Those of you who have read my analysis of the conspiracy theory that RMS TITANIC was deliberately sunk will know that, in my view, there is no substance in it.
However, I have since been contacted by a reader who recommended that I read RMS OLYMPIC by John Hamer, who has researched the very same subject and concluded that there was a conspiracy, or in fact two parallel conspiracies, and that the ship that sank in the early hours of 15 April 1912 was TITANIC’s sister ship, OLYMPIC, deliberately sunk as part of the insurance fraud I mentioned, but also other intrigues.
I have to say that Mr Hamer’s book is an excellent read. It got very good reviews on Amazon, and I can see why. It is well-written and the narrative clips along at a rate of knots. It is well-researched and brings in many facts and snippets of evidence that I was unaware of, and pieces the story together clearly and in an easy-to-follow fashion.
The book gives the reader the background to the White Star Line and its relationship with JP Morgan and sets out the financial problems Morgan’s extensive shipping interests were facing. It takes us through the building of OLYMPIC and the TITANIC via an interesting diversion into the US Federal Reserve Bank, and gives a very thorough description of OLYMPIC’s collision with HMS HAWKE in November 1911, the origin of the decision to swap the two ships and to sink OLYMPIC disguised as TITANIC.
There then follows a very detailed analysis of TITANIC’s sinking, which cleverly undermines the whole picture of events everybody has of the incident. Mr Hamer then follows it all up with the official inquiries into the tragedy, sums it all up eloquently and concludes that there was a conspiracy, and that it was OLYMPIC that sank.
The book is so well presented that almost everybody who reads it will become a TITANIC expert, convinced that there was a deadly fraud played out that dark cold night. For me however, Mr Hamer’s theories founder on the iceberg of my experience: twenty years at sea in the merchant navy, including eight as Chief Engineer, followed by many years in the technical and operational management of large ocean-going ships, and several years investigating the cause, or causes, of maritime casualties.
For all the technical and ship management reasons Mr Hamer puts forward as proof of a conspiracy, I can think of more plausible reasons. In regard to the later reminiscences and second-hand accounts, you must make your own mind up on them. In my view, though interesting and food for thought, they do not overcome my professional analysis as a marine engineer.
That said, none of this stopped me enjoying the book, which is a thoroughly good read, and I’m glad that I read it. If I hadn’t been a marine engineer, I too would have been persuaded. I have no hesitation in recommending it.
Tom Armstrong.