Sir, – It was with some interest I read Brian O'Connell's exciting Lusitaniaarticle (Weekend, July 16th) in relation to Gregg Bemis's impending August expedition to explore the ship in an attempt to resolve the long-running riddle of its munitions cargo.
Gregg Bemis deserves every success for his tenacity in resolving the Lusitaniaconundrum that existed for the past 40 years. Many obstacles were set in Mr Bemis's path over that span of time, not least a long-running challenge taken by the State against Mr Bemis's right to dive on the Lusitania, his own personal property.
The Supreme Court found in favour of Mr Bemis and declared that the State’s challenge had no foundation in law. Mr Bemis, the victor, was awarded his costs of €343,940 in respect to his High Court and Supreme Court actions. Costs of the State’s legal representatives have not been revealed by the Chief State Solicitor’s office. However, it has been suggested that they would mirror the Bemis costs. The ever-compliant taxpayer footed the bill.
Other factors hampered Lusitaniaexpeditions over the years, in the form of bad weather or zero visibility. August may bring bright sunshine and calm seas for what seems to be a very unique adventure for the Lusitania. We await with bated breath to learn of new discoveries by Mr Bemis and his team.
If I may, I would like to make one correction to your article. In referring to me you state that I believe "the ship contains shrapnel shells, which could explain the second explosion". In fact my book The Lusitania – Unravelling the Mysteriesstates that the shrapnel consignment on the Lusitania, 50-odd tons, is made up of partly completed shells, filled with shrapnel ball, encapsulated in resin. The consignment was destined for the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, where it was intended to fill the shells with their explosive charge and attach their brass timer-fuses.
For what it is worth, I attribute the second mystery explosion on the Lusitaniato a 40-ton consignment of aluminium fine powder. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The sinking of the RMS Lusitaniain May 1915 had little to do with the entry more than two years later of the United States into the first World War. Of more importance were the attempts by the Germans to subvert the regime in Mexico and the build-up of a potential fifth column. Although the Germans would later carry out a policy of unrestricted U-boat warfare, in 1915 they still felt they had to justify the killing of so many civilians.
The building of the Lusitania, as with other British liners, had been subsidised on condition that it could be easily converted to an armed merchantman. The Germans would also claim that it was carrying war materiel. To celebrate the sinking, they issued a medal which showed on one side Death issuing tickets for the ill-fated voyage and on the other a stylised Lusitaniasinking with its deck cargo of aircraft and field guns. – Yours, etc,
JACK KILPATRICK,
Lairhills Road,
East Kilbride, Glasgow.