Winston Churchill and the Lusitania

[parsifal]

Let's just call it he got by with a little help from his friends. They'd be serving thuringers and Spaten Optimator in the London pubs if he didn't.

If that had happened, the US would be celbrating the both the Fuhrers and emperors birthday instead of Indendance day. Nobody on the allied side, least of all the Americans were able to tackle the Axis menace alone. The nation that came closest to doing that was Britain, not the US

 

[VBF-13]

If that had happened, the US would be celbrating the both the Fuhrers and emperors birthday instead of Indendance day. Nobody on the allied side, least of all the Americans were able to tackle the Axis menace alone. The nation that came closest to doing that was Britain, not the US

There's no "If" about it. The British couldn't have taken them alone. You mentioned the "Axis," so, OK, maybe they could have taken the Italians, I didn't mean to leave the Italians out. Heck, the Australians could have taken the Italians. But the Germans didn't need the Italians. But the British needed the Americans.

 

[mikewint]

In 1911, Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty, and, during the crises that followed, used every opportunity to fan the flames of war. When the final crisis came, in 1914, Churchill was all smiles and was the only cabinet member who backed war from the start. Asquith, his own Prime Minister, wrote: "Winston very bellicose and demanding immediate mobilization . . . has got all his war paint on."
Churchill was instrumental in establishing the illegal starvation blockade of Germany. The blockade depended on scattering mines, and classified as contraband food for civilians. But, throughout his career, international law and the conventions created to limit the horrors of war meant nothing to Churchill. One of the consequences of the hunger blockade was that, while it killed 750,000 German civilians by hunger and malnutrition, the youth who survived went on to become the most fanatical Nazis.
Whether Churchill actually arranged for the sinking of the Lusitania on May 7, 1915, is most likely untrue, but it is clear that he did everything possible to ensure that innocent Americans would be killed by German attempts to break the hunger blockade.
A week before the disaster, Churchill wrote to Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade that it was "most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany."
The Lusitania was a civilian passenger liner loaded with 173 tons of munitions. Earlier, Churchill had ordered the captains of merchant ships, including liners, to ram German submarines, and the Germans were aware of this. The German government even took out newspaper ads in New York warning Americans not to board the ship.
German U-boat captains were also aware of British Q-ships such as the Baralong. The Baralong, flying the American flag had sunk the German U-27 which had stopped the Nicosian, discovered munitions and mules on board, ordered the crew and passengers into lifeboats, before sinking her. 12 men survived the sinking of the U-27. The Baralong shot those in the water and a Royal Marine boarding party shot the 6-man U-27 boarding party on the Nicosian following LC Godfrey Herbret's orders "Take no prisoners"

 

[GrauGeist]

...Donitz's decision to engage in such practices again in WWII got him into trouble, particulalry when he ordered in 1941 that not only would survivors not be saved, they should also be machine gunned by the Uboats, something that several US skippers are also known to have done in the pacific...

My Uncle served in the PTO for the duration aboard submarines (Grayling SS-209, Cavalla SS-244). There was one instance where a sister sub tried to rescue downed Japanese aviators while they were on picket, (watching out for B-29 crews in distress) and they succeeded in rescuing a couple, but one Japanese officer, still in the water, produced a pistol and started shooting at the crew on deck. The gunner on the sail opened up and machine gunned the Japanese officer in response. There was actually an 8mm movie filmed during this rescue operation, but in recent years, only the portion where the sub's machine gunner strafes the Japanese officer is shown has appeared on youtube and other U.S. bashing/atrocities sites.

If this is the incident you're referring to, there is the cause and effect.

There was also the case of the Wahoo (SS-238) where the skipper had her surface to recharge batteries after torpedoing several transports and freighters near Palau. There happened to be (20 estimated) lifeboats of survivors nearby and according to the reports, the Japanese soldiers opened fire on the sub with side arms and rifle fire to which the Wahoo's gunners returned fire.

This incident has been debated time and again and no definitive conclusion has ever been drawn.


..otherwise, I would be very interested in reading credible sources that cover this claim (other than the occasions I mentioned).

 

[parsifal]

no, didnt know about that one. Ill try and dig out the claim if you like. For the record, so too did the Japanese sub commanders, but the Japanese did not sign the treaty or even subscribe to the convention

Edit

It was Mortons attack in the WAHOO in '43. During Wahoo* '​s third war patrol, Morton was responsible for an incident which resulted in shipwrecked soldiers in about twenty lifeboats of sunken Japanese transport Bunyo Maru being fired on while in the water. Morton's exec, Richard O'Kane, who was on Wahoo* '​s bridge when the incident took place, likened to attacks on small craft made during the Dunkirk evacuation, and for the same reason: to prevent the enemy from recovering a body of troops that would shortly fight again.However, the Hague Convention of 1907 bans the killing of shipwreck survivors under any circumstances. There is controversy about claim and counter claim, but for Clay Blair, at least, Morton had deliberately targetted survivors.

Whatever the case, Morton and O'Kane had misidentified the survivors as Japanese. In fact, they were mainly Indian POWs of 2nd Battalion, 16th Punjab Regiment, plus escorting forces from the 26th Field Ordnance Depot. Morton was actually firing on allied soldiers

 

[The Basket]

A few points
The sinking did not bring USA into war

The U Boats stopped unrestricted submarine warfare

 

[Njaco]

I really think its not constructive to go over myths (my terminology) about men shot in the water, men shot in parachutes, etc. It was war and sometimes these things happened. But I've never been able to find anything in the form of an order from the Allies condoning these type of actions. The closest was Churchilll who stated that the only way to beat the Axis was unrestricted warfare.

Regarding Galipoli, Churchill was made the scape-goat for the orders and inactions of others. He definitely had his hands in the mix but it wasn't his alone. As far as the Lus, his heart was far greater than to allow Allied civilians to die.

My 2 cents....

 

[parsifal]

I think your right Chris, I shouldnt have started it. I guess the central question for this thread is, did Churchill deliberately allow the Lusitania to be placed at risk to entice US entry into the war.

There is motive, but I just cant see the smoking gun.....

 

[stan reid]

The closest was Churchilll who stated that the only way to beat the Axis was unrestricted warfare.

Yes, I've heard reports that, before some of his minions calmed him down, Churchill wanted to use chemical weapons against Germany as retaliation for the V2 attacks on England.

 

[pbehn]

The "law" regarding U Boat attacks in WW1 was strange to say the least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fryatt

 

[mikewint]

BEFORE the public notaries, Mr. E. Ansley, in the county of Hancock in the State of Mississippi, and Charles J. Denechaud, in the municipality of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, on the 5th and 8th October, 1915, six citizens of the United States of America made the annexed sworn depositions concerning the murder of the crew of a German submarine by the commander of the British auxiliary cruiser "Baralong." (Annexes 1 to 3.)

The names of these witnesses are:

1. J. M. Garrett, of Kiln, in the county of Hancock, Mississippi.
2. Charles D. Hightower, of Crystal City, Texas.
3. Bud Emerson Palen, of Detroit, Michigan.
4. Edward Clark, of Detroit, Michigan.
5. R. H. Cosby, of Crystal City, Texas.
6. James J. Curran, of Chicago, Illinois.

The ages of the witnesses are: Clark and Cosby, 21 years; Garrett and Hightower, 22; Palen, 27; Curran, 32. According to enquiries made on the spot, all enjoy a good reputation; Curran was for a considerable time employed as commercial traveller in various large American business houses.

According to the unanimous statements of these witnesses, the occurrence took place as follows. In August 1915 the British steamer "Nicosia" was [illegible]

When the witnesses were in the life-boats outside the line of fire from the submarine, a steamer which had been already noticed by the witnesses, Garrett, Hightower, Clark, and Curran, when still on hoard the "Nicosian," approached the spot. This, as. afterwards transpired, was the British auxiliary cruiser "Baralong." As this steamer approached all the witnesses noticed clearly that she was flying the American flag at the stern and that she carried on her sides large shields with the American flag painted on them. As the steamer carried the distinguishing marks of a neutral ship and had shown signals, which according to the seafaring members of the crew of the "Nicosian" meant that she was willing to assist if desired, and as there was nothing in her outward appearance to indicate her warlike character, the crew in the life-boats presumed that she was merely concerned with their rescue.

While the submarine was firing at close range on the port side of the "Nicosian," the unknown steamer came up behind the latter and steamed past on her starboard side. When she was a short distance ahead of the "Nicosian's" bow, she opened fire on the submarine at first, as all the witnesses, with the exception of Garrett, affirm, with small arms and immediately afterwards with cannon, which had been hidden up to that time by screens, and were only visible when the latter were removed. The witness Curran also deposed that the American flag flying at the stern of the unknown ship was only lowered after the rifle fire. He repeated this statement in the enclosed affidavit made before the public notary, Robert Schwarz, at New York, on the 21st October, 1915. (Annex No. 4.)

As the submarine after being struck several times began to sink, the commander and a number of seamen sprang overboard, the seamen having first removed their clothes. Some of them (the number is given by the witnesses Garrett and Curran as five) succeeded in getting on board the "Nicosian," while the remainder seized the ropes left hanging in the water when the "Nicosian's" life-boats were lowered. The men clinging to the ropes were killed partly by gunfire from the "Baralong" and partly by rifle fire from the crew, while the witnesses were boarding the "Baralong" from the life-boats or were already on her deck. With regard to this, the witness Curran also further testifies that the commander of the unknown ship ordered his men to line up against the rail and to shoot at the helpless German seamen in the water.

Next the commander of the "Baralong" steamed alongside the "Nicosian," made fast to the latter, and then ordered some of his men to board the "Nicosian" and search for the German sailors who had taken refuge there. The witnesses Palen and Curran testify regarding this incident that the commander gave the definite order "to take no prisoners." Four German sailors were found on the "Nicosian," in the engine-room and screw tunnel, and were killed.

The commander of the submarine, as the witnesses unanimously testify, succeeded in escaping to the bows of the "Nicosian." He sprang into the water and swam round to the, bow of the ship towards the "Baralong." The English seamen on board the "Nicosian" immediately fired on him, although, in a manner visible to all, he raised his hands as a sign that he wished to surrender, and continued to fire after a shot had apparently struck him in the mouth. Eventually he was killed by a shot in the neck.

All the witnesses were then temporarily ordered back on board the "Nicosian." There the witnesses Palen and Cosby each saw one body of a German sailor, while the witness Curran---who remained on board the steamer with members of the crew absolutely necessary to man her---saw all four bodies, which were thrown overboard in the afternoon.

The commander of the "Baralong" had the "Nicosian" towed for a few miles in the direction. of Avonmouth, and then sent back to the "Nicosian" the remainder .of the crew who were still on the "Baralong"; at the same time he sent a letter to the captain of, the "Nicosian," in which he requested the latter to impress on his crew, especially the American members of it, to say nothing about the matter, whether on their arrival at Liverpool or on their return to America. The letter, which the witness Curran himself has read, was signed "Captain William McBride, H.M.S. 'Baralong.'" That the unknown vessel was named the "Baralong" was discovered also by the witness Hightower from a steward of the steamer, when he (the witness) was on board this ship; while the witness Palen deposes that he, when he was leaving the ship, saw this name indistinctly painted on the bows,

The statements of the six witnesses are in substance corroborated by the 18 year-old witness, Larimore Holland, whose sworn statement before the public notary, Frank S. Carden, in the county of Hamilton, Tennessee, on the 12th October, 1915, is also annexed (Annex 5). The witness, who was a stoker on board the "Baralong," was on board that ship when this unparalleled incident occurred.

According to his statement also, the "Baralong" hoisted the American flag, and, covered by the "Nicosian," steamed towards the scene where, as soon as the submarine was visible, she opened fire on the latter and sunk her. He further states that about fifteen men of the submarine's crew sprang overboard as she sank and were killed by rifle and gun-fire from the "Baralong," some while they were swimming in the water and others as they were trying to climb up the ropes of the "Nicosian." If his statement differs in details from the statements of the other witnesses, this evidently is caused by the fact that he himself only witnessed some of the incidents, and that he apparently only knows by hearsay of other incidents, notably those which occurred on board the "Nicosian."

By reason of the above evidence there can be no doubt that the commander of the British auxiliary cruiser "Baralong," McBride, gave the crew under his command the order not to make prisoner certain helpless and unarmed German seamen, but to kill them in a cowardly manner; also that his crew obeyed the order, and thus shared the guilt for the murder.

The German Government inform the British Government of this terrible deed, and take it for granted that the latter, when they have examined the facts of the case and the annexed affidavits, will immediately take proceedings for murder against the commander of the auxiliary cruiser "Baralong" and the crew concerned in the murder, and will punish them according to the laws of war. They await in a very short time a statement from the British Government that they have instituted proceedings for the expiation of this shocking incident; afterwards they await information as to the result of the proceedings, which should be hastened as much as possible, in order that they may convince themselves that the deed has been punished by a sentence of corresponding severity. Should they be disappointed in this expectation, they would consider themselves obliged to take serious decisions as to retribution for the unpunished crime.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Yes, I've heard reports that, before some of his minions calmed him down, Churchill wanted to use chemical weapons against Germany as retaliation for the V2 attacks on England.

There is this abiding belief that Churchill ran the war on the U.K. side, but he didn't. There was a coalition government and a War Cabinet drawn from all political parties. For the use of chemical weapons, the War Cabinet would have had to discuss it, and pass it as a suitable way to wage war. They didn't, so all this manufactured angst against Churchill is, once again, just so much hot air.

 

[GrauGeist]

All sides knew that once someone deployed chemical weapons, the Genie would be out of the bottle.

Chemical weapons were in place and ready to be deployed, sometimes too close to the front, as we saw during the Luftwaffe attack on Bari by Ju88s, releasing U.S. mustard gas stockpiles that were aboard the SS John Harvey when it was hit and sunk.

 

[parsifal]

Baralongs actions were really pushing the rules to the limits. But I don't see too much to complain about, for reasons ill try and explain. There are two basic incidents at issue. First occurred in August 1915, against the U-27 and the second was against U-41 about a month later. Both incidents occurred after the Lusitania, after the Germans had declared unrestricted warfare within a "declared area" effectively repudiating the Hague conventions for the war at sea within that zone. Again, it is important to note that British reactions follow from German decision to begin flouting the law, so it is a bit rich of them to start complaining about the allies not sticking to the letter of the law.

The complicating issue is that Herbert, the CO of the Baralong was a very questionable character. Discipline in his command was very lax, and this was to manifest in coming actions. Further, there is evidence that following the Lusitania, RN officers unofficially told Herbert to "take no prisoners" , though evidence of this being a command were never found.

During the first engagement, the Baralong used what is referred to as a "False Flag" to approach U-27 whilst the latter was busy sinking the Nicosia. That is a perfectly legal ruse in a declared area, so long as the true identity of the ship is revealed before firing is commenced. There is no dispute about these facts, though the Germans over the years have tried to make something of it regardless. U-27 got the worst of the engagement and appeared to be reduced to a sinking condition, but importantly she did not strike her colours. In 1915 that was important, it meant the crew had not surrendered and can still be viewed as combatants. U-27 was not a merchant vessel, in order for her crew to be afforded the protection of the rules of warfare, the Uboat had to show clearly that she had surrendered, which she never did. 12 men got off the stricken Uboat and into the water, 5 made for the abandoned , but still floating, Nicosia, and six made for the Merchant ships lifeboats. There was no indication as to the intent of these survivors, and at the time they were killed they were still combatants. Herbert did three things, firstly he yelled out to the lifeboats not to permit any German sailors onto the boats. Clearly he wanted them to drown. Then his men started to shoot the sailors in the water. Herbert was heard to shout at them to cease firing, but the indiscipline of the crew meant they ignored him. A moral crime? absolutely. A war crime.... Nope, because those sailors by the actions of the Uboat skipper were still combatants.

5 or 6 german sailors made for the abandoned Nicosia. Herbert was concerned they were going to attempt to scuttle the still floating ship. He immediately sent a boat to gain control of the ship and prevent its scuttling. He then gave an illegal order. He told the leader of the boarding party to take no prisoners. Four were found in the engine room, which were subsequently claimed as attempting to sabotage the machinery. There is no record that they attempted to surrender. They were shot on sight. I tend to think that given the behaviour of this crew they probably did attempt to surrender but were murdered. The second incident was in the wheelhouse of the Nicosia. Either one or two Germans were summarily shot there as well. Little doubt here that it was a case of murder.

In the case of the U41, the Baralong failed to haul down the False Flag before firing commenced, but it is disputed as to who started firing first.

Baralong was Q ship, disguised warship. These were always going to produce sticky wickets as to legality, but the root cause was not the Q-Ships, or the Admiralty or indisciplined crews or poor commanders. It certainly wasn't because of anything Churchill did. They are all issues, but not rot causal issues. The root cause, in my opinion, was the German decision to throw out the rulebook and commence unrestricted warfare on unarmed merchant shipping. That was explosive in 1915, and in many sailors eyes amounted to piracy. The treatment of the Uboat crews in these and other cases was pretty poor, but it arose from the choices the German high command had made previously.

I fail to see what any of this proves. It certainly has nothing to do with the allegations of Churchill's duplicity

 

[parsifal]

Churchill was instrumental in establishing the illegal starvation blockade of Germany. The blockade depended on scattering mines, and classified as contraband food for civilians.

Planning in the modern sense for the blockade began well before Churchill. Girst planning documents were tabled and approved in 1904 under Balfours regime

There was nothing illegal about the Royal Navy Blockade.
(The following comes mostly from the following article)
The British Blockade During World War I: The Weapon of Deprivation - Student Pulse
When Britain joined the war on August 4, 1914, they did not immediately execute the entire plan to blockade all German imports. It was not until nearly four months into the war that Britain labeled the North Sea a war zone, and also began directing limited forces in the Mediterranean as well to restrict all German trade routes, these were all in consequence to clear acts of aggression by the germans on the high seas . In spite of this fact, British intelligence apparatus began the long process of accumulating data on where the Germans were obtaining their goods from, and analysts compiling this data into reports so that the Royal Navy could quickly cut all avenues of trade once the full blockade was established.

A part of the reasoning for the delay in full action was due to the U.S. government's insistence that all belligerents respect neutral rights of free trade, and not impede enemy merchants from reaching their destinations if they were transporting only civilian supplies. These rights had been discussed during the second Hague International Peace Convention in 1907, and set forth in a legal document at the International Naval Conferences in London in 1909. This document became known as the Declaration of London, and was signed by all major belligerents that were to fight in WWI, but was only ratified by the United States. The most notable country that did not ratify the declaration document was Britain.

They refused to do so because Britain's leaders could not agree on several passages including the rights of neutrals to transport goods to their own home ports, even when they knew these materials would be sold to the enemy. Even so, Britain was in a precarious situation because while they did not legally have to follow the declaration, the U.S. expected them to do so. It was paramount that Britain tread lightly in this grey area of legality because as Siney notes, it was evident from the beginning of the war that the U.S. would be the principle supplier of financial capital and munitions to the Entente during the war. Therefore instituting a full blockade of Germany imports when war broke out could have been the death knell not for Germany, but for Britain and its allies.

The final shift to establishing the full blockade came on November 11, 1914, when the germans made clear an overt aggressive actions that placed their behaviour outside of the law, and placed sufficient distance between themselves and the Americans as to allow the British to take action. These events included several German light cruisers being observed attempting to lay mines off the coast of southern England. This act of aggression gave British leaders the casus belli to take action. With this expose of german disdain of the laws and conventions of naval warfare as it existed at that time, the british had the impetus they needed to declare the full blockade without U.S. resistance because during the first four months of the war, Britain had confined itself to blocking only war materials from reaching German ports directly. World opinion of Germany during this time began to deteriorate because of repeated reports of brutality directed against Belgian and French civilians. With world sympathies firmly shifting in the Entente's favor, Britain gained the necessary advocacy it needed to declare its right to institute the blockade, and defend its realm against the aggressive German empire. From that point the full blockade began to take shape. There was plenty Machiavellian about it, and plenty of partisan politics to boot. But in the end, the spark that ignited this came from German indiscretion, not anything the British initiated.

 

[mikewint]

Michael, while I agree that a naval blockade is a legitimate tactic of war, the blockade's purpose is to cut off MILITARY supplies. While the British blockade did indeed stop such things the British also classified FOOD as a military supply. It was here that Churchill learned his war lessons very well: Target Civilians
The Blockade
On November 11, 1914, the British set out in the most literal sense to starve the German people into submission; an idea best described by First Lord of the British Admiralty Winston Churchill himself when he stated, "The British blockade treated the whole of Germany as if it were a beleaguered fortress, and avowedly sought to starve the whole population - men, women and children, old and young, wounded and sound - into submission." By 1917, this mission was rapidly coming into fruition, and every month the war was prolonged, the situation in Germany became even more dire. While the German people certainly experienced hardship during 1914-1916, it was during the last two years of the war that their suffering reached its zenith. It was also during this period that the frontline soldiers began to truly feel the effects of the blockade for the first time.
The situation in Germany going into 1917 was one of growing chaos, disorganization, and sickness all stemming from the blockade, and subsequently Germany's inability to provide its people with adequate provisions to sustain normal productive lives. While few individuals starved to death between 1914-1918. Official British post-war statistics counted that 772,736 starved to death because the blockade. According to a post-war analysis conducted by University of London physiologist Ernest Starling, throughout 1917-1918, the average German ate less than 1500 calories per day, down from the already meager diet of 1700 calories per day in 1916. These unsustainable eating habits and unhealthy weight loss caused a greater proportion of the German population to suffer from a host of chronic illnesses which ranged from mild aliments like influenza and dysentery, to more serious afflictions such as typhus, tuberculosis, and scurvy. One possible reason for this drastic increase in fatalities is that without access to foods containing proper nutrients, the body's immune system begins to shut down, leaving the individual highly susceptible to contracting communicable diseases. Thus because the British blockade prevented Germany from importing foodstuff, the population was unable to properly feed themselves and maintain basic body functions. Combined with the scarce availability of cleaning products or fresh clothing, a great proportion of the German population was keenly susceptible to infections and disease.
Without access to quality fodder, farm animal's health began to suffer, and they subsequently produced less than adequate byproducts for human consumption. According to one report from the Centre for the Care of the Young, the results of cattle that ate less nutritious foods was milk that was 'considerably watered,' and lacked fats needed for youth during this important stage of development. By 1917, and going into 1918, German livestock counts reached all time lows, and those that survived weighed significantly less than they would have if proper fodder supplies were available. As the war dragged on into a third year, swine stocks fell by nearly seventy-seven percent of pre-war levels, and cattle to just thirty-two percent of peacetime inventory. What remained of these important sources of human nourishment were severely emaciated animals that often provided little or no meat for human consumption. As food became more scarce, German civilians began acting out primal instincts to feed themselves, and in many cases this need dominated their entire lives. Morals, cultural norms, and laws were often blatantly disregarded as millions sought to obtain what they and their families needed to survive. This often caused otherwise law abiding citizens to engage in illicit acts such as theft, cheating, or assaulting other citizens in their never ending quest to feed themselves.
In the southern German city of Stuttgart alone, within a three month span in 1917, two hundred and seventy three children ranging between the ages of twelve and fourteen were arrested, and convicted of theft. In every one of these cases, the accused child was charged with attempting to steal food from farms. It was these starving children and young adults that would grow-up to become the most fanatical Nazis.
At long last in 1917-1918, for the first time since the war began, the German army also began to experience deficiencies in the amount of food it had available to feed its troops. When compared to Entente rations, Germany's military provisions were lacking. Throughout the war, British soldiers consumed approximately 4000 calories per-day, while their German counterparts were provided with supplies that amounted to around 3200 calories per day. By 1917, with the blockade in full swing, and food reserves at critical levels, the German rations dropped below 2900 calories per day, which meant that frontline soldiers were not consuming enough calories to replenish their bodies after engaging in strenuous activity.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Well, it'll be some comfort to those passengers on the Lusitania, that Germany's submarine blockade of the U.K. only went for military supplies, and never affected food.

 

[mikewint]

We can very easily get into a tit for tat arguement here, the Hatfields and the McCoys feud. I would also remind you that the Lusitania was listed by the Admiralty not as a passenger ship but as an "Auxiliary Cruiser". Also that the German Embasy posted plain warnings of the submarine warfare potential and equally honest were the British warnings to the passengers that the "passenger" liner was loaded with 173 tons of munitions. Did you notice those?
Civilians killed in time of war is unavoidable but using civilians as shields or as direct targets is inexcusable

 

[Edgar Brooks]

We can very easily get into a tit for tat arguement here,

Well, you started it; Lusitania was owned by Cunard, so how the Admiralty listed it is academic, since Cunard listed it just as a "steamer."
I'd also be interested to know where this listing occurs, since I've never heard of an auxiliary cruiser that was unarmed.
The Allies blockaded Germany with their navy; Germany blockaded Britain with submarines, and both sides went for food supplies, so, as far as this country is/was concerned, there is no discernible difference between the two methods.

 

[buffnut453]

Civilians killed in time of war is unavoidable but using civilians as shields or as direct targets is inexcusable

So every bomb dropped on a city by any air force during WWII was inexcusable? Who was being targeted during all the raids against German industry during WWII if not the civilians who worked there?