Lusitania

>>2818146
well yeah it had munitions on board

Are you implying with your filename that it wasn't a German U-boat at all? because thats stupid.

>2818150

This. The germans still hit it first.

>>2818150
This.

Also remember reading something about coal dust in the bunkers contributing to the explosions.

File: anglo4.jpg (22KB, 490x313px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 490x313px

>>2818170
That was the Anglo coverup story. Divers have found conclusive evidence that ammunitions were carried by the vessel.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97350149
>seven gleaming rounds of .303 ammunition, probably made by Remington in America and intended for the British Army. Ammunition that for decades British and American officials said didn't exist. Yet all around Andrews are mountains of jumbled rifle cartridges that glint like pirate's treasure in the robot's light.

>Gregg Bemis, the American venture capitalist who planned and paid for this expedition, says if they're lucky, the dive team could find as many as 4 million bullets.

People still believe in the innocence of the Anglo; Anglo propaganda was really good and is still effective.

>>2819182

It was still wrong to sink the ship, even if there were weapons onboard. Why didn't they just board the ship, search it, and then give the passengers a chance to reach lifeboats before sinking it?

>>2819353
Germans in America warned them to not board the liner. It had entered the 'war zone' anyway, so either the USA was just dumb (unlikely), or this was a joint British-American plan to involve the public in the war.

Another inside job,like the Maine?

First Spain, later Germany

God bless USA

>>2819361

Germans in America warned Germany not to follow the rules of war? When you sink a merchant vessel, you're supposed to give a warning so that people have time to get into lifeboats.

In February 1915, Germany boldly announced that all Allied ships would be sunk without warning. America was neutral at the time, but in late April, the Germans published a warning in American newspapers, specifically naming Lusitania. It read in part, “Travellers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone do so at their own risk.”

Lusitania had been designated as an “armed merchant cruiser” by the British, which meant it could be converted to a warship if necessary. It was deemed too large to be of use in combat, but it raised the issue of whether or not it was a legitimate military target

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-sunk-the-lusitania.html

>>2819381
I think they dropped that tactic when the merchant ships started firing on the U-Boats who surfaced

>>2818146
Eternal Anglo did it on purpose to gather sympathy from the USA. They knew full well what they were doing and they just did it anyway.

File: anglo3.jpg (26KB, 194x275px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 194x275px

>>2819361
The latter probably:
>Suspicions were also raised by the lack of rescue assistance by the British Navy. When the Lusitania transmitted its SOS signal, Vice-Admiral Sir Henry Coke dispatched every ship he had at his disposal including the cruiser Juno, the ship that had been ordered to abandon its convoy responsibilities. But soon after, in a bizarre turn of events, the Juno was ordered back to port by Admiral Lord Fisher without rescuing any passengers.

The anglo intentionally abandoned the Lusitania to increase casualties in order to draw support for American participation in WW1.

>>2819381
The Lusitania was not a merchnat ship.

File: 1489671234825.jpg (59KB, 501x504px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 501x504px

>>2819756
This is some next level jewry

>>2818146
Lusitania was actually the Titanic, while the Olympic sank in 1912

File: troller.jpg (487KB, 1200x974px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 1200x974px

>>2819381
>merchant vessel
It was obviously a trolling wessel.

>>2818146
Why didint the Germans honor America's right to sell weapons to their enemy?

Seriously though Germany would have been better off if they did, instead they stupidly drew America into the war.

>>2820138
Why didnt England honor America's right to sell weapons to Germany?

I thought that it was universal knowledge that the Lusitania exploded because it was carrying ammunition Underneath to sell to the British. The Germans announced they would check every ship for ammunition to the Americans- to which you all agreed. The Lusitania did not comply to a check (for obvious reasons). The Germans decided to follow the ship until it was close to land, and sink the ship at a distance close enough to save the lives of everyone on it. However, the Germans ended up shooting a pocket of ammunition, and the ship blew up several times.

There was literally no better way they could have handled it. America had chosen sides and the Lusitania sealed its fate.

>>2820172
In school we were taught the Germans sank the Lusitania for no apparent reason, making the Americans join the war
It has only been very recent that i learnt the sinking was a completely justified action

I have to admit the eternal anglo is very good at twisting the truth and propaganda

>>2819353
>Why didn't they just board the ship, search it, and then give the passengers a chance to reach lifeboats before sinking it?
Because that's not how submarine warfare works, it means giving the enemy navy a much better chance to hunt you down.

File: anglo2.jpg (335KB, 801x813px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 801x813px

>>2820172
Even Indy Neidel disbelieves the ammunition theory.
>>2820086
Never underestimate the Anglo.