LusitaniaA ship of hostile intent

[Omar Khokhar]

Some have claimed that given the fact that in feb 1915 all british merchant ships received secret orders to ram or to flee from u-boats, meant that by violating the cruiser rules in this way, the lusitania was a ship of hostile intent and could be sunk without warning.

Other authors like Baily and Ryan suggest that the damming 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.

The point is that these ramming tactics would effectively alter the status of a unarmed merchant ship into that of an offensively armed warship.Therefore the argument is that 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.

Therefore What I would like to know Eric is that, given that the hunger blockade was one reason to sink her. Is the above argument by baily and ryan yet another legitimate reason to sink her?

IF these arguments are correct then the verdict of wilful murder cast on germany at the kinsale inquiry must surely be grossly unfair.

Any comments would be appreciated and many thanks for your reply to my earlier message!

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Well, in regards secret orders, a question that goes begging is whether or not the Germans even knew about it. I wouldn't be totally surprised if they did. Their intelligence wasn't incompatant after all, but neither was it all seeing and all knowing.

And would a sub driver have known about it in any event? History is loaded with examples of critical inteliigence not being passed on to the troops on the front lines. From the U-20's vantage point, it would have been a case of having in his crosshairs a ship of a billigerant known to have a use as an armed merchent cruiser or transport if called up, and known to be carrying contraband. (The German spies in NYC were not blind to what was happening on the waterfront.)

That would tend to make the ship fair game.

 

[Michael Cundiff]

So often I hear(see) of these *rules* of war/engagement...

...just curious, were "Fat Man" and "Little Boy"
in violation of these so called *rules* of War?

Being that War is of such a cruel and wicked nature...how can one set rules?

Michael A. Cundiff
USA

 

[Matthew Lips]

The only "rule" would seem to be that if you must strike, strike hard. The Lusitania sinking was a defining moment in the history of warfare in that innocent civilians became "fair game", and that set a trend which has cursed humankind ever since.

Mass bombings of cities and towns in WW2, Fat Man and Little Boy, even (for those in the huge minority who sympathise with it) 9/11 are manifestations of the well used cliche that all's fair in love and war.

Cruel and wicked doesn't even begin to describe what we are capable of inflicting upon our fellow man - including those too young to even know what a weapon is.

The notion that wars were strictly intended to be fought by armed med in uniform was already obsolete by 1915. I guess the Lusitania just removed any lingering doubts.

 

[Matthew Lips]

Oops - that should read "armed MEN in uniform."