I'm not trying to impart any malicious motives on your part and I apologize if I came across that way. Churchill is one of my heroes and I really don't think he would have callously placed the lives of thousands of American civilians in jeopardy that way.
“Churchill is one of my heroes and I really don’t think he would have callously placed the lives of thousands of American civilians in jeopardy that way. “
First, leaders make sacrifices. Coventry was not good for the local residents, but it was done in WWII.
It is hard to go back 90+ years and speculate well, but at one point I was well-read on the subject and the idea that the decision (and it WAS a decision, presumably taken by the admiralty) to place armaments on the largest UK-flagged passenger liners (note - I don’t know if Mauratania or Olympic carried them, Britannic was a hospital ship in the Med. and never saw passenger service iirc) was taken unaware of the implications *if one was sunk* seemed and seems very unlikely. They knew damn well it would PO the yanks and the yank press.
The fact churchill was sacked almost immediately afterward raises at least the possibility that someone was very unhappy with what they were told about the legality/cargo involved in the sinking.