How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

[Terry Duncan]

What crime was that?

The moment Schwieger failed to identify his target, or request it stopped, he broke all the rules of war. He simply identifies a liner, and attacked it, and only as it was sinking did he identify the ship. Therefore there was no 'attempt to escape by force or flight' as Lusitania was not even aware of U-20's presence.

Churchill had himself already violated them when he ordered British ships to refuse to stop when ordered, and to ram or fire upon Germans submarines.

The order is a violation, but as neither applied in the case of Lusitania, it is somewhat moot here, unless you claim an order unknown at the time to the Germans somehow excuses them from observing the rules? Refusing to stop had always been acceptable, there are many incidents from almost every war, the only breach of the law was if a ship tried to ram or fire upon a U-boat, and that did not happen here, or in all cases where U-boats had tried to stop merchant ships.

[ChristopherPerrien]

If Schwieger had bothered to identify the ship before attacking her then her status as a possible AMC, or of her carrying ammunition, may have some validity, but as his own log records that he only identified the ship as she was sinking, it is perfectly clear that he was the one who committed the crime and was to blame for what happened.

There was no crime you said yourself

You got that part mostly correct, although Lusitania was never taken up into the role she remained on Lloyd's registery as an AMC.

The British never had the classification changed. And it doesn't matter if Scheiger had wrote down if he sunk a hospital ship , a battleship , or a bowl of petunias. The Lusitania was an armed merchant cruiser as far as anyone was concerned. Which made her a legal target. Errors of notation mean nothing as far as maritime and war laws go., it is actions and their result that were judged back then.

that he was the one who committed the crime

Sunk an AMC without warning= no crime.

We could debate about the German knowing that munitions were being shipped, it is commonly accepted that they did, AFAIK. Robert Massie had a fine write up in his book "Castles of Steel " his follow up to the superb book "Dreadnought", I wish I could site the relevant chapter , pages , and sections on the Lusitania incident but I cannot get into my library anymore.

===================================================
As long as we're here. All the old Maritime laws/ laws of warfare went out the window , the day the British started using Q-ships. That action was akin to using all civilians and neutrals at sea as "shields", which is very frowned upon, unless you're the winner.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Chronos,

I can find no reference to any such category as HMAAC (His Majesty's Armed Auxiliary Cruiser), except in a handful of identical conspiracy theory sites on Lusitania. I think the correct prefix is HMS (His Majesty's Ship) and the type was an AMC (Armed Merchant Cruiser) or auxiliary cruiser.

These sites also say that "it is well known" that the Lusitania was categorized as such in Janes Fighting Ships. At first glance I can find no reference to this in the 1915 edition. Could you give a page number for this?

I think you should also supply a source for all the 6" guns you say she was carrying, as yours is the only such reference I can find. Many British (and foreign) merchant ships were built with reinforced decks and fitments so that they could mount guns in wartime, but I have seen no evidence that Lusitania was so armed in May 1915.

You say of the Ministry of Munitions, "In its own history it states that without the steel imports alone from the US. there would have had to have been a negotiated peace by 1915." . Can we have a specific source for this, too, please.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Christophe,

The sinking of the Lusitania occurred before the first use by the British of Q-ships.

Whoever was more at fault for it, I would suggest that the sinking of the Lusitania is a more plausible moment when, "All the old Maritime laws/ laws of warfare went out the window".

Cheers,

Sid.

[Hoist40]

What crime was that?

The moment Schwieger failed to identify his target, or request it stopped, he broke all the rules of war. He simply identifies a liner, and attacked it, and only as it was sinking did he identify the ship. Therefore there was no 'attempt to escape by force or flight' as Lusitania was not even aware of U-20's presence.

No, Churchill broke the rules when he ordered them not to stop

the only breach of the law was if a ship tried to ram or fire upon a U-boat, and that did not happen here, or in all cases where U-boats had tried to stop merchant ships.

Did you bother to read the quote????

""""The same suspension occurs if, summoned to stop to submit to search, they seek to escape by force or by flight."""

By force or by flight. Refusing to stop is flight

[Terry Duncan]

There was no crime you said yourself

I said the crime was when Schwieger attacked a ship he had not identified, nor asked it to stop, or indeed made provisions to ensure the safety of passengers.

The British never had the classification changed. And it doesn't matter if Scheiger had wrote down if he sunk a hospital ship , a battleship , or a bowl of petunias. The Lusitania was an armed merchant cruiser as far as anyone was concerned. Which made her a legal target. Errors of notation mean nothing as far as maritime and war laws go., it is actions and their result that were judged back then.

The classification only matters if Schwieger identified his target before attacking it, and he failed to do so. He attacked a four funneled liner, there was no error in notation. Even if we accept that he had identified Lusitania or Mauritania he still had a duty to ensure the passengers were safe before he sunk the ship. The major clues as to purpose would have been the civilian colour scheme, AMC's tended to adopt military paint schemes. We could also look at the slight problem that the Germans would of course need to know what the classification of the ship was at the point of attack. For example, even if Lusitania had been an AMC, the status could have been reverted to RMS recently, and thus she would be a liner. This is why identification and the challenge to stop were critical.

We could debate about the German knowing that munitions were being shipped, it is commonly accepted that they did, AFAIK. Robert Massie had a fine write up in his book "Castles of Steel " his follow up to the superb book "Dreadnought", I wish I could site the relevant chapter , pages , and sections on the Lusitania incident but I cannot get into my library anymore.

Again, this would only become important IF Schwieger had identified his target as a ship know to be carrying munitions. As he did not do so, the most likely cargo for a large four funnelled liner would be passengers, as was indeed the case.

[Terry Duncan]

No, Churchill broke the rules when he ordered them not to stop

There is nothing illegal about refusing to stop, blockade running has always been a part of warfare that is perfectly legal. Even then, it was up to the individual captain if he thought running was possible, and ships did still stop and allow inspection so it was not an order universally obeyed. We also have the slight problem that the Germans did not know of the order anyhow.

Did you bother to read the quote????

Yes, I could ask if you did, though it seems you just fail to comprehend what is actually said.

""""The same suspension occurs if, summoned to stop to submit to search, they seek to escape by force or by flight."""

I have highlighted the critical part of the law on suspension of status as this may aid your understanding of it.

By force or by flight. Refusing to stop is flight

Lusitania did not refuse to stop, she was not asked to do so, and was not even aware of U-20's presence. There was no attempt to fight or flee, and no challenge. Do you understand now?

[ChristopherPerrien]

Hi Christophe,

The sinking of the Lusitania occurred before the first use by the British of Q-ships.

Whoever was more at fault for it, I would suggest that the sinking of the Lusitania is a more plausible moment when, "All the old Maritime laws/ laws of warfare went out the window".

Cheers,

Sid.

Q-ships were launched starting in Nov1914. You are right 1st time Q-ship sunk a U-boat predates the Lusitania by 1 month, However it does not predate the first encounter/engagement/knowledge of Q-ships by the Germans. IIRC, huntinf ro a source now, besides my buried Castles of Steel.

[ChristopherPerrien]

There was no crime you said yourself

I said the crime was when Schwieger attacked a ship he had not identified, nor asked it to stop, or indeed made provisions to ensure the safety of passengers.


Again, this would only become important IF Schwieger had identified his target as a ship know to be carrying munitions. As he did not do so, the most likely cargo for a large four funnelled liner would be passengers, as was indeed the case.

If this is the case go tell the people at Uboat net, they are flat out wrong. They are not known for errors in this area.

Although the German U-boat had every right to torpedo the ship - she was registered as a vessel of the British Fleet Reserve, she travelled in a declared war zone and in her cargo holds she was carrying rifles and explosives and thus was a rightful target - the sinking caused sharp American protest, resulting in a German order to leave passenger liners unharmed.

http://www.uboat.net/history/wwi/part3.htm

[ChristopherPerrien]

No, Churchill broke the rules when he ordered them not to stop


By force or by flight. Refusing to stop is flight

Actually , The captain of the Lusitania was told to go SLOW and not to ZIG-ZAG in the area off the coast of Ireland where she was sunk , by Churchill/Royal Navy Command .

Also the one escort she had, was call off.

Figure out how much evilness is involved there.

[Terry Duncan]

If this is the case go tell the people at Uboat net, they are flat out wrong. They are not known for errors in this area.

I am sure you are fully capable should you wish to do so.

she was registered as a vessel of the British Fleet Reserve

That status means little unless she enters into service, it simply shows she was able to be used by the government for military purposes if they decided to do so. It was possible to be on the list and not finally taken into service - as indeed happened with Lusitania.

she travelled in a declared war zone

Germany declaring she will ignore the rules of war in an area that suits them does not excuse them from the laws of the day. The same sort of defence was tried over Soviet POW's at Nuremburg, the law applies even if a state declares it doesnt feel bound to follow it.

in her cargo holds she was carrying rifles and explosives and thus was a rightful target

Not that Schwieger knew this of course. This was the point of 'stop and search' and forcing the suspect ship to be inspected. After all, unless you specifically identify a ship, you cannot know precisely what is in the cargo holds. In this case, Schwieger had at best an identification of Lusitania or Mauritania, so unless he stopped the ship, he was simply sinking a ship in the hope it might contain some prohibited goods. That was not a legal process.

[Terry Duncan]

No, Churchill broke the rules when he ordered them not to stop


By force or by flight. Refusing to stop is flight

Actually , The captain of the Lusitania was told to go SLOW and not to ZIG-ZAG in the area off the coast of Ireland where she was sunk , by Churchill/Royal Navy Command .

Figure out how much evilness is involved there.

Figure out how much presumption is going on here too. Whilst I would not be surprised if Churchill did not care if the ship were sunk, I doubt there was an intention to get her sunk, if there had been it would have been far easier to arrange than leaving it to a lone U-boat with a single torpedo left. One reason for Lusitania to slow had been the desire for her not to pass this danger zone in darkness. A reasonable account of the sinking can be found here, including reasons for slowing, though Lusitania was speeding up again as she was sunk;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of ... e_activity

[ChristopherPerrien]

We have had a few debates on this Lusitania Controversy. A good source is

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika00.htm

I am going to concede debating this topic further , as I feel it would just be tiresome repetition of debates long past.

Regards,
Chris

[Terry Duncan]

Anything that uses Simpson's work is hardly greatly reliable as he invents much of his 'evidence' and gets a lot wrong, though from a brief glance the author if the article doesnt rate Simpson highly either, for some reason he does spend much of the article dealing with Simpson's claims.

A far better work is Bailey and Ryan 'The Lusitania Disaster' if people have access to it.

[AJFFM]

This guy has access to some mighty weed to write gibberish like this. I suggest he moves to Colorado and start selling, he might have an actual career in this nascent industry with the product he's using.