|
|
Post by rsm2ndbtnlf on Mar 4, 2009 23:37:33 GMT -8
Adam, what you mention in regards to the Germans sinking anything with a British or Allied flag aroung British waters, is confimed by the entries in the U-20's logs. The German Ambassidor in America stated the very same in the warning add that was placed next to the Lusitanias sailing information in the tabloids.
The Mauritania was also torpedoed, but she was then a troopship, so a very lagitimate target.
Seph
|
|
|
|
Post by oskar2ndchev on Mar 5, 2009 9:00:07 GMT -8
Make no mistake about it, Germany was gambling big time by instituting the unrestricted submarine policy, weighing the potential for severely crippling the British economy and reducing its food supply vs alienating the US and driving them into the war on the Allied side. In the end, the Germans rolled the dice and lost on that front.
Bear in mind, even as late as early1917, it was far from a foregone conclusion that the US would enter the war on the Allied side and there were large segments of the American population who were opposed to any intervention in the war. The German decision to go to unrestricted submarine warfare went a long way in reversing this opposition.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsm2ndbtnlf on Mar 5, 2009 10:10:17 GMT -8
By the time the US declared war, France, Germany and Great Britain were running very low on reserves. I have read in official British reports that 16.year olds were due to become drafed in the latter part of 1918 if the war continued at the rate of attrition it was at.
German could not afford to wait on the decision of 'if or when' America would enter the war, and gambled upon America staying isolationist. Verdun was intended to bleed France white, as this location was a matter of national pride for the French. As it turned out, both sides lost around a 1/2 million men in the fight before it fizzled to a close with no movement on either side.
As you say.. the Kaiser flipped the wrong coin!
If we try really hard enough, I'm certain that some of us would be able to answer and prove certain points that were not and have not been very clear. However, that would take years, and there have been scholars who have tried and failed in their lifetimes to do just that. If a point is proven.. fine, it will add that little more interest to a certain situation. But it will not change the historical fact of the action happening as it did. The reasons why will be argued and debated about till doomsday.
The official Board of Enquirey at the time of the Lusitania's sinking, put forward that the ships captain was entirely at fault. The Liner would never have been torpedoed if he had carried out the recommended instructions of zig-zagging, and staying to a certain course, combined with steaming at a slower pace. Who knows what would have happened, or even if the Lusitania would have become a target much earlier that it did.. if the recommendations had been followed?
Seph
|
|
|
|
Post by rmli on Mar 5, 2009 11:55:30 GMT -8
Well, the Zimmerman telegram didn't do the Kaiser alot of good, either. An acquaintance of mine once told me that the Zimmerman telegram was actually a propaganda ploy originated by the British. I did not buy into his "story".
|
|
|
|
Post by oskar2ndchev on Mar 5, 2009 12:54:38 GMT -8
I've always wondered about the Zimmerman telegram myself- it's so blatant that you would have thought someone cooked it up. Apparently, it's genuine- talk about blunt!
But just to place it in perspective, it's not like people in Mexico were not hatching similar plans (they didn't need the Germans to encourage them there- there was enough home-grown). Just read "The Plan of San Diego"- it talked about Mexico re-conquering the Southwest, etc. Granted, it was cooked up by some real nut-jobs but it could have gotten more serious backing if it wasn't for the ongoing civil wars of the Mexican Revolution.
In fact, if one were to make some substitutions, "The Plan of San Diego" could easily be attributed to some of the more extreme "Mexican Nationalist" groups floating around today.
|
|
