CAP and the Battle of the Atlantic

[JohnKachenmeister]

Subs were generally out of communications for most of their voyage.

You might want to check your German U-Boat communication protocol. Donitz, stupidly, had the U-Boats report every day. It is why the then new and secret High Frequency Direction Finding (nicknamed Huff-Duff) worked so well.

our good friend RRLE about stomping around in a political minefield

I appreciate the warning but you have the cause of the war wrong. Wilson speech to Congress asking for a declaration of war http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson_declares_war_on_Germany begins by discussing unrestricted submarine warfare - by implication the Lusitania. The American battlecry was "Remember The Lusitania" not anything about the Zimmerman Telegram. The Telegram incident is mentioned toward the end of Wilson's speech.

And by the rules of war the sinking of the Lusitania was an atrocity - committed by the Americans and British. The Germans were in their rights to sink it. It was carrying munitions in an area the Germans had told the world community was a war zone. Sinking it was allowed by international law at the time (and now). The atrocity was that the American and British governments hide from the passengers that they were embarked on a military supply ship that was therefore a legitimate target of the enemy. Both governments failed to adaquately warn the the ship's crew and Britian failed to protect the ship in its home waters - and it knew there was at least 1 U-boat in the area.

I do not know you, RRLE.  I suspect from your postings that you may be a cadet.

I am well aware that Wilson, in his declaration of war request, referenced what was, at the time, an atrocity.  I am also aware that the Lusitania would have been a legitimate target of war.  There had also been an advertisement in the New York newspapers  warning that all British-flag ships were subject to attack.

What I am also aware of, which you seem not to be aware of, there was no Anglo-American cooperation in 1916.  In fact, there was pretty much even money on whether the US would side with Germany or Great Britain in World War I.  Until the Zimmerman Letters, anyway.

That is true.  There was a "Propaganda War" by both Britain and Germany to get the US to join on one side or the other.  The Zimmerman telegrams sealed the deal.  The Luisitania was something that could rally the masses, however.

The evidence is inconclusive that the Lusitania was carrying munitions.  Repeated dives do show evidence of a secondary explosion, but the source of the explosion is unknown.  It could have been munitions, or it could have been coal dust in the nearly-empty coal bunkers.  The fact remains, however, that actual notice was placed that ALL British-flag ships would be subject to attack.  The sinking was considered an atrocity at the time, but subsequent events in subsequent wars have reduced this former atrocity to the level of a "Bad P.R. Problem."

[RRLE]

The evidence is inconclusive that the Lusitania was carrying munitions.

There is no doubt she was carrying munitions. Although British policy at the time made her a legitimate target, without warning, whether she was carrying munitions or not.

See the Wikeipedia article (which sources its statements) on the Luisitania:

Lusitania was carrying small arms ammunition, which would not have been explosive. Under the "cruiser rules", the Germans could sink a civilian vessel only after guaranteeing the safety of all the passengers. Since Lusitania (like all British merchantmen) was under instructions from the British Admiralty to report the sighting of a German submarine, and indeed to attempt to ram the ship if it surfaced to board and inspect her, she was acting as a naval auxiliary, and was thus exempt from this requirement and a legitimate military target. By international law, the presence (or absence) of military cargo was irrelevant.

[pixelwonk]

RRLE is not a cadet, John.  He's a Coast Guard Auxiliarist with even more time on his hands (if you can believe it) than RiverAux.

[RRLE]

He's a Coast Guard Auxiliarist

Not any more.  I guess that gives me even more time.

[RiverAux]

RRLE is not a cadet, John.  He's a Coast Guard Auxiliarist with even more time on his hands (if you can believe it) than RiverAux.

Hey, I resent that.  Judging by post count NO ONE has more free time than me. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

The evidence is inconclusive that the Lusitania was carrying munitions.

There is no doubt she was carrying munitions. Although British policy at the time made her a legitimate target, without warning, whether she was carrying munitions or not.

See the Wikeipedia article (which sources its statements) on the Luisitania:

Lusitania was carrying small arms ammunition, which would not have been explosive. Under the "cruiser rules", the Germans could sink a civilian vessel only after guaranteeing the safety of all the passengers. Since Lusitania (like all British merchantmen) was under instructions from the British Admiralty to report the sighting of a German submarine, and indeed to attempt to ram the ship if it surfaced to board and inspect her, she was acting as a naval auxiliary, and was thus exempt from this requirement and a legitimate military target. By international law, the presence (or absence) of military cargo was irrelevant.

I do not believe the "Cruiser Rules" were written until the 1920's, after WWI.  In any case, the evidence that the Lusitania was carrying "Munitions" is inconclusive as of the last study of which I am aware.  The belief that the ship was carrying munitions was based on a widely-reported second explosion.  At first, it was reported as a second torpedo hit, but later was reported as a secondary explosion from munitions in the hold.  It may well have been munitions, but it is equally likely that coal dust exploded.

If the Lusitania's orders was to intentionally ram a submarine, then she was a combatant vessel, and the "War Crime" would be on the British for intentionally endangering non-combatants.  Merely reporting sightings incidental to a transport mission would not be prohibited under the laws of war, and would not render the Lusitania liable to attack as a combatant ship.

[RRLE]

In any case, the evidence that the Lusitania was carrying "Munitions" is inconclusive as of the last study of which I am aware.  The belief that the ship was carrying munitions was based on a widely-reported second explosion.

See Lusitania Online: A Deadly Cargo and the falsified Manifests

See also: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snpwwi2.htm]Eyewitness to History: The Sinking of the Lusitania

On May 1, 1915, the ship departed New York City bound for Liverpool. Unknown to her passengers but probably no secret to the Germans, almost all her hidden cargo consisted of munitions and contraband destined for the British war effort. As the fastest ship afloat, the luxurious liner felt secure in the belief she could easily outdistance any submarine. Nonetheless, the menace of submarine attack reduced her passenger list to only half her capacity.

If you google "cruiser rules" you will find ample evidence the Cruiser Rules pre-date WWI and the British had acknowleged their existence. Wilson even insisted that the German's follow them.

[MIKE]

WWII to WWI? 

[FLWG Historian]

There is good documentation in many scholarly books that the reason Doenitz moved his U-boats around was going for the weakest point to attack. The defeat of the U-boats did not occur until well after the boats had been withdrawn from US coastal waters. I have tracked and accounted for every U-boat sent US coastal waters and they are 100% accounted for by either having survived or attacks by US military units NOT CAP aircraft. The quick read on this is ISBN 0 11 772603 6 and the laborious read is ISBN 0-87021-781-X.  There are many others but this is enough. With a very severe stretch we can claim that CAP produced a mission stalemate in us coastal waters. The facts cited  by others that no boats were present is an indisputable historic provable occurrence. the courage and patriotism of the crews is not reduced byn the fact that the enemy had already left.