Was Andrews in any way to blame

I've read various threads of discussion on these message boards regarding what degree of blame belongs to Captain Smith, J. Bruce Ismay, the officer on watch, the Californian, etc. According to accepted views of today's Titanic historians, how much blame, if any, should go to Thomas Andrews? Most theories seem to exonorate him from any real blame. He was a brave man and a real hero the night of the sinking, and it's easy to see that he blamed himself, at least in part, for the disaster. How much of that blame is justified, according to expert opinion? It is true that the watertight bulkheads only came up to E deck, and the rudder was supposed to be too small for so large a ship. Surely as the shipbuilder Andrews should have had some awareness of these things. Or was he aware of them and tried to have them corrected and was overruled? Would you say he is culpable and to what degree?
 
As Andrews would have had nothing to do with the actual navigation of the ship...and in the end, it was a navigation error which killed the Titanic...I don't see how Andrews could be held accountable for the loss.

My understanding is that Harland & Wolff made provisions for more lifeboats but was over-ruled by the customer.(White Star) Short of breaking existing laws, customers can do that and there is little the shipyard can do except make their concerns known and otherwise play along.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
Cathy,

The ship was over-engineered, in comparison with Board of Trade requirements. The assertion that Titanic's rudder was too small is a myth...whoever came up with that never read contemporary marine architectural texts.

Anyone who ascribes blame to Andrews for the disaster is essentially accusing him of not being able to conceive of and build an "unsinkable" ship...and I would wager those same people scoff at the reported pre-disaster claims about Titanic being "unsinkable." Can't have it both ways.

I also have not seen any evidence to suggest that H&W was in any way uncomfortable with any restrictions White Star may have imposed on them. If there had been any discomfort on the part of Lord Pirrie, he would have taken it up with the Line; after all, any shortcomings of H&W ships would reflect poorly on H&W's reputation. As I said, I know of no evidence that Pirrie, or even his nephew Thomas Andrews, had any concerns about the adequacies of the ship's design or appointment of life-savings apparatus.

I am aware of Carlisle's concerns, but Carlisle did not speak for the shipyard...he presented options to both Pirrie and Ismay. Even then, Carlisle was motivated at that time by the possibility that the BOT might soon change their requirements. The Welin davits represented a cost-effective means of building in what we call today under my company's cost-plus contract, "extensibility." His recommendation was accepted and approved.

The search by modern-day Titanic historians for a culprit to whom blame for the disaster can be publicly assigned leaves no stone unturned.

Parks
 
Back in the 80's an excellent program entitled "A Question of Murder " aired-I think it was a British production- I have it on tape somewhere but am not sure if it is available on VCR to purchase. There was a lengthy segment devoted to Axel Wellin and his design for anywhere from 34 to more lifeboats, and collapsibles. The sketches exist for showing how they would be accommodated on deck. There is also a touching tribute to Tommy Andrews in his hometown where his story is still taught to schoolchildren. The story goes that Andrews had no objections to the many additional lifeboats, and it was a White Star Line decision that they would take up too much recreational space on deck- so the plan , to the dismay of Wellin, was scrapped. What they stop short of saying is that Ismay was the man who axed the plan- I need to watch this one again.
 
I do apologize for coming in so late in this conversaton but I think that any finger pointing that places blame belongs to two people. Niether of which are Mr. Andrews. For some reason I tend to think that he was either unaware of the icefield. Or unaware of Ismay increasing speed. Ismay can not recieve full blame for this it has to be shared bewteen he and Smith but Andrews thus far in my research is guilty of nothing but doing what he was told as well as attempting to convey the message for passengers to get dressed and to put there lifebelts on.

Andrews in general is a very fasicnating character and I think (as much as I hate to reference the Cameron Movie) was played very well in the Titanic the movie. In just about all the versions that I have seen. Andrews was a company man and unlike Ismay knew his duties on the ship and kept to those and those only. So to rap up my most humble opinion is that Andrews was a hero not a villan.

Erik
 
Shelley:
"A Question of Murder" is available on VHS. 1983, Color with black and white footage, 56 minutes. ISBN 0-7800-1762-5. Distributed by Public Media Video. Don't know if it's still good, but they give a toll free number 800-262-8600
 
I do not believe any of the blame could be put onto Andrews. He was not the one who ignored the ice warnings throughout the day, he was not the one that ordered the engines reversed. If there had been a flaw with his design then that directly caused the sinking then sure perhaps he should get some of the blame... However it was a navigational error that caused the ship to sink not a flaw in design
 
I am a strong advocate for Smith. In the sense that I think that Ismay was more of a role player then we all know about. You could easily piece together many of the goings on during the days before the voyage as well as the incidents right after are what lead me to believe that the blame needs to be equally shared by Ismay and Smith. Not Andrews.

Erik
 
Back
Top