"P.S. There is no author/editor "Ohdruf" in the British Library catalogue, which contains all books ever published in the UK. If you are unable to give your proper name, then this claim is not really admissable here. We can all claim such unverifiable things."Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi Ohdruf,
I have received no PM containing your identity. Moreover, I have not asked for your identity and do not consider it of importance. We are all judged here by the accuracy of what we write. You have offered three sources, none of which actually conforms with what you claimed it contained and it is in this that you appear to be seriously wanting.
As you have failed to answer all bar one of my numerous points about your dubious representation of Schaeffer and Saldanha da Gama, I presume you are in agreement with them.
The only one you have answered is the least significant about, "..me presentó al jefe y comenzó la demostración." "Demostración" of what? Photographs? This is evidence of nothing.
The Brazilians certainly did consider the possibility that Bahia was torpedoed - and dismissed it. But that was not my point. My point was that you were claiming a source as an authority for propositions of yours when it wasn't. You certainly misrepresented the contents. I put it to you that you have never personally seen this source.
The collective position of Brazilian admirals is expressed in Volume V/II of their Historia Naval Brasileira, as cited above. Numerous of them contributed to this and the official version was and is that Bahia was lost in an accident for reasons given. Your contention that Brazilian admirals collectively doubt this conclusion is untrue.
The Bahia was actually engaged in working for the US as a rescue ship on the South Atlantic air bridge and the depthcharges that exploded aboard were of US origin. The USA was therefore involved in the Bahia affair from the start. Furthermore, as they held the two U-boat and their crews prisoner, they were the unavoidable authority on whether it was possible that either had torpedoed the Bahia. They advised not. This is not evidence of untoward US interference, but of the thoroughness of the Brazilian enquiry.
All in one box? Not according to your own quote from Salinas and De Napoli.
Nowhere in my version of Schaeffer's book does he say that conditions were unusually cramped for a submarine. If he does, what does he actually say? All submarines are cramped. It is the nature of submarines. The real problem was not unusual cramping but horrible conditions due to the exceptionally long period submerged.
Secondly, I pointed out to you that the paragraph before and after your selective quotation contains a good explanation as to why conditions were bad aboard, and I invited you to post it here. You have not done so. One reason Schaeffer gives is that because the U-boat did not surface for two months it had to store all its garbage aboard. Does your version not say that?
I see no trace of fast voyage/slow voyage inventiveness by Schaeffer. The positioning description is pretty sparse to concoct one accurate voyage itinerary, let alone two! Remember, the voyage to Argentina takes up only a about quarter of what is a relatively short book in the first place.
You have changed your tune on the Waffen-SS officer and his tour of "some Waffen-SS HQ or other". Now it is a "pantomime". Earlier you were using it as substantive evidence!
What evidence do you have that "Schäffer went to Waffen-SS HQ immediately after his interview with Dönitz"? Funny how this surfaces now!
You write "Schäffer must have been SS or SD himself". What is your evidence for that?
It seems unlikely in the extreme that if Shaeffer really was part of a plan to smuggle secret weapons to Argentina he would even touch on the subject in his publicly available book. It is also unlikely in the extreme that, on a "need to know basis" he would have been told anything about these wonder weapons!
In reply to your last three questions:
1) The cramped and inhospitable conditions on Schaeffer's submarine are explained in his book, in a paragraph I have already directed you to. I ask you again to put it up so that others can read it. If you don't, I will.
2) I don't know. How does "Schäffer say(s) that he was always 1000 miles further south than has been accepted hitherto"? What was the original version and source and what is the new version and source?
3) Who knows why Schaeffer does not say where he was between 10 July and 17 August 1945? He doesn't say where he was in dozens of other five week periods in his book either. Besides, when he was writing, he presumably didn't have access to his own log books, which can't have helped.
Absence of evidence is not evidence. I don't have to to explain where Schaeffer was as I am not disputing his original version. However, YOU do have to provide evidence that he was up to whatever nefarious activity it is you claim he was, if it differs from his original account. So far you haven't.
Cheers,
Sid.
You most certainly did ask for his identity and you did consider it important. Why not ask again for it to be transmitted via PM since the first attempt was not received? Saying that there are no books in the British Library catalog under the obvious pseudonym of "Ohdruf" is like saying there is no author in the Library of Congress named Samuel Clemens; because he published under a different name(s). It's a non sequitur. Instead you, and another, make the insinuation that he's a liar.
I'm amused by the constant use of the term "conspiracy theorists" as a pejorative, especially by those I consider "coincidence theorists". Why is the idea that German submarines could be used for clandestine operations (i.e. "black ops") such an impossibility as you suggested earlier in this thread? American and British submarines certainly were. Let's not forget that U-530 was involved in something of a covert operation a year before the end of the war, around Cape Verde, when they met with Japanese submarine I-52 to transfer radar detection equipment. I-52 was carrying two tons of gold and 3 German technicians when she was caught on the service (U-530 had the sense to submerge) by American aircraft and sunk. U-234 was carrying a Me-262, 1235 pounds of uranium oxide, a Luftwaffe general named Kessler (who told American interrogators he intended to get off the boat in Argentina) and two Japanese officers who committed suicide after the captain of U-234 decided to surrender after Donitz order. Then there was the use of u-boats to drop off German agents on the U.S. east coast 1942-44, and the monsun boats. I think those count as covert ops.
Comparing Captain Schaffer's not saying where he was for 5 weeks after arriving off Argentina to any 5 week period of the war is just incredible. 'I don't have to account for his and his boats' whereabouts because I buy into the official theory despite evidence to the contrary' is circular logic at best. It's dodging the question, where was that boat and what were they doing for 5 weeks off the coast of Argentina, starting 2 months after their government surrendered. That is far more important that who wrote what in some obscure article. You talk of faulty American depth charges sinking the Bahia (was any American ship was ever lost to such a cause?) but fail to mention that four American sailors were on that ship, and were killed. If U-977 torpedoed and sank the Bahia, after being attacked months after the war in Europe ended, then the U.S. would have a reason to intervene with the Brazilians about not concluding it was a submarine attack. Four Americans on a foreign ship initiating an attack on a vessel whose government had surrendered two months before could be a hard sell, not to mention there was still a war against Japan and the planning for Operation Paperclip (originally Overcast) was beginning. Obviously the Americans and British were interested in knowing where his boat was for those 5 weeks, because they didn't buy his 66 day submerged run on extreme slow speed story either; not with all the extra interrogation he got.