RMS Lusitania: It Wasn't and It Didn't

Introduction

The Royal Mail Steamship RMS Lusitania was torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine on 7 May 1915. Twelve hundred innocent civilians lost their lives that day and became another statistic of what became known as the Great War. The fact that this was a civilian ship and was populated by non-combatants imparted the understandable impression that this action plumbed new depths of inhumanity. Unfortunately, there was nothing new about the slaughter of innocents. Such an event in peacetime would cause consternation around the globe among all peoples. Yet there were some in 1915 that perceived the attack as legitimate. There were some who believed it was justified. Their beliefs arose as a consequence of them being 'at war', the wording that gives latitude for unspeakable acts.

The term 'war' embodies a great diversity of events and occurrences that always mean different things to different people. It is multifaceted, frequently reflecting division and conflict but also political intrigue, deeply held cultural aspirations, greed, cruelty, loss, human tragedy and almost always unspeakable terror for those who are at the receiving end of the mechanics of war. There can be heroism, bravery, kind-heartedness or hostility depending on which side of the conflict the perspective is formed. Centuries of mankind often perceived war to be the playing out of good against evil, right against wrong. In addition, war was often thought to be about man against man. In the classic scenario, foes line up opposite each other on a chosen site and engage on a most personal level in fighting and hand-to-hand combat until numbers, exhaustion or skill lead to one side becoming victorious. The development of weaponry and tactics from as early as Greek and Roman times began a process of distancing opponents from each other. The longbow, the crossbow, the musket and the cannon all had the effect of removing combatants from the point of lethal impact.

In simpler times, justification of the slaughter of enemies may have been easier. Protection of land, upholding of rights, consolidation of food sources and the defence of the most basic needs to survive would have compelled people to believe that war was defensive and necessary. As man developed, complicating factors increased inordinately. The acquisition of internal power, religious beliefs or control and political intrigue resulting in shifting of influence became the commonplace. It was also crucial to persuade citizens (on whose behalf war supposedly took place) that offensive actions were justified and the enemy was at fault. The repeated perspective of one side over another, the eternal narrative of right against wrong directed at the people of participating nations was to be shaped by the use of propaganda which often could be justification for defending the indefensible. Simplistic views of an arch-enemy embodying all that is evil can be comforting; however, such logic can also disguise errors of judgement and even neglect on the part of those who purportedly are fighting from the high moral ground. The loss of over 1,200 lives as a result of the sinking of RMS Lusitania in May of 1915 may fall into this category.

The outbreak of the First World War was the classic case of the shifting alliances and the balance of power among a small number of elite royalty having consequences of unimaginable proportions. It was also to become the most advanced and hideous mechanisation of the slaughter of millions of lives. Those that were killed in many cases never saw or heard the weapons of destruction that brought about their demise. Those that killed others in the scales of thousands often did little more than press some buttons or adjust some levers. However, this did not prevent soldiers in the trenches witnessing the obscene destruction of human tissue and bone among those they had just spoken to or served with. The appalling discomfort of trench life was made worse by the persistent presence of the dead in forms and shapes that should never be seen by fellow human beings. The sheer size and scale of army numbers that were going to be involved were monumental. Germany had 2 million men in uniform ready to mobilise.

One army Corps alone (out of a total of forty in the German forces) required 170 railway carriages for officers, 965 for infantry, 2,960 for cavalry, 1,915 for artillery and supply wagons, 6,010 in all, grouped in 140 trains and an equal number again for their supplies.1

Millions of young men, women and children were to die between 1914 and 1918 and yet in some places life went on as normal. Business was conducted, relationships blossomed and died, newspapers were written and food was grown and harvested. Sometimes, however, the sanctity of apparent normality was shattered and those that felt physically removed from the battlefield were brought into the epicentre of destruction - often when least expected. Such was the experience of those sailing on one of the world's most luxurious liners in 1915. On a sunny afternoon in a soft Atlantic swell nearing the end of an otherwise pleasant voyage, those on RMS Lusitania had the worst aspects of the war brought to bear on them. Like many who perished in the trenches they did not see their silent enemy. Like those who had the misfortune to be on the front, they too heard the deafening report of explosives and within seconds witnessed death and destruction around them. In the small confines of a ship made tiny by the vastness of the ocean, men, women and children grappled for life over death. Most did not succeed. Of more than 1,900 people on board only 762 survived.

How did such an atrocious attack take place? What events led to the taking of the lives of so many innocent non-combatants? Who was responsible? How did the reach of the battlefield extend so far beyond terra firma? What decisions were made and by whom?

Within hours of the sinking a narrative was created, a perspective was advanced. Some acquired solace from the simplistic explanations that were proffered. Others swore vengeance. This was a savage attack on an innocent vessel.

War waged by her [Germany] was directed not only against military and Naval forces opposed to her, but against innocent non-combatants whenever she can by the aid of her submarines and aerial craft. Nothing transcends this barbarity.2

But was the vessel innocent? Later it would be claimed that this atrocity brought America into the war. But did it? For almost a century the story of the loss of RMS Lusitania had been neatly categorised by many as an enemy war-crime. Undoubtedly this gave some closure to those who lost loved ones. But do they deserve more? Should we take the perspective that was offered or should we look for other explanations? The inhabitants of the little town of Queenstown (now Cobh) in County Cork, Ireland, were traumatised when they witnessed the consequences of the attack. The Old Church Cemetery near the town was to become the resting place of many of the victims.

Over 1,200 people died that day and while the following work does not purport to answer all queries, it is hoped that it will at least broaden perspectives and lead to the asking of more pertinent, if uncomfortable, questions in seeking to find out what really happened and why on that beautiful afternoon off the south coast of Ireland on 7 May of 1915.

In the aftermath of the sinking of the ship and in the intervening century since there has been much speculation and many theories advanced. The claims and counterclaims have kept scholars and writers busy over the years. Some books concentrated solely on the passengers and their wealth and influence, others have explored the terror of the incident itself. Almost all take one position or another on what happened and a few have tried to unravel the unanswered questions that remain. And there are many unanswered questions. However, adopting or believing a narrative that evolved which fit in then or fits in now with post-war results does not do the matter justice. Conclusions that were reached while the conflict was still in progress are bound to be heavily influenced by the war and people's perspective on it. There have also been conspiracy and other theories that emerged that counter the official conclusions or seek to shed more light on grey areas. The reality is that even if all facts were laid bare, different perspectives, cultures and positions will lead to different conclusions.

The presence of munitions on board is undisputed, the carrying of .303 ammunition was within the rights of the shipping company according to the regulations at the time and one side can argue that nothing illegal was done. On the other hand, as Paddy O'Sullivan points out in his work, were these not bullets that would be fired at German soldiers and citizens once they reached their destination? If so, was the ship that carried them not a legitimate target? Some would argue that it was but there were procedures in the so called 'rules of war' to board such vessels when civilians were present which could have prevented any loss of life but destroyed the offending munitions. However, British merchant sea captains had been ordered to ram submarines whenever they saw them so others will argue it was impossible to approach such vessels. One conspiracy theory has the British Admiralty and Winston Churchill in particular orchestrating the entire incident. This appears to be highly improbable; however, there were certain actions taken and instructions given that are very likely to have increased the loss of life on the ship, some of which can be traced to the Admiralty. These include four areas in particular: the carriage of passengers into danger by the shipping company Cunard, the presence of an explosive cargo on...