Propaganda in the New York Times: The Sinking of the Lusitania (idea)

Introduction

At approximately 2:30 PM on May 7, 1915 the British merchant ship Cunarder Lusitania sank after being struck by a German torpedo off the coast of Ireland. Over one thousand lives were lost as the ship sunk so quickly that many lifeboats did not have time to deploy.

The incident is well documented in the newspapers of the time and one in particular, the New York Times, served as the forum for the public to assign responsibility. From the day of the Lusitania’s launch, until President Wilson’s “declaration of intent,” the most detailed reporting on the views of the public, politicians, and foreign governments surrounding the sinking were printed in the Times. Nearly six full pages of articles as well as a full page of editorials, constituting a third of the paper’s total reporting.

The debates put forth in the pages of the Times had few details on which to base their arguments.

As far as they were concerned, the facts surrounding the Lusitania were as follows:

• The Cunarder Lusitania was a British merchant ship flying under the charter of the British Admiralty and, thus, flew the flag of Great Britain.
• On May 1, 1915, the day the Lusitania set sail from New York, the German Embassy in the United States published a warning in the newspapers of major cities warning Americans that a war zone in the seas surrounding Great Britain had been established by the Imperial German Government and that passengers sailing on ships flying the British flag did so at there own risk.
• Four months earlier, Germany had declared the North Atlantic a war zone and announced it’s intention to use submarines to break through the British blockade of food to the mainland.

• The Lusitania sailed with a passenger list totaling 1,918 names of which 171 were Americans.
• Four months earlier, Germany had declared the North Atlantic a war zone and instituted a blockade of British ships believed to be shipping arms to the mainland.
• The sinking of the Lusitania was the third instance involving the sinking of a ship by German submarines that resulted in the death of American civilians. The first was the sinking of the British ship Falaba in March, in which an American citizen named Leon C. Thrasher was one of 111 deaths reported. On May 1, the day the Lusitania set sail, the American oil transport Gulflight was sunk on its way to France. Three members of the crew were killed including the Captain who died of heart failure sixteen hours after the sinking. The two others drowned.

These are the unquestioned facts surrounding the sinking of the Lusitania. In the days following the sinking, rumors proliferated throughout the world, assigning blame, responsibility, and demanding American action of one form or another. The New York Times reported many of these rumors and opinions, in the form of exposes, articles, and editorials.

About the New York Times

When Alfred S. Ochs became publisher of the Times in 1896, he announced the establishment of a regular section of the paper which will reprint letters written by readers, creating one of the first daily Letters to the Editor pages in journalism history. In doing so, Ochs turned The Times into more than just an outlet for the news. Instead, the paper became the authoritative voice of America.

At the start of the Great War, the Times circulated about 250,000 copies each day. By the end of the war, this number had risen to around 390,000. This large exposure to the American public became the target of German propagandists who believed the New York Times preached an anti-German agenda to the general public.

In their own admission, the Times believed responsibility for the war was in German hands. In fact, they prided themselves on their ability to argue this case.

“The chief public service of The Times in the war was that from the very beginning it understood where the rights and wrongs of the conflict lay, it was able to justify its position by sound argument, and it never ceased to maintain that position with all the vigor which its editors were able to command. The furious hostility toward the paper which the Germans and their sympathizers soon displayed is the best measure of its success in performing this duty.”¹

With regards to the editorial pages the Times believed that everyone should be heard as long as they contributed to the argument, even if German.

“Access to its columns has been denied to no German sympathizer, if reputable, responsible and literate. Some of them, indeed, were neither reputable nor responsible, but if they seemed to have anything of value to contribute to the discussion The Times heard them.”²

While The Times prided itself on its ability to report the news with a neutral eye, it is evident, by the frequency and placement of certain articles, that The Times’ view that Germany was responsible for the war seeped into its front-page coverage.

Why the Lusitania Created Such a Stir

With half of the world waging an already long and brutal war, the question must be asked why the sinking of one ship created such a stir. German submarines had been sinking ships in the open seas quite frequently since the war zone was established in February 1915. The Lusitania, in fact, was the ninety-first ship destroyed by German torpedo or mine in the 122 days since the war zone had been in effect. Twenty-one ships, including the American Gulflight were sunk in the week after the Lusitania embarked on its voyage from New York. Only three of the ninety-one sunken vessels were American owned and operated.

The major reason why the Lusitania garnered so much attention was because of the sheer magnitude of the incident. Over a thousand lives were lost, by far the most of any incident up to that point. Of the ninety previous incidents, only twenty-two resulted in the loss of life and only five of those resulted in ten or more deaths.

One can also view the sinking as “the straw that broke the camel’s back”. Twenty-one ships had been sunk in the past week and, while the Gulflight is the only one to receive significant press coverage, it was perceived that the Germans had gone far enough. When the German government issued the war zone decree, President Wilson sent a note warning Germany that if a German war vessel should destroy an American vessel or the lives of American citizens:

“it would be difficult for the Government of the United States to view the act in any other light than as an indefensible violation of neutral rights which it would be hard, indeed, to reconcile with the friendly relations now so happily subsisting between the two Governments,”³

and that German would be held to “strict accountability” if there are American casualties. The warnings started a ripple effect of tension that widened with the sinking of the Gulflight and culminated with the destruction of the Lusitania.

The large outcry after the Lusitania sunk was also due to the large number of similarities that newspaper reporters could make to the sinking of the Titanic, occurring just three years earlier, and the Maine, an incident which incited Americans to go to war. The major similarity is that the Lusitania was believed to be unsinkable, at least by a German submarine, as it was believed to be the fastest merchant vessel in the British fleet. On the day the German Embassy issued the advertisement warning passengers that sailing on a British ship will be doing so at their own risk, passengers aboard the Lusitania scoffed. Alexander Campbell is reported to have said:

“The Lusitania can run away from any submarine the Germans have got.”⁴

Other articles describe the ship as “the great, swift vessel,”⁵ and the passengers’:

“loss of life is believed to have been due to the calmness they displayed in the face of danger. Most of them were at luncheon when the steamer received her death blow, and they declined to join the rush for the boats and the belts.”⁶

The sinking of the U.S.S. Maine, in Havana Harbor on February 15, 1898 was regarded as the incident that propelled the United States into war with Spain. At the time, the Maine provided journalists with the right ammunition to rally American sentiment against Spain. The newspapers were filled with articles and opinions condemning the sinking of the Maine and calling for immediate action. Like the Maine, the sinking of the Lusitania was an event that newspapers could use to appeal to public sentiment.

In the opinion of The Times, the sinking of the Lusitania represented the point in which the war became a domestic issue.⁷ The dramatic loss of life would create an intense storm of opinion among the masses and, thus, sell newpapers.

Controlling Perceptions of the War Before the Sinking of the Lusitania

Gauging the actual feelings of the general public is an extremely difficult task when looking at newspapers. Majority of the opinions reported in The Times are written by intellectuals who represent much of The Times’ readership, not by the grassroots population. Therefore, only assumptions can be made based on the frequency or placement of particular articles. These assumptions are justified by the fact that newspapers are sold and that the editors would not focus on particular subjects or opinions unless they felt they would sell newspapers. In response to the outbreak of the European war, the New York Times opinion pages are filled with articles professing and justifying American neutrality with a slight favoring of the Allied powers.

One article of this nature stands out among the rest. Appearing as the featured editorial on October 2, 1914, Charles W. Eliot, President Emeritus of Harvard University writes a lengthy disposition of the American public opinion with regard to the war. In the editorial, Eliot states:

“it would be a serious mistake to suppose that Americans feel any hostility or jealousy toward Germany… although they now feel that the German Nation has been going wrong in theoretical and practical politics for more than a hundred years.”⁸

He then goes on to state the American people have great respect for Germany with regard to their relatively recent unification, their commercial and industrial advances, and the intellectual contributions made by German thinkers and scholars. Unfortunately, the American people, according to Mr. Eliot, are appalled by the actions of Germany in the early stages of the war. He says that:

“Americans see, in the treatment by the German Government of the Belgium neutralization treaty as nothing but a piece of paper, evidence of the adoption… of a retrograde policy of the most alarming sort… The violation of the neutral territory of Belgium would have determined American opinion in favor of the Allies.”⁹

This one article summarizes the New York Times’ tone with respect to the opinion of the American public on the issue of the European war. I feel that one can safely assume that this was not the opinion of the entire public. American residents of German descendency were the largest single ethnic group as they represented 17% of the foreign born population and 2.5% of the total population in 1910.¹⁰ As immigrants from Germany, these people would likely favor Germany in the war yet maintain the neutral attitudes of their adopted country. While Eliot recognizes that the British write much of the reporting available to the American public, he claims that this is not a reason for American sympathies toward the Allied powers. This opinion is certainly justified in October 1914, soon after the war began, but the opinions and tones of the American people as reported in the New York Times changes drastically after the sinking of the Lusitania.

Opinion After the Sinking

The attitudes of the public after the sinking are numerous yet relatively homogeneous. Opinions expressed in the New York Times, can be lumped into general categories:

• Shocked and outraged (anti-Germany and pro-American intervention in the war)
• Shocked and cautious (anti-Germany but anti-American intervention in the war)
• Shocked yet satisfied (pro-Germany and anti-American intervention in the war)

Shocked and Outraged

The most prominent opinion expressed in the pages of the New York Times, although not necessarily by The Times, is the “shocked and outraged” opinion. While calls to war are not expressed directly in most of the articles printed, there is definitely an attempt to stir emotions in that direction. Evidence that is not considered hard fact (as outlined above) is presented, and arguments are consistently made to show that Germany is the evil aggressor and that the public will decide the proper course of action. The subtler forms of controlling public opinion towards supporting America if they chose war will be discussed below.

First, I would like to illustrate the blatant calls to war that can be obviously categorized as “shocked and outraged.” This category is presented as the view of the legitimate press in Allied nations. On May 9, The Times first published excerpts from Canadian newspapers sympathetic to the Allied cause. The comments made by these papers are extremely vigilant in their outrage and anti-German sentiments. The Toronto Telegram writes:

“The blood of these murdered victims cries for vengeance. If that cry is unheard, the people of the United States will always bear upon them the stigma of the greatest humiliation ever put upon a nation.”¹¹

J.A. MacDonald, editor of the Toronto Globe adds:

“Does he (President Wilson) think the mad dog of Europe can be trusted at large? Is it not almost time to join in hunting down the brute?”¹²

The Toronto Star declares:

“The crime that has occurred was planned, was known at the German Embassy in Washington, was known to the person or persons who sent those anonymous telegrams. What will the United States do about it?”¹³

This statement was made in spite of reports that the telegrams mentioned never actually existed.

Foreign presses are not the only ones “shocked and outraged.” The Times makes sure to interview prominent American citizens. Businessman A.J. Drexel, an American living in London, states that the sinking of the Lusitania is:

“the most infernal outrage that has happened during the war… I don’t see how the American Government can do anything but go into the war itself… Is America to raise no voice in protest?”¹⁴

The New York Times themselves didn’t hesitate to cry for war in their editorial section. One such editorial, appearing under the headline “War by Assassination,” claims that the State Department should:

“demand that the Germans shall no longer make war like savages drunk with blood, that they shall cease to seek the attainment of their ends by assassination of non-combatants… Germany is at war with the whole-civilized world… The sinking of the Lusitania will stir the American people as they have not been stirred since the destruction of the Maine… President Wilson, will resist all promptings to unreasonable or hasty action. But he knows the people who have put him at the head of the nation, he will instinctively know and understand the feeling that pervades the country today, and he will respond to it by taking the firm, wise course which justice, right, and honor demand.”¹⁵

The most prominent American to voice his views was Colonel Theodore Roosevelt. On May 10, Roosevelt made the bold declaration that not only should America act, but will.

“The sinking of the Lusitania was not only an act of simple piracy, but that it represented piracy accompanied by murder on a vaster scale than any old-time pirate had ever practiced before being hung for his misdeeds… This was merely the application on the high seas… of the principles which when applied on land had produced the innumerable hideous tragedies that have occurred in Belgium and in Northern France. The use of the phrase, ‘strict accountability,’ of course, must mean that action will be taken by us without an hour’s unnecessary delay.”¹⁶

The “shocked and outraged” category of opinion is also characterized by the blatant exaggeration of circumstances surrounding the sinking. One article reporting on the affect the sinking had on the public in London reports that:

“the underwater fleet must have been on the lookout for the Cunarder so as to demonstrate to the world that German warnings were not empty threats.”¹⁷

It is unknown whether or not the German submarines were on lookout for the Lusitania. It is certainly possible, as there were submarines patrolling the area declared by Germany as a war zone. In the same article it is reported that “transatlantic liners usually followed a certain distinct track,” an argument used to imply that the German’s had planned on sinking the Lusitania from the very beginning. The arguments made by the reporters take logical events, and spin them in such a way as to make logic seem like evil. After all, Germany’s blockade would be useless if they didn’t patrol the areas through which they know British ships are going to pass.

The skewing of facts can be attributed to the lack of facts present. As I mentioned earlier, all that was truly know in the days following the sinking was that the boat sunk, evidently by a torpedo, while sailing along the coast of Ireland. In the initial reports received from London, the New York Times says that a German submarine “sent two torpedoes crashing into her side.”¹⁸ The very next day, the front-page headline read “HIT BY THREE TORPEDOES.” The text of that same article states that “several torpedoes were hurled at the ship; some say four and others seven… Conflicting reports as to the side struck suggest that more than one submarine may have participated.” The headline serves as an attention getting device to lure readers into believing that the crime was more heinous than previously thought. The text adds to the horror by giving the impression that the Germans would stop at nothing to sink the ship quickly. In this case, the facts or known details are not “reported” with a neutral journalistic intent, but are distorted in such a way as to stir emotions and create outrage among citizens who rely on the newspapers as their legitimate source for details surrounding an already well publicized incident.

In one case, the shocked and outraged expressed themselves not vocally, as much of the opinion in the New York Times is often expressed, but through political protest. This protest was sometimes very blunt as when Americans in London “hailed a newsboy and on glancing at the official statement shouted and shook their fists in disgust.”¹⁹ Others rioted in the streets of England forcing cities to close local bars and taverns at six o’clock.²⁰ The London Stock Exchange went as far as barring its German members from entering the house. When a man passed by the bulletin boards of Times Square and shouted, "Hurrah for the Germans” a dozen men rushed him.²¹

Shocked and Cautious

The “shocked and cautious” school of opinion is distinguished by its unwillingness to give in to popular passions. Those advocating caution tend to be more articulate than the general public. The most prominent public figure advocating caution was Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan. His plea to “Not Rock the Boat,” was the rallying cry of the cautious school of opinion. When criticism arose with regards to President Wilson’s playing golf and going for a drive on the day he received news of the disaster, Bryan justifies his actions as:

“not having been due so much for recreation as to set an example to the country; to indicate that if the head of the nation was able to go about his affairs without excitement the rest of the his fellow citizens should do the same.”²²

The other major advocacy group for caution is found in the halls of Congress. These lawmakers were cautious for a different reason. The impression given is that they recognize the need for national unity and are not calling out for war because it is still unknown as to what the President’s plan may be. The general consensus among lawmakers is to support the President. Senator Sheppard from Texas wishes to “handle the present situation with patience and calmness, trusting the President to take the proper council.” Senator Vardaman of Mississippi was a little more forward in his statement but still cautious about the words he chose. He says:

“I do not think that this one act would justify war, but President Wilson is on the job… I have faith in his prudence and good judgment in dealing with this delicate situation.”²³

For many legislators, their caution was due to a downplaying of the incident. Many believed that the sinking of the Gulflight was a more pressing issue as it was actually an American ship that was sunk. Senator William Stone, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, was quoted as saying:

“from our standpoint as a neutral nation the Gulflight presents a more delicate and serious complication that the case of the Lusitania.”²⁴

Other prominent figures advocating caution are priests around the country. The opening paragraph of an article headlined by the phrase, “Lusitania’s End Arouses Pastors” lists the comments made by several New York clergymen. The comments range from “A crime against civilization,” and “one of the blackest acts ever perpetrated by human beings,” to “not piracy but organized murder.”²⁵ These comments are extremely passionate and have the potential to create the outrage discussed above, especially when you consider that it is religious leaders making these statements. The difference is that the clergymen fall back on their religious morals and say:

“what shall we do? Go to war? No, let our brother Germany be unto us as a heathen, one who has cut himself off from the congregation of Israel.”²⁶

Shocked Yet Satisfied

Articles justifying the sinking, constituting the “shocked yet satisfied” school of thought, are few and far between and when they are made available, often times they are small and buried on the inner pages of the newspaper. One article stating that Germany received a tip that the Lusitania was carrying contraband of war, thus justifying the sinking, appears on page seven, almost halfway through the paper.²⁹ Editorial letters supporting the German cause don’t appear until page six of the May 11 edition, four days after the sinking.³⁰

German officials or reprints from German newspapers are the only articles justifying the sinking to receive front-page status. The small article appearing on May 11, states the official German dispatch to the United States Department of State:

“The German Government desires to express its deepest sympathy at the loss of lives on board the Lusitania. The responsibility rests, however, with the British Government…”³¹

Two very conspicuous means of diminishing the importance of this article are present. The first is the fact that the word “sympathy” appears in quotes in the headline. While this can easily been read as the headline quoting the text of the statement issued, it also attaches the possibility that the word “sympathy” will be read as insincere.

The other way the editor of the Times tries to influence the reader is by placing, directly underneath the statement made by the German Government, a statement made by the coroner’s jury in Ireland who investigated the death of five passengers aboard the Lusitania. In his report, the coroner charges:

“the officers of said submarine and the Emperor and the Government of Germany, under whose orders they acted, with the crime of wholesale murder.”³²

The placement of this article almost forces the reader to read this very powerfully worded statement by a “jury.”

The justification of the sinking cannot be forgotten, however. The “shocked yet satisfied” school is comprised of mostly Germans or German-Americans. The most prominent voice appearing in the New York Times is that of Dr. Bernhard Dernburg, former German Colonial Secretary and considered the Kaiser’s official spokesperson in the United States. The arguments made by Dr. Dernburg are the basic arguments made by any source of German sympathy. Among his arguments is that Germany engaged in submarine warfare only as a last resort to alleviate the Britain’s blockade of food products entering Germany. Dernburg is quick to point out that the German Government offered to cease the use of submarines if Britain agreed to cease their blockade. They did not and, thus, the Germans had no choice but to use submarines as mechanisms of war.

Dr. Dernburg also states that the Cunard line did not warn American passengers that the ship carried ammunition.

“If that warning was not given, American passengers were being used as a cloak for England’s war shipments.”³³

This makes the strong point that the British are responsible for the loss of American lives, a point also made by the German Government in their official statement to the US Department of State.

“British merchant vessels are being generally armed with guns and have repeatedly tried to ram submarines so that a previous search was impossible. If England, after repeated official and unofficial warnings, considered herself able to declare that a boat ran no risk and thus light-heartedly assumed responsibility for the human life on board a steamer which, owing to its armament and cargo was liable to destruction, the German Government, in spite of its heartfelt sympathy for the loss of American lives, cannot but regret that Americans felt more inclined to trust English promises rather than to pay attention to the warnings from the German side.”³⁴

The German press, on the other hand, is portrayed as less than official. Any article reprinted from a German newspaper is one that boasts about the great success exhibited by the sinking and portrays the English as foolish for entering a war with a superior Germany. One article calls the sinking:

“an extraordinary success. Its destruction demolished the last fable with which the people of England consoled themselves: on which hostile shipping relied when it dared to defy the German warnings. We do not need to seek grounds to justify the destruction of a British ship. She belonged to the enemy and brought us harm. She has fallen to our shots.”³⁵

Another article quotes the Cologne Gazette as:

“deprecating the drowning of non-combatants, and saying further: ‘This weapon of ours may hit the enemy as terribly and as painfully as the 42-centimeter guns… The English, of course, will make a terrible cry about this so-called barbarous method of warfare by Germans, but will say nothing about the great quantity of war material for England and her allies which was on board the Lusitania.’”

This portrayal of the “shocked yet satisfied” school intends to subvert the arguments made. By printing the sensationalistic journalism that appears in German papers just after logical arguments made by German intellectuals and officials, the New York Times displays an anti-German agenda and further attempts to sway the public towards the “shocked and outraged” means of thinking.

Blaming the Germans

The German articles presented also have a whining tone to them. Almost all of them lay responsibility on the British. Coming from the Germans this makes sense if you consider that they may not have wanted the United States to enter the war, despite arguments made that the sinking of the Lusitania was an attempt to intimidate the United States and other neutral powers into the war.³⁷ Germany was not the only group to blame Britain for the Lusitania disaster. The British themselves had a tendency to assign blame to their government. Lord Charles Beresford said he “thought the sinking was due to a shortage of cruisers to protect the trade routes.”³⁸ The Captain of the ship even participated in assigning responsibility to the British Admiralty.

“The Admiralty never trouble to send out to meet the Lusitania. They only look after the ships that are bringing the big guns over.”³⁹

It would seem, according to the articles printed in the Times, that Americans were helpless victims no matter how you look at the situation. They were either improperly warned by British officials, or had the misfortune of being on a British ship sunk by submarines deployed in response to British brutality. Never were Americans portrayed as responsible for not heeding German warnings and boarding a ship flying the flag of a belligerent nation.

Conclusion

On May 11, 1915, the President Wilson’s official response was published in the Times:

“America must have the consciousness that on all sides it touches elbows and touches heart with all the nations of mankind. The example of America must be a special example, and must be an example not merely of peace, because it will not fight, but because peace is a healing and elevating influence of the world and strife is not. There is such a thing as a man being too proud to fight. There is such a thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince the others by force that it is right.”⁴⁰

The statement represents the end of a period of time in which questions, doubts, fears reigned free in America. There is no doubt that the swell of opinion sparked by the sinking of the Lusitania continued with President Wilson’s remarks but the fact that America was not to enter the war marked a significant turning point in the styles of opinion expressed. After Wilson’s declaration of the United States’ intent and the initial shock of the sinking had subsided, the voice of opinion had a new rallying cry. “No need to fight if right,” became such a powerful statement, that the United States avoided entering the European War for another two years.

Despite the maintenance of neutrality, the Lusitania incident marked the turning point in American public opinion. Opinion was no longer neutral. Whatever justification made for America to remain neutral militarily, there was little attempt to justify the Germans as civilized in their techniques of war. Rather than protect the ideals of German culture and scholarship, Americans were now aligned with the Allies and their quest to protect the balance of power in Europe… according to the New York Times.

---

1. Davis, Elmer, History of the New York Times: 1851-1921. New York Times (New York 1921) pg. 335-336.
2. ibid.
3. New York Times, “Wilson Shocked at Torpedo Blow” May 8, 1915 pg. 2
4. New York Times, “Sails Undisturbed by German Warnings,” May 2, 1915 pg. 1
5. New York Times, “Some Dead Taken Ashore,” May 8, 1915 pg. 1
6. New York Times, “Hit by Three Torpedoes,” May 9, 1915 pg. 1
7. Davis, Elmer, History of the New York Times: 1851-1921. New York Times (New York 1921) pg. 352.
8. New York Times, “America and the Issues of European War,” October 2, 1914, pg. 10
9. ibid.
10. http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/pop-hc.html
11. New York Times, “Canadian Press Asks United States to Act.” May 9, 1915 pg. 2
12. ibid.
13. ibid.
14. New York Times, “Americans in London Are Deeply Stirred.” May 8, 1915 pg. 1
15. New York Times, “War by Assassination” May 8, 1915 pg. 14
16. New York Times, “United States Must Act at Once on Lusitania, Says Colonel Roosevelt.” May 10, 1915
17. New York Times, “Loss of the Lusitania Fills London With Horror and Utter Amazement.” May 8, 1915 pg. 1
18. New York Times, “Some Dead Taken Ashore” May 8, 1915 pg. 1
19. New York Times, “Loss of the Lusitania Fills London With Horror and Utter Amazement.” May 8, 1915 pg. 1
20. New York Times, “Liverpool Moves to Prevent Riots.” May 11, 1915 pg. 2
21. New York Times, “Bulletins Stir up War Sympathizers.” May 8, 1915 pg. 2
22. New York Times, “Bryan Starts Inquiry” May 9, 1915 Pg. 1
23. New York Times, “Lawmakers Urge Nation To Be Cool.”
24. New York Times, “Bryan Starts Inquiry,” May 9 1915 pg. 1
25. New York Times, “Lusitania’s End Arouses Pastors.” May 10, 1915 pg. 4
26. ibid.
27. ibid.
28. New York Times, “Upheld in German Pulpits,” May 10, 1915 pg. 4
29. New York Times, “Says Germany Got Tip on Contraband” May 11, 1915 pg. 7
30. New York Times, “Defends Germany For Retaliating,” May 11, 1915 pg. 6
31. New York Times, “Germany Sends Regret, and ‘Sympathy’ But Says, the Blame Rests With England,” May 11, 1915 pg. 1
32. New York Times, “Kaiser and His Officers Guilty of Murder, Says Inquest Report On Loss of the Lusitania,” May 11, 1915 pg. 1
33. New York Times, “Sinking Justified, Says Dr. Dernburg,” May 9, 1915 pg. 4
34. New York Times, “Germany Sends Regret, and ‘Sympathy’ But Says, the Blame Rests With England,” May 11, 1915 pg. 1
35. New York Times, “Calls Sinking A Naval Duty” May 10, 1915 pg. 1
36. New York Times, “Berlin Hails New Triumph,” may 9, 1915 pg. 4
37. New York Times, “Bryan Starts Inquiry,” May 9, 1915 pg. 1
38. New York Times, “Beresford Blames A Lack of Cruisers” May 8, 1915 pg. 1
39. New York Times, “Liner Unprotected, Captain Complained” May 8, 1915 pg. 3
40. New York Times, “No Need to Fight, If Right,” May 11, 1915 pg. 1