Winston Churchill and the Lusitania

[Edgar Brooks]

If the Merchant Navy is carrying munitions and war supplies then it is a valid target. Regardless if it is crewed by civilians.

You, too, are missing the point; our friend was whingeing about ships being intercepted by the blockade. As far as I'm concerned, if it's fine to sink British ships, because their cargo is considered "valid," why shouldn't cargo carried by ships working for Germany also be considered valid, because this supposed difference is what we're being expected to accept.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You, too, are missing the point; our friend was whingeing about ships being intercepted by the blockade. As far as I'm concerned, if it's fine to sink British ships, because their cargo is considered "valid," why shouldn't cargo carried by ships working for Germany also be considered valid, because this supposed difference is what we're being expected to accept.

Those ships are fair game as well...

 

[buffnut453]

Bear in mind that the "Great War" was the last war of a bygone era. It was the end of the great age of exploration, of military adventure and establishing colonies in mysterious far-off lands. It was thought to be a short clash, and everyone would "be home by Christmas".

Unfortunately, the Golden age was overtaken by the technological age and Pandora's box was opened. It was a war that sank humanity to new depths, threw away the "book of chivalry" and unleashed horrors that were soon to be repeated on an even larger scale in the form of WWII.

In the 70 years since, the world has grown smaller and the lessons learned mean that a war of that scale cannot be repeated without dire consequences. There have been wars since WWII but even if you combine all military actions of the last 70 years, that won't equal the material, manpower or monetary cost of WWII.

There were close calls during the Cold War, sure...the Cuban Missile Crisis, the confrontation between Chairman Mao and President Eisenhower over Taiwan, etc. But then those were no different than other confrontations in the past, where diplomacy kept a cool head and averted disaster, it's just that the stakes were higher.

In this modern environment, there is still saber rattling, such as China antagonizing Japan, North Korea constantly provoking South Korea, Putin's bullsh!t and the ongoing turmoil in the middle-east...but the days of WWI cannot revisit this day and age because the geo-political climate is far different.

I agree pretty much with everything you're saying. My point, though, is that the actions of the European powers in the run up to August 1914 were no different from international politics of today. The key difference is that we have better knowledge of the destructive power of warfare.

In 1914, everyone thought it would be a short war that was "over by Christmas". Today, we're still looking for quick-win silver bullets to complex geopolitical challenges - look at the initial attacks on Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq for a couple of prime examples. The threat of global war may have reduced, at least in the conventional sense of the actions of nation states. However, the impact of aggressive acts continues to escalate...it's just that it's largely invisible to the West (how much attention did we really pay to the Arab Spring and ongoing events in Syria?). The impact on local civilian populations has been shattering, and certainly of a substantial (albeit not global) scale.

Perhaps the more interesting question is what will happen if/when America's global military dominance is eroded to the point where there are more players? We'll be returning more to the conditions of 1914 and before, with multiple nations able to inflict equivalent amounts of damage on each other but nobody with an overriding supremacy. It might never happen, but never is a very, very long time. Putin has clearly signalled an intent to resurrect Russia's global prestige and China continues to grow it's military capacity so maybe the day will come sooner than we think.

 

[GrauGeist]

Fortunately, many of the large powers understand the impact of a global escelation...for example, China, who is an ally of North Korea, recently told them to tone down their shannanigans instead of jumping in and backing them full force, as was the case in the Korean war of the 1950's.

There are several other good examples of a hesitance to react in recent years, and this is most likely not due to a fear of nuclear deployment, but rather an economic one. Like I mentioned before, the world has become a very small place in the half century following WWII. There is no industrialized nation now, who can survive soley on their own for any extended period of time. To wage an all-out war would not only be devestating from a military point of view, but risks the economic collapse of participating nations...even if they "win" a modern full-scale war.

If we wanted to use a parallel example to the Lusitania, let's look at the recent downing of the Malaysian passenger jet over the Ukraine. Had this event happened even 50 years ago, you can be sure that the Russian backed "rebel" war in the Ukraine would have escelated as allies of Russia would rush to decry the "accusations" put forth against the Russian BUK missile battery and on the otherside, the growing evidence that indicated the BUK battery was in fact responsible would cause the Allies of the Ukraine (or foes of Russian interests) to call to arms. And here we go...game on.

As it turns out, the Allies of the Ukraine unleashed a tirade of strongly worded letters of condemnation and fired a savage volley of sanctions aimed at what? Russia's economy. Was there immediate military assistance for the beleagered Ukrainians? No.

And there it is.

 

[buffnut453]

The reason none of these events have escalated is because they simply aren't worth the risk/cost. That may change as major powers vie for resources like oil and, increasingly, water. It all comes down to a question of priorities and perceptions related to national needs. Again, we now see the impact of global war but I'm not naive enough to believe it could never happen again. The major powers in 1914 didn't envisage a global war while WWII became a global war almost by accident - a coalescing of several regional conflicts. There is the possibility of some unifying force to push in a similar direction in the future.

 

[parsifal]

I think the war broke out as much as anything because of huge miscalculations by just about anyone that was involved. In the case of this issue of unrestricted Uboat warfare I certainly don't think the Germans approached this because they wanted to stir people up. I think they didn't understand, or give sufficient weight as to just how deep the feelings of attacking non-combatant and neutral shipping would bring.

In the second war the reactions were much calmer, despite the fact that the ramp up to full commerce war was far quicker. One of the spin offs though of the German decisions made 39-40 was that more than 12 million tons of shipping willingly passed to Allied control. These leakages to Allied control arose principally because of two events. First was the shoot on sight policy that was firmly being implemented by Novemeber 1939, the second was the socalled board and seizure policy they implemented. The latter really did amount to piracy. Ships delivering goods to Germany, could be boarded, either at sea, or in ports. Cargo confiscated and ship appropriated for german use. It was a short lived policy, abandoned by the look of it after the fall of France, but by then the damage had been done. In the Med, the Italians adopted a similar policy, and yielded a lots of captured shipping initially, but benefitted the allies far more. The germans through their board and seizure policy yielded them a lot of shipping as well, but from what ive been reading a lot less than 12 million tons. most of the german seizures were undertaken in the Baltic and during the immediate periods following an invasion, for example the invasion of Denmark.

 

[mikewint]

From Michael - "With only 170 tons of explosive carried the amount of cargo being carried by the LUSITANIA was too small to qualify her as a warship, and too small to say she was a ship engaged in the transport of contraband traffic." I repeat again that Lusitania did not need to carry munitions to qualify as a Ship of War. She was already listed as an "Auxiliary Cruiser" and was carried as such in Jane's Fighting Ships. And further contraband is contraband no matter the amount and 173 tons makes a big bang. Thirdly operating Q-ships flying false flags makes the surfacing of a U-boat to challenge a ship a game of Russian Roulette.
Brooks - You, too, are missing the point; our friend was whingeing about ships being intercepted by the blockade. Not entirely sure what WHINGEING is but on my computer the forum makes no sounds. Putting that aside, tis not the stopping of ships that bothers me it is the reason/cargo that they were stopped. IMHO food, medicines, clothes, etc. for the civilian populations should not be restricted. Yes, yes, I know those things can also be used by the military and are needed by the military as well so the logic of blockading them does not escape me...the morality does.
As Buff states we have become more circumspect about such things today. Kennedy blockaded Cuba but it was never put to the test. In Vietnam there was no blockade of Hanoi and/or Haiphong, war supplies of all kinds lined its wharves. The US eventually did bomb in and around the harbor then stopped for 4 years. Nixon bombed again in '72 but nothing ever stopped the ships bringing in those munitions

 

[Edgar Brooks]

IMHO food, medicines, clothes, etc. for the civilian populations should not be restricted. Yes, yes, I know those things can also be used by the military and are needed by the military as well so the logic of blockading them does not escape me...the morality does

And the morality of sinking ships without warning (how many plying their trade to Germany were sunk without warning by the RN?) as well as bombing and shelling civilian targets escapes me, too.

we have become more circumspect about such things today.

Really? Have you seen the behaviour of this so-called Islamic State? If that's your idea of "more circumspect," it certainly isn't mine.
To return to the Lusitania (hopefully,) you make much of this "auxiliary cruiser" listing in a book, but, to qualify as a warship, it needs to be operated by the Royal Navy, crewed by R.N. personnel, and be flying the White Ensign. No mention of this has ever been made (unless you have proof of something different?) which rather tends to undermine this "Ship of War" business.
The conspiracy theorists love to blame the secondary explosion on the munitions, but an investigation, carried out several years ago, came to the conclusion that the likeliest culprit was coal dust flung into the air in the bunkers by the torpedo; there was a wide swathe of coal dust, on the seabed, marking the final track of the ship as she settled. Try throwing a handful of coal dust into a bonfire, and see the result.

 

[parsifal]

I repeat again that Lusitania did not need to carry munitions to qualify as a Ship of War. She was already listed as an "Auxiliary Cruiser" and was carried as such in Jane's Fighting Ships.

I wasnt aware of the janes listing, but thats not particularly relevant in any case, and i suspect they may have confused the ideas of Armed combattant warships and Defensively Armed Merchant Ships, or perhaps Fleet Auxiliaries, both the latter are still classified as non combattant, except if in company of a commissioned warship. Whether or not a ship is deemed to be a combatant or civilian warship is determined by its status on the Lloyds register of ships. There are (or rather, were) subsidiary organisations across the world, including Germany, and it is from here, not a publication like Janes, that the determination of whether a vessel was a warship or a mercantile vessel comes from. looking up the Lusitania you will find she was not registered as a warship at the time of her loss. You will also find the rules concerning incidental cargoes with Lloyds. it is the place to go if you are seeking to classify any non-military vessel. The mere fact that LUSITANIA was registered with Lloyds means that by both definition and also in practical terms, she was not a warship.

And further contraband is contraband no matter the amount and 173 tons makes a big bang.

I disagree, because of the rules of classification contained in the international register of shipping and the so called "Lloyds shipping rules". However, the Uboats would probably agree with you, even if such classification is not lawful or correct interpretation of the laws of the sea. But such positioning is superfluous since the Lusitania was sunk without any stop and search procedures carried out.

Thirdly operating Q-ships flying false flags makes the surfacing of a U-boat to challenge a ship a game of Russian Roulette.

Of course, but the Q ships arose in response to the German declaration of unrestricted warfare. They are warships, but disguised, in much the same way as the german disguised raiders were. There were no Q ships until well after the commencement of the sink without warning policy instituted by Germany. German unrestricted attacks began in February 1915, The first Q-ship was not put into service until May 1915, and the first victory was on 23 June 1915, when U-40 was sunk off Eyemouth by the submarine HMS C24, cooperating with the decoy vessel Taranaki, commanded by Lieutenant Frederick Henry Taylor CBE DSC RN.

There were also DEMS or Defensively Armed Merchant Ships, of which Lusitania was an example. Once the Germans named the North Sea and surrounding oceans of great Britain a comabat are, in November 1914, under the Hague convention it was lawful to fit guns to the merchant fleet. These were still non-combatants, because they were guns manned by civilian crews. Perfectly legal, and known to all combatants.

You need to concede that it was the German declaration of unrestricted UBoat warfare that led to tragedies like the Lusitania, apart from the even bigger tragedy of the war itself. It had little to do with Churchill, or the alleged illegaility of the british blockade, or Q ships, or any of these other spurious claims. There was a set of rules concerning the conduct of trade war on the high seas. germany had agreed pre-war to sticking to those rules. The rules were unworkable. But it was Germany that crossed the law and decided to rip up the rule book, not the British. To be fair, britain didnt need to....if things stayed as they were in 1913, they were going to win.

 

[GrauGeist]

The conspiracy theorists love to blame the secondary explosion on the munitions, but an investigation, carried out several years ago, came to the conclusion that the likeliest culprit was coal dust flung into the air in the bunkers by the torpedo; there was a wide swathe of coal dust, on the seabed, marking the final track of the ship as she settled. Try throwing a handful of coal dust into a bonfire, and see the result.

It was, by a high degree of qualified expert analysis and examination, the boiler(s) that detonated. Not coal dust.

The damage is not consistent with the Aluminum compounds detonating, the Gun Cotton would have not delayed in it's detonation but instead been an immediate explosion without the 15 - 20 second delay according to eyewitness accounts.

Coal dust needs to be under a certain amount of compression to create a highly explosive reaction, free-floating coal dust is certainly combustible, but not to the degree of shattering bulkheads. Additionally, coal dust tends to float on or settle slowly in, water. At a depth of 300 feet, any coal dust would have drifted countless miles from the scene and dispersed, leaving no trace. It is entirely possible that the coal bunkers disgorged during the sinking, but finding a "trail" after all these years in that murky and sediment rich environment would be a miracle on the order of parting the red sea.

 

[mikewint]

Michael - "You need to concede that it was the German declaration of unrestricted UBoat warfare that led to tragedies like the Lusitania, apart from the even bigger tragedy of the war itself. It had little to do with Churchill, or the alleged illegaility of the british blockade, or Q ships, or any of these other spurious claims. There was a set of rules concerning the conduct of trade war on the high seas. germany had agreed pre-war to sticking to those rules. The rules were unworkable. But it was Germany that crossed the law and decided to rip up the rule book, not the British. To be fair, britain didnt need to....if things stayed as they were in 1913, they were going to win.
Well stated as always, Michael. One thing stands out "The rules were unworkable". A submarine with its single pop gun, by the time it surfaces, clears, loads, and aims is no match for any armed merchantman, Q-ship, destroyer, etc. Subs are only effective because of their stealthy ambush-type tactics. The Germans did not have the fleet to contend one-to-one with the British fleet, so I may agree to your Marquess of Queensbury rules by day, but down-and-out, you on top, choking, I'm gonna, bite, scratch, kick, and gouge.

 

[mikewint]

And the morality of sinking ships without warning (how many plying their trade to Germany were sunk without warning by the RN?) as well as bombing and shelling civilian targets escapes me, too.

And we are again back to the specious "Eye for an eye" logic. England had certainly done its share in provoking WWI. Their colonial policy of "Make the world England" and the use of their fleet to club everyone into submission is a "As you sow, so shall ye reap" scenario.

Really? Have you seen the behaviour of this so-called Islamic State? If that's your idea of "more circumspect," it certainly isn't mine.

And now Islamic states!, and you post "hopefully" return to Lus? OK but One cannot equate religious fanatics engaged in a Jihad with the actions of a present day country. The horrors perpetrated in the name of God and religion are beyond any rationality.
and again I reiterate: 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."

 

[pbehn]

100 years after the event it is being discussed how to wage a war using submarines between two European powers while trade with the USA is not to be affected, the conventions on warfare were fantasy at the start and became even more outlandish as it went on. When a nation is facing destruction rules about legitimate targets, rules of engagement and permissible actions go out of the window.

 

[mikewint]

Yes sir, yes sir, yes sir and that's without religious fanaticism thrown in

 

[parsifal]

Mike, now that we at least have an understanding of the opposing points of view, I would offer this piece of conciliation. Without detracting in any way from the position ive submitted, I think that it was almost inevitable that Uboats would sooner or later be more or less forced into unrestricted attacks. Nor do i believe that the attacks they made were delivered with any sort of malice or ill intent. It made perfect military sense to attack enemy shipping on an unrestricted basis. Perhaps the best compromise would have been to refrain from arming merchant shipping in exchange for stop and search policy. put the crews into lifesboats, then sink the ship.

Neither side had the best interests of passengers or crew as paramount. The allies ended up using the rules as some kind of moral shiled whilst the germans threw all sense of tight and wrong out the window to pursue their strictly military solution to their problem. Neither approach maximised survival for the noncombattants.

 

[mikewint]

Michael, no need to conciliate anything. We are different people with different points of view who look at the same data and see different things and to me that is the BEST thing about the forum. I do understand your point of view and I deeply respect your posts and the intelligence behind them.
I do not believe that war can ever be moral in any sense of the word. Pbehn said it perfectly in his post. I guess the best we can ever hope for is semi-barbaric when humans are involved. Even in sports we see the breaking of rules to gain an advantage real or imagined why would war be any different when so much more is at stake.
Westmoreland's policy of attrition was doomed from the start as any of us who were there could see unless you want to push it to the point of genocide. They can't fight if their all dead.
There's a song that says it perfectly
Come all ye young rebels, and list while I sing,
For the love of one's country is a terrible thing.
It banishes fear with the speed of a flame,
And it makes us all part of the patriot game.

One more thing. As you can probably tell, I'm not a Churchill fan (Don't like Abe Lincoln either) BUT, no human is all one thing. We are all part this and part that so to Winston's credit:
As a 36-year-old Home Secretary, Churchill was the principal dissenting voice in the Cabinet when the possibility of armed conflict was being discussed in 1911.
At a meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defense that year, he presented a memorandum he had prepared on how he saw a German campaign against France developing. According to his prediction, Kaiser Wilhelm II's forces would launch a major offensive through Belgium and the French would have no chance of stopping them on the frontiers and should instead prepare to defeat them inside France. He also argued that any British force sent to help the French should therefore be kept well back from the fighting until it could be reinforced by bringing additional troops home from overseas garrisons. A larger British force would then fight to decisive effect when the Germans had overreached themselves.
His proposal was dismissed at the time as "ridiculous and fantastic".
It is certainly true that the French would have been able to manage without British forces in the first two months. The French had sufficient manpower to replace the British troops that were sent and the BEF, if it had been held back at Amiens, where Churchill had suggested, and its numbers built up to 300,000, which was perfectly doable, in October it should have been able to launch a counter-stroke into the German's open flank between Abbeville, in northern France, and the North Sea.
It's pure speculation at this point, but such a move might have been decisive and the German flank might have been turned and pushed back to the Meuse.
Let me also add this: Churchill had indeed pushed the idea of Gallipoli in 1915. IMHO it was the only decent strategic idea of the war, however its planning and execution was a disaster and Churchill, in some ways, a scapegoat, was demoted to Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a meaningless position. Now, you have to admire him at this point because rather than sit by while the world tore itself apart, he resigned his post (though he remained a member of Parliament) and decided to rejoin his regiment in November 1915 at the age of 41.
On January 5, 1916, he took command of the 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers battalion of the Ninth Division, currently in reserve just behind the line. It had been involved in the battle of Loos in September and had suffered greatly. When Churchill took over, the battalion had been reduced from 1,000 men to less than 600.
On January 27, the battalion took over its 1,000 yards of front at Ploegsteert, Belgium. While no offenses were launched in this sector during Churchill's tenure, there was constant shell-fire and forays into no-man's-land. Churchill set up his headquarters in a shell-battered farm behind the trenches. The barn was sandbagged, providing refuge when shells came in.
When the battalion was in the line-- it rotated six days in the trenches and six in immediate reserve-- he and his officers would enter no-man's-land through the barbed wire and visit the forward positions in shell craters to keep an eye on the enemy, yards away. At least one time he came under direct machine gun fire. Also, the farm itself was shelled frequently and the buildings occasionally were hit. One time, a shell landed on the house and a piece of shrapnel hit a lamp's battery holder he was toying with.
By May, his battalion and others had been so weakened by constant shell-fire, it was decided to merge them into the 15th Division. Instead of seeking a new command, Churchill took this opportunity to be allowed "to attend to my Parliamentary public duties which have become urgent". This request was granted.
So ended Winston Churchill's six months at the Western Front during the First World War.

 

[Njaco]

Mike, I guess you can tell I'm a Churchill fan. You should try reading William Manchester's tome, "The Last Lion". I found it a very balanced account of his life.

 

[pbehn]

I do wish people would stop confusing England and the UK.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Mike, I guess you can tell I'm a Churchill fan. You should try reading William Manchester's tome, "The Last Lion". I found it a very balanced account of his life.

It's also worth trying "Churchill" by Roy Jenkins, a Labour politician, and therefore a lifelong political opponent of Churchill. Lusitania never gets a mention, though, but he does point out that Churchill's so-called "sacking" over the Dardenelles campaign, was actually as a result of the government being changed to a coalition of all parties, with the Prime Minister carrying out a "reshuffle" (as they all do, and have done, for years immemorial) to give positions to members of the other parties.
As "pbehn"says, above, critics of the U.K. really should stop calling us "England." It drives the Scots, Welsh and Irish to distraction.

 

[pbehn]

As "pbehn"says, above, critics of the U.K. really should stop calling us "England." It drives the Scots, Welsh and Irish to distraction.

It also drives the English to distraction. Scots Irish and Welsh involvement in the British Empire is slowly being written out of history. In her recent tour of the USA the first minister of Scotland saw common cause with the USA in their fight for independence from England, as if no Scots ever opposed of fought against American independence.