This week’s podcast jumps on the Titanic bandwagon and looks at the career of Titanic’s Second Officer, Charles Lightoller and his actions on the night of the sinking as well accusations of war crimes in the First World War...
An interesting - and balanced - piece Chris. In partial defence of Lightoller....
The quote attributed to Lightoller in the Titanic film (and the waving of the pistol about) was actually widely and convincingly attributed by witnesses to Harold Lowe (a junior officer operating on the starboard lifeboats, the opposite side to Lightoller as you say). So "creative license" in the film perhaps.
It's worth also saying that 1915 was still an intensely rules and class-based order (you allude to this too), and it doesn't need saying that the absolute apex of that rules-based order is naval and maritime conventions, especially with British crews and ships. You don't spend a lifetime serving in the British merchant or Royal Navy and then pause to interpret orders or use free initiative on the basis of what's "ethically right". The ship itself was divided on class lines. You could argue that division, and the assumptions that follow on from it, doomed more human beings than some of the finer points of lifeboat-loading ever did.
Another interesting question is who had the easier (or less horrendously difficult) job - port side lifeboat operatives or starboard side (this is kind of adjacent to the actions of the individual officers on that night). The ship developed a port side list which would have been much worse if it hadn't been for various quirks such as tons of coal being repositioned in response to a fire before the iceberg was struck). Lifeboats, even with the adjustable davits, were really conceived for a straight drop. On the port side, the boats would have been swung out alarmingly from the hull, making any gangway access lower down improbable (or impossible).
On the starboard side, lowering the boats brought them dangerously close to the hull, and indeed there was an instances of the boats nearly being submerged by outlets from the discharge vents, which with a level ship would have been no problem.
His actions with respect to UB-110 are far more murky. But again I am minded to see this in the context of the views and attitudes of the time rather than superimpose modern views and sensibilities onto someone for whom they'd be largely alien, in a situation of extremely high stress. Not apologia - I am inclined to agree that this looks like a war crime, but I don't think there's altogether an absence of mitigation IF it happened as some accounts assert.
I can hear you weighing up the two sides as I type. I think "murky" is the best we can do in retrospect in the absence of compelling evidence either way. Looking for nice guys in a war is as difficult as finding a celebrity in 2025 with no skeletons in their closet....
An interesting - and balanced - piece Chris. In partial defence of Lightoller....
The quote attributed to Lightoller in the Titanic film (and the waving of the pistol about) was actually widely and convincingly attributed by witnesses to Harold Lowe (a junior officer operating on the starboard lifeboats, the opposite side to Lightoller as you say). So "creative license" in the film perhaps.
It's worth also saying that 1915 was still an intensely rules and class-based order (you allude to this too), and it doesn't need saying that the absolute apex of that rules-based order is naval and maritime conventions, especially with British crews and ships. You don't spend a lifetime serving in the British merchant or Royal Navy and then pause to interpret orders or use free initiative on the basis of what's "ethically right". The ship itself was divided on class lines. You could argue that division, and the assumptions that follow on from it, doomed more human beings than some of the finer points of lifeboat-loading ever did.
Another interesting question is who had the easier (or less horrendously difficult) job - port side lifeboat operatives or starboard side (this is kind of adjacent to the actions of the individual officers on that night). The ship developed a port side list which would have been much worse if it hadn't been for various quirks such as tons of coal being repositioned in response to a fire before the iceberg was struck). Lifeboats, even with the adjustable davits, were really conceived for a straight drop. On the port side, the boats would have been swung out alarmingly from the hull, making any gangway access lower down improbable (or impossible).
On the starboard side, lowering the boats brought them dangerously close to the hull, and indeed there was an instances of the boats nearly being submerged by outlets from the discharge vents, which with a level ship would have been no problem.
His actions with respect to UB-110 are far more murky. But again I am minded to see this in the context of the views and attitudes of the time rather than superimpose modern views and sensibilities onto someone for whom they'd be largely alien, in a situation of extremely high stress. Not apologia - I am inclined to agree that this looks like a war crime, but I don't think there's altogether an absence of mitigation IF it happened as some accounts assert.
I can hear you weighing up the two sides as I type. I think "murky" is the best we can do in retrospect in the absence of compelling evidence either way. Looking for nice guys in a war is as difficult as finding a celebrity in 2025 with no skeletons in their closet....