Another reason not to stop the collision: ships would probably have been going to sea for many years short of lifeboats. Then again, with World War 2, and the sinking of Lusitania and Empress of Ireland, the shortage of lifeboats might have been noticed sooner rather than later.
Also, more ships might have been lost at sea because the formation of any International Ice Patrol would not have occurred in 1912.
(btw, Olympic didn't end up in Belfast rotting away)
She went to the breakers yard in Inverkeithing, Scotland in the mid-1930s. Theres a very sad picture of her with her superstructure, masts and funnels missing. A lot of her internal fixtures survive in museums, pubs, private homes and companies around England. Today, nothing is left of the Olympic hull itself.
If you want to see the Olympic's "honour and Glory Crowning Time" from the grand Staircase,
the Southampton Maritime Museum is the place to go...for other great exhibits, try the Liverpool Maritime Museum!
...but not for the reasons listed above. I could really care less about how Ismay comes out looking. That's his problem. And it's not a question of "allowing" man to think he's bigger then nature. I can't influance that one way or another.
I just don't think it's a terrifically good idea to mess around with what was because to do so, it would get in the way of what had to be. For better and for worse. Besides which, even if I could warn them, how long does anyone think I could spin some fantastic prophesy about collisions with icebergs, sinkings, and death by the thousands befor they locked me up for "His own Per-tec-shun???"
My theory on the much talked about "Save the Titanic" issue is this:
One - as Michael points out - to warn people that the "unsinkable ship" will sink, then tell them where why and how, you would probably either be ignored as most all other prophets and lunatics who condemned the ship before the maiden voyage. Or most likely, just committed to the loony bin and put in a padded room.
Two - even if you could save the ship - in doing so you would ultimately alter future events, with people who should have died surviving and all. Perhaps one of the survivors would later go on to develop the A-bomb for the Nazis who drop it on Washington DC in 1943 or something of the sort. But most likely, because you saved the ship, it would not have sank, because she doesn’t sink she doesn’t become as famous and therefore because she doesn’t become as famous you probably wouldn’t have learned about her, which means you wouldn't have gone back to save her and she would end up sinking in the end with nothing changed.
I know this will probably cause a lengthy discussion so I will say now this is only my opinion and I could be wrong.
of course i would have prevented it if I could, I have not studied titanic as much as the most of you have, but I have seen the newest film by james cameron over 17 times, and when I see the film, I always think that it must have been horrible to be on the ship the night it sank.
all those people who died because there was not lifeboats enough, and they held the 3rd class passengers as prisoners(they are humans too).
the only one should not have survived was ismay, that is my opinion.
so i would save the ship if i had the opppertunity.
say that the Titanic misses the iceberg and continues to New York. We know that a few miles ahead was a huge icefield several miles wide. Titanic would have hit that at nearly full speed. While I think she would have survived this, I think her forward hull under the waterline would have been dented.
Then, when she gets into New York, the officers can boast about how strong she is and how little effect effect the ice had on her. The result of all this is that the perils of ice would have been overlooked....
Personally if on board, I would have changed nothing. That night, the sinking gave the passengers and crew a chance to be heroes. Murdoch, Andrews, Wilde, Hartley & Co, Lowe all lived up to it. So if saving Titanic meant forgetting the bravery those men and many more showed that night then I would have simply watched. Not to mention the harm it could cause the future
I understand your argument, and I want to comment it....
It could also maybe show people that no matter how impressive and strong build a ship is, it always can be damaged, even though people says it is unsinkable....
Interesting point...though I think it will be similar to when the Arizona (?) collided head-on with an iceberg years before the Titanic and survived....the dangers of ice were overlooked then.
I would't say "overlooked." There were plenty of ships out there that night which steered a course further south in an effort to avoid the ice field. This would include the Titanic. She just didn't go far enough south to avoid a lousy Monday morning.
This would also include Californian which stopped for the night rather then take their chances navigating the icefield at night, and the Mount Temple, the owners of whom had specfic instructions to avoid going into an icefield for any reason.
As to the "unsinkable" mythos, if it was around as much as anyone believes, it certainly wasn't a belief held by mariners or the shipping lines. They knew full well that there ain't no such animal as an unsinkable ship. They had the recent loss of the RMS Republic to back that one up too.
The bottom line was that there was no belief of invincability among those who made their living at sea, but there was navigation practice which the Titanic demonstrated was faulty. They believed they could see ice in time in the prevailing conditions to steer a safe course.
From "The Night Lives On:"
She was the largest vessel of the day, and travelling east off the grand banks of Newfoundland in November 1879, she was travelling through a cloudy night but with good visibility. The passengers gathered in the lounge for a concert, when there was a crash sending passengers into a heap. The Arizona
had smashed into an iceberg, head on, but the
bulkhead held and she limped into St.Johns; two days later with a crumpled bow but no casualties.