Lusitania

[Guest Paul Louden-Brown]

I have a feeling that their is more to the u-boat log than that quoted.

I am sure in another version there is an entry about checking the identity of the ship with a 1914 copy of "Janes" which had the Cunard Liners listed as auxillery cruisers. I cannot remember where I picked up this idea from, possibly a TV documentary on the sinking. It may not have been in the log but the transcript of a statement by Schwieger made after the event to justify his actions. However it does in some way sugest that the U-Boat Captain beleived he was attacking a ligitimate target.

bill

Bill, your 'feeling' is correct. U-Boat commanders kept two records, the first is the short log, taken from sightings through the periscope and the second, the official or long log. You might compare it to a policeman keeping a record in his notebook and then writing a full account later. In the case of the torpedoing of RMS Arabic I've had translated both surviving versions and they are very different, perhaps the 'official' log version written in light of the unfolding international storm. One thing I would comment on is that in the case of the Lucy and Arabic, and despite the fact that Germany promised not to sink any more passenger liners without warning them first, the urge to destroy a target of such a size is one that many commanders of submarines were unable to resist. Paul

[simonharley]

"L. built with subsidies from the Admiralty and subsequently declared "Auxiliary Armed Cruiser" on 17.9.1914 reflected in the on-board "Kriegsschiff-Erkennungstafeln" (sort of ship recognition tables)."

Where was this announced that the German Navy apparently registered it in their publications? And if they apparently knew that, why didn't they make a note when Lusitania returned to the North Atlantic passenger run, as would have been clearly apparent to any observer in the United States.

Simon

[MikB]

Do you have any military experience? If yes you may answer your Q by yourself- are you allowed to follow orders and apply RoE or are you required to do so?

And coming back to my earlier posted decision making process -

you can be 100% assured that the following facts influenced Schwieger's decision:

- RoE

- L. sailing without displaying her flag

- L. funnel camouflaged

- L. known to the German High Command since 1914 transports military cargo like explosives and ammo

- L. built with subsidies from the Admiralty and subsequently declared "Auxiliary Armed Cruiser" on 17.9.1914 reflected in the on-board "Kriegsschiff-Erkennungstafeln" (sort of ship recognition tables). It was known since 12 May 1913 that L. received special reinforced deck armament for accepting 12x 15cm guns, powder chamber and ammo storage holds for for her ship artillery

- (do not know whether Schwieger had the same intel knowledge than that of the German Navy Command with reflect of L's. cargo hold at last voyage)

- German Uboot captains knew of the Admiralty order for L. to ram and sink Uboots immediately when sighting

- of course Schwieger knew or even was involved in the discussions that went around in Germany for some time about how many German soldiers' can be killed with these amounts of infantry ammunition (Germany calculated that with such. cargo of some 5.4 million cartridges at a kill ratio of 3% a total of 150.000 soldiers in the trenches can be killed)

Thanks for the description of the criteria for the attck, but this argument really goes beyond the adherence to orders - I'm trying to get an understanding of the division of moral responsibility for letting the djinn out of the bottle that produced the 'anything goes' philisophy of war that generally rules today, but which didn't - at least officially - in the decades leading up to WW1.

If the discussions in Germany worked on a kill ratio of 3%, even in the first year of WW1 it would have been obvious that such a calculation was most grotesquely excessive - but of course Schwieger didn't even know they were aboard.

[Donald D]

Paul,

My Grandfather's name is Frederick Davie. In his post war Identity Certificate he is rated as Ships Printer & Steward.

[bill24chev]

"L. built with subsidies from the Admiralty and subsequently declared "Auxiliary Armed Cruiser" on 17.9.1914 reflected in the on-board "Kriegsschiff-Erkennungstafeln" (sort of ship recognition tables)."

Where was this announced that the German Navy apparently registered it in their publications? And if they apparently knew that, why didn't they make a note when Lusitania returned to the North Atlantic passenger run, as would have been clearly apparent to any observer in the United States.

Simon

I beleive that German Naval intelligence would be aware that the Cunard liners and many others, were regarded as Auxillery Cruisers at the start of the war.

This information would be needed by U-boat commanders when conductinfg"Cruiser Actions" of Stop, (Search) and Sink. they would not want to surface to carry out a surface Gun action to find themselves staring down the barrells of 4.7 or 6 inch guns.

I can also understand that any change of status was not recorded because the Admiralty could have re-requisitioned the big liners as Aux. cruisers or for other wartime duties such as troop shps.

[Simon Mills]

They may have been aware that the ship was constructed with the potential to be used as an AMC, but she was most definitely unarmed and still in commercial service when she was sunk.

Regarding the status of British war ships, I don't know what the British had told Germany about the Lusitania, but I do know that by 1915/1916 the line of communications was such that the constant change in the designation of which vessels were or were not hospital ships was causing a large number of bureaucratic issues for the Germans.

In any event, it looks as if this story's not done yet: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/owner-of-lusitania-insists-it-was-carrying-explosives-when-it-sank-3229673.html

[MikB]

In any event, it looks as if this story's not done yet: http://www.independe...nk-3229673.html

That was apparent from the TV programme. He wants to carry on digging until he finds what he wants to find for his conspiracy theory.

It seems he thinks Lusitania was carrying contraband explosives in a modified bunker in the bow - which doesn't sit well with the site of the tear that sank her.

[bill24chev]

The Lusitania was in commercial service when she was sunk but at least two other four funnneled ships wher being used for warlike duties such as troop ships. I know German optics were excellent but would Schwieger be capable of making a definate identification of what ship he was stalking through his periscope?

Does anybody know if Schwieger was on the list of war criminals produced by the allies and dealt with by the German Supreme Court?

[Simon Mills]

The Lusitania was in commercial service when she was sunk but at least two other four funnneled ships wher being used for warlike duties such as troop ships. I know German optics were excellent but would Schwieger be capable of making a definate identification of what ship he was stalking through his periscope?

Does anybody know if Schwieger was on the list of war criminals produced by the allies and dealt with by the German Supreme Court?

Bill,

I'm not sure that's the case.

The four remaining British four-funnelled passenger steamers had all been inactive for the first part of 1915. Aquitania had briefly seen service as an AMC in August 1914 but after the larger ships had been found to be unsuitable for those duties (too unwieldy and expensive to run) had been laid up in September and went unused, I think, until June 1915. Mauretania had also lain unused until May of 1915, being called up just after the Lusitania had been sunk, and White Star's Olympic had been laid up at Belfast since October of 1914 and wasn't called up for military service until September of 1915. Strictly speaking Britannic doesn't really count here as she was lying incomplete at Belfast and wasn't requistioned until November of 1915.

I would imagine that Schwieger was not on the Allies' list of war criminals, if only because he didn't survive the war. He was killed in 1917.

S.

[bill24chev]

Bill,

I'm not sure that's the case.

The four remaining British four-funnelled passenger steamers had all been inactive for the first part of 1915. Aquitania had briefly seen service as an AMC in August 1914 but after the larger ships had been found to be unsuitable for those duties (too unwieldy and expensive to run) had been laid up in September and went unused, I think, until June 1915. Mauretania had also lain unused until May of 1915, being called up just after the Lusitania had been sunk, and White Star's Olympic had been laid up at Belfast since October of 1914 and wasn't called up for military service until September of 1915. Strictly speaking Britannic doesn't really count here as she was lying incomplete at Belfast and wasn't requistioned until November of 1915.

I would imagine that Schwieger was not on the Allies' list of war criminals, if only because he didn't survive the war. He was killed in 1917.

S.

I did not know schwieger was a casualty, thanks for that infomation.

I appreciate that the other four funnel ships were laid up but they could have been commisioned again at short notice and German inteligence on their status may have not been available.

On balance I suspect that Schwieger had some idea on the identity of the Lusitania but once he had made a note in his log(s) he may have found it difficult to explain to his commanders why he did not attack when he returned to Germany. He would be wary of surfacing to carry out a cruiser action because it could possibly still be armed and he was very close to the RN base at Queenstown as well.

[MikB]

I would imagine that Schwieger was not on the Allies' list of war criminals, if only because he didn't survive the war. He was killed in 1917.

S.

But would that have been known at the time, and passed to whomever was compiling the Wanted List? And if it had been, wouldn't they have held the name on the list anyway until the fact of his death could be checked after the war?

Regards,

MikB

[Simon Mills]

But would that have been known at the time, and passed to whomever was compiling the Wanted List? And if it had been, wouldn't they have held the name on the list anyway until the fact of his death could be checked after the war?

Regards,

MikB

Mik,

See paragraph 3: http://uboat.net/wwi/men/commanders/322.html

S.

[Simon Mills]

I appreciate that the other four funnel ships were laid up but they could have been commisioned again at short notice and German inteligence on their status may have not been available.

Bill,

The larger steamers were not used by the Royal Navy between September 1914 and late May 1915. The reality was that they proved something of a disappointment in service and quickly showed that they were not suited to the role of armed merchant cruisers. Aquitania's collision and Oceanic's total loss highlighted the fact that such large vessels were totally unsuited to escort or patrolling duties, and the fact that they required such large crews and large supplies of coal also made them hopelessly uneconomic. It was only after the Gallipoli landings that the need to transport large numbers of troops to and from the Eastern Mediterranean made them an attractive enough proposition for the Admiralty to finally call upon their services as troopers and hospital ships, but not as AMCs.

It's unlikely that the British would have bothered to inform the Germans if any ship was being requisitioned for trooping duties. The only real necessity was to advise the Germans if a certain ship had a special status, such as a hospital ship, which would have been protected under the terms of the Hague Convention.

S.

[Flanders1]

Hiya everyone

What is everyone's views on the sinking of the Lusitania on the 7 May 1915. I have done a little bit of research on this ship over the last few days and I'm a bit confused by what is fact and fiction. I have also read that the German Navy torpedoed this ship with just the one torpedo but other information brings up the fact that there were in fact two torpedoes used because a second explosion was heard.?????? I have since heard that this second explosion was in fact because, that the first and only torpedo used hit the area of the ship that was carrying ammunitions / armaments, if this was the case do you think the German Navy had full justification for sinking this ship as this would of been seen as a very big threat to them and the rest of the central powers, even tho l do not agree with the taking of life's,that were on board, but think they would still of done this if they knew the ship was totally empty of passengers because of the knowledge of what was being carried.

There is also some talk that Churchill had something to do with the sinking of the Lusitania as well as the New Hampshire as this would of helped bring America into the war in which if that was the case it worked like a charm.

Paul

[MikB]

It took nearly 2 years and further sinkings and plots to set up a war with Mexico to bring the US in - that wasn't much of a charm.

If the ship was carrying war materials - certainly small arms ammunition and maybe light artillery shells, unfilled - the quantity was tiny in comparison to normal Western Front consumption.

The U-boat commander can scarcely have been in any doubt that many noncombatants were aboard.

It was an atrocity - a shock to those on all sides who considered themselves capable of conducting what they saw as civilised war.

It defeated that view of war and set the tone for its future conduct that has led to the complete cynicism and indiscriminate terrorism we see today.

Regards,

MikB

[Flanders1]

Thanks for your reply MikB.

Yes I do wonder myself why it took a further 2 years till 6 April 1917 for the Americans to enter the War against Germany so like you say why was it seen as a charm if they waited so long and still did not get involved in any fighting until some months after that date.

I'm also looking at the Zimmerman Telegram Note that was sent to Mexico and then intercepted by the British and the unrestricted submarine warfare as all three put together do cause the Americans to enter the war.

But has anyone ever gone down to see the wreck of the Lusitania like they have the Titanic from what I see NO possibly because of discriminating evidence that this ship was carrying more then just passengers and there luggage.????

Also like I mentioned in my first post did Churchill have anything to do with the sinking of this Ship why he would wish to do this I do not know and I believe in myself he would not of given orders to do this even tho he was 1st lord of the admiralty. And then a few years ago Tony Blair gave orders to be rid of all documents regarding the storage lists of this ship. Why has everything been kept so Hush Hush. Right back to the research I guess!!

Regards Paul.

[Michael Haselgrove]

Hi Flanders1,

If you intend to do further research the book I suggest reading is "Wilful Murder-The Sinking of the Lusitania" by Diana Preston, published in 2002. In the book you will find considerable detail regarding the questions you raise.

Regards,

Michael H

[Flanders1]

Thank you Simon will have a read on that thread.

Thank you, Michael going to "Amazon" it

Paul

[Steven S]

Hi Paul

The Lusitania has been dived many, many times - I would guess a lot more than the Titanic. She is within range of divers, at a depth of 92m, and only 12 miles offshore - I know divers who have visited her, having been employed by the current owner of the wreck, who has commissioned a lot of these dives to try and prove there was ammunition on board. There is no doubt there was small arm ammo on board but no other types have been found despite all the searching. It seems that some people are determined to try and find an excuse for the atrocity.

Steve

[MikB]

It seems that some people are determined to try and find an excuse for the atrocity.

Indeed - in the TV documentary I saw, the owner was so very disgruntled and disbelieving that he hadn't found what he wanted, that if in a future expedition he should claim to have discovered such evidence, I would suspect him of fabricating it.

Regards,

MikB

[Guest exuser1]

I believe that the issue is our judgements are still influenced by the very impressive propaganda of the day , graphic posters ,a vitriolic press which still echoes today ,previous to 1915 there had been within short memory many incidents involving civilians in the Balkans and in France in 1870 carried out by Bavarian troops but now consigned to the footnotes of history books , the Lusitania dovetails very well with the loss of the Titanic and the Britannic and carries impressive images , was it a crime ? the captain of the U Boat would have been in no doubt as to what he was attacking the shape of the ship would not have left any confusion as to what she was ,he made a decision and as far as he was concerned was doing his job .

[wig]

Below is an extract from my review of Xander Clayton's excellent Book on the "Aud", which you ought to read if researching the German navy.

"Treated as equal heroes, but with slightly less reverence are the crew of the German U boat, U19, that brought the leading rebel Sir Roger Casement to Banna Strand in the same secret arms-to-Ireland operation. The Capt. of that U boat, Capt Weisbach, had only the year before, been the torpedo officer, the trigger man, on U boat U20 when it had sank the Lusitania. But as recorded here, in minute detail, he was received as a hero in Ireland during the 1966 50th anniversary celebrations of the Rising, while most of the rest of the world still considered the Lusitania episode as an atrocity of war. In fact it is clear from the book that he was received as a hero in Cobh, no doubt at Casement Square Cobh, named after his brave and martyred 1916 passenger. It had previously been known as Scott Square and had been used in 1915, to lay out the hundreds of civilian bodies of the good Captain Weisbach’s Lusitania victims"

The full review is here: http://broadsidesdot...xander-clayton/

[David Filsell]

It was carrying ammunition1

[Guest exuser1]

It was carrying a small amount of ammo ,but don't use that as a excuse it was a war with thousands being killed every day with very nasty things happening in the Balkans to civilians and dare I mention the Armenians ? what's the quote "Who remembers the Armenians " I can never see the issue with the Lusitania whether it was carrying munitions or not ,there was a war on and merchant ships were being sunk .

[MikB]

It was carrying a small amount of ammo ,but don't use that as a excuse it was a war with thousands being killed every day with very nasty things happening in the Balkans to civilians and dare I mention the Armenians ? what's the quote "Who remembers the Armenians " I can never see the issue with the Lusitania whether it was carrying munitions or not ,there was a war on and merchant ships were being sunk .

So you'd think to get away with murder, because some groups of folk you didn't know were murdering one another in a distant land?

There were other atrocities, but this was the one that stuck out most in European consciousness - this was the one that let the djinn out of the bottle, and there's no way to get it back in.