… and the assassination of JFK, wasn’t Churchill involved in that?
Churchill’s knoll wasn’t grassy, it was bald. 
Now, now, Dex.
Actually, one could argue that Churchill was complicit in the sinking of the Lustitania, but I’ve never heard the argument that he had any advance knowledge that it would happen. I’ve heard it stated that Britain was shipping munitions and war supplies on passenger cruisers so as to prevent submarine strikes, and the Lusitania was one such ship carrying war material in addition to its slate of passengers. If this is true, then obviously a decision was made by the government to play brinksmanship with the Germans- forcing the Germans to either give up on intercepting Allied supply or to start sinking passenger ships. Such a decision would definitely have involved Churchill, who was Lord Admiral at the time. So one could certainly argue that because of Britain/Churchill’s decision, the sinking of the Lusitania became inevitable.
But I’ll leave that for someone with more facts to actually explain.
(And DSYoung- ouch!)
John Corrado wrote:
Actually, Colin Simpson in ‘The Lusitania’ argues precisely that: that Churchill knew the U-20 was operating in the Irish Sea and ordered the Lusitania into the path of the submarine. He also claims that the Lusitania was carrying not only munitions (shrapnel shells and rifle cartridges) but also explosives (guncotton), again at Churchill’s instigation and these munitions are what sank the Lusitania.
The presence of shells and cartridges is confirmed by the Lusitania’s manifest - though the British did not make this fact known at the time - but Simpson’s claim of explosives is controversial and he produced no concrete evidence to support it.
As for the contention that Churchill ordered the Lusitania into the torpedoes of the U-20, this too is controversial. The U-20 had sunk several ships in the Irish Sea and sank the steamers Candidate and Centurion off the southern coast of Ireland the day before the Lusitania arrived. The British Admiralty did send out warnings that submarines were operating in the area and the Lusitania did receive them. Captain Turner did take precautions such as posting more lookouts, preparing lifeboats for launching and securing watertight doors.
The Lusitania was an extremely difficult target to hit. The Lusitania could make 21 knots (normally 26 knots but six boilers were not in use to conserve coal) and could easily outdistance a surfaced submarine. A submerged submarine stood no chance of getting into position for a shot and the U-20 was submerged when it spotted the Lusitania and the Lusitania was making its maximum speed at that time.
As luck would have it, the Lusitania changed course that brought it within 400 yards of the U-20. The U-20 shot its last two torpedoes and scored a hit with one.
All witnesses, both German and British, agree that there were two explosions: a small initial explosion, followed by a much larger explosion and that it was the second explosion that sank the Lusitania.
Simpson argues that it was the detonation of the supposed guncotton that caused the second explosions. Others argue that the second explosion was caused by coal dust in coal bunkers empty from the voyage across the Atlantic.
As conspiracy theories go, this one is weaker than most. The Lusitania received warnings and took all normal precautions and should not have had anything to fear from a submarine. Why should Churchill be blamed for a unlucky course change that gave the U-20 a lucky shot is anybody’s guess.
There is an excellent site on the sinking of the Lusitania here.
Andrew Warinner
What did I tell you? I knew someone would have a better grip on that than me.
Thanks, warinner!
Also, if you read Robert Ballard’s excellent Exploring the Lusitania, he states that the second explosion was most likely from coal dust. Ballard is, of course, the man who found the wreck of the Titanic. I too think Simpson is full of rubbish-Churchill may have wished that if a ship DID sink it would be a situation that would end up to his advantage, but I don’t think he necessarily planned it. Also, from what I understand, if they HAD given the Lusy escorts, as Churchill was blamed for not doing, it would have made her a legitimate target-because she would have been part of a convoy.
Guinastasia wrote:
Ballard’s investigations are certainly suggestive but maybe not definitive. The Lusitania is lying on its starboard side so Ballard was not able to investigate the area where the torpedo struck but the physical evidence certainly points to an explosion in the coal bunkers.
I don’t think the Lusitania could have been escorted without slowing it down and so making it more vulnerable to submarine attack. Standard practice for both WWI and WWII was to let any ship capable of sustaining 14 knots or more sail independently without escort.
In any case, the Lusitania was a legitimate target, whether escorted or not. If the Germans were playing by the international cruiser rules, the U-20 should have surfaced, searched the Lusitania, and having discovered contraband, they would have the right to sink her after allowing the crew and passengers to take to the lifeboats.
Of course, the Germans declared unrestricted submarine warfare around Britain in February, 1915 and so weren’t playing by the rules anymore.
What blame attaches to Churchill in this is that it was largely at his urging that the Admiralty adopted tactics and standing orders that the Germans used to justify unrestricted submarine warfare. Churchill’s use of ‘Q ships’ and the standing order for all British merchantmen to attack surfaced submarines is arguably in violation of international cruiser rules. On the other hand, the German Admiralty was itching for an excuse to indulge in unrestricted submarine warfare from the start of the war.
I think a lot of the sexiness of the Lusitania conspiracy theory is derived from the premise that the sinking of the Lusitania was one of the proximate cause of the US entry into WWI. No Lusitania, no US involvement. But I find that’s pretty flawed reasoning.
The Lusitania doesn’t rate very highly in proximate causes for the US declaration of war. By the time the US did get around to declaring war, there had been more passenger liners sunk resulting in US casualties, not to mention the Zimmerman telegram (oops, there’s another conspiracy theory there) or the second German declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare or any number of causes.
Andrew Warinner
According to the book More Rumor!, the German government placed a warning in American newspapers, about a month before the Lusitania started on the ill-fated voyage, that ‘Germany is at war with Great Britain and her allies and persons traveling on ships operated by [countries then at war with the Central Powers] do so at their own risk.’ According to this book, the U. S. Government suppressed the appearance of this notice in every paper that had accepted it–except the Des Moines (Iowa) Register; granted not very many people planning to board the Lusitania–which I am sure set sail from New York Harbor–would have read that newspaper.
In any case, it was two years after the sinking of the Lusitania before the U.S. got into World War I–and then only because of the “Zimmerman communiqué,” which deserves a thread in its own right.