Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Titanic Scandal: How J. Bruce Ismay's Reputation Was Ruined" video.
-
12
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@haredr6511 Titanic had received ice warnings only, not references to a 'dense ice fleld.' Californian was the only ship which stopped. Carpathia was further south because of her destination, which was Fiume, not Southampton.
Smith had taken other ships, including Olympic, through the same area at the same time of year and, in Olympic's case, at the same speed, on many previous occasions without problems. He had, by the way, altered to a more southerly course.
Therefore, your analogy is totally spurious.
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
Titanic was owned by White Star, part of the overall IMM group, which was owned by J. P. Morgan. As owner, Morgan could have sailed aboard her, but chose not to do so. In March, he had announced his intention to be in Venice on 23 April, which would not have been possible had he sailed in Titanic on 10 April. It was even mentioned in the New York Times. Perhaps you missed it?
In fact, between 1904 & 1912 Morgan only twice (1908 and 1910) returned to New York from Europe before July, and in one of those years (1908) he returned that early only to attend a family wedding, heading back to Europe a few days later and staying there until late August. He hadn't sailed on Olympic in 1911 when she made her maiden voyage, of course. Do you find that equally suspicious?
'Sunk by a torpedo? Off Newfoundland in 1912? Who had a submarine which could get there, which could catch a ship steaming at 21 knots, and which could even hit a ship in the pitch dark? Do elaborate.
No-one reported any explosion, although a few people did report 'rumblings' as internal machinery broke loose. A greater number of people did make reference to the iceberg, however.
Good to read your reference to the Federal Reserve myth invented in the 1990s, however. Unfortunately for your fantasy, neither Astor nor Guggenheim had ever expressed their opinions either way, whilst in October, 1911, Straus had spoken in support of the Fed. If you think that you can prove me wrong, go ahead.
Isn't it odd how people who have clearly done little or no actual research, like you, are invariably the ones who write 'Please do some serious research,' by the way?
Perhaps you might explain this phenomenon?
3
-
3
-
3
-
The designer of the Olympics, Alexander Carlisle, who retired in 1910, stated in his testimony that he expected the Board of Trade to increase the number of lifeboats for ships that large to be increased, and thus designed then for, but not with, 48 boats. When the Board did not do this, the Olympics were built with 20 boats.
In short, Ismay had no knowledge of the subject. He was a businessman, not a naval architect, and Carlisle denied any involvement from Ismay, or indeed of anyone else from White Star.
'Why didn’t he give speech to all officers that full of people on lifeboats can go down all the way?' For much the same reason. He was a VIP passenger, not a Master Mariner. When Smith was told by Andrews about Titanic's imminent fate, do you think he would have called his officers together and said 'Hold everything chaps. Mr. Ismay wants to make a speech to you.'
There were no costs cut, by the way. Olympic, built of the same materials, was a successful liner for 23 years. Even examination of recovered Titanic steel and rivets by metallurgists resulted in the conclusion that, whilst both were inferior to those of 2024, they were not inferior to thos of 1911.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rkk578 'So basically the law didn't force the company to pay the seamen, not forbade it.' How many companies do you know who handed out money simply for the sake of it? Why single out White Star? How much did Canadian Pacific pay out to surviving crew when the Empress of Ireland sank following collision with a collier in the St. Lawrence in May, 1914, and 1,012 out of 1,477 died? Would you like me to list a few other examples, or would you simply prefer to try to grow up?
You seem to have a perverse need to make this 'personal.' I have not defended Ismay, but simply provided a few facts of which you are clearly unaware. I wonder if you know that the attacks on Ismay were the creation of an individual called William Randolph Hearst, someone who disliked Ismay on both a personal & commercial level, and who used his power as a press baron to orchestrate a campaign of vitriol against him. As the saying goes, those who control the media control the history, and Hearst, in his own business dealings, made Ismay look, in comparison, like a social worker.
I wonder if you know that, later in life, Ismay set up a fund for lost seamen, or that in 1919 he gave a sum, in excess of £1.1 million, to recognise the contribution of merchant mariners in the First World War? No, of course you don't. You are too fixated with the two dimensional moustache twirling villain you imagined you saw in a movie.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Morgan had already decided, in March, not to sail in Titanic, and his actual destination, St. Mark's in Venice, had already been announced in the NYT around two weeks before Titanic sailed. Morgan hadn't sailed in Olympic when she made her maiden voyage in June 1911 either. Do you suggest that that was suspicious? Come to that, Tsar Nicholas II, King George V, and President Taft were not aboard Titanic either. Do you think that they were aware of the nefarious plot as well??!!
Indeed, between 1904 & 1912, Morgan only sailed to New York before July twice, and one of the trips was to attend a wedding. By the way, as owner of IMM, he had no need to book a ticket in any case. Nor, except in conspiracist myth, did he have artworks loaded aboard, then taken off, Titanic.
Ismay actually went instead, on what was actually intended to be a business trip. Why should his wife be ordered to travel with him?
2
-
2
-
@fmyoung As a famous English comedian, Frankie Howerd, used to say 'Nay, Nay, and thrice Nay!'
Elizabeth Lines gave her testimont to the Limitation of Liability Hearings in October, 1913. She claimed that she recognised Ismay by sight, having lived near him twenty years earlier, but that she did not know Captain Smith. Even assuming that she was correct about his identity, what she actually testified to hearing was the following :-
Question 41 : Are you able to state from your recollection the words that you heard spoken between Mr. Ismay and Captain Smith on that occasion? ( Addressed to Mrs. Lines).
- We had had a very good run. At first I did not pay any attention to what they were saying, they were simply talking and I was occupied, and then my attention was arrested by hearing the day's run discussed, which I already knew had been a very good one in the preceeding (sic) twenty-four hours, and I heard Mr. Ismay - it was Mr. Ismay who did the talking - I heard him give the length of the run, and I heard him say "Well, we did better to-day than we did yesterday, we made a better run to-day than we did yesterday, we will make a better run to-morrow. Things are working smoothly, the machinery is bearing the test, the boilers are working well". They went on discussing it, and then I heard him make the statement: "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday."
42. In your last statement, Mrs. Lines, were you giving the substance of the conversation or the exact words which were used?
- I heard "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday" in those words.
43. If there were any particular words spoken that you can remember, I should be glad to hear them.
- Those words fixed themselves in my mind: "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday."
44. Do I understand you to say that the other things that you stated were the general substance of what you heard and not the exact things or words used?
- No, I heard those statements.
45. What was said by Mr. Ismay as regards the condition of the performances, of the engines, machinery and boilers?
- He said they were doing well, they were bearing the extra pressure. The first day's run had been less, the second day's run had been a little greater. He said "You see they are standing the pressure, everything is going well, the boilers are working well, we can do better to-morrow, we will make a better run to-morrow."
46. In speaking of standing the pressure well, Mr. Ismay was referring to the boilers, was he not?
- Of the boilers, I gathered.
47. I understand that hitherto you have been stating what you heard Mr. Ismay say: is that true?
- Yes.
48. What, if anything, did you hear Captain Smith say?
- I did not hear anything.
Do you see any reference to lighting addition boilers in any of that?
You might also refer to later cross-examination :-
162. I understood you to tell us that the two gentlemen had a table in front of them?
- Yes.
163. And that they had coffee and liqueurs and cigars?
- Yes.
164. You are quite clear about that?
- Oh yes.
165. You do not mean that one of them had coffee and liqueurs and cigars, you mean that they both had?
- Yes.
172. If it were a fact that Captain Smith was a teetotaller (sic) and did not smoke, that would rather point to the conclusion that the gentleman who was sitting there was not Captain Smith, would it not?
- I could not tell you. I saw the gentlemen sitting there with their liqueurs, I saw the steward bring them as he came and asked me if I would have any. It was the steward to serve all those things, you know that is a customary thing on a steamship; it was no special order.
So your claim is inaccurate. Ismay, if it was Ismay, made no reference to firing up additional boilers (five were never connected, by the way), and Smith, if it was Smith, apparently gave up his lifelong teetotallism on that one occasion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@PaddyBaxter-ji8in You may find this hard to accept, but Harland & Wolff had considerable experience of building ships, as had White Star in operating them. Neither company had any illusions that any ship was unsinkable.
There is no documented record of Ismay, or anyone else from either company, making such a claim, and thus no evidence that Andrews disputed something which was not said. The claim does, I understand, appear in the movie, however.
Sectarian discord, still less Home Rule, did not apply to a company such as H & W, whose workforce was entirely Protestant. Thus, the rest of your comment shows utter ignorance of the facts of the time.
Of course, you are welcome to provide credible evidence from any contemporary source.
2
-
@jrbaretta What exactly do you think the 'Log Book' of a ship from that time contains? Certainly nothing like you appear to believe.
Oh, and the Olympics were designed 'for, but not with' 48 boats. Alexander Carlisle explained the reasons for this in detail during the British Inquiry. Suffice it to say, Ismay had nothing to do with it, although the Board of Trade did.
Binoculars would have made no difference to the observation of the iceberg, by the way, except perhaps by delaying notification of the danger slightly. Such items reduced overall observations to a limited area, rather than to the wider vista to be scanned. That was why glasses were the exception rather than the rule.
It seems, by the way, that Smith ordered the news to be kept quiet, in order to avoid a mass panic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1