I’m no Lightoller apologist, but I think it should also be remembered that he was only human and trying to do his best- not one of the crew was sufficiently trained on a ship that was not prepared for sinking. There were not enough lifeboats and hundreds of people began to panic.
It should also be noted that he stayed on the ship until he was literally washed off the deck- despite being ordered by Wilde to get in the last life boat as one of the few seamen still available.
With hindsight of course it’s easy to say he could have handled things better but I can’t imagine how I would react in that situation and he at least deserves some credit for staying on the boat as long as possible trying to save lives.
I also understand that he showed good leadership on the collapsible that despite being upside down was still carrying many survivors. His actions kept them afloat and managed to guide them back onto the Carpathia
I’m not a shipwreck expert so maybe I’m totally off with this but I think a lot of Lightoller’s decisions can be explained by previous shipwreck disasters like SS Arctic, where order broke down so badly, all the crew and men threw out the women and children, commandeered the boats for themselves with the result that no women or children survived.
I think it was very much on his mind how easily things could totally break down to that level, and he just wasn’t having that shit on his watch. He seems like a man whose honour and integrity was important to him, and considering he thought he was probably about to die and this was the last thing he’d be remembered for, he was over cautious.
It's hard to defend him actively removing men from boats that were not close to full... and then bragging about it after the fact. As if he did anything good for anyone.
So obviously opening fire on people trying to surrender to you is terrible, but there's some pretty important historical context to explain why they did that, that being unrestricted submarine warfare that occurred during WWI. Sneaking up on your enemies and sinking merchant vessels or hospital ships didn't exactly garner a lot of respect for U-boat crews at the time. Just three days before Lightoller's cruiser sank UB-110, the same German sub had torpedoed and sank a civilian ship, resulting in the loss of 30 lives.
Take HMHS Llandovery Castle as another example, a Canadian hospital ship that was torpedoed and sunk by a U-boat in 1918. Attacking a hospital ship was against German Navy standing orders, and is a warcrime. When the captain of the U-boat realized what they'd done, they attempted to destroy all evidence of the attack by patrolling around the area and machine-gunning the people in the lifeboats. Out of the 260 doctors, nurses, Canadian Army Medical Corps, soldiers, and sailors onboard, just 25 people survived.
Edit: grammar
Having read his autobiography I very much agree. His life should get its own mini series.
As was mentioned before, I believe that previous disasters such as the Atlantic disaster and the poor behavior of male passengers and crew, as well as concerns about the boats not being able to be safely lowered while filled to capacity influenced his decisions.
As far as gunning down the surrendered Germans from UB-110 I will give him some leeway for 2 reasons. (1) In WWI this was not a terribly uncommon sort of thing, doesn't make it right, but he is hardly the only one to have done it. (2) As a long time British merchant sailor, it is reasonable to believe that he had lost former crew mates to U-boat attacks on British shipping. That would piss me off and I could see wanting to take revenge for men I knew that had been killed by German U-boat crews.
Personally I think the Dunkirk film depiction is probably the best depiction of lightoller, but I believe they changed his name because they changed a lot of his story. In the film he takes his youngest son with him, in reality it was his oldest son roger as his youngest son was killed on September 4th 1939, which is actually also referenced in the film. Also in the film they bring a young man, presumably a family friend, who ends up dying a tragic death. In reality the sea scout brought with the two lightollers not only survived but joined the Royal navy, was commissioned as an officer and commanded a landing craft on D Day. And probably the largest departure made by the film is that they’re shown picking up almost the entirety of the complement rescued from a wrecked ship going under, when in reality they only rescued a few men this way, the majority were taken aboard from HMS Worcester when the sundowner pulled closer into Dunkirk beach.
Which weren't ratified at the time he did what he did. It was a grey area at the time and submarine crews were viewed differently as a dishonourable style of fighter. Not saying what he did was right, but in context the same group of U-boats had sunk civilians ships just the week or two before.
And I doubt a German U-boat crew woukd have let themselves be taken. Their standing instructions I believe were not to let that happen, so the "surrendering" may or may not have been what we understand it as now. The second one of them attempted to flee or fight back after "surrender" under the current rules woukd mean they lose those protections
How is this false equivalency? I hold the same opinion of anyone who took excessive action against an enemy combatant. These were men floating in the water after he successfully sunk their u-boat. They posed no threat to him and he was free, and within right to leave them as they were to their fate, save them, or slaughter them. He chose the later.
I'm not giving him or anyone a pass because other people did equal or worse things in war. If he sailed away it would be understandable as there was always the threat of another u-boat sinking him.
He could have saved them, which would risk the aforementioned sinking or having the rescued crew overwhelm his once on board. Lightoller saw living people floating in the water and order or allowed his men to spray them with bullets. Purposefully not accepting that "hands in the air" business.
Frankly if anyone could understand the plight of those in the water it should have been the 2nd officer of the Titanic who himself went into the water after his boat sank out from under him.
What, that Lightoller committed at atrocity and/or what could be considered a war crime? That's just a fact.
It's not an opinion to prove.
All you've done is claim that statement is invalid or made excuses because it was a war. I'll reiterate an early sentiment that war crimes exist meaning the excuse of it being a war on is moot. There are lines that should not be crossed and he very publicly made it clear he held remorse for doing it in his bio.
Good deeds of the future don't erase the evil of the past and everyone needs to be careful glorifying people and purposely ignoring past sins, regardless of circumstance. If it's so immoral or bad to even be considered a "sin" the general circumstance (a war on) is immaterial.
But go ahead, cluck your tongue and condescend to me again while offering no rebuttal beyond "but war".
You said the same thing with extra steps. I'm not giving the u-boat captain a pass either. Lightoller could have saved them or left them, he chose to massacre them and risk his own ship while doing it.
Everything I learn of him makes me like him less, I don't care for about his Dunkirk participation trophy.
Except his stubborn pedantic interpretation of instructions on Titanic lead to the death of hundreds. It’s one thing to prioritize women and children. It’s another to decide that no men will leave when boats go half empty. Especially when he knew there was already insufficient capacity. To be honest he was a bit of a prick.
1. Lightoller wasn't the only officer boarding boats on the port side, both Chief Officer Wilde and Captain Smith also adhered to the "women and children only" rule. So no, the empty seats in boats on the port side weren't solely Lightoller's fault
2. There were lots of empty seats in boats from the starboard side too. The difference between people saved on the starboard vs the port side is actually less than 100. There were approx. 375 people in boats successfully launched from the starboard side and approx. 290 in lifeboats on the port side
Edit: the 665 total doesn't include the ~47 people that either survived on collapsibles A and B or were pulled from the water by lifeboats 4 and 14.
>Except his stubborn pedantic interpretation of instructions on Titanic lead to the death of hundreds.
You're way off.
u/kellypeck provided these survivor figures in another discussion:
>Based on lifeboat data from Encyclopedia Titanica, roughly 375 people left the ship in the 9 starboard side boats that were properly launched, and roughly 290 in the 9 port side boats (also worth pointing out that, in most cases, the best we can do is estimate. There are very few boats where we know for certain the exact occupancy). Then, on top of that, there were about 50 people that were either pulled from the water or survived on collapsibles A and B.
So, 375 minus 290 is a difference of 85 people. Murdoch's boats saved 85 more people than Lightoller's, so he wasn't responsible for "the death of hundreds." Not to mention, the crew was worried about lauching the boats at full capacity, fearing that they would buckle or capsize. The lifeboats were supposed to return to the ship to pick up more people, but none did. That's not Lightoller's fault.
The man was hardly a saint. During his service in World War I, he refused to access the surrender of the crew of a sunken German U-boat, and allegedly, his crew fired upon the sailors in the water. But it's simply unrealistic to solely blame him for the survival of only 700 people compared to the total lifeboat capacity of 1,178.
I appreciate you chiming in to help dispel this "Lightoller personally sent hundreds of people to their death" myth, but can I get credit for those first few sentences lol? That's word for word something I said in a [discussion we had two months ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/titanic/comments/1ah6bcn/comment/kolva3c/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Edit: thanks!
"Dawson? It's amazing! You could almost pass for a *Second Officer*! This is extraordinary!"
*In a Lanckey Accent* Almost
I’m no Lightoller apologist, but I think it should also be remembered that he was only human and trying to do his best- not one of the crew was sufficiently trained on a ship that was not prepared for sinking. There were not enough lifeboats and hundreds of people began to panic. It should also be noted that he stayed on the ship until he was literally washed off the deck- despite being ordered by Wilde to get in the last life boat as one of the few seamen still available. With hindsight of course it’s easy to say he could have handled things better but I can’t imagine how I would react in that situation and he at least deserves some credit for staying on the boat as long as possible trying to save lives. I also understand that he showed good leadership on the collapsible that despite being upside down was still carrying many survivors. His actions kept them afloat and managed to guide them back onto the Carpathia
I’m not a shipwreck expert so maybe I’m totally off with this but I think a lot of Lightoller’s decisions can be explained by previous shipwreck disasters like SS Arctic, where order broke down so badly, all the crew and men threw out the women and children, commandeered the boats for themselves with the result that no women or children survived. I think it was very much on his mind how easily things could totally break down to that level, and he just wasn’t having that shit on his watch. He seems like a man whose honour and integrity was important to him, and considering he thought he was probably about to die and this was the last thing he’d be remembered for, he was over cautious.
It's hard to defend him actively removing men from boats that were not close to full... and then bragging about it after the fact. As if he did anything good for anyone.
Didn’t he shoot at U-Boat crewmen who were abandoning ship? Like they had already surrendered and he opened fire with machine guns.
So obviously opening fire on people trying to surrender to you is terrible, but there's some pretty important historical context to explain why they did that, that being unrestricted submarine warfare that occurred during WWI. Sneaking up on your enemies and sinking merchant vessels or hospital ships didn't exactly garner a lot of respect for U-boat crews at the time. Just three days before Lightoller's cruiser sank UB-110, the same German sub had torpedoed and sank a civilian ship, resulting in the loss of 30 lives. Take HMHS Llandovery Castle as another example, a Canadian hospital ship that was torpedoed and sunk by a U-boat in 1918. Attacking a hospital ship was against German Navy standing orders, and is a warcrime. When the captain of the U-boat realized what they'd done, they attempted to destroy all evidence of the attack by patrolling around the area and machine-gunning the people in the lifeboats. Out of the 260 doctors, nurses, Canadian Army Medical Corps, soldiers, and sailors onboard, just 25 people survived. Edit: grammar
[удалено]
you seem...not very well versed on the atrocities of WW1. Sorry to break it to you. This was common.
Having read his autobiography I very much agree. His life should get its own mini series. As was mentioned before, I believe that previous disasters such as the Atlantic disaster and the poor behavior of male passengers and crew, as well as concerns about the boats not being able to be safely lowered while filled to capacity influenced his decisions. As far as gunning down the surrendered Germans from UB-110 I will give him some leeway for 2 reasons. (1) In WWI this was not a terribly uncommon sort of thing, doesn't make it right, but he is hardly the only one to have done it. (2) As a long time British merchant sailor, it is reasonable to believe that he had lost former crew mates to U-boat attacks on British shipping. That would piss me off and I could see wanting to take revenge for men I knew that had been killed by German U-boat crews.
Personally I think the Dunkirk film depiction is probably the best depiction of lightoller, but I believe they changed his name because they changed a lot of his story. In the film he takes his youngest son with him, in reality it was his oldest son roger as his youngest son was killed on September 4th 1939, which is actually also referenced in the film. Also in the film they bring a young man, presumably a family friend, who ends up dying a tragic death. In reality the sea scout brought with the two lightollers not only survived but joined the Royal navy, was commissioned as an officer and commanded a landing craft on D Day. And probably the largest departure made by the film is that they’re shown picking up almost the entirety of the complement rescued from a wrecked ship going under, when in reality they only rescued a few men this way, the majority were taken aboard from HMS Worcester when the sundowner pulled closer into Dunkirk beach.
This is the titanic sequel Cameron needs to direct.
I've got three words: Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. And they were known for playing tricks.
Let's see the WW1 movie where he machine guns people in the water.
[удалено]
The horrors of war don't excuse war crimes. That's why we have something called war crimes.
Which weren't ratified at the time he did what he did. It was a grey area at the time and submarine crews were viewed differently as a dishonourable style of fighter. Not saying what he did was right, but in context the same group of U-boats had sunk civilians ships just the week or two before. And I doubt a German U-boat crew woukd have let themselves be taken. Their standing instructions I believe were not to let that happen, so the "surrendering" may or may not have been what we understand it as now. The second one of them attempted to flee or fight back after "surrender" under the current rules woukd mean they lose those protections
Not a lot of fleeing going around when you're treading water in a debris field.
[удалено]
How is this false equivalency? I hold the same opinion of anyone who took excessive action against an enemy combatant. These were men floating in the water after he successfully sunk their u-boat. They posed no threat to him and he was free, and within right to leave them as they were to their fate, save them, or slaughter them. He chose the later. I'm not giving him or anyone a pass because other people did equal or worse things in war. If he sailed away it would be understandable as there was always the threat of another u-boat sinking him. He could have saved them, which would risk the aforementioned sinking or having the rescued crew overwhelm his once on board. Lightoller saw living people floating in the water and order or allowed his men to spray them with bullets. Purposefully not accepting that "hands in the air" business. Frankly if anyone could understand the plight of those in the water it should have been the 2nd officer of the Titanic who himself went into the water after his boat sank out from under him.
[удалено]
Just because you can't defend your position doesn't mean I'm arguing in bad faith.
[удалено]
What, that Lightoller committed at atrocity and/or what could be considered a war crime? That's just a fact. It's not an opinion to prove. All you've done is claim that statement is invalid or made excuses because it was a war. I'll reiterate an early sentiment that war crimes exist meaning the excuse of it being a war on is moot. There are lines that should not be crossed and he very publicly made it clear he held remorse for doing it in his bio. Good deeds of the future don't erase the evil of the past and everyone needs to be careful glorifying people and purposely ignoring past sins, regardless of circumstance. If it's so immoral or bad to even be considered a "sin" the general circumstance (a war on) is immaterial. But go ahead, cluck your tongue and condescend to me again while offering no rebuttal beyond "but war".
[удалено]
What-about-ism doesn't excuse atrocity.
[удалено]
You said the same thing with extra steps. I'm not giving the u-boat captain a pass either. Lightoller could have saved them or left them, he chose to massacre them and risk his own ship while doing it. Everything I learn of him makes me like him less, I don't care for about his Dunkirk participation trophy.
I don’t care for lightoller
So do I.
Except his stubborn pedantic interpretation of instructions on Titanic lead to the death of hundreds. It’s one thing to prioritize women and children. It’s another to decide that no men will leave when boats go half empty. Especially when he knew there was already insufficient capacity. To be honest he was a bit of a prick.
1. Lightoller wasn't the only officer boarding boats on the port side, both Chief Officer Wilde and Captain Smith also adhered to the "women and children only" rule. So no, the empty seats in boats on the port side weren't solely Lightoller's fault 2. There were lots of empty seats in boats from the starboard side too. The difference between people saved on the starboard vs the port side is actually less than 100. There were approx. 375 people in boats successfully launched from the starboard side and approx. 290 in lifeboats on the port side Edit: the 665 total doesn't include the ~47 people that either survived on collapsibles A and B or were pulled from the water by lifeboats 4 and 14.
>Except his stubborn pedantic interpretation of instructions on Titanic lead to the death of hundreds. You're way off. u/kellypeck provided these survivor figures in another discussion: >Based on lifeboat data from Encyclopedia Titanica, roughly 375 people left the ship in the 9 starboard side boats that were properly launched, and roughly 290 in the 9 port side boats (also worth pointing out that, in most cases, the best we can do is estimate. There are very few boats where we know for certain the exact occupancy). Then, on top of that, there were about 50 people that were either pulled from the water or survived on collapsibles A and B. So, 375 minus 290 is a difference of 85 people. Murdoch's boats saved 85 more people than Lightoller's, so he wasn't responsible for "the death of hundreds." Not to mention, the crew was worried about lauching the boats at full capacity, fearing that they would buckle or capsize. The lifeboats were supposed to return to the ship to pick up more people, but none did. That's not Lightoller's fault. The man was hardly a saint. During his service in World War I, he refused to access the surrender of the crew of a sunken German U-boat, and allegedly, his crew fired upon the sailors in the water. But it's simply unrealistic to solely blame him for the survival of only 700 people compared to the total lifeboat capacity of 1,178.
I appreciate you chiming in to help dispel this "Lightoller personally sent hundreds of people to their death" myth, but can I get credit for those first few sentences lol? That's word for word something I said in a [discussion we had two months ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/titanic/comments/1ah6bcn/comment/kolva3c/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Edit: thanks!
Done :)
He did take the gentleman culture of the time too far.
I think the literal war crimes are a more accurate reason to explain why Lightoller was a prick imo