Walter_Warlimont wrote:Actually, all you have done is find the loss reports that YOU can find.
No Walter, I have found the loss reports and I have both summarized them and shown YOU where you can find them yourself. You seem to fail to understand that the burden upon you is to show that there are in fact losses that can be shown to be the "missing" ones in the accounting.
I went hunting for the Emile Deschamps & when I find evidence that it actually was the 243rd Vessel lost at Dunkirk, you dismiss it because it doesn't jive with your findings.
There seems to be an intellectiual disconnect here, you seem to think I am disputing that the Emile Deschamps was the last vessel or that I am disputing that many have said it was the "243rd" or the "234th"? Note of course the problematic nature of the basic figures, is it 234 or 243, you can easily "prove" either one if your "proof" is that "someone else said it."
But I am not. I am simply asking why when the records painstakingly account for every vessels loss from steamships up to 8,000 GRT to small landing craft of under 13.5 tons and even fishing vessels as small as 9 GRT
do they somehow miss
the loss of 135 to 144 vessels (in this case even including the blockships sunk, which was a deliberate act)?
For one thing, they cannot
be naval vessels, those are very well accounted for. Nor I think could they be significant civilian merchant vessels, the average
size of those lost was over 1,000 GRT
and I think an additional 135,000 to 144,000 GRT lost might
have been noticed?
So then, what are the alternatives?
1) You can assume that nobody noticed or recorded the loss of an additional 135-144 ships?
2) You can assume that an addtional 135-144 "vessels" were lost, but they were all less signficant than 9 GRT fishing vessels.
3) You can assume that the commonly quoted figures of "135-144" are a misapprehension that includes losses unrelated to the Dunkirk evacuation, for example losses at Boulogne, Calais, Le Havre, Cherbourg, in the Channel, and even possibly in the Narvik evacuation, that were contemporaneous with Dunkirk, but weren't really part of the losses in the evacuation. (This is actually very common and often occurs in historical "overviews".)
4) You can assume that the effect was caused by a combination of 2) and 3), which is rather what I suspect (although I'll continue searching for the exact answer).
5) You can accept without question "234" or "243" since "X, Y, and Z said so
", which is "reasoning" by faith rather than by a critical scientific method. I have several problems with that, but then am an atheistic secular humanist (and also BTW, a Goldwater Republican - few of us left
), so have a problem with all faith-based "reasoning".
I am unsure why you are having a problem understanding these points and their significance?
And not only was it the 243rd Vessel lost in the Dunkirk Evacuation, but it was the Last vessel lost at Dunkirk as well.
I'm not really sure why you think that is so significant? And I could actually ask then, if the Germans recovered a vessel at Dunkirk, and repaired and used it themselves, as they in fact did, and then it was later lost by them, wouldn't that actually be the last vessel lost at Dunkirk?