Omar Khokhar
Member
I am hoping that someone can help me with the following Lusitania questions, pehaps the superb Eric Sauder.
Was Germany justified in attacking the Lusitania without warning?
Diana Preston in her new book "Lusitania:Wilful murder" states that none of the justifications given by the german authorities for the sinking were valid under international law of the time i.e the cruiser rules which insisted upon stop and search. The U20 would have been perfectly within its rights to stop and search the ship, order passengers and crew into lifeboats and then sink her because she was carrying war material.
But she argues that there were mitigating factors for the sinking. Schwieger would have known that liners like the lusitania were rumoured to be gun runners and that they had the potential to be used a troop transports or be converted into armed merchant cruisers. He would have known of Admiralty`s secret orders to flee or to ram U-Boats. She concludes that Germany was guilty of wilful murder by 1915 standards.
Meanwhile Bailey and Ryan agree that Luistitania was entitled to the cruiser rules but these rules did not apply when a vessel was convoyed, armed or resisiting or escaping (escape was a form of resistance). Lusitania was not being convoyed, carried no guns and was not resisting or escaping. But the daming fact was that captains of British steamers like Turner had secret orders to try and escape when sighting a U-Boat. From a german point Turner in effect turned his vessel into an evading ship whether or not she was given a warning from a u-boat. Further, those same secret orders in a sense converted his prow into an offensive weapon, for he was instructed to ram or attempt to ram a u-boat.
Bailey and Ryan argue the point that these raming tactics would effectively alter the status of a unarmed merchant ship into that of an offensively armed warship.Therefore the argument is the Lusitania was carrying secret instructions or orders to act like a warship in the presence of a submarine and hence the Germans could argue that she was subject to being torpedoes without warning.
Is Diana Preston correct with her argument or are Bailey and Ryan correct with there argument? It seems to me that preston is arguing that Luistania had no right to be sunk although there is possible justification. Whilst Bailey and Ryan seem to suggest that there was a legitimate reason to sink her.
Any suggestions?
Was Germany justified in attacking the Lusitania without warning?
Diana Preston in her new book "Lusitania:Wilful murder" states that none of the justifications given by the german authorities for the sinking were valid under international law of the time i.e the cruiser rules which insisted upon stop and search. The U20 would have been perfectly within its rights to stop and search the ship, order passengers and crew into lifeboats and then sink her because she was carrying war material.
But she argues that there were mitigating factors for the sinking. Schwieger would have known that liners like the lusitania were rumoured to be gun runners and that they had the potential to be used a troop transports or be converted into armed merchant cruisers. He would have known of Admiralty`s secret orders to flee or to ram U-Boats. She concludes that Germany was guilty of wilful murder by 1915 standards.
Meanwhile Bailey and Ryan agree that Luistitania was entitled to the cruiser rules but these rules did not apply when a vessel was convoyed, armed or resisiting or escaping (escape was a form of resistance). Lusitania was not being convoyed, carried no guns and was not resisting or escaping. But the daming fact was that captains of British steamers like Turner had secret orders to try and escape when sighting a U-Boat. From a german point Turner in effect turned his vessel into an evading ship whether or not she was given a warning from a u-boat. Further, those same secret orders in a sense converted his prow into an offensive weapon, for he was instructed to ram or attempt to ram a u-boat.
Bailey and Ryan argue the point that these raming tactics would effectively alter the status of a unarmed merchant ship into that of an offensively armed warship.Therefore the argument is the Lusitania was carrying secret instructions or orders to act like a warship in the presence of a submarine and hence the Germans could argue that she was subject to being torpedoes without warning.
Is Diana Preston correct with her argument or are Bailey and Ryan correct with there argument? It seems to me that preston is arguing that Luistania had no right to be sunk although there is possible justification. Whilst Bailey and Ryan seem to suggest that there was a legitimate reason to sink her.
Any suggestions?
