# Lusitania



## VBF-13 (Oct 13, 2013)

They say it went down in like 18 minutes. Something like that. And half that time it's just sitting there with its ass-end up for its nose having been stuck in the mud in 300 foot of water. How does an 800 foot liner like that go down that decisively and dramatically? I think you all know where I'm going with this. What do you think? That must have been some torpedo.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 14, 2013)

Certainly is an interesting case. I doubt we will ever know the complete truth. Either way it was a tragedy that so many innocent lives had to die.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 14, 2013)

Yeah. It's not like they didn't see it coming, though. The warnings were there. They were just in denial. It could outrun any sub. In fact, at the moment of truth, it was getting away, until it turned broadside. They could have put another in her, too, but the sub commander couldn't bring himself to pull the trigger. Big ship, though. And to go over that quickly. While all the world wondered.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 14, 2013)

"... That must have been some torpedo"

Or some _cargo_.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 14, 2013)

...or coal dust.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 14, 2013)

IIRC it was documented that it was carrying munitions. Also the damage to the ship showed a blast had occured within the ship.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Oct 14, 2013)

You're correct VB, I think _Lusitania_ was carrying munitions, small arms I believe. Whether or not that caused the internal explosion is a different story, it's one of several theories that can't be determined without a doubt. May seem strange a large liner like _Lusitania_ would go down from one torpedo, but liners do not have the same level of protection as warships. Less compartmentalization, no armor belt, makes the damage more widespread.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 14, 2013)

I believe that the secrecy ban imposed on the sinking ended a couple of years ago and it was revealed that the ship was carrying some 4,000,000 rounds of small arms ammo, as well as guncotton. 
So,....


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 14, 2013)

Meatloaf, was that from shipping and receiving documents? Classified, of course.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 14, 2013)

Small arms ammunition isn't going to go off with a big explosion, guncotton certainly could though.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 14, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Meatloaf, was that from shipping and receiving documents? Classified, of course.


IIRC, it was the Government's secrets act. Time finally ran out. I will see if I can track it down.
In any case the ammo was justification, as the Germans claimed.


----------



## silence (Oct 14, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> They say it went down in like 18 minutes. Something like that. And half that time it's just sitting there with its ass-end up for its nose having been stuck in the mud in 300 foot of water. How does an 800 foot liner like that go down that decisively and dramatically? I think you all know where I'm going with this. What do you think? That must have been some torpedo.



The SS Edmund Fitzgerald - a 729 foot ore carrier - went down Nov 10 '75 basically between radar sweeps. Shortly after 7:10 pm she disappeared suddenly from a trailing ship's radar - no distress call or anything. No survivors. It a sad story.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 15, 2013)

meatloaf109 said:


> IIRC, it was the Government's secrets act. Time finally ran out. I will see if I can track it down.


I'd imagine it would have been reflected or accounted for in the shipping and receiving documents, too, in some form or other (as "classified cargo," or some bullshit like that). At any rate, I could understand it being secreted. It's blood on our hands.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 15, 2013)

It's been a while since I've read on the subject, but the sub skipper fired a single torpedo at the bow, to force the Lusitania to come about. The massive explosion was not what he expected.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 17, 2013)

For what it is worth, RMS Lusitania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Readie (Oct 19, 2013)

Never Enough History: Who Really Sank the Lusitania?


----------



## redcoat (Oct 19, 2013)

meatloaf109 said:


> I believe that the secrecy ban imposed on the sinking ended a couple of years ago and it was revealed that the ship was carrying some 4,000,000 rounds of small arms ammo, as well as guncotton.
> So,....


There was no secrecy, the munitions she carried were in the final cargo manifesto given to US Customs, and this fact was made public in the days after the sinking, though British propaganda downplayed this fact .
It should be noted that there were no laws banning passengers ship from carrying war materials, the only law that was in place was a US health and safely rule which banned high explosives from these ships, and the munitions the Lusitania was carrying (small arms ammo and shell cases, no gun cotton) were not classed as high explosive by US Customs. 

It should also be noted that what caused the public outrage was not that the U-boat had sunk the Lusitania as such, but that she had fired the torpedo *without warning *.
The rules of war were quite clear at this time, even if a passenger ship was carrying munitions, it was a war crime to fire on the ship without warning. The U-boat was supposed to stop the ship and give the crew and passengers time to take to the lifeboats before she sank her.
Of course, these rules were impractical and dangerous for the U-boat, but they were the rules.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 19, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> They could have put another in her, too, but the sub commander couldn't bring himself to pull the trigger. .


The captain of the U-20 had previously deliberately fired at a British hospital ship, but fortunately the torpedo missed.
His interesting excuse for firing on this ship was that as it was leaving a British port it wouldn't be carrying any wounded. !!!!!!!


----------



## redcoat (Oct 19, 2013)

Readie said:


> Never Enough History: Who Really Sank the Lusitania?



No offense, but that's a rather emotive and biased blog. 


This site is better 
Lusitania Controversy


----------



## Readie (Oct 20, 2013)

'No offense, but that's a rather emotive and biased blog'. 

None taken. Its exactly why I posted it and made a comment for the benefit of the author.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 20, 2013)

redcoat said:


> There was no secrecy, the munitions she carried were in the final cargo manifesto given to US Customs, and this fact was made public in the days after the sinking, though British propaganda downplayed this fact .
> It should be noted that there were no laws banning passengers ship from carrying war materials, the only law that was in place was a US health and safely rule which banned high explosives from these ships, and the munitions the Lusitania was carrying (small arms ammo and shell cases, no gun cotton) were not classed as high explosive by US Customs.
> 
> It should also be noted that what caused the public outrage was not that the U-boat had sunk the Lusitania as such, but that she had fired the torpedo *without warning *.
> ...



Torpedoing without warning have been introduced due to the presence of concealed batteries to sink said stopping U Boats. By the acts of war as laid down in Hague, any war combat service had to be identifyable, AMC were not. Admiralty ordered merchants to try to ram surfaced boats rather than stopping and this alone violated laws and in turn made merchants a legitimate target for the U Boat. It cannot be denied by any side that had U20 surfaced and ordered LUSITANIA to stop for cargo investigation- and had LUSITANIA conformed to U20 and not to Admiralty orders, which required her to ram the U Boat, then the presence of ammunition on board would have been enough to legitimately sink her.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 21, 2013)

delcyros said:


> It cannot be denied by any side that had U20 surfaced and ordered LUSITANIA to stop for cargo investigation- and had LUSITANIA conformed to U20 and not to Admiralty orders, which required her to ram the U Boat, then the presence of ammunition on board would have been enough to legitimately sink her.


You are missing the point.
The U-20 committed a war crime not by sinking her, but by firing on her *without warning*
The problem for the U-boat was the rules were formed before submarines entered service, and it was assumed that any warship would be able to signal the merchant ship before combat took place.
It should also be noted that arming merchant ships was normal practice before the late 19th and 20th centuries and didn't alter the rules for warning merchant ships before firing on them.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 21, 2013)

The Lusitania was NOT flying colors in accord with the Cruiser Rules...the Lusitania was in waters of a Declared War Zone, published and declared by Imperial Germany (Including active warnings published in the United States) well before U-20 sank her.

Lusitania's Captain did not acknowledge the Royal Navy's radio contact requesting her location so they could attach an escort.

There were MANY contributing factors involved, that led to the disaster...the U-Boat skipper fired a single torpedo instead of a spread, he was not a rotton bastard "war criminal" as some would like to believe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Oct 21, 2013)

Kinda seems to me that if a ship has naval guns for defense (normal practice or not) and is under orders to ram a surfaced uboat (a warship) it is in effect a warship, regardless of any legalistic semantics. If you pull a gun on me I'm not gonna ask to see if you have a legal permit for it (I may, however, wet my pants!)


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 21, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The Lusitania was NOT flying colors in accord with the Cruiser Rules...the Lusitania was in waters of a Declared War Zone, published and declared by Imperial Germany (Including active warnings published in the United States) well before U-20 sank her.
> 
> Lusitania's Captain did not acknowledge the Royal Navy's radio contact requesting her location so they could attach an escort.
> 
> There were MANY contributing factors involved, that led to the disaster...the U-Boat skipper fired a single torpedo instead of a spread, he was not a rotton bastard "war criminal" as some would like to believe.



I will call a spade, a spade.
Our cousins from the Empire have had a long and fairly well documented history of deception. In my opinion, this was one of their best. You must remember the place and time.
If there was to be an incident to draw the untapped manpower of the U.S. into the "Great War", what better than the "Blood-thirsty Hun's" dastardly U-boats. It is well documented that the so-called medals that celebrated the sinking of the Lusitania were in fact, a production of the British. To load a passenger ship with munitions was a violation of the agreed upon "rules" anyways. I firmly believe that the decision was made, in light of the extreme amount of casualties incurred already, to incite the Americans with the reality of dead women and children. 
As I have said, you must remember the time and the place. It is regrettable, and unfortunate, and in modern eyes, unforgivable. Perhaps in the eyes of those back then, also unforgivable. 
But it happened.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 21, 2013)

I agree...and to top that off, submarines were looked upon as a dasterdly act of cowardice at that point in military history.

The sentiment was driven by the fact that submarines lurking beneath the waves honestly scared the s**t out of people...


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 22, 2013)

From what I understand, Schwieger tracked her down for just under an hour. He picked her up in the conning tower in his binoculars. She was going North, but vertical to him. He didn't know her identity, but he knew she was a big passenger steamer. He dove to 11 meters, and shoved off at his top speed, 9 knots. When she steadied to 18 knots and turned East, he got his starboard shot. It was a small window of opportunity. He either fired, or she was gone.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 22, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The Lusitania was NOT flying colors in accord with the Cruiser Rules...


She was an unarmed passenger liner , she was flying the colours of the British merchant navy, the correct colours for this type of ship.



> the Lusitania was in waters of a Declared War Zone, published and declared by Imperial Germany (Including active warnings published in the United States) well before U-20 sank her.


Irrelevent, that fact still didn't give the submarine the right to fire on the ship without warning.



> .the U-Boat skipper fired a single torpedo instead of a spread, he was not a rotton bastard "war criminal" as some would like to believe.


He had already fired upon a hospital ship, so he was a war criminal even before he sank the Lusitania.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 22, 2013)

meatloaf109 said:


> I will call a spade, a spade.


I find that helps, if you call a spade a fork it only leads to confusion 


> Our cousins from the Empire have had a long and fairly well documented history of deception. In my opinion, this was one of their best. You must remember the place and time.


Your 'opinion', so you don't have any facts to back it up then. 


> It is well documented that the so-called medals that celebrated the sinking of the Lusitania were in fact, a production of the British.


It isn't well documented because the Germans did make a medal for the sinking of the Lusitania. The British realising this was a massive PR 'own goal' by the Germans minted their own version.
http://archive.iwm.org.uk/upload/package/23/lusitan/index.htm



> To load a passenger ship with munitions was a violation of the agreed upon "rules" anyways.


No, it wasn't !



> I firmly believe that the decision was made, in light of the extreme amount of casualties incurred already, to incite the Americans with the reality of dead women and children..


Passengers ship were carrying non-explosive munitions and war material from the first days of the war


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 22, 2013)

I love the easy way "war criminal" is tossed about...

Let's look a bit closer at the facts here:
The North Sea and waters around the British Isles were a declared War Zone, all ships would be fired upon without notice unless the ships were identified as neutral, thus indicating there was not unrestricted submarine warfare. The submariners were adhering to the Cruiser Rules as best as possible.

The Lusitania was NOT flying ANY colors and the temporary Captain refused to accept escort as they neared Liverpool. There is some debate as to why, but all of that can bee seen as conjecture.

Regarding the RMS Hesperian, it was indeed a passenger ship pressed into service. The U-20 in this case, fired a single torpedo into her bow (starboard side) as she left Liverpool. This also happened to be in those very same waters as defined as a "War Zone". The attack was commenced at 8:30 in the evening on 4 September 1915, making identification difficult. In a war zone, a fast moving ship, zig-zagging will become a target.

During the North Atlantic operations in WWII, how many ships were engaged at night? How would a sub commander tell the difference between an oil tanker and a passenger ship...they didn't, everything in their periscope was a target.

How about all the passenger ships lost in WWII? Over 144 were lost and in a few cases, with a great loss of life:
1940, Lancastria - over 3,000 lives lost
1941, Conte Rosso - 1,212 lives lost
1942, Laconia - 1,649 lives lost
1943, Tatuta Maru - 1,400 lives lost
1945, Steuben - 3,608 lives lost
1945, Cap Arcona - 5,000 lives lost
1945, Wilhelm Gustloff - 9,400 lives lost
1945, Awa Maru - 2,003 lives lost

Shall we add those to the "war crimes" list also?


----------



## The Basket (Oct 22, 2013)

Sinking hospital ship is war crime if deliberate. 
Doentiz at Nuremberg was down for war crimes for unrestricted submarine warfare. Until Nimitz said he did same.
The Athenia is another case where a U-Boat sank a vessel and all sorts of crazy conspiracies were formed. Until the fact came out it was sank by a U-Boat. I find it bizarre that the Lusitania was everyones fault except the torpedo.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 23, 2013)

redcoat said:


> She was an unarmed passenger liner, she was flying the colours of the British merchant navy, the correct colours for this type of ship.


That’s why they fired on her, Redcoat. They gave notice of those intentions, months before, as well as in the newspapers, a week before, right next to her ad. Between the time she set sail and the time she was torpedoed, 23 other merchant vessels had been torpedoed, just along her general route. The U-20 got at least two of those, the Harrison liners, the Candidate and the Centurion, neither of which having come with a warning, nor, for that matter, any loss of life. Anybody who could add two and two together could see this one coming. A big target like that; in those infested waters? When Schwieger first caught sight of her, he actually thought he was seeing two vessels, two destroyers. To tell you the truth, I don’t know how she made it that far. I really don't.


----------



## bbear (Oct 23, 2013)

Germany had already breached the Hague conventions by ignoring Belgian neutrality. Once that act is committed the Hague conventions no longer apply - including the cruiser rules. There is either an agreement between nations or there is not. Picking and choosing which bits of a broken agreement you will apply and which you will not is obfuscation - both sides made that pretension thereafter until 1918 over the use of gas, bombing from balloons etc. But the fundamental act was Germany throwing over the world order in pursuit of national goals and setting in motion a war on an industrial scale. 

But Germany had not grossly offended US sensibilities. Until the Lusitania. 

For Great Britain to make a big fuss about it (feigning shock, outrage etc) is perfectly legitimate. To give Germany the 'last chance' to come back within the Hague conventions by means of a court martial of the U boat captain is an obvious ploy, but legitimate. For Germany to muddy the waters about prior warning and flags etc and pretend that 'she had no choice' because of the nature of a U boat is legitimate (though ridicululous - U boats have no opinons and no 'nature', machines never do). 

Germany chose the rules - hard ball. Legitimacy was a matter of force and guile not law after that. That's the measure of the German transgression. 

And yes the conventions by and large consolidated the top nations at the top, and yes German ambitions to co-equal world status were understandable, and yes in the fetid atmosphere of 1914 if France had mobilised sooner she would have violated Belgian neutrality first - at least had plans to do so.

It doesn't change the fundamental - Germany of choice broke her word and the peace in oder to better pursue a national goal by force. The Lusitania was just a reprise in case the world didn't get it the first time.

But if the positions had been reversed the British, French or other power would have done pretty much the same. It was the end of Imperial Europe - the Hague conventions and other precautions against war could not contain the realpolitik. 

I think the war was nominally avoidable but in human terms tragically inevitable. Over identifying war criminals or gulity nations is unhelpful to preventing recurrence.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 23, 2013)

As usual, Germany was the only country that set the motion for war...


----------



## redcoat (Oct 23, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> That’s why they fired on her, Redcoat. They gave notice of those intentions, months before, as well as in the newspapers, a week before, right next to her ad. Between the time she set sail and the time she was torpedoed, 23 other merchant vessels had been torpedoed, just along her general route. The U-20 got at least two of those, the Harrison liners, the Candidate and the Centurion, neither of which having come with a warning, nor, for that matter, any loss of life. Anybody who could add two and two together could see this one coming. A big target like that; in those infested waters? When Schwieger first caught sight of her, he actually thought he was seeing two vessels, two destroyers. To tell you the truth, I don’t know how she made it that far. I really don't.


Warning that you are going to commit a war crime, doesn't make it any less of a war crime.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 23, 2013)

bbear said:


> Germany had already breached the Hague conventions by ignoring Belgian neutrality. Once that act is committed the Hague conventions no longer apply - including the cruiser rules.


There are no provisions in the Hague conventions about attacking neutral nations.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 23, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As usual, Germany was the only country that set the motion for war...


Austro-Hungary deserves the major credit for WW1


----------



## bbear (Oct 23, 2013)

I am misunderstood again. I must be a really bad writer. 

Consider accepting/conceding that the Lusitania event (and breach of Belgian neutrality... ) was a German 'first move' in breach of the convention and that the high command/political decision to use U boats that way was in first appearance voluntary. I think then we can more clearly argue against specific German culpability. I am advancing an argument of 'over determination' in the set up of Europe at that time. Someone was going to make the first move(s). There is a responsibility, but not a guilt in the singular criminal sense. I hope that makes sense now.

I was trying to sweep away the specific claims and counterclaims that were made in 1915, which I think of as posturing, bluster and bluff, and instead take a broader view. 

I'd be glad of any reasonable statement you may have on political agency in Europe priior to WW1. Though British I'm not a fan of the Empire. The Empire stunk. 

Alternatively you can just say 'no bbear' - that shuts me up and i go and get my coat.


----------



## bbear (Oct 23, 2013)

redcoat said:


> There are no provisions in the Hague conventions about attacking neutral nations.



1907 part 5 "CHAPTER I The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers Article 1. The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable"

?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 23, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Austro-Hungary deserves the major credit for WW1



As does Germany, England, France, Russia and Serbia...


----------



## Readie (Oct 23, 2013)

A lot of talk about 'war crimes'.

The global community frowned on the RN's blockade of Germany and the attempt to starve all Germans into submission.

Blockade of Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this a 'war crime' too.


A lot of Europe was in a world of **** by 1915 and anything went..... anything.

Such is war and you cannot say that in WW1 any combatant nation was more noble than the others. Individuals may be, but not countries.

Just my thoughts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 23, 2013)

bbear said:


> 1907 part 5 "CHAPTER I The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers Article 1. The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable"
> 
> ?


Judging by your three posts to this point I think you have the best handle on this.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Warning that you are going to commit a war crime, doesn't make it any less of a war crime.


Sorta like shooting down Sea Rescue aircraft that are painted white with red crosses on thier wings/fuselages?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 23, 2013)

Readie said:


> A lot of talk about 'war crimes'.
> 
> The global community frowned on the RN's blockade of Germany and the attempt to starve all Germans into submission.
> 
> ...



A lot of things that we consider criminal today, were the norm for combat then...


----------



## Readie (Oct 23, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> A lot of things that we consider criminal today, were the norm for combat then...



Its dangerous to apply 2013 morals to a situation nearly 100 years ago.

If there are any 'criminals' then I would point the figure at the generals that allowed the loss of 20,000 men a day.

But, that's another subject.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 23, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Austro-Hungary deserves the major credit for WW1


Wrong, much of the blame lies with France and Russia and then Germany. The Austro-Hungarians were attacked, their next king was killed, what were they supposed to do. Their mistake was that they were not smart in diplomacy, allowing the other countries to use their misfortune to start a big war.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2013)

The Basket said:


> Sinking hospital ship is war crime if deliberate.


The RMS Hesperian was actually not a Hospital Ship...it carried cargo, some passengers and convolescent Canadian soldiers on it's way to North America

There were 23 Hospital Ships sunk during WWI. Most struck mines, some were torpedoed and a few ran aground. The one exception to the list is the German Hospital Ship HS Tabora, it was sunk by shellfire from the HMS Vengeance and the HMS Challenger.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 23, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Sorta like shooting down Sea Rescue aircraft that are painted white with red crosses on thier wings/fuselages?


The war crime in this case was the painting of red crosses on to search and rescue aircraft.
Under the Geneava Convention only aircraft involved solely in the transport of the sick and wounded were allowed the protection of these markings, and even these aircraft were not allowed to fly near the combat zone without the express permission of all combatants


----------



## redcoat (Oct 23, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The RMS Hesperian was actually not a Hospital Ship...it carried cargo, some passengers and convolescent Canadian soldiers on it's way to North America


The hospital ship deliberately fired on by the U-20 was the HMHS Asturias.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 23, 2013)

Marcel said:


> Wrong,


They wanted a war, they got a war, just not the one they wanted.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 23, 2013)

bbear said:


> 1907 part 5 "CHAPTER I The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers Article 1. The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable"
> 
> ?


I stand corrected.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2013)

HMHS Asturias was sunk by UC-66, a mine-laying submarine, on 20 March 1917, off Start point.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 23, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> HMHS Asturias was sunk by UC-66, a mine-laying submarine, on 20 March 1917, off Start point.


Indeed, fortunately the torpedo fired at this ship by the U-20 missed.
However, as you point out the torpedoes later fired by the UC-66 did hit the ship.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2013)

redcoat said:


> The war crime in this case was the painting of red crosses on to search and rescue aircraft.
> Under the Geneava Convention only aircraft involved solely in the transport of the sick and wounded were allowed the protection of these markings, and even these aircraft were not allowed to fly near the combat zone without the express permission of all combatants


I see you accidently missed the war crime committed by the battleship Vengeance and the cruiser Challenger...

These initially were unarmed aircraft rendering aid to all flyers downed in the channel. When they started coming under attack, they armed themselves but it got to the point where they no longer conducted rescue missions under the original Sea Rescue operations. The excuse for attacking them made by Churchill was extremely thin, and many RAF pilots were saved because of the Luftwaffe rescue operations, as the British plan was sadly lacking at the start of the war.

An unarmed aircraft clearly marked with red crosses is unmistakable internationally and using your logic, would certainly constitue a "war crime" against whomever shot the aircraft down.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Indeed, fortunately the torpedo fired at this ship by the U-20 missed.


Impossible...the U-20 that sank the Lusitania and the RMS Hesperian ran aground on 4 November 1916 and was destroyed by her crew to avoid being captured.

Besides, emphatically stating that the U-20 sank this or that and then follow up with "oh, it fired but missed" is doing nothing for your point...


----------



## redcoat (Oct 23, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> I see you accidently missed the war crime committed by the battleship Vengeance and the cruiser Challenger...


I didn't miss it  I've never argued the British/Allies didn't commit *any* war crimes 



> These initially were unarmed aircraft rendering aid to all flyers downed in the channel. When they started coming under attack, they armed themselves but it got to the point where they no longer conducted rescue missions under the original Sea Rescue operations. The excuse for attacking them made by Churchill was extremely thin, and many RAF pilots were saved because of the Luftwaffe rescue operations, as the British plan was sadly lacking at the start of the war.


Churchill wasn't behind the orders to shoot down these aircraft, it was Dowding.
The luftwaffe was rescuing healthy aircrew from the sea, aircrew if rescued could be flying against Britain within hours of rescue



> An unarmed aircraft clearly marked with red crosses is unmistakable internationally and using your logic, would certainly constitue a "war crime" against whomever shot the aircraft down.


No. The Luftwaffe was using these markings illegally, so under the terms of the treaty the British were within their rights to take action against these aircraft.



> Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 27 July 1929.
> 
> Art. 18. Aircraft used as means of medical transport shall enjoy the protection of the Convention during the period in which they are reserved exclusively for the evacuation of wounded and sick and the transport of medical personnel and material.
> They shall be painted white and shall bear, clearly marked, the distinctive emblem prescribed in Article 19 [ Link ] , side by side with their national colours, on their lower and upper surfaces.
> ...


----------



## redcoat (Oct 23, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Impossible...the U-20 that sank the Lusitania and the RMS Hesperian ran aground on 4 November 1916 and was destroyed by her crew to avoid being captured.
> 
> Besides, emphatically stating that the U-20 sank this or that and then follow up with "oh, it fired but missed" is doing nothing for your point...


I have not made any reference to the RMS Hesperian in any of my posts.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 23, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Warning that you are going to commit a war crime, doesn't make it any less of a war crime.


That statement assumes the fact this was a war crime. I don't know that trying to stop a vessel this size that was going by this sub at twice the sub's top speed and about to be out of position for a shot within a matter of seconds was a war crime. This from Schwieger’s log on what a 1-ton torpedo striking a 7/8ths-inch steel hull did to this mammoth vessel...

“...shot hits starboard side right behind bridge. An unusually heavy detonation follows with a very strong explosion cloud (high in the air over the smokestack). Added to the explosion of the torpedo there must have been a second explosion (boiler, coal, powder). The superstructure over point struck and the high bridge are rent asunder and fire breaks out and envelopes entire bridge. The ship stops immediately and quickly heels to starboard. At the same time diving deeper at the bow...”

There was an intervening cause for this disaster...wasn't there?


----------



## bbear (Oct 23, 2013)

On air sea rescue: Just in case anyone runs away with a strange idea about Dowding. He was firm and consistent on this point. An RAF pilot in a parachute over home soil was a potential combat re-entrant and a fair target. An LW crew member parachuting over the UK was a potential prisoner of war and sacrosanct, untouchable.

That's the rules of war i guess - about as sensible as a mad march hare.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2013)

redcoat said:


> I not made any reference to the RMS Hesperian in any of my posts.


I think we're stuck in an endless loop here...

The U-20 (_SM U-20_) that sank the Lusitania also sank the Hesparian, those were the only two passenger ships in it's prize listing.

Both were sunk during it's time of service between 1913 and 1916.

So when you keep referring to a hospital ship, that would be the only possible candidate, because the hospital ship you referred to by name was sunk after the U-20 was out of action and by an entirely different submarine.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 23, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> I think we're stuck in an endless loop here...
> 
> The U-20 (_SM U-20_) that sank the Lusitania also sank the Hesparian, those were the only two passenger ships in it's prize listing.
> 
> ...


I have not claimed the U-20 sank a hospital ship, I merely stated that the captain of the U-20 deliberately fired at a hospital ship while in the full knowledge of its status.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 23, 2013)

bbear said:


> On air sea rescue: Just in case anyone runs away with a strange idea about Dowding. He was firm and consistent on this point. An RAF pilot in a parachute over home soil was a potential combat re-entrant and a fair target. An LW crew member parachuting over the UK was a potential prisoner of war and sacrosanct, untouchable.
> 
> That's the rules of war i guess - about as sensible as a mad march hare.


To add to this, it has to be noted that in this period it was not a war crime to shoot at any pilot baling out of his aircraft.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2013)

redcoat said:


> I have not claimed the U-20 sank a hospital ship, I merely stated that the captain of the U-20 deliberately fired at a hospital ship while in the full knowledge of its status.


And we enter that loop again...

The U-20 never fired a torpedo at a hospital ship. *If* we're talking about the RMS Hesperian, it was not a recognized hospital ship. It was a passenger ship carrying cargo, passengers and recuperating Canadian soldiers blacked out, at high speed and zig-zagging as it travelled westward.

*If* we're talking about the HMHS Asturias, then the only way the U-20 could have launched a torpedo at it, is if the Asturias sailed to Holland and ran aground in front of the rusting hulk of the U-20. Even then it would have been difficult, since the U-20's crew spiked the tubes, destroying her bow, when they abandoned her.

Your turn...


----------



## redcoat (Oct 23, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> And we enter that loop again...
> 
> 
> *If* we're talking about the HMHS Asturias, then the only way the U-20 could have launched a torpedo at it, is if the Asturias sailed to Holland and ran aground in front of the rusting hulk of the U-20. Even then it would have been difficult, since the U-20's crew spiked the tubes, destroying her bow, when they abandoned her.
> ...


The U-20 fired at HMHS Asturias on the 1st February 1915.
Lusitania Controversy - Warning + Conspiracy


----------



## The Basket (Oct 23, 2013)

Firing but missing a hospital ship is still bad. And if the Royal Navy did it then that bad too.

The Lusitania was simply too fast for a ww1 U-boat and was untouchable so didnt need an escort. However if the ship was sailing slow enough and the U-boat happened to be in perfect spot...even by chance...then bang


----------



## Marcel (Oct 24, 2013)

redcoat said:


> They wanted a war, they got a war, just not the one they wanted.



That's a very simplistic view. My experience is that simplicity and history don't go well together. In fact the reason and the guild for WWI is one of the most complicated chain of events. But maybe this is not the place to discuss this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 24, 2013)

Marcel said:


> That's a very simplistic view. My experience is that simplicity and history don't go well together. In fact the reason and the guild for WWI is one of the most complicated chain of events. But maybe this is not the place to discuss this.



Agreed, and most people view it simplisticaly...


----------



## parsifal (Oct 24, 2013)

Germany was responsible for the entry of the US into the war. Period. British complicity and the sinking of the Lusiitania are both window dressings that had virtually nothing to do with Wilsons decision to ask Congress to declare war. in particular, ther was an event called the Zimmerman affair that put egg allover Imperial Germany's face and more or less guaranteed war with the US. 

American Entry into World War I, 1917

US Department Of State Archive 


American Entry into World War I, 1917

"On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson went before a joint session of Congress to request a declaration of war against Germany. Wilson cited Germany's violation of its pledge to suspend unrestricted submarine warfare in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and its attempts to entice Mexico into an alliance against the United States, as his reasons for declaring war. On April 4, 1917, the U.S. Senate voted in support of the measure to declare war on Germany. The House concurred two days later. The United States later declared war on Austria-Hungary on December 7, 1917. 

Germany's resumption of submarine attacks on passenger and merchant ships in 1917 was the primary motivation behind Wilson's decision to lead the United States into World War I. Following the sinking of an unarmed French boat, the Sussex, in the English Channel in March 1916, Wilson had threatened to sever diplomatic relations with Germany, unless the German Government refrained from attacking all passenger ships, and allowed the crews of enemy merchant vessels to escape from their ships prior to any attack. On May 4, 1916, the German Government had accepted these terms and conditions in what came to be known as the "Sussex pledge."

By January 1917, however, the situation in Germany had changed. During a wartime conference that month, representatives from the German navy convinced the military leadership and Kaiser Wilhelm II that a resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare could help defeat Great Britain within five months. German policymakers argued that they could violate the "Sussex pledge," because the United States could no longer be considered a neutral party after supplying munitions and financial assistance to the Allies. Germany also believed that the United States had jeopardized its neutrality by acquiescing to the Allied blockade of Germany".

Forget all this rubbish about who threw the first punch, who was agressor and whatever other tripe you apologists want to try and serve up. germany gave its word, broke it, tried entice Mexico into an alliance that directly thretened the continental US. What did they expect!!!! The US to just meekly lie down and accept that !!!

This is just more rubbish being served up by the descendants of two generations of a country that should be satisfied that it still exists at all. after two world wars, for which it was found directly responsible for the deaths of millions (not my words) Germans (and their lackeys) should not try and weasel their way out of their collective war guilt. 

i have no time for this.....


----------



## bbear (Oct 24, 2013)

redcoat said:


> To add to this, it has to be noted that in this period it was not a war crime to shoot at any pilot baling out of his aircraft.



i stand corrected (reminded)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 24, 2013)

Anytime someone is not simplistic, they are an apologist...

How insulting. 

I guess I am an apologist because I see the big picture on how WWI actually came to be. However I am not naive. 

If you have no time for it, then why bother posting here? I am sure there are places that suit your needs better.


----------



## Readie (Oct 24, 2013)

The greatest tragedy of WW1 is that the ordinary man was conned into believing in the righteousness of the fight.
Millions marched off to the slaughterhouse on the western front and died in their droves achieving very little.

There is no point in pointing the finger of blame nearly 100 years later, better to reflect on events, learn and hang our collective heads in remembrance.

WW1 is a stain on humanity, one amongst many but.... we have to move on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Oct 24, 2013)

> Anytime someone is not simplistic, they are an apologist.
> 
> How insulting.



I apologise if my stated opinions are insulting. 

Its insulting to people like my grandfather and my uncles who had to go to war twice to stop a tyranny, only to have that sacrifice eroded by lies and half truths. i have never comporomised on that view, never will. i try not to insult anyone aboiut my beliefs. Or by the way i express them. i try hard to avoid the moral argument, I try to stick to the known facts, the judgements of the official enquiries and trials that followed both wars. If that is insulting to those that dont want to accept those sacrifices, beliefs and historical facts, then so be it. Im not going to back off, because there are millions of silent voices that cry out for justice and cant speak for themselves, because they are dead. I am serious about that. 

Across the internet, you see it all the time. people attempting to rewrite history, and basically succeeding. The mentality is starting to leak through even into the serious historical analysis with people like Irving doing their bit to rewrite history. Yous can count on me to always do my bit to stand up to that. the minute we foresake or falsify the lessons of history, is the minute we start down the pathway to making the same mistakes allover again. That is always a tragedy for everyone, not just "my people" 



> If you have no time for it, then why bother posting here? I am sure there are places that suit your needs better



You misunderstand me. I have no time for the argument, because it is a false argument. Doesnt mean I am not willing to get in there and fight it. The argument proffered by my opponents just makes me want to get in their and fight for my forefathers name, and ensure the truth gets told with equal vigour to the false arguments that are pedalled. Forum rules prevent me from saying it the way id really like to, but this is just as much my forum as anybody elses. im not going anywhere, and im not going to break any rules over this. You know me well enough to know that I think 



> I guess I am an apologist because I see the bug picture on how WWI actually came to bring. However I am not naive



I know that you are not naive. I think you are smart, very smart, and in most things I agree with you. I dont really see you as an apologist, but I also think you are wrong. Not everyone is as noble as you in these discussions. you and i both know that. I have a LOT of respect for what you say, but we disagree strongly on this issue. And its emotive for both of us i think. Best not to get too wrapped up in the discussion I guess.


----------



## bbear (Oct 24, 2013)

Esteemed sirs, I cant bear you top fellas falling out with each other. so here goes nothing: 

I once asked my dad why there was no red revolution in the UK after world war 1. Both my granddads returned deeply cynical and socialist/communist by turns. My dad said, "i think most people just hated the Germans".

That makes sense to me, hatred and anger are great, they make us feel strong, powerful, vindicated, a real energy boost. And, unburdened by care towards the hated others, our decisions can be greatly simplified.
Grief on the other hand is expensive, takes a long time and a lot of tears, makes one feel weak, impotent, stupid, ridiculous ashamed.
Shame is toxic, i dont think anyone can stand more than about 50 minutes a day of real shame. 
Guilt is the worst of the lot, 5 minutes a day as a personal estimate is about the limit. Only useful while learning the hardest lessons. 

No German or sympathiser is ever going to feel guilt in proportion to the hatred and anger that are understandably preferred by those so deeply hurt. Even shame is too high a ticket price in the volumes we are going to need.

Grief is the answer, grief can be shared, grief is bleak and bleak is truthful. When we get the truth - we can have the best stab at preventing recurrence. That's the job of our generation as i see it. The job in front of us. It's owing from respect. I can't put it more clearly than that.

As the chief junior 'wet' on site i thought i had the best chance of saying that. No apologies for any presumption, embarasment, teaching granny to suck eggs or what have you. If it had to be said then it's better said straight out. If not I'll answer for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Oct 24, 2013)

Parsifal, nobody is taking away anything from what your forefathers did or the cause they were fighting for.
But if we want to learn from the past, we'll have to see all sides to see the truth. It's never a simple case that one was right and the other was wrong, I wish it was that black-and-white. You also must not see many of us here as apologists (well maybe there are actually some). Nobody who is at least a little sane can deny the guilt that the germans had in both wars. The problem is that many (I'm not directing at you here) think that therefore, the other side must be blameless. For instance in this case: yes the germans violated threaties and made many of those mistakes and that was the excuse for America to go to war against them, on the other hand, the US had been supporting the alies almost from the beginning of the war. No wonder the germans didn't consider them to be neutral and it was only a matter of time the the US would enter the war. And so, all coins have two sides and it's never black-and-white.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 24, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I apologise if my stated opinions are insulting.
> 
> Its insulting to people like my grandfather and my uncles who had to go to war twice to stop a tyranny, only to have that sacrifice eroded by lies and half truths. i have never comporomised on that view, never will. i try not to insult anyone aboiut my beliefs. Or by the way i express them. i try hard to avoid the moral argument, I try to stick to the known facts, the judgements of the official enquiries and trials that followed both wars. If that is insulting to those that dont want to accept those sacrifices, beliefs and historical facts, then so be it. Im not going to back off, because there are millions of silent voices that cry out for justice and cant speak for themselves, because they are dead. I am serious about that.
> 
> ...



And you opinion and belief that Germany is the sole reason for WW1 is wrong and simplistic. That is 100% fact!

Your views that Germans today (that were born 70 years after the war ended, whose parents were not born either until the war was over) should be greatful to have a nation, should have to feel blame and shame is downright insulting. It is insulting to me and my family and millions of other people.

Using your logic, you can say the same for the USA and England, because of the attrocities and crimes they have commited throughout history to indigenous populations. I guess that makes you and others apologist huh?

You can't have your cake and eat it to...

Now this discussion is about the Lusitania, not about who started WW1 or your belief that Germans are apologist, evil and ungreatful. Get back on topic!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 24, 2013)

And it comes back to the captain of the U-20 being accused of "war crimes" for doing something that happened before and much afterwards. He was not alone, far from it. Whether it was sinking a passenger liner, shooting a pilot in a parachute or bombing a city...these are small instances of a much broader picture. They post rules and conventions regarding warfare, but warfare in itself is dehumanizing and brings out the worst in humanity.

To single out and villify a single person is to turn a blind eye to the bigger picture that lead to the event(s) and it does no good in this day and age to argue and "take sides" over it.

To do so, is simply falling into the same trap that caught so many over 100 years ago...


----------



## parsifal (Oct 24, 2013)

> Now this discussion is about the Lusitania, not about who started WW1 or your belief that Germans are apologist, evil and ungreatful. Get back on topic



The point of my original post was context. lusitania was sunk in 1915. it had effect on public opinion, but virtually no effect on the thinking of the US Government. it set the scene for subsequent events, but not much else.

Throughout 1915 and much of 1916, US public opinion remained deeply divided. Irish Americans who dominated the Democratic Party, wanted to nothing that might be of assistance to the British, particulalry after the easter uprising. German Americans wanted continued neutrality, but ther was virtually no support for joining or assisting the Germans, even in this minority. The anglo protestant majority throughout 1916 was largely pacifist and favoured a pacifist, Wilsonian style peace deal. German behaviour completely soured that ambivalence in American society. The stories about German attrocities in Belgium outraged many people, but it was the U-Boats and the dealings with the Mexicans that goaded Wilson to make his case for war. 

A far more significant event than the Lusitania was the sinking of the french Steamer Sussex in 1916. That led to US demands for the abandonment of the unrestricted U-Boat attacks on neutral shipping. Foolishly the Germans agreed, only to reverse the decision in 1917, in full knowledge that it was likley to lead to war with the US. In a further act of rash behaviour they made approaches to an old enemy of the US, suggesting and alliance and a German finaced invasion of the US. 

Therein lies your causes for the US entry to the war. How is that relevant to the Lusitania. Just that the Lusitania, or British complicity or any other excuse about why the US went to war are shallow and basically meaningless. They (the Americans) went to war for two reasons, and neither was directly or closely related to the Lusitania. They are closely related to German aggression and modes of warfare


----------



## Marcel (Oct 24, 2013)

I think the cause was much earlier. The Americans were apalled by the German behaviour in Belgium in 1914. And it's true that the Germans behaved unnecessary cruel there. It was that early that the Americans bound themselves to the allies already, although I doubt they fully realised it at the time.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 24, 2013)

Marcel said:


> That's a very simplistic view.


No it isn't. I didn't claim that they were totally to blame, just that it was their desire to punish the Serbian nation by military action, even though they knew it would probably lead to a wider conflict, which lead directly to WW1.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 24, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> And it comes back to the captain of the U-20 being accused of "war crimes" for doing something that happened before and much afterwards. [...] To single out and villify a single person is to turn a blind eye to the bigger picture that lead to the event(s) and it does no good in this day and age to argue and "take sides" over it.


I agree. That said, let's all get over this silly notion we hang this disaster on Schwieger. We don't, for the simple reason, it was unforeseeable. To wit, as I said, just a few days earlier, he stops two merchant vessels, with the same class of torpedo, resulting in no loss of life. Here, he sights the Lusitania, and initially thinks she's two ships, side-by-side, she's that big. He puts a single torpedo into her, and all hell breaks loose. He didn't know. He was just trying to stop her. He was more surprised than anybody.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 24, 2013)

Marcel said:


> I think the cause was much earlier. The Americans were apalled by the German behaviour in Belgium in 1914. And it's true that the Germans behaved unnecessary cruel there. It was that early that the Americans bound themselves to the allies already, although I doubt they fully realised it at the time.



Nope, not correct.At least in the context of the Administration to make a case for a declaration of war with Germany. The Belgian attrocities certainly moved public opinion, as did the Lusitania episode, but America remained resolutely neutral through to the end of 1916. There were many discussion in Congress and in various other places but they remained largely unmoved 

Speech to Congress, 2 April 1917 (in two parts)
Part I 

"I have called the Congress into extraordinary session because there are serious, very serious, choices of policy to be made, and made immediately, which it was neither right nor constitutionally permissible that I should assume the responsibility of making.

On the third of February last I officially laid before you the extraordinary announcement of the Imperial German Government that on and after the first day of February it was its purpose to put aside all restraints of law or of humanity and use its submarines to sink every vessel that sought to approach either the ports of Great Britain and Ireland or the western coasts of Europe or any of the ports controlled by the enemies of Germany within the Mediterranean.

That had seemed to be the object of the German submarine warfare earlier in the war, but since April of last year the Imperial Government had somewhat restrained the commanders of its undersea craft in conformity with its promise then given to us that passenger boats should not be sunk and that due warning would be given to all other vessels which its submarines might seek to destroy, when no resistance was offered or escape attempted, and care taken that their crews were given at least a fair chance to save their lives in their open boats.

The precautions taken were meagre and haphazard enough, as was proved in distressing instance after instance in the progress of the cruel and unmanly business, but a certain degree of restraint was observed. The new policy has swept every restriction aside. Vessels of every kind, whatever their flag, their character, their cargo, their destination, their errand, have been ruthlessly sent to the bottom without warning and without thought of help or mercy for those on board, the vessels of friendly neutrals along with those of belligerents.

Even hospital ships and ships carrying relief to the sorely bereaved and stricken people of Belgium, though the latter were provided with safe conduct through the proscribed areas by the German Government itself and were distinguished by unmistakable marks of identity, have been sunk with the same reckless lack of compassion or of principle.

I was for a little while unable to believe that such things would in fact be done by any government that had hitherto subscribed to the humane practices of civilized nations. International law had its origin in the attempt to set up some law which would be respected and observed upon the seas, where no nation had right of dominion and where lay the free highways of the world.

This minimum of right the German Government has swept aside under the plea of retaliation and necessity and because it had no weapons which it could use at sea except these which it is impossible to employ as it is employing them without throwing to the winds all scruples of humanity or of respect for the understandings that were supposed to underlie the intercourse of the world.

I am not now thinking of the loss of property involved, immense and serious as that is, but only of the wanton and wholesale destruction of the lives of non-combatants, men, women, and children, engaged in pursuits which have always, even in the darkest periods of modern history, been deemed innocent and legitimate. Property can be paid for; the lives of peaceful and innocent people cannot be. The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind.

It is a war against all nations. American ships have been sunk, American lives taken, in ways which it has stirred us very deeply to learn of, but the ships and people of other neutral and friendly nations have been sunk and overwhelmed in the waters in the same way. There has been no discrimination.

The challenge is to all mankind. Each nation must decide for itself how it will meet it. The choice we make for ourselves must be made with a moderation of counsel and a temperateness for judgement befitting our character and our motives as a nation. We must put excited feeling away. Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of right, of human right, of which we are only a single champion.

When I addressed the Congress on the twenty-sixth of February last I thought that it would suffice to assert our neutral rights with arms, our right to use the seas against unlawful interference, our right to keep our people safe against unlawful violence.

But armed neutrality, it now appears, is impracticable. Because submarines are in effect outlaws when used as the German submarines have been used against merchant shipping, it is impossible to defend ships against their attacks as the law of nations has assumed that merchantmen would defend themselves against privateers or cruisers, visible craft giving chase upon the open sea. It is common prudence in such circumstances, grim necessity indeed, to endeavour to destroy them before they have shown their own intention.

They must be dealt with upon sight, if dealt with at all. The German Government denies the right of neutrals to use arms at all within the areas of the sea which it has proscribed, even in the defence of rights which no modern publicist has ever before questioned their right to defend.

The intimation is conveyed that the armed guards which we have placed on our merchant ships will be treated as beyond the pale of law and subject to be dealt with as pirates would be. Armed neutrality is ineffectual enough at best; in such circumstances and in the face of such pretensions it is worse than ineffectual: it is likely only to produce what it was meant to prevent; it is practically certain to draw us into the war without either the rights or the effectiveness of belligerents".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Oct 24, 2013)

Part II of president Wilsons address to Congress

"There is one choice we cannot make, we are incapable of making: we will not choose the path of submission and suffer the most sacred rights of our Nation and our people to be ignored or violated. The wrongs against which we now array ourselves are no common wrongs; they cut to the very roots of human life.

With a profound sense of the solemn and even tragical character of the step I am taking and of the grave responsibilities which it involves, but in unhesitating obedience to what I deem my constitutional duty, I advise that the Congress declare the recent course of the Imperial German Government to be in fact nothing less than war against the government and people of the United States; that it formally accept the status of belligerent which has thus been thrust upon it; and that it take immediate steps not only to put the country in a more thorough state of defence but also to exert all its power and employ all its resources to bring the Government of the German Empire to terms and end the war.

What this will involve is clear. It will involve the utmost practicable cooperation in counsel and action with the governments now at war with Germany, and, as incident to that, the extension to those governments of the most liberal financial credits, in order that our resources may so far as possible be added to theirs.

It will involve the organization and mobilization of all the material resources of the country to supply the materials of war and serve the incidental needs of the Nation in the most abundant and yet the most economical and efficient way possible. It will involve the immediate full equipment of the navy in all respects but particularly in supplying it with the best means of dealing with the enemy's submarines.

It will involve the immediate addition to the armed forces of the United States already provided for by law in case of war at least five hundred thousand men, who should, in my, opinion, be chosen upon the principle of universal liability to service, and also the authorization of subsequent additional increments of equal force so soon as they may be needed and can be handled in training.

It will involve also, of course, the granting of adequate credits to the Government, sustained, I hope, so far as they can equitably be sustained by the present generation, by well conceived taxation.

While we do these things, these deeply momentous things, let us be very clear, and make very clear to all the world what our motives and our objectives are. My own thought has not been driven from its habitual and normal course by the unhappy events of the last two months, and I do not believe that the thought of the Nation has been altered or clouded by them.

I have exactly the same things in mind now that I had in mind when I addressed the Senate on the twenty-second of January last; the same that I had in mind when I addressed the Congress on the third of February and on the twenty-sixth of February.

Our object now, as then, is to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish and autocratic power and to set up amongst the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concert of purpose and of action as will henceforth insure the observance of those principles.

Neutrality is no longer feasible or desirable where the peace of the world is involved and the freedom of its people, and the menace to that peace and freedom lies in the existence of autocratic governments backed by organized force which is controlled wholly by their will, not by the will of their people.

We have seen the last of neutrality in such circumstances. We are at the beginning of an age in which it will be insisted that the same standards of conduct and of responsibility for wrong done shall be observed among nations and their governments that are observed among the individual citizens of civilized states.

We have no quarrel with the German people. We have no feeling towards them but one of sympathy and friendship. It was not upon their impulse that their government acted in entering this war. It was not with their previous knowledge or approval.

It was a war determined upon as wars used to be determined upon in the old, unhappy days when peoples were nowhere consulted by their rules and wars were provoked and waged in the interest of dynasties or of little groups of ambitious men who were accustomed to use their fellow men as pawns and tools.

We are accepting this challenge of hostile purpose because we know that in such a Government, following such methods, we can never have a friend; and that in the presence of its organized power, always lying in wait to accomplish we know not what purpose, there can be no assured security for the democratic Governments of the world.

We are now about to accept gauge of battle with this natural foe to liberty and shall, if necessary, spend the whole force of the nation to check and nullify its pretensions and its power. We are glad, now that we see the facts with no veil of false pretence about them, to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included: for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience.

The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them.

Just because we fight without rancour and without selfish object, seeking nothing for ourselves but what we shall wish to share with all free peoples, we shall, I feel confident, conduct our operations as belligerents without passion and ourselves observe with proud punctilio the principles of right and of fair play we profess to be fighting for.

I have said nothing of the Governments allied with the Imperial Government of Germany because they have not made war upon us or challenged us to defend our right and our honour. The Austro-Hungarian Government has, indeed, avowed its unqualified endorsement and acceptance of the reckless and lawless submarine warfare adopted now without disguise by the Imperial German Government, and it has therefore not been possible for this Government to receive Count Tarnowski, the Ambassador recently accredited to this Government by the Imperial and Royal Government of Austria-Hungary; but that Government has not actually engaged in warfare against citizens of the Unites States on the seas, and I take the liberty, for the present at least, of postponing a discussion of our relations with the authorities at Vienna. We enter this war only where we are clearly forced into it because there are not other means of defending our rights.

It will be all the easier for us to conduct ourselves as belligerents in a high spirit of right and fairness because we act without animus, not in enmity towards a people or with the desire to bring any injury or disadvantage upon them, but only in armed opposition to an irresponsible government which has thrown aside all considerations of humanity and of right and is running amuck.

We are, let me say again, the sincerer friends of the German people, and shall desire nothing so much as the early reestablishment of intimate relations of mutual advantage between us - however hard it may be for them, for the time being, to believe that this is spoken from our hearts. We have borne with their present Government through all these bitter months because of that friendship - exercising a patience and forbearance which would otherwise have been impossible.

We shall, happily, still have an opportunity to prove that friendship in our daily attitude and actions towards the millions of men and women of German birth and native sympathy who live amongst us and share our life, and we shall be proud to prove it towards all who are in fact loyal to their neighbours and to the Government in the hour of test.

They are, most of them, as true and loyal Americans as if they had never known any other fealty or allegiance. They will be prompt to stand with us in rebuking and restraining the few who may be of a different mind and purpose. If there should be disloyalty, it will be dealt with with a firm hand of stern repression; but, if it lifts its head at all, it will lift it only here and there and without countenance except from a lawless and malignant few.

It is a distressing and oppressive duty, Gentlemen of the Congress, which I have performed in thus addressing you. There are, it may be, many months of fiery trial and sacrifice ahead of us. It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war, into the most terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilization itself seeming to be in the balance.

But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts - for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free".

Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. V, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923


----------



## parsifal (Oct 24, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> And it comes back to the captain of the U-20 being accused of "war crimes" for doing something that happened before and much afterwards. He was not alone, far from it. Whether it was sinking a passenger liner, shooting a pilot in a parachute or bombing a city...these are small instances of a much broader picture. They post rules and conventions regarding warfare, but warfare in itself is dehumanizing and brings out the worst in humanity.
> 
> To single out and villify a single person is to turn a blind eye to the bigger picture that lead to the event(s) and it does no good in this day and age to argue and "take sides" over it.
> 
> To do so, is simply falling into the same trap that caught so many over 100 years ago...



In the context of the values and expectations that were being applied in 1915, he was guilty of a war crime. The very notioon of any attack on merchant shipping, let alone unrestricted attacks, was considered a crime on the high seas, akin to piracy at the time.

Germany chose to advance the idea of submarine attacks on shipping as a military response to the blockades being imposed on it. as a means of warfare, it was highly successful. as a moral and politcal judgement it was a disaster and considered at the time by most nations as a crime. Military commanders must conduct their activities in accordance with the norms and "rules of war" (not sure if they so clear however), and as attacks on merchant shipping were seen by many as illegal, the commander of the U-Boat that attacked the Lusitania was guilty at that time of a war crime. 

By WWII this perception had largely disipated. When Donitz was placed on trial for conducting unrestricted submarine warfare 1939-45, he was largely spared when nimitz stated that the allies were doing exactly the same thing against the Axis for most of the war. That effectively marked the end of the artificial limits on U-Boat attacks.


----------



## DonL (Oct 24, 2013)

The Lusitania was from facts a blockade runner, that was also very clearly proclaimed from the german government to the US government.
The ship was transporting munition and other military-related facilities.

The USA and British government were highly aware of this, not for nothing there is a theory, that the british government did it on purpose to pilot the Lusitania through recognized U-Boat area.

One word to the war guilt one WWI.

There is often claimed the german government had given card blanche to the Austria-Hungary government after the assassination at Serbia.
A german historian:

Sönke Neitzel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

has done very intensive research about the summer crises 1914.

There are primary sources that Willy (not so much the german government) had done all to his power to prevent the war, he has telegraphed to Zar Nikolaus II till 29.07.1914 with the offer of extensive accommodations.

And to be specific:

1. Assassination at Serbia
2. Sharp reactions from Austria-Hungary government
3. Support of the Austria-Hungary government from the german government (their were allies)
4. Ultimatum from Austria-Hungary government to the serbian government
5. *Same time visitaion of Raymond Poincaré at St. Petersburg and the full support of the Russian war plans*
6. 25.07.1914 Russian mobilization
7. Ultimatum of the german government to Russia to stop mobilization
8. Russian troops invaded Ostprussia at 1 August 1914. Russian troops crossed the borderline of Ostprussia at 1 August 1914.

Countdown to War at 1.08.1914

King George wires to Tsar that Germany recommended British proposals to Austria on 30 July, but that Russian mobilisation was reported during Austrian Cabinet meeting.

Russia does not reply to German ultimatum expiring at noon.

French mobilisation ordered 3.40 p.m.

Germany, having ostensibly ordered general mobilisation 5 p.m., declares war on Russia 7.10 p.m.; *makes out that Russians had crossed frontier in afternoon and begun war. (Declaration drafted before noon.)*

http://www.firstworldwar.com/onthisday/1914_08_01.htm

That was all before any invasion to Begium started and to make this clear, to my very personal opinion, the invasion to Begium was an excuse for Great Britain to declare war, to the most powerfull and sharpest competitor economy on the World trade market.

To declare the german country, people and government as tyrann at August 1914 is to me an audaciousness!


----------



## parsifal (Oct 24, 2013)

> The Lusitania was from facts a blockade runner, that was also very clearly proclaimed from the german government to the US government.
> The ship was transporting munition and other military-related facilities.
> 
> The USA and British government were highly aware of this, not for nothing there is a theory, that the british government did it on purpose to pilot the Lusitania through recognized U-Boat area.


 

No argument that the Germans were clear on what they were going to do. Im not challenging the British complicity theories. so what is essentially my answer. The British may have played the Germans, but the Germans were at war, and deserved all that was coming to them. tough luck. Blockade runners are not illegal, but there were rules for engagement for Guerre De Course which had been in place since Napoleon (and before that) that all western civilised nations had acquiesced or agreed to. To be legal, attacks against shipping had to be undertaken in a certain way. Conducted contrary to those conventions, and the attacks amounted or were considered piracy.

The Germans chose to ignore those conventions, and were widely castigated for that. not just by her enemies. nearly all of the neutrals also criticised her and considered her actions to be illegal, including the US. The Germans chose to break the rules of war, as they existed at that time, and chose to order their captains to undertake what were seen by most as criminal acts. The commanders should have refused such illegal orders, but did not. That makes them complicit and equally guilty a their masters. 

What mitigates all this is that submarines are inherently an anti shipping weapon, and the rules so strongly advocated by the allies and the neutrals were outmoded (and unworkable). Thats not the point however. The Germans should have repudiated the rules of war for attacks on shipping on the high seas before the war even broke out. Even then, I doubt they could have avoided the fallout that followed. It was the nuclear or NBC warfare of1914, and it carried the same sort of baggage as a nuclear attack of today. But they could hardly have managed this issue any worse than they did. They gave their word to a major neutral to restrict their U-Boat operations to a certain procedure, and then openly broke that agreement. They then rubbed salt into an already fatal wound in their international standing by making foolhardy and stupid advances to the Mexicans. The result from that point was never in doubt, and germany from that point until 1945 correctly branded a pariah state


----------



## DonL (Oct 24, 2013)

Oh yea the bad and even worst germans!
The people, which broke every declaration or treaty!

What about France and the Ruhr occupation and the thousands of german dead people through peacefull opposition?
A Ruhr occupasition that could be only stopped by Great Britain and the USA before France declared the whole Ruhr area to french territory. 
What about the votes at Polen 1919 from the versaille treaty?

Yes I see the german pariah state from 1914 till 1932 and your very simplified historical view of the world.

I don't fill any fuel in this discussion, this answer from you is enough to me, to estimate your view of the world and your anglo american biases.
I have a very sophisticated other opinion, but for the forum peace I will not go in any more discussion, because it is simply useless to such a revanchist bonehead.

Edit:

It is very ver very enlightening how you defend the USA panamerican neutrality zone (Atlantic) and the USA neutrality from 1939 till 19941 plus the betrayal of many german neutral ships through the US navy, and at the same time, to accuse the german government and military between 1914-18, despite many declarations and warnings to all Allied goverments inclusive USA and Great Britain about blockade runners and war shipping to Great Britain.

It shows your biases in very bright light!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 24, 2013)

Response to Parsifal...
Wilson was a great man, committed to peace at almost any cost. Witness his speech, "A man too proud to fight. A Nation too right to fight." I agree that the "Zimmerman telegram" was the straw that broke the proverbial camels back. But, aside from the epic voyage of the German submarine Deutschland, the American government was pretty much doing the "lend-lease" thing to the Allies. 
I prefer to look at things honestly, and to say that Germany was a "pariah" state from (I guess the date of the telegram, or the unrestricted U-boat offensive, not sure what you meant.) until 1945, is not correct. 
I fail to understand why the idea of mis-doings of all governments of that time offends you. No slights intended of your Grandfather's service, or your Dad's service, (my own father was a WW2 U.S.N. Veteran.), But look at history with a critical eye, there is enough blame to go around when we are talking about the cause of WW1.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 24, 2013)

Marcel said:


> I think the cause was much earlier. The Americans were apalled by the German behaviour in Belgium in 1914. And it's true that the Germans behaved unnecessary cruel there. It was that early that the Americans bound themselves to the allies already, although I doubt they fully realised it at the time.



I agree. Atleast in regards of swaying the US away from nutrality. I don't think it is what pushed them to war though. I believe as with the war itself, there was many factors.

It was only a matter of time.


----------



## DonL (Oct 24, 2013)

The Begium issue, was a direct reaction to the Russian troops, which crossed the german boderline 01.08.1914 and the full support of the french inclusive mobilization, to the russian war plans.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 24, 2013)

Everyone, get this back on topic or the thread is closed!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 24, 2013)

O.K., I'll try.
The Lusitiania was sunk by a German submarine.
Discuss.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 24, 2013)

meatloaf109 said:


> O.K., I'll try.
> The Lusitiania was sunk by a German submarine.
> Discuss.



I understand trust me, but Nazi Germany and the occupation of the Rhineland, or how the evil Germans were the sole aggressors and cause of WW1, as well as war guilt children should have who were born in Germany decades after the war have nothing to do with the Lusitania.

This apologist, will refrain from saying anything else on that matter.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 24, 2013)

Yep, Me too.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 24, 2013)

meatloaf109 said:


> Response to Parsifal...
> there is enough blame to go around when we are talking about the cause of WW1.



we arent talking directly about the causes of WWI. We are talking about the significance of the Lusitania attack. The thread has waxed and waned around the importance of Lusitania in the US road to war. facts are Lusitania loss, of itself, was just a minor footnote, and of no relevancce to the causes of the war (since the war preceded it). As an element of the ongoing German u-boat campaign it played a part in the road to war for the US, but not a significant role. It was the nature and resumption of unrestricted U-boat attacks that did that, not Lusitania, not british actions, or actions by the russians or anybody else except the actions by germany concerning their conduct of the war. unless you subscribe to the crackpot ideas that the US was the agressor in its DoW. 

US reasons for the entry into the war, two years later are linked to the return to the unrestricted warfare, the attrocities in belgium (to a very minor extent), and the direct threats planned or attempted by germany vis Zimmerman.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 24, 2013)

meatloaf109 said:


> Yep, Me too.





If people want to dicuss the legality of the sinking thats fine, or if the Lusitania was the reasonfor US entry into the war, or if the Capt. was a criminal. At least it is related, but the other stuff is just an opportunity for the "apologists" and "simplistic people" to insult and detract and spread agendas whatever they may be.


----------



## DonL (Oct 24, 2013)

The Lusitania was a blockade runner. The Lusitania was under the direct command of the british Admirality and the british government was majority owner.
The Lusitania was transporting military-related facilities.
After the declaration brithish seas to operational war zones of the german goverment from 04.02.1915 the Lusitania was a legitimate goal for every german navy vessel.
This was consolidated to the proclamation to the US government from Germany.

J. Kent Layton: Lusitania. An illustrated history. Published by author, 2007


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 24, 2013)

parsifal said:


> we arent talking directly about the causes of WWI. We are talking about the significance of the Lusitania attack. The thread has waxed and waned around the importance of Lusitania in the US road to war. facts are Lusitania loss, of itself, was just a minor footnote, and of no relevancce to the causes of the war (since the war preceded it). As an element of the ongoing German u-boat campaign it played a part in the road to war for the US, but not a significant role. It was the nature and resumption of unrestricted U-boat attacks that did that, not Lusitania, not british actions, or actions by the russians or anybody else except the actions by germany concerning their conduct of the war. unless you subscribe to the crackpot ideas that the US was the agressor in its DoW.
> 
> US reasons for the entry into the war, two years later are linked to the return to the unrestricted warfare, the attrocities in belgium (to a very minor extent), and the direct threats planned or attempted by germany vis Zimmerman.


I don't even know how to respond to this.
I feel that these issues were addressed earlier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Oct 24, 2013)

It really makes me sad when a thread with a simple technical question degenerates rapidly into neo-nationalistic finger-pointing and flag-waving. I'd like to believe that the members of this fine forum - the only one in the internet I pay any attention to on a regular basis - are mature enough to avoid these "my dad can beat up your dad" "na uh" "uh huh" schoolyard exchanges. Unfortunately, it seems that my cynic nature is being reinforced on a regular basis.

I almost wish I could get angry at the perpetrators, but what would that accomplish?

Now, if you will excuse me I will step down off my soapbox and watch Robin Williams' "Toys".

Peace out (and I mean that)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 24, 2013)

silence said:


> It really makes me sad when a thread with a simple technical question degenerates rapidly into neo-nationalistic finger-pointing and flag-waving. I'd like to believe that the members of this fine forum - the only one in the internet I pay any attention to on a regular basis - are mature enough to avoid these "my dad can beat up your dad" "na uh" "uh huh" schoolyard exchanges. Unfortunately, it seems that my cynic nature is being reinforced on a regular basis.
> 
> I almost wish I could get angry at the perpetrators, but what would that accomplish?
> 
> ...



You have been here long enough to see that it is not the case. Usually it is the same detractors as well...


----------



## parsifal (Oct 24, 2013)

silence said:


> It really makes me sad when a thread with a simple technical question degenerates rapidly into neo-nationalistic finger-pointing and flag-waving. I'd like to believe that the members of this fine forum - the only one in the internet I pay any attention to on a regular basis - are mature enough to avoid these "my dad can beat up your dad" "na uh" "uh huh" schoolyard exchanges. Unfortunately, it seems that my cynic nature is being reinforced on a regular basis.
> 
> I almost wish I could get angry at the perpetrators, but what would that accomplish?
> 
> ...



Fair enough

The original opening post was



> They say it went down in like 18 minutes. Something like that. And half that time it's just sitting there with its ass-end up for its nose having been stuck in the mud in 300 foot of water. How does an 800 foot liner like that go down that decisively and dramatically? I think you all know where I'm going with this. What do you think? That must have been some torpedo


.

It was determined pretty rapidly that it was in fact a blockade runner. It was then inferred that 

a) It was a significant factor in the entry of the US to the war, and further, that it was a major cause of WWI. neither claim has nay basis in the truth

b) It was an almost deliberate loss engineereed by the British. Maybe, but I doubt it. For no other reason than it carried too high a risk to the whole ruse blowing up in the Admiralties face if the intent was found out. 

c) The Uboats were not acting illegally in sinking the Lusitania


My response to these basic points of discussion are: The Lusitania had very little to do with the US entry into the war, and nothing to do with the outbreak of the war in general The sinking of the Lusitania was part of the German U-Boat campaign, which was always viewed as military operations of questionable legality. However the resumption/commencement of the unrestricted operations was clearly in breach of the accepted rules of war as they existed at that time and also in breach of the Sussex agreement. There is nothing moral, judgemental, or apologist or any other of the attempts to derail this thread in those statements. As an aside and admittedly offtopic , the unrestricted U-Boat campaign was clearly in breach of internationally accepted rules of engagement and agreements that the germans themselves had agreed to and then broke. Therein lies your primary reason for US entry, and therein also lies one of the reasons why Germany was treated by a member of a leper colony until 1945. 

None of this sits in judgement of the germans, or anybody for that matter, however distasteful it might be to bring these issues up. They are statements of basic fact. In some form or another there is a connection to Lusitania, though some of it is a bit tenuous. we should not really dive into the causes of the war, or the war guilt, or war crimes, apologies dim wittedness or any of the other spurious things that people feel they need to contually raise in the name of "getting this thread back on topic" 9including, but not restricted to, myself). or any of that stuff. We should avoid trying to pass opinion as fact, or attempting to justify the facts by loose interpretations or rationalization of actions taken. 

I dont see how we can explore the technical aspects of the attack much further than we have unless we are going to enter the technical aspects of the U-Boat , the torpedo, the ship or the like


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 24, 2013)

Thread closed. 

I said to get it back on topic. That does not mean "I will sneak one more off topic post in". 

Thanks...



> we should not really dive into the causes of the war, or the war guilt, or war crimes, apologies dim wittedness or any of the other spurious things that people feel they need to contually raise in the name of "getting this thread back on topic"



And the reason we can't is because it always leads to BS and Insulting form one sided, simple and closed minded people with agendas from both sides of the argument. You have been here long enough to know that it always turns that, this place is like a kindergarten. It is always the same people as well who get themselves involved in it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

