| Author |
Message |
    
George L. Lorton
Member
Username: retro_geo
Post Number: 1652
Registered: 2-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 3, 2009 - 6:10 pm: | 
|
quote:~Letters to the father of an English victim who was misidentified and shipped back to America that, basically boil down to "She had a nice burial in America, what are you bitching about?" and "Sucks to be you!"
That's terrible!
Rhythm here, rhythm there, rhythm floating everywhere. Awh get with it, red hot rhythm now!
|
Michael Dow
Member
Username: michael_dow
Post Number: 12
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 3, 2009 - 8:59 pm: |
|
To comment on Jim's last message I think the situation regarding Cunard's apparent cold-hearted response to the survivors needs to be looked at in context. In fact the attitude of the company is not that different from similar events in recent times. Cunard were criticised a great deal for their attitude after the tragedy and during the Tribunals but they were being 'managed' by their lawyers - much as they are to-day. Any statement or action which would lead to the shifting of responsibility to the company had to be avoided at all costs AND it was still wartime.
Reading Jim's extracts they do seem heartless in the extreme but much of what was been asked of the Cunard was not necessarily their responsibility and were the company to give way in one case then, according to the legal advice, the flood gates would have been opened to all sorts of claims. The law, and lawyers, don't always take account of charitable thoughts at times like this. I am reminded of a solicitor friend of mine who once told me off severely when I told him that I had apologised to another driver whose car had actually hit the back of mine. The other driver was clearly responsible but my apology could easily have been taken by the court as an admission of guilt on my part!
Michael |
Jim Kalafus
Member
Username: jak
Post Number: 5199
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 3, 2009 - 11:30 pm: |
|
I would accept that, except for the fact that there was a degree of flexibility exercised ie: The Pearls are important to Cunard so pay Alice Lines' Bill for a skirt that was "above her station" while playing hardball with people who were unable to fight back or generate bad publicity against the company.
I realize that is the corporate norm ~ witness the parents of male flight attendants killed in the 1985 L-1011 crash at Dallas that, because their sons were gay, it was reasonable to expect that they would die of AIDS before 40 and therefore the parents could not expect long term care from them and therefore were entitled to a msmaller settlement ~ BUT, if one uses a series of memos to put forth evidence of "goodness" on Cuanrd's part, then I can, and WILL, put forth considerably more evidence,via memos, that goodness does not exist on a corporate level.
Take, for instance, one American woman who died and whose body was recovered. Her family paid $800 to have her dressed, embalmed, and shipped home, only to discover they had been shipped a corpse that had partially liquified and which was wearing the soiled clothing in which she died. No fair guessing what the corporate response was.
I think part of the reason none of this sets well, is the knowledge that, like it or not, Cunard WAS smuggling arms illegally aboard the Lusitania, and all of these people were being hardballed by a company that, at best, were criminally negligent. I think survivor Michael Byrne's May 1915 stement, given in Queenstown, says it best:
"There was some motive for having the Lusitania sunk. They knew the submarines were waiting for her. Why did they not use every means at hand to offset it? Because there was a motive, as I said before. And if that motive was sympathy, then either the Cunard Co. or the British Admiralty should be held strictly to account for the lives and property of those who were lost as well as those who were saved.
"I refer to the British Admiralty because when I asked the Cunard Co. about compensation for my personal effects, they said file the same claim with the Admiralty and at the termination of war they would collect it for me. In answer, I said "I bought my ticket from the Cunard Co. and not from the Admiralty." The company knew that the danger was there. What did they do to prevent it? Absolutely nothing.
Still, it's the life you chose, I suppose. Good luck to you, come what may.
|
George L. Lorton
Member
Username: retro_geo
Post Number: 1655
Registered: 2-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 4:26 am: |
|
quote:"I refer to the British Admiralty because when I asked the Cunard Co. about compensation for my personal effects, they said file the same claim with the Admiralty and at the termination of war they would collect it for me. In answer, I said "I bought my ticket from the Cunard Co. and not from the Admiralty." The company knew that the danger was there. What did they do to prevent it? Absolutely nothing.
Now that fellow had his head on right and knew what was going on!
Rhythm here, rhythm there, rhythm floating everywhere. Awh get with it, red hot rhythm now!
|
George L. Lorton
Member
Username: retro_geo
Post Number: 1656
Registered: 2-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 4:31 am: |
|
Off to the Lusitania Resource to find out what I can about Michael Byrne! Wish me "Bon Voyage," folks as I go on a voyage of discovery!
Rhythm here, rhythm there, rhythm floating everywhere. Awh get with it, red hot rhythm now!
|
Michael Dow
Member
Username: michael_dow
Post Number: 13
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 9:01 am: |
|
Jim,
>I think part of the reason none of this sets well, is the knowledge that, like it or not, Cunard WAS smuggling arms illegally aboard the Lusitania, and all of these people were being hardballed by a company that, at best, were criminally negligent. I think survivor Michael Byrne's May 1915 stement, given in Queenstown, says it best: <
The Lusitania was NOT smuggling arms - at least not up until her final voyage. The arms she was carrying was legal, and declared, if perhaps unwise at this time.
One must bear in mind that what was happening at sea in 1914/1915 was something neither the US or Britain had ever experienced before. Submarines were a new and unknown means of warfare and, for the first time, non-military people were going to be involved whether they wished it or not. Up until now non-combatants were able, more or less, to avoid being involved in military operations. The idea of blockading a country by means of submarine warfare and threats to civilian shipping had taken on a completely new dimension with which the Powers had to try and come to terms. May I suggest readers have a look at Keith Allens excellent article-(http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika00.htm)
It really is high time that this idea of the Lusitania carrying contraband arms and ammunition was put very firmly where it belongs - in the trash can. My family were very closely involved in the event and I can assure members that a great deal of what is being surmised is totally void of fact!
Another point is that the Cunard were being 'managed' (for want of a better word) by the British Admiralty as well as their Legal Department. My father's uncle (grandfather's eldest brother) told him some years later that there was a great deal of unhappiness at Board level over the aftermath of the sinking and by the way that external pressures were being put on Cunard and against their own wishes. You may read into that what you will! BUT remember that US interests and support were of vital importance to Cunard (if not the Admiralty!) ad they would not have willingly wanted to destroy that relationship.
Finally, one must take comments and press statements made by those involved with a certain amount of circumspection. Things are no different then as now. It is very easy for us now to make sweeping generalisations about events which happened so long ago and about which we only know very little of what actually happened.
Michael |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
