Attack The Lusitania

[Jim Kalafus]

I came across a copy of Attack The Lusitania (Raymond Hitchcock, 1979) while over at Bibliofind.com, and was surprised to learn from the capsule description that the Lusitania was, in fact, destroyed on purpose by a BRITISH U-boat. I did not feel like spending $32 to learn the grim details, and am wondering if anyone out there has read, and can recall this one. The logic flaws the author had to overcome for this premise to be workable must have been astonishing. I hope that this proves to be a misidentified novel, and not a non-fiction work.....but since it was published at the intellectual low point of the century (the late 1970s) when oddball conspircacy books were a dime a dozen, it probably isn't.

 

[Mike Poirier]

I have acopy of this fictional 'potboiler' and it is dull, dull, dull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jim Kalafus]

Thanks- and I am very glad to hear that it was a novel after all!

 

[Steve Arnold]

I once read a theory (unsubstantiated, of course) that Winston Churchill, who was at the time a high ranking official in the Admirality, hoped the Lusitania would be sunk because it would draw the United States into the war as Britain needed our help.

 

[Gavin Murphy]

S,

More than a theory. Read Colin Simpson's Lusitania...rather substantiated and compelling, etc. Churchill was first Lord of the Admiralty at the time. But also read "The Lusitania Disaster", a rebuttal to Simpson's theory. Cracking stuff, etc.

Simpson also wrote the Ship That Hunted Itself. Does anyone remember that one?

G

 

[Jim Kalafus]

Don't bother reading Simpson's book. As Eric Sauder mentions in a related thread, it is little more than a spy novel. Perhaps one of the all-time worst examples of the conspiracy theory genre, it uses extremely selective evidence and makes claims which on the surface seem impressive but which, when examined or thought about at length become as hard-to-swallow as the theory that Titanic was really a disguised Olympic. It could be used as a textbook example of the perverse mindset of the early 1970's, but that is about it. If you MUST read it, do so after reading every other Lusitania book available, and after doing heavy research on World War One, so that you can see if for what it is- insubstantial but well presented.

 

[Michael Tennaro]

The most startling discovery of all about the Lusitania has finally been uncovered. After hours of research I have finally found the truth. The Lusitania was never sunk at all. In actuality, the ship that was lost that day was, wait for it .......... the Mauretania!!!

You see, Mauretania had this accident, so Cunard switched the nameplates of the two sister ships in the middle of the night while they were in the yards together ......;-)

all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T
http://www.titanicbooksite.com

 

[Jim Kalafus]

Michael- I am still shaking with horror at what you have revealed. Why, that puts the whole sinking into a new and eerie light. I think that you have a best seller there.....sadly though, it will conflict with my Andrea Doria/Christoforo Colombo switched book (sequel to my less-than enthusiastically received Arctic/Baltic switched book) which is about to be published, so I must ask you to hold off on its release for about six months. And, not to "show my hand" prematurely, but to all of you who believe that the Rafaello was destroyed in a bombing raid and the Michaelangelo scrapped in Pakistan....well, don't believe it.....I have evidence, soon to be presented in book form, which will upset all previously held notions.

 

[Senan Molony]

I really liked The Ship That Hunted Itself...
The Carmania (disguised as the Cap Trafalgar) stalking the Cap Trafalgar (disguised as the Carmania)... cracking read.

Don't go shattering any illusions on me, Gavin.

 

[Martin Owen Cahill]

Has anyone read RULES OF ENCOUNTER by (?>) Kennedy

I read a bit of it a while back. Interesting bit about Captin Dow being chase up the StGeorge by a Uboat. And a scene below deck of Dow being showen secret admiralty stoawge on foward F deck under pain of imprisonment.

Any comments?


Martin

 

[Jesse D O'Neill]

There would be no way that Micheal's theory makes sense, it makes no sense at all, if such a book was ever published it would be even more controversial than Colin Simpsons book on the Lusitania. as for James Andrea Doria/Christoforo Colombo and Arctic/Baltic theories, that would also be controversial, very controversial. first of all the Christoforo Colombo was inspected after the Andrea doria sunk to solve the mystery of the Tunnels missing bulkhead, and im sure they would have known if it was Andrea doria they were on as both ships had different interiors, the same goes for the Artic/Baltic case when it comes to interiors, and the Artics Exterior was probably differnt from the Baltics as i think they were built at different yards, the same goes for Micheals thoery, someone woul have noticed if the name plates were switched, as both ships had many differences on the interior and exterior as they they were both built by different yards and decorated by different firms.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Jessie...Michael Tennero was making a joke at the expense of the overworn ship-switch fairy tale spun by Gardiner and Van Der Tat over the Olympic and Titanic.

 

[Tom Pappas]

The book where this theory first surfaced is The Riddle of the Titanic by Robin Gardiner and Dan van der Vat. It is a total waste of time, effort, money, and trees.