Anyone think Churchill had anything to with the sinking of the Lusitania to get America into WW1

[Michael H. Standart]

>>However, had the Lusitania never occured, the US would never have been drawn to the conflict at all; we would have continued our complete neutrality.<<

I'd have to disagree with that one, if only because the causes of a nation chancing war for any reason are never as simple as any one incident but a number of them which come together until something comes along to push things past the breaking point. The Lusitania was something that came, raised some heckles, but which quickly fell by the wayside over time, though it did make a useful rallying cry when it became convenient.

After you read This Translation of the Zimmerman Telegram, I don't think it'll strain anyone's intelligence to see why this was the straw that finally broke the camel's back. For some reason, nation-states are quite unamused when other parties decide to try and divide up their territory as if it were their own.

While one can bandy about forever the premise that the Lusitania was "deliberately sunk" in some grand conspiracy, the fatal flaw in the whole deal is the one wildcard that the British couldn't control, and that was Germany herself. Why would Germany co-operate with a scheme calculated to bring in another belligerant to fight against them?

 

[Dave Moran]

Further to my posting above re the coal shortage. From " British Naval Operational Logistics 1914-1918 " by Professor Jon Sumida

In the first four months of the war, the Grand Fleet kept boilers continually lit in order to deploy at two to three hours notice, and frequently went to sea in anticipation of German naval operations in the North Sea, activity that involved considerable consumption of fuel. Moreover, an absence of colliers to move the coal north to Rosyth and Scapa Flow ( Sumida suggests a 66% shortfall ) meant that coal mobility was limited as colliers were pulled away to service the needs of the fleet and to store the coal until it was called upon - which could be at short notice. In his memoirs Jellicoe remarked that " the situation as regards coal supply to the Fleet had become...very serious and was causing me some anxiety "

Moreover, whilst changes in standing orders meant that by early 1915 the collier shortage in home waters had eased, this was more than offset by the Dardanelles operation.

Keep in mind that, as a crack liner, Lusitania needed to use high quality coal for her operations. Moreover, though she might not be needed at the moment for naval operations, she might well be at some point in the future. Cunard would have been in serious trouble had her serviceability been impared through boilers that were knackered on poor quality nutty slack. The problem was - the Grand Fleet needed that same coal for their operations.

Finally - you cannot escape the effect of sea resistance versus speed. Basically, as a ships speed increases mathematically the amount of horsepower needed increases geometrically - for every knot of speed above a limit determined by hull shape horsepower must go up by an enormous leap. Thus, 18 kts is probably a speed that covers all the margins - fast enough to outrun submarines, slow enough not to wallop through limited coal reserves.

Warmest regards

dave

 

[Jack Devine]

I really don't believe that Churchill or anyone else in the government would have seriously considered sinking a liner full of civilians simply to affect public opinion in the U.S. Nothing I've ever read leads me to think that this would have ever been remotely considered for a moment. The idea of deliberately murdering hundreds, including women and children, would have horrified and offended those in government at the time, just as it would today. They could be ruthless, calculating, and perhaps even reckless with the lives of soldiers (the Dardanelles campaign comes to mind), but drowning innocents goes beyond the pale. Had they actually done this, word of it would eventually have gotten out and anyone involved might be fortunate to live long enough to reach the gallows.

 

[181218]

>>I really don't believe that Churchill or anyone else in the government would have seriously considered sinking a liner full of civilians simply to affect public opinion in the U.S. Nothing I've ever read leads me to think that this would have ever been remotely considered for a moment. The idea of deliberately murdering hundreds, including women and children, would have horrified and offended those in government at the time, just as it would today.<<

I'd agree with you. But it makes a good mystery story - no ?

My guess is that there could well have been some arms on the Lusitania - even if it were just a few guns.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I don't think that there's much doubt that the Lusitania was carrying some munitions. I don't think this is quite the scandal some might think and almost certainly not all that signifigent. The cargo capacity of a Transatlantic liner wasn't all that great and the rates for cargo aboard these ships were...so I'm given to understand...quite steep. Given the intensity of the fighting, even if the holds were stuffed completely full, the supplies would have barely lasted for an hour or two of actual combat operations.

 

[Daniel Ehlers]

Hey, all... Just a few more responses here.

First of all, yeah, there's little doubt the Lusitania had munitions crafted in neutral America but that, by the rules of war, was generally accepted, pending that they were small munitions. However, on this voyage, she carried highly explosive artillery shells, which could be detonated rather easily. And, since the Admiralty expanded her cargo hold, she was carrying quite a number. As for how long they would have lasted in combat, and whether or not these caused the second explosion, it doesn't matter, just the fact that they would be enough to sink Lusitania if detonated is something...

As for endangering innocent civilians being beneath governments, I tend to disagree. It's easy to say that now, but the war was supposed to be concluded by Christmas 1914. However, it was four months after that, and there was not even the hint of an end in sight; the Germans were halted at the French border in trench warfare, thousands were dying and no side was gaining land, Russia had been kicking the Austrians, but were on retreat from the Germans, and new nations, like the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria, were broadening the conflict. And, since the war was expected to be a short one, the economies of each nation could not handle continued fighting (eventually, the British, thanks to some quick thinking by David Lloyd George later in the war, would be the only European economy still standing), the situation was getting more and more desperate. Each side continued to deploy their offensive troops against enemy trenches, but made no progress for three years, since the machine gun proved superior. Without the possibility of successful attacks in the west, the war could stretch on forever. If it means the end of a war, saving millions of people, a few civilian casualties would be risked; in World War II, the US dropped atomic bombs on Japan to keep one million Americans alive, at the expense of 100,000 Japanese. Also, don't forget that Churchill in World War II allowed the Nazis to destroy an entire town; if he had acted, they would know he broke their code, and he could not protect the millions of British people later in the war. It's all a numbers game; if 1,000 civilians had to be risked to save the millions of people that died in World War I, it was a risk they would be willing to take.

As for the Zimmerman Telegram, keep in mind that, while this officially started the war, was the end of a chain of events that concerned the Americans. The Zimmerman Telegram was sent because Germany knew by restarting their total submarine warfare again, the Americans would begin shipping over troops. Without the Lusitania, the Americans wouldn't have demanded the Germans stop their submarine indiscretion, thus Germany wouldn't have restarted it, and the telegram would never have been sent. So while the Lusitania didn't automatically bring the Americans into the war, it eventually started a chain that would. Whether or not this made the British looked good, or allowed the US to formally join the Entente Cordiale, they were at war with Germany by the end of 1917, which was definitely good for Britain.

As for Germany not going along with the plan, that's true. However, the plan didn't require much on the German part. U-boats were active in the English Channel, and U-20 had been spotted on the surface near Queenstown, waiting for a ship to come by. All the British had to do was dangle the prize, in this case, the Lusitania, in front of a nearby U-boat, and wait for them to fire, which they knew Germany would, since they had sunk countless other ships.

And yes, Miles, this is a VERY good mystery.

 

[Jesse D O'Neill]

Daniel

While what you just said sounds very interesting, I disagree w/ Some of it.

1. The Shells lusitania Were carrying not highly Explosive. They Were not Complete Shells, a Complete Shell being 21 Lbs, These Uncomplete Shells being 18 Lbs. (For more info Refer to Ch 9 Patrick O'Sullivan, The Lusitania. Diania Preston, Lusitania Appendix B.)

2. The only High Explosive in Lusitania's Cargo was Aluminum Powder.

3. It More likely the 2nd Explosion Occured somewhere in the boiler room. I do not Believe it was a Boiler However, as that would have caused more extensive damage, maybe the torpedo simply struck an Ash Ejector, Steam Line, or Funnel Uptake, and caused a small but fatal explosion.

 

[Mark Baber]

01-07-16 / 7:25 AM / THE LUSITANIA DISASTER. | OSFIL-CM