Michael Kenny wrote:Experience has taught me there is no such thing as 'the final word' on any subject.
But you use this thread on the other website as if it is the final word on this subject. There is a gross inconsistency in this, but it is yours to deal with.
Barkmann is not an area where I can do any research and thus I depend on the work of others.
I can only remark that research into other 'lone uber-panzers holding up an advance' examples has shown me that the truth rarely matched the claims. I was always a sceptic about this Barkmann incident and when it is brought up then I point others to the state of current thinking. Much like I added in the 'current thinking' from another older thread.
I am here for the duration and will probably still be looking in 20 years time.
Recently I found a passing reference to IR equiped Tiger tanks in a highly regarded book. I posted the claim without comment. I hoped for a reply from those who had some insight in that area and it was succesful. I like to run the counter argument first so I am better prepared for the attacks that always follow when you challenge any Uber-Panzer claim. The thread you linked is a perfect example. In it you find 2 posters who used new screen names to mask their real identity, posting history and intentions.
Thank you for sharing something of your personal philosophy and experiences. It seems you are on a quest of some sort, which accounts for your absolute certitude about the accuracy of this thread in your comments on the other website. We all have our petty conceits, so I wish you well in your own special version of windmill tilting.
Look back to the start of this thread and you will note that I 'challenged' Rich on his sources. Not because I thought they were wanting but I knew others would. I can not be bothered to run a Google search on you.
It is my firm impression that Rich is a well-read, articulate, and intelligent person who requires no special assistance in making his points, and has no need for the collaboration of others here to support his arguments. He is more than qualified to do these things for himself.
I think closing off any alternate scenarios will help us arrive at a reasonably well informed conclusion. Excluding 3 possibilities out of say 6 is not a tail chasing exercise.
How can you arrive at a "reasonably well informed conclusion" about an alleged event that appears to have no foundation in primary sources? The answer is simple,... you cannot. For example, there appears in this thread a near absolute conviction as to the date of the alleged event. So much so, that there is a tendecy to dismiss any other dates of immediate interest. However, this date is based on secondary reporting, and not a primary source. Again, how can you be so certain that the alleged date is the right one without a foundation in primary sources? For that matter, how can you be so sure that the seconday reporting has the right location of Barkmann's alleged Corner? Again, you can not.
Far too much effort has been wasted on this little spat.
I withdraw and leave the field to you.
The amount of effort that has been "wasted" on this aspect of the discussion, pales in comparison to that expended by you and others, here (including me) and elsewhere, in debating an alleged event that is entirely without the support of a primary source.