What if the Titanic never sank?

[CountDVB]

Except 1912 is too late for the Al Rashid. The Saudis had already retaken Riyadh in 1902. In 1906, the Saudis decisively defeated the combined Ottoman-Rashidi forces in al-Qassim. By 1912, al Rashid is ruled by a 12 year old boy, Saʿūd bin ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and the House was in disarray.

That doesn't mean the Sauds wouldn't be ousted from power in the event of a Central Powers victory. If nothig else, the Al Rashid would be udner the care of the Ottomans and the Germans and perhaps the young prince would be educated in the Ottoman Empire and Germany to help modernize the area.

What does this have to do with the Titanic surviving.

The Titantic carried several high profile figures that if survived, would've changed US history and that of the world. My colleague here is responding to the comment on how Saudi Arabia is inevitable after a certain point, even though the Ottomans would not tolerate them there down south and with a Central Pwoers victory, would be ousted.

 

[lordroel]

The Titantic carried several high profile figures that if survived, would've changed US history and that of the world. My colleague here is responding to the comment on how Saudi Arabia is inevitable after a certain point, even though the Ottomans would not tolerate them there down south and with a Central Pwoers victory, would be ousted.

You mean some of these people who will survive.

John Jacob Astor IV

This American businessman, builder, and investor was the descendent of the first multi-millionaire in the United States, German-American Johan Jakob Astor. He was the richest person aboard the Titanic and was traveling with his second wife Madeline who was five months pregnant. Astor did not survive the sinking of the Titanic but his wife did. According to survivor accounts Astor was last seen on the starboard wing of the boat smoking a cigarette with Jacques Futrelle. Astor’s body was recovered on April 22, by a cable-ship chartered by White Star Line. He was identified by the initials sewn into the label of his jacket.

Benjamin Guggenheim

Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, this American businessman was aboard the Titanic with a mistress; a French singer by the name of Madame Léontine Aubart, his valet Victor Giglio, chauffeur René Pernot, and Emma Sägesser the maid of Aubart. Guggenheim and his valet had slept through the collision with the iceberg, but were forced to wake and dress once it became clear that the situation was dire. Guggenheim and Giglio helped Aubart and Sägesser along with other women and children into lifeboats and then proceeded to change into their evening wear and go down with the ship “prepared to go down like gentlemen”. If his body was ever recovered it was never identified.

Isidor and Ida Straus

Isidor Straus was a German Jewish American and was co-owner of Macy’s department store in New York along with his brother Nathan. Aboard the Titanic with his wife, Ida refused to leave her husband while the ship was sinking. Isidor was told that he would be able to board the lifeboat with his wife, but refused and instead sent his wife’s maid Ellen Bird onto the boat instead. Both Isidor and Ida were last seen sitting on the deck holding hands before a large wave washed them into the ocean. Isidor’s body was recovered by the Mackay-Bennett and brought to Halifax, Nova Scotia before being shipped back to New York. Ida’s body was never recovered.

 

[Philip]

That doesn't mean the Sauds wouldn't be ousted from power in the event of a Central Powers victory.

We'll skip over how unlikely the survival of Titanic leading to a CP victory is.

In 1912, the Ottoman Empire had been trying to eliminate Saudi power for over 150 years. They repeatedly failed, and the Saudis have shown remarkable resilience. The OE's best chance was when Muhammad Ali Pasha (and his son Tusun) retook Mecca from the Saudis, but that was 100 years ago. After WWI, I don't see how the OE will magically be able to reverse this trend and crush the Al Saud.

 

[SsgtC]

You mean some of these people who will survive.

John Jacob Astor IV

This American businessman, builder, and investor was the descendent of the first multi-millionaire in the United States, German-American Johan Jakob Astor. He was the richest person aboard the Titanic and was traveling with his second wife Madeline who was five months pregnant. Astor did not survive the sinking of the Titanic but his wife did. According to survivor accounts Astor was last seen on the starboard wing of the boat smoking a cigarette with Jacques Futrelle. Astor’s body was recovered on April 22, by a cable-ship chartered by White Star Line. He was identified by the initials sewn into the label of his jacket.

Benjamin Guggenheim

Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, this American businessman was aboard the Titanic with a mistress; a French singer by the name of Madame Léontine Aubart, his valet Victor Giglio, chauffeur René Pernot, and Emma Sägesser the maid of Aubart. Guggenheim and his valet had slept through the collision with the iceberg, but were forced to wake and dress once it became clear that the situation was dire. Guggenheim and Giglio helped Aubart and Sägesser along with other women and children into lifeboats and then proceeded to change into their evening wear and go down with the ship “prepared to go down like gentlemen”. If his body was ever recovered it was never identified.

Isidor and Ida Straus

Isidor Straus was a German Jewish American and was co-owner of Macy’s department store in New York along with his brother Nathan. Aboard the Titanic with his wife, Ida refused to leave her husband while the ship was sinking. Isidor was told that he would be able to board the lifeboat with his wife, but refused and instead sent his wife’s maid Ellen Bird onto the boat instead. Both Isidor and Ida were last seen sitting on the deck holding hands before a large wave washed them into the ocean. Isidor’s body was recovered by the Mackay-Bennett and brought to Halifax, Nova Scotia before being shipped back to New York. Ida’s body was never recovered.

Yes, those would be the ones. In my own Titanic TL, they do end up changing the course of US history. By helping to get TR first nominated for and later reelected as a Progressive Republican President. Though my scenario is not nearly as dire as I'd proposed here

 

[lordroel]

Yes, those would be the ones. In my own Titanic TL, they do end up changing the course of US history. By helping to get TR first nominated for and later reelected as a Progressive Republican President. Though my scenario is not nearly as dire as I'd proposed here

Well i doubt that the world would end if the Titanic manged to get sadly to New York.

 

[Philip]

In my own Titanic TL, they do end up changing the course of US history.

Link?

 

[TruthfulPanda]

Follow the quotes back upstream. Ozzymandias claimed that Titanic would butterfly away Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia. CountDVB asserted that it would result in Al Rashid crushing Al Saud. Neither are correct.

You know, your post is hilarious!

 

[SsgtC]

@Philip It's in my signature. And GDIS Pathe linked to it in post 5 of this thread

 

[Ozzymandias]

A lot of your "facts" are straight up wrong. Let's go down the list.

1: JP Morgan did NOT fund or build Titanic (Titanic is spelled with an "ic" btw, not "ik"). He owned International Mercantile Marine. Which was the parent company of White Star Line. However, he had zero day to day control of White Star and provided no funding. In fact, he used White Star to fund his other businesses. When it came to building the Olympic-class, White Star funded them with their own cash reserves.

2. JP Morgan was NOT booked to sail on Titanic. He was attending a financial conference in Continental Europe at the time that did not end for over a week after Titanic had sailed. The idea he booked passage and then cancelled at the last minute because they were planning to sink the ship is an absolutely ridiculous conspiracy theory.

3. Milton Hershey (again, check your spelling) was booked to sail on Titanic. But due to business matters, had to sail early. He in fact sailed from Nice on the Amerika on April 6th. A week before Titanic departed for her Maiden Voyage. So again, nothing but an absurd conspiracy theory.

4. There was no international standard for what color flares should be to indicate distress. On British ships, white was the generally accepted color, as flares with color in them were considered to be "house" signals. You're really trying the conspiracy angle, aren't you?

5. No, Titanic could most definitely NOT seal her decks electromagnetically. The watertight doors were purely mechanical in nature, operated by a cog system. The doors could be shut electrically by throwing a switch on the bridge which in turn activated electric motors to lower the doors. Or they could be closed locally by a float switch with would activate when water entered the compartment, again activating an electric motor to lower the door. Or they could be closed (and opened) by means of a manual crank located at each door.

As for your claim that they could trap people below decks, utter hogwash. Look at a diagram of her watertight subdivisions. The compartments did not have extend all the way to the top of the hull. They also were not sealed at the top in any way (this explains how water could spread to successive compartments). There are also stairwells in each compartment that allowed access to the decks above. So no, the watertight compartments and doors could not trap people below.

6. Really? He DID take precautions. For one, he delayed his turn West to bring Titanic to a more southerly course in order to AVOID the heavier than normal reported ice conditions. The night Titanic struck the berg, the weather was absolutely clear and the sea was flat calm. No Captain in his right mind would slow down in those conditions. Most would speed up! Oh, one other note, Smith did warn his bridge crew that if a haze developed, to slow the ship.

7. What book are you talking about? Several books were written where the premise is a large ocean liner hitting an iceberg and sinking with large loss of life. One of the authors of just such a book actually died on the Titanic. One other one (and the one I think you're talking about) died of an accidental overdose of an anti-convulsant. Not exactly poisoned in some vauge plot to keep him from revealing the "truth."

As for the rest of your post, it's more just blatant conspiracy theory. And honestly, it all falls apart once you realise that almost all of the WWI loans given to Europe were defaulted on and not repaid.

Well, you either didn`t read the link provided or are directly misqouting. It says " Here is a link" in the first sentence.
My conclusion is right there, in the first sentence, while the qoute is clearly from the linked text, therefore spelling error in "Hershey". But I believe that this is not a class in english grammar, so this could be dismissed as mere nitpicking. Titanik or Titanic, really there is confusion ?
Secondly, claimimg that person is not owner of a ship because he only owns a company that owns a company that owns a ship is some dubious "legalese". As a lawyer, I find it really low. But hey, he is not owner of "a ship". Right...
There were plenty of unexplainable "misstakes" both by captain Smith, and by later investigation in Britain. There are litteraly dozens of documentaries debating mismanagement and coverup. You do not need to resort to conspiracy theories to see how rotten the oversight and security were.
The ship had a massive fire below the deck for the entire journey, they failed to receive radio warnings of icebergs, they dropped the rescue boats in the water HALFFULL.

And finally, it is patently not true that WW1 loans were defaulted. British government paid last WW1 debt in 2015 !
Here is link to the text "WAR FINANCE AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS" by A. C. MILLER, Member of the Federal Reserve Board which explains various measures which helped and protected private banks when giving loans. As it clearly says:

For the war will some day be over. If, therefore, it should result that, as a consequence of undue reliance upon the resources of the federal reserve system in financing the war, the system was transformed...

Page 3/21

Even if everything was a strange concoction of coincidences, not a conspiracy (which I am not claiming, but the link elaborates) it still remains that survival of all of these listed man and many others would change both the outcome of Federal Reserves, as well the decisions leading to entering the war etc.

 

[CalBear]

Titanik doesn`t sink, Jacob Astor, Isa Strauss, Benjamin Gugenheim survive and oppose creation of Federal reserve. More on this link
So FED can not guarantee Antante (British and French) loans, what was main driver for USA joining the war, to prevent massive bankrupties of New York and London banks (JP Morgan, Rotschilds...). No USA in Great war means peace in 1917., no October revolution, no communism, no nazism. Also, with Ottoman empire surviving, no Saudi Arabia, no wahabism, no Al Qaida, no ISIL...
Also, no FED means no Keynes, no petro-dolar (paper for oil), nor quantative easing...keeping gold standard or return of bimetalism (gold-silver).

Did you actually just blame the Fed for the rise of terrorism?

 

[SsgtC]

Secondly, claimimg that person is not owner of a ship because he only owns a company that owns a company that owns a ship is some dubious "legalese". As a lawyer, I find it really low. But hey, he is not owner of "a ship". Right...

Now who is deliberately misquoting? I said Morgan did not fund or build Titanic, nor did he have day-to-day control of White Star. JPM did not even have a seat on White Star's board of directors. You might want to research how IMM operated. They did not exercise the amount of control over their subsidiaries that modern corporations do. They were a holding company. That's it.

There were plenty of unexplainable "misstakes" both by captain Smith, and by later investigation in Britain. There are litteraly dozens of documentaries debating mismanagement and coverup. You do not need to resort to conspiracy theories to see how rotten the oversight and security were.

You're seriously going with that argument? I think I've got a pretty good idea of the ones you've watched. And just about any trained historian will tell you a lot of them are compete crap. Including the one you reference below

The ship had a massive fire below the deck for the entire journey, they failed to receive radio warnings of icebergs, they dropped the rescue boats in the water HALFFULL.

They had a low grade coal bunker fire that was smoldering for a few days. These were beyond common in that time period. It was certainly not a "massive fire." And before you bring up the photo that supposedly is "proof" of it, I've talked to people who do nothing but study those old photographs and who are intimately acquainted with how they were developed. Every one of them said the smudge is nothing more than an artifact of the developing process. I would also like to point out, that the spot on the hull where this smudge is, is nowhere near a coal bunker.

As to the point about the lifeboats, doesn't that actually prove your theory false that she was sunk intentionally? After all, it's well documented the issues and panic that took place while launching them. If the plan was to sink her deliberately, don't you think that would have gone a little smoother?

And finally, it is patently not true that WW1 loans were defaulted. British government paid last WW1 debt in 2015 !
Here is link to the text "WAR FINANCE AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS" by A. C. MILLER, Member of the Federal Reserve Board which explains various measures which helped and protected private banks when giving loans. As it clearly says:

That actually kinda goes to my point. The fact it took 100 years for the UK to repay they're their loans. And that was only after the US had written off huge amounts of money that were loaned to the other Entente Powers.

 

[Mumbles]

they dropped the rescue boats in the water HALFFULL.

Not an accurate description of what happened. Early in the evacuation, lifeboats did indeed leave the ship less than full - there are several reasons for this, men being barred from some lifeboats,other passengers refusing to accept the ship was sinking, and doubts about the integrity of the lifeboats among them. As the sinking progressed the lifeboats began to fill up, and the last boats to leave the ship were full.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but your sources seem in variance with well established facts.

 

[Ozzymandias]

Did you actually just blame the Fed for the rise of terrorism?

Short answer: Wars costs money. FED prints money.
Long answer: Without FED there would be no funding war for US massive expansion of armed forces of the XX century, for god or bad. USA would have to relly more on soft and economic power, than weapons.
Without FED, there is no US in WW1. That`s the key point.
Without Cold war there would not have been CIA inspired Iran coup that started events leading to Homeini`s rise to power, and without WW1 and WW2 there would not have been FDR`s alliance with Saudi Arabia. Also, without Cold war there is no need for american (CIA) support of Afghanistan mujahadeen and creation of Saudi led network that was to become Al Qaida.
Also, without FED there would be no possibility of bailouts of 2008/2009 in which quantity of US dolars quadrupled. A whole new different group of problems would exists, but events of XX century, all interconnected would go quite differently.

 

[sendô]

So in a nutshell, the Titanic not sinking would lead to a) a CP victory in WW1, b) a completely different financial system in the western democracies, and c) a completely different power dynamic in the middle east?

From one boat of a few hundred people?

The reality is the main change would be a delay to improved safety standards on boats, and perhaps a similar disaster with large loss of life further down the line.

 

[Ozzymandias]

So in a nutshell, the Titanic not sinking would lead to a) a CP victory in WW1, b) a completely different financial system in the western democracies, and c) a completely different power dynamic in the middle east?

From one boat of a few hundred people?

The reality is the main change would be a delay to improved safety standards on boats, and perhaps a similar disaster with large loss of life further down the line.

Where do you get that ? Titanic does not lead to German victory.
To be clear, I`m not claiming that events discrabed in this scenario are the way things happened. Regardless was there conspiracy, cover up of mismanagement or everything working perfectly, this scenario is a possible series of events. Not definite, not probable, just possible. It is a possibility, that happened in this ALTERNATE reality.

Without FED there are no loans to Antante, making them more receptive to peace offers from Central powers. Problem for the Antante was that they were fully commited to the war, and anything except Germany total defeat and war compensation would lead to economic depression, probable bankruptcies and possible riots/revolutions.
Without FED there is no reason for US to consider that bankruptcy of european imperial powers Britain and France would lead to economic downturn of USA. So there would be no reason to join the war. And it is pritty clear that without US manpower, money and supplies Antante would not be able to defeat Central powers. at least not in 1918. Maybe in 1919. But that would have been an even more Pyrric victory.

I would say that sounds as more interesting than simply having ship sail longer and delays in safety standards.
Also, a lot smaller butterlies had a larger infulence in our reality.
For example, if col. Johann Rall read and understood the importance of a letter warning him that Washington is coming, Battle of Trenton could have gone the other way. Just one example of many.

 

[sendô]

I don't know why you are taking my post as a direct response to your posts when I have not quoted you.

 

[desmirelle]

There is a fan theory about the film Titanic, whereby Jack is a time traveller. It is supposed that Jack saves Rose from suicide so that the ship is not stopped and therefore misses the Iceberg. However why would Jack want the Titanic to sink, what terrible alternate timeline is there that he would die to try and divert, or is Jack just evil? What would happen if the Titanic never sank?

Go ask the 'fan' with the 'theory'.

 

[RNG]

Go ask the 'fan' with the 'theory'.

Fair enough, however I don't think he thought out how history would be different with the Titanic not sinking

 

[lordroel]

Fair enough, however I don't think he thought out how history would be different with the Titanic not sinking

Not much different i think than what we are current living in.

 

[David T]

Without the *Titanic* disaster, and the resulting demand for lifeboats for all, there might never have been an *Eastland* disaster (which killed more passengers than the *Titanic*:

"Court decisions blamed improperly weighted ballast tanks for the disaster. But transportation historian George W. Hilton argued in a 1995 book that the international reaction to the sinking of the Titanic three years earlier ultimately doomed the Eastland, which had almost capsized in 1904 with 2,370 people aboard.

"Because there were lifeboats and rafts for less than half the Titanic's licensed passenger capacity, an international furor arose. Sen. Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin introduced a bill that required ships to have enough lifeboats for 75 percent of their passengers.

"On July 2, 1915, the owners of the Eastland added three lifeboats and six rafts, weighing 14 to 15 tons, to its top deck. A boat that had already exhibited stability problems became top-heavy. Three weeks later, the next time it was loaded to capacity, the Eastland capsized."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...chicagodays-eastlanddisaster-story-story.html


"During 1915, the new federal Seamen's Act had been passed because of the RMS Titanic disaster three years earlier. The law required retrofitting of a complete set of lifeboats on Eastland, as on many other passenger vessels.[7] This additional weight may have made Eastland more dangerous as it potentially worsened the already severe problem of being top-heavy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Eastland

Some people attack the "lifeboat theory" by noting that the Eastland had almost capsized twice before, and was bound to eventually capsize: "The ship had a ballast system that was supposed to stabilize it to counteract unwanted rolling. It worked most of the time, but when it didn't work, it was abysmal. The Eastland was going to capsize at some point—there's no question." https://www.chicagoreader.com/Blead...e-of-the-great-injustices-of-the-20th-century This may be true. But it doesn't eliminate the possibility that on July 24, 1915, the extra weight of the lifeboats made the difference between an unstable ship that came close to capsizing and an actual, disastrous capsizing.