Quote:
Originally Posted by orlok
[...] I did approach the story with some trepidation, as I suspected that a large part of the tale would be taken up with extended courtroom battles over culpability. I was pleasantly surprised that this was dealt with quite briefly, though I did wonder why there seemed to be no attention given to the morons who ordered the Mont-Blanc to be loaded with the staggering amount of explosive, and that all the attention was focused on who may or may not be responsible for the collision. Now I wonder if it was just poor research on the part of Bacon rather than this issue not having been raised at the time. [...]
|
One of the things I liked about Bacon's presentation was the extended context; it's a reminder that this was a century ago, in the middle of WWI. Overloading ships with explosives was just one of the many extremities of the time. Also, the blame-game had not yet grown to its full strength and vitality by this time, they had other things to worry about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlok
I think the coincidence of there being the same firm in Halifax, England and Halifax, Canada is just too great. I think it was just more sloppy research.
|
My reservation is in calling something "sloppy research" based on a few Internet searches of my own. The words, "pot" and "kettle" start pop into my mind. It seems likely that it was a mistake, but that's as far as I'm willing to go* without spending more time on it.
* On this particular element of the book, several other details panned out as accurate according to my own sloppy research checks. The "VAD" error is more obvious and less excusable.