belligerent power makes it a target. Why wouldn't it? It could have been arms As Well as munitions IIRC. That sort of stuff is very clearly not neutral.

What I mean is that it's a target for legal blockade work (that is, stopping the ship and inspecting it). "Cruiser rules" they're called, but they could equally be called "legal rules". (Attacking an enemy cargo vessel is only permissible if you clearly indicate that they should stop and they refuse, even after a warning shot - you're supposed to attempt to capture and take into a port for the application of prize rules.)

But you missed my other point. Lusitania isn't a neutral and isn't pretending to be a neutral (so far as I can tell). She's a British ship in the first place.
Royal Mail Ship.


In any case. In a legal blockade, a ship flying a false flag is actually not a real defence - the cruisers are permitted to board neutral ships, this being permitted by the declaration of the blockade, and this includes the right to inspect a ship to ensure it is permitted to fly the flag in question.

 

[weasel_airlift]

What I mean is that it's a target for legal blockade work (that is, stopping the ship and inspecting it). "Cruiser rules" they're called, but they could equally be called "legal rules". (Attacking an enemy cargo vessel is only permissible if you clearly indicate that they should stop and they refuse, even after a warning shot - you're supposed to attempt to capture and take into a port for the application of prize rules.)

But you missed my other point. Lusitania isn't a neutral and isn't pretending to be a neutral (so far as I can tell). She's a British ship in the first place.
Royal Mail Ship.


In any case. In a legal blockade, a ship flying a false flag is actually not a real defence - the cruisers are permitted to board neutral ships, this being permitted by the declaration of the blockade, and this includes the right to inspect a ship to ensure it is permitted to fly the flag in question.

Wasn't she also listed as an auxiliary cruiser? That would mean that she could have guns, and would thus be very unhealthy for a uboat to approach on the surface

 

[Behemoth]

Wasn't she also listed as an auxiliary cruiser? That would mean that she could have guns, and would thus be very unhealthy for a uboat to approach on the surface

I am unsure if the Lusitania was listed as an auxiliary cruiser and I am currently away from the majority of my sources. 6-inch gun mounts were added to her in 1913 though.

 

[Saphroneth]

Wasn't she also listed as an auxiliary cruiser? That would mean that she could have guns, and would thus be very unhealthy for a uboat to approach on the surface

She did not have guns. She was fitted for them, but not with them.

In any case - maybe that is unhealthy for a U-boat to approach on the surface. But that's how warfare works - the Germans had auxiliary cruisers, but the British didn't just shell everything in sight. They took the risk, preferring to risk the crew of the military ship rather than the crew and passengers of the civilian one. Similarly the Confederate navy cruisers were hunted down by Union warships, and the Union warships didn't just pour fire into any ship they ran into in case it might be an enemy military vessel.
The Germans, OTOH, took the other option.

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Also, wasn't the munitions she carried permissible under international law? Think small arms ammo is allowed, but if she had carried artillery shells, would have been illegal. Certainly an interesting legal case.

 

[Saphroneth]

Also, wasn't the munitions she carried permissible under international law? Think small arms ammo is allowed, but if she had carried artillery shells, would have been illegal. Certainly an interesting legal case.

Of course a British ship can carry artillery shells. Why wouldn't she be allowed to?

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Of course a British ship can carry artillery shells. Why wouldn't she be allowed to?

No, asking for a clarification. Read a long time ago some historians considered her a valid target since she carried ammo, but others argued under cruiser rules, she could. Have you heard anything about this?

 

[Saphroneth]

No, asking for a clarification. Read a long time ago some historians considered her a valid target since she carried ammo, but others argued under cruiser rules, she could. Have you heard anything about this?

I think it's a misunderstanding of the concept of a blockade as it was executed at the time. Basically:

1) As a blockading power with a legally established blockade, you can stop any ship that is not in a nationally escorted neutral convoy.
2) If the ship you have stopped is carrying contraband (and ammunition does count), you can take it as a prize and send it into port for the prize courts.
3) If you are unable to do this, then you are permitted to take the ship's papers off as proof she is carrying contraband, either take the crew/passengers off onto your own ship or put them into the boats with the reasonable expectation on the part of the crew that they will be able to safely reach land, and then sink the ship.
4) If a ship is refusing to stop for the blockaders despite notification, it is permitted to sink them as a blockade runner (though you must have a legal blockade established).

There's also rules on commerce raiding, and as I recall it was basically the same kind of thing but only applied to enemy ships (and with no requirement of contraband being established).

Under international law as it was at the time, it would be legal to stop the Lusitania and board her to establish that she was carrying contraband. This being done, the crew and passengers would then be put into boats or otherwise conveyed to shore, and the ship could be sunk - it would then basically be a matter for the courts, and if the Germans were found to be in the wrong then compensation would be paid. The key point here is that a ship in the exercise of normal commerce is risking property but that there is no risk of life.

Sinking a ship without warning by torpedo? Very illegal. It doesn't matter that Q-ships existed, even - the Q-ship is a legitimate target, yes, but that doesn't mean you can kill everyone because they might be a Q-ship.


The thing which makes it all murky is that Germany more or less got away with massive submarine warfare in WW1, and so in WW2 everyone started doing it because it was obvious that it was much more effective (and no-one wanted to be the one giving up an advantage without any countervailing disadvantage attached to it).

 

[Michel Van]

The Story of the RMS Lusitania is complex

One part of story is it was design to be converted into a "Support cruiser" in case of war !
in 1913 they installed on deck four mounting supports for 6-inch guns.
the similar RMS Aquitania was modified into a "battle cruiser" / troopship this way.
But not RMS Lusitania and RMS Mauretania DISPITE listing it as „support cruiser of the Royal Navy Reserve“,

This was know by Germans military intelligence and the U-boat Commandants had Naval Recognition Book label the RMS Lusitania as Enemy Ship !

Also was the RMS Lusitania participator by British Kingdom, so Royal Navy had some influence what to do with it.
like use it as cargo ship for "produce goods vital to the war effort" from neutral nations like USA (de factor a blockade runner)

As British Navy blockade finally show effect on Germans War effort
The Germans Navy got order by High command, for total U-boat War means hunting and sink the Neutral vessel and the blockade runner
Despite Warnings by German Diplomats and Royal Navy, the Crew of RMS Lusitania drove the Ship direct true water with Germans U-boats.
Because they crew had Order by shipping company to drive direct to harbor to reduce cost and time.
Some Historians wildcatting that Royal Navy used the RMS Lusitania as lure to get USA into War with German Empire.

the U-20 spot RMS Lusitania, the crew recognize as Enemy Ship do there Naval Recognition Book
If they mistook the RMS Lusitania with RMS Aquitania is also stuff for debate under Historians.

But Finally in end this not matter at all
what matter are the One thousands two hundred humans, who died in this forgotten tragedy !