Titanic struggle

Nobody should underestimate the degree of rich local interest created by the centenary of the loss of the Titanic. But there is lot to ponder over Mark Hirst’s account of the struggle to get recognition of the loss of life in the June 1940 sinking of the Lancastria (Perspective, 13 April).

In many ways it is difficult to compete with the Titanic story. It is a combination of tragedy, heroism, technological breakdown, an insight into the social divisions of the time. By contrast, Lancastria was the worst of many wartime maritime disasters. The long campaign to acknowledge the sacrifice of 4,000 military personnel does reflect a number of things.

Firstly, a respect for the decision Winston Churchill took to place a news embargo on the disaster. It may be difficult more than 70 years on to consider the effect of very low morale on the war effort. But it was surely something a prime minister had to consider very seriously.

He had already fought a Cabinet battle to insist on direct confrontation with Germany rather than the more tempting pleas to sue for peace.

In some ways that secrecy he insisted on over Lancastria has cast a shadow over the sacrifice made. There has not been the wealth of individual stories that made the Titanic episode so absorbing.

The second is an even more serious social problem of the 21st century. It is the whole question of the status and respect we afford to members of the armed forces: the equipment they are provided with for conflict, the facilities they get when they return from conflict and the social status a military career attracts.

It may be difficult to imagine large groups of school children yearning to attend an exhibition about the Lancastria  disaster. But unless we confront the way we view the importance of military service, lesser matters like the Titanic sinking will always get more prominence.

Bob Taylor

Shiel Court

Glenrothes, Fife