Ship Simulator
English forum => Small talk => Topic started by: Smithacus on July 17, 2011, 18:39:47
-
Oh no! Not another Titanic topic!
!:)
Actually, I hope this one could be a little serious and thought provoking. I see all the time another request or another topic on Titanic throughout these boards, so it's on the mind of many users. Surfing the web on various topics, such as oceans, ships, shipwrecks, war history, war movies, etc., I started to think what would have been the odds of Titanic surviving to this day? Not good, in my opinion.
It seems that if passenger ships were targets during the two World Wars, combined with the hazzards of the sea and the ravages of time, that the Titanic might not have survived to this day.
I would say, in my opinion, it may not have survived World War One, and if it did, it's odds of longevity would have diminished drasticly and quickly as the years go on. Many ocean liners have been scrapped over the years, also, just because of age, cost to maintain, failure to maintenance, and lack of interest. Even the recent ones. SS France (1961) is gone. The RMS Queen Mary and the SS United States survived scrapping, however. So the possibility is there.
This website gives some statistics of WWI&II sinkings:
http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/Passenger_Ship_Disasters_-_Part_6
http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/Passenger_Ship_Disasters_-_Part_7
This website gives some statistics of WWII sinkings:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/maritime-1.html
Time is not kind to ships. What are your thoughts?
(I've enabled users to change votes and there's no time limit, so if you change your mind later come back.)
-
I think it would have been scrapped around the WWII period. The Olympic has. :P
-
Yes i very much doubt it would have survived much after WWII. It wouldve most likely been scrapped i think
-
it would've been bombed by the germans during WWI and if that didn't happen it would been scrapped during WWII because there were larger ships
-
In my opinion, had the Titanic survived the iceberg and continued to sail, she would be sailing in World War I but would not continue through World War II as Cunard and White Star merged before WWII and the liners of White Star and Cunard were taken out of service to make room for new age liners. This affected the Olympic, Mauritania and Aquitania as they were scrapped when Cunard White Star Line formed and would also affect Titanic.
-
She may have survived WWI as a transport ship..After that she probably would have been used for target practice..
-
Wasn't Titanic sinking that created all these WW's, I'm talking about some sort of government conspiracy, there hiding something
-
Wasn't Titanic sinking that created all these WW's, I'm talking about some sort of government conspiracy, there hiding something
No, something entirely different caused WW1. ;)
In my opinion, had the Titanic survived the iceberg and continued to sail, she would be sailing in World War I but would not continue through World War II as Cunard and White Star merged before WWII and the liners of White Star and Cunard were taken out of service to make room for new age liners. This affected the Olympic, Mauritania and Aquitania as they were scrapped when Cunard White Star Line formed and would also affect Titanic.
Now that's what I call a good answer to the question of this topic. :thumbs:
Although nothing affected the Aquitania, she was just scrapped because she just got a weakened superstructure.
-
Although...
would White Star Line and Cunard have merged if the Titanic disaster never happened...?
-
Although...
would White Star Line and Cunard have merged if the Titanic disaster never happened...?
They actually did. The two shipping lines were called Cunard White Star Line but White Star Line went bankrupt later on so Cunard was on it's own again.
-
nono
I know they did merge - BUT - if the Titanic never sunk would they have still merged?
-
I don't think it would have made much difference. WSL continued for a number of years after their incompetence with the boring ship.
Had they "gone under" quite quickly that'd have been different but the company stayed afloat for what 20 years or so.
-
Wasn't Titanic sinking that created all these WW's, I'm talking about some sort of government conspiracy, there hiding something
You're joking, surely? :P
-
Somebody never heard of Sarajevo. :doh:
-
Somebody never heard of Sarajevo. :doh:
Sarajevo?
-
Yes, you know, where Gavrilo Princip killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, which ultimately led to the start of WWI..
-
Somebody else never heard of the place. :o :doh: Possibly also didn't know about the invasion of Poland, but then of course "Titanic" was not there either. :-X
-
We havent learned about WWI yet. i thought WWI started because of the invasion of Poland....or was that WWII?
-
invasion of poland was WWII
-
ahh okay :doh:
-
A summary of WWI... ;D
Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of a pub when Serbia bumps into Austria and sSpambot Austria's pint. Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit because there are splashes on its trouser leg. Germany expresses its support for Austria's point of view. Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit. Serbia points out that it can't afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for the cleaning of Austria's trousers. Russia and Serbia look at Austria. Austria asks Serbia who it's looking at. Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone. Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so. Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene. Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it? Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action. Britain and France ask Germany whether it's looking at Belgium. Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper. When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone. Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium. France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other. Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it's on Britain's side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria. Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings because Britain made Australia do it. France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change. Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway. Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting. America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself. By now all the chairs are broken and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany's fault . While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends.
-
Interesting comments.
For Thrid Mate:
The controversial ship sinking was the Lusitania, 7 May 1915 (early into WWI). It was torpedoed then rocked by a secondary explosion. There are multiple theories on this, but in essence the two main ideas were that the second explosion was caused by a secret cargo of munitions, which were illegal to carry on a passenger ship and thus justified in targeting, or the other idea was that the torpedo stirred up coal dust which then ignited explosively. I don't know either way, it's been too many years since high school history class, which was the only place I had heard of such theories. You can find more info either by googling Lusitania or going to the library. Here is just one of many sources: http://www.greatships.net/lusitania.html
Back to Titanic:
I had another thought on Titanic. It's biggest claim to fame was it's sinking, especially after it was touted as "unsinkable." It was the biggest of it's time, but since bigger ones followed it could have disappeared into obscurity had it not sunk. Or, become an attractive target in WWI or WWII. But it's manner of demise (maiden voyage, iceberg, many lives lost) and it's discovery in 1985 and therefore becoming the subject of renewed interest and science expiditions, the events of 15 April 1912 probably have propelled it to a better everlasting fame than it would have had it had a normal run. I don't know.
-
If it hadn't sank it would be "another liner", known only to the real liner experts...
its only because of what happened that has kept it in the public eye...
-
Yeah, If would be here still today, I think It will be in a similar position as Queen Mary(haunted Liner). Al dough it may of been likely that Titanic would not be haunted instead it would be docked at Harland and Wolf Shipyard for people to look at. The ship would of had maintenance done to it so they can keep it looking good. And there would not be any movies, CD music records, the millions of dollars made by Hollywood for making movies about it It would of been just another Liner because less people knew of it.But in 2012 the ship would make a historical trip to NY as a celebration of one of mans greatest achievements with 50% discounts on tickets.
-
But in 2012 the ship would make a historical trip to NY as a celebration of one of mans greatest achievements with 50% discounts on tickets.
u mean they are going to raise her? XD
-
For those mocking this young gentleman, perhaps rather than giving him a lecture on WW1 and WW2 (in any event you describe the symptom not the cause of both wars) you should direct him to the point he is confused on.
THe sinking of LUSITANIA, not tita...zzzz.....nic brought USA into WW1 and thus turned it into a truly world war. So he is to be commended for having SOME of it right!
BTW Both the assasination of AD Ferdinand and the invasion of Poland are widely considered the CAUSE of WW1 and WW2 respectively, they were merely events in the timeline- granted that they were significant points, but they were not the actual causes- (you need to see the Balkan separation movement and uprisings in "Yugoslavia" to understand the background).
-
For those mocking this young gentleman, perhaps rather than giving him a lecture on WW1 and WW2 (in any event you describe the symptom not the cause of both wars) you should direct him to the point he is confused on.
THe sinking of LUSITANIA, not tita...zzzz.....nic brought USA into WW1 and thus turned it into a truly world war. So he is to be commended for having SOME of it right!
BTW Both the assasination of AD Ferdinand and the invasion of Poland are widely considered the CAUSE of WW1 and WW2 respectively, they were merely events in the timeline- granted that they were significant points, but they were not the actual causes- (you need to see the Balkan separation movement and uprisings in "Yugoslavia" to understand the background).
ahh okay thank you! i will probably learn about this, this year! :)
-
Assasinator2.0
If I may suggest, the period from 1930s - present is quite important as it is probably the biggest single turning point in history and defines our current way of life more than previous episodes. MY opinion, which will differ from many others, is that WW1 events don't really define our current way of life- save for the fact that a number of events from WW1 made it easier (but didn't directly cause) for the nazis to kick of WW2.
To fully appreciate the importance of this period, MANY current problems have been caused directly or indirectly from 1930s-. Take the Iraq/Afghan wars, 9/11, 7/7 etc- primarily due to the creation of the Israeli state; which in turn was due to the diaspora jews from Europe in WW2. Had hitler not massacred jews there would have been no need for the (botched) creation of Israel and it is likely that aq etc would not have come to prominence.
One can also see that many Countries have suffered economically since WW2. You can also see the carving up of Eastern Europe after WW2... None of this would have happened without WW2.
So you can see, if you look, many current problems or issues can be traced back- when you understand the origin of a problem it makes MUCH more sense; and hopefully if people learn history then such events won't be repeated in the future.
Sorry for the lecture! ;)
-
Assasinator2.0
If I may suggest, the period from 1930s - present is quite important as it is probably the biggest single turning point in history and defines our current way of life more than previous episodes. MY opinion, which will differ from many others, is that WW1 events don't really define our current way of life- save for the fact that a number of events from WW1 made it easier (but didn't directly cause) for the nazis to kick of WW2.
To fully appreciate the importance of this period, MANY current problems have been caused directly or indirectly from 1930s-. Take the Iraq/Afghan wars, 9/11, 7/7 etc- primarily due to the creation of the Israeli state; which in turn was due to the diaspora jews from Europe in WW2. Had hitler not massacred jews there would have been no need for the (botched) creation of Israel and it is likely that aq etc would not have come to prominence.
One can also see that many Countries have suffered economically since WW2. You can also see the carving up of Eastern Europe after WW2... None of this would have happened without WW2.
So you can see, if you look, many current problems or issues can be traced back- when you understand the origin of a problem it makes MUCH more sense; and hopefully if people learn history then such events won't be repeated in the future.
Sorry for the lecture! ;)
7/7? what was that? And i love information about history and what not. talk all you want! :)
-
ahh okay thank you! i will probably learn about this, this year! :)
It's been a few weeks since I was on here last, I was on a vacation.
My advice to your comment is don't wait to learn, seek the information at once. In this day and age we have the internet. The good and bad of the internet is that the good part is it's quick, you can gather key words and main ideas on subjects, the bad is it hardly goes into the depth and detail the printed text does and often, to this day, there are errors, omissions, and too many opinons influencing the historical and factual records vis a vis the instant publishing on the internet. However, take those keywords and ideas and use the library to further the research.
A word on Cause vs. Catalyst
cat·a·lyst/ˈkatl-ist/Noun
1. A substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.
2. A person or thing that precipitates an event.
It's always important to define terms. This helps to eliminate confusion and it lets everyone know exactly what is meant. To stay on topic of WWI, the causes of this war were many, such as the build up alliances to one side or the other of the European powers. You had the Triple Entente, allying Great Britain, France, and Russia. And then there was the Triple Alliance where Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. The catalysts are probably better know as "the last straw" the final event to "tip the scales" or begin the biggerbiggest event.
According to the text "The Unfinished Nation: A Concise History of the American People" 2nd Ed. By Alan Brinkley (1997) pg. 634, there was an Anglo-German rivalry which "...may have been the most important underlying source of the tensions that led to World War I, but it was not the immediate cause of the outbreak."
Enter the catalyst: June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austro-Hungarian Empire, is assassinated in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, while there on an official state visit. Within two months Europe was at war, or at least the two alliances were at war with each other. Germany wants to punish Serbia, Serbia calls on help from Russia, and it all snowballs from there.
US Involvement and Lusitania
President Wilson was committed to staying neutral. In the beginning of the war the US logic was trade should still be possibly between the US and Germany and the US and Britain, because of the neutrality position. But Britain had established at naval blockade against Germany and the US quickly realized they could do without trade with the Germans but not with the British so therefore that's were the economic trade gravitated toward. Germany's retaliation to the naval blockade was a new instrument of warfare: submarines. Their objective was to sink all enemy vessels on sight: military and merchant. May 7, 1915 was the sinking of the Lusitanian. 1198 souls lost, 128 of them Americans. According to the Brinkley text (pg635-36) the ship was carrying munitions. Despite this incident, it was not the cause, nor the sole reason, for America sending troops to Europe for WWI, it was only the beginning of a series of events, mostly naval related, that would ultimately lead to US war involvement.
Germany's Policy
Germany continued it's unrestricted submarine warfare sinking any enemy ship as fair game. A French vessel, the Sussex, was hit weeks later, also involving American citizens. Again, Wilson insisted Germany stop, yet no other action was taken. Throughout 1916, a re-election year for Wilson, the president campaigned on passivism and not going to war, despite continued antagonism by Germany. Wilson wins re-election, but begins almost immediately on preparing for war. His idea was that the US had no material gains in going to war. The only objective was to establish a new world. "Peace without victory" - the aim of his idea of the league of nations. However, the American catalyst to get involved in the fighting was soon to come.
Zimmerman Telegram
January 1917: Germany begins a major ground offensive on France. At the same time they ramp up their unrestrictive submarine warfare to include any and all American vessels. February 25: British intercept a message from Germany to Mexico promising to help reclaim lost territories, like Texas, if they help join to fight against the US. In March, the Russian czar was toppled and replaced by a republican form of government, which pleased President Wilson because he did not want to ally with a monarchy. Also that month, 3 American ships were torpedoed by Germany submarines. This was the final straw for Wilson, who took his appeal to Congress to ask for a declaration of war against Germany. It took from April 2nd to the 6th for Congress to pass a resolution under a hot debate. In the end it passed, but 50 representatives and 6 senators voted against it.
Stalemate
By now both sides of Europe were at an awful standstill. The German ground offensive had ended the conflict like they wanted, but their subs were sinking 1 in 4 ships at sea. America initially got involved through navy only, but it was quickly realized that a land war was necessary. A draft was passed thus the US involvement was fully realized.
All of the above was taken from the Brinkley text mentioned, from Ch. 23: "America and the Great War," pgs 633-640. It's too bad this is the only book I could find in my collection that goes into even this much detail about WWI. Paying a visit to my parents house and pouring over the many, many Time-Life and other history books my dad collected over the decades (he's been a history teach since well before I was born) I come to find that most of his collections center around WWII. Even the "This Fabulous Century" collection, by Time-Life, was very limited in it's particulars on WWI, although it illustrates the personal life both on the home front and soldiers very well. Now my interest is piqued and I'm going to have to find a book exclusive on the topic of WWI.
I'm glad I held onto most of my college texts. It seems I get more use out of them now than back then. So there’s today’s impromptu history lesson. Hopefully you’ll be ahead of the class now.
-
It's been a few weeks since I was on here last, I was on a vacation.
My advice to your comment is don't wait to learn, seek the information at once. In this day and age we have the internet. The good and bad of the internet is that the good part is it's quick, you can gather key words and main ideas on subjects, the bad is it hardly goes into the depth and detail the printed text does and often, to this day, there are errors, omissions, and too many opinons influencing the historical and factual records vis a vis the instant publishing on the internet. However, take those keywords and ideas and use the library to further the research.
A word on Cause vs. Catalyst
cat·a·lyst/ˈkatl-ist/Noun
1. A substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.
2. A person or thing that precipitates an event.
It's always important to define terms. This helps to eliminate confusion and it lets everyone know exactly what is meant. To stay on topic of WWI, the causes of this war were many, such as the build up alliances to one side or the other of the European powers. You had the Triple Entente, allying Great Britain, France, and Russia. And then there was the Triple Alliance where Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. The catalysts are probably better know as "the last straw" the final event to "tip the scales" or begin the biggerbiggest event.
According to the text "The Unfinished Nation: A Concise History of the American People" 2nd Ed. By Alan Brinkley (1997) pg. 634, there was an Anglo-German rivalry which "...may have been the most important underlying source of the tensions that led to World War I, but it was not the immediate cause of the outbreak."
Enter the catalyst: June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austro-Hungarian Empire, is assassinated in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, while there on an official state visit. Within two months Europe was at war, or at least the two alliances were at war with each other. Germany wants to punish Serbia, Serbia calls on help from Russia, and it all snowballs from there.
US Involvement and Lusitania
President Wilson was committed to staying neutral. In the beginning of the war the US logic was trade should still be possibly between the US and Germany and the US and Britain, because of the neutrality position. But Britain had established at naval blockade against Germany and the US quickly realized they could do without trade with the Germans but not with the British so therefore that's were the economic trade gravitated toward. Germany's retaliation to the naval blockade was a new instrument of warfare: submarines. Their objective was to sink all enemy vessels on sight: military and merchant. May 7, 1915 was the sinking of the Lusitanian. 1198 souls lost, 128 of them Americans. According to the Brinkley text (pg635-36) the ship was carrying munitions. Despite this incident, it was not the cause, nor the sole reason, for America sending troops to Europe for WWI, it was only the beginning of a series of events, mostly naval related, that would ultimately lead to US war involvement.
Germany's Policy
Germany continued it's unrestricted submarine warfare sinking any enemy ship as fair game. A French vessel, the Sussex, was hit weeks later, also involving American citizens. Again, Wilson insisted Germany stop, yet no other action was taken. Throughout 1916, a re-election year for Wilson, the president campaigned on passivism and not going to war, despite continued antagonism by Germany. Wilson wins re-election, but begins almost immediately on preparing for war. His idea was that the US had no material gains in going to war. The only objective was to establish a new world. "Peace without victory" - the aim of his idea of the league of nations. However, the American catalyst to get involved in the fighting was soon to come.
Zimmerman Telegram
January 1917: Germany begins a major ground offensive on France. At the same time they ramp up their unrestrictive submarine warfare to include any and all American vessels. February 25: British intercept a message from Germany to Mexico promising to help reclaim lost territories, like Texas, if they help join to fight against the US. In March, the Russian czar was toppled and replaced by a republican form of government, which pleased President Wilson because he did not want to ally with a monarchy. Also that month, 3 American ships were torpedoed by Germany submarines. This was the final straw for Wilson, who took his appeal to Congress to ask for a declaration of war against Germany. It took from April 2nd to the 6th for Congress to pass a resolution under a hot debate. In the end it passed, but 50 representatives and 6 senators voted against it.
Stalemate
By now both sides of Europe were at an awful standstill. The German ground offensive had ended the conflict like they wanted, but their subs were sinking 1 in 4 ships at sea. America initially got involved through navy only, but it was quickly realized that a land war was necessary. A draft was passed thus the US involvement was fully realized.
All of the above was taken from the Brinkley text mentioned, from Ch. 23: "America and the Great War," pgs 633-640. It's too bad this is the only book I could find in my collection that goes into even this much detail about WWI. Paying a visit to my parents house and pouring over the many, many Time-Life and other history books my dad collected over the decades (he's been a history teach since well before I was born) I come to find that most of his collections center around WWII. Even the "This Fabulous Century" collection, by Time-Life, was very limited in it's particulars on WWI, although it illustrates the personal life both on the home front and soldiers very well. Now my interest is piqued and I'm going to have to find a book exclusive on the topic of WWI.
I'm glad I held onto most of my college texts. It seems I get more use out of them now than back then. So there’s today’s impromptu history lesson. Hopefully you’ll be ahead of the class now.
thank you! i wonder why they dont have particulars on WWI?
-
"Had the Titanic not sunk in 1912 how long would it have survived?"
Until the next iceberg on the way back to England or the first torpedo, because so was settled by God & nothing you can do about it.
-
thank you! i wonder why they dont have particulars on WWI?
If you're refering to the Time-Life editions, which usually can be found still in most libraries, the scope of 20th Century topic was so broad and there are so many volumes they had to keep it generic. I want to say the first editions published in the 1970s coving the years 1870-1970, mostly by decade. Then when the 20th Century came near a close (weird that I can say that now) they revitalized and updated and reissued the series using more books not limited by decade but more on specific topics like rock & roll, sports, immigrants, flight, etc. But even comparing the old and new editions the text and photos were the same, just the layout was altered. Keep in mind that Time-Life may not go into in depth studies for the purpose of keeping a broad audience.
If you've ever had a journalism class you may have heard that newspaper and magazines write their articles on a 9th grade education level. In other words, it's not technical and not too simple, it fits the average intelligence of the general public. Special books published by news magazines are going follow that model.
Also, WWII tends to get more coverage than WWI. Probably because it was bigger and better documented. However, don't get me wrong, Time-Life does a good job at historical publications, especially since they were around during those wars, and that's were they get most of their articles and photos, and their style of writing and presentation appeals to a larger audience. To get super in depth coverage the single or even multi-volume works written by one or a couple of authors give the best details. As an example: Shelby Footes 3 volume masterpiece on the Civil War. That's like War & Peace x 3.
Incidently, I just took a look at www.timelife.com and they only have music and videos. When I search for their books I keep getting suggestions for Amazon.com and ebay. They must not be much into the book business anymore. In the old days before internet you'd become aware of these books by those inserts in Time or Life Magazines where you put your address on the card and mail it in for free then they'd send you the first volume and a bill. My dad sent in for the WWII series, got 25 volumes out of 28, 1 new one every 6 weeks, and only paid about $7/ea. It's a shame they don't still do something like that but the computers and video games are robbing hours that could be spent reading books. And I'm just as guilty on that part.
-
If you're refering to the Time-Life editions, which usually can be found still in most libraries, the scope of 20th Century topic was so broad and there are so many volumes they had to keep it generic. I want to say the first editions published in the 1970s coving the years 1870-1970, mostly by decade. Then when the 20th Century came near a close (weird that I can say that now) they revitalized and updated and reissued the series using more books not limited by decade but more on specific topics like rock & roll, sports, immigrants, flight, etc. But even comparing the old and new editions the text and photos were the same, just the layout was altered. Keep in mind that Time-Life may not go into in depth studies for the purpose of keeping a broad audience.
If you've ever had a journalism class you may have heard that newspaper and magazines write their articles on a 9th grade education level. In other words, it's not technical and not too simple, it fits the average intelligence of the general public. Special books published by news magazines are going follow that model.
Also, WWII tends to get more coverage than WWI. Probably because it was bigger and better documented. However, don't get me wrong, Time-Life does a good job at historical publications, especially since they were around during those wars, and that's were they get most of their articles and photos, and their style of writing and presentation appeals to a larger audience. To get super in depth coverage the single or even multi-volume works written by one or a couple of authors give the best details. As an example: Shelby Footes 3 volume masterpiece on the Civil War. That's like War & Peace x 3.
Incidently, I just took a look at www.timelife.com and they only have music and videos. When I search for their books I keep getting suggestions for Amazon.com and ebay. They must not be much into the book business anymore. In the old days before internet you'd become aware of these books by those inserts in Time or Life Magazines where you put your address on the card and mail it in for free then they'd send you the first volume and a bill. My dad sent in for the WWII series, got 25 volumes out of 28, 1 new one every 6 weeks, and only paid about $7/ea. It's a shame they don't still do something like that but the computers and video games are robbing hours that could be spent reading books. And I'm just as guilty on that part.
ohh okay. thanks for everything! :D
-
One important bit to add onto that, ass2.
ALWAYS use multiple sources for research. No one person can ever have the exact answer and different people have different interpretations on any event- so get a broad spectrum (even if it is from people that you initially disagree with)
-
The Titanic would have been scrapped by now, just like the rest of the fleet.
-
The Titanic would have been scrapped by now, just like the rest of the fleet.
Really? That's an interesting take on it. I for one hadn't considered that possibility. ;)
-
So in a way its sinking made it last longer :doh:
-
So in a way its sinking made it last longer :doh:
Excellent take on ship preservation there! Perhaps someone should tell the owners of QE2, Waverley, HMS Belfast etc. ;)
-
Of course, the means of its preservation werent exactly gentle :P
-
Excellent take on ship preservation there! Perhaps someone should tell the owners of QE2, Waverley, HMS Belfast etc. ;)
if those ships are sunk, that not only preserves the ships longer, but also provides a home for aquatic animals.
just look at titanic: 99 years later, you see all these deep-sea fish and crabs an whatnot roaming the decks.
-
if those ships are sunk, that not only preserves the ships longer, but also provides a home for aquatic animals.
just look at titanic: 99 years later, you see all these deep-sea fish and crabs an whatnot roaming the decks.
I'm not sure that's what bruce ismay had in mind when he ordered that boring boat
-
I'm not sure that's what bruce ismay had in mind when he ordered that boring boat
he shouldnt have ordered to take some crucial lifeboats away so the first class passengers can "have a better view" and "they didnt pay to stare at lifeboats"
-
Can i ask watt are the point of this topic? I do not understand this speculations her, as i see Titanic are not among us anymore she are on the sea floor sunken and this is a speculation so i repeat, watt's the point?
-
think what would have been the odds of Titanic surviving to this day?
-
Hi assassinator2.0
to post a quote only that are spam
-
If the Titanic didn't sink that day, she would be scrapped by now and nobody would think of her like we do now. She would just be another ocean liner from the past ;)
-
Hi assassinator2.0
to post a quote only that are spam
Tore
Assassinator was quoting what this topic is about to answer your question :thumbs:
The original point of the topic was to think whether or not Titanic would have survived through to today if she hadn't sunk on that night.
-
i did not mean to do it as spam. cuz answering your question :)
-
Still a rather silly topic..What would have become of Marilyn Monroe if she hadn't died when she did?
-
same qweston with lincon
-
same qweston with lincon
Still a rather silly topic..What would have become of Marilyn Monroe if she hadn't died when she did?
they still wouldve been famous people :)
-
Oh how I can't wait until next year- the 100th anniversary.
Every satellite channel will be THAT dreadfully dull film. Every flaming day.
What about all the other 'great' maritime disasters?
What about the Lancastria?
The Estonia, The Herald' etc.
-
yeah, what about the Edmund Fitzgerald?
nobody gives a **** about the great lakes/north midwest. >:(
Edited for language, please mind what you type. - Fred
-
Hey I go up to Lake Ontario every summer
-
ime talkin about stuff like lake superior, minnesota, you know.
places like Duluth are hideously underrated. :P
once on the today show Al Roker said, "this sunday we'll be playing [football] at the frozen tundra of Lambo Field."
lambo is in green bay Wisconsin. if he thinks green bay is the north pole, then what does he (and other people) think about north minnesota and lake superior?
-
I don't think many people (even in America) appreciate just how big the great lakes are. Larger than many seas.
Then again, I wonder if many North Americans are familiar with the geography of the rest of the world either.
-
i think we are getting off topic :lol:
-
i think we are getting off topic :lol:
If that means less talk about that dull ship, isn't that a GOOD thing?