Secret U-Boat Bases in Mexico, Spain and Elsewhere?

[williamjpellas]

I never said that de Velasco mentioned anything about any secret U-boat bases or prepositioned supply dumps. I do wonder if his alleged spy mission to the American Desert Southwest had anything to do with what The Wanderling is talking about. Maybe yes. Maybe no. I recently encountered a writer on Quora who claimed there was some kind of Japanese radio intercept installation in Mexico during the war. Perhaps all of these were related to one another in some way.

I just ran a Google search for the Spanish phrase you posted as coming from "MI-5 agent Thomas Harris". In English, it reads "...(de Velasco was) a high-ranking Falangist official, a fanatical Germanophile, both dishonest and uneducated. It was easier for him to invent his reports than to bother looking for authentic information."

When I searched in Spanish, it led me to a blog written by Antonio C. de la Serna. He has a blog entry about de Velasco that ends as follows: "As a writer I publish (have published) several books of poetry, narrative and theater. His writings exude lies, fantasies and distortions in an effort to adorn their role in them and take center stage. However, some of his works, such as Papeles de un falangista (Papers of a Falangist, an autobiographical novel), The Seven Days of Salamanca and Memoirs of a Secret Agent , deserve a glance, though, with all the caution of the world, and not believing everything he tells us."

https://antoniocdelaserna.wordpress.com ... e-opereta/

In other words, according to de la Serna, de Velasco really was a WWII spy and evidently there is at least some truth to what he claimed---otherwise, why would "some of his works...deserve a glance"---but you have to be careful because he was egotistical and prone to exaggeration. So? Doesn't the same characterize a lot of people?

There were and are quite a few spies and other shadowy types who exhibit considerable dishonesty. As for being "uneducated", that's what Harris apparently said (where?), but what does that mean? That de Velasco was clearly stupid because he was a Fascist, and not all cool and with it and an Oxford Marxist like Harris? Or is Harris merely jealous? Who is Harris and why should I take his word for it and not de Velasco, Farago, Wilcox, or even de la Serna?

EDIT: Well, well. I just looked Harris up. Turns out he was good buddies with the notorious English Communist traitor, Kim Philby, and died under mysterious circumstances. Philby and Harris were fingered as Soviet spies by a Soviet defector and also by Flora Solomon, a Jewish emigre to the UK whose family had connections to the Rothschilds. Some think the KGB murdered Harris to cover its tracks after Philby fled to the USSR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_Solomon

[Ironmachine]

When I searched in Spanish, it led me to a blog written by Antonio C. de la Serna.

Yes. That's exactly the link I provided after the quote. If you have read my post in its entirety, you would have had no need of searching anything.

He has a blog entry about de Velasco that ends as follows: "As a writer I publish (have published) several books of poetry, narrative and theater [sic; in fact, the translation should be: "As a writer, he [Velasco] published several books..."; there is a mistake in the Spanish text that produces a bad translation]. His writings exude lies, fantasies and distortions in an effort to adorn their role in them and take center stage. However, some of his works, such as Papeles de un falangista (Papers of a Falangist, an autobiographical novel), The Seven Days of Salamanca and Memoirs of a Secret Agent , deserve a glance, though, with all the caution of the world, and not believing everything he tells us."

[url]https://antoniocdelaserna.wordpress.com ... e-opereta/[/url]

In other words, according to de la Serna, de Velasco really was a WWII spy and evidently there is at least some truth to what he claimed---otherwise, why would "some of his works...deserve a glance"---but you have to be careful because he was egotistical and prone to exaggeration. So? Doesn't the same characterize a lot of people?

In fact, De la Serna is not saying that Alcázar de Velasco was really a WWII spy, but that he (Velasco) claimed to have been one. And even if he was, it really means nothing. There are good spies, bad spies, worthless spies. Velasco, if he was a spy (and he probably was or believed he was, it's not as if a "spy degree" was required for individuals who wished to spy), he was a worthless one. And even more worthless are his post-war accounts of his feats. If anyone is going to believe his words, then I say: "Well, i have a bridge to sell you."

There were and are quite a few spies and other shadowy types who exhibit considerable dishonesty. As for being "uneducated", that's what Harris apparently said (where?), but what does that mean? That de Velasco was clearly stupid because he was a Fascist, and not all cool and with it and an Oxford Marxist like Harris? Or is Harris merely jealous? Who is Harris and why should I take his word for it and not de Velasco, Farago, Wilcox, or even de la Serna?

You don't have to take Harris' word for it, obviously. But I find it significant that originally you had no problem to believe Velasco, Farago or Wilcox (De la Serna is a different matter, because he is actually saying in his blog that you should have doubts about the veracity of all of Velasco's claims".)

[williamjpellas]

I still have no problem believing de Velasco, not in the main at any rate. His work is attested to by other writers, as I said. Which of his claims do you believe are demonstrably false? What evidence can you produce which proves or at least strongly supports your assertion that they are false? We're talking about war in the shadows. Absent corroboration from sources such as ULTRA or MAGIC, it is not likely that we will ever know the complete picture of what went on in the cloak and dagger realm. However, the curtain does get pulled back from time to time by various people who were there, or who claim to have been there. Usually this is in the form of anecdotes and personal memoirs, though occasionally their recollections do find support from secret documents as they are declassified (or stolen or leaked). But by and large we must read the accounts and come to our own conclusion as to whether they have the ring of truth. I place considerable weight on Farago's work, and have also found Wilcox to be generally very reliable. There is the NY Times piece I linked above, and there are other books that also mention the Spanish spy and believe him to have been at least somewhat credible. You have Harris and de la Serna. Alright. Harris just called him names in the reference you cited. Did he offer any specifics elsewhere? de la Serna cited three books by de Velasco (not bad for an uneducated idiot), and said we should not believe everything he tells us. Which means we should believe some of it, right?

I could go on but this is not the first time you've shown up around here to grind the same axe. You seem to have a pronounced animus towards de Velasco, who was certainly not "a worthless (spy)". I can only surmise that your hostility is rooted in disagreement with his politics and in what appears to be your profound sympathy for, and identification with, the losing side in the Spanish Civil War.

[Ironmachine]

I have no axe to grind in regards with Velasco. Actually I, just as de la Serna, believe some of the things he said and wrote are true: that he was a Spaniard, or that he was a Falangist, for example. But with regards to his spy tales, I believe nothing unless there is further evidence. His word is totally worthless.
It's funny that you think that my hostility (sic) towards Velasco is "rooted in disagreement with his politics and in what appears to be your profound sympathy for, and indentification with, the losing side in the Spanish Civil War". Can I surmise, then, that your appreciation for Velasco is rooted in agreement with his politics and in what appears to be your profound sympahty for, and identification with, the losing side in World War II? Stupid, isn't it? Just as stupid as your statement about me and my ideas. And just FYI, I have been accused more than once in this forum, specially in the Spanish Civil War forum, of being a Francoist supporter. In this same thread, that apparently you have not read before posting, member paulrward accused me (wrongly, of course, as wrongly as you) of trying to whitewash the Franco regime. My disdain for Velasco (as spy, not as a human being) is based only on his lies, not on his political ideas.
Anyway, if your understanding of Velasco is as profound as your understanding of me, it's not strange that you believe him. And you can believe him, if you want. That's your problem. Anyway, he never claimed AFAIK anything about a secret U-boat base anywhere, and that's the purpose of this thread.

[williamjpellas]

My disdain for Velasco (as spy, not as a human being) is based only on his lies, not on his political ideas.

Anyway, if your understanding of Velasco is as profound as your understanding of me, it's not strange that you believe him. And you can believe him, if you want. That's your problem. Anyway, he never claimed AFAIK anything about a secret U-boat base anywhere, and that's the purpose of this thread.

I never said de Velasco claimed anything about secret U-boat bases. I speculated that the existence of such might have dovetailed with, or had something to do with, his alleged mission with Japanese agents in the American Desert Southwest. And/or with a Japanese SIGINT outpost said to have existed in Mexico. Etc.

Yes, I find de Velasco to be credible. Or at minimum, credible enough to warrant further investigation. If you have a problem with that, I couldn't possibly care less.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi willianjpellas,

Is your reference to the Robert Wilcox who claimed that Japan not only developed the atomic bomb, but testfired their own only days before the US A-Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima?

Cheers,

Sid.

[williamjpellas]

Hi willianjpellas,

Is your reference to the Robert Wilcox who claimed that Japan not only developed the atomic bomb, but testfired their own only days before the US A-Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima?

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid,

As I have explained exhaustively elsewhere---both on this and other sites---Wilcox himself DID NOT and NEVER HAS "claimed that Japan...developed the atomic bomb (and) testfired their own". But rather than recap everything, I will refer you here:

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-J ... iam-Pellas

And also here, particularly the posts that cover the past five years or so:

viewtopic.php?f=65&t=5387&p=2160091#p2160091

[Ironmachine]

Yes, I find de Velasco to be credible. Or at minimum, credible enough to warrant further investigation. If you have a problem with that, I couldn't possibly care less.

No problem at all. You can waste your time any way you want.

[Sid Guttridge]

OK,

Is your reference to the Robert Wilcox, the journalist who also wrote on the Turin Shroud?

Not a crime if either is the case, but journalists, by the nature of their job, tend to accept lower evidential standards than historians, while the Turin Shroud is up there with UFOs, crop circles, etc., for conspiracy theorists.

Cheers,

Sid.

[igorr]

igorr, NARA---the US National Archives and Records Administration---also has considerable portions of its enormous inventory of documents and papers available online.

I have almost 1 Tb scans of various german docs from NARA. Noone from them was made on-line by NARA, and all cost money. Only docs made free on West - Ultra interceptions from NA (Kew), and only about Krigsmarine.
Russian digital archives are free for everyone.

Do you know if any of those sites you mentioned have a translation program that can convert Soviet-Russian documents to English? And do you have any links?

http://podvignaroda.ru
https://pamyat-naroda.ru
https://obd-memorial.ru/html/
Second one is most informative, it contains war diaries. Third one is complete catalogue of all human losses of soviet army during WWII.
This sites have "English" version, but i have no idea how good is translation.

[Ironmachine]

Is your reference to the Robert Wilcox, the journalist who also wrote on the Turin Shroud?

Not a crime if either is the case, but journalists, by the nature of their job, tend to accept lower evidential standards than historians, while the Turin Shroud is up there with UFOs, crop circles, etc., for conspiracy theorists.

Yes, it's that Robert Wilcox. The book on the Turin Shroud was his first published book.
And yes, he is a journalist, although his motivation to study journalism was somewhat peculiar:

Wilcox more recently told CA: "I think my interest in writing stems from being a romantic. I always loved sweeping stories about love and war and so I gravitated to history. Put religion in there too. When I was in grade school, very young, I fulfilled a class show-and-tell assignment by saying I was going to be a novelist when I grew up. I basically forgot that until I got to college. Journalism was the only major offered that did not require a language. Languages had always been tough so I chose it. The choice paid off. I discovered I had some talent in writing so I pursued it. By the time I'd graduated, I knew what I wanted to do. Ironically, I now wish I could speak other languages. Several of my books would have benefited greatly. In addition, understanding other languages is a gateway to knowledge.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educa ... ert-k-1943

[Axel N]

What a boring thread! Please top or use private mail.

[Ironmachine]

If you find this thread boring, why don't you just stop reading it? I was under the impression that nobody here had the obligation to read all the threads.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Ironmachine,

True, but I do see his point, in that this thread is largely about a fiction, because only the Spanish element has any demonstrable factual basis.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Ironmachine]

Hi Sid,

True, and I have no problem with him finding the thread boring, believing it is worthless or thinking it should be closed. In fact, I agree with most of that. It's the part telling other people what they should do that I find troubling.

Regards.