Ismay's Escape


Jan 29, 2001
1,282
0
166
POSTSCRIPT: It has nothing to do with giving our ALMIGHTY the blame for anything...it's merely a divine intervention warning that MAN is but a temporary occupant of GOD's almighty creation, and no matter how much power(money) one can accomplish...it can all be taken away in the blink of an eye. I am sure that Vincent Astor's fainting spell in the NEW YORK office's of White Star Line were not a direct result of his Father's booking aboard a liner plagued with human error...now was it? I hope and pray that one day stupidity and ignorance does not intervene on the navigation of the 5,000 person capacity of a CUNARD QM2...

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
 

John Lynott

Member
Apr 2, 2002
78
1
138
62
Addingham, Yorkshire
"John:

If indeed you are such a religious man perhaps..."

I never said I was religious. To be religious means to follow a rule and there are a lot of rules on the membership card that I have broken. I find the 'God's message' stuff in relation to the Titanic distasteful to peoples of all faiths and none. Is there a message from God in the fact that most planes, trains and cars seem to arrive safely at their destination? I heartily endorse Michael Standart and Jason's views and will say no more on the matter.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,620
424
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Then again Mike do you not think that fate intervened upon TITANIC's purposed launch date?<<

No.

>>If that is not divine intervention
then your explanatory accidental mishap needs furthur explanation.<<

No it doesn't. There was a long string of events which led up to the Titanic's loss, but any way you reckon it, the single consistant trend that was both observable and observed was perfectly understandable, perfectly natural, and all too typical human error. This chain of cause and effect is absolutely no different from the sequence of events and mistakes which lead to any disaster.

Far from being unique, the Titanic was all too typical in that general sense even if the specifics were a bit different.

>>BTW, who's the headstrong individual that pushed the engines of a vessel, basically still under sea trials? Was it Cpt. ISMAY?<<

No.

What it was, was Business As Usual. If anything, the Titanic's progress was under what it could have been. If they wanted to push the engines, they could have done that at any time from the moment they left Queenstown.

They didn't.

What Captain Smith did was gradually work up to what would have been the Titanic's usual and expected in service speed. This was much the same practice for any of the express liners when they were out there for the first time. While they might have given thought to bettering Olympic's time, the available evidence indicates that a full power run to see what the ship had was not in the works until Monday morning.

>>And whose idea was it to "cut" the corner of the NA run? And most of all what almighty force extended the range of the "APRIL" NA ice flo subsequently to expose his almighty created "blackberg".<<

The corner was not cut. if anything, it was extended out just a tad so they would be where they were supposed to be for the run to New York. (And this part may itself be misdirection.)

>>And most of all what almighty force extended the range of the "APRIL" NA ice flo subsequently to expose his almighty created "blackberg".<<

Meltoff which changed the centre of gravity so that the berg flipped over when it became topheavy. Icebergs are notoriously unstable and do this all the time. (And BTW, the claims of a "Black Berg" may also be misdirection entered into evidence.)

>>And final yet...were the crew so confident of their "UNSINKABLE" ship that seven "warnings"
of DANGER (ICE) were ignored.<<

They were not ignored. The Bridge teams were well aware of the danger, and aware enough of it to give special instructions to the lookouts to be watching for ice, particularly growlers and bergy bits. Contrary to the legend, they were not going in blind. The problem is that they overestimated their ability to see and avoid ice.

>>what of the ominus warnings that others have gave regarding TITANIC's launch?<<

All of which was dredged up ex post facto to the disaster itself. Similar signs and portants were there for just about any ship you care to name and nothing happened to any of them. If anything, the Titanic's construction and launch were both reletively and remarkably uneventful.

>>It has nothing to do with giving our ALMIGHTY the blame for anything...<<

Like hell it isn't. It's classic blame shifting, only making the deity the heavy for our mistakes.

>>I am sure that Vincent Astor's fainting spell in the NEW YORK office's of White Star Line were not a direct result of his Father's booking aboard a liner plagued with human error...now was it?<<

In a way it was. More to the point, it was a perfectly understandable reaction to the death of a loved one which is no different from the way anybody would react, and the way a lot of people did react.
 

Rena Murray

Member
Oct 27, 2007
17
0
71
In truth, there is no evidence that supports the common belief that Ismay pushed Smith or appealed to his ego to go faster. Nor that he pushed or bribed his way into a boat. He openly confessed that he stepped in a lifeboat as it was lowering.

Knowing that there is much false information floating around about Titanic, I will be posting the source from where I got the information each time. I strongly believe this is important. Here it is:

http://www.squidoo.com/Harland-and-Wolffs-Titanic/
 
Dec 5, 2008
189
1
46
I am aware of how old this forum is, however, in my opinion, I whole-heartedly believe that Ismay should never have been allowed on a life-boat. The arguments of self-preservation and 'would you have done any different' aside, the Titanic was his responsibility. He made the final decisions about her, including how many lifeboats were on board. It was his choice to take the chance, and therefore (along side the Captain or perhaps even after him), he should have been the last person on one.

I will be the first to admit if I was on the Titanic, I highly doubt my courage would have been sufficient enough to keep me from fighting my way onto a lifeboat, but I can honestly say if I was Ismay and in his position, if there weren't enough lifeboats and it was my fault, no matter how terrified I was, I would not step foot on that boat; not as long as there were still others on board - particularly children. He had a responsibility to ensure the safety of those who sailed on his line, and he shirked it to the utmost extent. He may have been only human, and had nothing to do with Titanic's speed, or the crash, but that does not change the fact that he approved the low number of lifeboats, and risked lives to cut costs or for visual appeal. I also know that the number of boats on board were above the requirements, and that the number was above typical for the time-period, but that does not change my opinion or belief that if you make a decision, you must face the consequences of that decision. Especially when so many good men willingly gave their lives because of that foolish decision.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,620
424
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Isn't it thought in some Titanic circles that Ismay was *offered* the seat in the lifeboat by an officer?<<

If it is, I'm not aware of it. From my read of his own testimony, his story was that he saw the opportunity and took it. Can't say as I wouldn't have done the same. He had no legal obligation to die, and doing so would have changed nothing other then to add another name to the body count. The supposed moral obligation to die is a lot harder to deal with and a highly subjective matter of opinion, although he probably regretted getting into that boat for his own good reasons.
 
Dec 5, 2008
189
1
46
I think the rumour floating around was that Wilde bundled him up and put him into the boat, but I highly doubt it. I can't for the life of me remember who it came from, though.
 
Dec 5, 2008
189
1
46
Hmm, never seen that one. But I agree, I think he just slipped in. On principle, I can't blame him for what he did, I just think he didn't deserve to be on a boat when there wasn't enough to go around, and it was his decision to make it so.

Another thing I didn't get was if his claims were true that there was simply no one else around, men or women to load into the boat, and they knew how many people had to be on deck, they couldn't have taken the two minutes to run to the other side??? Oh well, I guess hindsight is a pretty nifty tool, isn't it? They were on some pretty tough time constraints, and I guess it was pretty miraculous that they even managed to get as many people off as they did!
 

Tad G. Fitch

Member
Dec 31, 2005
579
1
86
The launch of Collapsible C remains very controversial, with several crewmembers testifying in the inquiries that it was calm and nobody was left in the immediate vicinity, while the accounts of other witnesses claim there was a crowd around this boat and an officer had to fire off warning shots in the air to warn them away.

How this relates to Ismay's departure in this boat cannot be determined based on the existing evidence, and it is entirely possible that he stepped into the boat just as he said in the inquiry, albeit several minutes after calm had been restored, etc.

While there is the moral question about whether he should have boarded the lifeboat or not with so many passengers still aboard (this is something that everyone will have a different opinion on), I tend to think that Ismay has been falsely vilified simply for having survived.

If everyone here was being honest with themselves, not too many would claim that they would have stayed behind on the vessel, if the opportunity to board a lifeboat presented itself. Few of us would have done differently, and there is no evidence of any misconduct or collusion on Ismay's part in order to force his way into the lifeboat or anything of that sort. I often think that Ismay makes a convenient villain, simply based on hindsight, when most people would have acted the way he did if put in the same situation.

I would also be careful about criticizing Ismay too much for the fact that the Titanic didn't have enough lifeboats. The Titanic actually exceeded the safety regulations and had more than the number of lifeboats required by the laws of the day.

Using hindsight, of course there should have been enough lifeboats for all, but none of the passenger liners of the day, White Star Line or otherwise, had that number of lifeboats. Lawmakers and shipbuilders simply didn't envision a situation such as the disaster occuring. It is ok to criticize Ismay on this point, but it is intellectually dishonest and unfair unless one criticizes every other person with any company back then that made the same decisions. If Ismay's decision was negligent, then every law maker and every other person involved in travel aboard passenger liners were also negligent to the same degree. Just my opinion.

Michael, you make a very good point. If we wanted to open up a whole other can of worms, we could start a discussion on how much it would even have mattered if there were enough lifeboats on the Titanic for everyone aboard. Given that the crew didn't have enough time to launch the boats that they did have aboard, I doubt they would have been able to launch anymore. At most, they could have set these boats adrift like Collapsible A and B, and hoped that some could scramble aboard as the ship sank. Of course, if even one more life could have been saved, it would have been worth it, but I doubt it would have prevented the catastrophic loss of life.

Kind regards,
Tad
 
Dec 5, 2008
189
1
46
I think they would certainly have had time to at least launch MORE lifeboats if they had had them. According to several surviving officer's testimonies, setting up the boats took under 10 minutes - the hardest part was finding women to fill them.

If there had been sufficient enough for everyone, they could have just loaded them freely with both men and women, and it would have taken much less time. What took the longest was finding women willing to be separated from their men. Take away that necessity, and you take away the problem.

And I agree, I have already stated that I am aware Titanic was ABOVE required lifeboat capacity, and that in the same situation I would likely have lost my head as well, and that other people were also involved in the negligence of adequate lifesaving equipment, but that doesn't change Ismay's moral responsibility to everyone on board (at least IMO). At the end of the day, whoever else was involved in the decision, Ismay was president and had final say, and being in the position that he was, he had a moral obligation to ensure the safety of the passengers travelling on HIS ship.

There were more than 1500 people on board who had no responsibility for the situation and no moral obligations to any other passengers, yet willingly gave their lives so that others could live. And if anyone would have had the opportunity to simply 'slip' into a lifeboat, than surely it would have been one of the officers who gave up their seats so that women and children would live? But they did not - they worked to the last to ensure the safety of those who were considered under their care, even they had no part in what was happening (excluding perhaps Murdoch, but IMO, he held almost no responsibility either. He did the best he could under circumstances, and again, IMO, he was completely innocent in the matter).

And I disagree with you strongly about not envisioning a disaster like that occurring. Ships sink constantly at sea. Lightoller is the prime example of this! A million things could go wrong, and as proof of that, they had over 3000 life-jackets aboard! I doubt they would waste all that space and money for life-saving equipment that would never be necessary! Obviously SOMEONE knew the dangers at sea, otherwise there would be no need for life-jackets OR the life boats! Granted, they thought the situation was unlikely, but they knew it was a possibility!
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,620
424
283
Easley South Carolina
>>If we wanted to open up a whole other can of worms, we could start a discussion on how much it would even have mattered if there were enough lifeboats on the Titanic for everyone aboard.<<

That's actually been kicked around here. Not in a dedicated thread but off and on in some different topics.

This is one area where I think hindsight is actually more helpful then a detriment. So much is made about the fact that Titanic didn't have enough lifeboats we often forget the reality that few passenger vessels at the time did. Titanic, far from being unique was atypical of liners of the time and didn't even manage to get away every boat that they had.

Ismay's attitude towards boats was also commonplace. He was hardly a villain for it. He genuinely didn't see the need and he had a lot of company.
 

Similar threads