Who do you blame for the Titanic disaster happening?

Answer 1

~That honor has to be shared.

The shipbuilders, Harland & Wolff, get some credit for using sub-standard, inadequate and insufficient materials, particularly in the hull and rivets. The bulkhead design was a blueprint for tragedy. (of course, Titanic's single walled hull was customary at the time, as were watertight bulkheads which did not seal the ship beyond 3 meters above the waterline. Forensic metallurgy at the time may have been inadequate disclose the deficiencies in the rivets and other materials on inspection.)

Captain Smith gets credit for failing to take adequate precautions when he repeatedly received numerous iceberg warnings throughout the voyage. He probably was wise to stay within the customary sea lanes that had been plotted and sailed for years, but he should have reduced speed. On the other hand, in maintaining his normal cruising speed (which was less than Titanic's top speed) Smith was following the standard operating procedure of the times. Maintaining his course in the customary sea lane was also normal and reasonable. Smith was one of the most experienced and respected captains afloat at the time (which, after all, is why he was given command of Titanic in the first place) and he would not have recklessly endangered his vessel. Only in hindsight can he be blamed, and even then he can be blamed only by one who requires a scapegoat.

Whoever posted the lookouts gets some credit for not posting more under the conditions, especially when the ship entered the area where the ice had been reported. That was probably the biggest mistake made on board. However, the number of lookouts posted, and the observation points at which they were stationed, were in accordance with customary procedure and custom. With additional experienced lookouts on the steamhead and both sides of the bridge, Titanic may have seen the iceberg in sufficient time to take evasive action.

White Star Lines gets some credit for pressuring Captain Smith to set a crossing record, if that actually happened. Such pressure may have led Smith to put his ship at risk in the presence of known ice bergs. Given his position with White Star, his experience and his reputation, it is doubtful that Smith could have been pressured to sacrifice or endanger his ship. He would have employed his best judgment. In any case, he was going to make the crossing again in Titanic, many times, and he had plenty of time to set records. [He was not about to retire and he had announced he would captain the Titanic until White Star launched a larger ship.] (And I repeat, standard operating procedure for most ships at the time was to maintain normal speed through ice and to take appropriate evasive action when bergs were spotted by the lookouts.) Further, there is no credible evidence that J. Bruce Ismay or any other White Star official had so pressured Smith. They themselves denied doing so and there is no evidence whatsoever to contradict them. The only purpose in setting a record was to attract passengers, thereby increasing revenue. They had too much invested in the ship to take such chances, especially with the losses they had suffered while Titanic's older sister, the Olympic, had been out of commission as a result of her collision with the Hawke. Titanic's opulence alone was enough to entice more passengers than any speed record would have done. Add to that Smith's reputation as a captain. There was no reason for Titanic to even try to set a crossing record on her maiden voyage. If Smith was trying to set a record, he would have operated at full speed, at least in clear waters. He never did so. {Carpathia covered the 58 miles from where she heard the distress call to the site of the sinking at full speed (and Captain Arthur Rostrond ordered the ship's heating and hot water to be shut off to maximize the steam available to the engines and to add speed). Was Captain Rostrond negligent for such taking such "careless" actions? He was decorated for doing it, so apparently he was not reckless.}

The signalman who received the the message from the California about the three bergs California had spotted and then failed to deliver the message to Captain Smith gets some credit.

Whoever gave the conflicting orders for evasive action gets some credit. ("Stop! Full speed astern!” was ordered by First Officer Murdoch to the Engine Room
“Hard a’starboard!” was ordered to Quartemaster Robert Hichens) Regardless of the actual order, altering course certainly worsened the damage - Titanic might have survived a head on collision with the berg - other smaller and more fragile ships had. Reversing engines on the Titanic would not have saved her. Due to the shaft and propeller design, inertia would have carried her into the berg before the ship reacted. Turning starboard exposed the single-walled hull to the berg. Had Titanic continued forward into the ice at all stop or with reversed engines, the damage would have been far less than the gaping hole that was ripped along her hull. At the very least, Titanic would have stayed afloat longer, probably for a long enough time that Carpathia would have arrived before she went down.

Captain Smith and his officers get some credit for taking over an hour to assess and comprehend the extent of the damage and the danger the ship was in, thus delaying the order to abandon ship. That was the third serious mistake made on board. By the same token, the speed with which Titanic filled with water and sank was unprecedented for such a ship.

Whoever allowed the lifeboats to be lowered with so many empty seats gets some credit. That would be the second biggest mistake made on board. Smith was not involved with anything that was happening on deck, and particularly not in the loading and lowering of the lifeboats.

The recalcitrant passengers who didn't believe the ship was sinking and who refused to get into the earliest of the lifeboats, which were launched with many empty seats, get some credit. Only 19 of the 65 seats available will filled in the first lifeboat which was lowered.

The "women and children first" policy in filling the lifeboats is probably responsible for at least 500 deaths: men could have filled the empty seats in the boats as they were launched.

White Star Lines gets some credit for allowing the ship to sail with so few lifeboats. (However, Titanic had more lifeboats than the law at the time required. Although she was fitted to carry up to 64, she had only 16, plus four collapsibles.) No ship at the time carried, or was required to carry, sufficient lifeboats to accommodate all passengers and crew. Titanic's lifeboats exceeded the standard and required capacity by more than 20%. Actually, if Titanic had fewer boats, more people may have rushed to the earliest to be lowered. It is entirely possible that many died because Titanic had so many lifeboats. In any case, given the short time in which Titanic sank, it is highly unlikely that many more boats could have been filled and lowered as a simple matter of arithmetic, logistics and time. Titanic's last lifeboat was lowered at 2:05. She sank at 2:20. It took at about 15 minutes to fill a lifeboat under pristine conditions. Given the confusion and panic on deck, it is doubtful that another boat could have been lowered from each davit, particularly as Titanic began to list and sink.

If, in fact, reports of the distress rockets were reported to Captain Stanley Lord of the California, he gets some credit for not responding.

The greatest blame goes to the maritime industry and various agencies bodies of the day. Had it been required for ships to man their radios 24 hours a day, California would have heard the distress calls and would have responded in ample time to save all aboard - probably. [She was only 20 miles off and could have been the in a third the time of Carpathia, well before Titanic went under. Those who froze in the water could have been saved, lifeboat or no.] Had full watertight compartments and bulkheads been required, Titanic would not have taken on the water she took and may have stayed afloat. She was built to remain buoyant with even four compartments flooded. Surely she would have not foundered as quickly. Had regulations required ships to reduce speed in the presence of known ice, Smith would have slowed down, possibly enough so that there would have been sufficient time for Titanic to react to a course change which would have cleared the berg. Had the established sea routes been diverted to the south, especially during the ice season, far less traffic would have been traversing the notorious berg-calfing grounds and ice fields where Titanic went down. Had double hulls been required, Titanic may have survived the collision. Had ships been required to carry enough lifeboats to carry all aboard, more would have likely been saved. All these changes came about as a result of the loss of Titanic.

I don't blame anybody. I certainly don't agree with making Captain Smith the scapegoat since he did nothing that any other captain would not have done under the same circumstances, other than in hindsight. Accidents happen. Given the state of the art for shipbuilding and metallurgy of the day, and the customs and the regulations of the times, everyone acted within the realm of reasonableness except for the passengers who didn't board the lifeboats and Captain Lord, if he was truly aware of the distress calls.

Answer 2

Very bad luck. The ship was definitely sea-worthy and the construction was good despite recent criticisms. The engineering and architecture was, if not impeccable, certainly adequate. Even collision with an iceberg should not have caused the Titanic to sink. The compartmented construction did give an extra measure of safety that was unfortunately not quite enough for the circumstances. The gash in the hull was longer than could have been anticipated. Of course the real disaster was the fact that White Star did not provide nearly enough lifeboats for the number of passengers aboard. Whether this was a decision that was unwarranted is a matter of opinion. It is easy to second guess the decision after the fact. The people at White Star were not "playing the odds" with human lives. They sincerely thought the ship was unsinkable. There have been similar failures of judgment before and since. Look at the space shuttle disasters of recent years. Call it hubris or call it ill fortune, we do make mistakes that cost human lives. The Titanic was simply a series of events that culminated in a tragedy. No one could have predicted the result. So, I believe that it is not who we can blame but the lessons we can learn from such events that is important.

Answer 3

Hello,

1) I would blame the White Star Line as a whole along with other shipping companies. They were always speeding in all conditions trying to break trans Atlantic records in those times. Furthermore the routes across the Atlantic were further north in those days which intersected Ice burg. Records from fishing boats in the foggy Grand Banks often tell the horror stories of others being bowled over by fast moving liners racing through the fog.

2) The design of the ship. Hindsight they say is 20/20 but the carbon ratios in the steel of the ship were recently found to make the steel inferior and brittle in cold water conditions and the water tight doors and bulkheads only went up to the E deck and made the flooding from compartment to compartment much like an ice cube tray sinking in your kitchen sink. The fact the designers were so overconfident to not have enough life boats only added to the disaster.

Cheers,

Michael Kelly

Answer 4

I would have to say Bruce Ismay was to blame the most. He's the one who pressured Captain Edward J.Smith into pushing Titanic full speed ahead while knowing about the iceberg warnings. Once Titanic was doomed. Ismay slithered to the other side of the deck before all the women & children were even gone & slide into a lifeboat to save his own butt. Granted Capt. Smith had the choice to ignore Ismay's orderd, but Ismays position in the company was higher than the Captains. At least Capt. Smith went down with his ship while Ismaysaved his own life.

Answer 5

It was Captain Smith’s fault. The captain has the ultimate authority while the ship is at sea. Unfortunately, Bruce Ismay of White Star Lines was urging Smith to beat the Titanic’s scheduled arrival time in New York. Captain Smith listened to Ismay’s urgings but he had every right not to act upon them. Smith overrode his own best judgment and foolishly tried to please Ismay, his boss.

As an aside, the Titanic was NEVER termed 'unsinkable' by its builders, Harlan & Wolff. It was the press who tabbed it with the 'unsinkable' tag. The trade publications of the day, in describing the Titanic, termed the ship 'ALMOST unsinkable.' The NON-trade press of the day conveniently left off the word 'almost' in describing the ship. It sells a lot more papers.

Answer 6

The Captain, and only the Captain, because he put the ship at risk by travelling too fast for the conditions.

The disaster ended up being somewhat more disastrous than it would have been if various other people had done various things differently, but that doesn't mean that they should share any of the blame.

Answer 7

Ultimately, the blame lies with the Captain of the Titanic. He was being pressured to set a new Atlantic crossing record by the steam ship line owners, but the safety if the ship lies squarely on his shoulders and this responsibility cannot be delegated.

Answer 8

Mother Nature in the form of an Iceberg. It's been proven again and again.

Captain Smith was responsible for putting his ship ,crew and Passengers in harms way by pushing the ships speed in dangerous conditions.

White Star Lines was responsible for accepting a ship with not enough lifeboats.

There is enough blame to go around.

Answer 9

Overconfident designers at Harland & Wolff falsely claimed the ship was unsinkable.
Overconfident owners at White Star Line put far too few lifeboats onboard.
Negligence by the Captain and crew drove the ship into an iceberg.

Answer 10

blame titanic disaster happening

Answer 11

White Star Line, but ultimately the Captain.