You must log in or register to comment.

gaz3028 t1_j5glqyo wrote

Controversial opinion. Both parties were right for different reasons.


Bruce-7891 t1_j5gzaxl wrote

One of those situations where you are in trouble either way


Fake_William_Shatner t1_j5hbr0g wrote

I don't think it's necessarily the case that the people in the boats would have been overloaded. A boat could move in close and get some people who could swim to them and move away. Other boats could do the same.

Probably within about a few minutes, most of the people wouldn't be able to move and at no time, could swim faster than the boats could be paddled. So really it was a matter of dragging half-aware people into a boat and throwing a blanket on them.

The upper class was a bit too risk averse and didn't feel an obligation to help is how I see it.


Laumser t1_j5hhshu wrote

There was pretty much no visibility though, I wouldn't have been confident making that call


e_007 t1_j5jfe4x wrote

Yea that’s one of the many terrifying things about that event, once the lights went out those people were in absolute pitch black..


bak3donh1gh t1_j5hk0jc wrote

Anyone with half a brain on those boats should be able to tell that freezing water makes people slow. No one is swarming a boat in the cold salt water.

All the people down voting me are fine with letting people drown.


Laumser t1_j5hkui4 wrote

Of course people are swarming boats, it's a very real danger


vonvoltage t1_j5hpupj wrote

You've got about 5-10 minutes max in the north Atlantic until you're too numb to move.

Source: This is where I grew up and we were told this constantly by rescue workers coming to our schools and making announcements on the evening news etc...

There wasn't going to be any swarming going on.


eh-guy t1_j5j4fj7 wrote

The ocean is warmer on their side in the UK/Ireland so id imagine these people in the moment would not be thinking the water was too cold to get swamped, especially not after the adrenalin and shock they would be experiencing. Most people do not come from places like us where the ocean can literally be below freezing during winter.


bak3donh1gh t1_j5hlpn4 wrote

Have you ever been in cold water before? I mean freezing water. Have you been in it in 1912 clothes? If your boat was right there at the beginning, maybe yeah. This guy wanted to turn his boat around and go back. That's plenty of time for people to get into the later stages of hypothermia. And while yes hypothermia was not as well understood back then (unfortunately thanks to Nazis, it is now)people still knew cold=bad.


Timbershoe t1_j5ip41a wrote

>Have you ever been in cold water before?

I have, yes.

>I mean freezing water.

Yes. In glacial flows on the coast of Greenland and Svalbard. Full immersion, multiple times.

>Have you been in it in 1912 clothes?

Fuck. No. I only had my underwear on. Guess that rules me out from commenting further on the physiological impacts of prolonged submersion in arctic water.



Gandzilla t1_j5ipic4 wrote

Imagine the embarrassment if you did it in 1920‘s clothes and you prepared for the wrong discussion.


bak3donh1gh t1_j5ituag wrote

Full immersion. So how long? 5 minutes, 10 minutes. How bout 30 minutes? How about 4 hours? I bet you pretty fast, you start moving slow, your fingers stop responding. You grow confused and tired. All the time having to tread water.

I think you get the idea, but hey, go ahead and leave people to die.


Timbershoe t1_j5ius8k wrote

Full immersion means head below the water, so no I wasn’t doing that for 30min or 4 hours. You keep the back of your neck, and more importantly the vagus nerve within it, out of the water as it can trigger a parasympathetic response in your heart causing an aneurysm.

I was mildly making fun of your statements, as while I have swum, waded and washed in Arctic glacial water it was pretty clear you haven’t and put a ridiculous demand of period specific clothing as a qualifier.

I have no opinion on how long a person can last in the open ocean before death, it’s not something I have any experience of. And, probably more importantly, neither do you.

So I guess my point is perhaps don’t confidently state you know about a subject that you don’t have any experience in? Leave a little room for discussion.


Regular-Leave t1_j5o2ij1 wrote

The current basic offshore training (BOSIET) for helicopter sea transfers says you can die in as little as two minutes in wet clothes in the North sea. You're taught to not even try to swim or Dave yourself as you lose heat faster, you have to curl up and hope you're able to be rescued in time.


bak3donh1gh t1_j5iwigr wrote

We are talking about a specific hypothetical, and you want to open this hypothetical to any fucking goddamn time in the water. So yes if I was in the bahamas in the middle of summer and there were 100s of people in the water nearby I wouldn't immediately go in there with a boat. Key word being immediately.

If I was in a goddamn boat during the sinking of the Titanic and I could turn back and save people in the freezing fucking water, I would. It also sounds like you have had training in water, as well, I don't think anybody who was in the water had the fucking option of keeping their neck out of the water. I don't know what hypothetical situation of a boat full of trained water experts sinking in waist deep water equates to the sinking of the Titanic that your talking about. Sounds like people that don't need saving.

I can confidently state if you get shot in the head and the bullet goes through your brain, you will die. One can confidently state things if they understand the facts. I don't have to get shot in the head to know what happens if you do.


Timbershoe t1_j5ixaf7 wrote

You’re very confident that you know better than someone who has direct experience of Arctic water immersion.

But you don’t have any experience or knowledge. Just opinion.

It’s not a specific hypothetical. The Titanic did sink. Pitman, and many others, gave first hand accounts of the situation.

And some lifeboats did return to pick up survivors. It’s one of the reasons Pitman deeply regretted not returning. The passengers that had life jackets, or floating debris, survived for quite a lot longer than your 5min timeline.

But you’re more fond of your opinions that any actual experiences.


bak3donh1gh t1_j5j2apz wrote

WHAT FUCKING 5 MINUTES TIMELINE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! Im talking about being in a boat that left the area and then coming back THATS NOT 5 FUCKING MINUTES! These are untrained socialites in the goddamn 1920's

So you went in controlled conditions into some Arctic water, wow, so impressive. Still haven't given me an approximate number for how long. Have you ever had hypothermia? In the water? Then I'd take your first-hand account.

And you just fucking admitted it! It was possible for them to go back and pick people up, without being swarmed by near frozen passengers.


Timbershoe t1_j5ja7w9 wrote

I really should stop responding, as you’re clearly angry I don’t agree you’re any sort of expert.


The 5 min you keep stating repeatedly.

>These are untrained socialites in the goddamn 1920's

No, the 1st class passengers were prioritised to lifeboats. The 2nd and 3rd class passengers were left in the water.

And human physiology hasn’t changed over the past 100 years.

>So you went in controlled conditions into some Arctic water, wow, so impressive.

It wasn’t controlled conditions. And it’s not so much impressive as direct personal experience. In fact, glacial run off water is 2 degrees colder than the open Arctic Ocean.

The key takeaway is I have more experience than you. Yet you continue to argue you’re the expert.

>Still haven't given me an approximate number for how long.

Depends. Up to 15min, I suppose.

>Have you ever had hypothermia? In the water?

No, I am not a fool. I’m not giving myself hypothermia in water just to find out what it feels like to die.

>Then I'd take your first-hand account.

Stop gatekeeping. Stop acting like you’re the expert here. That’s all I’m saying.

>And you just fucking admitted it! It was possible for them to go back and pick people up, without being swarmed by near frozen passengers.

I specifically said I had no opinion. It’s you that’s claiming the expert knowledge.

Read the accounts of the sinking, if you read the descriptions from the lifeboats, if you had any knowledge or experience at all I wouldn’t be calling you out.


DaddyBee42 t1_j5j42li wrote

>I can confidently state if you get shot in the head and the bullet goes through your brain, you will die.

Looks like someone didn't see the JFK post from a couple of days ago.

'Gunshot wound to the head not a death sentence'

How confidently incorrect you are. Dunning-Kruger strikes again!


bak3donh1gh t1_j5mekqf wrote

I specified through the brain for a reason. Though, yes, you can get pierced through parts of your brain and still survive. I had thought that I had dumbed down the statement enough. Unless it's a small calibre bullet entering through your eye or other hole around your brain, any bullet able to pierce your skull, and go through your brain, is going to leave an even bigger exit hole or is going to ricochet off the inside of your skull and continue to do damage. So yes, Dunning-Kruger strikes again!

If bullet go through brainy and make brainy mush and fail out of head, you go to sleep and never wake up.


DaddyBee42 t1_j5nbijb wrote

I did not realise that 'dumbing a statement down' meant turning it from something that is factual and correct into something that is speculative and bullshit. Why would you say the wrong things, when the right ones were available? How does that help dumb people?

>If bullet go through brainy and make brainy mush and fail out of head, you go to sleep and never wake up.

That's it, now we're getting there. Good job!


bak3donh1gh t1_j5nf7t1 wrote

Wtf are you even talking about, nothing I have said is speculative? My previous statement was of course meant as hyperbole, but was also phrased in a way to make it as accurate as possible. Instead you seem to be unable to realize that and are concentrating on unlikely edge cases. Not to mention TBI can literally change who you are.

If people are in freezing water for an extended period of time the start to go into hypothermia. Symptoms of hypothermia include:

Weak pulse

Clumsiness or lack of coordination

Drowsiness or very low energy

Confusion or memory loss

Loss of consciousness

Now does this sound like a state of being in which persons could climb the side of a boat en mass and cause it to tip? Adrenaline only lasts for so long.

At NO point did I ever say in 5 minutes any or all boats should have gone back. The ONLY 5 minutes I have referred to is your time in 'glacial water'. In controlled conditions, with no panic or fear. As well as being in good medical condition, no malnutrition and no history of nicotine use. I'm sure with a warm tent or whatever nearby.

But I'm do e arguing with some Jackass who dipped his toes in cold water and think he's an expert on cold water survival.


DaddyBee42 t1_j5p489q wrote

Yep, you sure are! I'm not that guy, I'm a completely different person! You absolute dipshit.


bak3donh1gh t1_j61u94y wrote

Sorry for not reading the username after responding to a single person for a long ass thread, you dipshit! It is totally obvious too when you're going back and forth responding on the website and an app, you fuckwit.


Regular-Leave t1_j5iv16l wrote

You sound like a condescending prick


Timbershoe t1_j5iv7ng wrote

Yeah. Probably.

However the other guy is arrogantly stating his opinion as fact.

I just didn’t recognise they had any subject matter expertise.


subzero112001 t1_j5i4aw8 wrote

Anyone with half a brain should be able to tell that desperate people who are dying can do pretty incredible things to survive.


unropednope t1_j5k1nfq wrote

You're down voted to hell because you don't know what adrenaline can do apparently.


bak3donh1gh t1_j5k7lie wrote

There is no amount of adrenaline in your body that can kepp you warm for 30 minutes in sub-zero water.


Ok-Papaya-3490 t1_j5izlqd wrote

Dozens of people drowning in ice water prob aren't logically pursuaded not to board the boat


Glahoth t1_j5jip3g wrote

I think they wouldn’t even be able to swim to the boat. It’s either you rescue them, or they die within a couple of minutes.


Unusual-Delivery-276 t1_j5m73bv wrote

Sir this boat has reached its capacity. Please continue freezing to death in the water at this time thank you


Ok-Papaya-3490 t1_j5melze wrote

Thank you for your cooperation and hope you will choose Titanic in your afterlife


AdNormal5424 t1_j5j2c1q wrote

The swarming part is realistic though, and then they all die. Adrenaline was pumping, people would be shoving eachother out of the way in freezing waters to clamber onto the boat. Then things just escalate from there


Binsky89 t1_j5k1yxw wrote

That's like rule 1 of saving a drowning person. If they're panicking then there's a great chance there will now be 2 drowning people.


Lexicon444 t1_j5kdyf4 wrote

Problem with that is they were in freezing water. Hypothermia sets in quickly and kills quickly. You’re usually unable to move as effectively in a few minutes. Not enough strength to capsize the boat.


SBRH33 t1_j5jizbz wrote

Take into consideration very panicked and traumatized individuals not thinking or behaving rationally. They could easily capsize a row boat in their panic state.

Almost like trying to save a panicked drowning person who almost drowns, and sometimes succeeds, the person trying to save them.


Piguarak t1_j5k4wz9 wrote

The main lifeboats on the Titanic were 30 feet long and had a capacity of 65 people each. That is far too big a boat for a single person to capsize. It would probably take at least a dozen people grabbing onto a single side to flip a boat like that. Many survivors reported that the screams of the people in the water only lasted a couple of minutes, and then there was silence as most were incapacitated by the freezing water.

I think that by the time the lifeboats rowed back to get survivors, most would either be dead or too weak to swamp the boat.


por_que_no t1_j5j7dub wrote

>I don't think it's necessarily the case

The question is whether you're willing to risk your life and all the others in the boat to find out.


SofieTerleska t1_j5mycmm wrote

Yes, this is the kind of situation where you only get one chance to find out, and if you screw it up, you're done for.


Anachr0nist t1_j5jy5mg wrote

This is very easy to theorize about when you're not freezing and disoriented, sitting in a boat at night and in terror for your life.

Maybe they could move, maybe they couldn't - they wouldn't know that on the boat. If people were able to move and a boat came by, every person that could reach out, would try to - it's that or die. And there was a good chance the boat could capsize in the chaos.

Ignoring all of that in favor of creating a narrative that fits your worldview is neither fair nor reasonable.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_j5k7w9u wrote

It's just what I might think to do in that situation. I will leave panic to other people who might be experts in that.


Anachr0nist t1_j5kai6y wrote

If only you could have been there, rather than this jagoff Pitman, a mere officer on the ship who joined the Navy at 18, or the crew members on the boat. A pity!


Fake_William_Shatner t1_j5kgj79 wrote

Lighten up a little. And don't hate me just because I might be the solution to most problems.

None of them involving paperwork or using a map of course.


WalkerBRiley t1_j5jjk8z wrote

> The upper class was a bit too risk averse and didn't feel an obligation to help is how I see it.

change that 'was' to 'is'. Things haven't changed in 100 years.


Regular-Leave t1_j5iuxti wrote

Within a few minutes all the people in the water would be dead


howescj82 t1_j5k0uo0 wrote

Realistic response. Many of the lifeboats were only filled to half capacity and only 2 of the 18 lifeboats returned to rescue passengers in the water and I haven’t seen any report that either were swamped.

A googled figure puts the first class survival rate at 62%, the second class at 41% and third class at 25%. There is a obvious skew towards women and children however the survival rate of first class men is 2-3 times as high as second and third class men.

They weren’t going to risk their lives for poor people IMO.


Demi_Monde_ t1_j5kbjeu wrote

It is worth mentioning that the highest mortality rate was for crewmembers. Only 24% of the crew survived.



RamboSixVegas t1_j5kdqo0 wrote

I've often seen crew fatalities overlooked, apart from some particularly notable crewmembers. It's a shame, as if they don't count because they weren't passengers.

It's worth remembering most of the crew were hotel staff. It just so happened the hotel they worked at was on a ship.


EvilCalvin t1_j5kf658 wrote

If it was anything like the movie, when the lifeboats returned, almost everyone were dead and frozen.

if they went back 15 minutes earlier they would have been swamped by panicking people.


OtisTetraxReigns t1_j5l5c6s wrote

I’d caution you against taking anything from that movie as factual.


SofieTerleska t1_j5my5ma wrote

In this case it was pretty close, though. Harold Lowe, the only officer who went back for people, redistributed the already-rescued people into several boats and waited for the shouting to die down before he went back, be cause he was afraid of the boat being swamped. Later he said he realized he had waited too long, that the water was too cold for people to survive in it for more than a short while. I think about four people got pulled out of the water total.


EvilCalvin t1_j5oa3x7 wrote

Cameron wanted it to be as much 100% factual based on what they knew from the survivors stories, boat's layout and how it was found. The only thing fabricated was the story between Jack and Rose (and some other story beats)....but as far as the ship and the disaster....I'm pretty sure was spot on.


OtisTetraxReigns t1_j5ooets wrote

A filmmaker’s version of “100% accurate” lasts precisely as long as it takes them to run into an aesthetic, dramatic, or practical limitation. For instance, they sought to “exactly recreate” the interiors of the boat. But then Cameron decided the main staircase wasn’t big enough to fit his vision, so they enlarged it. It’s a minor thing, inconsequential on its own, but it’s not historically accurate. There’s also the case of the crewman who shoots people for trying to board the lifeboats, and then shoots himself. There are reports from survivors of shots being fired, but iirc, no one actually saw him execute anyone. They used the real person’s real name and portrayed him as a callous killer, based on speculation. Even Cameron has admitted he regrets that.

The fact is, Cameron’s film is based as much on A Night to Remember as it is on historical record.


yousirnaime t1_j5jk6pq wrote

Either way, he would have regretted his decision for the rest of his life


howescj82 t1_j5k5yiy wrote

I think he regretted being able to try and not trying.


Gorgoth24 t1_j5kt3ot wrote

I think the joke is that, if he had rowed over to a large number of drowning people, they all would have died. At which point he'd be regretting rowing over there for the rest of his (short) life.


Ragnarok314159 t1_j5l4l7w wrote

Unless he pushed Rose off that door. Could have been rich and alive.


Agnostalypse t1_j5mmnsb wrote

I think you mean pulled, dead people can't sign checks lol.


Tex-Rob t1_j5kpfrc wrote

People who wouldn’t try and save others aren't worth saving. I’d throw over any objectors to make room for survivors,


DaddyBee42 t1_j5sn4nc wrote

Sounds like you're asking to be thrown over yourself.


ananonumyus t1_j5i0n0i wrote

Trolley problem, only you're also on the tracks


xentralesque t1_j5glmmp wrote

Is posting TIL's about Titanic survivors a new meme or something?


Doritos-Locos-Taco t1_j5gyntk wrote

Maybe a marketing push since it’ll be back in theaters in coming weeks.


adsfew t1_j5hayi3 wrote

Get you someone who loves you like James Cameron loves re-releasing his movies


Doritos-Locos-Taco t1_j5hecqu wrote

James Cameron doesn’t do what James Cameron does for James Cameron.


SybilCut t1_j5l60kc wrote

James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is...

James Cameron.


BloodySox t1_j5ibdu3 wrote

Pro-Tip: If you're single, going to see the movie Titanic is a great date.


hje1967 t1_j5hbsip wrote

I haven't seen it yet, don't spoil the ending!


Flat-Limit5595 t1_j5hz3vr wrote

It's a story about a boat trying to achieve its dream of becoming a submarine.


TheCh0rt t1_j5ibswq wrote



TheCh0rt t1_j5ibt9i wrote



Akanan t1_j5it675 wrote

She's drawing Jack in that newer version.


rjchute t1_j5hl9nc wrote

NatGeo doing a 25th anniversary thing, coming out soon


Ninjahkin t1_j5kbo96 wrote

Suddenly getting flashbacks to the fam’ly memes


Radioiron t1_j5jjvbc wrote

I say viral marketing campaign for the upcoming rerelease of Titanic in 4K


Old_timey_brain t1_j5gmy3l wrote

> Pitman said that this haunted him throughout his life.

Which would have been very short had they overloaded the boat.


Careful_Yannu t1_j5i6pcl wrote

The lifeboats were deliberately underloaded at the davits, because the crew was worried that they would break apart if filled to full.

From the Senate inquiry:

> Sen. Smith: how many persons will a lifeboat the size of No, 5 hold safely, on a clear night and with no sea?

> Mr. LOWE:
Do you mean to ask what she would hold in the water or what would she hold lowering?

> Senator SMITH:
No; I want you to tell me how many she will hold lowering.

> Mr. LOWE:
That depends upon the caliber of the man lowering her.

> Senator SMITH:
Does it not depend upon the gear?

> Mr. LOWE: It depends upon the gear also, sir. You will say to yourself, "I will take the chance with 50 people in this boat." Another man will say, "I am not going to run the risk of 50; "I will take 25 or 30."
> [...]
> Senator SMITH:
I want that understood. Do you wish the committee to understand that a lifeboat whose capacity is 65 under the British regulations could not be lowered with safety, with new tackle and equipment, containing more than 50 people?

> Mr. LOWE: The dangers are that if you overcrowd the boat the first thing that you will have will be that the boat will buckle up like that (indicating) at the two ends, because she is suspended from both ends and there is no support in the middle.


starsandbribes t1_j5ifxye wrote

This is fascinating. I’d actually watch a film about the follow up to the disaster.


Careful_Yannu t1_j5igmmt wrote

Honestly I'd do the same. There's been three different movies made about the WWII Wannsee Conference, clearly audiences are not adverse to watching people in a room discussing historically famous events as they happened.


cardmanimgur t1_j5krqwj wrote

They could've made the final episode of Chernobyl 6 hours long of the trials and I would've watched it in one sitting.


Megadoom t1_j5imme4 wrote

If you’re ever in the UK, Southampton (where the boat set off) sea museum has an interesting exhibit, including a mock-up of the court and various other x-examinations, including whether 3rd class passengers were indeed treated worse. The really interesting bit of that part of the enquiry is where the judges interview various third class passengers. Oh wait, no they didn’t, not a single one…


YourlocalTitanicguy t1_j5io72j wrote

One of my super nerdy areas in Titanic studies is post sinking inquiry and litigation. The way they shaped the history, and the reason why, will probably never be undone. It’s great stuff!


muchandquick t1_j5ji52c wrote

Any book recommendations?


YourlocalTitanicguy t1_j5k0ha1 wrote

About this topic specifically? Most of the books are just copies of the testimony which can be found online for free- check out the Titanic Inquiry Project

That being said, any good research book will have a section dedicated to this- try ‘On a Sea of Glass’, ‘The Ship Magnificent’, even ‘The Night lives on’ which is old and now outdated but does have a very broad overview of the controversy and conspiracy surrounding post sinking.

We keep going back to them because more research, more discovery, means we see threads that dont add up, they make no sense, that may just be downright lies. It’s imperative to understand the litigation of Titanic to begin to understand the testimony. They are entwined together- and that effects “history”


DoomGoober t1_j5iktxk wrote

I was watching a documentary: lowering lifeboats and releasing them was extremely dangerous and lifeboats have gone through multiple different designs of lowering systems and releases to increase safety for both the passengers and the crew operating them.

One release system was well known (and feared) by crew because it was famous for cutting fingers off if operated incorrectly.


B3eenthehedges t1_j5ipgv8 wrote

I suppose you can understand skepticism after sinking on the unsinkable ship.


Careful_Yannu t1_j5iyb0f wrote

Fun fact, while popularly called "unsinkable", the closest any official publication got was an engineering magazine calling it "Practically unsinkable" referring to the bulkheads built into the structure. Neither the company nor Andrews, the designer, claimed it.


tinaoe t1_j5lg5k1 wrote

And tbf, it did sink remarkably slowly compared to others of its time.


HPmoni t1_j5krb6e wrote

Numerous reasons. It was cold, and people didn't think the ship was sinking that fast.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_j5hbd3j wrote

I don't think that's as big an issue if you consider that the people in the boat can paddle faster than people in sub freezing water can swim. They could have picked up some stragglers without too much risk I imagine.


Cognac_and_swishers t1_j5hiwqg wrote

Wouldn't the real danger be a panicked person capsizing the boat as they attempt climb over the side? I assume that's what is meant by "swarming the boat."


Old_timey_brain t1_j5hci60 wrote

> They could have picked up some stragglers without too much risk I imagine.

I suspect you are right in they could have moved back in closer and grabbed a couple, or few more, but then been so much closer and connected to the ones they have to turn away.

I think somewhere in the mix was the need of the collective to get far away from the horror of backsliding out of relative safety.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_j5hgage wrote

>I think somewhere in the mix was the need of the collective to get far away from the horror of backsliding out of relative safety.

You could just say they were scared and wanted to survive. I know it sounds a lot like running away to save themselves. Would we be more noble in their situation?


Rawrby t1_j5hlopz wrote

The way I see it, there’s (on average) more than 10 people a boat. Hysterics, differences in experience, and generalized fear, is going to make people rationalize that we DID save people. And I agree, if we move closer to save people, we spend more time rowing AWAY from the people we can’t save. I, personally, would rather move out with my group, than tell someone 10 yards away that we have no more space, and leave them as they scream for help.


Gorf_the_Magnificent t1_j5i2cx7 wrote

Do you really see a boat full of people reaching a clear and immediate consensus on when they’ve picked up enough stragglers and should start rowing away from the rest?


Fake_William_Shatner t1_j5i9ppd wrote

They see 30 people swimming like mad towards them, I think the consensus would be amazingly quick.

Like I said, the people aren't going to be putting up a fight in about ten minutes.


Jrubas t1_j5iosaj wrote

It's pretty easy to talk about what should or shouldn't have been done 111 years later from the comfort of our own homes, but the people in the lifeboats that night were cold, scared, and not thinking clearly. You can say "Those evil rich bastards were the ones who kept the boats from going back," but the reality is that these people had been jolted out of bed, thrust into pandimonium, and had been forced to watch a ship sink with thousands of people onboard. And once that ship sank, they were alone in the middle of the ocean, in complete darkness, with nothing between them and certain death but a tiny wooden boat.

Should the boats have gone back? Sure, but I can understand why so many people were reluctant to: They were terrified and traumatized. I think it was Aesop who said "It is easy to be brave from a safe distance."

There's a lot of that in this thread.


GoGaslightYerself t1_j5jlvej wrote

There is also the issue in ethics/maritime law where you are obligated to render aid unless/until doing so endangers the safety of your vessel and the lives of those on board. If Pitman had rendered aid, and his decision to do so ended up with the lifeboat sinking or additional people dying as a result, he would have been culpable for that, too.

Basically, it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

No matter what happens, if anything goes wrong, it is generally always the master's fault, since he/she is "the boss."

At least that's what they taught us when I got my captain's license.


RamboSixVegas t1_j5jqhqu wrote

There's even some debate over whether Captain Ronstron of Carpathia put his own ship at undue risk when he pushed it to its limits through the same waters that sank a much larger ship. He's lauded because he was successful, where I think he'd be condemned if he wasn't the one to save the passengers in the lifeboats or even damaged his own ship in the process.


Jrubas t1_j5jy5cx wrote

Then you have Captain Lord of the Californian who to this day is treated like a villain for his inaction that night. His ship was surrounded by ice and had stopped for the night. Even if he conclusively knew of the Titanic's predicament, he wouldn't have been entirely in the wrong to stay put. Like the other guy said, he was responsible for the ship and he was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. He was dragged for his inaction, but if he tried to get to Titanic, hit an iceberg, and sank, suddenly the question would be "Why did you try to get to Titanic when you knew you were surrounded by icebergs?"

Sometimes, you just can't win.


Jrubas t1_j5jw8xc wrote

Right. Plus this happened in 1912. People tend to forget how different things were back then. The captain going down with his ship wasn't a quaint, old-timey tradition, it's something that was pretty much expected. If your ship went down and took a thousand people with it, you'd better just go with them and not show your face back on land, even if it wasn't your fault. J. Bruce Ismay was dragged in the press for surviving. There was a Japanese guy who survived (I forget his name). When he got back to Japan, he was treated as a national disgrace for living while so many others died.

All that to say: If you made even the slightest mistake, you'd be villainized to the point that a hundred years later people would still see you as a mustache twirling asshole who threw a baby out of a lifeboat to steal its spot. It was the early 20th Century version of being canceled, only much, much, much worse.


RamboSixVegas t1_j5jr4v1 wrote

It happens every time Titanic is spoken about online, and I'm sure it happens in every disaster. People typing in ALLCAPS to get across how USELESS all those people were in the disaster. Stupid, weak and cold-hearted.

How, if their own badass was there, they would've saved everyone through their brilliance, strength, and unflinching good nature.

I'll bet they've never been in a survival situation, let alone make these kinds of decisions, especially not in a position of power in these situations where eyes are looking at them for answers.

Good examples of that happening in this comment section.


Jrubas t1_j5juuqz wrote

People lack perspective and they lack empathy. They gleefully judge others without stopping to put themselves in their shoes. E

very survival situation spawns a few heroes who rise to the occasion. Until you've been in that kind of situation and have proven yourself to be among the 1 percent of badasses, how about you cool it with the finger-wagging, huh?

It's funny, the same shit happened right after the ship sank. It just goes to show that 111 years later, some people are still the same judgemental assholes that they were in 1912.


RamboSixVegas t1_j5k83nq wrote

Reading through the thread, there's a commonly known fact that hasn't been brought up.

The crewmembers, and many passengers, knew there wasn't enough space in the lifeboats for everyone currently in the water. They already had to make the decision to let others die to ensure they didn't die with them, including people they loved. They're already making difficult decisions under awful circumstances.

What everyone seems to be condemning them for is for failing to calculate in their head a formula that would yield the exact amount of time to get the most people saved in a survival situation involving listening to hundreds of people die. How reddit is that?


Jrubas t1_j5konge wrote

It's one of the most Reddit things imaginable. When people are thrust into an awful situation like the Titanic disaster, they're not thinking clearly. All these commenters swear up and down that they would be sober and clear-headed throughout. Maybe some would be, but most would freeze up like a deer in the headlights.


interplanetary_janet t1_j5gmnmu wrote

I remember that from Titanic.


ThrowDirtonMe t1_j5jtwx4 wrote

In the movie it’s an old rich lady that tries to get them to go back, and the crew member shushes her.


VeryJoyfulHeart59 t1_j5lu7cb wrote

She was 44.


ThrowDirtonMe t1_j5lw18b wrote

In the movie? I don’t recall her saying that. I guess I could’ve said older or middle-aged or something.


VeryJoyfulHeart59 t1_j5lyoci wrote

Either of those would be much better, thanks.

Molly Brown was 44 in real life. Kathy Bates, who played her in the movie, was 49 when the movie was released (so probably 48 during filming).


justasmalltowndad t1_j5gry3d wrote

No way, so they basically just reenacted that whole titanic movie? Wow, how unoriginal


Delamoor t1_j5i2gju wrote

Poorly executed joke


justasmalltowndad t1_j5i92g7 wrote

I guess you could say it sunk


hotrails-n-handguns t1_j5if8c4 wrote

This is like when someone takes a 3 point shot and it bounces off the rim but it bounced straight up and fell back in


vetratten t1_j5jgmxk wrote

I tried to making a movie about how the US finally got the Japanese to surrender at the end of WWII. Sadly the movie bombed.


markr6629 t1_j5htfoh wrote

Look up the story of the USS Indianapolis sinking. Straight up murder and delirium out there.


hotrails-n-handguns t1_j5iiov5 wrote

Fuck. I watched a video detailing the events and then listened to Edgar recall his experience and was brought to tears. I cannot imagine a more terrifying environment


Kaiisim t1_j5k38pf wrote

Boat 14 went back - it found lots of floating bodies. They pulled in 4 people.

About 50% of people going in the water would have died within 2 minutes from cold water shock, sudden drop in temperature will often cause sudden cardiac arrest. Its often why kids die when they fall into ice.

By about 15 minutes 90% were dead from hypothermia. By 30 minutes basically everyone who went into the water would have died.

I think one of the few survivors in the water was the master baker and they think it's because he got absolutely smashed on all the booze before the ship went down. That helped keep him calm, and vasodilated. Plus a lot of luck!

It also means Jack from the movie was likely doomed to die whatever happened. Once you got wet hypothermia would quickly set in.


First-Butterscotch-3 t1_j5iy5bt wrote

His intent was honourable and right

But the occupants were more than likley right - people would of swamped and sank the boat and more would of died


las61918 t1_j5jipdv wrote

No they wouldn’t. They’d have at most 5-10 minutes after hitting the water to even live yet alone “swarm” the boat.

You understand that an iceberg requires freezing temperatures to stay an ice berg ya?


Dakkaboy123 t1_j5k11u1 wrote

This is hindsight, the people at the time didn’t know how truly cold the water was. They probably knew it was cold but not kill you in 15 minutes cold.

Furthermore, a lot of the lifeboats didn’t have many sailors or WSL crew members.

Even officer Lowe who was one of the titanic officers who wanted to go back. Waited a bit and only took experienced men from other lifeboats.


First-Butterscotch-3 t1_j5jix75 wrote

Really? Shocking that

Who would of thought ice needed freezing temperatures to remain ice

Then his actions would of made no difference, other than prehaps shove some dead people about


[deleted] t1_j5k2heg wrote



First-Butterscotch-3 t1_j5k2pon wrote

The occupants were right

Getting closer served 0 purpose they were dead

If someone was alive they may of pulled the boat over

Bumping so many dead people and debries could of damaged or sunk the boat

There is 0 reward and some risk


[deleted] t1_j5k3qlk wrote



First-Butterscotch-3 t1_j5k4118 wrote

And in every scenario risk vs reward comes up with more risk to survivors than there is reward in finding others

The search would of being pointless as every one would be dead in 5 minutes - it would be a pointless exercise in emotion


Fool_On_the_Hill_9 t1_j5h5rzj wrote

That was in a movie. I can't remember the title.


Fool_On_the_Hill_9 t1_j5htopn wrote

It's on the tip of my tongue. Leonardo comes to mind... Oh yeah, the Da Vinci code.


scottgal t1_j5jc9sd wrote

There's an even worse case, the SS Arctic (edit..thanks) which sank in 1854, there the crew mutinied and stole all the lifeboats. ZERO of the 195 Children and 185 Women survived but 24 men and 61 crew survived after pitched battles and instances of women and children being thrown into the sea as lifeboats were battled over.


delishusFudge t1_j5jprnz wrote

SS Arctic!! You had me curious so I looked it up - such a rotten tragedy


RamboSixVegas t1_j5jsa3s wrote

dellshusFudge is right with the name of the ship being Arctic. You're confusing the name with another White Star Liner that killed most of its passengers.

Funny fact, a movie was made in 1929 about a ship sinking on its maiden voyage after striking an iceberg. The White Star Line was still around, so to avoid a lawsuit, they called the ship (and movie) "Atlantic." I wonder if they were aware of the 1873 disaster involving another White Star Liner.


168942269 t1_j5im11p wrote

It depends on the amount of time that passed since entering the water. If it was moments after the ship went under, then heelllllll nah. People would have definitely overcrowded and sank the boat. If they came back after 15 minutes, different story. But again, this is hindsight. In the moment I would have undoubtedly agreed with the occupants. Why would I give up a golden opportunity to survive? To be a "hero"? Because it's the moral thing to do? Would those things matter if you died? Nope. It's a hard truth.


[deleted] t1_j5jg7zw wrote

My husband and I had a conversation about this once. We agreed that if we were on a life boat by ourselves or with other adults we would try to help. If we had our three daughters with us, we wouldn’t even consider going back to help. Not saying I’m right. But it is what it is. My kids safety before anyone’s. Even my own


Killowatt59 t1_j5jy9r9 wrote

A completely rational and understandable fear. I hate the crewman felt like it was his fault, but they were all victims of circumstance. It was going to end badly no matter and smart thing to do was to not risk compromising the lifeboat’s safety.


KingDarius89 t1_j5kstlw wrote

It was the fault of the idiot that designed the ship.


tinaoe t1_j5lgn7p wrote

How? Titanic was carrying more lifeboats than required and got tremendously unlucky with how it hit the ice berg. No ship at that time would have survived it, the fact that it took more than two hours to sink AND did so remarkably evenly until the end is pretty wild.


Brainiac7777777 t1_j6hp85a wrote

This is factually incorrect. The Titanic was carrying very few lifeboats because of the designers hubris that she was a ship that could never sink


tinaoe t1_j6hw0t6 wrote

>This is factually incorrect

You wanna back that up with a quote? Because afaik it's the truth:

>At the time, the Board of Trade's regulations stated that British vessels over 10,000 tons (Titanic was just over 46,000) must carry 16 lifeboats with a capacity of 5,500 cubic feet (160 m3), plus enough capacity in rafts and floats for 75% (or 50% in case of a vessel with watertight bulkheads) of that in the lifeboats. Therefore, the White Star Line actually provided more lifeboat accommodation than was legally required.
>The regulations made no extra provision for larger ships because they had not been changed since 1894, when the largest passenger ship under consideration was only 13,000 tons, and because of the expected difficulty in getting away more than 16 boats in any emergency.

You can look up those regulations here. Now, those regulations were heavily outdated due to the massive increase in size and capacity that had happened in the ocean liner industry, but that only became apparant after Titanic sank (Titanic's safety requirements were written at a time where the biggest ship in the world was about a third of her size). Look up the 1914 Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, they changed a bunch of stuff (24 hour radio, lifeboats, ice patrol) in response to the sinking.

The usual idea was that the lifeboats would be let down, the passangers ferried to a nearby ship (as the transatlantic shipping lanes were very busy there should always be one nearby, especially because sinkings were expected to happen closer to port due to collisions or groundings), rinse and repeat. That worked some of the time, but a lot of the times the ships sank way too quickly too launch their lifeboats or conditions were so bad that the lifeboats sank themselves. So lifeboats weren't seen as the massive safety feature they are today. A lot of the time people figured they were safer on board the bigger ship instead of being capsized, dragged into the propellors or left to deal with heavy seas in a small, wooden lifeboat. Especially on a sinking like Titanics which was remarkably calm and steady up until maybe 20 minutes before it went down.

So even if Titanic had more lifeboats? It probably wouldn't have done a lot. She sank slowly (look up Ocean Liner sinkings around that era, a LOT of them go down in 5-20 minutes), but even then they didn't manage to launch all of her boats (that they weren't fully filled isn't the issue, the plan was to fill them consecutively from the lower doors to ensure a safer launch, but that didn't happen for a variety of reasons).

Look at the RMS Empress of Ireland: similar in size to the Titanic, got requipped with more lifeboats following Titanic, sank two years later within 14 minutes, with a list so heavy that they couldn't launch the port lifeboats at all (passangers tried, but they slammed into the side of the ship and got thrown into the water).


Accurate_Western_346 t1_j5hwmzt wrote

Wouldn't hitting people in the zero visibility aftermath be worrying enough? I doubt they'd have a lamp.


counterpots t1_j5j34gg wrote

“Yes, and there will be one less on this boat if you don’t shut that hole in your face.”


nogoodgreen t1_j5k8ix8 wrote

Reminds me of Nautical Disaster by the Tragically Hip.

"Now I was in a lifeboat designed for ten and ten only

Anything that systematic would get you hated

It's not a deal nor a test nor a love of something fated

The selection was quick, the crew was picked in order

And those left in the water

Got kicked off our pant leg


Our conversation is as faint a sound in my memory

As those fingernails scratching on my hull"


TimmyJToday t1_j5k2wuw wrote

Damned if I do, damned if I don’t


Maiq_Da_Liar t1_j5kmx42 wrote

Another lifeboat rowed past an open door with people yelling for them to come over, but they didn't. They were scared that people would jump into the lifeboat en masse and sink it


dressageishard t1_j5kpste wrote

Hindsight's always 20-20. In Pittman's case, it's either damned if you do, damned if you don't. So sad. 😔


Mundanite t1_j5zatpu wrote

Grow a spine now. It’ll be too late when you need it.


fish4096 t1_j6370iw wrote

The rest of his life would have been a lot shorter if there were not enough emotionally disciplined people.


Avethle t1_j5icjgs wrote