The Sinking of the Lusitania as a war crime

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#1

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 22 Jun 2003, 01:16

There are other accusations that someone could level against Churchill but these aren’t them
An Invitation? I suppose I have to clear something up with David first.

I would consider the "Lusitania" incident to be a warcime , But before anyone freaks out , Do I start a topic on that here in the Warcrimes section or the WWI section? I already got some good documented "ammo" and I will let my "guns" cool a bit more before starting this, Either way I do not want to tack it on to this frivolous lawsuit here.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#2

Post by David Thompson » 22 Jun 2003, 07:36

Chris -- That's a good question. I'd be happy to have a thread on the Lusitania sinking as a war crime. It would fit just as well in the WWI section of the forum, and I'm sure they'd be happy to have it as well. Because of the time frame of the Lusitania sinking, why don't you start it out in the WWI section, and if Gwynn Compton thinks it really belongs here in the H&WC section, he's welcome to transfer it back.


User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#3

Post by Peter H » 22 Jun 2003, 09:24

Diana Preston's recent book came up with the following conclusions:

Following world condemnation after the sinking, German authorities recanted their initial boasts that they had deliberately torpedoed the ocean liner, saying that the captain of the submarine that launched the two torpedoes—one of which struck home—didn't know what he was firing at. Though historians have differed on the degree of Germany's culpability, Preston, analyzing documents in a German military archive, found evidence that the attack was "premeditated and that German U-boats had, in fact, been stalking the liner for months." Moreover, Preston writes that the German submarine's logbook was doctored after the event, "probably when the Kaiser began to fear defeat and the potential for war crimes charges."

Preston's research bears directly on questions about the incident that spark debate to this day. Though the attack helped draw the United States into the war, she found no evidence that the British had, in any way, allowed the Lusitania to be sunk as a ploy to recruit American support, contrary to conspiracy theories. At the same time, she documents that British officials largely ignored warnings by the Imperial German Embassy in Washington—published in 50 American newspapers—that vessels flying the British flag were "liable to destruction."



But her own view on the legality of the matter is interesting:

Preston informs us, for instance, that while much of the world looked upon the torpedoing of the Lusitania as an act of coldblooded murder, technically -- legally -- Germany was in the right. Because England was enforcing a naval blockade preventing food from entering Germany, the latter country had, in February 1915, declared "unrestricted submarine warfare" in most of the waters surrounding Great Britain.

All enemy ships, Germany announced, "would be destroyed even if it is not possible to avoid thereby the danger which threatens the crews and passengers."


Tit for tat,any German response to the British blockade would (under the Hague Convention)have to follow the same procedure as that of the RN suspecting contraband aboard runners--stop the ship,check its manifest,and if carrying illegal goods intern it.

This type of presentation didn't help the German cause much either:
Image
http://www.ww1-propaganda-cards.com/images/lus5.JPG

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#4

Post by Peter H » 22 Jun 2003, 09:50

...and the infamous Lusitania Medallion,minted by a private German individual,but well used in formulating 'Hun hating' on the Allied side.

Image
http://pro.corbis.com/images/watermark/ ... 003223.jpg

Image
http://pro.corbis.com/images/watermark/ ... 003222.jpg

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#5

Post by Harri » 22 Jun 2003, 10:45

There has been a theory that Lusitania was sunk because it was supposedly transporting weapons (or something else secret) from USA to Britain. Is there anything new in that "front"?

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#6

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 22 Jun 2003, 14:58

Harri , This is what my new thread will cover. The carrying of munitions in the Lusitania, and the concept of using civilians as shields to do so.
If you want a good link.http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika03.htm

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

#7

Post by Mark V » 22 Jun 2003, 15:49

Harri wrote:because it was supposedly transporting weapons (or something else secret) from USA to Britain.
Don't know was it really sunk because of that, but she did carry war-supplies to Britain.

Mark V

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#8

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 22 Jun 2003, 23:40

After the start of the war Britian started apractice of shipping amouts of munitions and war contraband in passenger liners. This makes these ships legitimate targets of war. The fact that these ships primarily ccarried civilians makes this a violation the Genva Convention. This can be said to be using civians as shields, to aid their war against Germany.

"LUSITANIA sailed with 4200 cases of Remington .303 rifle cartridges, a thousand rounds to a box, with 1250 cases of shrapnel shells, and with eighteen cases of fuzes." These were not listed on the initial ship's manifest to hide it from German spies, I will add that the germans knew though others sources, However far more sinister, than what was stated by the Germans as a defense for sinking the ship, I would say that this also ensured that any passengers on board this ship did not know they were sailing on a ship that was legitimate target of war. This is flat out evil.

At this time Churchill was First Sea Lord of the English Royal navy. He abiout this and sanctioned doing this for two reasons.
1. By violating the rules of war using passenger ships to transport munitions he was aiding his country.
2.Churchill also knew when the Germans finally sunks one of these passenger/munition ships within the rules of war because of the munitions , some passengers, (hopefully and probably some Americans)
would surely, die as this would get America to declare war.

This using civilians as shields and putting them in a situation where they can die is cleary a violation of Geneva convention rules and since it was intended to purposely cause deaths of civilians , The only conclusion that can be reached is Churchill killed civilians by his orders and is therefore guilty of murder, ergo- a war crime.

I would suggest that any one who can trace a death to the Lusitania go file a suit against Great Britian and the Churchill family as these intentional violations of the Articles of war caused the sinking and the
deaths of their family members.

In closing I will say that I realy wanted to start this later, as right now I am only able to use one hand as I burnt the other, I will try to answer what I can . I kept it as staight-forward as possible. We can argue about various documentation but I hope my statements are within the bounds of accepted knowledge about Churchill , laws of war , and sub-marine warfare. I just saw fit to put this all together to "make my case" for labeling Winston Churchill a "war criminal" for actions in the First World War as First Sea Lord (CiC) of the Royal Navy.

One Final note Churchill resigned as FSL the same month as the Lusitania, May1915, it has always been said over the Darnelles diaster, but after thinking about it I wonder.

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 02:17
Location: Houston, Texas

#9

Post by walterkaschner » 23 Jun 2003, 08:03

Hi ChristopherPerrien,

A very interesting post. Could you furnish the source of the quote about the Lusitania carrying war materials with Churchill's knowledge?

Thanks, Kaschner

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#10

Post by Peter H » 23 Jun 2003, 08:27

ChristopherPerrien wrote:After the start of the war Britian started apractice of shipping amouts of munitions and war contraband in passenger liners. This makes these ships legitimate targets of war. The fact that these ships primarily ccarried civilians makes this a violation the Genva Convention. This can be said to be using civians as shields, to aid their war against Germany.

"LUSITANIA sailed with 4200 cases of Remington .303 rifle cartridges, a thousand rounds to a box, with 1250 cases of shrapnel shells, and with eighteen cases of fuzes." These were not listed on the initial ship's manifest to hide it from German spies, I will add that the germans knew though others sources, However far more sinister, than what was stated by the Germans as a defense for sinking the ship, I would say that this also ensured that any passengers on board this ship did not know they were sailing on a ship that was legitimate target of war. This is flat out evil.
Munitions carried worked out to be about one day's consumption for the BEF in 1915. Any German desire to stop this minor cache must be offset by the damage that the sinking did to German standing in the USA.This would then rate as one of the biggest tactical blunders of WW1.

Did Churchill also arrange the trigger happy Captain S and his UBoat to be around in the area?This from FirstWorldWar.com:

Schwieger was known to frequently attack ships without warning them, and fired at any neutral ships he suspected may be British. In an earlier voyage, he narrowly missed hitting a hospital ship with a torpedo. His reputation made it more likely for him to destroy a British passenger liner, such as the Lusitania.

When the Athenia was sunk in 1939,Goebbels in all his 'wisdom' came up with the same type of conspiracy theory against Churchill---out of the loop he wasn't told that a U boat was the cause,not sabotage by Winnie.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#11

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 23 Jun 2003, 17:15

High Walter , Do you not think that the First Sea lord of the Admiralty would not know of any and all shipments of war material to his country , engaged in a war of survival? Especially shipments being done on "Cunard line" passenger ships which had some higher class people aboard.

"Churchill mentions the cargo of cartridges and shrapnel in "The World Crisis," published in 1923- -"

I will try to find his exact quote out of that book , I don't think I have a copy in my library. I hope that info answers your question.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#12

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 23 Jun 2003, 17:46

High Moulded,

Does it matter about how much munitions it actually is? How many ship "sailing" did this (365 a year?) It still violates certain neutrality rules for ships and Geneva articles to the effect of using non-combants as "shields".

Violations of these rules made the Lusitania a legal "target", no matter how "trigger Happy" the sub - commander was. I totally agree that it was a major "public relations" and tactical blunder.

You don't give Churhill the cold-hearted credit he deserves. By his actions he effectively had the Germans in a "Dam you if you do , dam you if you don't," situtation. I highly admire his political skill in this . But I realize the "gamble" he did, involved CIVILIANS not soldiers, and resulted in deaths that did not have to happened if the Lusitania had not carried munitions, for that he should not and cannot be forgiven.

Please don't insinuate I am a nazi like Goebbel's with some conspiracy theory here. This topic is strictly about WORLD WAR ONE , so you cannot bring latter day stuff into this. The Lusitania predates this so let us follow the timeline of history.

You might consider bringing up the "Athenia" in it's proper context under the "Churchill warcrimes" in the Holocaust and war-crimes section.
I may do so in the future , at this time I don't think it is a valid "war-crime " on Churchill's part, but I have not researched the "Athenia" sinking or others well enough to make a determination or to give more comment. The "Lusitania" episode might establish " pattern of behavior" to use against Churchill's future (post WWI) actions, we will see.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#13

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 23 Jun 2003, 18:05

Before I am accused of plagurizing I wish to note that I am also using
primarily sub-sites of World War I .com. also. Plus the little knowledge that I have not yet forgotten as I get older. I figure to get published after I forget everything. :lol:

Not being a published "historian" yet, I don't know the legalities of footnoting and I don't think anyone really knows how it works on the "net".

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

#14

Post by redcoat » 28 Jun 2003, 01:37

ChristopherPerrien wrote:After the start of the war Britian started apractice of shipping amouts of munitions and war contraband in passenger liners. This makes these ships legitimate targets of war. The fact that these ships primarily ccarried civilians makes this a violation the Genva Convention. This can be said to be using civians as shields, to aid their war against Germany
Could you please point out which Geneva convention, states that it was illegal for passenger ships to carry munitions. I have looked up the Geneva conventions concerning maritime law in time of war ,and found nothing of the sort.
"LUSITANIA sailed with 4200 cases of Remington .303 rifle cartridges, a thousand rounds to a box, with 1250 cases of shrapnel shells, and with eighteen cases of fuzes." These were not listed on the initial ship's manifest to hide it from German spies, I will add that the germans knew though others sources, However far more sinister, than what was stated by the Germans as a defense for sinking the ship, I would say that this also ensured that any passengers on board this ship did not know they were sailing on a ship that was legitimate target of war.
Seeing the Germans took out newspaper adverts before the ship sailed stating that they considered any British flagged ship a target, your statement that they did not know is frankly nonsense
This is flat out evil.
and sinking an unarmed ship with women and children on board without warning is not???
At this time Churchill was First Sea Lord of the English Royal navy.
No he wasn't, he was First Sea Lord of the British Royal Navy, not English
This using civilians as shields and putting them in a situation where they can die is cleary a violation of Geneva convention rules and since it was intended to purposely cause deaths of civilians , The only conclusion that can be reached is Churchill killed civilians by his orders and is therefore guilty of murder, ergo- a war crime. .
Again, which Geneva convention are you talking about ???. you keep stating he commited an illegal act, could you please find the maritime law that states this ?

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#15

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 28 Jun 2003, 05:27

Article 1. Belligerents are bound to respect the sovereign rights of
neutral Powers and to abstain, in neutral territory or neutral waters, from
any act which would, if knowingly permitted by any Power, constitute a
violation of neutrality.

Art. 6. The supply, in any manner, directly or indirectly, by a neutral
Power to a belligerent Power, of war-ships, ammunition, or war material of
any kind whatever, is forbidden.

Art. 14. In naval wars any strong presumption that either belligerent takes advantage of the benefits of neutrality, with any other view than the interest of the sick and wounded, gives to the other belligerent, until proof to the contrary, the right of suspending the Convention as regards such belligerent.

Should this presumption become a certainty, notice may be given to such belligerent that the Convention is suspended with regard to him during the whole continuance of the war.

Look killing civilians and using civilians as shields has always been unacceptable according to the customs of war. The Geneva Conventions
cleary state that they support the established customs of war and the laws of humanity.

You are not going to find this "written down" until the conventions in 1949. The original authors and conventions figured this to be implied. For legal refer notice how war criminals in WWII were charged with crimes against humanity, now where is that in the Geneva Conventions. Simple fact is it was always implied, just as using civilians as shields. Perhaps this method of legal "semantics" is not pretty but it is an acceptable arguement.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”