[quote]Headhunter wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
There’s a lot of evidence of Churchill’s crimes. He as much as admits to his crimes in his diary. Documents in the Royal Navy Archives show Churchill calling back the destroyer Juno, despite the Lusitania sailing into known waters where a sub was on patrol. Oh, and he ordered Lusitania to sail at 3/4 speed.
There’s a lot more.
I find it fascinating how Big Brother uses us as pawns. Its really an interesting study.
[/quote]
Hmmm…Well, HH, you may have some info there. Here is some more:
- On reduced speed of transit
The order to reduce speed did not come from Churchill, and was issued in February 1915, at the opening of submarine warfare, 3 months before RMS Lusitania was sunk. Here is why:
“…For economic reasons, Lusitania’s transatlantic crossings were reduced to once a month and boiler room Number 4 was shut down. Maximum speed was reduced to 21 knots (39 km/h), but even then, Lusitania was the fastest passenger liner on the North Atlantic in commercial service, and 10 knots (18.5 km/h) faster than submarines…”
- On Admiralty and sub warnings:
"…On 5 May and 6 May, U-20 sank three vessels in the area of Fastnet Rock, and the Royal Navy sent a warning to all British ships: “Submarines active off the south coast of Ireland”. Captain Turner of Lusitania was given the message twice on the evening of the 6th, and took what he felt were prudent precautions. He closed watertight doors, posted double lookouts, ordered a black-out, and had the lifeboats swung out on their davits so they could be quickly put into the water if need be. That same evening, a Seamen’s Charities fund concert took place in the first class lounge.
At about 11:00, on Friday, May 7, the Admiralty radioed another warning, and Turner adjusted his heading northeast, apparently thinking submarines would be more likely to keep to the open sea and so Lusitania would be safer close to land…"
[Why would the Royal Navy have issued these warnings to Lusitania if it were part of some grand conspiracy to sink it?]
- On revisionist theories:
"Some historians have theorised that Great Britain, in particular First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill, conspired to have Lusitania sunk to draw the United States into the First World War. However, there is some argument against this. It was well known by British, American, and German governments at the time that if the Americans entered the war, they would divert war materials and ammunition toward raising and equipping their own army for fighting, rather than toward keeping the British going in their war effort.
Indeed, U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, while serving as Assistant to then Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, had prior to the sinking prepared a memorandum clearly outlining why American involvement in the war would be detrimental to the Allies. Similarly, two days after the sinking, the British Ambassador to the United States, Sir Cecil Spring�??Rice, telegraphed London advising that it was in Britain’s “main interest to preserve U.S. as a base of supplies.” It would take quite some time for the United States to train and equip its army."
[Lansing was far more influential with Wilson than was Bryan, who resigned after the Lusitania sinking, perhaps out of isolationist principal.]
- On HMS Juno:
"…Admiral Oliver drew to Churchill’s attention the fact that the Juno was unsuitable for exposure to submarine attack without escort, and suggested that elements of the destroyer flotilla from Milford Haven should be sent forthwith to her assistance. At this juncture the Admiralty War Diary stops short, perhaps understandably, as it was here the decision was made that was to be the direct cause of the disaster. No one alive today knows who made it, but Churchill and Fisher must share the responsibility.
Shortly after noon on May 5 the Admiralty signaled Juno to abandon her escort mission and return to Queenstown… The Lusitania was not informed that she was now alone, and closing every minute to the U-20. Admiral Coke at Queenstown was informed of the order and instructed to protect the Lusitania as best he could…"
Ok. This last, only, is from a pro-Winston website. But it is severely well documented.
And, to my faulty memory, the exhaustive biographies by Manchester and Gilbert, who would have had access to the 1971 documents, do not vet any of these particular “crackpot”…oops, I mean revisionist…theories.
Why bother looking into all this? If one believes in maniacal conspiracies, one can find fragments and threads in support. If you resent that you are a pawn, why would you surrender to the most manipulative sources out there, the Conspiracy Theorists?
Use your skills, man!
Don’t swallow it all, hook, line and “sinker.”