Comments on: Woodrow Wilson: Did He Know The Lusitania Carried Munitions?

By: Billy Mays

Billy Mays — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:09:24 +0000

You know that the German embassy tried to warn people to not sail on the Lusitania?

“The German embassy in Washington was well aware of the nature of the cargo being loaded aboard the Lusitania and filed a formal complaint to the United States government, because almost all of it was in direct violation of international neutrality treaties. The response was a flat denial of any knowledge of such cargo. Seeing that the Wilson Administration was tacitly approving the shipment, the German embassy made one final effort to avert disaster. It placed an ad in fifty East Coast newspapers, including those in New York City, warning Americans not to take passage on the Lusitania. The ad was prepaid and requested to be placed on the paper’s travel page a full week before the sailing date. –Of the fifty newspapers, only the Des Moines Register carried the ad on the requested date.”

Image of newspaper clipping:

http://www.md.lp.org/newsletters/may01/cunard.jpg

Research for yourself and make your own opinions, however this excerpt from G. Edward Griffin’s Creature from Jekyll Island sums it up decently.

http://joeplummer.com/the_lusitania.html

By: Lee

Lee — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:47:12 +0000

Rules of war exist. At the time, they had not adjusted to the submarine. Old rules said an attacking ship had to warn the target merchant ship and help evacuate passengers, then the target ship could be sunk. (Called the cruiser rules, I believe.) Many merchant ships were armed with some type of defensive guns, and submarines, lacking armor, speed, or surface guns, were obviously vulnerable if they surfaced to give warning, and didn’t have room to take on passengers even if they did. It was just an instance of the “rules” being far behind a rapidly evolving technology. So, yes, the Germans were in violation of the rules of war, and much of the world still believed that “sneaky” submarines were immoral. Germany, on the other hand, couldn’t compete with the British surface fleet and saw subs as their only hope of winning the war. Just as they had justified invading and terrorizing neutral Belgium as a “necessity”, so they justified submarine warfare on the same grounds. They convinced themselves of their righteousness in so doing, but no one else. (See Tuchman’s “Guns of August” for more).

By: symonsez

symonsez — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 18:55:35 +0000

I believe that recent additions to the historiography disputes some of your claims. The fact that the ship sunk so quickly and also reports of secondary explosions have always raised the question as to why; the supposition being that a single torpedo should have have caused a ship of that size to go down so fast. Manifests have been unearthed that suggest that there were in fact munitions on board. In order to support your position, then one must accept that Germany had no right to unilaterally declare unrestricted warfare on ships carrying munitions. I”m not sure but I don’t think that falls under the rules of war…if there really is such a thing. Either way, it seems reasonable that a nation can defend itself by preventing its enemy from receiving munitions that will be used against it. But, as I said, the whole idea of “rules of war” seems rather naive. I think a larger, better question would be if the U boat commander knew that it was carrying munitions and I would suspect that the answer would be no. Hence, his attack falling under the unrestricted warfare laid out by Germany was by happenstance and not from intent. I appreciate your contribution and point of view.

By: MThomas

MThomas — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 18:31:45 +0000

The fact that the Lusitania carried munitions is irrelevent, as this was perfectly legal under the rules of war then in place. It did not give the German’s any more right to sink the Lusitania without warning.
The Lusitania was also never used as an armed warship by the Royal Navy, she remained in civilian service and was unarmed.

By: symonsez

symonsez — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:02:29 +0000

Because it was all out war.

By: symonsez

symonsez — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:01:51 +0000

Every source that I have say the U-20 was responsible for the sinking of the Lusitania. You can try this one out http://firstworldwar.com/atoz/u20.htm or if you read the novel by David Butler titled Lusitania you will find he too refers to the U-20. Please supply a citation for your claim. Otherwise, I believe that you are mistaken. Thank you for participating though and feel free to comment any time.

By: larrisa

larrisa — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:52:24 +0000

just to let you no its a U-36 not a U-20 and i’m only a teenager and i no let god i have no life

By: larrisa

larrisa — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:50:16 +0000

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

By: Chanelle Beckles

Chanelle Beckles — Sat, 08 May 2010 20:01:27 +0000

Beautiful photos! I love the post so much!

By: Berry Denardis

Berry Denardis — Sat, 08 May 2010 12:34:22 +0000

OK nice to see- new comments are always sweet! See yas.