Subscribe now and receive weekly newsletters with educational materials, new courses, interesting posts, popular books, and much more!
Articles
Sinking RMS Lusitania: A Long-Lived Conspiracy Theory
- By THE CHURCHILL PROJECT
- | September 24, 2020
- Category: Churchill in WWI Truths and Heresies
Was RMS Lusitania set up?
The first chapter of Nigel Hamilton’s book, The Mantle of Command, states that RMS Lusitania was an “ill-fated American liner.” He leaves the impression that Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, had played a role in the sinking in order to get the United States into World War I. Any comment? —C.C., Culpeper, Va.
Answer: bad judgment, not conspiracy
RMS Lusitania was British, not American, operated by the Cunard Line. On the fatal voyage she did carry 139 Americans, 128 of whom lost their lives, along with 1,070 others. On 7 May 1915 the liner, inbound from New York, was eleven miles off the Old Head of Kinsale, Ireland on 7 May 1915. The German submarine U-20. She sank in 18 minutes.
It was well known during the First World War that the British were shipping arms on passenger liners. The German government issued warnings that they were liable to be sunk. It is also known that Churchill hoped German attacks on merchant shipping would bring America into the war.
Contrary to conspiracy theorists, however, Churchill did nothing to cause the sinking. He was not even at the Admiralty in the days leading up to the event. Indeed the Lusitania had been warned of submarine activity in the area. Mistakes were certainly made by her captain, William Turner. But there was no conspiracy to put her in danger.
George Will correctly described the event in National Review. A highly detailed examination of the subject was written by the late Professor Harry Jaffa in the book Statesmanship: Essays in Honor of Sir Winston Churchill (Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 1981). A copy of his article is available from the Churchill Project by email.
Addendum, 2020
There are many prominent conspiracy theories, led by historian Colin Simpson in 1972. Simpson wrote of a supposed Admiralty meeting, with Churchill, two days before the sinking: “On the map were markers denoting the U-20, [the old cruiser HMS] Juno, and Lusitania.” (We are meant to believe British knew exactly where all three ships were, including the enemy submarine.)
The Admirals mentioned Juno‘s slow speed and recommended Churchill send destroyers instead to escort Lusitania. Here, Simpson writes, “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…. The Admiralty signaled Juno to abandon her escort mission and return to Queenstown…The Lusitania was not informed that she was now alone.”
The “Admiralty War Diary” in this melodramatic paragraph appears nowhere else in Simpson’s book, not even the bibliography. No historian has found it; nor a record of the Admiralty meeting. Nor was it Churchill’s role to make operational decisions.
Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty had to face the case of the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, which generated strong controversies. There are documents whose details have indicated, according to some historians, that the First Lord of the Admiralty could have been negligent in leaving the ship without an escort, which would have led to the sinking of this ship, in order to bring the United States into the war.
=
True, conspiracy theorists have attempted to prove otherwise, but the preponderance of evidence is against them. Lusitania was much faster than any naval escort (and any U-boat); and the Navy didn’t have the resources to escort every liner. Speed was thus the preferred defense, but Captain Turner unfortunately reduced speed to “make the tide” at Merseyside—a fatal decision. We have added an addendum to the post above. —Editors
The idea that Winston Churchill planned top have the ship torpedoed by a German submarine is silly, considering he was trying to salvage the Gallipoli campaign and was fighting for his political career. Did he hope something like this would spur America to join the war? Probably, but he was not stupid. He knew the war would be hard to win and wanted allies, but to think he overtly put the ship in danger is a stretch.
“It is also known that Churchill hoped German attacks on merchant shipping would bring America into the war.”
The first evidence that demonstrated Churchill’s hope was in a letter which I found when exploring the papers of his Cabinet contemporary Walter Runciman in 1968. Runciman as President of the Board of Trade was considering policy on new rates of insurance for neutral shipping. Churchill wrote three letters in five days urging that the rates should not be increased. The first of the letters, on 12 February 1915, was quoted in my book Politicians at War July 1914 to May 1915 (1971, 188-89): “It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the U.S. with Germany. The German formal announcement of indiscriminate submarining has been made to the United States to produce a deterrent effect on traffic. For our part we want the traffic—the more the better & if some of it gets into trouble better still. Therefore do please furbish up at once your insurance offer to neutrals trading with us after February 18th. The more that come, the greater our safety & the German embarrassment.”
Dr. Hazlehurst also wrote an excellent foreword to the new edition of Churchill’s The People’s Rights, which we recommend to readers. Churchill’s attitude toward U.S. shipping, Dr. Cameron also endorses this view by Dr. David Stafford in Churchill and Secret Service (1998, 72-73):
In my studies I learned that, eager to absolve the Admiralty of negligence in handling Lusitania‘s last days, Churchill and Fisher were quick to pin as much blame on Captain Turner as possible, backdating Admiralty orders, distorting geography, and hiring the best legal talent to prove Captain Turner guilty. The reputation of a man like Turner could hardly have mattered to Churchill and Fisher when the survival of Britain was at stake.
=
Thank-you for your comment. Fisher was well known for fixing blame on others, most notably Churchill. Their reactions, which confirm your reading, are quoted by Professor David Stafford in his reliable book, Churchill and Secret Service:
“Churchill was not the mainspring of a conspiracy to sink the Lusitania because none existed. Ironically, he himself thought there might be one. His immediate response was to initiate a damage control exercise to absolve himself and the Admiralty of blame. Five days after the tragedy the Admiralty’s Trade Division, responsible for merchant shipping, suggested that German spies or sympathizers might have penetrated Cunard’s New York office and learned of the Lusitania‘s route. The manager was an anti-British American and other officials were German nationals. The man in charge of the Cunard dock in New York was an Irishman and, according to Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, was ‘intimate with German agents.’ The report also hinted that Captain Turner of the Lusitania was either utterly incompetent or, more sinister, had ‘been got at by the Germans.’ The impetuous and increasingly unstable Fisher endorsed the suggestion with gusto, declared that Turner had obviously been bribed, and demanded that he be arrested whatever the result of the official inquiry. When these suggestions reached Churchill he seemed to grasp at the conspiracy notion. His own position at stake, he agreed that Turner should be pursued ‘without check.’ He also embraced the suspicions that spies had been at work, ordered that security in New York should immediately be tightened up, and agreed that Room 40 intelligence should be concealed from any inquiry. This was not to cover up a conspiracy, but to safeguard the secret that Britain was reading German ciphers. In any case Churchill had far more pressing things on his mind than concocting some spurious conspiracy around the Lusitania.”
There is no proof that Turner was a traitor, but the course and speed he prescribed for the ship were his, and mainly govern the judgment of history. RML
Churchill was responsible for making civilian ships a legitimate military target by allowing them to transport war munitions for the Western Front. The Germans stopped and searched civilian ships for munitions at the beginning of World War I. However Churchill made this impossible by introducing Q-ships with concealed deck guns, illegally arming merchant ships, and ordering captains to evade and ram U-Boats that surfaced. The Wilson administration should have objected more forcefully to the Royal Navy’s blockade in 1914 as it was clearly illegal under international law.
=====
I am looking into who made that decision and instances of German vessels (U-boats?) stopping and searching civilian ships, but am confused as to how a captain may both evade and ram U-boats. A few interim quotes from the Lusitania chapter of my book,Winston Churchill, Myth and Reality. I will gladly forward this chapter with endnotes upon request:
–
(1) Captain Schwieger of U-20 was given this description of what he sighted: “Either the Lusitania or the Mauretania [her identical sister], both armed cruisers used for trooping.” That was inaccurate. Lusitania did have 12 small gun emplacements but no guns were fitted, so she was not an “armed cruiser.” The Germans and others had examined her in New York; had they found mounted guns they would have demanded she be interred. They never did, and 109 witnesses at the British and American inquiries saw no sign of guns. Nor were troops aboard. (2) “Another claim, that the ship carried a huge cargo of guncotton, the detonation of which blew the bottom out, is also pure fantasy,” wrote M.R. Dow. “The amount of explosive claimed actually amounts to what was a very high percentage of explosives delivered to the Western Front.” (3) No one has denied she carried bullets. The manifest lists 173 tons of rifle cartridges and unarmed shrapnel shells, not much in a 32,000-ton ship. American law apparently forbade only munitions considered a hazard to the safety of passengers. (4) The Germans’ best argument that Lusitania was a ship of war was an order by the British Admiralty for merchant vessels to ram U-boats, but their main line of defense was speed, not ramming. At flank speed of 28 knots, Lusitania was three times as fast as a submerged U-boat, and nearly twice as fast as one on the surface. By slowing down, she made herself a target. —RML
“The nearly century-old debate about whether the passenger liner Lusitania was transporting British war munitions when torpedoed by a German U-boat is over. Physical evidence of just such a cargo has been recovered from the wreck.” —”Lusitania’s Secret Cargo,” Archaeological Institute of America, 2009.
–
Our article addresses the myth that Churchill purposely set up the ship for sinking, not whether she was carrying munitions. In fact we stated: “It was well known during the First World War that the British were shipping arms on passenger liners.” The article you supplied states that divers found shell cartridges, which is in keeping with what we have long known. Please read the comments of historian David Stafford, quoted above. —Eds.
Captain Turner admitted on the witness stand that he had received secret orders from the British Admiralty, which he would not speak about at the inquest.
Why did the British Navy search the wreck looking for something else not munitions.
–
Not sure what you’re asking. Controversy over munitions has gone on a long time. A new article, going into more detail on the sinking and Churchill’s actions, will be posted shortly. Meanwhile read the excellent comments herein.