Читаем The Loss of the SS. Titanic: Its Story and Its Lessons, by One of the Survivors полностью

One of the most pitiful things in the relations of human beings to each other—the action and reaction of events that is called concretely “human life”—is that every now and then some of them should be called upon to lay down their lives from no sense of imperative, calculated duty such as inspires the soldier or the sailor, but suddenly, without any previous knowledge or warning of danger, without any opportunity of escape, and without any desire to risk such conditions of danger of their own free will. It is a blot on our civilization that these things are necessary from time to time, to arouse those responsible for the safety of human life from the lethargic selfishness which has governed them. The Titanic’s two thousand odd passengers went aboard thinking they were on an absolutely safe ship, and all the time there were many people—designers, builders, experts, government officials—who knew there were insufficient boats on board, that the Titanic had no right to go fast in iceberg regions,—who knew these things and took no steps and enacted no laws to prevent their happening. Not that they omitted to do these things deliberately, but were lulled into a state of selfish inaction from which it needed such a tragedy as this to arouse them. It was a cruel necessity which demanded that a few should die to arouse many millions to a sense of their own insecurity, to the fact that for years the possibility of such a disaster has been imminent. Passengers have known none of these things, and while no good end would have been served by relating to them needless tales of danger on the high seas, one thing is certain—that, had they known them, many would not have travelled in such conditions and thereby safeguards would soon have been forced on the builders, the companies, and the Government. But there were people who knew and did not fail to call attention to the dangers: in the House of Commons the matter has been frequently brought up privately, and an American naval officer, Captain E. K. Boden, in an article that has since been widely reproduced, called attention to the defects of this very ship, the Titanic—taking her as an example of all other liners—and pointed out that she was not unsinkable and had not proper boat accommodation.

The question, then, of responsibility for the loss of the Titanic must be considered: not from any idea that blame should be laid here or there and a scapegoat provided—that is a waste of time. But if a fixing of responsibility leads to quick and efficient remedy, then it should be done relentlessly: our simple duty to those whom the Titanic carried down with her demands no less. Dealing first with the precautions for the safety of the ship as apart from safety appliances, there can be no question, I suppose, that the direct responsibility for the loss of the Titanic and so many lives must be laid on her captain. He was responsible for setting the course, day by day and hour by hour, for the speed she was travelling; and he alone would have the power to decide whether or not speed must be slackened with icebergs ahead. No officer would have any right to interfere in the navigation, although they would no doubt be consulted. Nor would any official connected with the management of the line—Mr. Ismay, for example—be allowed to direct the captain in these matters, and there is no evidence that he ever tried to do so. The very fact that the captain of a ship has such absolute authority increases his responsibility enormously. Even supposing the White Star Line and Mr. Ismay had urged him before sailing to make a record,—again an assumption,—they cannot be held directly responsible for the collision: he was in charge of the lives of everyone on board and no one but he was supposed to estimate the risk of travelling at the speed he did, when ice was reported ahead of him. His action cannot be justified on the ground of prudent seamanship.

But the question of indirect responsibility raises at once many issues and, I think, removes from Captain Smith a good deal of personal responsibility for the loss of his ship. Some of these issues it will be well to consider.

In the first place, disabusing our minds again of the knowledge that the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, let us estimate the probabilities of such a thing happening. An iceberg is small and occupies little room by comparison with the broad ocean on which it floats; and the chances of another small object like a ship colliding with it and being sunk are very small: the chances are, as a matter of fact, one in a million. This is not a figure of speech: that is the actual risk for total loss by collision with an iceberg as accepted by insurance companies. The one-in-a-million accident was what sunk the Titanic.

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

Мсье Гурджиев
Мсье Гурджиев

Настоящее иссследование посвящено загадочной личности Г.И.Гурджиева, признанного «учителем жизни» XX века. Его мощную фигуру трудно не заметить на фоне европейской и американской духовной жизни. Влияние его поистине парадоксальных и неожиданных идей сохраняется до наших дней, а споры о том, к какому духовному направлению он принадлежал, не только теоретические: многие духовные школы хотели бы причислить его к своим учителям.Луи Повель, посещавший занятия в одной из «групп» Гурджиева, в своем увлекательном, богато документированном разнообразными источниками исследовании делает попытку раскрыть тайну нашего знаменитого соотечественника, его влияния на духовную жизнь, политику и идеологию.

Луи Повель

Биографии и Мемуары / Документальная литература / Самосовершенствование / Эзотерика / Документальное
Правда о допетровской Руси
Правда о допетровской Руси

Один из главных исторических мифов Российской империи и СССР — миф о допетровской Руси. Якобы до «пришествия Петра» наша земля прозябала в кромешном мраке, дикости и невежестве: варварские обычаи, звериная жестокость, отсталость решительно во всем. Дескать, не было в Московии XVII века ни нормального управления, ни боеспособной армии, ни флота, ни просвещения, ни светской литературы, ни даже зеркал…Не верьте! Эта черная легенда вымышлена, чтобы доказать «необходимость» жесточайших петровских «реформ», разоривших и обескровивших нашу страну. На самом деле все, что приписывается Петру, было заведено на Руси задолго до этого бесноватого садиста!В своей сенсационной книге популярный историк доказывает, что XVII столетие было подлинным «золотым веком» Русского государства — гораздо более развитым, богатым, свободным, гораздо ближе к Европе, чем после проклятых петровских «реформ». Если бы не Петр-антихрист, если бы Новомосковское царство не было уничтожено кровавым извергом, мы жили бы теперь в гораздо более счастливом и справедливом мире.

Андрей Михайлович Буровский

Биографии и Мемуары / Документальная литература / Публицистика / История
Семейный быт башкир.ХIХ-ХХ вв.
Семейный быт башкир.ХIХ-ХХ вв.

ББК 63.5Б 60Ответственный редактор доктор исторических наук Р.Г. КузеевРецензенты: кандидат исторических наук М.В.Мурзабулатов, кандидат филологических наук А.М.Сулейманов.Бикбулатов Н.В., Фатыхова Ф.Ф. Семейный быт башкир.Х1Х-ХХ вв.Ин-т истории, языка и литературы Башкир, науч, центра Урал, отд-ния АН СССР. - М.: Наука, 1991 - 189 стр. ISBN 5-02-010106-0На основе полевых материалов, литературных и архивных источников в книге исследуется традиционная семейная обрядность башкир, связанная с заключением брака, рождением, смертью, рассматривается порядок наследования и раздела семейного имущества в Х1Х-ХХ вв. Один из очерков посвящен преобразованиям в семейно-брачных отношениях и обрядности в современных условиях.Для этнографов, историков культуры, фольклористов.

Бикбулатов Н.В. Фатыхова Ф.Ф.

Документальная литература / Семейные отношения / История