Munitions Found on Lusitania

[Pighills]

According to yesterday's Mail, and I quote: 'Munitions they found in the hold suggest that the Germans had been right all along in claiming the ship was carrying war materials and was a legitimate military target.'

Link to article 'Here'

[MikB]

Seems to me the article and the results of the dives reveal absolutely nothing new. The rifle rounds have been public knowledge for decades and suggesting they were responsible for any second explosion would require a behaviour from them very different from other recorded propellant explosions. The coal-dust-in-air explanation that also dates back as long as I can remember is a far better one. If the guy finds some serious artillery ammunition or weapons-quality high explosive filling, that would be the beginnings of something new.

As it is, we still have here the first major incident where someone knowingly launched a torpedo at a target likely to result in large loss of innocent life. I've often felt the loss of the military sense of honour and the rise of modern cynicism dates to this seminal event. This was where the djinn was let out of the bottle.

Regards,

MikB

[River97]

I saw a doco on the Hospital ship Glenart Castle a while ago about a dive team that went down to the wreck. They found an artillery shell casing aboard, however, that was the only one they found, not really breaking the rules, but more of a souvenir.

As for the Lusitania, the rumours have been circulating for years, and also the bit about Churchill.

Gregg Bemis, an American businessman who owns the rights to the wreck and is funding its exploration, said: 'Those four million rounds of .303s were not just some private hunter's stash.

'Now that we've found it, the British can't deny any more that there was ammunition on board. That raises the question of what else was on board.

'There were literally tons and tons of stuff stored in unrefrigerated cargo holds that were dubiously marked cheese, butter and oysters.

'I've always felt there were some significant high explosives in the holds - shells, powder, gun cotton - that were set off by the torpedo and the inflow of water. That's what sank the ship.'

Mr Bemis is planning to commission further dives next year in a full-scale forensic examination of the wreck off County Cork.

Is this a witch hunt or just dredging up the past. Let it rest.

Cheers Andy.

[T8HANTS]

As an auxiliary cruiser in war time, Lusitania could be thought of as a warship that carried passengers!

I seem to remember a great fuss in the sixties when the ship was first discovered, that the guns had already been cut off the deck, and removed! Fingers were pointed at the grey funnel line who denied all knowledge.

Nothing new in the article as far as I could see, I thought shrapnel shell fuses were also part of the cargo. If major munitions had gone up, I would have thought the secondary explosion would have been much bigger.

G

[simonharley]

Really? I thought that the myth of there being twelve 6-inch guns on "Lusitania" was exactly that - a myth.

"Lusitania" only became an auxiliary cruiser if and when the British government called her into service as one, and then as a British naval vessel she would have been flying the White Ensign.

Simon

[egbert]

I saw a doco on the Hospital ship Glenart Castle a while ago about a dive team that went down to the wreck. They found an artillery shell casing aboard, however, that was the only one they found, not really breaking the rules, but more of a souvenir.

As for the Lusitania, the rumours have been circulating for years, and also the bit about Churchill.

Is this a witch hunt or just dredging up the past. Let it rest.

Cheers Andy.

See my post from quoted documentary, concerning the hospital ships here

[Gibbo]

Backing up MikB's comment that there's nothing new here, the British Official History admitted that the Lusitania was carrying cases of small arms and shrapnel ammunition: see p. 393 of Vol. II of Naval Operations by Sir Julian Corbett and p. 414 of The Merchant Navy by Archibald Hurd.

[centurion]

Backing up MikB's comment that there's nothing new here, the British Official History admitted that the Lusitania was carrying cases of small arms and shrapnel ammunition: see p. 393 of Vol. II of Naval Operations by Sir Julian Corbett and p. 414 of The Merchant Navy by Archibald Hurd.

And not I think four million rounds.

Tepid soup and I'm surprised at the Mail getting involved in such a rehash (mind its not that I have a very high regard for that organ anyway

[thejavelinman]

I think, as usual, the victor writes the history. It has been knowledge that the Lusitania did carry supplies however, it would have been considered a scandal for the government to put the lives of innocent civilians at risk had this been known. It is also often forgotten that the German government actually put adverts in the newspapers advising potential passangers of the Lusitania not to travel as the ship was deemed a military target. Those passangers had a very tough choice to make but it was a choice non-the-less. Being Dutch myself, it is also often forgotten how many neutral ships the British navy sank in their blockade. It is an interesting subject that will always continue to spark debate.

[centurion]

I think, as usual, the victor writes the history. It has been knowledge that the Lusitania did carry supplies however, it would have been considered a scandal for the government to put the lives of innocent civilians at risk had this been known. It is also often forgotten that the German government actually put adverts in the newspapers advising potential passangers of the Lusitania not to travel as the ship was deemed a military target. Those passangers had a very tough choice to make but it was a choice non-the-less. Being Dutch myself, it is also often forgotten how many neutral ships the British navy sank in their blockade. It is an interesting subject that will always continue to spark debate.

How many did they sink then? As far as I can see ships were either turned away or escorted to a British controlled port. Do you have proven evidence to the contrary?

[thejavelinman]

How many did they sink then? As far as I can see ships were either turned away or escorted to a British controlled port. Do you have proven evidence to the contrary?

I shall have to have a search for it as it was a couple of years ago that I found out about this. Both Germany and Britain abused the smallness of the Netherlands for their own needs all the time. The mild actions as you described certainly did take place however, some nastier tricks were certainly played on this neutral country. One of these is as follows:

During the 1918 spring offensives the allied forces had a great shortage of ship space. Therefore the Americans sent a proposal to the Dutch government which, it said was also on behalf of Britain, to give grain to the Dutch in exchange for Dutch ships and men for use of troop and munition transports for the allied cause. The Netherlands were also advised that this included sailing through the German danger zones. The Dutch had not much choice but wanted exclusions to some of these proposals and replied that the ships sailing in danger zones should not be transporting munitions nor troops, that they shall not be armed and that any ship destroyed shall be replaced after the war. The Americans ingored this note completely and replied on the 20th March 1918 that they would take steps to commision Dutch vessels within it's territorial jurisdictions. That same day 132 Dutch ships harboured in American and British ports were taken by the allies for their use. To the Americans this was not a big deal as they stated it would still leave enough shipping space for the Dutch for their own trading needs. The Dutch protested heavily and queen Wilhelmina spoke of the 'great ship theft'. The Germans did not respond kindly either and wanted heavy compensation demands, it even appeared at one stage that they were willing to take this by force, the social unrest that the allies had put the Netherlands in was at a record high.

The allies based their actions on an old right, last used in 1871, that nations at war were allowed to take and make use or even destroy ships from neutral countries under the condition that damages would be paid for.

[amlovell]

Really? I thought that the myth of there being twelve 6-inch guns on "Lusitania" was exactly that - a myth.

"Lusitania" only became an auxiliary cruiser if and when the British government called her into service as one, and then as a British naval vessel she would have been flying the White Ensign.

I have no idea how anyone could claim there were 6- or even 4-inch guns on this ship and not produce a single passenger (of hundreds) who would have been able to see them but who apparently did not. No such gun is small or easily concealed unless special, Q-ship style hides are made for them, which again no one seem to claim existed and whose secret existence would rely upon a large paper trail of their planning, design and construction eluding the world and the scores of workers who would have been involved in their installation.

Certainly, any concealed major weapons would now no longer be concealed given the ability to explore a sunken wreck.

One relevant question (to me) which I never hear discussed is NOT whether or not some small-to-medium cache of ammunition was aboard, but what suspicion and confidence did the Germans have (or claim to have) that these contraband were along?

4 million rounds of rifle ammunition? It could have been for a hunter... a nearsighted hunter.

tone

[centurion]

I shall have to have a search for it as it was a couple of years ago that I found out about this. Both Germany and Britain abused the smallness of the Netherlands for their own needs all the time. The mild actions as you described certainly did take place however, some nastier tricks were certainly played on this neutral country. One of these is as follows:

During the 1918 spring offensives the allied forces had a great shortage of ship space. Therefore the Americans sent a proposal to the Dutch government which, it said was also on behalf of Britain, to give grain to the Dutch in exchange for Dutch ships and men for use of troop and munition transports for the allied cause. The Netherlands were also advised that this included sailing through the German danger zones. The Dutch had not much choice but wanted exclusions to some of these proposals and replied that the ships sailing in danger zones should not be transporting munitions nor troops, that they shall not be armed and that any ship destroyed shall be replaced after the war. The Americans ingored this note completely and replied on the 20th March 1918 that they would take steps to commision Dutch vessels within it's territorial jurisdictions. That same day 132 Dutch ships harboured in American and British ports were taken by the allies for their use. To the Americans this was not a big deal as they stated it would still leave enough shipping space for the Dutch for their own trading needs. The Dutch protested heavily and queen Wilhelmina spoke of the 'great ship theft'. The Germans did not respond kindly either and wanted heavy compensation demands, it even appeared at one stage that they were willing to take this by force, the social unrest that the allies had put the Netherlands in was at a record high.

The allies based their actions on an old right, last used in 1871, that nations at war were allowed to take and make use or even destroy ships from neutral countries under the condition that damages would be paid for.

And ironically I think based on a principal first applied by the Dutch during the Anglo Dutch wars of the 17th century. In fact such a right only applies to neutral ships in a belligerant's waters or ports. It was a long established principle and not particularly aimed at any specific nation.

[mickm]

Yet another dig at 'The Mail'.

Over the years I've read many wonderful articles in The Mail concerning the Great War.

Only recently I came across a cutting I'd saved from about ten years ago detailing Taff Gillingham and his Chums spending Christmas in a trench on the old Western Front.

Sorry this has nothing to do with the thread but then again neither has slagging off The Mail.

Mick (Mr Angry from Welwyn)

[T8HANTS]

I have no idea how anyone could claim there were 6- or even 4-inch guns on this ship and not produce a single passenger (of hundreds) who would have been able to see them but who apparently did not. No such gun is small or easily concealed unless special, Q-ship style hides are made for them, which again no one seem to claim existed and whose secret existence would rely upon a large paper trail of their planning, design and construction eluding the world and the scores of workers who would have been involved in their installation.

I was only trying to recall a TV documentary of long ago, which had very poor underwater footage of where it was claimed the guns were cut from off the decks. If it is now proven there were no guns installed for close defence, fine.

G

[baorbrat]

According to yesterday's Mail, and I quote: 'Munitions they found in the hold suggest that the Germans had been right all along in claiming the ship was carrying war materials and was a legitimate military target.'

Link to article 'Here'

Old News. It has never been in dispute. Passengers sailed with the knowledge that the Lusitania carried munitions.

[Jim Clay]

Yet another dig at 'The Mail'.

...Sorry this has nothing to do with the thread but then again neither has slagging off The Mail.

Mick (Mr Angry from Welwyn)

Slagging off the Mail? Where? I see in post 8 that the poster says "mind its not that I have a very high regard for that organ anyway". Is that 'slagging off'? Not in my book. Elsewhere I see a couple of suggestions that the Mail story might be 'old news'. Is that 'slagging off'? Hardly; certainly not, if true.

Jim

[healdav]

The Germans did NOT specifically warn passengers not to travel on the Lusitania.

They simply put around notices in New York and other places saying that people should not travel FULL STOP. No mention of the Lusitania.

The fact still remains that no matter what was on board no one has ever tried to prove that the captain of the U-boat knew anything about it. If he didn't know (and we must presume he didn't) then his action was illegal by the standards of the day (and his orders).

[MikB]

The fact still remains that no matter what was on board no one has ever tried to prove that the captain of the U-boat knew anything about it. If he didn't know (and we must presume he didn't) then his action was illegal by the standards of the day (and his orders).

That is also true - in fact I believe at the time of launch the target was simply described as a 'big steamer', so presumably the crew weren't even certain it was Lusitania, never mind having knowledge of her material cargo.

The only thing they could have been certain of is that they might kill a large number of 'enemy' civilians - perhaps they never thought about 'neutrals' - and it is on that basis that their actions should be considered.

Regards,

MikB

[simonharley]

According to Robert Kinloch Massie in "Castles of Steel" (which is rife with annoying errors and misquotations) he states that there was a copy of "Jane's Fighting Ships" on board U-20, and if memory serves a merchant marine officer to advise on targets, who realised after the torpedoing which ship it was they had just sunk. Looking at the funnels there's a fairly big difference between hers and those of "Mauretania" - how good was the visibility from a U-boat periscope?

It's unlikely that any spies in America would have notified the German Admiralty that "Lusitania" was being loaded with ammunition, but it's slightly more likely that they would have been informed that "Lusitania" was still on the North Atlantic passenger run (and "Mauretania" was trooping in the Mediterranean if I recall). Some atrocious intelligence work on the part of the Germans on the face of it, legality aside.

Was the German declaration, that any ship flying the British flag was a target, legal? I had a quick look through the Hague Conventions but couldn't find anything pertinent except regarding hospital ships.

Simon

[MartinWills]

It is quite some years ago that divers on the Lusitania recovered a number of fuses - items not clearly identified on the manifests. As I recall the secret supplementary manifests did mention the 303 rounds or something very similar. There were also a number of shipments of "machinery" and items of a similar description from the Bethlehem Steel Company. The BSCs main output at the time was arms/munitions and the machinery t0o manufacturer them with.

[Clio]

Germans might argue that the Djinn really clambered out when Admiralty issued AFO No 10 (North Sea blockade) as far back as 1910...

[MikB]

Germans might argue that the Djinn really clambered out when Admiralty issued AFO No 10 (North Sea blockade) as far back as 1910...

Really? Were large numbers of German civilians killed in sinkings by the Royal Navy before the Lusitania incident, then?

I don't think so. I think this stands as the first technologically-executed mass atrocity. Bad enough in itself, it's the reciprocating and escalating feedback process it started that has led to the routine targeting of the innocent that the world takes for granted today. IMHO, of course...

Regards,

MikB

[centurion]

In the light of the various issues raised in this thread I've done a little digging into the legal framework and the actual practice of naval warfare with reference to merchant shipping during WW1 and have produced some short papers (serviettes?) on the subject - here is the first

The Legal Background

The rules under which naval warfare involving merchant ships was conducted in WW1 were in effect those laid down by the Declaration of Paris of 1856 at the end of the Crimean war. It was initially signed by the participants in that war (Britain, France Russia, Savoy [sardinia] and Turkey) and Prussia. Savoy and Prussia’s accession to the treaty was later extrapolated to cover Germany and Italy when these nations came into existence as political entities. Like the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty of more recent times over the years more and more countries signed up to it until the only sea going nations not to sign were Venezuela and the USA. The declaration finally abolished the role of the privateer (which was why the USA didn’t sign up to it). As a result there was the somewhat outré result of the USA (a non signatory to the declaration because she reserved the right to commission privateers) suing Britain and France (signatories) over their part in the building of privateers for the Confederate Navy (most specifically the Alabama).

Despite not ratifying the agreement the USA abided by it in the Spanish American War even though at that time Spain had yet not ratified it.

With the signing of the Hague Convention there was pressure for a naval version of the latter. A number of countries (including Britain) wanted to discuss the details before this became international law and a conference of the main maritime powers was held in London over 1908 and 1909. The result in 1909 was the Declaration of London. This referred back to the Declaration of Paris, The US Congress ratified the new declaration even though it effectively committed the USA to the older Declaration of Paris that they had so far declined to ratify. However a number of naval powers had problems with the Declaration of London and not enough ratified it so that it never came into legal effect. The legal framework in place at the start of WW1 was still the old Declaration of Paris.

President Wilson tried to get Britain and Germany to commit to fighting the war under the terms of the Declaration of London. Germany was agreeable but Britain had reservations and wanted some amendments applied. It is not difficult to see why. In defining contraband and non-contraband cargoes the Declaration had made some strategic war material non-contraband. Indeed the placing of items in the two categories is peculiar. For example whilst food could be regarded as a contraband cargo it was specifically forbidden to stop ships under any flag carrying raw cotton into a belligerent’s port (it was perfectly proper to starve a population but they had the absolute right to be hungry in clean underpants!). However since raw cotton was a major ingredient in a number of forms of fuses and explosives allowing its unfettered import would not have been accepted. Rubber was a similarly mis-catagorised cargo with the huge demand for it in military vehicles. As Germany did not have the means of imposing an effective full blockade of Britain the Declaration of London would have been advantageous to her and she was unwilling to agree to the changes that London required. As a result the Declaration of Paris remained the legally binding framework.

With specific regard to the Lusitania the German action was wholly illegal under the Declaration of Paris even if she were carrying contraband goods. She could only have been sunk if she had been ordered to stop and refused to do so. Under the Declaration of London sinking the ship out of hand would only have been permissible if either she was clearly an armed merchant cruiser under the white ensign (which she was not) or she was definitely known to be carrying contraband and failure to sink her would have endangered the U boat and its operations (and its difficult to see how the latter part of this could apply). In any case as described above the Declaration of London had failed to pass into legal effect (even though it is frequently quoted).

[Clio]

AFO 10 was unequivocal evidence that Admiralty was prepared to starve German civilians.