Lusitania

[delcyros]

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[silence]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[redcoat]

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]

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]

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

Austro-Hungary deserves the major credit for WW1

 

[bbear]

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]

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"

?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Austro-Hungary deserves the major credit for WW1

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