Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Lusitania: The Tragic Story | Part Two" video.

@VashStarwind There has never been anything found other than small arms ammunition, which was both legal and openly manifested.
2
@VashStarwind Please don't be silly. It is over 25 pages long. Why not look it up on the Lusitania Resource, as I did?
2
@Klyis Correct. RN warships leaving Malta in WW2 only took just enough fuel to get them to Alexandria or Gibraltar.
2
Actually, that happened when the Germans re-introduced unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917. Although the Zimmermann telegram hardly helped the German cause, either!
2
@anthrazite Lusitania was not an 'auxiliary cruiser.' The Admiralty could have used hed for this purpose, but found the big liners too expensive to operate in this manner, and used smaller more economical vessels like Carmania instead. Nor was Lusitania carrying anything other than small arms ammunition. She was certainly not 'laden with ammo.' Your opinion doesn't really have any relevance.
2
No, they didn't. The wreck was depth charged on occasion in WW2 after giving back asdic/sonar echoes which might have been mistaken for a U-Boat.
2
@VashStarwind She was carrying, legally, small arms ammunition, which was opently declared on her manifest.
1
Not in 1915 they weren't.
1
She was not 'full of munitions.' She carried some small arms ammunition, which had been openly declared to US Customs on her manifest. The wreck had been dived upon on numerous occasions, and nothing which was not manifested has ever been found. You want to know the actual reason that Lusitania was sunk? Because Germany had declared a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare in February, 1915. That's why.
1
Perhaps you weren't aware of the German declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare in February, 1915?
1
I wonder if anyone in the German government ever thought that declaring a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare in February 1915 was not really a good idea? By the way, what 'war materiel?' Other than permitted small arms ammunition, that is?
1
@mikeprevost8650 Aside from the obvious, that by 1942 Unrestricted Submarine Warfare was an established fact, the Germans in WW1 applied it to all shipping, not simply the vessels of nations with which they were at war. When it was re-applied in 1917, there had been considerable antipathy towards the British for intercepting US freighters and inspecting them for contraband, but when the US suddenly found that their ships were being torpedoed by U-Boats without warning, their government rapidly concluded that the Royal Navy's actions were really not so bad after all.
1
Not when she sank in 18 minutes.
1
No. After introducing unrestricted submarine warfare in February, 1915, anything which floated was considered fair game by the Germans.
1
@mikeprevost8650 Quite. You are correct.
1
@anthrazite The British have never admitted something which never happened. Can you refer me to any such admission, or to any evidence of 'artillery casings' being found at the wrecksite? By the way, as unrestricted submarine warfare had been in place since February, your reference to 'a military transport and thus a valid target' can only be attributed to either bias or ignorance. Feel free to look up unrestricted submarine warfare for yourself.
1
Of course, in German eyes, she was a legitimate target. After February 1915, when the Germans declared a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, sho was every other ship. She was, legally, carrying openly manifested small arms ammunitions. Had there been anything else, why has no trace of it every been found? The British have never, except perhaps at the time, suggested that more than one torpedo was used, and detailed investigations have proven beyond any doubt that the second explosion was coal dust in an almost empty bunker. 'Q' ships were legitimate naval vessels. The Germans used a similar concept in both world wars. Flying the flag of a neutral nation is hardly 'a violation of the rules of war' when done by a merchant ship, by the way.
1