OFFICER LIGHTOLLER
PIERCEARRW
Does anyone have any information about his life after the sinking of the
Titanic?
elizabeth foxwell
PIERCEARRW wrote:
>Does anyone have any information about his life after the sinking of the Titanic?
The remarkable Charles H. Lightoller went on to command a torpedo boat
in World War I and participate in the evacuation of Dunkirk in World
War II in his 60-ft yacht, The Sundowner. He died in 1952. See Patrick
Stenson's _The Odyssey of C.H. Lightoller_(1984).
KEOGH1876
He lived until well after WWII. In fact, he participated in the evacuation of
the Allied troops from Dunkirk in 1940, using his own personal boat to cross
the English Channel to effect the rescue. I believe he died in the 1960s, but
I am not clear on that at this point. Give me a little time and I can confirm
the date of his death.
He was an avid mariner, and loved the sea and sailing. He was the
quintessential seaman, and his conduct on April 14-15, 1912 was exemplary.
Deayton
In article <19971018012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
keog...@aol.com (KEOGH1876) writes:
>He was an avid mariner, and loved the sea and sailing. He was the
> quintessential seaman, and his conduct on April 14-15, 1912 was exemplary.
I think his yacht Sundowner has been preserved, possibly at Ramsgate, or
at least there was an attrempt to preserve it. This was in connectiuon with
its being a Dunkirk Little Ship.
Alistair Deayton
Paisley, Scotland
JDzik
>He was an avid mariner, and loved the sea and sailing. He was the
> quintessential seaman, and his conduct on April 14-15, 1912 was exemplary.
I'm afraid that I would not classify his actions in leaving empty places in
lifeboats when there were men available to fill them on the grounds that all
women must be put in lifeboats before any man could as "exemplary." I'm not
really aware of anything else of quite the same signficance that he did that
evening.
PIERCEARRW
>I'm afraid that I would not classify his actions in leaving empty places in
> lifeboats when there were men available to fill them on the grounds that all
> women must be put in lifeboats before any man could as "exemplary." I'm not
> really aware of anything else of quite the same signficance that he did that
> evening.
You have no idea what you are talking about. DO you even know the story?
JDzik
Lightoller interpreted the "women and children first" rule to mean that only
women and children would be allowed in lifeboats until such time as all women
and children were to safety. As such, he refused permission for a number of
men to enter lifeboats in spite of the fact that there were spaces. John
Jacob Astor was one man so refused. He died as a direct result of
Lightoller's actions.
In contrast, Murdoch, loading boats on the other side of the ship, allowed men
to take seats if there was space available.
I suggest you read _A_Night_To_Remember_, which contains the above descriptions.
Joseph Malik
PIERCEARRW <pierc...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971020153...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> >I'm afraid that I would not classify his actions in leaving empty places
in
> > lifeboats when there were men available to fill them on the grounds
that all
> > women must be put in lifeboats before any man could as "exemplary."
I'm not
> > really aware of anything else of quite the same signficance that he did
that
> > evening.
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about. DO you even know the story?
Please manage to stop sounding so insolent. Even if you were correct (and
you aren't), no one wants to post alongside such an attitude.
Joe
PIERCEARRW
You're right, you're right. I was a tad insolent. Sorry.
Eric Seright-Payne
On 20 Oct 1997 20:21:16 GMT, pierc...@aol.com (PIERCEARRW) wrote:
>John Jacob Astor was not refused. He refused to be rescued as long as there
> were women and children who could have the berth. It never occured to him
> that he could take a place. He remained in the men's smoking lounge till
> almost the bitter end with others and waited with dignity. He knew, like the
> other men, that to save the women and children was paramount.
Wrong. Lightoller was asked by Astor if he could enter the boat, #4, as his
wife was in "a delicate condition." Lightoller told Astor no man could
enter the boats as long as women were aboard. Astor then took Lightoller's
name and boat number, presumably to lodge a complaint later.
>
>Lightoller prevented any men from taking available spots because he was under
> orders to do so. That was the way it was then. And Astor wasn't one of them
> refused.
Wrong.
Eric Seright-Payne
Livermore, CA
90 pages of Titanic: http://www.wco.com/~wseright
PIERCEARRW
>But, thats the way we view things now, in 1997. Lightoller was a >"by the
book" officer. He fit the the profile for an officer
> doing his duty in 1912, excercising the "women and children >first" rule.
I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. We have to understand this from the viewpoint of 1912
values. And in that respect he acted accordingly. Hell, even now I feel women
and children should go first. But that's just me.
>He and his son put their lives on the line in the Dunkirk rescue >being shot
at to and from the pick up point. I do think he >deserves to be called an
"exemplary" seaman.
AMEN!
MNichol
Subject: Re: OFFICER LIGHTOLLER
From: jd...@aol.com (JDzik)
Date: Mon, Oct 20, 1997 08:32 EDT
Message-id: <19971020123...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>>He was an avid mariner, and loved the sea and sailing. He was >>the
quintessential seaman, and his conduct on April 14-15, 1912 >>was exemplary.
>I'm afraid that I would not classify his actions in leaving empty >places in
lifeboats when there were men available to fill them on >the grounds that all
women must be put in lifeboats before any >man could as "exemplary." I'm not
really aware of anything else >of quite the same signficance that he did that
evening.
I think you've got to look at this from 2 prospectives. I agree with you in the
sense that you and I would have probably filled the boats to capacity if no
other women were in the area to be boarded. But, thats the way we view things
now, in 1997.
Lightoller was a "by the book" officer. He fit the the profile for an officer
doing his duty in 1912, excercising the "women and children first" rule.
I don't think he was "flexing his muscles" by not allowing men to board. He
didn't even think it was necessary for a ship to carry firearms.
He wrote, after the disaster, that he didn't see any reason for a ship to carry
weapons, disaster or not. He never left Titanic, as he told Senator Smith at
the U.S. inquiries, "the Titanic left me."
PIERCEARRW
I'd like to see you on deck of a sinking ship (thought unsinkable) with a
couple of thousand people screaming for a seat on the lifeboats while they're
in an all out panic; yyou know you're about to die and selfish male assholes
are trying to sneak onto the liferafts without giving a damn whether even
children survive.
You act any differently in that situation and we'll see how well the rest of
the world "monday morning quarterback's" YOU.
Joseph Malik
JDzik <jd...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971021173...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> But I'm afraid that if you judge him that way, then you once again find
the
> result that Lightoller did not behave in an exemplary fashion. After
all, by
> the standards of Edwardian society, Lightoller did no more then one
would
> expect of any gentleman. Not exemplary at all - instead he was just
doing his
> job with a moderate amount of competence. (Not a great amount of
competence,
> mind you. I don't think any of the crew of the Titanic displayed an
> overwhelming degree of competence.)
The majority of great heroes in history were not acting extraordinarily.
They simply did what was expected of them.
I am reminded of the story in which a building in England was burning to
the ground. The firefighters rushed into the crumbling house, brightly
aflame, to find a British police officer standing at his post. He had been
told to stay there until further notice. Wasn't he just doing what was
expected?
Both in the past and the present, gentlemen are the real heroes. No
further bravery is required.
Joseph
Joseph Malik
Eric Seright-Payne <j...@wco.com> wrote in article
> >John Jacob Astor was not refused.
> Wrong. Lightoller was asked by Astor if he could enter the boat, #4, as
his
> wife was in "a delicate condition."
Pardon me for asking, but was Astor anyone important, or just someone we
know was on board?
Actually, as I write this I seem to think he was the president of the White
Star Line...is this true?
Joseph
Joseph Malik
Once again, let's look at this from an Edwardian perspective, circa 1912.
Any self-respecting gentleman would not ask for a seat on a lifeboat,
unless it was to protect his wife or children, as in the case of Astor. It
didn't matter to him that the lifeboats were only half empty.
Imagine, if you will, being a wealthy gentleman of the period, wearing your
eveningwear and being told that the ship was going under. You would have
said goodbye to your family (no tears) and gone belowdecks, to your
stateroom or to one of the lounges, smoking, drinking, patiently awaiting
the water which would envelop you.
To these men, dying was not as important as being a gentleman. Call it
stupid or chauvinistic or reactionary or what you will, this is how men
have traditionally acted until very recently in history.
Joseph
Michel Morin <dt...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
<62l36p$1...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
> Was it considered more gallant or gentlemanly to send these boats
> away half filled rather than seeing men aboard them?
>
> Wasn't the order women and children FIRST?
>
> Not women and children ONLY.
>
> If the boats were loaded with as many women and children he could see
> wasn't it his responsibility (or duty) to fill the remaining spaces
> with passengers regardless of gender?
>
> I'm finding it hard to understand the gallantry of watching empty
> seats in a life boat row away while there are souls on board who
> could have filled them. Did his responsibilities to the male
> passengers suddenly become non existant?
Michel Morin
I don't want to slam Lightoller in any way,but I have to question his
logic on that night,If there truly were no women or children left to
fill out the life boats at his post,what was the logic in sending away
life boats with empty seats?
Was it considered more gallant or gentlemanly to send these boats
away half filled rather than seeing men aboard them?
Wasn't the order women and children FIRST?
Not women and children ONLY.
If the boats were loaded with as many women and children he could see
wasn't it his responsibility (or duty) to fill the remaining spaces
with passengers regardless of gender?
I'm finding it hard to understand the gallantry of watching empty
seats in a life boat row away while there are souls on board who
could have filled them. Did his responsibilities to the male
passengers suddenly become non existant?
Maybe I am armchair quarterbacking,after all I wasn't there to
witness the panic or to see the overwhelming burden put on the
Titanic's crew and officers.
I wonder how I would have reacted, maybe no better.
My two one hundreth's of a dollar.
Mike
--
"I looked upwards-we were right under the three enormous propellers.For an
instant,I thought they were sure to come down on top of us.Then,with the
deadened noise of the bursting of her last few gallant bulkheads,she slid
quietly away from us into the sea". -Jack Thayer,Titanic survivor-
JDzik
>The majority of great heroes in history were not acting
> extraordinarily. They simply did what was expected of them.
I'm not sure if I'd agree that the majority of heroes were this way. There
have certainly been a great many acts of moral heroism in which an element of
choice was involved.
But I'll grant you that there is a kind of heroism that is categorized by the
way in which people did what was expected.
Further, I'd agree, as mentioned in another posting, that Lightoller and many
of the passangers and crew of the Titanic acted with a great deal of grace
under a tremendous amount of pressure that night. For this they are much to
be admired.
JDzik
>Pardon me for asking, but was Astor anyone important, or just
> someone we know was on board?
Astor was prominent, being a rather wealthy man who had recently been in the
society news for marrying a woman much younger then him and promptly
impregnating her. A bit of a scandal at the time.
>Actually, as I write this I seem to think he was the president of the
>White Star Line...is this true?
No, that would be J. Bruce Ismay, who survived the Titanic.
As I was growing up, my family had a jigsaw puzzle of the front page of the New
York Times reporting the sinking. Part of the headline read: "Ismay safe.
Mrs Astor maybe." That says something of the importance of the Astors.
PIERCEARRW
A pity that history doesn't share that optimsitic appraisal.
>Smith wanted to nail Ismay for cowardice, but in the end he had >to conclude
that Ismay had behaved properly throughout.
>Sadly, I've been on projects that sank without a trace.
>But of course, this has nothing to do with the basic point: a >professional
has a responsibility to prepare himself adequately >for the tasks that he
takes on.
That doesn't answer the question. WHICH SHIP LEFT YOU? If you are going to
claim you have been in similar situations in order to justify standing in
judgement of Lightoller ... you should be prepared to offer ev-i-dence.
JDzik
Feeling a little hostile today, are we?
Personally, I'd like to think that if I had a professional responsibility in
which the lives of thousands depended on my behavior, I'd act with more
forethought then that shown by any of the officers of the Titanic, including
Lightoller. I'd like to think that I would not ignore ice warnings, not shrug
off knowledge that water temperatures had dropped below freezing, not lose
sight of the implications of a dark and calm night. And perhaps most
importantly, that I would go to the trouble before a crisis arose of finding
out just how the lifeboat system worked.
Lightoller and the rest of the crew of the Titanic did none of these things.
Instead, they were staunch examples of the Edwardian man, believing that an
Englishman could get by with a lot of pluck and a bit of improvisation. Their
passengers would have done far better if they had been shown more
professionalism and less staunch manliness.
One final note: Lightoller and many of the rest of the crew of the Titanic are
to be admired for one thing above all: they showed a remarkable amount of
grace under a tremendous amount of pressure.
There is one person posting to this thread who has shown absolutely no grace
under very little pressure. I'll give you a hint: it isn't me. On evidence
of this evidence alone, I'll let you guess who appears least likely to behave
well in a situation such as that faced by Lightoller and others on the Titanic.
Joe
PIERCEARRW
>We live in a world in which racism, sexism, and going to war and >committing
murder out of a sense of honor is not considered >acceptable. Yes, I'd say
that this is a much better world.
And yet, we still have these ... hmmmmmm
And BTW ... war has never been considered "acceptable" but sometimes necessary.
Joseph Malik
PIERCEARRW <pierc...@aol.com> wrote in article
> >To these men, dying was not as important as being a gentleman. >Call it
> stupid or chauvinistic or reactionary or what you will, this >is how men
have
> traditionally acted until very recently in history.
>
> And we live in such a much better world today as a result, don't we?
Would
> that men had a small portion of this attitude today.
Are you being sarcastic? I am the same who defended the actions of these
gentlemen. I completely agree with you on this point.
I wish you could acquire some additional characteristics of the men of this
age and speak as a gentleman would to others.
Joseph
PIERCEARRW
> There have been times and places even
> in the US where war was considered a good thing.
I don't know of ANY soldier who thought war was a "good thing." Politicians,
well that's another story. But the grunt in the trenches, I don't know of any
who thought it was a "good thing."
PIERCEARRW
>The question is irrelevant in this context. My primary complaint >with
Lightoller here is that he failed to adequately prepare >himself. That lack
of preparation occurred well before April 14, >1912. I have been in
situations where preparation was required >to fulfill professional
obligations, and therefore I've had similar >experiences to those concerning
which I'm
> criticizing Lightoller.
>
It goes to credibility. But that really isn't the issue. Point is, you villify
Lightoller for his actions and yet are forgiving of Ismay and Captain Smith
for the tragic decisions leading up to the sinking. Lightoller interpreted
his orders differently than the 1st officer, that's true. But that would be
true of EVERYONE. So, let's just agree to disagree since neither of us were
there.
Regards.
- JD
JDzik
>It goes to credibility. But that really isn't the issue. Point is, you
> Lightoller for his actions and yet are forgiving of Ismay and Captain
> for the tragic decisions leading up to the sinking.
Hmm. I certainly never meant to give the impression that I was forgiving of
Smith's actions. Had anyone posted that he was "exemplary," I would have
argued as strongly as I have over Lightoller.
I am a bit more forgiving of Ismay. I do think that he has gotten a raw deal
in the popular imagination. From what I know, I don't think he did anything
wrong on the trip itself. I'm not sure to the extent he was responsible for
the problems that led to the Titanic sinking, though.
FWIW, I think the primary problems that led to the Titanic were ones of
considering cost-management as more important then risk-management. Thus the
Titanic lacked several safety features that would have kept her afloat that
night, safety features that had been used as early as the 1850's on the Great
Eastern. However, these were expensive, and could reduce the luxury level of
the ship, and so were not used. Further, there were inadequate sea trials and
test and training in the use of safety equipment. While these latter were
primarily due to hubris, I suspect that cost considerations played a part as
well.
As I said, I'm not sure how much of this was Ismay's responsibility. However,
the professionals involved who had the true responsibility were Smith,
Andrews, and the other crew and builders. (I say this in spite of the fact
that I find these men, particularly Andrews, extremely compelling figures.)
>Lightoller
>interpreted<BR>
> his orders differently than the 1st officer, that's true. But that would
>be true of EVERYONE.
To some extent, this was Smith's responsibility. He should have made his
orders clear and should have checked that they were. We cannot know for
certain who had the correct interpretation, Lightoller or Murdoch.
JDzik
>>But at least they are not considered acceptable - an important
>> change.
> How is it important? Your view of the ideal does not change the
> factual.
I'd say it's important in at least two ways.
First of all, if society in general views racism, sexism, etcism, as
acceptable, then it is likely that there will be less of them. At a minimum,
there will be less openly practiced bias - a good thing indeed. As an example
of this, I can only point to the difference between 1900 and 1997: yes, there
is still bias. But there is a whole lot less of it, and it is not
institutionalized.
Second, I am of the admittedly idealistic view that ideas and beliefs matter in
and of themselves, quite beyond there effect on the physical world. I am
certainly far more comfortable living in a society that believes in equal
opportunity, even if the society does sometimes fail to live up to its ideals.
Yes, ideals alone don't put bread on the table. But then, man does not live
by bread alone.
PIERCEARRW
> I'm not sure to the extent he was responsible for
> the problems that led to the Titanic sinking, though.
Being President of the Line, the tragedy and the events that led up to it
happened on his watch. I would think he bears a fair amount of responsibility
for certain business decisions regarding the already mentioned sea trials, the
defaults in the Titanic design, and perhaps, though we can't be certain of
this, the fact that the iceberg warnings were ignored (though I think it's
safe to say that Captain Smith is culpable for this).
>FWIW, I think the primary problems that led to the Titanic were >ones of
considering cost-management as more important then >risk-management.
This would be within Ismay's realm of responsibility I would think. Although
in all fairness, it WAS JP Morgan who owned the line.
> We cannot know for certain who had the correct interpretation, >Lightoller or
Murdoch.
I agree wholeheartedly.
PIERCEARRW
>Feeling a little hostile today, are we?
Not hostile. I just get annoyed when individuals sit in judgement over others
when they have never been in a situation like it. Granted, no one has ever
been in a situation similar to the one Lightoller found himself in on that
chilly April night, but it's a bit self-righteous to say Lightoller was acting
in a manner that was circumspect when his behavior was considered exemplary
for the time. And I would argue acceptable even now.
>Personally, I'd like ... I'd act with more forethought then that >shown by any
of the officers of the Titanic, including Lightoller.
This is such a convenient statement. Anyone can say this. I refer you to my
previous post. When you're in this situation then we'll see.
>I'd like to think that I would not ignore ice warnings, not shrug
> off knowledge that water temperatures had dropped below >freezing, not lose
sight of the implications of a dark and calm >night.
HOW IS THIS LIGHTOLLER's FAULT? He was the FOURTH OFFICER for god's sake.
This was not Lightoller's responsibility, nor his fault. This lies with Smith
and to a greater extent Ismay.
>And perhaps most importantly, that I would go to the trouble >before a crisis
arose of finding out just how the lifeboat system >worked.
Correct me if I am wrong (and I may indeed be) but the actual operation of the
system wasn't the issue here. It was the utter LACK of lifeboats to begin
with. Even if the evacuation of lifeboats had been flawless, the loss of life
would have been almost as staggering.
>Lightoller and the rest of the crew of the Titanic did none of >these things.
As I said, Lightoller wasn't responsible to ignoring iceberg warnings as he was
only the 4th officer. Water temperatures didn't really have anything to do
with it since we only learned recently that the water temperature had the
impact it did on the steel which, though tragically flawed by current
standards was considered acceptable quality of the day, was rendered brittle
by the water temp. But they simply didn't know that in 1912, so there is NO
WAY Lightoller, or anyone else could, or should be held responsible for this.
And the lack of lifeboats was a decision that rests on the head of ISMAY and
J.P. MORGAN, the owner of the White Star Line. And their arrogance that any
boat could be considered unsinkable.
> Instead, they were staunch examples of the Edwardian man, >believing that an
Englishman could get by with a lot of pluck and >a bit of improvisation.
Political correctness finally rearing it's ugly head, rather than hiding in the
shadows of quiet hyperbole. Well, I have news for you, the qualities you
criticize of Edwardian man served England well during two world wars (with a
little help from the US) and even before that.
The bottom line is, the hubris that anyone could build an unsinkable boat in
the face of the sheer power of the sea, the lack of lifeboats for everyone on
board, and the design flaws in the ship and the metal itself was the primary
fault of this tragedy. They new it then, and we know it now.
And again, you must resort to personal attacks (no matter how eloquently
veiled) when it simply isn't necessary if your points carry any merit at all.
But the one thing we can agree on is that Lightoller and the rest of the crew,
when faced with the fact they might easily die that night,
showed that grace under pressure and saved what lives that they could. Could
they have saved more? Perhaps. But the lessons learned from this tragedy
insured that lives would never be lost like this again.
I think Lightoller did a fine job. And his actions were cleared by every board
of inquiry, vindicating that. Even by today's standards.
Joseph Malik
PIERCEARRW <pierc...@aol.com> wrote in article
> That didn't take long. I thought we agreed to behave?
We did, but any agreements taking place on an ng are bound to take awhile
to pass into effect. I agree, the comment is out of line. Sorry.
Joseph
JDzik
>And again, you must resort to personal attacks (no matter how
> eloquently veiled) when it simply isn't necessary if your points carry
> any merit at all.
Do my eyes deceive me? Is this the same piercearrw who flamed me for
suggesting that the Titanic could have ferried passengers to the Californian,
who has in his most recent posting thrown the phrase "politically correct" at
me as an insult, who responded to my first post on this thread by writing,
"You have no idea what you are talking about. DO you even know the story?"
when subsequent events have shown that it is he who does not know, who accused
me of being an ignorant "Monday morning quarterback?"
No, it couldn't possibly be the same person. After all, surely the piercearrw
who has written this most recent note would not stoop to hypocrisy of this
sort.
But you know, piercearrw, you really should know that someone else is using
your account for resorting to personal attacks. You really should do
something about that.
JDzik
>> Is this the same piercearrw who flamed me for<BR>
>> suggesting that the Titanic could have ferried passengers to the<BR>
>>Californian,<BR>
><BR>
>As I suggested in my apology to you, I HAD COME IN THE MIDDLE OF THE<BR>
> CONVERSATION and wasn't aware of the topic being a "what if" in regards to
>the<BR>
> Californian. An apology, which you had accepted.<BR>
My point exactly. You flame first without thinking.
>> "You have no idea what you are talking about. DO you even >know the
>story?"<BR>
><BR>
>Again, as I said, I had ALREADY APOLOGIZED for that statement. Bringing it
>up<BR>
> now show's your utter disengenuousness at having accepted it.<BR>
Actually, you never apologized for that particular flame. Just to remind you,
this was the first time you flamed me in the Lightoller thread, not the time
that you flamed me in the Californian thread. I realize that it must be hard
for you to keep track of all your flames.
>And this from a man who suggested I compare Lightoller with Saddam Hussein
>or<BR>
> Adolf Hitler.<BR>
Not my statement at all. My statement was simply that you should be
consistent: either you should refrain from judging people who were raised in
different circumstances then you were, or you should feel free to judge all
such people. Choose one, and live by the consequences.
JDzik
>>To these men, dying was not as important as being a gentleman. >Call it<BR>
> stupid or chauvinistic or reactionary or what you will, this >is how men
> traditionally acted until very recently in history.<BR>
><BR>
>And we live in such a much better world today as a result, don't we?
> that men had a small portion of this attitude today.<BR>
Joseph Malik
JDzik <jd...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971022184...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> >>We live in a world in which racism, sexism, and going to war and
>committing
> >murder out of a sense of honor is not considered >acceptable.
>
> > Yes, I'd say
> >that this is a much better world.And yet, we still have these ...
hmmmmmm
>
> Sadly true. We will probably always have them in some degree or other.
PIERCEARRW
All the men you qouted were high ranking generals. There is a certain amount
of politics that comes with those jobs. And I would also contend that some
(like Lee) had that Southern Honor thing clouding their judgement.
But the regular grunt in the field, whether officer or non-com, usually has no
real desire to fight a war since it's in their best interest to avoid it.
And I think Robert E. Lee's famous saying: "It is good that war is so terrible,
else we would grow too fond of it" actually bears this out.
>It is never a good idea to make a universal statement of human >likes and
dislikes. There are certain to be exceptions, for >human tastes can be
notoriously perverse.
The dangers of painting with a broad brush. I agree here.
I think in retrospect, there is enough blame spread out over people, events,
designs, quality of steel, etc. to say at least to me that the Titanic tragedy
was unavoidable. One of those linchpin events in history that changes people
forever. So many changes in contruction & sailing were put into effect as a
result of her tragedy. So perhaps that's what humanity can take from it all
... that in the end, our hubris is what does us in.
PIERCEARRW
>I wish you could acquire some additional characteristics of the >men of this
age and speak as a gentleman would to others.
That didn't take long. I thought we agreed to behave?
JDzik
>All the men you qouted were high ranking generals. There is a certain amount
> of politics that comes with those jobs. And I would also contend that some
> (like Lee) had that Southern Honor thing clouding their judgement.
Hitler was a corporal during WWI, which he enjoyed. Custer started the Civil
War as a lieutenant, I believe - certainly not a general. Churchill never did
become a general - his experiences in various wars was in various jr officer
positions ranging up to lt colonel (and once, when a POW in the Boer War, as a
meddling civilian war correspondant). Plenty of Civil War generals wrote of
happy experiences in the Mexican War as junior officers.
JDzik
>I think in retrospect, there is enough blame spread out over
> people, events, designs, quality of steel, etc. to say at least to me
> that the Titanic tragedy was unavoidable. One of those
> linchpin events in history that changes people
> forever. So many changes in contruction & sailing were put
> into effect as a result of her tragedy. So perhaps that's what
> humanity can take from it all ... that in the end, our hubris is what
> does us in.
Interesting. I take almost the exact opposite lesson from the Titanic.
In my view, the sinking of the Titanic was far from inevitable. Instead, there
was a myriad of circumstances, any one of which could easily have come down
differently and resulted in a completely benign outcome. Andrews might have
extended the watertight bulkheads an additional ten feet. The ship might have
had a double hull. The steel might have been better. Smith might have
ordered a more careful passage. The radio operators might not have ignored
the final warning of ice from the Californian. The crew might have done
enough training for Murdoch to know how to react when the iceberg was spotted.
The ship might have had enough lifeboats. The lifeboats might have been used
better. The Californian might have come to the rescue. The Carpathia might
have been closer.
Had any of these things occurred differently, the results of that night may
have been dramatically different. Far from being an inevitable result of
hubris, the Titanic sunk because of a cosmically unlucky train of events.
Some of those events resulted from hubris, but not all, and not inevitably.
There is a real human tendency to try to look for grander causes for
catastrophes. We are not satisfied with the explanation, "Well, it just
happened." But sometimes it does.
Did Smith make mistakes that night? Absolutely. Did Ismay make decisions
based on cost considerations that were contributing factors to the sinking?
Yes. Did Andrews make design decisions that helped lead to his death? Sadly,
yes. Were there other mistakes made by other members of the crew of the
Titanic, her builders, and her suppliers? Yes, there were.
None of these men wanted events to turn out as they did. They just made
mistakes of various kinds, choices that would have been the correct choices
most of the time, and minor acts of negligence. This time, it just turned out
terribly wrong.
As the old saying goes, for want of a nail, the shoe was lost. For want of a
shoe, the horse was lost. For want of a horse, the man was lost. For want of
a man, the battle was lost. For want of a battle, the nation was lost.
Seeing the world in this way can be terrifying. If the Titanic could sink for
no grand reason, then any of our lives can turn upside down in an instant with
no warning, for no cause, and with no way of defending against. Ultimately,
there is no security in this world: we all stand on the edge of the abyss.
This kind of fear of the irrational feeds conspiracy theories: it is easier to
believe in an all-powerful evil conspiracy then it is to believe in an
uncaring universe. It also adds an element of terror to everyday actions: has
anyone else had the experience of thinking after a moment's lapse of
concentration behind the wheel, "Gee, I'm sure glad there wasn't a truck in
that lane."
But it is also possible to take some comfort from this view. I've recently had
the experience of losing a long-term close friendship because of minor
missteps made by a number of people, some of which were wrong things to do,
some of which were well-meaning but of poor result, but none of which were
really all that terrible. And yet these minor incidents, each fairly trivial,
combined to end a friendship of ten years' duration.
During this experience, I've considered the Titanic. And it has been a comfort
to me to think that sometimes bad things happen that are not proportional to
their causes. While there is plenty of blame to go around, the amount of
deserved blame is not equal to the amount of damage. I am only happy that my
own night to remember was so much less harmful then the Titanic's.
One last note: if anyone cares to consider this theme in more detail, I
strongly recommend the book _Wonderful_Life_ by Stephen Jay Gould. This
begins with an examination of a fairly obscure set of fossils called the
Burgess Shale and turns it into a profound consideration of the vast
consequences of small contingencies on history. The book makes marvelous reading.
WLambrukos
>Lightoller prevented any men from taking available spots because he was under
> orders to do so. That was the way it was then. And Astor wasn't one of
>them
Actually, Astor wanted to get in a boat and was refused.
The boats were not fully loaded because the crew was under the mistaken
impression that if they were they would break in two (in the middle) due to
the excess wait. The boats were ordered to be lowered and the people in the
boats were asked to pick up people after lowering.
PIERCEARRW
Too true. Fair enough.
PIERCEARRW
>Actually, Ismay said there were no other WOMEN around.
>You are correct though that had he not gotten in the boat there >only would
have been one more dead person and an empty >space in the boat.
Which poses the question: Shouldn't he have given that seat to one of the
passengers in his charge? I think so. Thus, I see him as a coward. On the
other hand. There is a strong argument that one of Ismays stature needed to
survive in order to represent the company's p.o.v. and report the story at the
inquiry.
But should he have waited until all passengers that could be evacuated were? I
think so.
J.P. Spreij
Joseph Malik <joemalik_...@mindless.com> wrote in article
<01bcde93$753508e0$5663...@a.stallw>...
>
> Pardon me for asking, but was Astor anyone important, or just someone we
> know was on board?
J.J. Astor was a member of the Eastern Establishment - the old, very rich
families that called the tune in the USA until WW II.
> Actually, as I write this I seem to think he was the president of the
White
> Star Line...is this true?
No. The president of the White Star line was J. Bruce Ismay. He was rescued
and in the popular press vilified for that - spent the rest of his life
virtually as a recluse.
--
Jan P. Spreij
PIERCEARRW
I stand corrected.
>What country are you from? In America, the slave trade ended in 1812, but
>the descendents of these slaves were of course kept until 1865, as everyone
>knows--right?
PIERCEARRW
Now this is an impressive response. One that I can agree with. you sold me.
With the possible exception of the grade of the steel. Wasn't it considered
state-of-the-art for the time? That was at least my understanding of the
recent findings.
PIERCEARRW
>Never was a problem that they didn't know how the lifeboat >system worked. The
problem was they didn't believe the >lifeboats could be lowered when fully
loaded, thought they's >bread in two. (British/American Inquiry).
interesting point. It'll be interesting to see where the thread goes with
this.
- JD
WLambrukos
> Pardon me for asking, but was Astor anyone important, or just someone we
>> know was on board?
I also believe that at that point in time he was considered the richest man in
the world.
Bill
PIERCEARRW
Where's the fun in that? Heh heh
Alright!
PIERCEARRW
Nope. JP Morgan was. But he cancelled his trip at the last minute.
If he'd been on the Titanic when she sank, perhaps the great depression
wouldn't have happened.
NOW THERE'S A WHAT IF!
TJ
?????
Is someone responding to email and sending it to this forum by
mistake? This looks very one-sided to be a "conversation."
Joseph Malik
TJ <tjm...@nwinfo.net> wrote in article
> ?????
>
> Is someone responding to email and sending it to this forum by
> mistake? This looks very one-sided to be a "conversation."
No, as a matter of fact, it was a conversation piercearrow and I were
having, and oh, yes, what business is it of yours, buddy?
As I recall, if you see a post you don't understand on an ng, you ignore
it, right?
Please mind yer own business in future.
Joseph
Eric Seright-Payne
On 27 Oct 1997 05:06:08 GMT, "Joseph Malik"
<joemalik_...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
>
>TJ <tjm...@nwinfo.net> wrote in article
>> ?????
>>
>> Is someone responding to email and sending it to this forum by
>> mistake? This looks very one-sided to be a "conversation."
>
>No, as a matter of fact, it was a conversation piercearrow and I were
>having, and oh, yes, what business is it of yours, buddy?
>
>As I recall, if you see a post you don't understand on an ng, you ignore
>it, right?
As I recall, a newsgroup is a PUBLIC forum, and not meant to be the private
playground for two persons to engage in adolescent behavior; are there two
persons, though? Or just one schizophrenic, sad, sad person?
>Please mind yer own business in future.
Please don't chase someone out of the newsgroup for attempting to use the
newsgroup for its desired purpose - learning of ocean liner history,
specifically, the Titanic... this isn't
alt.history.lets.watch.idiots.at.play
Eric Seright-Payne
Livermore, CA
Chris
Please don't chase someone out of the newsgroup for attempting to use the
newsgroup for its desired purpose - learning of ocean liner history,
specifically, the Titanic... this isn't
alt.history.lets.watch.idiots.at.play
Eric Seright-Payne
Livermore, CA
Well said Eric, I agree.
PIERCEARRW
I agree with your point WHOLEHEARTEDLY, Joe. This is NOT a moderated NG. And
there's a reason for that. We were conversing and disagreeing. And I don't
know about anyone else, but when I am following a thread, even when two are
making truce, I hate it when it stops in the middle of the movie, so to speak.
No one has the right to censor anyone here. That's the beauty of it.
Regards,
PA
Eric Smith
jd...@aol.com (JDzik) writes:
>In my view, the sinking of the Titanic was far from inevitable. Instead, there
> was a myriad of circumstances, any one of which could easily have come down
> differently and resulted in a completely benign outcome. Andrews might have
> extended the watertight bulkheads an additional ten feet. The ship might have
> had a double hull. The steel might have been better. Smith might have
> ordered a more careful passage. The radio operators might not have ignored
> the final warning of ice from the Californian. The crew might have done
> enough training for Murdoch to know how to react when the iceberg was spotted.
> The ship might have had enough lifeboats. The lifeboats might have been used
> better. The Californian might have come to the rescue. The Carpathia might
> have been closer.
You may just as well say "the Titanic might never have been built."
It's trivial to point out that any of these things might possibly have
happened but they didn't, but in the larger sense it might also be true
that this is one of those instances of inertia, i.e. that things will
go in the same direction until some event forces them to change. By that
I mean that it was a trend for these ocean liners to be built ever bigger,
faster, and more luxurious, and it was a trend as well that safety
precautions such as adequate lifeboats, a more safety-conscious construction,
and better crew training were being overlooked in the mistaken belief
that the ships were virtually unsinkable so such precautions were
unnecessary.
A disaster on the scale of the Titanic may not have been inevitable, but
it's reasonable to assume that if those trends continued unchecked that
*some* disaster involving a passenger liner would have occurred which
would have had the effect of bringing everybody back to reality. After
all, no one thinks much about the disasters that might have occurred but
didn't, only about those which did occur and might not have. :-)
-----
Eric Smith | This was posted with an altered address to
erics@ netcom .com | thwart bulk email programs. To respond by
http://www.catsdogs.com | email, take out the ".remove.this" part.
"They were like travellers unwillingly returned from brilliant realms,
not yet adjusted to their return." - Olivia Manning
KEOGH1876
Let's put this war thing into perspective, especially as it relates to Robert
E. Lee. Lee's concern for the welfare of his men was uppermost in his beliefs
and strategy, not like that besotted butcher Grant, who succeeded because he
sent incredible numbers of his men to the various charnel houses he called
battlefields, oblivious to the number of casualties, because he had an almost
inexhaustible supply of forces and reserves (if compared to his Confederate
counterparts). Grant's sole strategy was to wear down the South by the use of
superior numbers. Hell, I could have won the damn war with that approach, as
long as I didn't have to write the mayriad letters of condolence to the
familes back home.
JDzik
>Let's put this war thing into perspective, especially as it relates to
>Robert E. Lee. Lee's concern for the welfare of his men was
> uppermost in his beliefs and strategy, not like that besotted
> butcher Grant, who succeeded because he sent incredible
> numbers of his men to the various charnel houses he called
> battlefields, oblivious to the number of casualties, because he
> had an almost inexhaustible supply of forces and reserves (if
> compared to his Confederate counterparts). Grant's sole
> strategy was to wear down the South by the use of
> superior numbers.
Spoken like someone whose only knowledge of Grant is about the 1864 campaign!
You really should read up on Vicksburg, one of the finest campaigns in the
history of warfare!
In any event, you are even wrong about the comparison between Grant and Lee.
Lee's army suffered higher casualty rates then Grant's for all the time that
both were army commanders. (This does not only include the period of
1864-1865, when Lee's army was pretty much destroyed. It also includes the
periods of 1862-1863, when Lee won his greatest successes.) Lee's chosen
operational approach, the offensive-defensive, was notoriously costly in human
terms. All in all, if you had to be a soldier in the Civil War, and you
wanted to survive the war, you were much better serving under Grant then under
Lee. (Of course, you would be better still serving under other generals such
as Sherman, but we won't allow that as an option for now :-))
Further, to put it back on topic, if you wanted to survive unscathed you would
probably have been better off taking a ride on the Titanic then serving under
Lee!
(Incidently, the figure in another posting of 32,500 Confederate deaths at
Gettysburg is incorrect. I've found a figure of 28,000 Confederate casualties
at Gettysbug, but that includes wounded and missing as well as dead. The
right figure for deaths is probably on the order of 3000-5000 - still a large
number, to be sure.)
WLambrukos
>Now hang on a second. Lee ordered roughly 32,500 men to their deaths in
>THREE
> DAYS at Gettysburg<<
Actually I believe the number killed is closer to 5000 for each side.
However, don't forget that the South was on the defending side in many battles
in an era where battles were fought with frontal assults. More often then not
the defending side would win the battle during the Civil War (based on
documentation supplied by Paddy Griffith). To be true, Grant and almost every
general was guilty of using tactics resulting in great casualties (let's not
forget Pickett's charge), but they followed the doctrine of the day. Grant's
"greatness" was that he wasn't afraid (as was so many Union generals in
command of the AoP.
Now, about the Titanic......................................................
Bill
THS92110
I'll probably regret asking, but how does, or did, one get Gettysburg and
Lightoller into the same discussion???????
Maliki
THS92110 <ths9...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971106075...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> I'll probably regret asking, but how does, or did, one get Gettysburg and
> Lightoller into the same discussion???????
Heroism. Male ethics of history.
This *is* a history ng, right?
Joe