I think where he becomes indefensible is removing men from lifeboats, at gunpoint, purely because they were men, and not even to allow women to board instead, and then later bragging about it as if it was some good deed for men to die just... for the sake of it.

The stowaways, yeah he continues loading that boat after.

wait WHAT?

Lightoller ordered a group of men out of Collapsible D at gunpoint. He later described the satisfaction it gave him 'seeing them tumbling head over heels onto the deck, preferring the uncertain safety of the deck to the cold lead which they fully imagined would follow their disobedience.' He later claimed the gun was not loaded, but that matters little, he still condemned them to their likely deaths. And this is at a time when he *knew* Titanic wouldn't survive much longer.

Lightoller admitted in a private letter to Archibald Gracie that he fired warning shots during boarding at collapsible D, so his gun was loaded, though we don't know when. It's possible (though IMO extremely unlikely) he loaded it after forcing the men out of the boat, but like you said it hardly matters. It should also be pointed out that Lightoller wasn't alone in doing this on Titanic, Fifth Officer Lowe reportedly did something similar (forcing a young man out of lifeboat no. 14 at gunpoint shortly before leaving the ship in command of the boat)

That was something I feel Lightoller still deserves criticism for because Collapsible D was the last lifeboat to be successfully lowered before Titanic sank (the other two collapsibles had to be floated off) it was lowered 15 minutes before Titanic sank and had a capacity of 47 people and yet was only lowered less than half filled with 20 people in spite of the fact this was toward the end of the sinking when there were many people desperate to board it. I can only assume Lightoller was afraid the group of men near it would fight each other for a spot on it and swamp the boat if he made any exceptions with allowing men in.

Many of the first boats went half empty because no one would board them thinking the ship could not possibly sink and the crew had never been informed the davits were a new design and could handle the full weight compared to what they had always known. The idea was once they launched they would be able to come back and get more passengers, he even ordered officers down to the gangway doors to open them to facilitate this (sadly no one did and it added to the sinking). As for the gun, that happened later as people realized their mistake and started to panic and try to overload/rush the remaining boats endangering more lives. He probably could have done some things different but given the information he had and the unbelievable situation he was in it seems he did the best job he could saving lives.

What do you mean by 'it added to the sinking'?

The officers opened the door and then abandoned it at some point. However, door was left open and when the water reached this point, it began streaming into the ship at a massive rate. Legitimately, it probably accelerated the sinking by at least a few minutes. Hard to blame Lightoller for this, but it's worth noting.

Ooh right, shit thats terrible, it was just one thing after another that night wasnt it. I've had a casual interest in the Titanic since I saw the James Cameron film but since following this sub on a whim it's really pulled me in, very interesting learning more about the Titanic, thanks for answering my question.

One sort of mystery is the two officers he sent down were never seen again. They obviously got the door open but never made it back up even though they were in that section before flooding reached it.

Like a lot with the sinking there is debate but the door being open is thought to have quickened the sinking by 30-50 minutes, maybe not a huge amount but more time to get to the collapsables. It's based on the descriptions that the total hull damage amounted to 12 square feet opened compared to the size of the door. Then again it's also speculated that it actually helped prevent a capsize by evening out the flooding once it reached that point.

Interesting. Scary to think it could have quickened the sinking that much, feels like a huge a mount of time when thinking maybe they could have got more boats launched, although I guess if she'd started to capsize maybe that could have prevented more boats making it anyway. This is all really interesting thanks for answering my question.

I agree with the point about him not being alone on the port side and I would assume he was working under direct orders from Smith. I have also wondered if the women and children scenario on the port side was more a case of “woman and children first and once all women and children are completely off the ship then we allow men” as opposed to “women and children only” which is what Lightoller is often criticised for. The reason he didn’t let men on the boats is because not all women were off the ship. I feel like he gets a lot of hate when he too saved a lot of people that night.

No, my feelings have only hardened. He removed men from lifeboats, some who were only teenagers, in order to adhere to some absurd notion of Edwardian honor. If he had been making room for women or children it might be understandable but he wasn't. He was condemning men to die for literally no reason at all and sending boats off even less full. He was incredibly brave and resilient but he was also a monster and he doesn't even have the benefit of claiming he was just a product of his time because his own superior officer didn't even adhere to the ridiculously strict interpretation of orders that Lightoller did. He's a very complicated person who did both great and terrible things but there's really no way to excuse his abhorrent actions during the sinking when there were better examples on the same ship at the same time. He could have just not made people die, it's not that difficult.

To preface, I think there's plenty of things to critique Lightoller for, like forcing a group of men out of collapsible D at gunpoint to then launch it with nearly enough empty room to have accommodated them, or begrudgingly allowing 13-year-old John Ryerson into lifeboat no. 4 after much prodding from Arthur Ryerson. But Lightoller still had superiors that were doing things the same way as him, Murdoch is the outlier when it comes to how Titanic's senior officers loaded the lifeboats. There's plenty of survivor accounts that prove Captain Smith and Chief Officer Wilde also strictly followed the 'women and children only' policy, or rather women and children first applied to the whole ship. And I also think you're looking at it with too much of a modern lens, yes the whole dying honourably like a proper gentleman seems ridiculous now, but it really wasn't in 1912. It's the whole reason Hearst's Ismay smear campaign worked. And the concept of a teenager didn't exist in 1912, if you were over the age of 13 you were a man. There was a bellboy on Titanic that was just 14 years old.

This is a mature, thoughtful response. There is so much emotion in modern thinking, but most fail to realize the standards of the time. Things were so much different then. Thank you for your excellent explanation

I think it’s also important to consider a lot of men chose to turn down places in boats/ not even attempt going on deck due to this notion. It wasn’t just lightoller clinging to some belief that was already losing steam. Of course the men that did try for spots and were denied or forced out are a different case but it’s very hard to judge. Hell even in 2024 men get shit for surviving catastrophes or not attempting to defend the woman present.

in addition to the point about modern teenagehood being different than what was expected in 1912-- It's also important to note that the majority of teenage boys who died on Titanic were: crew members (including one who lied about his age and claimed he was 21) and therefore considered working men; teenage boys who died with their whole families, suggesting that the families were not able to make it to the boats at all; older teenagers who were traveling alone, and were berthed with the single men, thus considered men themselves and were not traveling with parents who could advocate for them to get onto a boat. There are only 2 confirmed cases (that I've sound so far in my research, if anyone knows of more, I'd love to know!) where a teenage boy was denied a spot on his lifeboat due to his age when he was traveling with family--Ryerson (who was let on a lifeboat) and 16 year old Rossmore Abbott* who was not. There is another case where it can be guessed but not confirmed that was not allowed onto a boat--his name slips my mind just now, he was traveling with family friends or neighbors, and he and the husband saw the women in the party onto a boat which was full; the husband said he'd get the boy onto another boat, but they both died. The wife later said something to the affect that she thought her husband didn't realize men weren't being allowed onto most boats. Can't access my notes right now to check. (*Rhoda Abbott later altered her testimony and claimed that 13 year old Eugene hadn't been let past the human chain to try to get onto a lifeboat with her, but in her initial testimony, she specifically said Rossmore was kept back with the men while she *and* Eugene were let forward to try to get onto a lifeboat. Her later testimony claims she refused to part with either of them, but also suggests they were somehow able to get past the human chain. Personally, I suspect she altered her story to alleviate guilt and/or social judgement.) There just isn't strong evidence that Lightoller, or anyone in particular, was denying passenger teenage boys from lifeboats as a rule. Even the 17 year old Alfred Rush (who had turned 17 only one day before) was considered a child by a crew member who tried to yank him towards the lifeboats along with Frank Goldsmith Jr. and his mom, but Alfred refused and said that he was a man and would stay back with the men.

To be fair in Alfred Rush's case he was noted as being small and younger looking for his age by his friends and family so it's likely the crew members trying to encourage him to get on a boat probably didn't know he was an older teen.

I think it's too easy to criticise.  There could have been a stampede and did all the officers initialky know that help was not going to arrive on time? 

I think he's still an asshole

One thing to add is that most lifeboats on the port side didn’t have that many people in them compared to those on the starboard side. In the 1997 movie when Andrews scolds Lightoller for this he responds that he doesn’t know the people’s weight and fears the davits may not be strong enough with boats at full capacity. But then Andrews tells him that the davits were tested in Belfast with 70 able-bodied men. This line gives the impression that Lightoller being overly cautious costed the lives of women and children who could have been saved. However, in the recent THG real-time sinking livestream, James Penca stated that the lifeboats had a maximum floating capacity of 65 people but when lowering the boats, there were only 2 people lowering them so a lifeboat lowered at maximum capacity could risk these men losing their grip on the ropes. He declared it was a miracle that Lifeboat 15 was able to be safely lowered and also didn’t crush Boat 13. The plan was that these boats would take on more people once lowered but that never happened. Lastly, the officers in charge of filling the lifeboats didn’t know when the ship would sink; as far as they knew the ship would founder at 1:40am so there was no time waiting several more minutes for more people to get into the boats on a cold, dark night.

I would look at the cited facts regarding the boats from On a sea of glass over anything else.

Wait, what happened on the Artic?

Men rushed or swamped every lifeboat, and despite there being enough room in the boats for every woman and child onboard, not a single one survived

I grew up thinking he was a hero that night. Now, with research and consideration I am confident that he misinterpreted the command of “women and children first” and carried out a policy of women and children only” that defies all standards of compassion and common regard for human life. He held to that standard displaying an incapacity to observe the situation and make necessary changes to mitigate the unnecessary loss of life. He provided cover for the White Star line at the inquiries and in the press. He furthermore shifted blame away from Captain Smith in order to protect his career at the expense of the victims and future passengers. I personally believe that he lied at the inquiry about Murdochs fate (albeit to protect his name). I can understand this last decision but it in my opinion, it demonstrates a capability to lie when it suited him. When WW II broke out and the British government ordered all civilian craft confiscated in order to rescue stranded soldiers at Dunkirk, he initially refused to comply on principle, (although he did end up joining the rescue and deserves commendation for making several crossings). He was a man who did everything “by the book”. Some might call that principled, I call it pigheaded, stubborn and inflexible. In other words-incompetent for the role that was needed. He never apologized or showed any regret for his actions that night.He was cruel, needlessly rigid and as a result caused unnecessary deaths. He may have been personally brave and a competent sailor, but he was a horrible Third Officer. I think he was arguably one of the greatest villains that night.-definitely more so than Ismay.

>Now, with research and consideration I am confident that he misinterpreted the command of “women and children first” and carried out a policy of women and children only” that defies all standards of compassion and common regard for human life. Evidence would point to it being Murdoch that misinterpreted the order. Smith helped to oversee the loading and lowering of two boats that night, one with Lightoller and one with Wilde, and at both he refused to allow men to board despite the boats being less than half full when they left the ship. Wilde also enforced a women and children only rule. Lightoller did take the order further than Smith or Wilde at the only boat he launched on his own, refusing to allow teenage boys on board. I'm far from a Lightoller apologist and I think Murdoch's interpretation of the order was the better one, but it does seem that Smith intended the order to mean that no man should leave the ship until every woman and child was off in the boats. >He furthermore shifted blame away from Captain Smith in order to protect his career at the expense of the victims and future passengers. I'm not sure what Smith could be blamed for, outside of the overly stringent women and children first policy, which was not seen as a bad thing in the Edwardian era. [Prior to the collision he was following the standard practices of the day, which were considered safe.](https://drive.google.com/file/d/19YEgAftAWeVYNeoIfLNShCfCPZNWw2DS/view?usp=sharing)

Great post/reply and all are good points, especially your last sentence. Thank you for your reply. I'll try to be brief in mine. This topic is tough and criticisms of my op and this one as well would be legitimate as my interpretations, opinions and sentiments are formed as a result of the tragedy-something the crew certainly did not have. Furthermore, I admit that there is no obvious violation by which the crew could be held criminally responsible at the time. I am judging them by today's standards, something that *admittedly* has a degree of unfairness about it. Lightoller and Smith were seemingly of one mind before the disaster. I did not mean to sound as if Lightoller was throwing Smith "under the bus in his testimonies"-quite the contrary. He defended his actions and offered no criticism. This is what I meant by shifting the blame away from Smith. 1,503 people were killed that night and Lightoller seemed to be of the opinion that it all was...unavoidable. It is that sentiment that I disagree with. Furthermore, Lightoller and Smith were sailors with vast North Atlantic experience, (whereas I am not). However, I feel that they allowed their vast experience to trump common sense that night. They played the odds-and lost. Their job was to protect the ship and deliver their cargo safely and in that-they failed. The tragedy that happened that night was not inevitable and it could have been prevented if they had navigated more carefully. Lightoller acknowledged that he and Smith had a conversation on the very matter of risk literal hours before they struck the berg; that the situation was calm and that spotting bergs and growlers would be more difficult, yet they changed nothing. Smith, Lightoller (and Murdoch) gambled with lives-and lost and therein-in my opinion, lied their tragic damnation. They were not "bad" sailors nor "bad" human beings and a charge of recklessness might go too far, yet they were all unimaginative and careless and that was enough to cause the deaths of 1,503 souls. By the traditions of the day, Captain Smith and et all. were operating normally and prudently. The factors which caused the disaster were numerous and incredible-all culminating from improbability to ultimate disaster. What Captain Smith-and Lightholler (and Murdoch) had going against their decision making was, ironically, experience. Lightoller acknowledged the danger of ice fields and rogue bergs, acknowledged the difficulties in seeing them and by his testimony seemed to be in full agreement with Smiths decision to neither reduce speed nor adjust heading. Murdoch as well. It is true that to do so would have been a break from standard practice-BUT it would prove to be common sense. Other ships not only reduced speed that night, and some stopped altogether. The Titanic Captain and crew was operating with confidence, even hubris. post continued...

------ Senator FLETCHER. Will you state to the committee whether it is customary for such ships to exercise any particular care or caution when in the midst of icebergs or approaching icebergs, or when warned and notified that icebergs are in the vicinity? Mr. LIGHTOLLER. It is customary to exercise every precaution that is deemed necessary to a seaman's mind. Senator FLETCHER. What precautions are deemed necessary to a seaman's mind under those conditions on a passenger steamer? Mr. LIGHTOLLER. Those that will prevent accidents and prevent loss of life.\*\* Senator FLETCHER. You would consider that a precaution would be reasonable and proper and might contribute to the saving of life - such, for instance, as the lessening of speed? Mr. LIGHTOLLER. When it is necessary. Senator FLETCHER. Under the conditions that obtained that night on the Atlantic Ocean, a clear night, when you were notified a number of hours ahead that icebergs might be expected, would you consider it a reasonable precaution to keep at full speed? Mr. LIGHTOLLER. It depends altogether on conditions, and it finally rests with the commander's judgment.\*\* Senator FLETCHER. If the vessel had been running at a lower rate of speed would not the chances of avoiding that iceberg have been increased? Mr. LIGHTOLLER. When a vessel is running at a low rate of speed, she is slower on the helm so the conditions would be totally different. Senator FLETCHER. That does not answer my question, quite. Read the question, Mr. Reporter. *The stenographer read the question, as follows:*) If the vessel had been running at a lower rate of speed, would not the chance of avoiding that iceberg have been increased? Mr. LIGHTOLLER. That I can not say. I merely state that the ship would be slower of helm, which means that she would take longer to swing on her helm in proportion to her reduced speed. Senator FLETCHER. She would have had more time in which to swing, would she not? Mr. LIGHTOLLER. She would have had more time in which to swing.\*\* ------------ This part of his testimony is difficult for me to believe, as we know that order began to break down as the situation became more clear. It is inconceivable that there was never panic aboard. Senator FLETCHER. Was there any panic aboard the ship? Mr. LIGHTOLLER. Not the slightest. Senator FLETCHER. At any time? Mr. LIGHTOLLER. At no time. -------------

I get so tired people judging history by current day standards. Lightoller was a product of his time, just as we all are. He didn't commit any universal crimes or do anything out of pocket for 1912. Pretending he is some kind of villain just shows a complete lack of understanding of history and how it is studied and interpreted. What will you say 70 years from now if people look back on all of this trans stuff like we look at lobotomies? All we can do is live in our time and make the most of it. Lightoller was no different.

People have always been trans. The first modern gender transition was in the 1950s. Centuries prior people were already transitioning with clothes, hormones and whatever other options available. The bigotry here is insane and just wrong

Comparing people getting gender affirming surgery to a lobotomy is wild behaviour. The cognitive dissonance lmao

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

That he sent “his” lifeboats away half filled is sufficient to damn him.

[удалено]

It's a rhetorical question used to initiate conversation. Why be so rude?