PDA

View Full Version : semi ot...The Sinking of the Lusitania (1918)



bunkerratt
09-30-2010, 06:05 PM
The Sinking of the Lusitania, released in 1918, is an animated short film by American artist Winsor McCay. It features a short 12 minute explanation of the sinking of RMS Lusitania after it was struck by two torpedoes fired from a German U-boat. The film was one of many animated silent films published to create anti-German sentiment during World War I. McCay illustrated some 25,000 drawings for the production. The film is stylized as a documentary, informing viewers on details from the actual event, including a moment by moment recap, casualty list, and a list of prominent figures who were killed.


http://www.archive.org/details...ing_of_the_Lusitania (http://www.archive.org/details/Sinking_of_the_Lusitania)

bunkerratt
09-30-2010, 06:05 PM
The Sinking of the Lusitania, released in 1918, is an animated short film by American artist Winsor McCay. It features a short 12 minute explanation of the sinking of RMS Lusitania after it was struck by two torpedoes fired from a German U-boat. The film was one of many animated silent films published to create anti-German sentiment during World War I. McCay illustrated some 25,000 drawings for the production. The film is stylized as a documentary, informing viewers on details from the actual event, including a moment by moment recap, casualty list, and a list of prominent figures who were killed.


http://www.archive.org/details...ing_of_the_Lusitania (http://www.archive.org/details/Sinking_of_the_Lusitania)

Foehammer-1
09-30-2010, 06:47 PM
I saw a show on Discovery which said the Germans had only one torpedo remaining, and fired it with no hopes of sinking it. The ship may have been carrying contraband munitions, which exploded and sank it much faster than a torpedo would have. They also found some .303 rounds at the site of the wreck, I believe

Celeon999
10-01-2010, 02:21 AM
It is now widely acknowledged that the second explosion was the result of steam boilers blowing up. There was no second torpedo.

However, this theory is not fully supported by the accounts of three surviving stokers who declared under oath that Boiler room 1 and 2 were fully intact and without any presence of sea water when they left them after the torpedo strike.

Room 1 is believed to have been the place where the large explosion came from.

Additionaly, the survirors reported of not just one but two explosions after the initial torpedo strike.

One smaller followed by the large explosion that is believed to have been the boiler explosion in Room 1.

While it is possible that the first of these two was also a boiler explosion, there is no proof for that theory.

A much more detailed investigation of the wreck would be required which is hard to do as the Irish government declared the wreck a war grave in 1995. Thus ,any such investigation requires a special permit.

I would not be surprised if this decision was made due to political pressure from London. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

bunkerratt
10-01-2010, 06:23 AM
I have heard and read many views over the years ..I tend to lean in the direction the "coal dust" version of the explosion.

Kaleun1961
10-01-2010, 04:35 PM
I saw a documentary some time ago where a team dove [dived? BR, what is the correct term, dove or dived?] on the wreck and conducted one of those modern forensic investigations. I am firmly of the opinion that they nailed the cause, disrupted coal dust that detonated. Lusitania carried some rifle ammunition, but being smuggled as it were, there was no way the Germans could have known she was violating any rules of war beforehand. It's not as if she carried 5,000 tons of TNT.

bunkerratt
10-01-2010, 08:53 PM
dove or dived is pretty much on the mark either one ..some times we;ll say have you "did" this wreck or that one ...I concur on the coal dust ...also if i remember right i belive the .303 rnds were in crates labeled "butter" ? i could be wrong ...have to make a phone call on that...ok 15 mins later ...call made ...still unshure about that...she was also wide open to the sea port holes open water tight integerity was not set ...also at the risk of upsetting anybody...churchill was in the admirality and knew the sub was in the area and "failed to mention " to her about the sub ....so as soon as she took a list it was over and done ...

Celeon999
10-02-2010, 06:07 AM
Found this interesting bit in the wiki article about the Lusitania

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> On 10 June, just before the hearing, significant changes were made to the Defence of the Realm Act, which made it an offence to collect or publish information about the nature, use or carriage of 'war materials' for any reason.

Previously this had only been an offence if the information was collected to aid the enemy. This was used to prohibit discussion about the ships cargo.

The rifle cartridges carried by the Lusitania were mentioned during the case, Lord Mersey stating that "the 5,000 cases of ammunition on board were 50 yards away from where the torpedo struck the ship"

An additional hearing took place on 1 July at the insistence of Joseph Marichal who was threatening to sue Cunard for their poor handling of the disaster.

He testified that the second explosion had sounded to him like the rattling of machine gun fire and appeared to be below the second class dining room at the rear of the ship where he had been seated. Information about Marechal's background was sought out by the British government and leaked to the press so as to discredit him </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kaleun1961
10-02-2010, 12:56 PM
I know Churchill is regarded as a hero in the English world, and I generally concur, but he was also given to wild flights of fantasy and had to be reigned in from time to time. Sure, he was instrumental in saving the world in the 40's, but he also pulled some big boners, such as Gallipoli, trying to induce an invasion of the Balkans instead of Normandy and succeeding in seducing the Allies into an "easy" attack on the "soft underbelly" of the Axis in Italy. As the episode of "World at War" describes, it was a "Tough Old Gut." I wonder how the war would have turned out if instead of splitting their forces between Italy, Normandy and the landings in southern France the Allies threw everything ashore in France? Instead of five divisions landing and three airborne divisions dropping, perhaps they could have struck an even wider beach frontage simultaneously, and perhaps in 1943 instead of 1944. The post-war world may have looked vastly different than it did, without a divided Germany and a Cold War for the remainder of the century.

I have just finished reading "How Hitler Could Have Won World War II" by Bevin Alexander. In it he mentions how Churchill wanted to observe the D-Day landings from a ship close to shore and even put ashore the same day. Eisenhower tried to dissuade him, but Winston would not listen. Finally, the King told Churchill that he himself would go ashore with the infantry, the spectacle of which finally convinced him that perhaps the Prime Minister ought not to put himself so close to the action. A PM can still lead without actually feeling the bullets whizzing past his ears. As to the above book, I highly recommend it to fans of WW2. Hitler had many strategic possibilities open to him in the year between the fall of France and the invasion of Russia. Alexander shows how men such as Raeder and Rommel proposed plans that could have brought the Axis victory much more cheaply than Hitler's blundering into Russia in a frontal attack brought ultimate ruin. I have gamed the scenarios mentioned in the book and they always result in an Axis victory or a stalemate so locked that the Allies could never hope to win back what they lost, which would also be an Axis victory compared to what happened in 1945, with Germany and Russia splitting the continent, and Germany ultimately becoming the stronger power in the next few decades.