The ship's manifest shows that she was carrying a small amount of ammunition in her forward cargo magazine. That would make her a legitimate target even though the cargo was not known to the Germans in advance of her sinking. For years the debate has raged as to whether her cargo exploding was the cause of her rapid sinking. The Titanic slammed into an iceberg and lasted for over two hours while to Lusitania was struck by a single torpedo and was on the bottom in less than half an hour. When you consider that the Lusitania was far more structurally strong than the Titanic, that torpedo should have slowed her down and nothing more, the idea of her cargo exploding doesn't seem that far fetched. However the amount and type of ammunition she was carrying wasn't likely to create such a massive explosion. According to survivors there were two explosions that took place aboard the Lusitania. The first was from the torpedo's detonation but what caused the second? Robert Ballard, the oceanographer who discovered the Titanic and Bismark suggested that it might have been the coal dust in her,now nearly empty, coal bunkers that was ignited by the torpedo. Such an explosion would have opened the starboard side and done ten times the damage of the torpedo. The wreck is lying on her starboard side so it is impossible to say with any certainty, the damage is hidden, but Ballard's theory has always struck me as reasonable. Was she a legitimate target of war, yes. Did her cargo of munitions cause her to sink, probably not, although it should be noted that the British had done everything they could to confuse her with her sitership, the Maritiania, which was sailing as a troop transport, by painting the two identically and then painting out the Lusitainia's name at her bow and the stern. I prefer to imagine that it was to provide some degree of security for the Maritiania and not to set up the Lusitiania but regardless they do bear some responisbility for what happened and were never made to answer for it.
2006-07-29 19:11:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by mjlehde@sbcglobal.net 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
British documents later confirmed the German assertion that the ship was carrying munitions. Also, after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt the secret copy of the ship's manifest that had been given to Woodrow Wilson also came to light. By international law, the presence of military cargo made the Lusitania a legitimate target. Included in this cargo were 4,200,000 rounds of Remington .303 rifle cartridges, 1250 cases of shrapnel 3 inch (76 mm) shells, and eighteen cases of fuses; however, the materials listed on the cargo manifest were small arms and the physical size of this cargo would have been quite small.
2006-07-29 19:54:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by gapoy 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
British documents later confirmed the German assertion that the ship was carrying munitions. Also, after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt the secret copy of the ship's manifest that had been given to Woodrow Wilson also came to light. By international law, the presence of military cargo made the Lusitania a legitimate target. Included in this cargo were 4,200,000 rounds of Remington .303 rifle cartridges, 1250 cases of shrapnel 3 inch (76 mm) shells, and eighteen cases of fuses; however, the materials listed on the cargo manifest were small arms and the physical size of this cargo would have been quite small. French-Canadian passenger Joseph Marichal claimed he heard small arms ammunition exploding. His testimony was quickly discounted by the British.
2006-07-29 14:31:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by Sean J 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yah, it was an attempt to run the blockade with ammunition and possibly some larger cannon on board. Examinations of the wrecksite haven't turned up the goods, though, which (if it was just ammo) is not terribly surprising - it would have burned up.
But yes, it was used as a causus belli by Roosevelt, who knew that America had to come in if Germany were to be stopped from conquering all of Europe.
Had America not entered the war, the Germans could have beaten the Brits, then taken out the Russians in short order. Then the US would have been one of three (four if you count Italy) super powers in the world, instead of one of two, as it is today.
2006-07-29 18:57:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by Grendle 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
A cargo manifest was located. But it seemed suspicious to Lloyds of London. But you must already realize that history is factual as long as the information provided is accurate.
2006-08-02 04:11:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Calvin of China, PhD 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is no conclusive evidence, but eyewitness accounts are consistent with an arms cache aboard.
2006-07-29 14:31:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
not conclusive
2006-07-29 14:30:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by Wounded duckmate 6
·
0⤊
0⤋