[Rhodes22-list] Titanic

[Bill Effros]

Jim,

Thanks for the additional information.  

I am generally impressed by the quality of the Mikkelson's research, but in this case I would take issue.  If you look at the sources for their piece you will see they are all secondary.  When I researched this issue I went to primary sources, and the claim simply wasn't anywhere to be found.

Yes, it is true that the man who later became the captain of the Titanic made the "practically unsinkable" statement--but he was referring to all steel hulled ships being built at that time, and not specifically to the Titanic which had not yet been built.

What's more, a single statement taken out of context, made by someone who would later become the captain of a boat that had not even been built hardly qualifies as "the considered opinion of experts at the time".

You will note that the "Vice President of the White Star Line" is never named.  The Mikkelson's have cautioned time and again that when no one can attach a name that can be checked against a statement that can't be checked you can bet the quote is bogus.  I looked and looked for the source of this quote and never could find it.

With regard to advertising, all transportation companies want you to believe their vehicles are safe, but none put absolute claims into their text.  It's too stupid.  "Our Planes Never Crash"?  "Our Trains Never Fall Off the Tracks"? "Our Buses Never Plunge Off Roadways"?  Of course not.  Except for Stan Spitzer.  (and Boston Whaler, and others who have said unequivocally that the way they make their boats makes it impossible for them to sink--White Star never said that because neither they nor anyone else believed it was true.)

Other boat builders, to this day, say their boats are as safe as they can be, and are "practically unsinkable" -- claims similar to those implied by White Star, and every other transportation company, but no one ever made the claim now attached to the Titanic that it was unsinkable.

BTW -- The initial press reports also carried the claim that everyone aboard had been saved.  Newspapers were making up the news based on what they thought would turn out to be the case.  When their initial reports turned out to be completely wrong they had to blame somebody.  They blamed White Star and got away with it.

At some point I'll write the Mikkelsons.  No time now.  But thanks, again, for following up.

Bill Effros   

 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jim Connolly 
To: 'rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org' 
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 8:13 PM
Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Titanic


A few months ago, there was a discussion on whether the Titanic was 
considered unsinkable.  I couldn't find the link then, but I saw this today 
on "The Smoking Gun" web site while I was investigating a co-workers urban 
myth.  I thought I'd pass it along.  I hope someone other than me remembers 
the thread.

Jim Connolly


http://www.snopes.com/titanic/unsink.htm

Is it true that the Titanic was really believed to be "unsinkable" back in 
1912, or was that belief a product of latter day myth-making? In the 
example quoted above, Titanic writer Walter Lord claims that the White Star 
line never advertised her as such.
He also quotes London Times journalist Philip Howard, who wrote in 1981:

I can find no contemporary evidence that the Titanic was regarded as 
virtually unsinkable until after she had sunk . . . With hindsight we have 
created the myth because it makes a more dramatic metaphor.

Lord easily demolishes Howard's claim by noting that in mid-1911, nearly a 
year before the Titanic's maiden voyage, publications such as the Irish 
News and Belfast Morning News and Shipbuilder printed detailed articles 
about the ship's construction and
noted that "The Captain may, by simply moving an electric switch, instantly 
close the doors throughout and make the vessel practically unsinkable." And 
of course the Titanic's Captain, Edward J. Smith, had said of the Adriatic 
several years earlier: "I
cannot imagine any condition which would cause a ship to founder. I cannot 
conceive of any vital disaster happening to this vessel. Modern 
shipbuilding has gone beyond that."

Thus, Lord concludes:

. . . the "unsinkability" of the Titanic was not the product of some slick 
advertising copywriter, nor was it a myth later invented to improve the 
story. It was the considered opinion of experts at the time . . .
Of course, most of the statements about the Titanic's unsinkability 
included qualifiers such as "practically" or "nearly," but the public 
naturally ignored them, "unsinkable" (like "impossible" or "pregnant") 
being a word that didn't lend itself to
qualification. And even as reports of the Titanic disaster began to reach 
America early in the morning of 15 April 1912, the Vice-President of the 
White Star Line in New York stated, without qualification, "We place 
absolute confidence in the Titanic. We
believe that the boat is unsinkable."

However, claiming (as White Star did) that although others may have used 
the word, White Star itself did not describe the Titanic as "unsinkable" in 
its advertising is a bit disingenuous. The February 1993 issue of The 
Titanic Commutator unearthed a White
Star promotional flyer for the Olympic and Titanic that claimed "as far as 
it is possible to do, these two wonderful vessels are designed to be 
unsinkable." Perhaps that statement encapsulates one of the key lessons the 
world should have gleaned from the
Titanic disaster: When dealing with matters of safety and human lives, 
"possible" and "practical" are two very different things.

__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list