Saturday, January 30, 2010

The USS Maine and the RMS Lusitania

"What's the point?"

"What's the point in trying to debunk conspiracy theories?" People ask me. "Isn't this like trying to drain the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon?"

Well, yes it is. But just because it is like trying to drain the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon doesn't make it pointless and futile! Sometimes they are so easily debunked that they produce a warm feeling of satisfaction in an area just behind the eyes.

Two water-borne conspiracy theories that I only recently became aware of surround the sinkings of the USS Maine and the RMS Lusitania and according to conspiracy site, Hitchens Watch, are believed in by none other than Christopher Hitchens, himself.

Greywolf writes:

Christopher jumps back in time to the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor and how this was used as a pretext for the US to launch the Spanish-American War. The Yankees finally owned up to this false flag op in 1976.

Wow! So the claim is that the USS Maine sailed into Havana Harbor and, in 1898, was deliberately sunk by the United States despite the large loss of life of those on board and then blamed on the Spanish? And not only that but owned up to 1976?

I would have thought I'd have heard of this false-flag attack if it were true and so I decided to pick up a few history books that are on my shelves and find out if they agree with the claim.

First, Niall Ferguson's Colossus, a book in which the author claims the United States has always been an imperialist power. There's only one reference - page 48:

Within just three months of the American declaration of war - the trumped-up pretext for which was the accidental explosion of the battleship Maine in Havana Bay, supposedly the fault of Spain - the Spanish forces in both the Caribbean and the Philippines were defeated.

Accidental? That's not what I was promised. Apparently the Yankees have owned up to it being a "false flag" operation. Either Ferguson has been skimping on his research or, far more likely given that he is a war-mongering neo-con, he's pushing the "accident" theory (sometimes known as the "cock-up theory of history") to deflect attention to the confessed bad behaviour of the US.

So, I picked up Hugh Brogan's The Penguin History of the USA to find out what the author has to say about the incident - on page 440, he describes how "rogue newspaper publisher", William Randolph Hearst was eager to foment a war between Spain and the US - this is more like it. Of the incident itself he says:

[Hearst] got his way. A United States battleship, the Maine, on a courtesy visit to Havana, blew up in the harbour on 15th February 1898, killing most of the crew. The explosion was almost certainly an accident, but Hearst thought otherwise. "Remember the Maine!" screamed his papers, announcing that the episode was the result of a fiendish Spanish plot.

Accident? What is Brogan playing at? Not only has no one apparently told him that the Yankees owned up to their false flag in 1976 (Brogan's book was first published in 1985!), but now he's accusing William Rondolph Hearst of being a conspiracy theorist!

Maybe we'll be on safer ground with Howard Zinn, whose credentials are solidly left-wing and whose opposition to war-like foreign policy by the United States is second-to-none. He'll skewer those dastardly Yankee Imperialist Aggressors. Page 304 of A People's History of the United States:

In February 1898, the US battleship Maine, in Havana harbor as a symbol of American interest in the Cuban events, was destroyed by a mysterious explosion and sank, with the loss of 268 men. There was no evidence produced on the cause of the explosion, but excitement grew swiftly in the United States, and McKinley began to move in the direction of war.

What?!? This isn't fair! I was promised a false-flag conspiracy theory that blamed the Yankee Imperialist Aggressors and I'm let down even by Howard Zinn. I have to conclude that Zinn must be one of the fabled "Left Gatekeepers"! Pretending to criticize US foreign policy while actually giving it a pass on its egregious conspiracies.

Unless of course, it simply isn't true that there was a false-flag incident. Where does the claim, that the US have admitted to a false-flag attack come from in the first place?

Well, looking at Wikipedia it appears there are two theories that mainstream historians propose:

1) That the Maine hit a mine laid by the Spanish navy.

2) That the Maine's coal bunker spontaneously combusted detonating nearby magazines.

1976 is the year in which Admiral Rickover conducted his own investigation essentially concluding that the latter hypothesis was the most likely. He didn't conclusively rule out other possibilities but suggested that an accidental coal-bunker fire was the most likely. His investigation formed the basis of his book, titled How the Battleship Maine Was Destroyed.

(Interestingly, however, National Geographic conducted a study in 1999, ressurecting the mine hypothesis.)

In the 1920's the Cubans themselves built a monument to the USS Maine in Havana in which the sailors were honoured for their part in what the government of the time considered the US's assistance in gaining independence for Cuba from the Spanish.



So, just who believes in the false-flag theory if it doesn't form the basis of any officially accepted account?

Well, CNN tells us that it is believed in by Cuban officials who altered the monument to the Maine:

But in 1961, Cuban communist revolutionaries toppled the eagle from the top of that monument. Its mangled remains are proudly displayed in a downtown museum.

Some Cuban officials argue that the United States may have deliberately blown up the Maine to create a pretext for military action against Spain. And today, the wording on the monument describes the Maine's sailors as "victims sacrificed to the imperialist greed in its fervor to seize control of Cuba."


The theory is also hinted at by Holocaust-denying bishop Richard Williamson, who is quoted on Wikipedia as saying:

"There is serious reason to believe – that in 1898, it was not the Spaniards who sank the 'USS Maine'; that in 1917, it was not the Germans who set up the 'Lusitania' as a target; that in 1941 it was not the Japanese who set up Pearl Harbor for attack; that in 1963 it was not Lee Harvey Oswald who killed President Kennedy".

And indeed, it seems to have been Hitchens' purpose in mentioning the Maine that serves as his basis for claiming that the Lusitania was allowed to sink by Winston Churchill, who was at the time first lord of the Admiralty. He's using a standard technique in citing precedent to make a conspiracy seem more credible.

I'll leave it to David Aaronovitch to make this maneouvre more clear:

As has already been noted, conspiracists work hard to convince people that conspiracy is everywhere. An individual theory will seem less improbable if an entire history of similar cases can be cited. These can be as ancient as the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, and today may include references to Pearl Harbor, the Reichstag fire, and the 1965 Gulf of Tonkin incident. The plot to murder JFK is first base if you want to convince people that RFK and MLK were also murdered by arms of the American state.

As for the specific claims about the Lusitania, please read this website.


Please note: Howard Zinn passed away on exactly the same day as J.D Salinger 27th January, 2010. As with Salinger's death, I deny all responsibility.



8 comments:

Rakhmetov said...

I don't get why you refer to Hitchens Watch as a "conspiracy site" when only Greywolf I believe entertains any of that rubbish.

angrysoba said...

Hi Rakh!

Nice to see you drop by.

I do realize that you are not a conspiracist and that some of the contributors there are not. But in recent times the conspiracies have seemed to push almost all else aside and much of it has no relevance to Hitchens at all.

Global Warming is a scam conspiracies, vaccines give kids autism conspiracies, the Iranian protestors are Zionist actors conspiracies, 9/11 was an inside job conspiracies, 7/7 was an inside job conspiracies, Hasan was a mind-controlled patsy conspiracies, the Glasgow bombers were mind-controlled patsies conspiracies, FDR made Pearl Harbor happen conspiracies...

There's so much of it that almost everyone else who used to read the blog and engage in interesting debates there have left. Others seemed to have pulled the plug (The guy who runs Lenin's Tomb quietly dropped Hitchens Watch from its blogrole) and there has been a general willingness to embrace some very, very dodgy figures from the hard Left to the isolationist, Bibles, bullets and bunkers right-wing.

Coincidentally, just yesterday, Mark G sent me an article asking me to either refute or acknowledge it and I'm part-way through writing a post on it that may or may not see the light of day.

It's an article by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed or Dr Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed MA DPhil (Sussex) to us. and unless I am very much mistaken he's been reading Hitchens Watch. What do you think?

But if you like I will change the description of Hitchens Watch to "conspiracy-friendly".

Greywolf said...

"only Greywolf I believe entertains any of that rubbish"

That's a false belief. We all entertain certain conspiracy theories. For instance, that Angrysoba is a mind-controlled patsy. And remember, there are known ascribed conspiracy theories, the ones we know we ascribe to, and unknown ascribed conspiracy theories, the ones we ascribe to without knowing we do so.

"But in recent times the conspiracies have seemed to push almost all else aside and much of it has no relevance to Hitchens at all."

That's a false impression, the vast majority of recent posts have not touched on conspiracies and the vast, vast majority have been extremely relevant to Hitchens.

"There's so much of it that almost everyone else who used to read the blog and engage in interesting debates there have left."

Actually our visitor stats are still very good and I get plenty of emails from readers who gush with approval at what I right. It's true that there's a lot less commenting now than a year or two ago but that's mainly because people - including myself - gave gotten bored with the subject of Christopher Hitchens. The other big factor is that FGFM is heavy on the banning stick.

"Global Warming is a scam conspiracies," - Catastrophic AGW is a scam, fact. "vaccines give kids autism conspiracies," — It is highly probably that with the number of shots kids get these days that they do. "the Iranian protestors are Zionist actors conspiracies," — Merely pointing out that there are other posssible explanations that make more sense than the CNN take. "9/11 was an inside job conspiracies," — Sone of them are true, but which ones? "7/7 was an inside job conspiracies," — Peter Power proved that. "Hasan was a mind-controlled patsy conspiracies," — again, merely pointing out there are other explanations, but like Mark G, I expect the guy just when postal, like the anthrax terrorist. "the Glasgow bombers were mind-controlled patsies conspiracies," — I can't remember what I said about them. "FDR made Pearl Harbor happen conspiracies..." — I can't remember ever having sembraced anything along those lines. But I guess it seems I did to you, so that makes it all right to say I did.

"(The guy who runs Lenin's Tomb quietly dropped Hitchens Watch from its blogrole)"

Much as I love Richard, he is an unreconstructed bolshie of the Rakhmetov kind, and unlike Rakh, you and myself, he takes his writing very seriously rather than as an interlude from real life, so it's natural he wouldn't want to be linked with a site that promoted "conspiracy theories" even in passing.

"and there has been a general willingness to embrace some very, very dodgy figures from the hard Left to the isolationist, Bibles, bullets and bunkers right-wing."

But we have never hugged anyone quite as Decent as your hearthrob David Aaronovitch. How do you know some of these "dodgy, dodgy, dodgy figures aren't right in their opinions and facts and you and David aren't wrong?

I'll decide what I think about whatever issue based on my own understanding, knowledge and instinct and I let others do the same. And I don't mind debating anyone who is civil, honest and to the point. But when dealing with stuff like 9/11, vaccines and AGW, I find other people often react emotionally to my opinions and lash out with anger, spite, ridicule, disgust, etc. in response. And I find it hard to deal with the negativity, so most of the time I just don't bother.

Caustic Logic said...

Unless of course, it simply isn't true that there was a false-flag incident. Where does the claim, that the US have admitted to a false-flag attack come from in the first place?

Now that it's quoted back, I'm sure you can see you're conflating a claim of admission of inside job and actual inside job. The claim is indeed fals - no such "confession" happened in 1976. But neither you nor anyone else has shown for sure how it wasn't an inside job.

In case you missed my own blogosphere contributions, check: http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/05/uss-maine-masterlist.html
Nothing like 'proof' but circumstantial clues to help illustrate the possibility.

Good blog here. I like it.

angrysoba said...

Now that it's quoted back, I'm sure you can see you're conflating a claim of admission of inside job and actual inside job. The claim is indeed fals - no such "confession" happened in 1976. But neither you nor anyone else has shown for sure how it wasn't an inside job.


Okay, but it wasn't my intention to show it wasn't an inside job or a false flag, I was responding to this claim:

Christopher jumps back in time to the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor and how this was used as a pretext for the US to launch the Spanish-American War. The Yankees finally owned up to this false flag op in 1976.


It was the first I had heard of it so I simply used the resources I had to see whether or not the "Yankees finally owned up to [it]" I think that this blogpost simply concludes that it isn't true.

So, yes, that does leave the possibility that it was an inside job/false-flag but the fact that it was a convenient or desirable event to certain people isn't really evidence.

In case you missed my own blogosphere contributions, check: http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/05/uss-maine-masterlist.html
Nothing like 'proof' but circumstantial clues to help illustrate the possibility.



Yes, I enjoyed reading one of your posts on the USS Maine a while back. But if we go with "circumstantial clues" then doesn't that make William Randolf Hearst a suspect? Does anyone suspect McKinley? Was McKinley assassinated by the Spanish?

angrysoba said...

Good blog here. I like it.

Thanks. Feel free to drop in whenever you like.

Anonymous said...

The Maine explosion was clearly an accident, and it is highly likely there was a conspiracy to cover it up, probably not to start a war but to prevent a total embarrassment of the US Navy and the United States. If so, then the conspiracy, like most true conspiracies (like the Drefus affair of the same period) do damage far in excess of what was intended. Of course it might have been utter ignorance of the officers doing the investigation, but most likely it was a not want to know situation. However, if there was a conspiracy, the responsibility still has to go on to the United States so although a false flag event is ludicrous, a conspiracy with unsought consequences can have as bad an impact...and the responsibility does not rest with the court of inquiry....the Secretary of the Navy and the President could have insisted on a more thorough investigation...but they had already been told what they wanted to hear. Hoodoo

Anonymous said...

I failed to add that the most likely event leading to an explosion was stated in the original testimony but has been ignored to this day, the scaling and painting project started 14-10 days before the explosion in the forward "B" coal bunkers of the Maine (the bunkers were still empty on the night of the explosion), one of the two story bunkers sharing a wall with the magazine that exploded and coal bunker A-16 which was also sharing a wall with the magazine...it is highly possible that curing paint and "driers" would have been filling the lower forward portion of the ship with fumes and that is the part of the ship that exploded. Hoodoo