I happen to have 4”x4” section of the Lusitania hull plating with a rivet in the center. Obtained on a saturation dive we did in the 80’s looking for artwork etc. Always wondered what it would bring.
S/
When I was younger, a man in the neighborhood would tell his tale of being on that ship, once a year.
He was living in New York at the time, but had been born in Britain. And, the only reason he was on that ship was to go to Europe and fight for Britain. So right there I see some problems with the neutrality of this ship.
He also claimed that people saw the torpedo, or at least its wake...and several people were pointing at it, as it approached. At fire they thought it was marine life, but as it got closer, it was obviously man made.
I believe it was the Zimmerman telegram that pushed the US over the top and entered the war.
The sinking of the Lusitania is almost universally cited as the reason for US entry into WW1. Without having a position on that assertion, it should be noted that the Lusitania was sunk about 2 years before the US entered the war.
What Buchanan misses is that Germany all but declared war on the US before sinking the Lusitania.
In early February 1917, when Germany announced a return to unrestricted submarine warfare, the U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with the country. By the end of March, Germany had sunk several more passenger ships with Americans aboard and Wilson went before Congress to ask for a declaration of war on April 2, which was made four days later. The first American ships arrived in Europe within a week, marking a decisive end to U.S. neutrality.
Why did Germany do this? The war was stalling and it could not sustain it economically. It tried one more push which included to cut US supply lines. Germany knew this would draw the US into the war. Germany hoped however, that by the time the US was able to muster forces it could defeat the allies. When this failed after a year, Germany suddenly surrendered.
I agree with Pat the Wilson and others desperately wanted into the war and maintained risky policies to draw the US into to the war. Also Wilson 14 points convinced America this was a righteous war more than German U boats. When this turned out to be a lie- the war was for European boundaries, the US went isolationist and allow the European Allies to run over Germany in the treaty of Versailles.
Can anyone provide a date for this comment and a first-hand reference? Who is supposed to have heard Churchill say this, a reporter? Is there an contemporaneous news account?
And we all would have enjoyed the delights of the Easter Bunny for ever after.
Lusitania had the 6 inch gun mounts installed in 1913.
The altered cargo manifest-——filed after the ship was at sea-—— includes the 6 million rounds of .303 ammo and 5,000 artillery rounds. The fuses for the three inchers were carried in separate boxes.
There would have been an Adolf Hitler, of course, since he was in uniform at the time. He would likely not have risen to power but even that isn’t certain. Had the Allies managed to break the German front without American help, the outcome might have been pretty much the same. It’s all speculation.
Nope. This error puts the rest of the piece in doubt.
The Lusitania was sunk in 1915.
America joined WW1 in 1917: two years later. I dare say the sinking helped sway public opinion, but it wouldn’t seem to have been the proximate cause.
Saddam did have WMD’s. There were satellite photos at the time that showed miles long convoys of Russian trucks hauling WMD’s into Syria. ISIS has them now.
The idea of Churchill trying to pull the United States into the war would be unlikely due to the following reasons:
In 1915, the United States had not yet mobilized for war, and Britain was dependent on the US for the British Army in France. If the US had declared war right after the Lusitania‘s sinking, the supplies that had once been going to Britain would have stayed in the US, leaving the British without ammunition to fight the Germans.
Churchill and Fisher were known to keep information to themselves and micromanage the affairs of Room 40. Fisher was close to a nervous breakdown at the time and Churchill was in France at the time of Lusitania‘s sinking. If Churchill had wanted Lusitania sunk, such a plan could not have happened without his explicit approval, and he would have stayed in Britain to supervise the plot instead of being in France.
Diana Preston advances a theory that, without Fisher and Churchill, Captain William Reginald Hall could have masterminded such a plot. Captain (later Admiral) Hall was known to use cloak-and-dagger tactics, had access to all the relevant decodes of Room 40, and capable of acting independently of Fisher and Churchill. Whether he could have executed such a plan without Churchill’s knowledge and approval, however, remains speculative.
Too many Churchill bashers here at FR!
I read this.
I checked the author.
I stopped reading.
Stampeded? The invasion of Iraq was bipartisan and had wide public support when it was voted for.
9/11? The basis for the invasion was due to repeated violations of the cease-fire terms from the Gulf War. Anything else is a MSM fabrication.
WMDs? The claim that was made that Iraqi posession of WMDs was imminent. Meaning: we don't know if they have 'em, but they can have in very little time.
douse our East Coast with anthrax? Patsie pulled this one out of thin air.