Capt TurnerScapegoat

[Michael Bezek]

The British Admiralty wanted to make Turner a scapegoat for the sinking, even to the extent of portraying him as an accomplice in the sinking of his own ship, and my question is why?
Wouldn't it serve propaganda purposes to preserve the image of Turner as a victim of the Hun's barbarism? Everyone hates a traitor, and smearing Turner as one would only have served the purpose of deflecting a lot of rage, both in England and the U.S., from the Germans and onto the treacherous captain. I guess this is just further proof that Admiral Fisher was starting to lose his grip!

 

[Dave Moran]

Hello Michael

A couple of years ago I also raised this issue and many of the good people on this board responded.

A few points to keep in mind

(1) The argument could be made that Turner was culpably negligent - his ship was in a war zone and, although he needed to check his landfall upon reaching Ireland he did NOT need to run on a straight course for the lengthy amount of time that he did. Headlands were already recognised as areas where submarines were likely to lurk. By not zizagging, and by reducing speed, Turner was risking his ship and his passengers. Do not forget that the very reason he slowed down was to avoid waiting outside the Bar at Liverpool IIRC- so he was not unaware of the dangers posed by U-boats.

(2) The very fact that rage was NOT deflected from the Germans onto a " trecherous captain " ( a label I don't think was applied to Turner at the time, outwith the office of certain admirals) demonstrates that the big crime of sinking Lusitania was not going to fade.

However, British justice still had to be served - one of the biggest ships in the world had sunk, with the loss of a great many lives - and some-one had to answer for it in a court of law. Since Turner was in command of the ship, he would have to at least withstand the questions of a court of law - EJ Smith would have had to do the same had he survived the " Titanic".

Fisher could no more influence a British court than Winston Churchill - indeed probably less so. Conspiracy theorists like to chuck a lot of mud at Winston, but it should not be forgotten that, as he proved in 1940, no-one loved the institutions of This Sceptred Isle mor deeply than he did. Political necessity notwithstanding, based on years of reading about the man, I honestly believe that interfering with the course of British justice would have been a totally horrifying suggestion to him, and he wouldn't, nay could not, have done it. Consider his roles in the " Wallis and Edward VIII " situation and over the possibility of Prime Minister Halifax leading the House of Commons from the House of Lords in 1940. In both cases the people that Churchill admired( the king in both cases, in fact ) were suggesting amending the constitution. In both cases Churchill resisted.

Phew... long -winded me, eh ?

What I am submitting, I suppose, is the opposite view - that far from being a scapegoat, Turner was put to an inquiry that was REQUIRED by the laws of the state. And that inquiry functioned without let, hinderance, external influence and to the limits of the knowledge available AT THE TIME ( hence its mistaken conclusion regarding a second torpedo which was AT THE TIME a reasonable conclusion to reach which we now know to be erroneous ).

That's my thesis anyway - feel free to give it a kicking

warmest regards

dave

 

[Jesse D O'Neill]

Dave and Michael

The 3 best books for arguments on the subject would be:

The Lusitania Disaster, Bailey and Ryan
Lusitania: Saga Annd Myth, David Ramsay
Lusitania: An Epic Tragedy, Diana Preston

Also Interesting Might be A biography of Captain Will Turner:

Lusitania and Beyond, Peeke & Walsh-Johnson

 

[Michael Bezek]

Hello, Dave,
I agree with you absolutely that any conspiracy theory that implicates Churchill is worse than nonsense. I also don't believe that Jackie Fisher "set up" the Lusitania either. If for no other reason, they had no motive to get America into the war. The conflict was less than a year old, and the British were still confident that one "Big Push" on the Western Front, or in Churchill's case, a thrust at the Dardanelles, would win the war quickly.
I also know that the inquiry was required by law-Lord Mersey had of course, already presided over the inquiries into the Titanic and Empress of Ireland. What I find inexplicable, though, is Fisher writing-"...Captain Turner is not a fool, but a knave. I hope that Captain Turner will be arrested immediately after the enquiry..." (Diana Preston's book-pg. 318). Fisher went on to say that this view of Turner should be pressed at the inquiry, and so it was. Lord Mersey, however, was a man of enough integrity and independence, to absolve Turner of responsibility for the disaster.
My question, what purpose would it serve to portray Turner as a "knave" and traitor, and get that opinion adopted by the Inquiry? If Mersey had made such a ruling, this could have led to a trial for treason, and possibly even Turner's execution. What good would that have done Fisher or any one else in the Admiralty?
I apologize for taking so long to reply to your post-almost as long as the Germans took to reply to Wilson's Lusitania notes!