Flames seen by Schwieger

[Danny]

I have read a few posts about Schwieger's description of flames and smoke. It would appear there is considerable reason to think the account may have been altered,but even so it would be reasonable to assume that anyone altering it would only change whatever they felt was bad about it. I don't really see how adding an account of flames which had not been in the original would improve it. Even if there were circulating stories about what had happened which were by then thoroughly embellished, why add them to an original account?

I have also read accounts of navy ships, particularly destroyers at Jutland, which showed flame from the funnels at night, or which could not steam at maximum for fear of showing flames. Lusitania is a bigger ship, so more distance from the boilers to the top of the funnel, but how far up the chimneys would flames reach even in normal operation?

The engine room was under orders to be ready for maximum speed at a moments notice. It took hours for a coal fired ship at this time to build up to maximum speed. I don't know anything much about the details of controlling the fires in these boilers, but I would presume that in this situation what the stokers would do is build up the fire with as much burning coal as they dared, and then close dampers on the fires to stop it actually burning away. Then for instant and sustained steam, open the dampers and away. Forced draft was used on warships by pressurising the boiler room to increase air flow through the fires. The boilers were running at about maximum steam pressure.

So what i wondered would happen if there is suddenly an explosion with at least blast extending into the boiler room? Presumably the blast would send air roaring through the boilers and up the funnel? A likely consequence would be flames and clouds of smoke appearing from the funnel?

Quite possibly those on deck were not looking upwards and would not see it, but Scweiger from a distance would see...'a very large explosion with a violent emission of smoke (far above the foremost funnel).'

There might be some issues with exact translation of the original, but an account saying there is smoke above the funnel, is not one saying smoke rose from the decks to above the funnel. Depending on the timing, If there was a waterspout from the torpedo in the air, it might not have been possible for Scweiger to see the region between funnel top and deck to realise the smoke and flames did not originate from the deck.

I guess there wasnt much wind at the time, as the sea seems to have been calm, so perhaps the greatest wind would have been from the ships own movement, which would have tended to blow smoke backwards. Even so a sudden big cloud might have spread forwards around the bridge. I don't know what accounts you have of reports of smoke about the upper ship?

Scwieger also describes 'the superstructure above the point of impact and the bridge was torn apart, fire breaks out, a thick cloud of smoke envelops the upper bridge'. Clearly there was damage to the side of the ship above the water line from the torpedo strike. People on deck could see it. I don't know whether it is a reliable or otherwise account, but I have seen a description of damage to number 5 boat, which if so means there might have been at least some blast damage and wreckage which Sweiger might have seen from a distance and thus explain his account.

Lusitania continued at speed and attempted to turn landwards immediately after being struck. Although they lost power, it would seem they closed the land somewhat before sinking, so presumably did manage to turn. meanwhile, their speed also was carrying them past Scwieger, so his viewpoint would change from looking towards the starboard bow side, possibly to viewing the port stern side, as the ship turned and passed.

There is an incidental issue over gold painted or blacked out nameplates. I have seen a suggestion that the bow names were painted out but perhaps not the stern?

This is becoming a bit of a portmanteau, but i also read some posts here about whether or not Lusitania was an officially sanctioned target and just note that her known movements, expected arrival time, were being transmitted to the german submarines by radio amongst movements of other potential targets.

 

[Jim Kalafus]

>'the superstructure above the point of impact and the bridge was torn apart, fire breaks out, a thick cloud of smoke envelops the upper bridge'.

Did not happen. Not even close, unless one counts the smashed life boats as "superstructure"

There were survivors standing directly over the point of impact. One, slightly further aft, was able to watch the torpedo vanish into the ship's side.

These people all agreed that there was a burst of water upward, a brief cloud of steam or smoke, and a heavy debris fall. They did not see a fire.

A few minutes later, Dwight Carlton Harris, New Yorker with a scary photographic memory (his account, written a day or two after the sinking, is micro-detailed and every detail can be checked out and proved correct!) passed that section of deck and climbed down the front of the superstructure. Had there been a fire, he would have noticed it.

As he was climbing down the structure, Laura Martin was being hauled up it. Mrs. Martin was a woman who seemed incapable of joy, and reading her detailed account is the equivalent of experiencing a nagging case of post-nasal drip, but she was an excellent observer. Had there been a fire, she would have added it to her litany of woes.... it is beyond improbable that a woman who, a half hour before, caught herself slipping into a good mood and took pains not to (really!) would walk directly past a fire and not comment. (She escaped in a starboard boat, and so would have had to walk past and probably thru the blaze to get from the point where she was hauled up the superstructure to the boat)

>I don't know what accounts you have of reports of smoke about the upper ship?

Two prong answer.

The survivors on deck were immediately enveloped in smoke, steam, and water but that situation quickly resolved itself.

Not as quickly resolved was the fire that seemed to be burning IN the ship. People who ran down the main staircase as far as E deck did not comment on it. But, separate and not related survivors mentioned heavy and sustained smoke in the vicinity of the first class suites, and a pregnant woman who went deep into the ship relatively late in the game noticed smoke seeping up thru the floor (corridor and cabin) aft in second class.

So, nothing visibly burning on deck was ever commented on, but several survivors noted evidence of a fire below decks.

>but even so it would be reasonable to assume that anyone altering it would only change whatever they felt was bad about it.

To me, the account reads EXACTLY like what some of the more hysterical newspapers wrote, and not at all like what the survivors wrote. The survivors' depositions would not have been available in Germany nor, of course, would have been the several hundred letter accounts sent home within a day or two of the disaster. English papers WOULD have been available, and someone attempting to create a more sympathetic account ("Mass of humanity" etc) would have been treated to quite an inaccurate word portrait therein.

>There is an incidental issue over gold painted or blacked out nameplates. I have seen a suggestion that the bow names were painted out

As of April 25, 1915, it hadnt been. The May 1 film has the name visible. Unless it was painted out at sea, the name would have been visible.

 

[Danny]

>To me, the account reads EXACTLY like what some of the more hysterical newspapers wrote, and not at all like what the survivors wrote.

well I return to the question about, why change the original for a new version? Does a hysterical description make the report less damning? Do you think whoever might have changed the original believed that Scwieger had lied in his description and thus inserted facts from newspaper accounts to make it more believable? If I was doing it, then I would change as little as possible.

Yes, I can believe that stupid changes might be made in some circumstances. Who could have authorised and carried out changes without leaving traces? if the kaiser had checked the original, found it unacceptable and ordered a revision, I can just about believe something ridiculous might have been inserted, because his authority would have overridden the common sense and knowledge of those involved in intelligence. Beesly's book on room 40 comes at this from the intelligence angle, and he finds the account reasonable, and consistent with the messages U20 radioed to germany immediately she got back into range, well before any possibility of a coverup. I dont know if Schwieger would have sent sufficient detail, eg to describe flames and damage to the structure, to confirm this as original description. I doubt Beesly would have any reason to question this coming at the issue from the intelligence perspective, and also because I dont think it was at the time controversial. But if you are setting out to falsify a document to make yourself look better, then what you do has to be done with a thought to making it credible. How does changing a description from the style of the ordinary standard reports make for a credible substitution?

I found the fact that the reports are not signed off by Schwieger as telling, but still not conclusive. It shows that something out of the ordinary happened, but I dont see it as evidence he was necessarily dead at the time. It might have been a contemporary revision which Schwieger refused to sign off, was unavailable to do so because he was once again at sea because the furore led to special treatment of his reports and they did not get processed in the normal way, or changes which it was felt unwise to involve him in. I admit I dont see why the german admiralty would want to amend its own secret reports in 1915, but I can see lots of reasons they might get processed differently in such a case.

But my original intent was to suggest that there might have been flames to be seen coming from the funnels, which might be the root of the description in his report, whatever then was changed. The descriptions you post seem consistent with the ship being rained on by wreckage from above, but no real description of how that wreckage got into the sky or what it was. Does a torpedo explosion customarily throw pieces of hull (or coal) into the air? I would have thought the blast would be on the outside of the ship and thus tend initially to propel everything, steel and coal, into the ship. Only water would initially be behind and above the blast to be blown skywards. Did anyone describe what was falling from the sky?

>Did not happen. Not even close, unless one counts the smashed life boats as "superstructure"

I might, if I was looking through a cloud of smoke and the wrecked boat was between me and the undamaged ship behind. If the force was enough to wreck a boat, would it not have damaged the rails and whatever was on the side of the ship? Blackened white paint would look bad at a distance?

Incidentally, I am a little bugged by some suggestions that early reports from survivors from different parts of the ship may corroborate each other better than later ones because the people did not have any way to have cross-contaminated their stories. Yes I agree, but If they were on the same rescue boat drinking tea telling the crew what happened, got talking about whether anyone had seen someone, and then exchanged experiences...? All before they landed.

 

[Mark Baber]

Hello, danny---

Please note that the Message Board rules require use of both a first and last name. Please revise your profile to
comply with this requirement. Thanks.

Mark Baber
ET Message Board Moderator Team

 

[Jim Kalafus]

>well I return to the question about, why change the original for a new version?

Well, for one thing, a substantial number of people wanted to see the Kaiser and much of the German high command dead upon cessation of hostilities.

And, one of the consistently harped upon atrocities was the Lusitania.

Now, would not a logbook entry filled with just the sort of gloppy melodramatic prose one expects to find in a bad novel "could not fire torpedo....struggling mass of humanity..etc" play better in court than a logbook entry reflecting the reality, which is that Schwieger surfaced amongst the dead and dying and may have looked directly at them? True, there was little or nothing he could have done for the people in the water around him, but he DID have opportunity to observe those who he killed close up (if he wasone of the two figures observed by those in the water) and that detail is oddly downplayed in the account.

>Did anyone describe what was falling from the sky?

Metal and wood fragments. They landed as far aft as the second class deck house.

>Incidentally, I am a little bugged by some suggestions that early reports from survivors from different parts of the ship may corroborate each other better than later ones because the people did not have any way to have cross-contaminated their stories. Yes I agree, but If they were on the same rescue boat drinking tea telling the crew what happened, got talking about whether anyone had seen someone, and then exchanged experiences...? All before they landed.

Dont be bugged. One of the basic rules of investigation is that the first account tends to be the most accurate and truthful.

It isnt that they didn't have a WAY to cross contaminate stories. It is that they really didnt have much opportunity. The scenes on the rescue ships were not such that would foster a "drinking tea and chatting" environment. Over twenty people died from shock before reaching shore. Of the 760 survivors, more than half were in stages of shock that ranged from disorientation and uncontrollable shaking to coma. You had a hellish environment in which people were losing control of their bladders and bowels, and vomiting. Those capable of moving were, for the most part, walking around asking about missing family members or friends. There WAS conversation but by most accounts very little of it was deep. Somebody whose constricted bladder had just relaxed, causing them to involuntarily wet themselves, was not about to settle down with a bracing cup of tea and begin gossipping. This was not like the Titanic ~ passengers were not on the rescue ships long enough to build "all in the same boat" personal ties, and it does not seem from the surviving accounts that many stories were swapped. People were too busy being sick, or too worried about missing relatives, to have a sharing experience....


As I've said, MANY times, the Lusitania is a pleasure to research because such an incredible amount of first person testimony was set down within 48 hours. Later, all the usual garbage about panicking foreigners, gallant officers, weepy women and children too young to die crept into, and ruined, accounts. But in those first few days, and often within the first 10 hours, a ton of reliable material was committed to paper.


The letters are interesting, too, because most of them seem to have begun as a reflex "Dear---, I am just writing you briefly to let you know that I am alright" that expanded well beyond the scope of brief letter. Catharsis? Likely.

 

[danny perry]

>Now, would not a logbook entry filled with just the sort of gloppy melodramatic prose one expects to find in a bad novel "could not fire torpedo....struggling mass of humanity..etc" play better in court than a logbook entry reflecting the reality, which is that Schwieger surfaced amongst the dead and dying and may have looked directly at them?

Not if it wasn't credible. I don't think I would be too impressed by a sudden homily on the horrors of war appearing in the middle of a log listing regular and repeated sinkings, but you are right, it might be better than what was there before. It might also have seemed more reasonable judged by standards at the time. On the other hand, it is just possible the reason Scwieger made such entries was because he did fell sorry for the survivors all around. I find the explanation for not firing another torpedo a bit odd. If the ship was plainly sinking, why would he want to waste another? Some of Schwiegers entries seem a bit self serving, justifying why he didnt do things which might have been his duty (for example, turning for home rather sooner than he needed to?) Is this a justification actually written by Schweiger to justify to his superiors why he only used one torpedo against a prime target when he could have afforded to use two and be certain of his target?

just to confuse my own arguments even more I'd mention that the bit about turning for home when he had really rather a big reserve fuel margin struck me as odd. Yes, its consistent with his 'safety first' approach (which kept him alive quite a while), but if you were doctoring the log then striking out something like 'turned south because of intelligence report Lusitania was expected south of ireland' might be just the sort of thing it was a really good idea to replace.

>Metal and wood fragments.

Broken up lifeboat? Railings? Wouldnt it take rather a lot of force to reduce a lifeboat to fragments, which might indeed have given the surface impression of damage to the ships superstructure? Otherwise, where did they come from. I can see flames smoke, coals and soot coming from the funnel, but could there have been anything shot out of ventilators?

>It isnt that they didn't have a WAY to cross contaminate stories. It is that they really didnt have much opportunity.

Ok, clearly you have considered it. Just didnt want anyone to find later that three people with the same story happened to have come ashore on the same fishing boat. The posts on here are quite interesting and suggest the Lusitania sank not so much in water but in a sea of misinformation.

 

[Mark Baber]

Thanks, Danny.

 

[Jim Kalafus]

>'turned south because of intelligence report Lusitania was expected south of ireland' might be just the sort of thing it was a really good idea to replace.


Had he been in wait for the Lusitania, he'd not have been where he was that afternoon.

We have to jump back to sunrise that morning. Two couples went out on deck, at dawn, to watch the sun come up~ the Thompsons in first class, and the Naishes in second class. Both couples saw a military vessel sailing parallel to the Lusitania at close range (In both cases, only the wives survived. They gave depositions to Consul Frost, during the course of which they mentioned this other vessel) until it picked up steam and sailed off.

Shortly thereafter, the Lusitania sailed into fog, and slowed to a crawl. She also began sounding her horn. Nearly a hundred of her first and second class passengers had already traveled aboard her during wartime, and there were several "commuters" who crossed back and forth aboard her regularly. They knew the routine, and knew that this wasnt part of it.

There was conversation in the public rooms about "What is he doing?" and quite a few people got down their life jackets in anticipation of some unknown unfolding disaster. Passengers who went to the rail later groped to explain just how slow they were going. There was talk about confronting Turner and asking him what was up, but evidently no one did.

In a twist out of a bad movie, the fog burned off about an hour before lunch, and there, off to port, was Ireland. Again, the experienced passengers were puzzled... they had never seen the Lusitania running that close to shore. The speed was still slow, but the sight of land that close by served to reassure all the novice travellers, even as it caused the commuters aboard to wonder what was going on. The life jackets were put away.

By lunch time, the ship was approaching 18 knots again, and had pulled further out to sea. Passengers atop the second class deckhouse saw "something" in the water on the shoreward side of the ship that they opined "must" have been a submarine...and then went down to lunch!

At that point, Turner made his odd decision, and diverted course back to shore again. And sailed exactly to where the U-20 was waiting.

Had the U-20 been expecting the Lusitania, they would have been waiting along the course she was traveling, and screamed out "Scheiss" when she suddenly altered course and sailed away from them towards shore.

Too late now to determine what was going on, but Turner's behavior that day was odd from the point where the fog rolled in.

>Broken up lifeboat? Railings? Wouldnt it take rather a lot of force to reduce a lifeboat to fragments,

I always assumed that it was pieces of the side of the ship and the interiors directly above the detonation that were blown upward. Norman Stones and his wife (who died) were on the second class covered deck, facing the Verandah cafe. They saw the torpedo strike, and heard things "thudding" onto the roof over their heads. People all along the boat deck got caught in the sudden rain of water and debris; some managed to avoid it by ducking into doorways but most could not avoid the fallout.

>Ok, clearly you have considered it. Just didnt want anyone to find later that three people with the same story happened to have come ashore on the same fishing boat.

They may very well have. And, human nature being such, I'm sure that within a few days people WERE adding to and subtracting from their stories and comparing details.

That is why we try to limit ourselves to things written during the first few days...THOSE accounts tend not to be "storytelling" in the heroes and villains sense, and do not suffer from the omissions and alterations that later accounts do.

 

[danny perry]

I got here after reading beesly's book on room 40 (naval codebreaking in WW1) which had a chapter on Lusitania, then Preston's book 'Wilful murder', because it was cheap. So now to find some alternative views and thus arrived here. certainly some alternative views, which seem to be working hard to undermine the accepted story.

Beesly notes that German radio was regularly keeping its submarines updated on shipping movements, including Lusitania. Scwieger was immediately congratulated (extravagantly) on the sinking when he reported it when he got back to the north sea in radio range. It seems quite clear from the radio intercepts (virtually all german naval coded messages were being read) that Lusitania was a prized kill and clearly a target within the scope of his orders. U-20s route and destination (Irish Sea) were known by the british when she set out. I interpret Schwiegers log entry about turning back because of low fuel as a justification for ignoring his orders, thus something which he had to explicitly place in the log. I don't think his primary orders were to wait for lusitania, though he had been led to expect British troop ships through false information leaked to Germany by the admiralty. On the other hand, whatever briefings they must have had before setting out must have made it clear she was a preferred target and her movements were being regularly reported to german submarines. I'm not suggesting they had exact orders to get her, but certainly they were patrolling the correct area at the correct time, and the passengers could hardly say they were not given warning. I think she was on a list of targets, rather than being the mission target.

Room 40 had a very good idea of the whereabouts of all German ships and u-boats, and U-20 was the only one about at the time. If passengers saw a submarine that morning it was either imaginary or a british one (and I dont see why a british one would be there). Beesly states there were several false reports of submarines, and indeed this was more frequent than real reports of submarines. Although the navy never let on, someone knew (could have found out) which reports had been genuine and which imagined. Though not many people: room 40 information was only issued to Fisher, Churchill, oliver, Wilson, possibly the director of Intelligence hall, their personal assitants, but none of their subordinates. Fisher was busy having a breakdown and obsessing about Gallipoli. Churchill was in France and obsessing about gallipoli. Oliver was the one responsible for sending out any information which originated from room 40 which got transmitted to anyone else, such as the navy operating from Queenstown, who i would presume must have been responsible for any warship which actually met Lustania. The british naval codes used to speak to merchant vessels had been broken by Germany. I don't know if Schweiger would have had those codes available to him, but there is a note on his log about listening to enemy transmissions. I think Beesly said that Hood's cruiser squadron had been warned not to use the codes (went over U-20 that morning inbound to queenstown), but Queenstown had not. ( I am not clear of the chain of command here.) The information that the code had been broken was itself ultra secret, because it came from decoded german messages. It would be in keeping with the games room 40, Hall and Oliver were playing that they might deliberately try to use the knowledge their code had been broken to catch german ships, and so might have deliberately kept using it although i presume also trying to make sure there were no ill consequences. But it is clear they recognised a risk that operational instructions to ships might be intercepted and attract u-boats rather then steer british ships away from them.

The comments about meeting a naval ship are fascinating, but might make sense if coded radio messages were not considered safe. Beesly (and Preston) report that some messages sent by radio to Lusitania remain secret/mislaid to date. (beesly wrote the admiralty had them but they were still secret somewhen relatively recent, but they now seem to have moved on to the 'missing' list). Churchill and Fisher left documents where they seem to be trying to frame Turner for incompetently losing his ship, which doesnt seem to entirely square with Turner having had secret orders which went wrong. Or then again it might, because the documents were to third parties who would not be within the top secrecy loop. Hall positively seems to have revelled in secret shenanigans.

One of the things I was looking for is information about Lusitania's exact course passing Ireland, which so far is far from clear. Churchill/Fisher's anger might be explained if Lusitania really had been given explicit warnings, which no one later was allowed to talk about, which had not been followed. It would be an interesting irony if they were floundering about trying to fake evidence against turner because they couldnt use the real evidence, but on the whole I will not be believing that without better evidence.

Ive noted other posts here about these passenger descriptions of the ship going slowly. You know the extent of them better than i: thus far I dont know how much credibility to put on them. Others have pointed out that such things as distance and speed, particularly in mist, are a bit subjective.

>I always assumed that it was pieces of the side of the ship and the interiors directly above the detonation that were blown upward.

Was there any wood on the outside of the hull? fenders? If the wood came from inside the ship, how did it get into the air above the ship? was there a big hole somewhere, damage to the exterior, which, where i came in just now, Schwieger might have seen?

 

[Jim Kalafus]

>Ive noted other posts here about these passenger descriptions of the ship going slowly. You know the extent of them better than i: thus far I dont know how much credibility to put on them. Others have pointed out that such things as distance and speed, particularly in mist, are a bit subjective.

You can put a great deal of credibility on them. Cunard fought tooth and nail to keep Judge Meyer from considering this aspect of the disaster. They did not attempt to impeach the witnesses, which is what you do when you know someone is incorrect or lying, they instead objected on technical grounds each time the issue came up....

Since we were already at war with Germany at this point, the outcome of the hearings was known in advance, and so the Lusitania gliding to a near halt in the war zone was deemed "irrelevant" to Cunard being liable to its passengers.

Meyer could not consider the multiple testimonies on this opoint while rendering a verdict. But, the passenger statements remain in the transcript of the hearings.

There are also numerous 1915 letters, closer to the time of the sinking, and 1915 depositions made in Ireland, which cover the same ground.

I'd discount a lot of these tales as being panicky first time travelers, except that the people who testified (and who knew something was amiss that morning) were people who knew ships and THAT ship in particular. This was not the usual case in which newbies got nervous and experienced travelers calmed them. Some of the most worried had crossed 30 or more times...

...a few had been aboard the March crossing, in which the Lusitania had dashed out of Liverpool under the cover of darkness, without stopping to let off the pilot, and ran blind at full speed until well into the Atlantic....

... these people knew what was normal in the war zone, and what wasnt. So, if they say "slowed to a crawl" I believe them.

MANY accounts survive from the final three Eastbound crossings. People kept diary journals while on board and, relieved to have made it safely, tended to write long letters home. They agree on the major details.... passengers had a weird sense of being watched while on deck in the war zone....people had sinking ship nightmares, and night terrors. Up until that morning, the ship had not slowed down in this particular patch of ocean.

>One of the things I was looking for is information about Lusitania's exact course passing Ireland, which so far is far from clear.

She emerged from the fog bank between 10:30 and 11AM. The experienced travelers agreed that they never saw her so close to shore. By 12:30 she was running at close to 18 knots again, and swinging back out to sea. You can work backwards from 2:10 and get a general idea of where she was when she altered course and headed for U-20.

>The comments about meeting a naval ship are fascinating,

A military vessel sailing westbound altered course and followed the Lusitania east, for a time, on May 1. The passengers saw nothing alarming in this, it was noted as just another sailing day event in diary letters.

Nightowls noted that on the night of May 1, the Lusitania rendez-voused with some sort of "military" vessel and exchanged signals by Morse. Again, nothing threatening was perceived in this ~ which frustrates, because no one noted how long this interlude was... the Morseing could have been anything from a simple "Hi, Bill" to a more complex "Steer the ship directly into the submarine, then offload the already loaded boats." Since no one found anything sinister about this, other than noting that it happened they supplied no details.

 

[Jim Kalafus]

>was there a big hole somewhere, damage to the exterior, which, where i came in just now, Schwieger might have seen?

No. There was not.

The reason I can say that with confidence is that boat #1 was lowered with three men in it and managed to row clear. Had there been an Andrea Doria sized hole there, as artists' conceptions occasionally showed, there would have been Andrea Doria-like suction towards the hole, which there wasnt. DC Harris swam past that area, successfully. #1 rowed past it. Neither experienced difficult suction.

The only passsenger account I can find that mentions a visible hole was given by a hysteric whose initial, honest, account was supplanted by a later telling with things in it like people trapped in elevators (didnt happen, 99% certain) a confrontation with an officer, and a giant visible hole in the side.

The wood... may have been interior fragments coming up the ventilators, and may also have been the lifeboats. Sorry to say, no one expanded on the source.

 

[danny perry]

I take it lifeboat number 5 was never seen again, that in fact it was destroyed (ie the witness account of it being blown up would be undermined by it arriving full of survivors). As to a hole scwieger might have seen, from his perspective it would not be necessary that there was major internal damage, simply superficial damage which might have been taken for something more severe. Or, if someone was later doctoring the log, an original account where he noted damage above the torpedo hit which someone later exaggerated for their own reasons. I am interested in what might actually have existed as the basis for his account. If this falling wood is from inside the ship, there must be some way it got out and into the sky. There seem to have been relatively low ventilators on the deck, but it might have been noticeable to someone if they suddenly started shooting up a column of debris. The nice thing about debris shooting up the funnel is that the debris would be way up in the sky before anyone saw it leaving the ship. (incidentally, I read a passenger report which mentioned a ventilator/porthole opening into the funnel space inside the ship, which seems to have served for internal ventilation and maybe light as well as taking up boiler flues. It wasnt simply one pipe). Similar, though lesser, problem to no one noticing a hole somewhere.

>A military vessel sailing westbound altered course and followed the Lusitania east, for a time, on May 1.

presumably the british ships patrolling off america? didnt Lusitania collect mail from some? i would agree with the passengers that this seems more reassuring than sinister.

>They did not attempt to impeach the witnesses, which is what you do when you know someone is incorrect or lying

Not necessarily: take the easiest course. It seems clear they could get things dismissed quite readily, so thats what they did. Dangerous game trying to prove someone is lying. They might be very good at it.
> Cunard fought tooth and nail to keep Judge Meyer from considering this aspect of the disaster.

which doesnt explain their motive for doing so. They might simply have been obeying british government instructions not to allow any kind of discussion on ship movements.

 

[Jim Kalafus]

>They did not attempt to impeach the witnesses, which is what you do when you know someone is incorrect or lying

>>Not necessarily: take the easiest course. It seems clear they could get things dismissed quite readily, so thats what they did. Dangerous game trying to prove someone is lying.

Even more dangerous, in a liability hearing, is to offer a challenge directly relating to a liability issue. Had Meyer said "The possibility that the ship slowed almost to a halt in a war zone is indeed relevant to Cunard's liability in this case" in response to the objection, and issued a directive that it be the subject of a specific investigation, the end result had potential to be REALLY disastrous for the line.

However, the lawyers knew he would not say that. How could he? The US and Germany were mortal enemies by that point. Under normal circumstances, making the witnesses looked addled...which is easy to do when people are telling the truth and pathetically easy to do when they are lying... would have been a wiser course.


I'm out the door at the moment. I'm not sure if I'll have internet access again until Thursday night. Let's continue this discussion, which I am enjoying, at that point if I cannot log on at my hotel.

 

[danny perry]

I guess from the dates on other posts its quite quiet round here. Something of a specialist interest. Anyone who happens to read this, I am still interested in my original question, which was whether or not there might have been flames from the funnel caused by either the blast of an explosion or simply the pressure surge from inrushing water into a confined space. If Schwieger's log claimed he saw flames I am not inclined to instantly dismiss it. I dont know what the effect of a steam explosion in the boiler room would be. Steam rushing through the fires would not instantly extinguish them, I wouldnt think, but it might propel a great cloud of unburnt but very hot gases out of the funnel which would then burn when it hit the air, like a gun's muzzle flash.

You have answered your own question: there was no reason to cross examine if the evidence was deemed inadmissable, and how could you cross examine something which the court had struck out? If the judge had decided to admit it, then would be the time to argue with what the witness said. I agree with you that a fair hearing might have examined Cunards/the captains/ the british governments actions to determine whether any specific action had endangered lives and contributed to the outcome. But I think Mersey's british enquiry came to a fair verdict: The actions of those concerned were those of people doing their best in difficult circumstances, that they were as good as could be expected, and ultimatley it was a deliberate German act. I'd say it is undeniable the british turned the ships into targets because they wer carrying munitions and war supplies, whatever way they chose to describe them at the time. But then, who in britain would have said they were wrong for trying to get materiel into the country any way they could. Bad luck for the passengers, but they were foolish if they did not undertsand there was a risk. Did I see millions had already died by this time? The fuss was about 100 or so americans who drowned and more who suffered the experience. Would the US have cared so much if all the victims had been steerage passengers rather than famous VIPs?

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

I don't think that there were really flames from the funnels. I did not see how this would have happen.
Also I can not see that Schwieger mentioned that in his log. What he writes are "large cloud of smoke and debris shot above the funnels." which is far away from coming from the funnels.
What I find in an article from 1928 "How I sank the Lusitania" is that he mentioned that a second explosion must have taken place and "bridge and part of the ship were the torpedo hit are torn apart, and fire follows."