How about the Lusitania ? Churchill denied the captain warning that may of saved nearly twelve hundred lives.But nobody on the winning side is ever looked at too closely. The admiralty even said there were three torpedoes to cover up the fact there were munitions on board.
Well, I googled this....
The Lusitania
I was well aware that the Lusitania was carrying arms, and that the portrait of her as a ship full of innocent bystanders was not the entire truth.
I also was aware that the Germans posted warnings.......so it was hardly necessary for Churchill to do so........especially to the captain.
I do think that expecting Churchill to divert a number of (largely ineffective) warships to defend one "maybe" target is completely unrealistic, and more than a little in the realm of 20-20 hindsight.
I was unaware that Churchill produced such lies afterward.....one should not be surprized "The first casualty of war is truth"....from the horse's mouth.
I'm trying to nail you down on this because I dislike immensely the casual use of the term "war crime" only slightly less than I am disgusted by the overuse of the term "genocide".
Nothing discussed above remotely approaches a "war crime". Except perhaps the blockade of Germany during (and after) the war.......there you might score a very minor point.........
