Ismay

[Jeremy Lee]

He probably just wasn't thinking straight.....

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>He probably just wasn't thinking straight.....<<

MMmmmmmm....Jeremy, I think that point's been fairly well understood for a very long time now. Especially in light of his not always entirely rational behaviour on the Carpathia. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot around to give us a real sense of what he was thinking when he climbed into that boat.

If you wish to see it from his point of view, you might try going HERE, HERE, and HERE to see what he offered under sworn testimony to the U.S. Senate.

You should also check out his testimony to the Mersey Wreck Commission. After that, check the testimony offered by those who actually dealt with him. In short, check the primary sources available, then form your opinions rather then rely on the commentaries of assorted talking heads with their own biases.

 

[Donald J A Smith]

Michael wrote, wisely warning each and every one of us (I take it personally to heart!) not to rely on "the commentaries of assorted talking heads with their own biases." Which has now made me think of the crucial scene in Conrad's 'Lord Jim' when an officer who (small world!) had served on the very gunboat that rescued the 'Patna' - a character of the solid, unperturbable sort that constitute the backbone of any navy... - passes his professional opinion on the Ismay-like haunted Jim: "One talks, one talks. This is all very fine. But, at the end of the reckoning, one is no cleverer than the next man. And no more brave."

 

[Maria Fernandez]

Very true. I said it wrong, it was just an opinion, and no one will ever have read or seen enough information to know the whole truth, the only person who knew that was Ismay himself.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>...the only person who knew that was Ismay himself.<<

Exactly. And since he's permanently indisposed....

That's not to say that exploring the man's state of mind isn't worthwhile, but we just need to be careful about confusing probabilities for hard fact. That an avoid contemporary value judgements towards a people in a different era that had their own ideas.

 

[Maria Fernandez]

yeah you are right Michael - sorry guys!

 

[Keith R E Hall]

Did Joseph Bruce Ismay at any time during the journey consult with Captain Edward John Smith with regards to the revolutions of the engines, the number of boilers lit and what speed she was making. Because in his testimony he denies any knowledge of ever engaging in conversation with the captain at any time.

Regards

Keith

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Keith, I would be very surprised if Ismay didn't at least take steps to stay informed and make a few "suggestions." The problem is that when it could be said that some of these "suggestions" were part of the chain of events which led to the loss of an $7,500,000 ocean liner and 1498 lives...well...that's just not the sort of thing one 'fesses up to in sworn testimony.

Is it?

 

[Paul Lee]

Didn't Elizabeth Lines overhear Ismay and Smith in the 1st class reception room talking about this?

Cheers

Paul

 

[Keith R E Hall]

So am i right in saying that Bruce Ismay lied under testimony.

 

[Keith R E Hall]

Follow this link
www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/bio/p/1st/lines_eh2.shtml

This is solid proof evidence that there was a conversation between J Bruce Ismay and Captain E J Smith about lighting the last of the boilers. No mention of engine speed or what speed the vessel was making though. You have got to see this and it proves that Bruce ismay lied under testimony.

 

[Mark Baber]

Hello, Keith---

For a more detailed discussion of Mrs. Lines' statement, look here.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>This is solid proof evidence that there was a conversation between J Bruce Ismay and Captain E J Smith about lighting the last of the boilers. <<

I wouldn't call it solid proof. What the bio said was this;

quote:

After she had taken a seat, Captain Smith and Bruce Ismay came and sat at a table nearby, and began discussing the possiblility of having the last boilers lit.

What we have here is a statement from a single person with little if any corroberation. That doesn't mean it's wrong or the conversation didn't take place. It only means we need to be careful in evaluating the evidence as some of it may be a little suspect. While Ismay may well have kicked this around with Captain Smith, we know from sworn testimony that the boilers in BR#1 were never lit off.

In addition to the link to the earlier discussion Mark tossed in, you might want to start reading the inquiry transcripts themselves. They can be accessed and read on line by clicking on The Titanic Inquiry Project.​

 

[Karen Fink]

I would like to give me brief un-asked for opinion on the subject of Bruce Ismay. It is very difficult to say what one would or wouldn't do if put in a similar situation. It's easy to speculate about your actions when you're in the comfort of your own living room, with a spot of tea, not really face to face with a dire situation. Take it from someone who has been called off to war. I used to always say, "well, if they called me, I would do this, this, and this." When it really does happen, and you really are in that situation, it changes the dynamic all together. Who can say what they would really do if faced with the possibility of going down with the great ship Titanic? Hopefully, none of us will ever be faced with such peril.

 

[John Knight]

Two points; Firstly, why lose your live if you do not need to, and who would benefit from this?
Secondly,what is the problem with, if he did, Ismay discussing the operating of the ship with one of his employees? it proves nothing but of course implies much, depending on your angle.