@@andrewreynolds912 the video clearly states that Germany used the munitions claim as a defence at the time. The cargo manifest would have been a public document att, the US was still neutral.
Churchill broke the Cruiser Rules by allowing civilian ships to transport war munitions. He prevented U-Boats from searching ships by introducing Q-ships, and ordering merchant captains to evade and ram U-Boats that surfaced.
Very good and informative summary. As an aside, may I mention that I found the background music somewhat irritating and distracting. Otherwise, an excellent effort.
Erik Sand uses the u-boat war as an example of how economic isolation can be indirectly decisive in war. The British blockade essentially meant that Germany could not win a long war, só they had no choice but to adopt high-risk, high-reward tactics. The u-boat war was the epitome of these tactics, having the potential to rapidly destroy Britain’s economy, but at the risk of antagonizing the United States.
@@andrewsoboeiro6979 Ironically it rather worked the other way round. While the British blockade halted the direct trade to Germany, for the first few years Germany could still get indirect imports from neutral countries. The US shipped a lot to Sweden and Netherlands who then shipped to Germany. Costly, for sure, since those countries made a profit, but it did stave off crisis. After Germany alienated neutral, especially US opinion, though, this stopped and the blockade became dramatically worse.
@@zhoufang996 to some extent, yes, but I wouldn’t overstate the value of trading thru neutrals- Germany experienced some rather severe shortages from the very beginning of the war in everything from food to fertilizer to coal to rubber to metals. The blockade also became more effective over the course of the war, as Britain learned how to limit trade passing to Germany thru neutral countries
@@chrismath149 they sold to everyone. That's the definition of neutrality. US food arguably mattered much more to the Germans than the ammunition to the British, which the British ultimately found to be too poor in quality to use.
@@andrewsoboeiro6979 those shortages were also not exactly due to the blockade. Germany chose to convert their nitrate fertilisers into explosives, and their coal imports were previously coming straight from the UK. The allies were major trading partners for the Germans and you can hardly blame them for not selling to the guys that they were at war with.
It was Churchill who was responsible for the ending of the “cruiser rules “ He ordered merchant ships to be armed,and to attempt to ram submarines. Captains who refused to do so were prosecuted. At this time German torpedoes were not very effective. Normally a torpedo would stop a ship,but the uboat would rely on its deck gun to sink it. The captain of u20 saw the effect of his one torpedo on the Lusitania with astonishment. The explosion which sank the ship was probably the bales of gun cotton supplied by DuPont,and described in a customs declaration as “furs”.
@@paulmasterson386 He did this after the Germans had issued the orders. The decision completely came out of the German admiralty believing this would increase the number of ships sunk and "win the war in six weeks". Torpedoes absolutely sunk ships very quickly. Divers have explored the wreck and found no evidence that the submarine triggered some kind of secret explosives. Most modern experts think the Lusitania sunk because of the torpedo alone, which triggered an explosion in the steam system that disabled automatic bulkhead closing mechanisms and as the ship sunk further water streamed in through open portholes.This explains also the fact that the ship listed severely - the cargo spaces ran across the whole ship so if water went in there from an explosion the ship would have sunk on an even keel.
@@towgod7985 the comments come from a book called “Lusitania “ by Colin Simpson. Much of his research was in American archives as British Naval records were restricted. The records of a crucial meeting at the Admiralty have been removed from the records. Make of that what you will….
Yeah, but they said as much. The Germans knew the Americans and Canadians were shipping munitions across the Atlantic in civilian conveyance. They were warned.
I imagine that submarine warfare was so new in 1915, that the public (and may e even military leaders) had not yet digested the risks associated with trans-atlantic travel. The risk of submarines in May, 1915 to shippimg may have been like the risk of shoulder fired ant-tank missles and drones in February, 2022.
First Q ship victory came the month after the sinking of the Lusitania. The move to Unrestricted Warfare in 1915 was mainly based on actions such as Fryatt, who attempted to ram a U-boat and also that U-boats were slow and the merchant ships could often out run them. Lusitania had a major effect but it was the loss of the Arabic which pushed things over the edge. Also, the threat of U-boats was still only being realised by May 1915 with the first vessel *ever* to be sunk by a torpedo launched from a submarine occuring six months before (Pathfinder sunk by U-21) and obviously the Live bait squadron incident. The admiralty were still expecting and working on the fear of a traditional surface fleet action, a feat substantiated by the Dogger Bank incident and the bombardments of the Briish coastline in 1914 whilst U-boat attacks were only really just kicking off in early 1915 so it isn't unreasonable for the Admiralty to not have an anti-submarine taskforce prior to May 1915.
I learned about this and read about the disguised bills of lading as a schoolboy in the 1950s. My father who cycled around the irish Free State in the 1920s spoke with the lighthouse keeper at the Old Head of Kinsale, who had been on duty when the liner sank.
U20 already identified lusitania before shooting a torpedo to down her. The subs captain was specifically in that area because he knew lusitania and many other vessels were bound to cross that area during that voyage
1. Lusitania was a legitimate target as she had never been removed from the list of AMC's, and as such was a military ship. 2. Germany announcing it is going to break the rules of war and target all shipping does not excuse Germany for doing so. 3. Schweiger noted that he attacked a large four funneled ship, and then that as the ship was sinking he saw the letters spelling the name Lusitania on the bow. Until that moment he had no idea what ship he had sunk, so any claims about the ship being an AMC or carrying munitions need to be discounted. He had attacked a large liner. 4. Under the rules of war at the time it was permissible to carry small arms ammo and ammunition up to 4.5'' in calibre on a passenger ship. It may have been stupid but it was legal.
Churchill broke the rules by allowing civilian ships to transport war munitions. He prevented U-Boats from searching ships by introducing Q-ships, and ordering merchant captains to evade and ram U-Boats that surfaced.
@@MarkHarrison733 All munitions carried by Lusitania when she was sunk were entirely legal by the rules of the day. Q ships were also perfectly legal. There was always the rule that said if you were to attack any ship you needed to identify it first to make sure you were not sinking a neutral ship. In this case Schweiger admitted to only identifying the ship as she was sinking.
I get your argument now. Schweiger should have better identified the ship before attacking it, and as such, it is his fault that unrestricted submarine warfare escalated to the targeting of civilian passenger vessels. (I can only presume this is the first instance since it gets so much attention.)
Worth noting that a number of German liners were effectively interned in NY harbor and RN vessels patrolled off NY, ready to intercept if they ventured out. The 1915 U Boat campaign was not unlimited in the manner that the 1917 campaign was. Not sure what is meant by "irreversible" and "paved the way". The sinking of the Lucy created anger at Germany and sympathy for Britain in 1915 but neither Wilson or the American people were ready to go to war. In fact, Wilson won the 1916 Presidential campaign that many thought he would lose based on his slogan "He kept us out of war". The more all out submarine campaign of 1917 followed by the Zimmerman telegram and Zimmerman foolishly admitting he had sent it after many claimed it was a British forgery, finally convinced most Americans that they could no longer stay neutral.
The only 1 German soldier, didn't even want to fire, because there are women and children aboard, the ship only stayed on surface for 18 minutes before it sank
I think whenever there’s a war & there’s a passenger ship it should have the water tight doors below the water line closed the entire time of the trip if that idea is possible…
lusitania was carrying ammunition and other war material, so yes 100% legitimate target. the fault lies with the power using civilians as a shield for their war material. given the outrage it generated, it probably wouldve been better had schwieger let it go. the outrage generated is an example of the values of a previous age colliding violently with the realities of the new total war the combatants found themselves in.
What precisely makes the piece of steel *the* likely torpedo tube that the sinking shot was sent from? I'm sorry I really don't get how this conclusion was made... Or it's just a weird framing of yes, torpedos like the one that sank Lusitania were sent from such tubes. But huh, that specific one now?
I feel that the Europeans fighting this war should have come to the US to collect their provisions personally instead of having it loaded in a ship that was supposed to have remained an unarmed vessel. Yes the winners rights get to publish their version of historical events, but we need to be honest and show people BOTH sides to have a better understanding of the truth and prevent history from repeating itself. Britain was equally at fault for its actions and WHY should the British always have the last say? The Americans were right to adopt the attitude they did in both wars, trying to remain neutral and out of conflict.
Technically speaking she may have been a legitimate target, but U-20 had no idea any munitions were on board, they simply saw a passenger liner and shot at it. Indiscriminately killing innocent people isn't suddenly justifiable because this time the ship coincidently had munitions on-board.
@@michaelhowell2326the sub wasn't in contact and according to the commander's diary he didn't ID the ship before he launched the attack. He also attacked other ships where that excuse didn't apply.
@@JeffEbe-te2xs the "told not to go there" was a complete coincidence. In the German ambassador's autobiography he said he sent the "warning" as a private citizen several weeks earlier and it ended up posted that day because of a technical problem. He didn't think the U-boats were targeting passenger ships but thought he should warn people just in case.
@@FR-nc3vb Titanic was designed for comfort,Lusitania was designed for speed above comfort. Titanic sank slowly and all her lifeboats got away ( though,of course,there weren’t enough). Lusitania sank swiftly,and few of her boats got away.
Lusitania should have been travelling faster, the idea was she was fast enough U boats couldn't attack her (this approach continued with liners in WWII). But Lusitania slowed down for reasons I have never seen explained.
Captain Turner was in a fog bank and did not have a bearing where he was off the Irish coast, so was not doing zig-zag maneuvers and slowed the ship which did not endanger the Lusitania. He wasn't able to use full speed until Lusitania cleared the fog and he had his visual position. As to Lusitania's full speed, as a British ship, it was under coal rationing and was not using all its boilers. Lusitania was still deemed fast enough to out-run U-Boats. When Turner was able to resume speed and start zig-zagging he turned into U-20's path and rest is history.
@@owensmith7530 captain Turner needed to arrive at Liverpool at high tide,so he could safely enter harbour. He would not have wanted to arrive too early,and be forced to wait in an area where uboats were known to be operating, therefore he would be making calculations about speed on that basis. Also, U20 was ahead of Lusitania and her speed was irrelevant.
She couldnt because she ate up a monstrous amount of coal if she travelled at top speed (24 knots). Coal which the British Admiralty did not have. Also doesnt help that there was a thick fog around where lusitania sank meaning turner had to slow her down to 18 knots
Another interesting and informative presentation..... The British and American Nations were extremely complacent of the German Navy at that time and of course the Germans were aware that the vessel had been designed to carry munitions... Quite clearly a passenger ship should NOT have been there at a time of war....(Despite the fact it had munitions for the front onboard) ... But then All's fair in love and war !!!! Roger... Pembrokeshire
The ship wasn't "designed" to carry ammunition. She was a purpose built ocean liner, her holds could carry any sort of cargo, military or otherwise. There was a war on and many ships carried all sorts of cargos for military use. Suppose the enemy sunk a ship carrying food for the army?
RMS Lusitania was registered with the British Admiralty as an auxiliary armed Cruiser, it had been designed to be easily converted into a Warship if required by the Admiralty.... The German Navy were aware of this fact and were legitimately concerned about it... The Admiralty should never have allowed civilians to travel in those waters...The German Navy had previously announced they were blockading them, as Indeed the Admiralty were already blockading Jutland etc.... War is evil....there are no winners.... The fact they found munitions onboard historically just shows the transparency(lack of) and mentality of the Admiralty at the time... Roger
@@rogerrees9845 Putting a few old guns on to a merchant vessel of any description does not turn it into a battleship. All vessels of any belligerent power and neutral vessels believed to be operating on behalf of such powers were deemed to be suitable targets. Some of these woefully inadequate ships fought to the death such as Rawalpindi and Jervis Bay. Others were destroyed never seeing their foe. Lusitania was just another victim out of hundreds. Just that she was the biggest and most famous casualty.
Interesting video, but it mostly avoids the title of said video. What could have been more interesting is getting into the cargo that the Lusitania was holding and the concurrent British blockade of German ports along with neutral ports with connections to Germany.
It was a legitimate target because it was carrying ammunition, which the Germans knew and warned the US and UK (including the public) about. However, in the grand strategic scheme of things it would have been better to let it go, it wasn't worth risking the involvement of the US in the war. I think the UK government didn't mind it or even wanted it. In the First World War, the Entente governments weren't better than the central power ones, they were all power-hungry, colonial morons. I am glad my country stayed out of it.
It's a bit misleading to say she was an auxillary cruiser because she wasn't armed. She also didn't carry artillery ammunition she carried 800 empty artillery shell casings but 4.5 million rounds of bullets, an amount she would carry pre war anyway as the USA was always an arms exporter. I don't remember the UK sinking German ships arming the Boers
@@billyosullivan3192 She was designed as a Auxiliary Cruiser, with prepared gun mounts, cabins for gun crews etc. And if You would look into "Warships at a glance", book from 1914, You will find Lusitania in it. Going further, we have actually pretty good evidence that those shells were filled, especially after uncovering the so called "Supplementary Cargo Manifest". Also, we have an unresolved case of "butter" and "cheese" stored in normal cargo holds (not refrigerators), destined for Royal Navy Weapons Testing Establishment in Essex. So, the answer should be "Yes, it was a legitimate target", and the creators of that video should really look more into those problems.
And it was carrying munitions that blew up after the torpedo 'allegedly'. And Ads were taken out in New York before the ship left, saying 'don't sail there... all ships a target'.
@@andrewreynolds912 Nothing to do with munitions or not being on board. It was just one of hundreds of ships to be torpedoed simply for flying a British flag. The Germans thought nothing of sinking unarmed fishing boats nevermind a huge ocean liner.
@@andrewreynolds912British empire muh bad. Yea, it’s getting boring now. Let’s talk about the Middle Eastern slave trade. Nah, let’s just pretend the British are the be all and end all of evil.
Sorry but the viewer is forced to wait until the 11th minute before the question you raised is addressed! The Lusitania was indeed not simply a passenger ship but carrying armaments, But it also was indefensible that civilians were killed by the submarine. On balance the wrong decision.
Passenger ships WERE NOT Legitimate targets! The U boat captain had absolutely no way of knowing munitions had been clandestinely loaded aboard. Murder is Murder.
@@towgod7985 I'm guessing he did know, not specifically about the Lusitania but Germany probably had intelligence that the British were importing weapons with civilian ships in order to get around the U-boat blockade
@yonischott Correct. Not specifically the Lusitania, which means with no overt signs as of a combatant, it has to be presumed a civilian passenger ship. Which means FIRING on it was a war crime.
Normal people who weren't expecting Germans to be barbaric. But they just couldn't help it during both world wars as well as before the 20th century. Disgusting culture pre-ww2.
It took decades later for the british government to finally admit she was carrying ammunition
and they never apologized for their use of human shields and the fraudulent prestige gained from the deaths of innocents
@@ericvantassell6809 and how exactly did the germans know that there were munitions aboard prior to firing on a civilian liner?
@@andrewreynolds912 the video clearly states that Germany used the munitions claim as a defence at the time. The cargo manifest would have been a public document att, the US was still neutral.
@@ericvantassell6809 nope
@@gg-ps1vz well we don't but we can only guess they guessed really da'm well
Churchill broke the Cruiser Rules by allowing civilian ships to transport war munitions.
He prevented U-Boats from searching ships by introducing Q-ships, and ordering merchant captains to evade and ram U-Boats that surfaced.
Bernhard Dernburg also said because she was classed as an auxiliary cruiser.
Always interesting. Thank you IWM 👍
Very good and informative summary.
As an aside, may I mention that I found the background music somewhat irritating and distracting. Otherwise, an excellent effort.
Erik Sand uses the u-boat war as an example of how economic isolation can be indirectly decisive in war. The British blockade essentially meant that Germany could not win a long war, só they had no choice but to adopt high-risk, high-reward tactics. The u-boat war was the epitome of these tactics, having the potential to rapidly destroy Britain’s economy, but at the risk of antagonizing the United States.
@@andrewsoboeiro6979 Ironically it rather worked the other way round. While the British blockade halted the direct trade to Germany, for the first few years Germany could still get indirect imports from neutral countries. The US shipped a lot to Sweden and Netherlands who then shipped to Germany. Costly, for sure, since those countries made a profit, but it did stave off crisis. After Germany alienated neutral, especially US opinion, though, this stopped and the blockade became dramatically worse.
@@zhoufang996 to some extent, yes, but I wouldn’t overstate the value of trading thru neutrals- Germany experienced some rather severe shortages from the very beginning of the war in everything from food to fertilizer to coal to rubber to metals. The blockade also became more effective over the course of the war, as Britain learned how to limit trade passing to Germany thru neutral countries
@@zhoufang996 At the same time, the US delivered arms and ammunition to Britain. The US weren't neutral at all.
@@chrismath149 they sold to everyone. That's the definition of neutrality. US food arguably mattered much more to the Germans than the ammunition to the British, which the British ultimately found to be too poor in quality to use.
@@andrewsoboeiro6979 those shortages were also not exactly due to the blockade. Germany chose to convert their nitrate fertilisers into explosives, and their coal imports were previously coming straight from the UK. The allies were major trading partners for the Germans and you can hardly blame them for not selling to the guys that they were at war with.
It was Churchill who was responsible for the ending of the “cruiser rules “ He ordered merchant ships to be armed,and to attempt to ram submarines. Captains who refused to do so were prosecuted. At this time German torpedoes were not very effective. Normally a torpedo would stop a ship,but the uboat would rely on its deck gun to sink it. The captain of u20 saw the effect of his one torpedo on the Lusitania with astonishment. The explosion which sank the ship was probably the bales of gun cotton supplied by DuPont,and described in a customs declaration as “furs”.
@@paulmasterson386 He did this after the Germans had issued the orders. The decision completely came out of the German admiralty believing this would increase the number of ships sunk and "win the war in six weeks".
Torpedoes absolutely sunk ships very quickly. Divers have explored the wreck and found no evidence that the submarine triggered some kind of secret explosives. Most modern experts think the Lusitania sunk because of the torpedo alone, which triggered an explosion in the steam system that disabled automatic bulkhead closing mechanisms and as the ship sunk further water streamed in through open portholes.This explains also the fact that the ship listed severely - the cargo spaces ran across the whole ship so if water went in there from an explosion the ship would have sunk on an even keel.
@@paulmasterson386 arming civilian ships to turn them into raiders was done by both sides.
Immaterial, the Lusitania itself had no guns installed at the time it was sunk. No evidence that it tried to "ram" the U 20.
I suggest you do some legitimate research BEFORE posting a comment that has no basis in fact.
@@towgod7985 the comments come from a book called “Lusitania “ by Colin Simpson. Much of his research was in American archives as British Naval records were restricted. The records of a crucial meeting at the Admiralty have been removed from the records. Make of that what you will….
To be honest even if Lusitania wasn’t carrying munitions it’s likely that U20 would still have sunk her
Fair
Yeah, but they said as much. The Germans knew the Americans and Canadians were shipping munitions across the Atlantic in civilian conveyance. They were warned.
The munitions explosion would have caused the ship to sink alot faster, causing far more deaths.
opinion is worthless
Told not to be there
I imagine that submarine warfare was so new in 1915, that the public (and may e even military leaders) had not yet digested the risks associated with trans-atlantic travel. The risk of submarines in May, 1915 to shippimg may have been like the risk of shoulder fired ant-tank missles and drones in February, 2022.
what's an ant-tank? Is that from battle bugs (1994)?
I think you're comparison falls apart when you consider shoulder fired at weapons have been around for nearly 70 years before 2022.
First Q ship victory came the month after the sinking of the Lusitania. The move to Unrestricted Warfare in 1915 was mainly based on actions such as Fryatt, who attempted to ram a U-boat and also that U-boats were slow and the merchant ships could often out run them.
Lusitania had a major effect but it was the loss of the Arabic which pushed things over the edge.
Also, the threat of U-boats was still only being realised by May 1915 with the first vessel *ever* to be sunk by a torpedo launched from a submarine occuring six months before (Pathfinder sunk by U-21) and obviously the Live bait squadron incident. The admiralty were still expecting and working on the fear of a traditional surface fleet action, a feat substantiated by the Dogger Bank incident and the bombardments of the Briish coastline in 1914 whilst U-boat attacks were only really just kicking off in early 1915 so it isn't unreasonable for the Admiralty to not have an anti-submarine taskforce prior to May 1915.
I learned about this and read about the disguised bills of lading as a schoolboy in the 1950s. My father who cycled around the irish Free State in the 1920s spoke with the lighthouse keeper at the Old Head of Kinsale, who had been on duty when the liner sank.
Excellent video!
9:47 poster great art work.
Great video! A topic controversial to this day. ⚓🔥☠
They couldn't possibly have known that they were carrying so they sunk a ship full of people and just had a lucky break later
The Lusitania was not specifically targeted. The U boat only identified the ship after it had been hit and was sinking..
U20 already identified lusitania before shooting a torpedo to down her. The subs captain was specifically in that area because he knew lusitania and many other vessels were bound to cross that area during that voyage
1. Lusitania was a legitimate target as she had never been removed from the list of AMC's, and as such was a military ship.
2. Germany announcing it is going to break the rules of war and target all shipping does not excuse Germany for doing so.
3. Schweiger noted that he attacked a large four funneled ship, and then that as the ship was sinking he saw the letters spelling the name Lusitania on the bow. Until that moment he had no idea what ship he had sunk, so any claims about the ship being an AMC or carrying munitions need to be discounted. He had attacked a large liner.
4. Under the rules of war at the time it was permissible to carry small arms ammo and ammunition up to 4.5'' in calibre on a passenger ship. It may have been stupid but it was legal.
Churchill broke the rules by allowing civilian ships to transport war munitions.
He prevented U-Boats from searching ships by introducing Q-ships, and ordering merchant captains to evade and ram U-Boats that surfaced.
@@MarkHarrison733 All munitions carried by Lusitania when she was sunk were entirely legal by the rules of the day.
Q ships were also perfectly legal.
There was always the rule that said if you were to attack any ship you needed to identify it first to make sure you were not sinking a neutral ship. In this case Schweiger admitted to only identifying the ship as she was sinking.
I get your argument now. Schweiger should have better identified the ship before attacking it, and as such, it is his fault that unrestricted submarine warfare escalated to the targeting of civilian passenger vessels. (I can only presume this is the first instance since it gets so much attention.)
@@LmgWarThunder Civilian ships were legitimate targets since by late 1914 they were already transporting war munitions.
@MarkHarrison733 In war a 'ruse' is allowable, but a ship of war must show it's "true colours" before opening fire.
Worth noting that a number of German liners were effectively interned in NY harbor and RN vessels patrolled off NY, ready to intercept if they ventured out.
The 1915 U Boat campaign was not unlimited in the manner that the 1917 campaign was.
Not sure what is meant by "irreversible" and "paved the way". The sinking of the Lucy created anger at Germany and sympathy for Britain in 1915 but neither Wilson or the American people were ready to go to war. In fact, Wilson won the 1916 Presidential campaign that many thought he would lose based on his slogan "He kept us out of war".
The more all out submarine campaign of 1917 followed by the Zimmerman telegram and Zimmerman foolishly admitting he had sent it after many claimed it was a British forgery, finally convinced most Americans that they could no longer stay neutral.
It definitely wasn't worth sinking it for Germany
It was.
lies lies lies. how every nation goes to war
How many passanger ships did NOT carry ammunition (or other war material) during the spring/summer of 1917?
Wild to me that a submarine sank a sailing vessel
The only 1 German soldier, didn't even want to fire, because there are women and children aboard, the ship only stayed on surface for 18 minutes before it sank
The bell from The Lusitania is on exhibition at IWM North
It was in a war zone
Carried war material so valid target
0:09 And (unbeknownst to both passengers as well as German submarines) a bunch of military supplies.
Okay. Another Jutland run through, on Drachinifel
A lot of neutralist Americans act like the uk forced them to load it with munitions
One thing you didn’t mention is that the Lusitania wasn't just a ship, it was probably the most famous ship on the Atlantic at the time.
I think whenever there’s a war & there’s a passenger ship it should have the water tight doors below the water line closed the entire time of the trip if that idea is possible…
lusitania was carrying ammunition and other war material, so yes 100% legitimate target. the fault lies with the power using civilians as a shield for their war material. given the outrage it generated, it probably wouldve been better had schwieger let it go.
the outrage generated is an example of the values of a previous age colliding violently with the realities of the new total war the combatants found themselves in.
This is such an underrated channel. You guys are doing amazing work! Much love from America, God speed!
What's it rated?
The Ship transport ammunition It was a warship ! The winner make the rules !!!
What precisely makes the piece of steel *the* likely torpedo tube that the sinking shot was sent from? I'm sorry I really don't get how this conclusion was made... Or it's just a weird framing of yes, torpedos like the one that sank Lusitania were sent from such tubes. But huh, that specific one now?
@@LuGer212 I think mean it was a piece of the torpedo casing, not of the tube it was fired from.
I feel that the Europeans fighting this war should have come to the US to collect their provisions personally instead of having it loaded in a ship that was supposed to have remained an unarmed vessel.
Yes the winners rights get to publish their version of historical events, but we need to be honest and show people BOTH sides to have a better understanding of the truth and prevent history from repeating itself. Britain was equally at fault for its actions and WHY should the British always have the last say?
The Americans were right to adopt the attitude they did in both wars, trying to remain neutral and out of conflict.
Technically speaking she may have been a legitimate target, but U-20 had no idea any munitions were on board, they simply saw a passenger liner and shot at it. Indiscriminately killing innocent people isn't suddenly justifiable because this time the ship coincidently had munitions on-board.
That's not entirely true. While IG didn't physically see them loading munitions but that had actionable intelligence it was there.
opinion or fact?
@@michaelhowell2326the sub wasn't in contact and according to the commander's diary he didn't ID the ship before he launched the attack. He also attacked other ships where that excuse didn't apply.
Wrong
Told not to go there
@@JeffEbe-te2xs the "told not to go there" was a complete coincidence. In the German ambassador's autobiography he said he sent the "warning" as a private citizen several weeks earlier and it ended up posted that day because of a technical problem. He didn't think the U-boats were targeting passenger ships but thought he should warn people just in case.
She did look a bit like the RMS Titanic, didn't she?
Almost the same. They are from the same class if I am correct
@ShipvsAnimation I see, the Titanic was part of the Olympic class
@@FR-nc3vb Titanic was designed for comfort,Lusitania was designed for speed above comfort. Titanic sank slowly and all her lifeboats got away ( though,of course,there weren’t enough). Lusitania sank swiftly,and few of her boats got away.
Lusitania should have been travelling faster, the idea was she was fast enough U boats couldn't attack her (this approach continued with liners in WWII). But Lusitania slowed down for reasons I have never seen explained.
Captain Turner was in a fog bank and did not have a bearing where he was off the Irish coast, so was not doing zig-zag maneuvers and slowed the ship which did not endanger the Lusitania. He wasn't able to use full speed until Lusitania cleared the fog and he had his visual position. As to Lusitania's full speed, as a British ship, it was under coal rationing and was not using all its boilers. Lusitania was still deemed fast enough to out-run U-Boats. When Turner was able to resume speed and start zig-zagging he turned into U-20's path and rest is history.
@@owensmith7530 captain Turner needed to arrive at Liverpool at high tide,so he could safely enter harbour. He would not have wanted to arrive too early,and be forced to wait in an area where uboats were known to be operating, therefore he would be making calculations about speed on that basis. Also, U20 was ahead of Lusitania and her speed was irrelevant.
She couldnt because she ate up a monstrous amount of coal if she travelled at top speed (24 knots). Coal which the British Admiralty did not have. Also doesnt help that there was a thick fog around where lusitania sank meaning turner had to slow her down to 18 knots
Sailed into a war zone
Had war material on board which made her a target
From a former colonial country, I just view the two world wars as war between the bullies. Neither side can justify themselves from neutral POV. 🤷♂️
Waylon Walk
6:51 sinking lucitania ww1 movie ftg
Unmitigated war crime. 1915 wasn't that long ago. Probably should have heeded the warnings and cancelled the trip.
Another interesting and informative presentation..... The British and American Nations were extremely complacent of the German Navy at that time and of course the Germans were aware that the vessel had been designed to carry munitions... Quite clearly a passenger ship should NOT have been there at a time of war....(Despite the fact it had munitions for the front onboard) ... But then All's fair in love and war !!!! Roger... Pembrokeshire
The ship wasn't "designed" to carry ammunition. She was a purpose built ocean liner, her holds could carry any sort of cargo, military or otherwise. There was a war on and many ships carried all sorts of cargos for military use. Suppose the enemy sunk a ship carrying food for the army?
RMS Lusitania was registered with the British Admiralty as an auxiliary armed Cruiser, it had been designed to be easily converted into a Warship if required by the Admiralty....
The German Navy were aware of this fact and were legitimately concerned about it...
The Admiralty should never have allowed civilians to travel in those waters...The German Navy had previously announced they were blockading them, as Indeed the Admiralty were already blockading Jutland etc....
War is evil....there are no winners....
The fact they found munitions onboard historically just shows the transparency(lack of) and mentality of the Admiralty at the time... Roger
@@rogerrees9845 Putting a few old guns on to a merchant vessel of any description does not turn it into a battleship. All vessels of any belligerent power and neutral vessels believed to be operating on behalf of such powers were deemed to be suitable targets. Some of these woefully inadequate ships fought to the death such as Rawalpindi and Jervis Bay. Others were destroyed never seeing their foe. Lusitania was just another victim out of hundreds. Just that she was the biggest and most famous casualty.
Interesting video, but it mostly avoids the title of said video. What could have been more interesting is getting into the cargo that the Lusitania was holding and the concurrent British blockade of German ports along with neutral ports with connections to Germany.
It was a legitimate target because it was carrying ammunition, which the Germans knew and warned the US and UK (including the public) about. However, in the grand strategic scheme of things it would have been better to let it go, it wasn't worth risking the involvement of the US in the war. I think the UK government didn't mind it or even wanted it. In the First World War, the Entente governments weren't better than the central power ones, they were all power-hungry, colonial morons. I am glad my country stayed out of it.
Americans and British wanted an excuse to enter the war. Classic set up. If it hadn't been the Lusitania it would have been some other ship.
The Zimmerman telegram is worth a google.
It’s certainly far more important to the American intervention in world war 1 than the sinking of the Lusitania was.
It was the bait. Just like pearl harbour.
Over a hundred years later and the English STILL lie about it!! Truly Amazing.
Where?
The British Establishment lying I'm shocked I tell ya 😂
Total War.
Do you think Lusitania was carrying carrying a secret weapon on the passenger ship? That is a dark tales of the British Empire?
Ship designed as a Auxiliary Cruiser, carrying rifle and artillery ammunition, using civilians as human shields.
Yea its disgusting
It's a bit misleading to say she was an auxillary cruiser because she wasn't armed. She also didn't carry artillery ammunition she carried 800 empty artillery shell casings but 4.5 million rounds of bullets, an amount she would carry pre war anyway as the USA was always an arms exporter. I don't remember the UK sinking German ships arming the Boers
🎻
@@billyosullivan3192 She was designed as a Auxiliary Cruiser, with prepared gun mounts, cabins for gun crews etc. And if You would look into "Warships at a glance", book from 1914, You will find Lusitania in it. Going further, we have actually pretty good evidence that those shells were filled, especially after uncovering the so called "Supplementary Cargo Manifest". Also, we have an unresolved case of "butter" and "cheese" stored in normal cargo holds (not refrigerators), destined for Royal Navy Weapons Testing Establishment in Essex. So, the answer should be "Yes, it was a legitimate target", and the creators of that video should really look more into those problems.
@@billyosullivan3192 It was still a military target. A country can choose not to engage them, but deciding to do soo is very much valid.
And it was carrying munitions that blew up after the torpedo 'allegedly'. And Ads were taken out in New York before the ship left, saying 'don't sail there... all ships a target'.
@ACF1901 In what manner?
@ACF1901 OK Adolph
@ACF1901any proof ? or no
@ACF1901”get your facts straight” says the guy saying the British sank the Lusitania , despite clear evidence to the contrary. Just wow.
Sadly, the Lusitania was a legitimate target due to the munitions on board…period!
It's pretty disg'usting the British empire would do this but I'm not surprised
@@andrewreynolds912 Nothing to do with munitions or not being on board. It was just one of hundreds of ships to be torpedoed simply for flying a British flag. The Germans thought nothing of sinking unarmed fishing boats nevermind a huge ocean liner.
@@andrewreynolds912British empire muh bad. Yea, it’s getting boring now. Let’s talk about the Middle Eastern slave trade. Nah, let’s just pretend the British are the be all and end all of evil.
This is rather a silly response. They would have sunk it no matter what as they did other ships.
IF the sub’s crew had known about it BEFORE launching.
It's pronounced "Shweeger"
Okay Grammar/Pronunciation Nazi
❤😂😂🎉🎉🎉😢😢😢😮😮😅😅😅
Lots of entertaining comments, many uninformed and plenty that demonstrate misinformation is not a new phenomenon.
@@thesmallerhalf1968 Just insult anyone and dont actually giving any Point, great.
Grow Up.
Sorry but the viewer is forced to wait until the 11th minute before the question you raised is addressed! The Lusitania was indeed not simply a passenger ship but carrying armaments, But it also was indefensible that civilians were killed by the submarine. On balance the wrong decision.
The German Embassy posted warnings to potential passengers
Passenger ships WERE NOT Legitimate targets! The U boat captain had absolutely no way of knowing munitions had been clandestinely loaded aboard. Murder is Murder.
These ships carried cargo and passengers
@@towgod7985 I'm guessing he did know, not specifically about the Lusitania but Germany probably had intelligence that the British were importing weapons with civilian ships in order to get around the U-boat blockade
@yonischott Correct. Not specifically the Lusitania, which means with no overt signs as of a combatant, it has to be presumed a civilian passenger ship. Which means FIRING on it was a war crime.
who in their right mind crosses the Atlantic with U boats in the water? Take some responsibility please
people who wanted to get to the other side
Normal people who weren't expecting Germans to be barbaric. But they just couldn't help it during both world wars as well as before the 20th century. Disgusting culture pre-ww2.