Dead Wake by Erik Larson - October Book Club Online

[BarbStAubrey]

The Book Club Online is  the oldest  book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone.  We offer cordial discussions of one book a month,  24/7 and  enjoy the company of readers from all over the world.  Everyone is welcome.

October Book Club Online

Dead Wake
by Erik Larson

"Few tales in history are more haunting, more tangled with investigatory mazes or more fraught with toxic secrets than that of the final voyage of the Lusitania, one of the colossal tragedies of maritime history. It’s the other Titanic, the story of a mighty ship sunk not by the grandeur of nature but by the grimness of man." - ~ New York Times.

DISCUSSION SCHEDULE:

Week 1: to "Lusitania a Cavalcade of Passengers" p.89
Week 2: to "Lusitania: Helpful Young Ladies: p.191
Week 3: to "All Points Rumor p. 279
Week 4: to end p.353

For Your Consideration:

1. which of the passenger's experiences during the sinking made the most impression on you?

2. Some passengers reported a calm, almost idyllic experience while waiting for rescue. have you ever experienced anything like that in a situation of danger?

3. How much do you believe Schweiger was affected by what he had done? How much was Turner?

4. What were the political reasons for blaming Turner? which decisions of his did they question? Do you agree?

5. What do you think of Larson's explanation for the second explosion? Was it what sank the Lusitania?

6. Were you surprised at the timing of the US entering the war? Why has the entry become linked to the sinking of the Lusitania? Did Wilson deserve blame for being so slow?

7. Now that we've finished the book, overall what are the strengths and  weaknesses of Larson's account. If you've read other accounts, have they added significantly to his?

"It took more persistance than I thought, but I finally found it: dead wake is "the trail of a fading disturbance in the water"- PATH

Discussion Leaders:  Ella & JoanK

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[BarbStAubrey]

Wow - We said it but did not realize how significant our realization - not only was the sinking of the Lusitania a blip in the overall plan it was like half a pawn.

What Germany really wanted was Belgian - Germany had been effectively negotiating treaties with some of the smaller European nations but the leaders had drilled into the heads of the German people that England was the kingpin and cornerstone of the 'enemy' coalition. Therefore, a separate peace with England would be tantamount to a general peace which would mean peace with Belgian.

And so even the war with England was a chess tactic getting rid of a pawn called Britain. Germany felt superior with its fleet of zeppelins.  They expected to drop bombs in continuous raids to conquer Britain. The plan included keeping England in a constant state of terror which would be achieved by the submarines that Germany saw as a secondary less dependable war instrument since some of the submarines were still petrol driven with only about a third of the fleet able to be active at any one time. The subs were to create a blockade around Britain by sinking without warning enemy merchant and passenger vessels and send torpedoes into neutral vessels. 

The idea was to so shock the Brits that they would give up plus, the Germans saw themselves in the right since Britain thumbed its nose at International maritime law.

Germany knew from Morganthau, who was in Constantinople that Wilson wanted peace and that was the crux of his policy. Peace was talked about in 1914 but Germany pulled out all safeguards and guarantees on both the east and western fronts - since I have not yet read in our book about Wilson I think I better stop here until I learn what both books say. Bottom line all this about Britain was to get them out of the picture because Germany wanted Belgian and Germany was only torpedoing vessels to keep the Brits in a state of terror because they really expected to win using the Zeppelins dropping bombs. 

And so, the Lusitania was a pawn to creating terror among the Brits and England was a pawn to the German propaganda that had German's believing England was the cornerstone of their enemies and so German leaders had to play the game keeping England as an important target to take down in order to capture the Queen of the chess board, Belgian.

[ANNIE]

BarbStAubrey,  we are both finding good and bad about the Germans and WWI!  I read somewhere that we called Germany when it first became Germany, "The United States of Germany"  thinking that they were very much like us when we founded our country.  I was amazed to read that the wanted to sign up to fight for the Union.  So, at one time, we both thought well of each other OR WE were being bamboozled by Germany. 

This becomes so involved that like you, I am reading more than one book about Wilson's decision to go to war.  What do you think about the story of the Germans planning to invade us in 1898?  Where did all those good feelings toward us go?

I do not think that Captain Turner was remiss in any of his actions concerning closing the windows.  But, I do think that those ship builders who left the dining room knowing that the windows were open weren't doing the right thing either.  It just seems that the confusion after the torpedo hit was so unexpected that no one who was in their right mind knew what should be done.

[BarbStAubrey]

Annie I think it had nothing to do with good or bad feelings toward the US - in fact I am seeing more and more we attach emotions to national aggression that I am now seeing it is more about what they aggressive nation wants to achieve and just like a game of chess they plot how they can achieve their aims.

The average person may have feelings of loyalty, love of homeland and sees their life and death tied into emotional protection but, over and over we see how easy it is for a group of leaders to instill hatred, fear and self-preservation into the population. I now think that the two things are separate - why Wilson or Roosevelt or even current presidents go to war in response to an aggressor has nothing to do with why the American people get behind the decision and go to war. Once war is decided than out comes the coercion that may or may not depend upon propaganda that turns a nation into a war machine.

There is a great book Coercion: Why We Listen To What "They" Say by Douglas Rushkoff that shows how none of us are immune. The very folks who think they are too smart to fall for it are easily persuaded as their smarts are turned back on them. Peer pressure, pollsters, public-relations consultants tick the use of various words that these skewed results become part of the news cycle along with ticking the words used to tell the news - for instance describing an auto accident as one vehicle crashing into another versus one vehicle slamming into another gives a more aggressive picture of what happened.

One of the statements that opens the book Germany's Aims in the First World War says, that WWI was the first war in which an entire nation was involved - the economy of the nation was put behind the war and becomes government directed - During war the leader of a nation becomes almost a dictator controlling public opinion and individual expression. Ideology controls so that a nation at war becomes more fascist in its totalitarianism. And so if a leader want more power governing a docile nation all he has to do is start a war.

What I see just as there is not one person or group to blame for the sinking of the Lusitania - with Stewards in charge of seeing to it that portholes where closed and passengers opening them again after a Steward may have come by to inform them to keep them closed and with unskilled sailors aboard only because the seasoned sailors were in short supply so too we can see the Lusitania as an allegory for any ship of state as its national history and commercial success believes it can withstand an assault.   

I am seeing that the shock and astonishment learning the fate of the Lusitania must have been as the shock and astonishment that fueled our reaction to 9/11 - we were immune - we have two mighty oceans on either side - we are the most powerful influence with the greatest commercial success in the world - all the greats that could be applied to the Lusitania with it's 4 magnificent smoke stacks - we were torpedoed by planes in the air and the Lusitania was torpedoed from under the water. I already had my TV on after the first plane hit the twin towers and till the last minute I could not believe the second plane would actually pierce the second tower. I thought why is that plane so close? - are they accessing the damage? - the sky was so blue it was like a Disney cartoon which reminds me of the comments in Larson's book quoting the passengers actually watching the Torpedo in the water heading for the ship.

I am sure death on the Lusitania was similar to death in the towers - if you chose to go up versus down - if someone came to help you - if someone knew another way down, and so with getting off that sinking ship. At least there were not scores of children in the towers.

As to our going to war after 9/11 we still do not know if we fought a war in retaliation or that the aggression of these mostly Saudi men was ever on target. But the success of instilling fear in the US population has been overwhelming. Only now 10 years later and on facebook not the TV news we are learning of a large armada that whisked survivors from lower Manhattan - how many other acts of American bravery and ingenuity are dead news stories as the fear engine has been keeping this country on edge.   

[JoanK]

Tomorrow, we start the end of the book. The new questions are in the heading.

[PatH]

I agree that Captain Turner can't be blamed for the open portholes.  He had given the order for the stewards to close them, and everything we read suggests he kept a pretty taut ship, so he could expect orders to be obeyed.  A captain on the bridge of a sinking ship can't go around checking for open portholes.

[ginny]

I like the new questions and I like thinking about them too, so am glad they were put up early.


1. which of the passenger's experiences during the sinking made the most impression on you?

There were two and hard to pick between, but the one that affected me most ...you'll laugh at me.

The upside down passengers, unnamed and dead, whose life jackets held them in an "undignified" position that they would have been embarrassed in life to be showing. That's all the identification they got: their mistake.

Think about that a minute.

Imagine putting on something which is supposed to save you and which in fact insists on killing you. You bob to the surface and the thing insists on turning you upside down. You have to struggle against IT because it insists on turning you into the water. You're off the ship and not sucked into the downpull and you want to swim for shore or a lifeboat but it's cold and  you're tiring and instead of holding you UP, it insists on turning you over into the water, and you have to struggle against it and the waves and your own tiredness. So you give up and it drowns you and all anybody can say is you'd be embarrassed to be hind end up.

I can't get it out of my mind.

[Ella Gibbons]

Thanks, GINNY, for your post.  Sad, sad,  - if that incident was in a movie we would laugh at it, wouldn't we?  Today, we all know exactly what a life jacket is, what it looks like, how to  put one on, why do we know that?  I'm just sure we all do - the movies?

I want to comment on what BARBARA posted though before I get to the questions.  This statement:

Germany felt superior with its fleet of zeppelins.  They expected to drop bombs in continuous raids to conquer Britain. The plan included keeping England in a constant state of terror which would be achieved by the submarines that Germany saw as a secondary less dependable war instrument 

Did those zeppelins succeed at dropping any?  Or did the manufacture of planes take over?  When I read that I thought of the zeppelin that sits above our stadium during OSU football games.  Such a quiet, big, substance in the sky. 

And this statement:  "Bankers and Industrial leaders more than  Wilhelm II, who wanted this enlarged Germany that placed Germany as "the" superior race and on an equal footing with England and Russia.   That statement reminds me of President Eisenhower's statement he made after retirement and before he died to the effect that America should beware of the military and industrial might.   They profit from war.

[Ella Gibbons]

The chapter entitled RUMOR on page 279 begins our final week of the discussion.   So much to absorb.

Hard to believe that an American Consulate was situated above a bar in Queenstown, Ireland, but easy to believe this was the first place that learned of the sinking of the Lusitania.  She went down 20 miles from the Old Head of Kinsale near Queenstown.

PROTECT SHIPS AT ALL COSTS.  DO NOT GO TO THE AID OF A SINKING SHIP OR PASSENGERS

This is what I read throughout several chapters.  Hard to believe.  Here was the Juno, the fastest ship available at Queenstown - she was not sent to recover passengers.  Ships are more important than drowning men, women and children. 

What are your thoughts?

[bellamarie]

Barb,  All excellent points, I agree with your entire post.  And to add to it, I would say once a decision has been made either way, the media begins to sway the public one way or the other.  No matter how intelligent we are, no matter how informed we are, we can be persuaded by emotions from time to time.  I mean we are only human.  I like your comparison to the Twin Towers and the Lusitania, indeed we were all as shocked then as the passengers were the day the torpedo hit the ship.

I agree we can not blame Captain Turner for the portholes not being closed.  He has some blame for other things involved in the sinking of the ship, but I can say I think he did the best he could with the information he was being given that morning, to save the ship from a torpedo hitting them.

I simply can not understand the reasoning for not sending the Juno to help save passengers.  i just shake my head at a lot of policies the government makes and stands by.  Like not sending help to the four Americans in Benghazi when calls came in???  You would think we would learn over the years, disasters and deaths.

[JoanK]

I thought of those upside down people too. Now, life jacket drills are standard on all ships, but I guess it took a tragedy for us to realize how important that is.

 Ah, zeppelins. Strange to remember they were once thought of as the technology of the future. The Hindenburg disaster put an end to that. Now they are window dressing for football games.

I live near where one of the Goodyear blimps docks and see it all the time passing by. One day, I'm going to pay the $100 and take a ride.

[PatH]

Oooh.  Can I come?

[Ella Gibbons]

I wouldn't go up in one if they gave free rides. 

[Ella Gibbons]

History WWI zeppelins:  http://www.history.com/news/londons-world-war-i-zeppelin-terror 

[Ella Gibbons]

Schwieger did what any trained soldier, sailor, pilot does in time of war; when your country is at war.  I don't think we can fault him for doing his duty; our soldiers and sailors were doing the same when we entered the war.  War is hell and I will never understand why two countries cannot sit down with translators and iron out their differences.   COMPROMISE IS NOT A DIRTY WORD.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

[ginny]

Today, we all know exactly what a life jacket is, what it looks like, how to  put one on, why do we know that?  I'm just sure we all do - the movies?

hahaha I guess I need to watch more movies because I'm not at all sure that I do know despite having been shown twice on cruisers (not at all on the giant ferry to Crete),  and about a million times on airplanes.  One is inflated, and one is not when you get them.

Looks so simple when they or the cute movie does it. Thing is full of levers. Now don't pull THAT lever !!!  That inflates the vest.  Wait till you get off first. If the vest does not inflate, then do XXX. You can top it off with your handy little blow pipe here. (Image of man happily blowing into a straw connected to the vest).  Here is your whistle. That serves as your flashlight.  Nothing to it. Don't be wearing high heels (does anybody anymore?) on the slide, take shoes off, you'll puncture the slide, you'll cause a log jam on the slide.  Leave your belongings behind. I have never seen one which has a strap between the legs. If you are stretching up your hands and you are particularly skinny (which I am not)  and you have not fastened it tight enough can it slip off? Could the blow suffered when you jumped  into the water feet first  force it off? We are all familiar with the bathing suit lost when diving, how about a bulky life jacket put on in a moment of panic and then hitting the water?

I can't conceive, I really can't conceive how a person putting on a life jacket could end up rump up in the air.  It seems particularly unfair and incongruous the way these disaster things often really are.

Oh well. We can pretend WE would be different and I'm sure some of you would be.  In my case, I just have to hope the boat stays afloat and the plane stays in the air.

Super book discussion!

[PatH]

I'd love to see what those life jackets were like.  The life jackets I've worn for sailing would be hard to put on wrong; they're the shape of a bulky down vest.

The Lusitania jackets were designed to be forceful about holding your head out of water, so presumably they were top-light and bottom-heavy, and if put on upside down would forcefully hold your bottom up.

Studies have shown that people think they would behave better in a crisis than they actually do. 

[PatH]

Oooh.  Here's an actual Lusitania life jacket.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/11483860/Lusitania-life-loss-legacy-New-exhibition-marks-centenary-of-disaster.html?frame=3238684

It's part of an interesting slide show including a cabin interior, the dining room, a deck scene, etc.

[Shelby girl]

I couldn't put the book down.  I can't believe the ship went down in 18 minutes, yet it took me two hours to read about it.
I could almost hear the screams and the noise of the ship.  The many bodies, especially of the children, is a haunting description.  It's a wonder anyone survived.

[BarbStAubrey]

Fabulous site PatH with lots of photos I have not seen in other places on the internet - looks like there is a significant memorial to the Lusitania in Liverpool where the propeller from the Lusitania has been made into a monument.

And then this bit under his photo - "Joseph Parry, 26, was an able-bodied seaman aboard Lusitania who survived the sinking. He and Leslie Morton picked up survivors from the water onto their collapsible boat and ferried them to rescue vessels. They rescued approx. 100 people from the water. Parry and Morton were awarded the Silver Board of Trade Medal for Gallantry in Saving Lives at Sea."   

[PatH]

Hi, Shelby Girl, good to see you back.  Yes, a really long 18 minutes.

[bellamarie]

These last chapters are incredibly emotional to read.  Imagining those begging for help, wondering if others will come to save them, floating in the water looking up to the sky imagining death is nearby, having to hand your baby to a stranger, looking for you lost loved ones.  Oh it just goes on and on.  My heart went out to the passengers, and I must say I felt sad for Captain Turner, he in no way did anything wrong to cause the ship to be in harm's way.  He tried his best to understand those messages and react accordingly. 

Ella, 

Schwieger did what any trained soldier, sailor, pilot does in time of war; when your country is at war.  I don't think we can fault him for doing his duty; our soldiers and sailors were doing the same when we entered the war.

I have to disagree with you, I fault him for murdering innocent passengers.  He did not have to torpedo the Lusitania, knowing it was a passenger ship. They were not a threat to him.   

"On Monday, May 10, the coroner's jury issued its findings; that the submarine's officers and crew and the emperor of Germany had committed "willful and wholesale murder."  pg. 469

In all, Lord Mersey heard testimony from thirty-six witnesses, including passengers, crew, and outside experts.  At the conclusion of the inquiry, Mersey laid blame entirely on the U-boat commander.

There is much blame to pass around as we discussed earlier and the chapter Blame sure does cover many points of blame, as well as cover ups.  Ultimately, Schweiger made the decision knowing full well it was a passenger ship.  I believe even though he was shocked at the devastation, he also was proud of his success in sinking the Lusitania. 

In April 1917, Kptlt. Walter Schweiger was given command of a new submarine, U-88, larger than U-20, and with twice the number of torpedoes.  A few months later, on July 30, he received the German navy's highest award, a pretty blue cross with a French name, Pour le Merite, nicknamed the Blue Max.  At the time he was only the eighth U-boat commander to receive one, his reward for having sunk 190,000 gross tons of shipping.  The Lusitania alone accounted for 16 percent of the total. 

Ironically, Schweiger steered his boat into a British minefield on September 5, 1917.  He nor his crew survived, and the submarine was never found.  Room 40 recorded the loss with a small notation in red: "Sunk."

War is war, and when we are at war there are no guarantees innocent civilians will not get killed.  There are casualties, and the Lusitania sad to say, was a casualty.

[PatH]

Jonathan, too bad.

[JoanK]

SHELBY GIRL: great you're still with us. Check out our ongoing discussions by clicking on the arrow on the "jump to" line above this box.

NOW I understand. I can easily see putting that lifebelt on upside down.

[bellamarie]

PatH.,  Thank you for the site of pics.  Looking at that lifejacket I can see how you could put in on incorrectly. 

[Ella Gibbons]

Hi Selby Girl!  Happy you are with us.

Thanks PatH for the image of the life jacket - you  have to take time to tie it on, it just fits around the waist, am I correct?  That's what it looks like.

Ginny, you are talking about an airplane vest?  I have always listened and watched that stewardess explain what to do in this/that situation; never paid much attention and never lifted up my seat cushion to act as a life preserver or something.  I have an idea those on the Lusitania were as confident as myself.    Did they know that munitions were onboard?

Did Schweiger know?  I have gotten that figured out yet.  And if the ship was carrying munitions was it therefore a legitimate target for the enemy?  Were they in the war zone?  I must read more carefully.

Was the absence of an escort  a conspiracy to get the USA into the war?

What do you think?

[Ella Gibbons]

The latest in life jackets:  http://www.go2marine.com/docs/mfr/stearns/inflatable/inflatables.shtml

This is the kind we had on our 26 foot boat in Lake Erie for years; they were never used but they were in sight ready to grab.  Even though I neverliked water, never learned to swim, I was taught to fish Lake Erie when I got married and spent weeks and weeks there with friends.  I had faith in my husband, a former navy fellow.

[ginny]

Why, Pat! You are a miracle worker! There the life jacket IS, the only one, it says,  filled with cork. CORK!!!

The illustration makes it look obvious, like a chef's apron, with that loop at the top to put over one's head and the other strap to bind it to the body. That would seem quite difficult to get wrong.  But if the two straps were not half  attached as the one on top indicates,  as if the top of an apron, and if the straps were both loose,  and sewn with a tread on the middle of the jacket to be applied when worn, I can see how one could put that particular life jacket  on upside down by mistake, and not know it was wrong. Straps and ties  in strange places..  Panic and screaming. THANK you for putting that in here!

Ella is right, those aren't anything like what she's shown or what I recall from my own recent trips.

I wanted to take something away from these two tragedies.   I wanted to learn something personally useful for the future from the awfulness of  the Lusitania so long ago and the recent Concordia, but now that the actuality  of the Lusitania  life jacket has been exposed, and possibly could not happen again, (since I don't know the stats on modern life jacket failure and perhaps that's just as  well), what stands out for me as a lesson  is individual initiative.  The passenger who was turned away at her  lifeboat station and who crossed  on her own initiative instead of staying there as told, through the entire ship to get to another boat. The passengers who were found dead still at their stations (Concordia) still waiting,  as they were  told. The passengers on  both ships who jumped into the water and survived, but I bet quite a few who did that, didn't. The fact that if the ship is angling up,  lifeboats cannot launch, go to the other side. The fact that the lifeboats themselves can smash back into the ship....

No I don't think even ONE passenger had the slightest idea munitions were aboard the ship, what a good question. How could they have known, or Schweiger either? Did it say they did?

The bit about some of the passengers upon waking or going to bed thinking "submarine,"  I don't think can have too much credence as evidence,  because when we went to California, years ago,  I did the same thing about "earthquake!" We had gone right after the one in LA, remember the bridge, the overpass for the (was it an interstate?) which was just left up and cut in two for a long time?

After I saw that  San Francisco held no charms for me. I could not WAIT to get out of there. Every day and night was full of fear.  We were driving up the entire coast, that famous road, to Washington State with side stops, a fabulous journey.  Every day I was on fire to leave San Francisco and get OUT, just get OUT,  and be "safe."

But talking about initiative, where did we go? We drove right up on the major fault line all the way up, ALL the way up to  Washington.  And we didn't know it then. We laugh about it now. That's what I MEAN about initiative and trying to make good decisions.

I am not sure what mine would have been on the Lusitania, now.

I AM curious about the "four funnel" business. Was that the only ship on the ocean with four funnels?

What a good discussion!

[ginny]

Uh oh. Personal Flotation Devices and when they don't work: the part nobody tells you: written by By CDR Kim Pickens, U. S. Coast Guard Reserve
Operation BoatSmart Project Officer

Note that the life jackets on airlines are the self inflatable variety mentioned below.

"Wearing a PFD that turns the unconscious victim face up is one way to avoid that
problem, and, unfortunately, most of the more comfortable PFDs-- those labeled as
Type III or some Type V PFDs – will not turn an unconscious victim face up, at least not consistently.  What most such PFDs will do (all but manually-activated inflatables) is bring the person, whether unconscious or not, back up to the surface, which enables those nearby to quickly bring the victim to safety.  Unfortunately, it sometimes happens (not very often) that no one is nearby to help the unconscious victim, and the end result is drowning. "




http://www.usps.org/eddept/files/other_20_handout.pdf

[JoanK]

If you scroll down Ella's "the latest in life jackets" cite, you see the next version of the Lusitania life belts.

WAS THE SECOND EXPLOSION CAUSED BY MUNITIONS? Read on to see what Larson says!

[Ella Gibbons]

Personal Flotation Devices and when they don't work: the part nobody tells you:[/color] - Ginny

Stay off boats and airplanes?  You know, we won't. We all take chances with life, with living, we could fall today, and die from the fall. 

On page 323, second paragraph, are all the questions about the disaster that were never answered by Britain's Wreck Commission, under Lord Mersey;  questions we have asked here in the discussion.   Too numerous to list here but read them over and see if you think you could have done any better.

So many secrets here!   So many reasons to blame!

AFTER READING THE CHAPTER ON BLAME, DID YOU REACH ANY CONCLUSIONS?

[BarbStAubrey]

Hmm I am not understanding 'blame' - all the participants of this event are dead - do we really need to put the dead on trial?

As to the concept the Lusitania should not have sunk allowing so many to die - we all die - we pray for an easy, peaceful death - and reading this makes us aware that death can come in unexpected ways -

And so why are these deaths singled out as à cause de writing a dramatic and shocking history when we know thousands die in accidents and in the upcoming war and those deaths could also be told as a dramatic and shocking tale - What is it that captures our attention other then it being headline news in its day -

I am guessing it is just why folks would be more comfortable assigning blame - that way our entire way of life since the first use of fire, advancing the products of our hands and minds can continue -

If we blame these products, ships that with all their steel, engines and smoke stacks are still vulnerable or that newer ways of administering explosives are only going to be used by those with no conscience we can allude ourselves to thinking that advanced technology is the answer to security guaranteeing us a peaceful death if it is just handled by the responsible, caring, noble, just and peace loving person regardless, an imposing ship of steel or a building of steel or a silo that will lift off rockets to the moon all that have proven steel wonders are as vulnerable to the cause of death as a man falling in his own home - that seeking security makes for a great insurance advertisement - and in addition for every new wonder of advancement created there are equally as many developing new and greater means of destruction.

In fact what I see is in our quest for developing and manufacturing these wonders, we have created global warming so that we all participate in our own death since, there is no way to earn a living without our purchase and use of products that create our own demise through poisoning the environment down to the food we eat.   

And so I ponder, who to blame - our desire to create new and better wonders that we think are going to provide steel clad protection and greater comfort easing the demands of work - the idea that there is a security that will allow us to assume normal is a peaceful death - that individuals will always be above reproach if something unforeseen and unexpected happens especially, anyone in a position of leadership - that every nation will be satisfied and not desire more protection, power, wealth, land, or even the desire to bring protection to those who choose to live elsewhere who remain citizens -

The litany of effects from our individual hubris goes on and on - that our collective hubris would affect the great religions so they will no longer war between themselves and when the new creations are developed all possible affects on the environment and mankind with be known in advance and if there is a negative affect it will be set aside rather than be used to acquire an outcome that is the result of the creativity.   

I am thinking of the reduction in the Golden Eagle - whose to blame - the owners of the giant windmills that are built on hills where birds rather than people live - the oil and gas folks who polluted our air and water so that another source of energy was created - the folks like you and I who still drive vehicles using oil and gas or buy products that if nothing else need a by product of oil and gas to maintain a manufacturing site.

On and on it goes so that I just cannot see placing blame on any individual who are as prone to imperfection as the steel wonders we place so much faith in doing a job. Maybe it was the ship itself that was imperfect without a strong enough hull to withstand a torpedo that at the time it was built I doubt any designer foresaw such an implement of war used against this powerful ship.

This entire story only reminds me of the affects and future blame we try to place on a happening so traumatic we have an idiom for it called 'having the rug pulled out from under you' - no one walks on a lovely carpet thinking is will be the cause of their pain. Most folks want to protect themselves so they do not rush to help the fallen before assuring they too will not experience a similar fall or be a target for the unknown.

Yep, I have a problem with 'blame'  ah so...

[bellamarie]

I think as far as who is to blame, there is no definitive conclusion.  Too many people were involved or NOT involved enough to lay specific blame.  Ultimately, Schwieger made the final decision to torpedo the Lusitania.  Larson indicates in this book that Schweiger did not know for certain it was the Lusitania before he ordered it to be torpedoed, yet there are many other authors of articles and books that say he indeed knew it was the well known Lusitania, that could not be mistaken for any other ship.

If there is still controversy today, after all these years of information and secret cover ups, our discussion group is surely not going to be able to come to a conclusion when many experts have not.  We all have our own personal feelings after reading this book, and will have to be contented with just that.  For me what I take away from reading this book is to pay close attention to my surroundings if and when I am going to travel.  If there is war going on, or unrest in an area I am not going to put myself at risk by traveling directly in that area.  Yes, I will continue to travel, and get up out of bed each morning and pray I don't fall out and break my neck and die instantly.  Yes, I know at any given moment my life could end for any given reason, but.......I will make the best choices I know, to protect myself from clear and present danger.

Blame is for those who need closure, for those who want accountability, for those who are entitled to a compensation for the loss of their loved ones or valuables lost, for those who think it will help them to learn from what went wrong and possibly prevent it from happening again.  Blame can be unjustly assigned to the wrong person or cause, because you can only ascertain it from the information provided, hidden information can change the entire realm of blame.  I'm okay not needing to blame one particular person in this tragedy, because war tends to make people do things they can not understand.  So I won't begin to try to understand it myself. 

A synonym for war is "conflict"  I see conflict not only in physically fighting, but in mental conflict in a person's mind when engaging in war.  No one is the same person coming out of battle, as they were going in.

[Jonathan]

Thanks, Pat, for the 'too bad'. And wasn't that last game a close one. Thanks, too, for the link to the Lusitania pictures. It's easy to see that many would have trouble with that life jacket. What an horrific experience that must have been.

Having a problem with guilt in a time of war. A good reply, Bellamarie, to a thorny problem, Barb.

Can there be any doubt that blame is an essential in a civilized society concerned with ideals, morality, conscience and liability? But in wartime, and May 7 was eight months into the 'great war', with horrendous loss of life, restraint goes out the window. Winning the war is everything. Naturally, the German policy of 'schrecklichkeit' could be seen as terrorism by its victims. And 'Lusitania' became a great rallying cry.

And then there was President Wilson's reply: A man can be too proud to fight. Is that an option?

[bellamarie]

Jonathan, 

Can there be any doubt that blame is an essential in a civilized society concerned with ideals, morality, conscience and liability?  But in wartime, and May 7 was eight months into the 'great war', with horrendous loss of life, restraint goes out the window.

Well, said.

Jonathan, 

A man can be too proud to fight. Is that an option?

It was Wilson's option, until it wasn't. 

On 10 May 1915, US President Woodrow Wilson gave what is known as the “Too Proud to Fight Speech” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. What is not commonly mentioned is that this speech was given at a citizen naturalization ceremony, and is properly titled, “Americanism and the Foreign Born.”

http://www.rmslusitania.info/primary-docs/too-proud-to-fight/

Here is a excellent article breaking down Wilson's speech, it is worth reading.  It shows he was a religious man, and while speaking to the  group of immigrants he was pointing out that Americans had to do better, be better, use restraint and democracy rather than be like other nations who choose to use war to solve issues.

http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=comssp

Excerpts:
Woodrow Wilson’s speech “Too Proud to Fight” was delivered in the
Philadelphia Convention Hall in honor of 4,000 newly naturalized American citizens.
Nearly 15,000 people had gathered around the hall to hear the president speak on that
balmy May Day. This speech redefined the American ideal by encouraging immigrants to
take on the American dream, and to become a people who strive for liberty and justice.

This speech was also just days after the sinking of the USS Lusitania, and although he did
not directly address the attack, “The audience did not hesitate to read the application of
the statement” (APR 295). Woodrow Wilson excited the audience with his ability to be
the leader of the masses, and to be a defender of the American neutrality. He felt that is
was America’s job to be the leading and guiding example for human rights and defender of democracy across the world (Levin 35).

[JoanK]

Very interesting, BELLAMARIE.

[Ella Gibbons]

GREAT COMMENTS, THANK YOU ALL, SO FUN, SO INTERESTING TO COME IN AND READ YOUR THOUGHTS.

Personally, I think "blame" perhaps is the wrong word, but "trial" is not.  We learn from trials, we learn from history, we learn what not to do and to do in the future.  We learned when the Titanic sunk to have enough lifeboats on board for all, which the Lusitania did. 

There were two trials here to ascertain what happened and no definite conclusion, it seems to me, other than Germany and England were at war and the submarine was doing what it was ordered to do, kill the enemy.  Larson says it was "a chance confluence of forces." 

President Wilson "leaked" the Zimmerman telegram to the press.  For what purpose?  Do you think the government does this at times?  Can you recall an instance when it has happened? 

[JoanK]

"Can you recall an instance when it has happened?"

In the 60s, I remember reading in the NY Times an article very critical of Castro's regime in Cuba. Cuba wasn't in the news at all at the time, and I remember thinking "something's about to happen there". A few days later there was the Bay of Pigs invasion.

[JoanP]

Came in this afternoon bursting with thoughts roused by the first questions up top - especially the very first one. Was also excited to read Shelby Girl's commen about Larson's "haunting description" following the ship's sinking - especially those innocent babies.

But then I was distracted after reading the comments here regarding BLAME - or rather the inadvisability of assigning blame.

Let's talk about Captain Turner's "trial," Ella.

Immediately following  the disaster, days after, Captain Turner was recognized as a hero, who stayed with the ship till the end.

Weren't you shocked to read how the Admiralty was determined to pin all of the blame on Captain Turner?  Do you understand that Churchill was leading the Admiralty in this effort?  Larson quotes Churchill - "We should pursue Captain Turner without check."  "With zeal," Larson says. 

He was accused of negligence, incompetence..." The Admiralty's soul had hardened against Turner."
"At no time did the Admiralty reveal what it knew about U-20's activities."  So the Admiralty (under Churchill) was prepared to prosecute Captain Turner to defend their secret?  I find Churchill diminished in this.
I know, who do I think I am.  This is war.  We should excuse this behavior.  Anything.

[JoanK]

I know. It's hard. the very things that politicians have to do to get elected or appointed to an office and stay there are the very things we don't like about them once the are in office.  I assume that Churchill was trying to deflect blame of the Admiralty for the very things we've been talking about.

I'm interested in the fact that the things they blamed him for are NOT the things we have mentioned: having shut down a stack, and going slower, and not sticking to the middle of the channel. What do you all think of those two things?