Simviation Forums

My other controversy theory I heard was that the Titanic was sunk by a German U-boat.  I only heard this briefly, and it could make sense since it was just before WWI.  Anyone know anymore about this?  (again this probably isn't true, just a theory)

Not heard that one before. First, I have no reason to doubt that Titanic collided with an iceberg. There were enough eye-witnesses to confirm that.

Second, unless it was a terrible accident what possible reason would a German U-Boat have for sinking an ocean liner in peacetime?

that's what confused me, but apparently the holes in the ship resemble a torpedo according to the experts

I really doubt that the Titanic was sunk by anything else then an ice berg.

Replace "experts" with "dunce who can't figure out history so he's trying to get famous this way" and you got a case.

Experts...

On par with saying a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon.

You want a real controversy?

How about this...

There has been some real belief amongst some folks that Titanic didn't hit an iceberg...or sink in 1912. These folks believe that the ship that was lost was Titanic's older sister Olympic...after a little sleight of hand by the White Star Line. The belief is that Olympic was so badly damaged in it's collision with HMS Hawke in 1911 that it could not be fully repaired...and that it switched places with Titanic so that a full claim could be made.

http://www.titanic-titanic.com/conspira ... eory.shtml

These folks believe that the ship that was lost was Titanic's older sister Olympic...after a little sleight of hand by the White Star Line.

Now that one I have heard before.

All these conspiracy BS mechants do my head in completely! Why can't they just accept the facts? By the way I was the 648th gunman on the grassy knoll

the Titanic was sunk by a German U-boat

WUAHAHA! Always the evil Krauts! Probably germans were hijacking the 9/11-planes, and Saddam has german ancestors.

it was just before WWI

No it wasnt. The Titanic collided with the iceberg the 14th of April 1912, well 2 years before WWI.

No it wasnt. The Titanic collided with the iceberg the 14th of April 1912, well 2 years before WWI.

Give it another hundred years and two years becomes "just before WW1" ..

The "submarine" conspiracy theory doesn't strike me as believable for several reasons:

I do not believe that the submarine technology of the time allowed for a European's submarine's operational are to extent to the western north Atlantic.

While there was a lot of sabre rattling going on (there was an effective naval arms race at the time), I do not believe that the overall political situation of the times would have sanctioned such an operation.  Submarines, at the time, were also viewed with suspicion, as being "ungentlemanly"  and more of a coastal defence weapon.

What absolute rubbish!

You also have to ask yourself what the Imperial German Navy would have been trying to acheive?  If they wanted to take an early U-boat across the Atlantic they would have done so with a huge fanfare and a great deal of publicity.  As Felix said there was an arms race going on at the time so an ocean going submercible would have been a definate boast.  In addition war was by no means inevitable in 1912, it was likely but not certain.  The IGN would have had no desire to sink a ship full of civillians.  We may also view the Gentlemanly conduct of early last century with raised eyebrows and chuckle now but at that time it was deadly serious.  A German officer would not have stooped to sinking a merchant vessel without warning when no state of war existed.  Let alone a vessel with Ladies on board.  Early in the war Submarines were required to surface and hail the master of the merchant ship that they were attacking.  The master was then given the chance to surrender and he and his crew would abandon ship.  The submarine would sink the boat and on occasion give the food and water to help them survive their ordeal.  The Surface commerce raiders operated in the same manner but would take the crew prisoner and drop them off in a neutral port before returning to Germany.

When the Lusitania was sunk(7th May 1915) it was after the announcement of unrestricted sea warfare (Feb 1915) and in addition the German Embassy had issued warnings to citizens of neutral nations not to embark on British vessels as there was a danger of being sunk.

As a side note the US was eventually brought into the war as a result of a change in US public opinion over the deaths of 128 American Citizens on the Lusitania.  120,000 American servicemen subsequently died in Northern France from disease (60%) and enemy action.

Will

[quote]
As a side note the US was eventually brought into the war as a result of a change in US public opinion over the deaths of 128 American Citizens on the Lusitania.

Cool, I was generalising  The Lusitania and the US in WW1 is the equivalent of the US civil war being all about slavery.

The Lusitania was not carrying millitary cargo, the second explosion was either the boilers or coal dust. She was a valid target due to the declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare.  Fair warning had been issued in February which was reiterated before she sailed.  Those who died with her knew the risks before they embarked, in my opinion.

Will

The Lusitania was not carrying millitary cargo, the second explosion was either the boilers or coal dust.

Actually, the common belief is she was.  Although there is no proof to my knowledge, since the manifests did not have any military cargo on them (kind of a secret deal).  It is widely believed that she was carring some kind of military supplies.  Just because the secondard explosion was likely due to coal dust doesn't mean there were no military supplies on board.  Since the US was selling supplies to the allied nations in WWI, it is very likely that the Lusitiana was carring supplies.

Actually, I'm convinced the Titanic was sunk by a doomsday cult as a sacrifice to the space aliens riding in Haley's comet's glow as it approaches earth in 1915.