NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.pbs.org/lostliners/lusitania.html

Many American citizens lost their lives when German freedomfighters or German terrorists ( or maybe a mix of the 2 ) attacked the ship they were using to sail to Britain.

What was the target of this attack?

Parody-thread or what?

http://www.pbs.org/lostliners/lusitania.html

Many American citizens lost their lives when German freedomfighters or German terrorists ( or maybe a mix of the 2 ) attacked the ship they were using to sail to Britain.

What was the target of this attack?
Weren't they German soldiers?

EDIT:Oh, yeah. Parody.
*kicks Parody-o-meter*
Woo! Pimp! http://sportsforum.ws/images/smilies/new2/pimp.gif

Parody-thread or what?

A reality check.
Each and every argument used in the palestinian terrorist or freedomfighter thread can be applied here as well.

Personally, I sort of doubt the possibility of a bunch of freedomfighters managing to get their hands on a U-boat at that point in time. They were pretty popular at the time, and I'm sure the German military would prefer to keep it's U-navy in it's own hands, rather than let some radicals take control of one and go cruising around the Channel/Atlantic with it.

More on topic, I believe it was an attack against the United Kingdom primarily, and America secondarily for supporting them.

Weren't they German soldiers?

EDIT:Oh, yeah. Parody.
*kicks Parody-o-meter*
Woo! Pimp! http://sportsforum.ws/images/smilies/new2/pimp.gif


And I would like to point out that Submerged attacks on non-naval vessels were banned by international law, thus devoiding the U-boat crews from the protection of International Law.

They were not legitimate combatants.

And I would like to point out that Submerged attacks on non-naval vessels were banned by international law, thus devoiding the U-boat crews from the protection of International Law.

They were not legitimate combatants.
Wasn't there some suspicion that she was carrying arms? Would that make her a legitimate target? It is a long time since I studied this, btw.

Maybe you should read a little 'bout what is called "Handelskrieg". Not only meaning, but it's history, too.

After that we can speak about if the German Subcrews have been terrorists or "freedomfighters".

Edit: The Lusitania carried Arms, but that was found out in the late 1980's.

Wasn't there some suspicion that she was carrying arms? Would that make her a legitimate target? It is a long time since I studied this, btw.

Procedure for dealing with suspected vessels.

1. Surface.
2. Board.
3. Bring in to prizeboard - or sink AFTER checks.

The Germans started off by following this procedure, but abandoned it, arguing it too burdensome.
If memory serves me right, the first cargo-vessel dealt with in accordance with existant laws was the SS Glitra.

Maybe you should read a little 'bout what is called "Handelskrieg". Not only meaning, but it's history, too.

After that we can speak about if the German Subcrews have been terrorists or "freedomfighters".


Inasmuch that you are just as dead when killed by a terrorists as when you are killed by a freedomfighter, I fail to see how it matters a worn-out ha'penny.

This procedure has been stopped, as Freighter has been armed with artillery and sank or damaged multiple Subs.

This procedure has been stopped, as Freighter has been armed with artillery and sank or damaged multiple Subs.

And?

Either the Germans contented themselves by sticking to the Law, or they didn't.

Inasmuch that you are just as dead when killed by a terrorists as when you are killed by a freedomfighter, I fail to see how it matters a worn-out ha'penny.

Sure, but they haven't been both of this. Not a terrorist and even not a freedomfighter. They acted in a declared war in declarated Waters around Great Britain at this moment, not in an Underground-Rumble.
So they have been Soldiers, nothing else.

Wasn't there some suspicion that she was carrying arms? Would that make her a legitimate target? It is a long time since I studied this, btw.
Part of the cargo was in fact military in nature: 4,200,000 rounds of Remington .303 rifle cartridges, 1250 cases of shrapnel shells and eighteen cases of fuses. Nevertheless, the physical size of the cargo would have been quite small. By international law, the presence of military cargo made the Lusitania a legitimate target.

The Allies denied the ship was carrying munitions (though British documents later confirmed the assertion)...

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania) on the Lusitania.

And?

Either the Germans contented themselves by sticking to the Law, or they didn't.

Arming non-Military Vessels is and was against international laws, too.

So their Owners and it's countries have been terrorists?

By 1915 the western front was a stalemate and the Royal Navy was blockading german ports so the germans were beggining to feel the pinch as no food supplies got in. Now the Germans, decided to get there own back and sank every ship they could find heading to the UK, including US merchant ships. This pissed off the americans who told them to stop or they would join the war. The germans stopped for a couple of months but the British kept getting supplies enough to develop new weapons like the Tank, wheras the German were stack with pre-1914 weaponry as they didnt have enough supplies to develop new weapons. so they started up agin the unrestricted U-Baot war.

It still took another year and a bit for the Americnas to join the war in 1917 though, the cited one of the main reasons was teh sinking of US shipping.

Arming non-Military Vessels is and was against international laws, too.

So their Owners and it's countries have been terrorists?


Ah, a fine instance of parody indeed. :)

The poor Palestinians are FORCED to become terrorists by the evil conspiracy aginst them.

Ah, a fine instance of parody indeed. :)

The poor Palestinians are FORCED to become terrorists by the evil conspiracy aginst them.

In conclusion of this the german soldiers have been freedomfighters 'cause of the evil conspiracy called "Allies"...

Ah, a fine instance of parody indeed. :)

The poor Palestinians are FORCED to become terrorists by the evil conspiracy aginst them.
I guess I just don't get it then.

Pro:

Q-Ships
For a while the German U-Boats looked like they could be a serious threat to Britain. The British were trying to blockade the Germans using the Royal Navy, the Germans by using U-Boats. The British had taken to equipping ships with weapons which would pretend to given themselves up by the rules, and then open fire when the U-Boat would close in.
Not sure on the exact time line on that though.

Ammunition
Yes, the Lusitania was carrying ammunition, as had been suspected by the German government at the time. That makes the ship a military vessel.

German Warnings
In every Atlantic port in the US the German government hung up posters warning passengers of the risks. It publicly declared 'Unrestricted U-Boat Warfare', and made an effort to inform civilians and neutral crews of this.

Churchill
Well, I suppose it doesn't directly bear on the actions of the Germans, but the British knew that that boat was in the area. When the captain of the Lusitania asked where it would be better to go, the Admiralty directed him right into the last known position of a U-Boat that they knew would attack. Call it an attempt to get the Americans to enter the war.

Contra:

Civilian Ship
Even though they suspected it would carry ammunition, the Germans could not be sure. What they could be sure of was that civilians would get killed. They knew what ship it was, and they knew how many innocent people were on board.

The U-Boat Captain
My understanding is that the captain of the U-Boat, Walther Schwieger, wasn't exactly chivalrous in his conduct. The Lusitania was not his only questionable kill - he narrowly missed a hospital ship previously, and he sunk two more liners, the Cymric and the Hesperian.

Rules of War
The German policy in general did break the understood rules of naval warfare. You could argue that the German Navy had no choice, but the fact remains. However, it is important to note that the British blockade was illegal too, since it was done by laying mines, rather than blocking ports and sea routes with surface ships as had been done in previous ports.

As an aside, to a post by Neo Leonstein that I consider to be quite good, I have to say that I fail to see how the usage of mines ( if that makes for an illegal blockade, which I doubt ), could possibly be considered an extenuating circumstance for attacking civilian vessels in breach of Naval Law.

...if that makes for an illegal blockade, which I doubt...
The illegal part was the definition of all goods, including food, as contraband. The rules were that ships would stop all incoming traders and dispose of any contraband, letting the rest through. Mines obviously can't do that. The Germans maintained that thus starving the German population was illegal, and even if it wasn't explicitly written to be so, it certainly violated all understandings and agreements.

These are some good links:
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika02.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/raico-churchill2.html

...could possibly be considered an extenuating circumstance for attacking civilian vessels in breach of Naval Law.
Well, as you know well enough, WWI was not a time of particular respect for the law, from all sides. Britain broke the law, Germany broke the law. The Lusitania should never have carried ammunition, nor should it have been listed in Jane's. But the British subsidised the building of the ships in return for the right to use them in wartime, and I believe they (ie the Lusitania and the Mauretania) were both in the books and lists of the British admiralty.

The illegal part was the definition of all goods, including food, as contraband. The rules were that ships would stop all incoming traders and dispose of any contraband, letting the rest through. Mines obviously can't do that. The Germans maintained that thus starving the German population was illegal, and even if it wasn't explicitly written to be so, it certainly violated all understandings and agreements.

These are some good links:
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika02.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/raico-churchill2.html


Well, as you know well enough, WWI was not a time of particular respect for the law, from all sides. Britain broke the law, Germany broke the law. The Lusitania should never have carried ammunition, nor should it have been listed in Jane's. But the British subsidised the building of the ships in return for the right to use them in wartime, and I believe they (ie the Lusitania and the Mauretania) were both in the books and lists of the British admiralty.

Ah, much clearer now. :)
I disagree, but the point is much better.

All ships carrying the red ensign are commandeerable in time of national crisis.
That most certainly includes trans atlantic liners.

What the matter boils down to is ( IMHO ) that the Germans ( like the palestinians ) were complaining that ius gentium was too burdensome for them.

And I don't see how that matters. Laws - like regulations in general - exist to be strictly and unquestioningly obeyed. One either OBEYS - or one is a criminal to be dealt with summarily.

Another way of saying the above is that I don't believe in the very concept of extenuating circumstances.

That's war, no one is right or wrong ... both sides were guilty of breaches. The winner always says they were right.

Bah terrorists!

Bah terrorists!

Bah infidels!

Bah infidels!
Nonononono, you have to say something longer, such as:
"Bah! I spit on you you second cousin of a jackal! My curvy sword at your throat O son of a dog of the female persuasion! Offendi!"
You can add stuff about djinni as well, if you like.

Nonononono, you have to say something longer, such as:
"Bah! I spit on you you second cousin of a jackal! My curvy sword at your throat O son of a dog of the female persuasion! Offendi!"
You can add stuff about djinni as well, if you like.


And after several femtoseconds, the entire congregation broke up into 2 hostile factions.
The Good Guys, ready to kill for the honour of the Single Humped Camel.
The Bad Guys, ready to terrorise for the glory of the Double Humped Camel.

And after several femtoseconds, the entire congregation broke up into 2 hostile factions.
The Good Guys, ready to kill for the honour of the Single Humped Camel.
The Bad Guys, ready to terrorise for the glory of the Double Humped Camel.
So, the guys in the Middle East and the guys in Central Asia?

So, the guys in the Middle East and the guys in Central Asia?

I tried to ask 'em where they came from, but those scimitars they were waving looked like I could get shish-kebabbed on...

I tried to ask 'em where they came from, but those scimitars they were waving looked like I could get shish-kebabbed on...
Everybody knows you can pacify any vaugly Middle Eastern looking person with a dish of sheeps eyeballs ;)

I tried to ask 'em where they came from, but those scimitars they were waving looked like I could get shish-kebabbed on...

Hassan chop!

* from Bugs Bunny *

*grins happily*
So I should feed their feuds?
MY cybersheep, not THEIRS!
*gets Hassan-chopped*
OMGWTF?
*dies*

Pro:

Q-Ships
For a while the German U-Boats looked like they could be a serious threat to Britain. The British were trying to blockade the Germans using the Royal Navy, the Germans by using U-Boats. The British had taken to equipping ships with weapons which would pretend to given themselves up by the rules, and then open fire when the U-Boat would close in.
Not sure on the exact time line on that though.
IIRC the first Q-ship set sail in June 1915, after the sinking of the Lusitania.

Ammunition
Yes, the Lusitania was carrying ammunition, as had been suspected by the German government at the time. That makes the ship a military vessel.
Uh-huh, but Schwieger was no clairvoyant...

German Warnings
In every Atlantic port in the US the German government hung up posters warning passengers of the risks. It publicly declared 'Unrestricted U-Boat Warfare', and made an effort to inform civilians and neutral crews of this.
That's true.

Churchill
Well, I suppose it doesn't directly bear on the actions of the Germans, but the British knew that that boat was in the area. When the captain of the Lusitania asked where it would be better to go, the Admiralty directed him right into the last known position of a U-Boat that they knew would attack. Call it an attempt to get the Americans to enter the war.
I think that there is a more innocent explanation to it -- the cruiser Juneau was located just there, and she was supposed to protect the Lusitania.

Contra:

Civilian Ship
Even though they suspected it would carry ammunition, the Germans could not be sure. What they could be sure of was that civilians would get killed. They knew what ship it was, and they knew how many innocent people were on board.
And Schwieger tried to cover this up! He tried to show that he had not known that his target had had to be either the Olympic, the Mauretania or the Lusitania.


The U-Boat Captain
My understanding is that the captain of the U-Boat, Walther Schwieger, wasn't exactly chivalrous in his conduct. The Lusitania was not his only questionable kill - he narrowly missed a hospital ship previously, and he sunk two more liners, the Cymric and the Hesperian.
Yes.


Rules of War
The German policy in general did break the understood rules of naval warfare. You could argue that the German Navy had no choice, but the fact remains. However, it is important to note that the British blockade was illegal too, since it was done by laying mines, rather than blocking ports and sea routes with surface ships as had been done in previous ports.
IIRC the British blockade was implemented mostly by surface ships, at least in 1914-1915, closing off the entire Northern Sea.