WI: RMS Lusitania Explodes in Port

From what I can recall on her last voyage the Lusitania carried some war materials aboard her. The officially listed ones were nonexplosive however. Let us assume she contains war materials that are not officially listed, namely high explosives. She most likely did not OTL but let us say that she did here. Let further say that a loading accident causes some of this to detonate and the explosion kills American Citizens in New York Harbor.

What is the impact on WWI?
 
What is the impact on WWI?

I doubt this could have ever happened. The reason for the second explosion on the Lusitania was coal dust gas in the area where the U-20's torpedo struck home. Since the ship would have no doubt been refueled at New York before setting out on its voyage, such an explosion wouldn't have occured.

Atop that, Lusitania's contraband was mostly small arms. I doubt even if there was an accident, it wouldn't have caused much damage.
 
And if it does...its a bloody accident. It might outrage some Americans, but less than OTL inspired any hostility.
 
I've wondered occasionally if it would have made any difference had she hit a mine instead of being torpedoed. Still horrible but there's more element of luck - and the Germans could have pointed out that the Allies were also laying a lot of mines "We'll stop mining the approaches if England stops mining the North Sea" or something like that.
 

Cook

Banned
I've wondered occasionally if it would have made any difference had she hit a mine instead of being torpedoed.
If she’d hit a mine she’d have been close to port or shore, simply because that is where they are sown, not in deep open waters. So even with the same secondary explosion and rapid sinking the death toll can be expected to be less because of proximity of other vessels to aid rescue.
 
I doubt this could have ever happened. The reason for the second explosion on the Lusitania was coal dust gas in the area where the U-20's torpedo struck home. Since the ship would have no doubt been refueled at New York before setting out on its voyage, such an explosion wouldn't have occured.

Atop that, Lusitania's contraband was mostly small arms. I doubt even if there was an accident, it wouldn't have caused much damage.
I knew all of that, I did some research before posting this, it could not have happened OTL

My question is what is the effect if the Lusitania is smuggling actual explosives (assume ITTL she is) and suffers an explosion despite the British saying she is not. Does the US still get involved? Do we punish the Entente for this? Break in relations, arms embargo, refuse loans?
 
I knew all of that, I did some research before posting this, it could not have happened OTL

My question is what is the effect if the Lusitania is smuggling actual explosives (assume ITTL she is) and suffers an explosion despite the British saying she is not. Does the US still get involved? Do we punish the Entente for this? Break in relations, arms embargo, refuse loans?

My guess is that the British are warned but the Wilson Administration is still strongly pro-Allied.
 

Deleted member 1487

I've wondered occasionally if it would have made any difference had she hit a mine instead of being torpedoed. Still horrible but there's more element of luck - and the Germans could have pointed out that the Allies were also laying a lot of mines "We'll stop mining the approaches if England stops mining the North Sea" or something like that.

I highly doubt the Germans would offer to stop mining. That was a primary method for the Germans to hurt the British; the British looked at the mine as a cowards weapon or as a defensive tool outside their bases, which pretty much ceded offensive mining to the Germans. And British mines were pretty crap until 1917 anyway.
 

Flubber

Banned
My question is what is the effect if the Lusitania is smuggling actual explosives...


My question is how can the Lusitania smuggle anything like that in any significant quantities?

She's being loaded with materials bought in the US in a US port by US workers. "Tons" of anything need to be carried from a manufacturer into New York and to the pier by US railroads and then need to be removed from rail cars and/or trucks by US stevedores and schlepped aboard the liner by either cranes or strong backs.

The question of how tons of material could be smuggled aboard also raise the question of why the Lusitania would used at all. There were other vessels available which could carry far more material.

The war materials aboard in the OTL were primarily pistol ammunition, Sam Browne belts, and industrial chemicals. They were also declared, known to US authorities, and entirely legal. The only "suspicious" cargo aboard was a few hundred pounds of Maine oysters being strangely shipping to the UK during the oyster season there.

Any questions about their legality were nothing more than CP propaganda attempting the "spin" the sinking after the worldwide public relations fallout from the sinking. Those questions have been repeated by either simpletons ignorant of the actual facts or CP apologists with other baser motives.

To answer your original question, if the Lusitania exploded in port while begin loaded with high explosives nothing would happen because the US government would have known she was loaded with high explosives purchased from US suppliers by the UK government. You simply cannot purchase and then "smuggle" dozens or hundreds of tons of TNT or HMX as you would a kilo of heroin.
 
My question is how can the Lusitania smuggle anything like that in any significant quantities?

She's being loaded with materials bought in the US in a US port by US workers. "Tons" of anything need to be carried from a manufacturer into New York and to the pier by US railroads and then need to be removed from rail cars and/or trucks by US stevedores and schlepped aboard the liner by either cranes or strong backs.

The question of how tons of material could be smuggled aboard also raise the question of why the Lusitania would used at all. There were other vessels available which could carry far more material.

The war materials aboard in the OTL were primarily pistol ammunition, Sam Browne belts, and industrial chemicals. They were also declared, known to US authorities, and entirely legal. The only "suspicious" cargo aboard was a few hundred pounds of Maine oysters being strangely shipping to the UK during the oyster season there.

Any questions about their legality were nothing more than CP propaganda attempting the "spin" the sinking after the worldwide public relations fallout from the sinking. Those questions have been repeated by either simpletons ignorant of the actual facts or CP apologists with other baser motives.

To answer your original question, if the Lusitania exploded in port while begin loaded with high explosives nothing would happen because the US government would have known she was loaded with high explosives purchased from US suppliers by the UK government. You simply cannot purchase and then "smuggle" dozens or hundreds of tons of TNT or HMX as you would a kilo of heroin.
Well from what I remember it was not public knowledge that the Lusitania was carrying war materials and I seem to remember Britain denying she was carrying any

What I meant was the officially Britain says to the public she was not carrying explosives, and then it is found out she was, and this caused the deaths of US citizens. not smuggling but more misdirection, I should have been clearer in my statements

She would have been chosen because she was fast and making the route already and as a passenger liner less likely to be attacked
 

Flubber

Banned
Well from what I remember it was not public knowledge that the Lusitania was carrying war materials and I seem to remember Britain denying she was carrying any.


You're confused. Britain denied the liner was carrying contraband, not war materials, and Britain's denials were in direct response to German "spin" efforts to justify the sinking after the fact.

From the war's beginning, both sides had dozens of public relations flacks at work in the US. They'd give speeches, make press releases, and engage all the usual kinds of "spin". One of Germany's better PR flacks was a Dr. Dernburg. He was a former government official and gave a speech at some midwest club on May 9th, 1915 - only two days after the sinking - justifying the sinking with the contraband excuse people are still innocently quoting today.

In reality and IMHO, Germany didn't need to justify a thing.

Pick up "Lusitania Saga and Myth" David Ramsay. It rather exhaustive and should prove quite an eye-opener for you.

What I meant was the officially Britain says to the public she was not carrying explosives...

Britain can't do that because the public in the shape of the manufacturer who sold them, the railroad who carried them, the stevedores who loaded them, and the port officials who cleared them, would have known she was carrying explosives. In order for any ship to be cleared for departure, a federal government official known as the Collector of the Port of New York has to sign off on a ship's cargo manifest. Lusitania's manifest was and is a matter of public record and, because the numbers of US workers that would have been involved, there is no way that a significant amount of explosives could have some how been sneaked or smuggled aboard.

What the liner was carrying was public knowledge. The only point of contention immediately after the sinking was whether what she was carrying was contraband or not. Sadly over the decades the original "contraband" question has been conflated into a "war materials" and too many people now seem to think the Lusitania was carrying kilotons of artillery shells rather than a few thousand rounds of pistol ammunition and leather belts.

She would have been chosen because she was fast and making the route already and as a passenger liner less likely to be attacked

Pick up the book I already mentioned and read why none of those "reasons" really holds up.

If Lusitania had taken on a load of explosives and those materials exploded while she was in port, public opinion and official condemnation would have fallen on the US port officials who allowed those materials to be loaded aboard a ship not designed to carry them and for the lading to occur away from the already designated explosives piers/anchorages.
 
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.
 
You're confused. Britain denied the liner was carrying contraband, not war materials, and Britain's denials were in direct response to German "spin" efforts to justify the sinking after the fact.

From the war's beginning, both sides had dozens of public relations flacks at work in the US. They'd give speeches, make press releases, and engage all the usual kinds of "spin". One of Germany's better PR flacks was a Dr. Dernburg. He was a former government official and gave a speech at some midwest club on May 9th, 1915 - only two days after the sinking - justifying the sinking with the contraband excuse people are still innocently quoting today.

In reality and IMHO, Germany didn't need to justify a thing.

Pick up "Lusitania Saga and Myth" David Ramsay. It rather exhaustive and should prove quite an eye-opener for you.



Britain can't do that because the public in the shape of the manufacturer who sold them, the railroad who carried them, the stevedores who loaded them, and the port officials who cleared them, would have known she was carrying explosives. In order for any ship to be cleared for departure, a federal government official known as the Collector of the Port of New York has to sign off on a ship's cargo manifest. Lusitania's manifest was and is a matter of public record and, because the numbers of US workers that would have been involved, there is no way that a significant amount of explosives could have some how been sneaked or smuggled aboard.

What the liner was carrying was public knowledge. The only point of contention immediately after the sinking was whether what she was carrying was contraband or not. Sadly over the decades the original "contraband" question has been conflated into a "war materials" and too many people now seem to think the Lusitania was carrying kilotons of artillery shells rather than a few thousand rounds of pistol ammunition and leather belts.



Pick up the book I already mentioned and read why none of those "reasons" really holds up.

If Lusitania had taken on a load of explosives and those materials exploded while she was in port, public opinion and official condemnation would have fallen on the US port officials who allowed those materials to be loaded aboard a ship not designed to carry them and for the lading to occur away from the already designated explosives piers/anchorages.
Okay

By public I meant the passengers and people on the street not involved in the loading and commerce, yes I understand everyone involved would know

You have answered the question to my satisfaction, thank you

Have too many other books to read at the moment for Term Paper
 

Flubber

Banned
There is confusion here about "contraband". What the Lusitania was carrying was not "contraband" as it was legally exported and manifested.


Exactly.

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".

Again, exactly.

This leaves out the issue of the disputes over new rules for U-boats. (snip) 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.

Once again, exactly. WW1 submarines could not operate under cruiser rules dating from the 1850s. Even WW1 surface raiders could no longer operate under those rules. This is why Germany's increasingly desperate attempts to justify the sinking were, IMHO, completely unnecessary. Germany simply should have pointed out that a war is on, things have changed in the last 50 years, and that various international prohibitions have been previously "adjusted" by other powers at need.

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.

Agreed, however another reason the US could choose to ignore the Entente blockade because that blockade didn't result in neutral deaths.

The key difference between the blockade the Entente put in place and the blockade the CP attempted to put in place were the effects of each on neutrals. Attempt to run the Entente blockade and your ship, cargo, and crew are merely seized. Attempt to run the CP blockade and your ship, cargo, and crew are drowned. Hence the famous conversation between the US ambassador and William II about the de facto difference between trespassing and murder as opposed to any de jure differences between both blockades.
 
Top