Lusitania

Interview with John Hamer

We have a young Dutch guest staying over at the moment.

I noticed that he was reading a book about the Nazis and World War 2, which was all the invitation I needed to start talking about Empire, the Anglo-American Establishment, Heartland Theory, the Berlin-Baghdad Railway to name but a few of the subjects.

You know, the usual things that you talk to a 21-year-old Dutch guest about.

I explained to him that we really live in a post WW2 world.

But in fact, WW1 and WW2 were but one war with a half time break.

WW1 should be understood as an old lion attacking the young upstart.

It’s all about WW1.

Without it, and Versailles, you don’t get WW2.

It set the shape and tone of the next 100 years.

The Lusitania is a very important WW1 event, maybe one of the most important.

The old lion needed help. He needed the Americans.

This is the story of how he got that help.

This is the second interview with John Hamer, after Titanic, and once again, he has done a magnificent job of teaching us a history otherwise buried.

With thanks and appreciation to John Hamer.

Please consider buying one or more of his books below.

---

Can you explain the significance of RMS Lusitania in the context of World War I and why its sinking had such a profound effect on public opinion, particularly in the United States?

The Lusitania luxury ocean liner was owned by the Cunard Line Shipping Company and was officially part of the British auxiliary navy.  For this, the ship's owners were paid £218,000 per year (now approximately equal to £20m in 2024 values).  As an auxiliary naval ship, Lusitania was under orders from the British Admiralty to ram any German ship seeking to inspect her cargo. 

One of the overt, primary catalysts for the entry of America into the 1914-18 war was the sinking of Lusitania by the German U-Boat U-20 off the southern coast of Ireland in 1915.  Lusitania was carrying hundreds of wealthy American passengers, but the significant load carried by the liner on this occasion was not the passengers.  Deliberately, but unknown to most on board, Lusitania was illegally carrying a large cache of armaments bound for the battlefields of Europe, supplied by the US government and totally contrary to the rules of neutrality in warfare.

It is now known for certain that Winston Churchill and Woodrow Wilson were complicit in an operation financed by the major banking houses, arranging for the shipment of weapons on board Lusitania in May of 1915.  This was a deliberate ploy involving the sacrificing of hundreds of innocent lives in a bid to turn American public opinion against Germany and in favour of British interests but more importantly to sway that public opinion in favour of joining the war in Europe.  This is all now fully documented and by no means ‘made up’ to suit some personal agenda.

The official story states the Lusitania was sunk by a German U-Boat without warning. What evidence suggests that there was more to the story than a simple act of war?

Three German spies attempted to confirm that the recorded ‘90 tons of unrefrigerated butter’ destined for a British naval base were indeed actually weapons and ammunition intended to supply the British and French armies.   The spies were arrested and detained on the ship, but the weapons loaded onto Lusitania were seen by a group of German immigrant dock workers and reported to the German embassy.  In order to warn Americans about the weapons shipment and knowing that this would make Lusitania a legitimate target for U boats, the Imperial German Embassy attempted to place an advertisement in 50 US East Coast newspapers. The ads were due to be printed on the 22^nd April 1915, but the US State Department blocked all the ads except one which somehow escaped the net. 

George Viereck, the man responsible for placing the ads for the embassy, protested to the State Department on the 26^th April 1915 that the ads had been blocked. Viereck met with US Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan and produced copies of Lusitania's supplementary manifests.  Bryan, impressed by the evidence that Lusitania would carry weapons, cleared publication of the warning but someone more powerful than the Secretary of State, most likely Colonel Mandel House or President Wilson, overruled Bryan.

Nonetheless, one ad somehow slipped past the State Department censorship.  The single advertisement that evaded the government censors appeared in the Des Moines Register (picture below).

The warning read:

"NOTICE!  Travellers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone on ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.  IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 22, 1915."

How did the British government's actions before the Lusitania set sail contribute to the tragedy that unfolded?

Captain Dow, the Lusitania’s captain immediately before the current incumbent, Captain Turner, resigned on the 8^th March 1915 because he was no longer willing ‘to carry the responsibility of mixing passengers with munitions or contraband.’  

The Churchill quote below, speaks volumes about what really happened and why.

“There are many kinds of manoeuvres in war... There are manoeuvres in time, in diplomacy, in mechanics, in psychology; all of which are removed from the battlefield, but react often decisively upon it... The manoeuvre which brings an ally into the field is as serviceable as that which wins a great battle.”

What role did munitions onboard play in the rapid sinking of the Lusitania, and how does this complicate the narrative of the ship being an innocent victim of war.

For over a century, the British and American governments have denied that there were weapons on Lusitania and the site was declared a protected wreck site, denying diver access.  To further frustrate the ability to determine what Lusitania had really carried, since 1946 the Royal Navy has repeatedly dropped depth charges on top of Lusitania, using the site for target practice.  In 1968, in further attempts to keep the truth hidden, the British Secret Service unsuccessfully attempted to buy the salvage rights to Lusitania.

In 2003 the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in a deliberate act of deceit and treachery designed to protect the version of history promoted by his puppet masters, ordered the destruction of government documents containing absolute proof that Lusitania was a covert munitions carrier.  This is a classic example of one small attempt to rewrite history or more accurately, to protect a false version of history.

While the British government aggressively worked to distort the truth, weapons were confirmed in July 2006 when Victor Quirke of the Cork Sub Aqua Club found 15,000 rounds of .303 bullets in the bow section of the ship.  And on the 2^nd April 2007, Cyber Diver News Network reported that the American owner of the Lusitania wreck, F. Gregg Bemis, Jr., had won the case to conduct salvage operations almost a century after the sinking.  The British Arts and Heritage Ministry significantly did not protest the use of the Lusitania as target practice for British depth charges but did help allegedly ‘respect the sanctity of the site’ by opposing salvage operations.

Authors have written for many years that 1,201 people were sacrificed on Lusitania to create a reason for the US to enter World War I.  Historian Howard Zinn wrote in ‘A People's History of the United States’, that Lusitania carried 1,248 cases of 3-inch shells, 4,927 boxes of cartridges (1,000 rounds in each box), and 2,000 more cases of small-arms ammunition.  Colin Simpson claims that “Churchill conspired to put the Lusitania in danger with the hope of sparking an incident to bring America into World War I” and historian Patrick Beesley fully supports Simpson's assertion.  Christopher Hitchens' book, ‘Blood Class and Nostalgia’, further implicates First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill in a deliberate action to pull America into World War I.   History professor Ralph Raico and senior scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute notes that Churchill wrote the week prior to Lusitania sinking, that it was “…most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.”

In a 1981 book, ‘Seven Days to Disaster: The Sinking of the Lusitania’, by Des Hickey and Gus Smith, they reported that one of the crewmen on the U-20 responsible for passing the order to fire to the torpedo room was Charles Voegele.  Voegele refused to kill civilians of a neutral country, and upon returning to Germany was court-martialled and imprisoned for three years.  One torpedo was fired at the ship and the warhead's 300 pounds of explosives detonated upon contact with Lusitania.  The Lusitania’s Captain Turner reported that the first explosion sounded ‘like a heavy door being slammed shut’ and was followed by a much larger explosion that rocked the ship and tore its superstructure apart.  Turner wrote in the log ‘an unusually heavy detonation’. Lusitania sank 15-18 minutes later with a huge loss of life.

The material mentions Edward Mandell House's conversation with Britain's foreign minister, Edward Grey, about the potential consequences of a German attack on a ship with American passengers. How do you interpret this exchange in the context of the events that followed?

There is no doubt that House and Grey, wholly supported by President Wilson and Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill colluded in a plot to attempt to entice the American public into supporting and joining the war in Europe on the side of Britain.  It was deemed that the killing of innocent American citizens in an ‘unprovoked’ attack on a civilian ship would be likely to have the desired effect.  And so on the 7^th May 1915, Lusitania slowed to 60% speed hoping that the promised English escort vessel Juno would soon arrive.  At the time, no ship had been torpedoed travelling at more than 15 knots.  Lusitania had a top speed of 25 knots and travelled at an average speed of more than 21 knots but was asked to reduce speed to below 15 knots.  The ship could actually outrun any U boat but it was deliberately slowed down.  Why would that be, if not to facilitate a successful U boat attack?

Unknown to Captain Turner, Winston Churchill had ordered the would-be escort vessel Juno to return to port and so this order left Lusitania alone and unprotected in an area known to be swarming with U boats.  To put this in perspective, Britain had deciphered the German communications code in December 1914 and therefore the level of detail known by the British Admiralty was so precise that even U boat numbers and general locations were known.  For example, the British Admiralty knew that U-30 left the area for Germany on the 4^th May and the U-27 left the area because of jammed bow planes.  Also, notably in 1915, it was against US law to place weapons on a passenger ship travelling to England or Germany.

Churchill’s fellow Committee of 300 member, CFR founder and Rothschild agent Colonel Mandel House was also President Wilson’s top political advisor. Wilson said, “Mr. House is my second personality.  He is my independent self.  His thoughts and mine are one.  If I were in his place, I would just do as he suggested.” This is a man who has also been called the Henry Kissinger of his day.  In the book ‘The Intimate Papers of Colonel House’ is a conversation recorded between Colonel House and Sir Edward Grey.  Grey asked, “What will America do if the Germans sink an ocean liner with American passengers on board?” and House answered, “I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into the war.” Of course, this is exactly what happened and around 1,200 people were killed, including 128 Americans.

“This act set off a firestorm of anti-German feeling throughout the United States, fanned by the Rockefeller-Morgan dominated press.” Jim Marrs, “Rule by Secrecy”

“The Lusitania was a ploy.  It was packed with some Morgan-owned ammunition, had been given over to England as a member of the navy, and despite the warnings of the Germans was sent into a naval war zone, specifically to be a target - the catalyst for America’s entrance to the war …Churchill ordered the Lusitania’s naval escort to return to port, and the fated ship was left unprotected, to be sunk.  Rothschild agent Colonel House knew of this plot, records point to a discussion of it between him and Sir Edward Grey of England.  Historian Colin Simpson called the sinking of the Lusitania the ‘foulest act of wilful murder ever committed on the seas.’” -Fritz Springmeier, ‘Bloodlines of the Illuminati.’

The Admiralty's decisions regarding the Lusitania's route and lack of escort are controversial. What insight can you provide on this decision-making process and its implications?

As previously related, the entire incident was a form of ‘false flag’ operation in effect, with the sole intention of coercing US public opinion into supporting the USA’s entry into World War I on the side of Britain.  Up until that point American public opinion had been firmly ‘isolationist’ and absolutely set against any form of US involvement in what they saw as strictly a European war.

How did the aftermath of the Lusitania sinking and the subsequent inquiry attempt to shift blame, and what does this tell us about the official narrative?

Significantly, the Lusitania inquiry was conducted by Lord Mersey, he of Titanic inquiry infamy!  Mersey was indeed the ‘go to’ man for any governmental inquiries necessitating a cover-up.

From the outset the attorney general called Lord Mersey’s attention to the ship’s manifest, and produced an official communication showing that everything in the nature of cargo on the Lusitania was ‘permitted to be shipped in passenger ships by the laws of the United States.’ According to this manifest the ship’s cargo included ammunition cases and empty shell cases, ‘none of which could be utilised for warlike purposes’!!  Any kinds of munitions or weapons were never mentioned, leaving the way open to blame the Imperial German Navy for an act of illegality and treachery.

During the inquiry many witnesses testified that lots of portholes across the ship had been open at the time of attack and an expert witness confirmed that a single such porthole would allow in four tons of water per minute. Why were all the portholes left open if not to facilitate a rapid sinking?  The ship sank in less than 18 minutes of the torpedo hitting the ship, causing an enormous secondary explosion as the munitions on board were ignited.  Maritime experts have claimed justifiably that there is no way a ship of this size could have sunk so quickly, simply as a result of one torpedo striking.

The German government attempted to warn passengers through newspaper advertisements. What does this effort reveal about the complexity of the situation and the concept of "neutral" nations during wartime?

I believe this perfectly demonstrates the use of the ‘black art’ of censorship.  The US government conspired with the compliant media to prevent their vile plot from being discovered and exposed through the German newspaper ads.  Fortunately for the sake of the truth being known, one of those ads managed to slip through the net and was duly published in the Des Moines Register.

It also exposes the Allied powers’ myth of German villainy to some extent and lays bare the propaganda tactics of the Allies’ systematic and unjust demonisation of the German people and nation (during and between both world wars).

Winston Churchill did indeed say and do many things to drag America into World War I.  He attempted to mislead both the British and American public into believing that the sinking of Lusitania was not premeditated.  Churchill did this for several reasons including to distract people from the contemporary reports that the Juno destroyer protection had been deliberately removed.  He attributed the lack of destroyer protection to being confused with internal disputes within the Admiralty about a bumbled Gallipoli campaign in the Ottoman Empire, an unmitigated disaster for which he was also personally to blame.  His Lusitania war propaganda also included misinforming the public that multiple torpedoes were fired to explain how the ship sunk in minutes and which had the effect of furthering fuelling hatred for the German people.

The neutrality of nations is strictly governed by international laws of warfare yet it is evident that the British and American governments, under the direction of powerful Oligarchical central banking and financial interests, were fully prepared to blatantly flout these international laws to further their own insidious ends as well as commit mass murder purely to service their evil agendas.  Nothing much ever changes in that regard I fear.

Captain Dow's resignation and the change in rules of naval warfare introduced by Churchill are significant aspects of the Lusitania story. How do these elements reflect on the preparedness and expectations of maritime travel during war?

The rules of naval warfare had changed in October 1914 when Churchill issued orders that British merchant ships with munitions or contraband must ram U-boats.  Prior to this change by Churchill, both England and Germany adhered to Cruiser Rules.  The Cruiser Rules enabled crews and passengers to escape in lifeboats before the vessels were fired upon but the new Churchill ‘Ram Rules’ meant that the German U-boats could no longer surface to issue a warning and fire while submerged, for fear of being rammed by a much larger vessel. 

Churchill explained this ruthlessness thus:

“The first British countermove, made on my responsibility... was to deter the Germans from surface attack.  The submerged U-boat had to rely increasingly on underwater attack and thus ran the greater risk of mistaking neutral for British ships and of drowning neutral crews and thus embroiling Germany with other Great Powers.”

The sinking led to a massive loss of life. Can you share insights into how the tragedy of the Lusitania has been memorialised or remembered in the years since?

1201 people died in the Lusitania sinking, all of whom can be legitimately described as being victims of deliberate mass murder in order to further an insidious agenda.  That is, the illegal attempt to drag America into World War I.  Of course the tragedy is quite rightly still remembered to this day, but sadly not for the correct reasons.

It is next to impossible now, in these days of extreme internet censorship to search for the truth about the Lusitania on the world wide web.  All mainstream websites simply reiterate ad nauseum the official fairytale about German treachery and villainy and nauseating propaganda about how the poor victims are merely part of a long list of examples of the Germanic bloodlust – plus many other negative, emotional epithets.  It really is true that history is written by the victors—as the old saying accurately states.

The discovery of munitions in the wreck of the Lusitania and the subsequent actions by the British government to control the narrative are intriguing. What are your thoughts on these efforts to "protect" history?

On the 28^th May 1915, Germany's official response to the U.S. government's protest states the German government has no intention of attacking US vessels which are not guilty of hostile acts.  The Imperial German government wrote that Lusitania...

“...was one of the largest and fastest English commerce steamers, constructed with government funds as auxiliary cruisers, and is expressly included in the navy list published by the British Admiralty. It is, moreover, known to the Imperial government from reliable information furnished by its officials and neutral passengers that for some time practically all the more valuable English merchant vessels have been provided with guns, ammunition and other weapons, and reinforced with a crew specially practiced in manning guns. According to reports at hand here, the Lusitania when she left New York undoubtedly had guns on board which were mounted under decks and masked.”

The official letter from the German government also spells out that Lusitania had 5,400 cases of ammunition that would be used to kill German soldiers on the battlefields of Europe.  An exceptionally noteworthy section of the letter states that the British merchant marine ships received secret instruction in February by the British Admiralty to seek protection behind neutral flags and when so disguised, attack German submarines by ramming them.  The German official response that war materials were on board explains the second explosion.

The Elite banking families involved and Britain's leaders, even a century later, still fear the negative repercussions from Americans if they learn that they were tricked into World War I.

The German government announced on the 31^st January, 1917 that its submarines would sink all ships aiding Britain.  This announcement, combined with the Lusitania sinking and the British Intelligence service manufactured bombshell in the form of a telegram from German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmerman to the German Minister offering Mexico money to attack the USA, ultimately proved successful and on 6^th April 1917 the US did finally declare war on Germany.

“If people really knew the truth, the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course they don't know and can't know.”  David Lloyd George, Britain's Prime Minister during the First World War, to C.P. Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian, December 1917.

Sadly, the Lusitania incident is just one of a very, very long list of deceptions perpetrated by governments and their ultimate controllers in order to keep the general public deliberately misinformed about their true agenda and intent.

The material suggests that the Lusitania’s sinking was not only a tragedy but possibly a calculated act to influence the United States’ entry into World War I. How do you evaluate the evidence supporting this theory?

I believe that the evidence for this premise is overwhelming and my research of the topic has drawn me to conclude that America’s entry into WWI was heavily influenced by the sinking of the Lusitania.  This was exactly what the real controllers of the world wanted but they knew that American public opinion was massively against any involvement in what was widely regarded as a ‘European war’ and as such, none of America’s business.  And of course in order to promulgate their long-awaited world war, it was essential that America and its people be willing participants – with no dissension or protests.  The Lusitania incident, provoking extreme outrage as it did and heavily promoted as an outrageous atrocity by the compliant media, fulfilled its intended purpose admirably well.

Finally, considering all the complexities and controversies surrounding the Lusitania, what lessons do you believe can be learned from this incident in terms of how history is recorded and remembered?

It is a very sad truth that historical facts are always subject to manipulation and distortion and this has been the case since the beginnings of human history, period.  In my books, The Falsification of History and its sister volume, The Falsification of Science (as well as in all my other books) I provide masses of evidence and plenty of examples to back up this premise.

Of course, the simple fact is that in order to maintain control of populations, they must be lied-to and propagandised on a grand scale.  If ‘we the people’ became aware ‘en masse’ of the truth behind the cynical machinations and real agendas of our elite controllers, then we would not be so compliant and easy to manipulate.

Personally I am a huge advocate of retaining ‘paper’ books (as opposed to electronic devices such as Kindles, for example) as this is one way of improving the chances of keeping track of reality, although not absolutely infallible as the burning of the Great Library of Alexandria 1700+ years ago demonstrates.  Obviously electronic records are far easier to change and manipulate, whereas a printed page has much more permanence.  Although electronic records do have their place, it is absolutely essential in my view, that hard copy records are also maintained in order for them to stand a better chance of them being retained in the form intended.

In his epic work 1984, George Orwell’s character Winston Smith is employed as a clerk who is paid to alter history by scouring books, newspapers and other publications and amending or deleting them to fit the agenda as it unfolds and changes down the years. 

It is absolutely essential that we do not allow this state of affairs to come to pass in the same way as many other of Orwell’s sinister predictions.

---

My eight books to date are:

‘The Falsification of History’ (2012)

‘RMS Olympic’ (the REAL Titanic story) (2013)

‘Titanic’s Last Secret’ (a novel based on the above) (2014)

‘Behind the Curtain’ volume 1 (2016)

‘Behind the Curtain’ volume 2 (2016)

‘JFK – A Very British Coup’ (2019)

‘The Falsification of Science’ (2021)

‘Welcome to the Masquerade’ (2022)

Work in progress: ‘2034’ (publication expected late 2024 / early 2025)

My UK Amazon author page: Amazon.co.uk: John Hamer: books, biography, latest update

For Amazon in other countries simply type in John Hamer into the Amazon search bar.

My website: falsificationofhistory.co.uk

My channel is ‘John Hamer Official’: John Hamer Official (bitchute.com)

Thank You for Being Part of Our Community

Your presence here is greatly valued. If you've found the content interesting and useful, please consider supporting it through a paid subscription. While all our resources are freely available, your subscription plays a vital role. It helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. Please make full use of our Free Libraries.

Discover Our Free Libraries:

Unbekoming Interview Library: Dive into a world of thought-provoking interviews across a spectrum of fascinating topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Explore concise summaries of groundbreaking books, distilled for efficient understanding.

Hear From Our Subscribers: Check out the [Subscriber Testimonials] to see the impact of this Substack on our readers.

Share Your Story or Nominate Someone to Interview:

I'm always in search of compelling narratives and insightful individuals to feature. Whether it's personal experiences with the vaccination or other medical interventions, or if you know someone whose story and expertise could enlighten our community, I'd love to hear from you. If you have a story to share, insights to offer, or wish to suggest an interviewee who can add significant value to our discussions, please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com. Your contributions and suggestions are invaluable in enriching our understanding and conversation.

Resources for the Community:

For those affected by COVID vaccine injury, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Discover 'Baseline Human Health': Watch and share this insightful 21-minute video to understand and appreciate the foundations of health without vaccination.

Books as Tools: Consider recommending 'Official Stories' by Liam Scheff to someone seeking understanding. Start with a “safe” chapter such as Electricity and Shakespeare and they might find their way to vaccination.

Your support, whether through subscriptions, sharing stories, or spreading knowledge, is what keeps this community thriving. Thank you for being an integral part of this journey.