PDF Summary:Dead Wake, by Erik Larson

Dive into the tragic sinking of the Lusitania and its profound impact on the world in Erik Larson's historical account. Larson examines the series of events that set the stage for the liner's fateful encounter with a German U-boat off the Irish coast in 1915.

He unravels the complex backdrop of World War I and the diplomatic tensions between America and Germany. The narrative follows the ship's final voyage, the initial dismissal of German threats, and the actions of U-boat commander Walther Schwieger leading to the attack. Larson explores the repercussions of the disaster, from personal losses to America's eventual entry into the war.

(continued)...

The actions taken by the captain of the German submarine during the attack.

This section explores the complex characteristics of submarine leaders, emphasizing their pivotal role in shaping the course of the war. Larson highlights the fundamental flaws in Holtzendorff's strategy of submarine warfare without restrictions, a strategy that, although carefully devised, ultimately became the critical mistake leading to the United States' alliance with the Allied powers.

Walther Schwieger implemented a detailed and sophisticated approach to his management of undersea military operations.

The section of the text delves into the multifaceted character of Schwieger, who led U-20, while exploring the assortment of tales that were told regarding him. Larson highlights Schwieger's ability to maintain a positive atmosphere aboard his submarine while relentlessly targeting British ships for destruction, illustrating the inherent paradoxes of submarine warfare.

Schwieger was recognized for his skilled leadership and for fostering a positive atmosphere aboard his submarine, U-20, while he persistently pursued the destruction of enemy vessels.

Schwieger's adept and seasoned leadership garnered him the esteem of his crew, who also appreciated his friendly and approachable manner. He was known for his jovial nature among his crew, often engaging in cheerful banter, and for rescuing a tiny canine from a sunken ship's remains. Larson argues that these particulars inaccurately portrayed an individual who was genuinely committed to the indiscriminate bombardment of British vessels, making no distinction between those used for combat and those for civilian purposes.

Schwieger's own remarks clearly displayed the inconsistency. He recorded in his war diary a sense of remorse for destroying a vessel carrying passengers, yet within minutes, he launched an attack on a second steamer, doing so without any reluctance. Larson emphasizes that the German navy gauged their success by the amount of shipping tonnage they destroyed, fostering a competitive atmosphere among submarine captains who were eager to increase the count of vessels they had sunk.

Schwieger decided to alter his initial course and instead focused on an area teeming with civilian ships, highlighting the autonomy granted to submarine commanders.

Larson details Schwieger's decision to alter his course, initially set for a patrol near Liverpool Bay, and instead steer towards the entrance of the Bristol Channel, where he expected to face less military resistance and find a greater number of ships to target. The decision, taken autonomously and without the approval of superior officers, underscored the alarming degree of autonomy afforded to commanders of submarines in distant waters.

Larson suggests that this autonomy was a crucial factor leading to the tragic sinking of the Lusitania. Schwieger, facing challenging weather and a dwindling fuel supply, made the strategic choice to focus on ships in an area renowned for its busy commercial shipping, a choice that would have significant consequences.

Several circumstances came together to enable the successful assault on the Lusitania.

The account details the chain of events and misguided choices that led to Schwieger setting his sights on the Lusitania during a day marked by unclouded skies and radiant sunshine. Larson emphasizes the intricate chain of occurrences, encompassing small mistakes and the pivotal impact point of a torpedo, which transformed an improbable attack into a catastrophic tragedy.

The Lusitania's vulnerability was exacerbated by a series of unfortunate delays and decisions, which ultimately led to its path intersecting with U-20 under serene skies and on tranquil seas.

Larson argues that a series of unfortunate mishaps and blunders culminated in the sinking of the Lusitania, a situation worsened by the unusually clear skies. The Lusitania was precisely in the path of U-20, which had altered its original mission and was heading back to Germany after a two-hour postponement in New York to embark additional passengers from another ship.

The disaster occurred in part because the ship reduced speed under Captain Turner's command, aiming to time its approach with the incoming tide at the Mersey Bar. He inferred that a quick arrival at Liverpool Harbor would diminish the vessel's risk to dangerous circumstances. The Lusitania's diminished speed, coupled with a course correction aimed at determining its precise location, unintentionally directed the ship into the path where Captain Schwieger's German submarine was operating.

The torpedo fired by Schwieger hit a vulnerable spot on the Lusitania, causing the ship to quickly and catastrophically list because of a serious defect in its design.

During the early stages of underwater warfare, even though torpedoes often malfunctioned, one struck a particularly vulnerable part of the Lusitania, resulting in the ship's perilous list and eventual sinking. An explosion, occurring just behind the bridge, ripped through the ship with violent force, resulting in the near-empty coal bunkers on the starboard side being blown open. The ship's compartments, intended to protect it in battle, quickly filled with water, causing a balance loss that affected its ability to stay afloat.

The subsequent explosion, initially believed to have been caused by a second torpedo but later determined to be a burst steam pipe, escalated the destruction and heightened the chaos. Once a symbol of Britain's mastery of the seas, the Lusitania disappeared under the water in less than eighteen minutes after being struck, resulting in a tragic loss of life that affected individuals of every age and gender.

The involvement of British Intelligence in the events leading up to the ship's sinking and their reaction to it.

In this part of the story, it is revealed how the British naval authorities had a hidden hand in the Lusitania disaster, highlighting their knowledge of the looming threat and their intentional maneuvers to shift blame and safeguard classified information. The author highlights the considerable progress achieved by Room 40 in breaking German naval codes, underscoring the disparity in protective actions for warships compared to the seemingly careless stance regarding the Lusitania, which led to critical questions about Britain's military strategies in the war.

Prior to the attack, Room 40 had already gathered secret intelligence on the U-20's movements by intercepting and decoding German messages.

This subsection delves into the secretive operations of Room 40, a mysterious unit tasked with deciphering communications from the German navy. Larson reveals the team's successful infiltration of German signal exchanges, which allowed for accurate tracking of U-20's maneuvers, and demonstrates that the British officials knew of the risks to the Lusitania but chose to withhold crucial intelligence.

The intelligence division known as Room 40 had successfully intercepted and decoded messages from the German fleet, revealing their awareness of a heightened likelihood of submarine activity along the Lusitania's path.

Toward the end of 1914, the capture of vital German naval codebooks resulted in the establishment of a specialized division called Room 40, which greatly improved British naval warfare abilities. The British navy's command significantly enhanced their understanding of German naval maneuvers through the interception and decryption of their radio transmissions, frequently acquiring detailed information.

The intelligence operations of Room 40, as emphasized by Larson, signaled a growing threat to the Lusitania. The assignment of U-20 to patrol the Irish Sea was revealed through communications, and warnings from the German naval command about the vessel's schedule indicated an imminent danger to the ship. The unit's intercepted messages revealed that, just prior to its arrival in the vicinity, the U-20 had destroyed three vessels along the path the Lusitania would soon traverse, highlighting the clear and present threat to the vessel and its passengers.

The British naval leadership placed a higher emphasis on protecting their warships, including the HMS Orion, and seemed to show less attention to the safety measures for the Lusitania.

Britain's naval leadership implemented defensive measures to safeguard its ships, which sharply differed from the understanding of submarine threats possessed by Room 40, a vulnerability that the Lusitania faced. Larson describes the vigilant observation and protection of the impressive warship HMS Orion, which was constantly defended and monitored by a group of destroyer escorts.

He observed a significant difference. The careful protection afforded to the Orion, guided by insights from Room 40, seemed to have been overlooked when it came to the Lusitania. The ship set sail unescorted by military ships, opting for a route that avoided the newly designated, markedly safer North Channel path.

The Admiralty attempted to deflect scrutiny from its own actions by casting doubt on the choices made by Captain Turner.

This subsection exposes how the Admiralty, in the aftermath of the sinking, moved swiftly to shift blame for the tragedy onto Captain Turner. Larson portrays the intense examination of Turner, suggesting that naval officials deflected culpability from their inadequate reaction by protecting their status and the top-secret intelligence originating from Room 40.

The Admiralty's harsh criticism of Turner's command abilities, accusing him of negligence and lack of skill, was a tactic to shift focus away from its own failures in safeguarding the Lusitania.

In the wake of the catastrophe, naval authorities concentrated their efforts on portraying Captain Turner as negligent and incompetent, intentionally steering clear of attributing fault to Germany. Larson details how senior officials issued memos attributing the failure to evade the attack to Turner's disregard for advice to regularly change the ship's course and his decision to sail close to shorelines.

Larson contends that there was a deliberate attempt to shift attention away from the shortcomings of the British naval command by placing the blame on Turner. The British naval officials endeavored to divert attention from their actions, or inaction, that resulted in a major British ship and its passengers being vulnerable to a known hazard.

The decision by naval officials to withhold vital intelligence about the threat posed by submarines maintained the secrecy of Room 40 but also shrouded the sinking of the ship in numerous enigmas.

The British Admiralty deliberately withheld crucial details about the activities of Room 40 during the Wreck Commission's official inquiry into the disaster. The inquiries, heavily influenced by naval officials, failed to uncover the complete extent of knowledge that Room 40 possessed about U-20's movements and its previous attacks.

Larson emphasizes that the true chain of events leading to the sinking of the ship was obscured and thus incorrectly portrayed due to this secrecy. The inquiry concluded that the choices made by Captain Turner were to blame, while overlooking the Admiralty's failure to protect the Lusitania despite being aware of its vulnerability. British naval authorities continued to propagate the mistaken notion that two torpedoes struck the Lusitania, thereby deflecting questions regarding the swift submersion of the vessel caused by a single torpedo.

The United States' decision to enter World War I was significantly influenced by the Lusitania's tragic demise.

The story's concluding part examines the profound aftermath of the Lusitania's sinking, emphasizing the intense personal losses and the significant effect this event had on the attitudes of the American people. Erik Larson's narrative reveals the intense search for the missing, the lasting emotional wounds carried by those who lived, and the escalating tensions between the United States and Germany that culminated in the United States joining the fray.

The catastrophe led to profound personal losses and sustained investigations.

This section of the narrative explores the deep sorrow and lasting impacts experienced by those who lived through the catastrophe and the families of those who perished in the Lusitania's sorrowful end. Larson highlights the anguish associated with identifying the dead among the many unnamed victims and emphasizes the continuous investigations related to the catastrophe, depicting the enduring grief that followed the ship's tragic end.

The relentless pursuit to locate the missing and name the numerous unidentified victims highlighted not only the deep sorrow caused by the disaster but also its lasting effect on the lives of those who lived through it and their descendants.

The maritime catastrophe evoked profound grief and feelings of uncertainty. Numerous victims remained unaccounted for, plunging their relatives into a state of limbo, swinging between hope and deep sadness. The challenging process of identifying the victims who were recovered involved associating their personal belongings and aged photographs with the remains that were found along the coast of Ireland.

The stories of sorrow expressed by relatives mourning their lost loved ones poignantly contrast with the political maneuverings associated with the tragedy. In a state of desperation, mothers held onto the slim chance of locating their missing children amidst numerous unidentified bodies. Many families were tormented by lingering doubts, as Larson points out.

The ceaseless psychological torment, heightened by the uncertain destiny of those whose bodies remained undiscovered, is characterized by continuous contemplation regarding the last experiences of the departed.

Accounts from those who lived through the catastrophe not only describe the fear felt as the vessel sank but also the lasting psychological trauma caused by the event. Nightmares, a recently developed dread of oceanic expanses, and guilt for outliving individuals who perished became pervasive themes. The disappearance of the ship cast a persistent shadow of unanswered questions for those whose relatives vanished without a trace.

Larson implies that the continuous sense of discomfort arises from the abrupt and chaotic nature of the disaster, which left many families without a feeling of closure. The oceanic disaster's toll on human life left a profound void, compelling the bereaved families to face the profound emotional aftermath.

The escalating diplomatic strain between Germany and the United States ultimately led to America's entry into the conflict.

The final segment of the section delves into the political and diplomatic consequences stemming from the Lusitania's demise. Larson explores the complex interplay of diplomatic relations, public opinion, and secret intelligence that shaped America's path to war, scrutinizing how President Woodrow Wilson initially sought to maintain the country's position of neutrality in the face of Germany's increasingly aggressive actions.

Wilson's initial efforts to maintain America's neutrality were sharply at odds with the growing public indignation resulting from the clandestine activities and aggressive naval tactics of Germany's submarine forces.

The Lusitania's demise escalated into a substantial diplomatic crisis involving the United States and Germany. Amidst growing public outrage, Wilson initially decided to maintain the United States' stance of neutrality. He believed that a firm and measured response might persuade Germany to scale back its submarine activities and recognize the United States' rights at sea.

Larson highlighted the division within the presidential administration between advocates for aggressive action and those favoring a policy of neutrality. Erik Larson, the writer, highlights the complex dilemma confronting the president, who struggled to balance the country's peace with the rising threats to Americans and their assets.

The interception of the Zimmermann telegram significantly influenced the American public's attitude toward joining the war, highlighting the substantial impact that intelligence operations can have on historical events.

The Lusitania's demise, while a critical factor, represented only one among multiple provocations that drove the United States into the First World War, with Germany's relentless attacks on civilian ships and the revelation of its secret activities within the United States intensifying public indignation and eroding the appetite for neutrality.

In the early months of 1917, a critical event unfolded when British intelligence managed to capture and decode the Zimmermann telegram. Larson presents the telegrams as irrefutable proof that Germany was trying to persuade Mexico to form an alliance against the United States. The decisive factor that convinced Wilson and Congress of the unavoidable nature of war was Germany's decision to resume its strategy of unbounded submarine warfare. Almost two years after the sinking of the Lusitania, the United States officially joined the conflict on the side of the Allies on April 6, 1917, which markedly altered the course of the war.