WW1 Submarine Warfare, Casus Belli and the Lusitania

[Galvatron]

Hmph. This guy makes it sound like the only reason we got involved in the war was because we suddenly had enough money to do so. Hasn't this guy ever heard of unrestricted submarine warfare, or the Zimmerman Telegram?

Zimmerman Telegram

"[World War I] probably could have ended in 1917. Both sides were devastated and seeking an armistice. But America, under no threat of attack by the Germans or Austrians, entered the war that year — allowing the Allies to step up the war and forcing Germany to surrender in 1918."

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/Ign ... istory.htm

[Andrew J.]

"[World War I] probably could have ended in 1917. Both sides were devastated and seeking an armistice. But America, under no threat of attack by the Germans or Austrians, entered the war that year — allowing the Allies to step up the war and forcing Germany to surrender in 1918."

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/Ign ... istory.htm

No threat of attack? They had already been attacked; unrestricted submarine attacks against American ships is a casus belli if I ever heard one.

And the rest of the article is a joke. No way in hell would the czar have stayed in power in Russia, for one thing. He ignores the fact that Americans lobbied for very easy terms against Germany (Wilson's 14 points, anyone?) and that the harshness of Versailles was mostly France's fault. Remember, by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk Germany had gained VAST amounts of Russian territory. They probably would have started another war anyway, regardless of peace terms.

And if you reply to this post, please do so in your own words, mmkay? Just quoting other people's arguments is lazy.

[Wicked Pilot]

No threat of attack? They had already been attacked; unrestricted submarine attacks against American ships is a casus belli if I ever heard one.

I hate to turn this into a discussion about wether or not our entry into WWI was justified or not, but it was the British who started putting hidden deck guns on cargo ships and putting amunition on passenger vessels. They're the ones you should blame for what happened in the Atlantic. At least Germany tried at first to follow the laws of war and allow the crews to surrender and escape, at least until they were fired upon by hidden weapons. The blood of the Lusitania is on the hands of the British for using their citizens and those of the United States as human shields.

[Galvatron]

And if you reply to this post, please do so in your own words, mmkay? Just quoting other people's arguments is lazy.

See Wicked Pilot's reply...

[Andrew J.]

I hate to turn this into a discussion about wether or not our entry into WWI was justified or not, but it was the British who started putting hidden deck guns on cargo ships and putting amunition on passenger vessels. They're the ones you should blame for what happened in the Atlantic. At least Germany tried at first to follow the laws of war and allow the crews to surrender and escape, at least until they were fired upon by hidden weapons. The blood of the Lusitania is on the hands of the British for using their citizens and those of the United States as human shields.

So? An attacks is on an American ship is an attack on an American ship, regardless of loss of life. I don't see why you're bringing the Lusitania into this; IIRC, it was owned by a British company.

[Stormbringer]

So? An attacks is on an American ship is an attack on an American ship, regardless of loss of life. I don't see why you're bringing the Lusitania into this; IIRC, it was owned by a British company.

I agree. If you fire on people's ship that's a cause for war. Especially when they are a neutral power.

The Lusitania was British as are all those British ships. Using the British behaviour as justification for sinking other nation's cargo ships doesn't hold water.

[Durandal]

So? An attacks is on an American ship is an attack on an American ship, regardless of loss of life. I don't see why you're bringing the Lusitania into this; IIRC, it was owned by a British company.

I agree. If you fire on people's ship that's a cause for war. Especially when they are a neutral power.

The Lusitania was British as are all those British ships. Using the British behaviour as justification for sinking other nation's cargo ships doesn't hold water.

Therefore, income tax sucks.

[Joe]

I like that line of reasoning.

[Wicked Pilot]

So? An attacks is on an American ship is an attack on an American ship, regardless of loss of life. I don't see why you're bringing the Lusitania into this; IIRC, it was owned by a British company.

I brought up the Lusitania because it was the major catalyist that brought the U.S. into the war. I also brought up the behavior of the British because it was you who brought up how "unrestricted submarine attacks against American ships is a casus belli if I ever heard one".

Again, it is not my intention to hijack this thread. If you were willing to start a new thread relating to this subject, I'd be happy to participate.

[Glocksman]

If you fire on people's ship that's a cause for war. Especially when they are a neutral power.

But what if that 'neutral power' wasn't abiding by the laws of neutrality?

Wilson's insistence that US citizens be sacrosanct even when traveling on the ships of a belligerent power (such as the Lusitania) was both unreasonable and had no foundation in international law.

The US was also exending loans to, and producing arms for, the Allied powers even before formal US entry into the war. The ships carring arms to a belligerent power are themselves legitimate targets despite being under a neutral flag.

The US may have been legally neutral, but we were hardly neutral in 'thought and deed'. Hell, we started get ready to enter the war during 1916 (Wilson's and Lodge's 'Prepardness Campaign').

I'm of the opinion that the US entry into WW1 was a mistake of the highest order. Der Kaiser was no threat to democracy like Hiter and Hirohito were and the US had no business entering a conflict that started because of the byzantine system of power alliances that existed at the time.

[Stuart Mackey]

No threat of attack? They had already been attacked; unrestricted submarine attacks against American ships is a casus belli if I ever heard one.

I hate to turn this into a discussion about wether or not our entry into WWI was justified or not, but it was the British who started putting hidden deck guns on cargo ships and putting amunition on passenger vessels. They're the ones you should blame for what happened in the Atlantic. At least Germany tried at first to follow the laws of war and allow the crews to surrender and escape, at least until they were fired upon by hidden weapons. The blood of the Lusitania is on the hands of the British for using their citizens and those of the United States as human shields.

The laws of submarine warfare at the time forced a submarine to surface, order the victim to heave to, ensure identity, ensure to the saftey of thats ships crew. This is not a practical method of submarine warfare.
Weapons on British merchants merchants was to defend them against the enemy. This is a legitimate practice. Putting ammunition on, British flag, passenger ships, while a dubious practice, is still quite legal.
As to US people on British ships? who made them travel on british ships? they sailed on these ships with the full knowlege that they could be sunk in the cource of warfare. I conclude that these people were morons, as Lusitania was a British ship Hardly human sheilds

[Wicked Pilot]

The laws of submarine warfare at the time forced a submarine to surface, order the victim to heave to, ensure identity, ensure to the saftey of thats ships crew. This is not a practical method of submarine warfare.

Yet this is what the German captains did at the beginning of the war. The British on the other hand simply mined the German coast.

Weapons on British merchants merchants was to defend them against the enemy. This is a legitimate practice.

They were hidden guns, which are blatant violations of the laws of war.

Putting ammunition on, British flag, passenger ships, while a dubious practice, is still quite legal.

What if the weapons are not declared on the manifest? If the passengers are kept unaware of what is being carried, then is it still legal? If it is legal, is it right?

As to US people on British ships? who made them travel on british ships? they sailed on these ships with the full knowlege that they could be sunk in the cource of warfare. I conclude that these people were morons, as Lusitania was a British ship Hardly human sheilds

They didn't know about the ammo being carried, thus they were being used as shields, but I fully conceed the point that they were all morons. They're getting their Darwins isn't something the U.S. should have lost any sleep over.

[Frank Hipper]

I don't have time to get into this now, but I'll be back later. At least this isn't as bad as I thought it would be whan I saw the title!

Look up Q-ships, BTW

[RadiO]

They were hidden guns, which are blatant violations of the laws of war.

Q-Ships were actually illegal? There was plenty of that going on in both wars, on both sides.

[Frank Hipper]

They were hidden guns, which are blatant violations of the laws of war.

Q-Ships were actually illegal? There was plenty of that going on in both wars, on both sides.

No. The British started it with the Q-ships. There were converted merchantmen used for commerce raiding, but those ships were not carrying hidden guns, nor did they pretend to be anything other than what they were. Naval vessels.

[Sea Skimmer]

Load of shit, at the end of 1917 Germany had more then enough resources and above all manpower to continue the fight into the next year, and bring a victory on the western front outo f it.

[Sea Skimmer]

I hate to turn this into a discussion about wether or not our entry into WWI was justified or not, but it was the British who started putting hidden deck guns on cargo ships and putting amunition on passenger vessels. They're the ones you should blame for what happened in the Atlantic. At least Germany tried at first to follow the laws of war and allow the crews to surrender and escape, at least until they were fired upon by hidden weapons. The blood of the Lusitania is on the hands of the British for using their citizens and those of the United States as human shields.

So? An attacks is on an American ship is an attack on an American ship, regardless of loss of life. I don't see why you're bringing the Lusitania into this; IIRC, it was owned by a British company.

British owned and flagged, also unarmed. The ammount of ammunition onboard with tiny at best, and as that was concealed for deecades neither U-boat commanders nor the US knew.

Lets not forget that Germany actually declared a "war of the wounded", in which orders where issued to specifically target hospital ships.

[Frank Hipper]

When Admiral Sims got to London in the spring of '17, he was shocked to learn how narrowly Britain was survivng. British propaganda was giving a very different impression at the time.
Germany was winning the U-boat war, and it was only the very late intituting of convoys, along with American assistance and shipping that kept them in the war.

[Wicked Pilot]

The ammount of ammunition onboard with tiny at best, and as that was concealed for deecades neither U-boat commanders nor the US knew.

The Germans had spies in the eastern ports. They had their own agents and loads of Irish who hated the British. They knew about the ammo, but as to wether or not the U-boat captain did, I don't know. The British denied the existance of ammo because they thought it was the cause of the second explosion that sunk the ship. If Americans found out it was undeclared war material that sunk the ship after a minor torpedo hit, then they would have gone ape shit. The British of course claimed it was a second torpedo fired by the evil huns that did the ship in. Fast forward 85 years later, and we know it was neither a second torpedo nor ammo that sunk the ship, but probably overbearing steam pressure from flooding engine rooms.

And as to the whole issue of who was the worst nation, Britian or Germany, I think they were both being assholes, and neither deserved our exclusive support. As I believe it was RedImperator who said it, WWI was nothing but a European terratorial pissing contest that we really did not need to get involved in.

[Stuart Mackey]

The laws of submarine warfare at the time forced a submarine to surface, order the victim to heave to, ensure identity, ensure to the saftey of thats ships crew. This is not a practical method of submarine warfare.

Yet this is what the German captains did at the beginning of the war. The British on the other hand simply mined the German coast.

So? and there is something wrong with this?

Weapons on British merchants merchants was to defend them against the enemy. This is a legitimate practice.

They were hidden guns, which are blatant violations of the laws of war.

And the British had no other means of detecting submarines except for eyeball mk 1, whayt else were they to do? let the submarine menace go unanswered, esp when the convoy system had not yet been introdused.

Putting ammunition on, British flag, passenger ships, while a dubious practice, is still quite legal.

What if the weapons are not declared on the manifest? If the passengers are kept unaware of what is being carried, then is it still legal? If it is legal, is it right?

Probably not right, but when you are fighting for your life, I really dont think they gave a damn.

As to US people on British ships? who made them travel on british ships? they sailed on these ships with the full knowlege that they could be sunk in the cource of warfare. I conclude that these people were morons, as Lusitania was a British ship Hardly human sheilds

They didn't know about the ammo being carried, thus they were being used as shields,

I wil;l say it again..no one made them travel on a ship that belonged to a war belligrant. I will grant you that the prective was bloody dubious, but it happned.

but I fully conceed the point that they were all morons. They're getting their Darwins isn't something the U.S. should have lost any sleep over.

Lol! I hate to sound callous over deaths, but a few less polutants in the gene pool.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Germans had spies in the eastern ports. They had their own agents and loads of Irish who hated the British. They knew about the ammo, but as to wether or not the U-boat captain did, I don't know.

I've never seen a single thing to suggest that Germany knew there was ammunition on the Lusitanian or other liners, and given the tiny amounts involved its unlikely they would. Six hundred small crates of fuses and rifle rounds wasn't much when some freigthers where hauling a couple thousand tons of shells.

The British denied the existance of ammo because they thought it was the cause of the second explosion that sunk the ship. If Americans found out it was undeclared war material that sunk the ship after a minor torpedo hit, then they would have gone ape shit. The British of course claimed it was a second torpedo fired by the evil huns that did the ship in. Fast forward 85 years later, and we know it was neither a second torpedo nor ammo that sunk the ship, but probably overbearing steam pressure from flooding engine rooms.

Actually it was probably because the watertight integrity of ships of that time sucked shit. Boiler steam explosions as a result of cold-water contact are a real life version of sci fi brain bugs. There basically non-existent and don't do much of any damage in the rare cases when they do happen.

Many people seem to confuse boiler explosions that are a result of excessive pressure during operations with those that are caused by flooding, leading to a myth of these huge destructive blasts.

[Wicked Pilot]

Probably not right, but when you are fighting for your life, I really dont think they gave a damn.

Exactly, the British were being starved into surrender by German submarines. The Germans were being starved by the British surface fleet. WWI was an awful war in which there were no real winners, and there was no one with any honor.

[Sea Skimmer]

They were hidden guns, which are blatant violations of the laws of war.

Bullshit, the ship was unarmed at the time of its sinking. Four open mountings for guns existed, and indeed just about every European liner had a couple of those. But the Lusitanian's weapons where never mounted and the ship was never taken over by the RN for service. Had she been there wouldn't have been any passengers aboard, not to mention she would have been repainted.

[Wicked Pilot]

Bullshit, the ship was unarmed at the time of its sinking.

I never said she was armed, but perhaps I was too vague so I will clarify. Hidden deck guns were put on many merchant ships, including cruise liners. These were called Q-ships. Even if only 10% of the vessels out there are secretly armed, the sub captains aren't going to surface their vessel and run a 1 in 10 risk of being shot out the water. They're only choice is to abandon their practice of giving warning and letting the crew escape, and just torpedo the vessel on site. What else would you have them do?

[Sea Skimmer]

Bullshit, the ship was unarmed at the time of its sinking.

I never said she was armed, but perhaps I was too vague so I will clarify. Hidden deck guns were put on many merchant ships, including cruise liners. These were called Q-ships. Even if only 10% of the vessels out there are secretly armed, the sub captains aren't going to surface their vessel and run a 1 in 10 risk of being shot out the water. They're only choice is to abandon their practice of giving warning and letting the crew escape, and just torpedo the vessel on site. What else would you have them do?

Q-ships where not introduced until the first period of unrestricted U-boat warfare was already well underway. Also, before that first offensive the British where NOT starving Germany by sea. They infact where allowing ships through the blockade which where inspected and found to carry only civilian cargos such as food.

The total blockade and Q-ship where a counter to the U-boats.