simonharley Posted 5 January , 2009 Share Posted 5 January , 2009 There is a review in The Northern Mariner / Le Marin du Nord, Volume XIII – 2003 No. 2 p. 89 if you can access this journal. I have not seen it. Missed this message earlier today. Thanks for the reference Ionia, should be able to get a hold of it. For what it's worth, these are my thoughts on the whole "Lusitania" controversy. Question:Does it matter whether "Lusitania" was a valid target because she was carrying explosives? My Thought:No, because the Germans regarded any ship entering the British "war zone" to be a target anyway. You can argue till the cows come home about whether 3-in cartridges were in there, but the Germans definitely didn't know they were there. Smashing around a mass grave just to see whether you've been lied to or not does not strike me as being very morally superior. Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 5 January , 2009 Share Posted 5 January , 2009 I think we are in danger of being sucked into the conspiracy theorists web, its a bit like cults, impossible to use logic. Whatever one answers theres always some explanation ("oh that was covered up by" etc etc). Best to walk away and let it fester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaelgoir Posted 16 December , 2009 Share Posted 16 December , 2009 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' Curious nobody mentions Paddy O'Sullivan's book c2001 which suggests that a cargo of magnesium on the manifest could have been the cause of the second explosion. Not to mention the boxes marked "margarine" but consigned by Du Pont better known for explosive manufacture than margarine making. Lusitania was listed in Janes unlike other AMCs More curious are the sightings of other unidentified submarines in the area by official observers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionia Posted 16 December , 2009 Share Posted 16 December , 2009 Which edition of Janes are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
27thBN Posted 16 December , 2009 Share Posted 16 December , 2009 good stuff but as said nothing new yet . MC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph0ebus Posted 16 December , 2009 Share Posted 16 December , 2009 Not to mention the boxes marked "margarine" but consigned by Du Pont better known for explosive manufacture than margarine making. Lusitania was listed in Janes unlike other AMCs Ah, I can see the TV ads now: "New...DuPont Margarine: An Explosion of Flavour!" Seriously, I think it seems clearer these days that there was munitions on board. Makes me feel all the more sad for those on board, who were, apparently and unknowingly, an early 20th century example of a 'human shield'. Now that we know the 'truth', where do we go from here? Can we let them rest in peace? -Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 17 December , 2009 Share Posted 17 December , 2009 Lusitania was listed in Janes unlike other AMCs In Jane's 'Fighting Ships 1914' Lusitania was shown in silhouette amongst the “British Liners of 18 knots or over.” Is this the listing you are referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Gilinsky Posted 27 December , 2009 Share Posted 27 December , 2009 Just skimmed through much though not all the entries to this thread. 1) It is now accepted by most that Lusitania was carrying a fairly considerable shipment of small arms ammunition made in the USA for the British war effort. 2) It is now accepted as well by most that the British government should have and must have known this of course considering the size of the shipment and the timing (May 1915) of the voyage. 3) It is and/or should be much better known that American manufacturers generally openly flaunted right from the start of the war neutrality laws and sold expertise, manufacturing parts, actual munitions etc...to practically all the belligerents on a major scale. All the moral and legal arguments should take these 3 salient points into consideration. War is the mother of ways and means or the mother of necessity and legal niceties like stopping a huge liner by a puny tin fish hoping that the liner just doesn't squish and sink you like a rock or little guppy is just fanciful thinking by some armchair mid-Victorian mindset lawyer. John Toronto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionia Posted 28 December , 2009 Share Posted 28 December , 2009 There is no point in looking at this incident from a latter-day viewpoint. The U-boat captain did not know that his target was the LUSITANIA nor that she carried ammunition. He did, however, know that she was a passenger vessel and that to torpedo her was against the Laws of War as accepted at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Gilinsky Posted 28 December , 2009 Share Posted 28 December , 2009 You appear to downplay if not ignore the efficacy of German Naval not to mention political intelligence and the huge numbers of German American sympathizers who could have easily informed some German authorities anywhere that the Lusitania was possibly or probably carrying ammunition. We do not know what the sub captain knew (he was later killed) but the circumstances leading up to the May 1915 decisions that he took that ended up costing so dearly in lives are fundamentally overwhelming that he must have had some naval, military or political intelligence passed on to him regarding the vessel. As to targeting: I believe that you are right - he probably didn't realize the actual ship only that because of the position of her that she could only be a neutral or Allied vessel of some kind. Should he have taken more time to ascertain his target? That is a more of a military efficiency question really rather than a stricly legal one though I must admit knowingly illegally targeting internationally legally protected vessels on the surface according to the laws of the time probably would have been a violation of the customary useages and laws of the time. Why do we not give the German sub captain the benefit of the doubt? Allied, German or American or other neutral propagandas? Arguments over whose propaganda is more efficacious is specious. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
27thBN Posted 28 December , 2009 Share Posted 28 December , 2009 Hi all, At this point, does it even matter what the government says now about the Lusitania? I mean, the answer is right there on the ocean's bottom. take care, -Daniel Well pretty well sum up the situation ,gets down to civilians killed not whether there were arms on board as they obviously were MC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egbert Posted 28 December , 2009 Share Posted 28 December , 2009 Just skimmed through much though not all the entries to this thread. 1) It is now accepted by most that Lusitania was carrying a fairly considerable shipment of small arms ammunition made in the USA for the British war effort. 2) It is now accepted as well by most that the British government should have and must have known this of course considering the size of the shipment and the timing (May 1915) of the voyage. 3) It is and/or should be much better known that American manufacturers generally openly flaunted right from the start of the war neutrality laws and sold expertise, manufacturing parts, actual munitions etc...to practically all the belligerents on a major scale. All the moral and legal arguments should take these 3 salient points into consideration. John Toronto John I think it would be fair to add a 4th point of fact, still unresolved: 4) Why are the authorities not willing to shed light in the 90 tons mystery even today . It would be so easy to explain the reason of the QUOTE (also scroll down to the bottom of the linked website) "two consignments of unrefrigerated "butter" and "cheese" that together weighed nearly 90 tons and were both destined for the Royal Navy Weapons Testing Establishment in Essex. Quite what such an establishment wanted with such a large quantity of rancid dairy products remains a mystery to this day! Curiously though, both those items were insured at the special government insurance rate and even more curious is the fact that the insurance was never claimed. END OF QUOTE" I have no answer and am still puzzled about the secrecy of the authorities. The complete manifest list is still today classified secret and is available in the Royal Navy Records Office in Bath. So for my part I can only consult wikipedia.org or other non governmental websites. Hope the divers find the answers in the next years.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egbert Posted 29 December , 2009 Share Posted 29 December , 2009 There is no point in looking at this incident from a latter-day viewpoint. The U-boat captain did not know that his target was the LUSITANIA nor that she carried ammunition. He did, however, know that she was a passenger vessel and that to torpedo her was against the Laws of War as accepted at that time. Your statement unfortunately is not correct at all and is misleading: Schwieger classified the silhouette correctly as the 4 funnel ship Lusitania before firing one single torpedo. The reckognition books onboard U 20 also correctly identified her as an Armed Merchant Cruiser, as she has been declared officially by the the Royal Navy. The ship was a legitimate target and Schwieger fired one torpedo . Schwieger's war diary says that he was more than surprised to see her sink so fast. He decided to not fire additionally torpedoes. It was also known to the Imperial Navy that the Lusitania transported forbidden contraband (ammunition and explosives, and ah yes 90 tons of rancid butter for the Royal Navy Weapons Testing Establishment in Essex ); the German embassy in the USA therefore warned all passengers to embark the Lusitania before the voyage as she was declared a target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionia Posted 29 December , 2009 Share Posted 29 December , 2009 Te question of whether the LUSITANIA was correctly identified prior to the firing of the torpedo presumably depends on whether or nor the War Diary of U20 has been "interfered with". What is the evidence for the RN having "officially" declared her to be an Armed Merchant Cruiser? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonharley Posted 29 December , 2009 Share Posted 29 December , 2009 I've seen it written that U-20 had a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships on board - the year wasn't mentioned. Do you have an exact specification for the "recognition guide", Egbert? Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egbert Posted 30 December , 2009 Share Posted 30 December , 2009 Simon, September 17th, 1914, the Lusitania was officially declared an Armed Auxiliary Cruiser by the Admiralty and added to the British fleet list, thereby becoming a war ship by national and international law. U20 certainly had up-to-date reckon books on board when the L. was sunk May 7th, 1915. There are several links to the Admiralty fleet register, this one on page 60 is in English language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonharley Posted 30 December , 2009 Share Posted 30 December , 2009 Correct me if I'm wrong, but she was only an Armed Merchant Cruiser when being employed as such, and would have been flying the White Ensign. She wasn't being employed as an AMC when she was torpedoed and wasn't flying the White Ensign. Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionia Posted 30 December , 2009 Share Posted 30 December , 2009 Simon, September 17th, 1914, the Lusitania was officially declared an Armed Auxiliary Cruiser by the Admiralty and added to the British fleet list, thereby becoming a war ship by national and international law. U20 certainly had up-to-date reckon books on board when the L. was sunk May 7th, 1915. There are several links to the Admiralty fleet register, this one on page 60 is in English language The reference given is to Colin Simpson!!! I wonder if you would mind providing a primary reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egbert Posted 30 December , 2009 Share Posted 30 December , 2009 The primary source is of course the Admiralty's Fleet List which should be easily obtainable for you in every library! I am curious though of your motives: are you questioning the fact that the L. was listed as an Auxiliary Cruiser??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonharley Posted 30 December , 2009 Share Posted 30 December , 2009 I have a copy of the December, 1914 "Navy List", and "Lusitania" and "Mauretania" are listed as "Royal Naval Reserve Merchant Vessels", "held by the Cunard Co. at the disposal of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty and receive an annual subvention." If "Lusitania" was commissioned as an Armed Merchant Cruiser, or a Royal Naval Reserve Merchant Vessel, then she would have been listed as such in the "Navy List". So yes, I'm questioning Simpson's assertion that she was entered on the "Admiralty's fleet register" on 17 September as an armed auxiliary cruiser. Noone else suggests she was ever taken into Royal Navy service. And the matter of recognition book in use in U20 is pretty important. Do you know which one it was? Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egbert Posted 30 December , 2009 Share Posted 30 December , 2009 I have a copy of the December, 1914 "Navy List", and "Lusitania" and "Mauretania" are listed as "Royal Naval Reserve Merchant Vessels", "held by the Cunard Co. at the disposal of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty and receive an annual subvention." If "Lusitania" was commissioned as an Armed Merchant Cruiser, or a Royal Naval Reserve Merchant Vessel, then she would have been listed as such in the "Navy List". So yes, I'm questioning Simpson's assertion that she was entered on the "Admiralty's fleet register" on 17 September as an armed auxiliary cruiser. Noone else suggests she was ever taken into Royal Navy service. And the matter of recognition book in use in U20 is pretty important. Do you know which one it was? Simon Fortunately I was not on board U20, but if you would like to visit google.de and enter "lusitania" you will find interesting information on the following pages with relevant sources mentioned in footnotes. If you do not understand the text you can use the translate function. In addition to the 1914 fleet list she was listed as Auxiliary Cruiser in Jane's Handbuch der Kriegsflotten von 1913 (Fighting Ships) Also this site has a convenient chronic of events which is quite remarkeable and might help you understand the other side, or should I say the actions of the Admiralty and mentions also the fleet list where L. was listed as Armed Auxiliary Cruiser ( she had been refitted/prepared in the yard as such, commencing work on 12 May in Liverpool ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonharley Posted 30 December , 2009 Share Posted 30 December , 2009 Egbert, you said before, "U20 certainly had up-to-date reckon books on board when the L. was sunk May 7th, 1915." How certain are you? What would you call up-to-date? I looked through German google. I'm lucky enough to be able to read a fair amount of German, though the vast majority of the results are in English. The German Wikipedia page mentioned the September 17th date but didn't reference it. The website you linked to mentions it and also provides no references. Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egbert Posted 30 December , 2009 Share Posted 30 December , 2009 Egbert, you said before, "U20 certainly had up-to-date reckon books on board when the L. was sunk May 7th, 1915." How certain are you? What would you call up-to-date? I looked through German google. I'm lucky enough to be able to read a fair amount of German, though the vast majority of the results are in English. The German Wikipedia page mentioned the September 17th date but didn't reference it. The website you linked to mentions it and also provides no references. Simon I believe I read it in the previously linked German language Lusitania website. There and on other websites I skimmed through, I read about the reckon books mentioned. Up-to-date should reflect the actual Kriegsschiff-Erkennungstafel at the time they went to sea from their base. No ship going to warzones leaves base w/o proper Erkennungstafeln . It was then and is so now with all Navies wherever you come from. Ebay has some Kriegsschifferkennungstafeln on sale if you like to know how they looked like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Gorst Posted 30 December , 2009 Share Posted 30 December , 2009 Egbert I have no axe to grind here but on the link you posted (and I may be being dense, it is not unkown) I see no primary source references to the status of the Lusitania. Sureley this is at the heart of the matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Gilinsky Posted 30 December , 2009 Share Posted 30 December , 2009 From the posts above: a) The German sub captain reasonably believed that this was a British passenger ship seconded as needed during war time to the RN based on the recognition, communications and orders he was operating under. It is NOT reasonable to believe that the captain of the sub would likely know exactly when or when not such a vessel after being officially notified in the fall of 1914 and communicated to all parties was acting as an auxiliary or not. The German sub captain moreover as I have pointed out would and should have add additional naval or political intelligence indicating that there was every likelihood that the ship was carrying munitions or contraband of war of some significance from the USA Points a) and clearly indicate that the sub captian in all likelihood did NOT exceed orders nor flaunt international law relating to maritime conflict at the time. c) It is known that during the late 1920's and certainly during the 1930's that the War Office and RN conducted fairly if not highly secret diving operations on the wreck. Knowing how the wreck was sunk and with no great military necessity dictated at the time why such official secret operations would have been carried out including apparently the blowing in or up of parts of the wreck to either cover up, destroy or recover certain bodies and/or materials would also lend some credence that the ship carried illegal cargo and/or persons (from all accounts most likely the former). It is interesting though to note that very little attention is paid to those possibly unidentified victims or nameless bodies / persons as well as discrepancies amongst the crew/passenger lists if such things exist. d) Coming clean is difficult for any government especially historically when the passage of time, little or no external pressure groups/lobby groups, and no discernible overriding public interest dictates that governments do so. e) Possibly counterfactual or alternative comparable story: Moderately large for region, German Baltic passenger ship carrying say roughly 1000 crew and passengers in total on a voyage from neutral Sweden to a known German port in the Baltic is sunk by a single torpedo in broad and clear daylight in good weather in May 1915 by a small British submarine. Many crew and passengers die after the German ship sinks within 15 minutes in moderately deeper water. War Office and RN at time claim ship was a legitimate target as the German passenger ship was carrying vital war contrabrand (Sweden ore and Sweden made small arms ammunition) to Germany. Notices in both Swedish and German papers had been placed by the British Foreign Office both in late 1914 and repeated in 1915 warning everyone that ships travelling to Germany were liable to inspection, possible seizure and possibly worse if found to be violating contrabrand. The notices also state that the British government have received many notices that such vessels travelling to Germany are carrying contrabrand etc...and that the British government have given orders that such vessels are to be stopped and if necessary destroyed by the armed forces of Great Britain. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now