Talk:Sinking of the RMS Lusitania

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Actual death toll

An IP editor has just added a note to the effect that the death toll shown for the sinking is inconsistent across the articles here. The infobox on this article says 1,193 of the 1,960 people aboard killed, leaving 761 survivors, yet in the Sinking of the RMS Lusitania § Sinking section the text reads By the days' end, 764 passengers and crew from Lusitania had been rescued and landed at Queenstown. The final death toll for the disaster came to a catastrophic number. Of the 1,959 passengers and crew aboard Lusitania at the time of her sinking, 1,195 had been lost with a citation "Robert Ballard, Exploring the Lusitania. This number is cited, probably to include the German spies detained below decks" Yet further, the lead for the RMS Lusitania article reads killing 1,198 passengers and crew. This is cited to Ballard, Robert D.; Archbold, Rick; Marshall, Ken (2005). The Lost Ships of Robert Ballard. Toronto: Ontario: Madison Press Books. Is there an actual authoritative source for the number of persons aboard, and what number of them died? XAM2175 ^(T) 12:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing differences between cited sources [1] and [2] on the number aboard and number who died. I'm guessing the blog is less reliable than the Library of Congress, but I agree it would be good to find one or more sources that go into detail on these numbers and explain the differences. -- Beland (talk) 09:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

[3] actually has stats in very fine-grained categories, and points out some miscounting. -- Beland (talk) 09:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have chosen to edit all the articles to correspond to the stats in that link, because the arguments they use about repetitions and the detailed breakdowns seem convincing and makes me feel that figure is probably the most reliable one at this time. The figure I'm least sure about is the number of American dead (and on board), for that they just quote Hoehling. But right I think picking this one single source is probably the wisest idea. There's contemporary press reports which obviously give different numbers but I'm willing to believe they are probably not the most accurate. If folks think there's a better number to use, be bold. Fangz (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Actual death toll, again

Okay, the remaining question is the number of Americans killed. The source I used for the total death toll just refers to Hoehling, giving 124 lost /159 total. The thing is, this contradicts the passenger manifest the site itself gives, which gives 126 + 1 uncertain + 18 joint citizenship passengers lost! The commonly given number is 128, but again I don't know what the basis is - it might just be taken from contemporary newspapers, and that isn't a great source. So does anyone have a sense on the right number to give here, in terms of the number of americans on board/killed? Fangz (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Bronze Powder

Like many metals, finely powdered bronze is explosive if mixed with air and ignited - such as when a torpedo blasts the containers open and sprays the dust around. Burning bronze powder will also react with water, causing a release of hydrogen which is even more explosive. Mixing bronze dust with escaping steam is even worse. Having 50 tons of it on a ship running a blockade in a war zone, is a bit dangerous. See eg here [4] Wdford (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The listing in that section relates to contraband status, not to danger. Aluminium powder could be (and probably is) used to make certain types of explosives, thus it fits as condemnable conditional contraband under the London Declaration (well, before the British extended it). But there's no obvious bronze powder military uses and no one is saying it was being used for anything military. Its status on the ship would be same as the bacon in the pantries - only contraband if you call basically everything contraband.

You could argue that the bronze powder could explode and thus be an explanation for the secondary explosion, or that it is a danger to the passengers and so illegal to carry under then US law, but I don't see any sources claim that. Fangz (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

There are various military and civilian uses for bronze, but it is normally used in castings. In that case, they don't need dangerous fine powder, and the bulk metal would normally be shipped in ingots or similar, or else in the form of manufactured products. Bronze is made by melting the components to liquid and then pouring it into castings, so thereafter making bronze into powder is a difficult, dangerous and expensive business - particularly with the technology of 1915. They would not have ground it to powder unless the customer's need was for powder. And there is no use for bronze powder except for explosives. However you are correct that the definition of contraband is a bit ambiguous. The British blockade of Germany defined all foodstuffs as contraband, and they continued to deliberately starve the German people long after the war was over, so powdered bronze would definitely be considered to be contraband - and perhaps even the bacon as well? Wdford (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

If you can find a single source suggesting that the bronze powder in the Lusitania was to be used for military explosives I would be happy to put it in alongside the aluminium powder. (Note that bronze powder is not necessarily related to bronze!) Right now the Wikipedia article for bronze powder does not even mention that it *can*, so please edit the bronze powder article as well if you find anything on it. Believe me, I looked for it and found nothing.

I agree that actually the "military munitions" was utterly irrelevant, in fact both sides were trying to starve the other (the Germans more than the British at this point, ironically). But if you want to discuss Lusitania's war cargo as a special category, then there's no real argument for including bronze powder. Even including aluminium powder is kinda tenuous since the Germans didn't make a point of it. Fangz (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, I seriously doubt the crew of the U-20 knew or cared about the specifics of the ship's cargo. It certainly did not play any role in Kpt. Schweiger's decision to proceed with the attack. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Turner culpabilty

The Culpability of Captain Turner - The Lusitania Resource (rmslusitania.info)

The Lies of the Allies - Google Books

See page 28 a passenger on the Swanmore between Liverpool and Baltimore did tell of receive a message from the Admiralty [the very day the Lusitiana was sunk] that to make all haste into port ot increase the speed from 12 knots to 16; and double shifts of porters and stokers were put on engine test speed until they picked up a pilot and got into the mersey

in fact the Lusitina was doing nearly exactly what the Swanmore was doing The Culpability of Captain Turner - The Lusitania Resource (rmslusitania.info) Beesly also wonders if Turner’s course of action had anything to do with the Admiralty orders that are still unavailable to the general public. The fact that crew was bringing luggage on deck, remarks to a member of the US Embassy, and the recollection of Quartermaster Hugh Johnston “at half past one . . . we altered the course two or three times in towards the land; I do not know what for,” indicates that Lusitania was not bypassing Queenstown, but rather heading for it, a theory echoed by Patrick O’Sullivan.

If this had been the case, Lusitania would have had to make another abrupt turn in course after 2:25 p.m. to enter Queenstown Harbour, and not continue to steam in a straight line that Bailey and Ryan have accused Turner of planning. Bailey and Ryan’s accusation that Turner did not even consider taking Lusitania through the safer North Channel is equally unfair. As the radio exchanges between the Admiralty and Lusitania from 5 May to 7 May are still classified, one cannot say with certainty that Turner did not request to take his ship through the North Channel, only to be denied.

The Culpability of Captain Turner - The Lusitania Resource (rmslusitania.info)

Thus ironicially Turner was actually obeying the Admiralty orders when the ship was sunk! 2603:6010:BB00:288B:6533:7D83:795A:98C8 (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The "Lies of the Allies" is a piece of wartime (1916) German propaganda. It does not qualify as a reliable source. Lusitania.info is okay for some things but is unfortunately outdated with a number of errors and no longer being updated. The luggage movements doesn't really mean anything, because the weather was good so they could have just wanted to start sorting that out early, something Lusitania info points out and is cited in Preston. Layton 2016 has a discussion of the "Queenstown order" conspiracy theory. The long and short of it is that it contradicts Turner's own reports to his solicitors, and his testimony, both at the Mersey inquiry, the later inquiry and later in life, and Turner is really the only one who knows what he was intending. The testimony from the other crew regarding the changes in position (Johnston being incorrect, the ship turned once towards the land, and then turned away from it) is "we don't know what for", so going from there to "well maybe there's secret orders no one has seen" to make Turner go to Queenstown is baseless, when he wasn't even steering towards it. Turner's defense at the inquiries were clear, that he was focused on the Coningbeg lightship transit, so he wanted to establish a precise position to steer towards that course. Layton also notes that Turner had the ships clocks changed to Liverpool time, not Dublin time. Fangz (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Besides any Queenstown order does not really even change Turner's culpability, since he wasn't sailing particularly closer to the shore near Queenstown than he did earlier on. The Admiralty orders were vague as hell, that's the problem. If you look at the maps in Bailey, Turner's critics are arguing he should have kept over 50 nautical miles from the shore, so the small turns around noon that day are irrelevant to their argument. In fact if Turner had not made the 1:40pm turn AWAY from Queenstown he would have missed the submarine. This was the turn Schweieger reported on as bringing the ship miraculously into his firing line.Fangz (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)