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.
Lusitania
- Thread starter VBF-13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
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
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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...
The U-20 fired at HMHS Asturias on the 1st February 1915.
Lusitania Controversy - Warning + Conspiracy
Last edited:
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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
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
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
Colonel
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.....
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.....
Last edited:
bbear
Airman 1st Class
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.
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.
Last edited:
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
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.
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.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
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"
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 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
Airman 1st Class
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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!
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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...
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
Colonel
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
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #80
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.
- Status
