Ed says: "It should have never happened. (To bring about the = necessary changes) it had to happen. In the scheme of mankind's = arrogance, not much has changed in 93 years."
I am sorry but the mails keep coming to my Inbox and I could not help = myself but reply to this one.
I agree Titanic's sinking set the precedence for many shipping = standardizations.
Arrogance will always remain within the human race. It is an inherent = trait. Those who have learned lessons from over-arrogance are worthy. = Those who have not, are unfortunate, for it is inevitable some form of =
Titanic was a powerful symbol of man. It seemed to be a big thing back then. Your feeling of sympathy is to be expected on something like that. However, if she hadn't of sank, would we all be posting on this website. Her sinking made her world renown and we just have to accept the fact that we must learn from our responsibilities. If she never sank, we would still have outdated shipping restrictions. We would be in a very different world. If the Titanic never had sank, there would be no fascination with the ship and that would be quite a loss. It would be interesting though to see what the world would be like with no Titanic sinking.
Have A Nice Day
>>Here's a great what if question--what if the Titanic had missed the iceberg???? <<
Quite an interesting question there, Sharon. As David Brown has been quick to point out on several occassions, history does not reveal it's alternatives. Unless somebody can find a way to peek into one of the hypothetical "Alternative Universes" that some quantum physicists specualate on...assuming they do in fact exist...I don't think we'll ever know.
With the above caveat thrown in my own opinion is that overall, I'n not sure the world would have been *that* radically different in the grand scheme of things. For all that I have the same overwhelming interest as anyone else here, I'm well aware that Titanic was of little real historical importance.
Yes, there were changes made in shipping practices such as a change in shipping lanes, and an overhaul of regulations regarding lifesaving appliances such as lifeboats, but absent that, this would have happened anyway. It just would have taken longer. I think it's worth noting that the regulations being outdated was not a great unknown and that some shipbuilders were already planning for them. Alexander Carlisle, the guy who designed the Olympic class, had space and weight set aside for additional lifeboats from the start in anticipation of this, and this was something he had figured out back in 1909.
Absent Titanic, my own feeling is that eventually, another ship would have come to grief the same way. The dangerous navigation practices which led to the accident were so all pervasive that it was less a question of if such an accident would happen, but when it would happen. The usual round of reforms and kneejerk reactions would have quickly followed.
Even accounting for the fact that Titanic was not in and of her own right of the greatest historical importance, there's one fly in the ointment here that I don't think is ever considered and that's the people who were aboard the ship who never made it to the other side of the Atlantic.
This is where the wonderful world of chaos theory comes into play because we have no way of knowing what sort of influance each of these people would have had in the course of historical events. What if the guy or gal who would have found the cure for cancer...all forms of it...went down with the ship, unnoticed and trapped in steerage?
What if the person who would have had the smarts to stop the Great Depression or the Wheelbarrow Inflation of Germany's Weimar Republic befor it ever had a chance to get started actually froze to death in the water that night? What if one of the chaps in second class would have been the soldier who would have put a bullet into Corperal Hitler's brain in the trenches of World War One had lived instead of died?
Of the people who survived, how would their lives have differed and what course would they have taken had that maiden voyage ended uneventfully in New York with their loved ones at their side?
1497 people died that night and every one of them has a story that never had a chance to be told, and would have been part of an intricate chain of cause and effect we can only guess at. In this sense, I would argue that Titanic was a lot more important then we may realize but for very different reasons.
I agree with our moderator, Michael 100% . . . Here is a few things I think on the subject: Had she made it to New York; outside of all the people arriving safely and continuing their lives - and of course the children that would have been born because of those people living. She would have come and gone with little notice if any, the thing that makes Titanic so fascinating is the combined tragedy of it all - along with the beauty of the ship and the unexpected loss of human life - not to mention the timing: on her maiden voyage. Maybe that's the key if the sinking hadn't happened on her maiden voyage but say on her 32nd or more - would we still be enamored with her? While I'm the first to admit she is a beautiful ship and am taken with her construction and overall elegance - I probably wouldn't have given a 2nd thought if she hadn't of sunk when she did & how she did. We, as a society are morbidly fascinated with tragic events. For e.g. and ambulance or fire truck is heard coming down the street - we all look & wonder who and where - but I'm a little off topic - had she made it to New York - I probably wouldn't know her name or that she even existed. Sad but true!
>>had she made it to New York - I probably wouldn't know her name or that she even existed. Sad but true!<<
I don't know if she would have been a great unknown. I don't think she would have been more then a fleeting blip on the public's radar screen but liner buffs and historians would almost certainly have been aware of her. The thing is that Titanic didn't draw a great deal of notice even then. Take a look at photos taken on departure day and you'll notice she didn't draw that much of a crowd.
How her career would have progressed is anybody's guess. I imagine she would have been a casualty of the Depression and the Cunard-White Star merger much as her sister was but assuming she didn't end up as a war loss, I think she would have had a reasonably successful career. As it was, it took sinking the first time out to make the ship famous.
>>Maybe that's the key if the sinking hadn't happened on her maiden voyage but say on her 32nd or more - would we still be enamored with her?<<
Perhaps not. However, history played out as it did and we've been talking about it ever since. I think it helps to know that she was quite the media event in her time. The extensive press made it kind of difficult to forget her, White Star's attempts notwithstanding. She was also political in a very big way which is why she was no less then the object of a quite unprecedented U.S. Senate investigation as well as the inevitable Board of Trade inquiry. That made for a lot of primary source material being available by way of the transcripts. However I think the real cherry on the cake was when Walter Lord wrote A Night To Remember at just about the time the ship had nearly completely faded from public awareness. Any chance of the ship fading into oblivion pretty much ended right there.
Just a thought ... had Titanic not been lost, it's possible that White Star would have been in a stronger position when the Cunard/White Star merger took place. They never fully recovered from the loss, especially when combined with that of the Britannic, as they only had two top notch liners for the weekly Southampton / New York run. Had they been in a stronger position, all sorts of things might have changed - the merger could have been more of a merger than a takeover, they probably would have completed Oceanic III, which would have provided the two ship weekly service with QM (so maybe QE would not have been built). Who knows?
P.S. I'll get to work on the Alternate Universe viewing device right away!
>>Just a thought ... had Titanic not been lost, it's possible that White Star would have been in a stronger position when the Cunard/White Star merger took place. They never fully recovered from the loss, especially when combined with that of the Britannic,<<
I'm not so sure about that. White Star was one of the few companies owned by IMM which *did* show a profit and they managed quite well until the Great Depesssion came in to throw a monkey wrench into the works. But then a lot of shipping companies got burned by that one. Lord Kyslant's mismanagement wasn't a plus in their favour either. With so many factors at work, it's really problematic to point to any *one* factor as the cause of White Star's demise.
Sharon's right though, this is something we'll never really know.