WW1 Discussion

This is a link to an article pon a web page and is contradicted in later article.

The German government, initially delighted with its success, subsequently apologised in February 1916 to the U.S. government for the loss of its citizens and offered to pay reparations, chiefly from a desire to maintain neutral relations with the U.S. The Germans nevertheless claimed that the Lusitania was carrying munitions and therefore a legitimate wartime target.

The British government denied the charge (still debated today although probably correct) and in turn fanned the flames by suggesting that the U-20 had fired not once but twice into the Lusitania, reporting that two separate explosions were clearly witnessed by survivors. The Germans angrily refuted the British claim (correctly; only one torpedo was fired).

http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/u20.htm

It has never been proven that the Lusitana was carrying munitions and and I'm sorry to say, this isn't proof either. Is it possible there was ammunitions on the ship? Yes, it is not only possible, it's likely. But unfortunately there was no evidence from the wreckage, no eye witness accounts and no documents proving the accusation, hence it is still speculation.

Thanks for the site though. I will do some reading on a rainy day.

Aaron,

I believe it has been verified the ship was carrying munitions from New York to England. Previously secret British documents have verified this, I'm almost certain.

Now, nearly a hundred years later you still refuse to acknowledge that America was supplying Great Britain with supplies. Naturally the Germans would target British merchant vessels. It was logical to do so given the circumstances.

So I disagree with you that there is no evidence indicating there were munitions on the Lusitania, or that American wasn't supplying Germany's enemies. It's clear we were. So in that regard, the US government has its share of guilt regarding the American lives lost on the Lusitania.

It is obvious Germany didn't want to attack Americans. The German government actually warned American citizens not to travel on British ships. Our government should have done more to inform our citizens of the risks they were taking and chose not to.

It's history Stephanie, black and white, no gray area about it. If it's been verified, then simply post a link. I've looked and looked and I find no verification anywhere. It seems to me that if there was proof as you state, that would be one of the fist pages on a search. It's not.

I wasn't around in 1915 so, unlike WW2, it is debatable as to whether we should have entered the war or not. I can see solid reasons backing both sides. As it is history, it really doesn't matter though, does it? We can not change it, only study it and try and learn from it.

Even if the Lusitania were carrying the munitions you claim it was, the ship was still carrying civilian passengers so international law dictates they be given consideration. They weren't and 120+ Americans died. An attack on American civilians by another country in a state of war is considered an act of war and is therefore cause for a declaration of war by the US. Wilson could have demanded America enter the war then.

He didn't and as a result, German agents attacked American munitions dumps in New Jersey and more Americans lost their lives.

Now that is all verified.

The only thing that I can find that verifies any munitions on the ship is some small arms ammo, less then 6000 rounds. While technically, this is a violation and does allow for sinking of the ship, that doesn't change the fact that it was a civilian ship and consideration should have been given to the passengers. The ship was fired on without any warning.

I've read accounts of large quantites of Ammo from the federal government and Canadian troops on the ship but none of it has ever been verified.

If you have something that verifies any of this Stephanie, I would love to read it.

I've had a very busy day. I'm sitting here wondering if Mr. & Mrs. Sheik have welcomed their new daughter into the world!

Here is a little something I dug up via Google.

http://www.footnote.com/spotlight/2049

The page was unavailable at the moment. And I've wondered the same thing about Mike and Mrs. Mike. Hoefully all is well.

You'll have to check again.

It finally came up. I've never heard of Marquis du Mazeul so I googled him and nothing came up. It offered a spelling change but nothing in reference to the Lusitania.

This isn't your verification, is it?

Funny, I don't have that problem. LOL

Besides, what difference does it make if the Marquis was well known or not? You said you've never been able to find any proof the Lusitania was carrying munitions. Du Mazuel, who was an officer of the US Navy, stated in the company of others, he inspected the munitions on board the Lusitania. The FBI document is clear, not only did the author document this statement in his letter to the APL, but the FBI followed up and confirmed the story with Commander Isherwood.

Sure, none of these men are household names. Our government chose to conceal the truth for nearly a century.

http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1987/A1987K192200001.pdf

That's the first link I came up with referencing the Marquis. There are others. He existed, was an officer in the US Naval Reserves. Perhaps you'd like to Google Isherwood & Fike as well!

I didn't say he didn't exist. I never doubted that part. I merely stated that when I googled him, nothing came up. His existance and a statement he made does not verify anything. Sorry, you'll have to come up with a little something more then that.

There was an interesting article on the American Protective League though, of which this document belonged to. Seems they had a penchant for investigating possible spys and writing reports.

No, I'm not going to bother. Nothing will be good enough. A US Naval officer stated he inspected those munitions in front of others. This was verified by the FBI. The fact that he actually did inspect the Lusitania and was one and the FBI buried the details of this all lend credibility to his story.

In your mind, everything the US did then was justified, just as everything we do today is. Your mind is closed on the subject.

The Lusitania was carrying munitions. The USA had been secretly supporting Britain. Germany warned Americans not to travel on that ship. Our government and the British government knew the risks and the danger they were putting all those civilians in.

I'm not excusing the incident. There is a difference between trying to understand and making excuses. When America interfers in disputes between other nations, when we pick sides, it frequently ends in disaster. The loss of American lives on the RMS Lusitania is proof of that.

You think if someone doesn't agree with you, then their mind is closed. That's not the case. When we started this thread, I was looking forward to discussing history but you're not interested in discussing history. You're looking for a way to blame all the ills as you see them on American interventionism, how wrong the creation of Israel was and everything you discuss leads straight to that end. You've already written the final chapter and you're completely unwilling to consider anything other then what you've already made your mind up about.

I think you need to open your own link and read it Stephanie. It wasn't reported by the FBI, it was reported by the American Protective League. That in itself creates doubt to this man's story and in no way is proves that Germany was right in what they did, no matter how badly you want it to.

Aaron,

I never said it was reported to the FBI. What I said was the Bureau investigated and corroborated the report filed to the APL. Actually, the FBI didn't exist at that time. It's predecessor did the verification.

What I linked you to is the initial report by Fike along with the results of the subsequent investigation by American authorities. The APL was interest was in keeping this sort of information from the public. They weren't out to prove there were munitions on the Lusitania, their goal was to keep such information under wraps.

You don't seem to quite grasp what the AFL was and what their agenda was. I can't help that. You should read up on that subject a bit.

We haven't been discussing Israel. We've been discussing WWI and the role the US played in that war. That is discussing a very specific period in history when you say the US was isolationist. It is clear we were not. Our government wasn't even living up to its public policy of non-intervention, instead covertly aiding Britian. This is what lead to the loss of American lives and our subsequent full scale involvement in WWI.

It was the US forces uniting with Britain and France that lead to Germany capitulating to the outrageous demands made in the Treaty of Versailles. The impossible conditions Germans faced as a result lead to Hitler's rise to power and everything that came with it.

You can't disprove what I'm saying. You haven't yet.

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

I never said it was reported to the FBI. What I said was the Bureau investigated and corroborated the report filed to the APL. Actually, the FBI didn't exist at that time. It's predecessor did the verification.

What I linked you to is the initial report by Fike along with the results of the subsequent investigation by American authorities. The APL was interest was in keeping this sort of information from the public. They weren't out to prove there were munitions on the Lusitania, their goal was to keep such information under wraps.

You don't seem to quite grasp what the AFL was and what their agenda was. I can't help that. You should read up on that subject a bit.

We haven't been discussing Israel. We've been discussing WWI and the role the US played in that war. That is discussing a very specific period in history when you say the US was isolationist. It is clear we were not. Our government wasn't even living up to its public policy of non-intervention, instead covertly aiding Britian. This is what lead to the loss of American lives and our subsequent full scale involvement in WWI.

It was the US forces uniting with Britain and France that lead to Germany capitulating to the outrageous demands made in the Treaty of Versailles. The impossible conditions Germans faced as a result lead to Hitler's rise to power and everything that came with it.

You can't disprove what I'm saying. You haven't yet.

Stephanie, you don't even know when the FBI was formed (1908 if you don't want to open the link and I did read about the APL-it was me 3 or 4 post ago that told you to read about it) and you expect me to disprove your version of history.

Sorry but that's not how it works. You stated the Lusitania was carrying mutions to England, even though history says otherwise, and that you could verify it, even though you haven't. I guess the next thing I'm supposed to prove is that there wasn't Canadian soldiers on the Lustania as well, huh.

As it is you who disagrees with history, it is up to you to prove your version correct, not me to prove YOU WRONG when history backs my version. That's how it works. But the only thing you've done is expressed an opinion and you know what they say about them!!!

Now if you want to discuss history, that's cool. What I don't know, I'm more then willing to read up on and learn. But what I won't do is jump through every hoop you throw up just because you don't like the facts as history states them. That's not how it works.

Geez, Aaron........you don't read your own links.

From the link you provided:

In 1886, the Supreme Court, in Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company v. Illinois, found that the states had no power to regulate interstate commerce. The resulting Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 created a Federal responsibility for interstate law enforcement. The Justice Department, which had hired few permanent investigators since its establishment in 1870, made little effort to relieve its staff shortage until the turn of the century, when Attorney General Charles Joseph Bonaparte reached out to other agencies, including the Secret Service, for investigators. But Congress forbade this use of Treasury employees by Justice, passing a law to that effect in 1908. So the Attorney General moved to organize a formal Bureau of Investigation (BOI), complete with its own staff of special agents. Its jurisdiction derived from the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.[7] [8] The FBI grew out of this force of Special Agents created on July 26, 1908 during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. Its first official task was visiting and making surveys of the houses of prostitution (in preparation for enforcing 'The White Slave Traffic Act' passed on June 25, 1910). In 1932, it was renamed the United States Bureau of Investigation. The following year it was linked to the Bureau of Prohibition and rechristened the Division of Investigation (DOI) before finally becoming the FBI in 1935.[7]

You have posted absolutely nothing, nothing to prove there were no munitions on the Lusitania. I have offered evidence there was. I have provided proof the Germans warned Americans to stay off the Lusitania.

You're interested only in posting your version of historical events. You provide nothing to back up your assertions. When you do link to information, you seem unable to comprehend what it means, as I demonstrated above.

I'm supposed to prove what is accepted as historical fact??? I don't think so Stephanie.

What I have repeatedly said and you've failed to address is that even IF the Lusitanian were carrying munitions as some have suggested but NEVER proven or even IF the Lusitanian was carrying Canadian troops as some have suggested but NEVER proven, there were over 1,000 private citizens on a passenger ship and even IF the Germans had military rights to sink the ship, they should have offered consideration to those passengers. They didn't. And they knew Americans were on the ship.

Something else you’ve failed to address is, that even though the bulk of Americans wanted Wilson to enter the war after the sinking, he didn't. We stayed out of the war for almost a full 2 years AFTER the sinking.

It seems to me you're interested in fixing blame then discussing history.

Who says it's "accepted historical fact" the Americans weren't supplying the British before the Germans sank the Lusitania? Every source I've read indicates the Lusitania was carrying American munitions. You belive what you choose to believe.

As far as fixing blame, you're squarely placing all of the blame on Germany. You refuse to acknowledge that the US made choices and those choices had consequences. One of the choices the US made was to try to create the facade of neutrality. The loss of American lives aboard the Lusitania was one of those consequences.

Every source you've provide at best, speculates the Lusitanian was carrying munitions. No source I've read clearly states the ship wasn't carrying munitions either. In fact, what was definitively proven was that the Lusitanian was carrying about 6,500 small ammo rounds.

You haven't verified or proven anything and you continually ignore the fact that Germany fired on a known passenger vessel carrying civilians and like it or not, you've yet to prove otherwise. You believe what you want but that doesn't make it historical fact.

OIC....but when you believe something to be true, based upon your speculation, that is historical fact.

The ONLY historical fact in regards to the Lusitanian and ammunition is that it was carrying about 6,500 rounds of small arms fire which is hardly enough to set off the second explosion and doesn’t warrant firing upon a known civilian vessel.

It is a historical fact that Germany committed to submarine warfare, sinking any and all ships it could find in the Atlantic, which is a violation of international law and an act of war. It is also a fact that Germany fired and sank a passenger cruise line carrying civilians, some of which were Americans, which is also an act of War.

President Wilson had every right to ask for a declaration of war in 1915. He didn't ask for one until 1917 after continued submarine warefare by Germany in which they sunk 7 more merchant vessels and negotiated with Mexico to declare war in America to keep the US out of Europe.

Those are facts. They might fit into the ending you’ve created in your mind but they remain plain and simple facts.

If the US hadn't entered the war, Germany almost certainly would have won, or at least ended the war on more favorable terms to itself. Stephanie, what long-term effects do you think a German-dominated Europe would have had on American interests?

Hi Randall,

I'm not sure I'm up for this discussion at the moment. I'm going to post a request to the basket, please make sure you read it, ok?

Randall wrote:If the US hadn't entered the war, Germany almost certainly would have won, or at least ended the war on more favorable terms to itself. Stephanie, what long-term effects do you think a German-dominated Europe would have had on American interests?

Randall,

Sorry for the delay. I had that pesky problem to deal with....but really I wanted to take my time and consider your question.

First I'd like to say how difficult I find it to speculate on this issue. I agree if the US hadn't entered the war the terms for Germany would have been much more favorable.

The initial discussion that prompted this thread were the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. I believe, and I'm far from alone, that it was this treaty that lead to the rise of Hitler and ultimately all the atrocities the Nazis inflicted on the world. It is my belief that if the US hadn't intervened, the terms of whatever treaty ended the war wouldn't have been anywhere near as harsh as those the Germans were forced to endure.

I think it's also important to remember that prior to WWI the aggressors weren't the Germans, they were French. So we saved France from the Germans, but the Germans saved themselves from France. It isn't difficult to see the disparity there.

So when you ask what I think life may have been life for Americans with a victorious Germany, I wonder could the result have been much worse? Wihelm II wouldn't have reigned forever and we have no real way of knowing how he would have dealt with the US had he dominated Europe. We also don't know for how long Germany would have held onto whatever power she had gained.

That was a terrific question and I would really like to hear your thoughts.