alternatehistory.com

There is confusion here about "contraband". What the Lusitania was carrying was not "contraband" as it was legally exported and manifested. HOWEVER industrial chemicals used in the manufacture of war materials and small arms ammunition ARE military goods and as such a legitimate target of war (technically so are uniform items even Sam Browne belts). Under international usage at the time by carrying such material the Lusitania was no longer "innocent". This leaves out the issue of the disputes over new rules for U-boats. The "cruiser" rules prior to WW1 required that merchant vessels be stopped, and the cargo/manifest examined. If they were to be sunk, the raider had to take the crew as prisoners or at least ensure they were in safely in lifeboats relatively close to land. If not sunk, ALL enemy vessels, no matter what they were carrying, could be taken as prizes to the belligerents (or a neutral) port and sold or confiscated. With radio (to call in warships) and the vulnerability and small size of submarines, these rules were essentially obsolete. In both WW1 & WW2 Allied submarines executed unrestricted (sink on sight) submarine warfare from the get-go - in WW1 this had little effect as almost all German sea traffic was extinguished early on.

Please note that the British blockade of Germany, both by being "distant" as opposed to "close", and by declaring food (among other goods not truly military) as an illegal import also constituted a violation of pre-existing common usages of naval warfare. The US chose to ignore this primarily because trade with Germany was less than 20% of the combined trade with the UK & France. Only later on was US public sentiment strongly pro-Allied.

so, any POD that sees Germany as a MASSIVE trade partner of the U.S., but does not butterfly away WW1?
Top