OT: WWI U-boats thread some months ago, and the "Lusitania"

[Catfish]

Hello,
i wanted to enter a final chapter to the U-boat thread some months ago, however it has been closed after so much time. The old thread is here:
"Die U-Boote des Kaisers", a first new book

But i just stumbled about an interesting story about the Lusitania 's wreck at the end of this post.

The post is probably not so off topic because the sinking of that very ship was one of the main causes for the U.S. to join the war on the Entente side.
Before this President Wilson even was on the brink of joining Germany against the British blockade to guarantee free sea trade, however propaganda on all sides diffused the main picture of what was going on.
The US were not the only ones who saw the british blockade as an unrestricted war weapon violating public international law.

The Great War was initially won at sea, with food, material, tanks, aircraft and resources being brought to the trenches by ships.

And no, i do not want to stir up things, be revanchistic or restart a war, neither do i want to claim "i said it all before" (i didn't ), just thought someone might be interested:

Secret of the Lusitania: Arms find challenges Allied claims it was solely a passenger ship | Mail Online

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[josquin]

Catfish

The Lusitania's cargo of small arms ammunition has been a topic in
the historical literature for years; what is new is the possible presence
of H.E. cargo (gun cotton, shells, sundry explosives). The investigations
Bemis plans may shed more light on the scale of the transgression by
the British--clearly, it was wrong to transport war material on a
civilian passenger ship, and clearly it was wrong to lie at the time about the Lusitania 's status as a passenger ship exclusively. Unfortunately, as many
have observed over the centuries, it is far easier to get men to fight for
an idea rather than for real estate or the claims of a ruling elite. Hence,
we have propaganda...
As we have observed over the years on numerous Forum
threads, the propaganda mills of the Allies & the Central Powers
worked overtime throughout the war years, and British deception
and distortions are well-documented--as are everone else's, as well.
Thank you for calling these recent findings to our attention.
I must dissent, as I did in the earlier thread, regarding the
British naval blockade as a war crime. Such blockades were
a commonplace in the history of war: such as the British
blockade of Napoleon's Europe and the Union blockade of
Southern seaports during the American Civil War. Part of
the reason to strive for maritime supremacy was to be in the
position to utilize strategic measures, such as blockades and
embargoes, to advance the likelihood of eventual victory by
depriving your adversary of the raw materials requisite to
fielding and maintaining national armed forces. We start to
tread on uncharted territory when civilians are used as pawns--
as they clearly were on the Lusitania, and also when neutral
shipping or passenger ships were sunk by U-boats. All this
indicates, simply, that no combatant nation's hands were
completely clean. The same can be said for every other war.
That is why Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's statement
about war will forever be the final word on the subject.
regards josquin

[Catfish]

Hello Josquin,

i respect your opinion, and my previous statement of hoping not to be revanchistic etc. is still in effect However my idea of public international law does not match yours

I am aware that the finding of H.E. gun cotton and bigger artillery resources in the wreck would certainly be something else than the already known small arms ammunition, however the existence of H.E. cargo in those crates mentioned is not really proven yet.
Anyway in my opinion this would only be a marginal difference, because any ship carrying anything to support the Entente and entering British waters was prone to be a target for Germany. As mentioned before neutrality was often abused even by coal freighters, and it was common knowledge in the german Navy.

" ... clearly, it was wrong to transport war material on a
civilian passenger ship, and clearly it was wrong to lie at the time about the Lusitania 's status as a passenger ship exclusively. Unfortunately, as many
have observed over the centuries, it is far easier to get men to fight for
an idea rather than for real estate or the claims of a ruling elite. Hence,
we have propaganda ... "

So true. It seems the Lusitania was intentionally led by the admiralty on a path along the assumed position of the U-boat that then sunk her - the position was known due to the british code break early in the war. By all means the "Lusitania" should have been led on a secure northern route around Ireland to reach Liverpool. Honi soit qui mal y pense, but England needed the then still neutral USA for support and was eager to provoke any event to further discriminate Germany, and turn the US public tide against Germany.
The german embassy had even printed an article in the US newspapers warning passengers to use this very ship, because it might be sunk.
But despite all this propaganda from all sides the actual sinking was an accident, a mistake. The skipper of U20 mistook the Lusitania for another ship.

Even if the "Lusitania" was officially an auxiliary cruiser from its papers (which was merely a "trick" to get financial support from the Navy when the ship was built), it most probably would not have been sunk without its camouflage and sporting a clear visible flag. Despite all this propaganda and warnings U20 would not have sunk an obvious passenger ship. U-boats were forbidden to sink passenger ships even during this "unrestricted" U-boat war, which only took place for a short time. This was not made public because

1st it would have been difficult to explain to the german civilian population suffering from the blockade, and

2nd because Germany wanted England to believe civilian passenger ships would not be spared, because the abuse of neutral or no flag at all was common practice on english ships helping the Entente. But the official order not to attack passenger ships was indeed in effect for the time of the war.

The sinking of two passenger ships was, by all terror and death that it caused, a mistake - but a mistake of which England was not without guilt. When freighters and civilian ships (!) were being armed with guns it was impossible for german U-boats to follow the prize regulation, to stop ships, search them, control the papers and act accordingly - so some ships had to be judged through the periscope before doing so. But then there were enough incidents in which british or "neutral" ships suddenly fired at U-boats, which would go down after one or two hits (e.g. the "Nicosian" incident, but there were numerous others). This gave way to unintended sinkings, and international problems.

Trying to make the prize regulation impossible was an intended measure to provoke international scandals, and for propaganda purposes. You may call this cynical, and i agree.

" ... I must dissent, as I did in the earlier thread, regarding the
British naval blockade as a war crime. ..."

You state that blockades were common practice, but in no time of history did a blockade do what this one was intended to, and did - trying to starve out civilian population and brake their will by all means. Asquith and others had said exactly this before the war.
Germany had 750.000 civilian casualties due to lack of food alone in the winter of 1915. The sea trade had been strangled completely, and Germany was as dependant from overseas trade as was England, and other nations. This certainly sheds some light on the german intelligence concerning the reaction of other nations, and the Kaiser's belief in the Royal Family in England.

From different sources:

" ... The Allies had the advantages of greater resources of finance and raw materials. Britain maintained its naval dominance and could draw on its empire for support. In addition, because Germany was effectively blockaded, the United States, even though officially neutral for most of the war, served as a major source of supplies for the Allies. ..."

This is especially true for President Wilson who first wanted to join Germany - if i were cynical i would say after realizing that the growing war trade markets of France and England would come up for the missing trade with Germany, his humanitarism and concern for the free trade of the seas suddenly seemed to lack some of its quality.

Blockade, international public law and treaties:

" ... Soon after the outbreak of hostilities, Britain initiated a naval blockade of Germany. The strategy proved effective, cutting off vital military and civilian supplies, although this blockade violated generally accepted international law codified by several international agreements of the past two centuries.[40] Britain mined international waters to prevent any ships from entering entire sections of ocean, causing danger to even neutral ships.[41]
Since there was limited response to this tactic, Germany expected a similar response to its unrestricted submarine warfare. ..."

This assumption would then prove wrong.

" ... All this indicates, simply, that no combatant nation's hands were
completely clean. The same can be said for every other war. ..."

I agree completely ! And Sherman's words are still true, for all kinds of war.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[josquin]

Catfish

I agree with most of your post, "Some More Thoughts," particularly the
discussion of the Allied measures that subverted the Prize Regulation
protocol. We have a divergence with respect to public international
law and war crimes. You advance the academic, codified embodiment
of international law--what I claim is largely theoretical and too often
honored in the breach by combatant nations during times of war (as
an example, Germany's violation of Belgium's neutrality in August, 1914
and the dismissal of the treaty as "a scrap of paper."). My view of
international law is colored by the actual behavior of warring nations:
the use of realpolitik, breaking treaties, and generally behaving according to Clausewitz's dicta rather than the principles of international law and the
requirements of treaties. The historical examples are legion--no doubt
because of the prevalent attitude over the centuries that the victors write the histories and any means--however foul--is acceptable if it ensures
eventual victory. We can always write a self-serving history after the
fact and transform war crimes into noble deeds.
I dissent, also, from your views concerning Woodrow Wilson and the
entry of the United States into the Great War. Wilson was a
notoriously uneven president; an inconsistent, egotistical weakling
who was intolerant of any disagreement. That reality had more to do
with his policy changes than considerations of political economy. Also,
the Zimmermann Telegram was an exercise in idiocy that damaged
Germany's standing quite seriously in the United States--in tandem
with unrestricted submarine warfare (which Falkenhayn and Ludendorff
thought was a perfectly acceptable strategy--returning to my view of
the limited applicability of international law in times of war). Attributing
political economic motivations of the magnitude you suggest to
Wilson's decision-making really makes him more of a Macchiavellian,
or like Richelieu, than he really was. Wilson's decision to enter the
war on the side of the Allies was not received with universal support
in the United States and he instituted a strict, repressive suppression
of dissenting organizations, press, and so on (per Geoffrey Stone's
books). The irony was Wilson's claim that the United States was
"fighting to make the world safe for democracy" during a time when
he was infringing the same democratic rights at home--a state of
affairs not unlike what is occurring at the present. With all this said,
Thomas, I respect both your opinion and your scholarship--I hope
that International Law evolves into a semblance of your vision of
rational efficacy and universal applicability.
regards, josquin