You mean like we did in the late 19th century?
Posted on 07/23/2008 1:00:22 PM PDT by nickcarraway
American entrepreneur Gregg Bemis finally gets courts go-ahead to explore the wreck off Ireland
It is the best known shipwreck lying on the Irish seabed, but it is only today that the owner of the Lusitania will finally begin the first extensive visual documentation of the luxury liner that sank 93 years ago.
Gregg Bemis, who bought the remains of the vessel for £1,000 from former partners in a diving business in 1968, has been granted an imaging licence by the Department of the Environment. This allows him to photograph and film the entire structure, and should allow him to produce the first high-resolution pictures of the historic vessel.
The RMS Lusitania sank off the coast of Cork in May 1915 when a German U-boat torpedoed it. An undetermined second explosion is believed to have speeded its sinking, with 1,198 passengers and crew losing their lives.
Bemis is hoping that the week-long filming project, which begins today, will prove his theory that the Lusitania was carrying explosives, and that these were the cause of the mysterious second blast.
“I want to find out where the second explosion took place and why,” he said. “I believe there were explosives on board. I can tell the whole world that, but they’re not going to believe me until we get down there and get proof.”
JWM Productions will film the project for a television series to be shown on the Discovery Channel next year.
The 80-year-old entrepreneur only won the right to explore the wreckage,
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
I suppose you actually think "your" house is yours, too?
It would seem to me that shipping munitions in a passenger vessel would have been an act of gross negligence and/or provocation on the part of the U.S., and that Germany wouldn’t bear much responsibility at all for the sinking of that ship if it were a legitimate target.
“Waited? Wilson campaign in the 1916 election campaigned on not entering the War. Then betrayed the American people as soon as he got elected by entering.”
So, he was ‘against the war before he was for it.’ Somewhat of a different spin on the standard flip-flopping democrat.
I suspect that every civilian British passenger ship was given a similar designation, since they could be quickly transformed into troop ships. But at the time of the sinking the Lusitania was ostensibly just a passenger liner and munitions don't belong in the cargo of a passenger liner during a time of war.
The so-called Zimmerman telegram was the major factor in the United States entering the war. This telegram was a proposal by the German government for Mexico to invade the United States.
When the British made the telegram public it resulted in a popular call for war. I don’t know that Wilson was ever that keen on going to war.
*shrug* He was a democrat, after all...
I am not justifying the sinking, but I think what you write is misleading. Germany put an advertisement in the paper next to the ad for the Lusitania warning passengers that such ships might be sunk. The media had articles on the subject. Passengers were so worried the Captain of the ship had to reassure them by telling them the ship was too fast to be attacked by submarine. If that wasn’t enough, German spies were arrested on board early in the voyage.
(Note: One of my Great Grandparents traveled on the previous journey of the Lusitania too the U.S.)
You mean like we did in the late 19th century?
While this might have seemed like a good idea it created a gray area where these ships could possibly be considered legitimate military targets. Mixing both civilian and military functions in the same trip was terribly dangerous.
Between 1914 and the spring of 1917, the European nations engaged in a conflict that became known as World War I. While armies moved across the face of Europe, the United States remained neutral. In 1916 Woodrow Wilson was elected President for a second term, largely because of the slogan "He kept us out of war." Events in early 1917 would change that hope. In frustration over the effective British naval blockade, in February Germany broke its pledge to limit submarine warfare. In response to the breaking of the Sussex pledge, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Germany.
In January of 1917, British cryptographers deciphered a telegram from German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann to the German Minister to Mexico, von Eckhardt, offering United States territory to Mexico in return for joining the German cause. This message helped draw the United States into the war and thus changed the course of history. The telegram had such an impact on American opinion that, according to David Kahn, author of The Codebreakers, "No other single cryptanalysis has had such enormous consequences." It is his opinion that "never before or since has so much turned upon the solution of a secret message." In an effort to protect their intelligence from detection and to capitalize on growing anti-German sentiment in the United States, the British waited until February 24 to present the telegram to Woodrow Wilson. The American press published news of the telegram on March 1. On April 6, 1917, the United States Congress formally declared war on Germany and its allies.
Definitely a casus belli.
I am not part of the circles you describe, and don’t see the possibility as so odd. Churchill in any event would have acted in british interests, not american, and it was certainly in their interests to get us into the war as soon as possible.
It is fact that he was first lord of the admiralty until May 1915.
In any event, if we are waiting for ‘documentation’ aside from the above you might have found a mechanism to defer the matter for decades if not centuries. In the meantime, intelligent people can at least speculate in some circles.
“It would seem to me that shipping munitions in a passenger vessel would have been an act of gross negligence and/or provocation on the part of the U.S.”
The UK would have been responsible here.
“Even if it was ALL high explosive shells, the U-boats were NOT to be torpedoing passenger liners and they had promised not to do so in any event”. ....................HMMMM? Once they take ammo on board, are they still a passenger liner? Passenger liners probably have rules to follow too. Was there ammo on board? Yes, and previous dives have shown it. Where they warned before departure? Yes, in the NYT if I remember correctly. The owners of the liner put their passengers at risk knowing that they were transporting war supplies (ammo).
Does anyone have current information on the wreck’s actual condition?
German planners assumed that their declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 would drive the US into the war, as it was sure to do. They knew this act would be literally intolerable. They assumed they could beat Britain before the Americans could arrive in numbers. The Zimmermam telegram was just icing on the cake, I believe.
offering United States territory to Mexico in return for joining the German cause
This idea hasn't died yet.
Fascinating article and discussion!
After the Franco Prussian war we did have spikes on our helmets. Weird looking.
“It would seem to me that shipping munitions in a passenger vessel would have been an act of gross negligence and/or provocation on the part of the U.S., and that Germany wouldn’t bear much responsibility at all for the sinking of that ship if it were a legitimate target.”
The Lusitania was a British vessel owned by the Cunard Line, not a U.S. property.
My modern translation:
"Human shields won't work."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.