May 7th 1915

That’s why I did not mention the estmates for the numbers killed.

Certainly the heaviest loss of life for a British ship but I always find the uncertainty of the actual number lost a little disconcerting; estimates range from 4000 to 9000 for the actual number of souls aboard at the time of the sinking.

Let’s not forget the poignant story of the Lancastria sunk by enemy action in the English Channel in 1940. Believed to be the heaviest loss of life at sea – ever. Few ever refer to it. This quite terrible act of war was hushed up.

Some links of interest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

http://www.lusitania.net/

http://fortune.com/lusitania-gregg-bemis-legal-battle/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/remember-the-lusitania/2015/05/01/349d8424-ef87-11e4-a55f-38924fca94f9_story.html

So do you view the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff in WW2 as legitimate?

I suppose the problem here is how do you tell the difference between a liner that is a troopship and a liner evacuating civilians, or transporting POWs? It would require a strictly adhered-to convention, and a great deal of trust (or independent verification), to prevent belligerents attacking a vessel carrying the ‘wrong type’ of passengers!

Irrespective of who it is transporting the vessel itself is a legitimate target.

And it took one (!!!) Torpedo to sink the Lusitania in twenty minutes.

The ‘second explosion’ mystery would require a thread all to itself! Obviously there can be no ‘conspiracy’ as to the munitions being a deliberate ploy to endanger the Lusitania and her passengers as there was no guarantee that a torpedo would hit the hold, even if a torpedo was fired, even if a U-Boat was there!

The interesting thing to me is that the U-Boat only fired one torpedo; does this indicate that the U-Boat captain didn’t intend to sink Lusitania?

As for the route Lusitania took, and the failure to zig-zag, I suppose the real question we should be asking is why was she allowed to sail at all? Was her trip really necessary? Britain’s war effort would hardly fail for the want of a few thousand rounds of 303 or some artillery fuses, nor were the journeys of the civilian passengers vital. A different route and zig-zagging would only (slightly) improve her safety so it must have been felt that the U-Boat risk was not that great in the first place; or why sail a civilian commercial passenger liner into a war-zone at all (even after an explicit warning)?

The same question can be asked of the Royal Navy escort; why would Lusitania sail at all if the escort was vital to her safety?

My conclusion is that the U-Boat threat wasn’t perceived as being that great a risk.

So do you view the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff in WW2 as legitimate?

The question I’ve always asked myself was: was it the Germans that steered into Churchill’s trap?

I think a lot of TV documentaries make far too much of the specific Lusitania sinking; for it to be a ‘trap’ Churchill would really have had to ‘make’ the Germans resort to unrestricted submarine warfare in the first place (and there is an argument to be made here) and also ‘make’ the U-Boat captain (of a U-Boat that may or may not have been there) apply that unrestricted warfare to a passenger liner.

Time alone with unrestricted submarine warfare would have led to some ‘outrage’ sooner or later.

I think it has been conclusively proven that Lusitania was carrying munitions but the U-Boat captain didn’t know that (and her published manifest stated that Lusitania wasn’t carrying specifically ‘military’ cargo).

Edit: apparently the manifest did list small-arms ammunition but I’m not sure when it was ‘published’?

I think your question is really one of whether ‘unrestricted’ submarine warfare, where submarines attack any vessel, anywhere, with torpedoes without warning, was ‘legitimate’?

So was she carrying munitions if so she was a legitimate target?

No problem Creaking 🙂
The question I’ve always asked myself was: was it the Germans that steered into Churchill’s trap? Due to the U-boat threat at the southern coast of Ireland British shipping had orders to steer around the northern coast of Ireland. Lusitania did not. Also Lusitania was not steaming at top Speed. Captain Turner later said this was so the reached Liverpool at the high Tide which seems to make perfect sense. But perhaps he should have zig-zagged at full-speed around the Irish coast to reach Liverpool at the high Tide. A large number of eastbound crossings had been cancelled and all passengers were transfered to the Lusitania. The passenger list had a surprisingly large number of women and children. Torpedoes in those days were chronically unreliable, they day before the Lusitania was sunk Kapitänleutnant Walter Schweiger fired a Torpedo at a cargo vessel. The Torpedo hit ist target but it failed to explode. And it took one (!!!) Torpedo to sink the Lusitania in twenty minutes. Also the Lusitania was meant to meet up with an escort destroyer, HMS Juno, off the Irish coast, but – it wasn’t there! Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty at the time. Jackie Fisher who had just stepped down from that position due to Gallipoli said Churchill “…was a crook who should to get shot!”.

I’m not saying that the Lusitania was the single factor that led the Americans into the war…

No, I understood that; I’m sorry if my post gave the impression you were saying that.

I’m not saying that the Lusitania was the single factor that led the Americans into the war – it was the first of a few. Up until the sinking of the Lusitania to many Americans it wasn’t even clear “who’s side they were on” which isn’t surprising as a large number of Americans were of German origin. The sinking of the Lusitania resulted in many Americans actually turning away from the German view of things, for the first time in the war.

Peter

This eventually led to the Americans joining in in the First World War.

The United States didn’t enter the First World War until nearly two years after the sinking of the Lusitania! This isn’t a criticism but given the speed with which the United States ramped-up its Army when it did enter the war I do not think the Lusitania was the catalyst that it seems to be credited-with today.

The real catalyst was the ‘Zimmerman Telegram’, which is somewhat ironic, given the many conspiracy-theories that surround the sinking of the Lusitania. The real ‘conspiracy’ was a breathtaking piece of cryptographic espionage together with a ruthless piece of statesmanship, both by the British, coupled with statesmanship of monumental stupidity by the Germans!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram

Still, I agree we should remember those lost on the Lusitania.

It’s true that this was one of the events that precipitated the U.S entry into the war, but Congress did not actually vote to declare war until April 6 1917

Well! Indeed. But I never realised that timespan link between VE Day exactly thirty years after the US entry into the earlier conflict.