DS reversed photo theory and battle maps comparison

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3192
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

DS reversed photo theory and battle maps comparison

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:03 pm

Ciao all,

with this post my intent is to provide an unique link to this subject were all the arguments connected to Mr. R. ( Bob ) Winklareth reversed photo theory can be addressed and analyzed.

In order to do it I have prepared with Bob Winklareth 2 battle maps based on the Prinz Eugen original battle map so everybody can see and compare them sharing opinions and comments.

http://hmshood.com/denmarkstrait/pgbattlemap.gif

Please avoid to open additional posts about part of this same subject or we will run again the risk to loose focus on the subject and confuse new readers.

This said lets move on the 2 maps.

Here my re-constructed one ( Antonio Bonomi ) that is basically the historically traditional one since 64 years :

Image

and

Here is the translation of Robert ( Bob) Winklareth book into a battle map to show the reversed photo theory one :

Image

Lets have an analitical and pragmatic educated discussion never forgetting that at the end we must respect everybody opinion.

Thanks again for keeping all the future post's here in :D .

Ciao Antonio :D

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 818
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Postby José M. Rico » Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:59 pm

From now on, all discussions regarding reversed battle photographs taken during the battle of the Denmark Strait should be posted here.

DO NOT START NEW THREADS ON THIS SUBJECT.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3192
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

DS battle

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:52 pm

Ciao Bob and all,

as asked I am continuing to write on this subject from now on ONLY on this post.

So referencing this one too :

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... =1224#1224

I am only starting now instead of boiling the ocean and be too generic to cut down to pragmatic analitical comparisons only, piece by piece and detail by detail.

Still I find at least strange from Bob Winklareth to sustain that book's that do have inside battle maps with my traditional view of the battle and the figure 8 togheter with correctly printed photos with exact captions supports his version of the battle that is just saying the opposite.

But been this too evident as an incorrect statement I leave to the readers all the evaluations about it.

Now I will start th ereal comparison of the 2 maps with clear references were on Mr. Winklareth one there are impossible situation to be according to Official evidences available.

So no generic statements now please, just be pragmatic and analitical, agree or disagree, and why.


So lets start with the first 3 questions to you :

1) Do you agree that between 06.01 and 30 seconds and 06.03 and 30 seconds ( so for 2 minutes ) Prinz Eugen commander Kpt H. Brinkmann ordered twice to his Torpedo Officer Ltnt Reimann to lauch torpedoes against HMS Prince of Wales ?
This occurence is well reported into Official German documents as well as into PG war diary.

Can you explain how come into your map there is Bismarck between Prinz Eugen and HMS PoW on that moment and consequently into the torpedo firelane if those were launched.

Surely Brinkmann did not wanted to sink the Bismarck and Reimann not lanching the torpedoes never explained to KM senior officers that he did not launch because of Bismarck presence as it should have been if that was the case.
Bismarck was not there as you sustain and Reimann said he did not launch because he was too far and evaluated badly the distances.

Everything is written on official documents for you to read.

So please explain us how come Bismarck was there for you.

2) Do you agree that Prinz Eugen commander Kpt H. Brinkmann released at 06.03 a Torpedo ALARM to Bismarck as reported into the Official German documents like the PG war diary as well as showed on the PG battle map.

3) Do you agree about what Jasper wrote that Prinz Eugen never overshoot Bismarck and kept on firing during the 3 avoidance manoeuvres, been ordered after those ( so after 06.07 for sure ) not to overshoot the Bismarck ( at 06.08 ) and ceasing fire at 06.09.

Your map does not support that as according to you Bismarck will be overshooted by Prinz Eugen firing toward HMS PoW starting at 06.04 at least if not even before.

Can you explain.


As you can see only 3 questions, very precise and easy to answer.

Thanks for the cooperation.

By the way, if you do not like the post title, just suggest me one, I will change it as to me it is not so important.

Ciao Antonio :D

Robert J. Winklareth
-
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Woodbridge, VA USA
Contact:

Postby Robert J. Winklareth » Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:39 pm

Hi all,

I strongly protest the characterization of my concept of the battle as the "Reversed Photo Theory." My concept of the battle is that the Bismarck maintained a steady straight-line course of 215 degrees and was always on the port side of the Prinz Eugen throughout the battle. Antonio's reconstruction, on the other hand, has the Bismarck on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen for much of Phase II of the battle.

My concept of the battle is supported by no less than six different first-hand accounts by eyewitnesses on the scene and published in official reports, such as the Prinz Eugen Logbook (War Diary), or biographical works. My concept of the battle is also supported by battle diagrams prepared by the foremost German naval historians of the time, including Schmalenbach, Elfrath & Herzog, and Koop & Schmolke, and endorsed by the Baron himself.

My concept of the battle has been endorsed by Sir Ludovik Kennedy, Prof. Dr. Jurgen Rohwer, the German Office of Military History Research, Robert Gardiner of Chatham Publishing, and the Editorial Staff of the U.S. Naval Institute Press. My concept of the battle is consistent with five official photographs all showing the Bismarck on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during the battle. One such photograph even shows the Bismarck passing the Prinz Eugen off the port beam of the cruiser.

The six photographs that I claim were printed in reverse are only a very small part of the documentary evidence supporting my case, which would stand on solid ground even without those six photographs. In view of the highly controversial nature of the reversed photographs, the characterization of those photographs as being the essence of my concept of the battle is prejudicial to my case, as Antonio fully well knows.

I am somewhat surprised that Jose would allow himself to be manipulated by Antonio in such a way. To prohibit the posting of any material associated with the battle under new threads is unprecedented. When I tried to maintain the integrity of certain topics, my pleas were totally ignored by Antonio and others. Just look at my posting under "Official Version of Battle?" which resulted in over 100 postings on a wide variety of unrelated issues.

I hope that you don't expect me to participate in an exercise where the cards are stacked against me.

Bob

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 818
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Postby José M. Rico » Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:22 pm

Bob, if you are not happy with the "characterization" of your concept of the battle as the "Reversed Photo Theory" then please suggest something else. What about something as simple as "Winklareth battle concept"? Just let me know, it is not a big deal.

What I think it is unprecedented is to monopolize the use a history forum that covers a considerable period of time discussing the events that happened during the short lapse of 15 minutes over and over posting the same threads again and again. I don't see why a single thread could not offer you enough room to discuss this subject. Moreover, I think this thread including for the first time ever a battle map depicting more or less your "Reversed Photo Theory" (sorry for using that characterization again), offers everyone the opportunity to visualize your thoughts. Like Bill Jurens said once: "In this case a picture may well be worth considerably more than a thousand words".

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3192
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

DS battle

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:05 am

Ciao Jose, Bob and all,

I am OK with any change on the post title, it is not so important as Jose' said.

If Bob does not feel satisfied we should change it.

I do not agree with the rest of the statement Bob is listing as nothing supports his theory that he himself always called the reversal theory.

When I first saw it 2 years ago I continued on calling it that way because it was only based on that.

Now I read that everything supports his theory and this is a new discovery for me, but if he wants to beleive on that ,... be it.

I have never read anywere that Bismarck surpassed to port Prinz Eugen neither I have seen anywere the 6 photos printed reversed,.. only in Bob Winklareth book or material.

All the rest of the Books/documents do not mention directly or are very vague about the exact Bismarck positioning on that moment.
But in all of them when it is the moment to show battle maps or photos they mainly show the traditional theory map I have re-constructed and all of them do show the photos printed correctly and with good irrefutable captions saying Bismarck was to starboard.

The only one that do provide Bismarck position after HMS Hood was sunk in writings ( as the other did not felt the need to do it assuming nobody was going to reverse the 6 photos 60 years after ) is F.O. Busch.

F.O. Busch wrote Bismarck was to STARBOARD slightly astern of Prinz Eugen, just like PG film clip shows.

F.O. Busch was a direct eyewitness of the event from Prinz Eugen main tower observation platform been a retired Navy Officer and a war reporter of Propaganda Krieg ( PK ) organization.

Additionally Capt Leach ( PoW commander ) said Bismarck turned away ( so to starboard ) apparently at 06.03 when PoW did too, and 2 HMS PoW battle maps clearly show that occurrence as well.
This is not debatable, .. those are well proven facts.

It is also a fact that the 3 main websites covering Bismarck / Hood all show the traditional version of the battle I have re-constructed and post the photos printed correctly.

All TV documentaries I have seen were Bismarck eyewitnesses were present when alive ( Baron, Schmalenbach etc, etc ) only show the PG film and the photos in the correct orientation like I am doing.

So Bob statements above are very debatable to say the least.

But again, I do not want to restart an useless discussion about general concepts and theory, I have made 3 questions to Bob very precise and according to the 2 maps that we agreed should be used for comparison pourposes to explain and evaluate the differences.

So Bob please let Jose' know which title you like better and forget about the generic concepts, I know we have very different opinions.

Please respond to my 3 questions and if you have some on my maps please go ahead yourself.
I have responded to a very long list of questions made by you recently.

From now on, as agreed, I will only cover those detailed comparisons using Official documentation to prove things, the time of generic statements is over, now the maps are there and you have to respond about what you have cretated and we will see if it is based on such a solid ground as you sustain or if it is impossible like I am ready to prove.

We agreed to have a fair, pragmatic and analitical discussion with no more fights and a very polite and educated wording, responding each other using the official documents to prove things.
I am fully respecting my commitments, I am sure you will do the same.

So what I need are 3 responses, agree or disagree and why.

Please let have a very constructive discussion, fully respecting each others and the forum readers.

Ciao Antonio :D

George Elder
-
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:23 pm

Let's not get lost in Names...

Postby George Elder » Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:39 pm

Hi Rob:

Please call the map whatever you like, but I think it does reflect your position on the battle. As for the cards being stacked against you, I have tried to remain in the middle. That being said, I certainly do not find the appeals to those who support your rendition very convincing because they may not have had access to some of the information that has come to light within the last year. Similarly, I would not find any expert support for Antonio's proposals convincing unless it is supported by reasons. Indeed, it is the reasons why support is offered that matters. What is it about a certain proposal that has merrit, and why should we reject another approach?
In this light, I have a question that comes to mind regarding your proposed map. Why would the PE assume the heading you portray relative to the Bismark and the known position of the enemy? What tactical reason would drive this course decision?

George

Robert J. Winklareth
-
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Woodbridge, VA USA
Contact:

Postby Robert J. Winklareth » Thu Apr 07, 2005 8:29 pm

Hi all,

I thought that I had made it abundantly clear some time ago that I would no longer participate in Antonio's innate games involving endless discussions on a multitude of minor issues concerning the Battle of the Denmark Strait. We have already been down that path, which only resulted in a total waste of time and nothing being accomplished. Enough is enough.

I don't have the time to respond to every bit of minutia that Antonio dredges up to divert attention from his failure to respond fully to the basic issues at hand. I have avoided addressing Antonio directly for the last year or two, preferring to present my case to the forum as a whole for open discussion among all members. I suggest that Antonio do likewise to avoid any direct confrontation between the two of us and preserve the tranquility of the forum.

On 6 February, I posted a summary of the evidence and facts that support my case, and I invited all who had contrary views to present their case as well for the consideration of the entire forum. In that and subsequent postings, I quoted the exact words of eyewitnesses at the scene in their first-hand accounts of the battle as presented in official documents, such as the Prinz Eugen Logbook (War Diary) and Air Ministry Report AIR14/415, and in personal autobiographies, such as the books by the Baron and Fritz Otto Busch.

I cited battle diagrams, such as Schmalenbach's original map of the battle, which conforms to his observations and was adopted by the Baron for use in the latest English and German versions of his book, and the diagrams in the books by Elfrath & Herzog and Koop & Schmolke. All of these diagrams portray the Bismarck on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle.

My concept of the battle has been endorsed by Sir Ludovic Kennedy, Prof. Dr. Jurgen Rohwer, the German Office of Military History Research, Robert Gardiner of Chatham Publishing, and the Editorial Staff of the U.S. Naval Institute Press. On the other hand, what has Antonio been able to present to support his reconstruction of the battle, beyond of course the six photographs that had inadvertently been printed in reverse and the Admiral Schmundt Report.

If Antonio has any points to make in regard to the three questions he posed in his last submission, he is free to address those under "Battle Reconstruction," which I have set up for a discussion of Antonio's version of the battle. That way the entire forum can evaluate his position and decide for themselves on the merit of his argument. If I have anything to add, I will do so at the time, but not at the command of Antonius.

Antonia has been trying to avoid coming to grips with the overwhelming evidence that totally refutes his reconstruction and favors my concept of the battle. At first, he suggested going "off-line" to discuss the issues with me personally, but in view of past experience, I saw nothing that could possible come from this approach, so I rejected it. You can see for yourselves his totally negative response to everything I posted, even on first-hand accounts of the battle.

Now Antonio and his cabal have conjured up still another scheme to thwart our quest for the truth by posing a multitude of questions on every little detail of the battle. His game plan, which he used before, is quite simple. If I accede to Antonio's demands to answer his questions, I will become hopelessly bogged down and will no longer be effective in resisting the efforts to corrupt the annals of naval history with false versions of the battle. If I don't respond, he will try to use that to discredit me on that basis, as he has done before.

The last time Antonio pulled that trick, he dumped seven questions on me at one time, after I had agreed to respond to only one question at a time. He then demanded an almost immediate response to all seven questions. When I refused to jump at his command, he undertook a campaign to smear me by calling me a "coward" even though I eventually did respond to all of his queries. As late as 2 March, 2005, Antonio posted the following remark: "I am used to seeing Mr. Winklareth intentionally ignoring my responses when they prove him wrong." A nice way for Antonio to start a "cooperative" effort, don't you think?

Antonio now reduced the number of questions to only three in an obvious effort to entice me to jump for the bait. But what's the rush? In the end, the truth will prevail despite determined efforts to thwart honest attempts to seek the truth for whatever reason. One question at a time would to enable us all to focus our full attention on that single issue instead of going down multiple paths at the same time. If, however, the intent is to generate confusion, then that's the way to go.

It is not that the questions raised by Antonio are without merit, for they are certainly issues that need to be considered. Indeed, all of the remaining inconsistencies need to be addressed, even the one raised by Vic and myself regarding the final salvos of the Prince of Wales. There are literally dozens of little pieces of information that just don't quite fit in with either Antonio's reconstruction or my own concept of the battle as yet, and eventually they need to be sorted out one by one.

But first, we must resolve the basic issues so that we can tackle those other inconsistencies from a common ground. I would be most happy to participate in any general discussion by the forum as a whole on the points raised by Antonio, myself, and other members of the forum after the basic issues have been resolved. Let's get back to the first-hand accounts of eyewitnesses on the scene, which Antonio so quaintly dismisses as mere "generic statements." Is that what Antonio really believes those eyewitness accounts of the battle really are? Truly amazing! No wonder that Antonio's reconstruction has such little substance.

I believe that the entire forum is entitled to know what Antonio's exact position is on the evidence and facts as presented in my "Summation of the Battle" two months ago. Specifically:

a. Does Antonio agree that the Baron's account of the battle in his book "Battleship Bismarck" accurately reflects the events that actually occurred, or does Antonio have credible evidence that the Baron's account of the battle is false?

b. Does Antonio agree that Captain Brinkmann's account of the battle in the Prinz Eugen War Diary accurately reflects the events that actually occurred, or does Antonio have credible evidence that Brinkmann's account of the battle is false?

c. Does Antonio agree the Jasper's observations during the battle, as contained in the Prinz Eugen War Diary, prove that the Bismarck was coming up on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle, or does Antonio have credible evidence to the contrary?

d. Does Antonio agree that Schmalenbach's observations during the battle, as contained in the Prinz Eugen War Diary, prove that the Bismarck was coming up on the port side of the Ptrinz Eugen during Phase Ii of the battle, or does Antonio have credible evidence to the contrary?

e. Does Antonio agree that Busch's accoiunt of the battle in the book "Prinz Eugen im ersten Gefecht" accurately reflects the events that actually occurred, or does Antonio have credible evidence that Busch's account of the battle is false?

f. Does Antonio agree that Lieutenant Vaughn's description of the battle in Air Ministry AIR14/415 accurately reflects the events that actually occurred, or does Antonio have credible evidence that Vaughn's account of the battle is false?

g. Does Antonio agree that Schmalenbach's original battle diagram, as published in Warship Profile 6, shows the Bismarck on the port side of the Bismarck during Phase II of the battle in conformance with his observations during the battle, or does Antonio have credible evidence to the contrary?

h. Does Antonio agree that the battle diagrams published in the books by Elfrath & Herzog and Koop & Schmolke show the Bismarck on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle, or does Antonio have credible evidence to the contrary?

i. Does Antonio agree that the photograph of the starboard side of the Bismarck shows the Bismarck passing the Prinz Eugen off the port beam of the cruiser, or does Antonio have credible evidence to the contrary?

j. Does Antonio agree that the six photographs showing the Bismarck on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen were printed in reverse, or does Antonio have credible evidence to the contrary.

k. Who does Antonio believe is responsible for initially placing the Prinz Eugen in the line of battle, Captain Brinkmann or Admiral Lutjens?

l. Who does Antonio believe is responsible for the Prinz Eugen not being on the lee side of fire during Phase II of the battle, Captain Brinkmann of Admiral Lutjens?


To clear the air of any lingering suspicions and doubts of sincerity, Antonio might want to consider atoning for his past transgressions by:

a. Apologizing to John Asmussen for the many attacks and threats that Antonio directed against John over the past two years.

b. Apologizing for calling me a "coward" and accusing me of "intentionally ignoring (my) responses."

c. Apologizing for referring to my postings as "inventions," "fantasies." "imaginations," and even "lies."

d. Apologizing for initially saying that I was "sneaky" in seeking the advice of other members of the forum on certain issues and then trying to monopolize and manipulate the forum when he realized that he could use it to his own advantage.

e. Apologizing to other members of the forum whom he attacked for merely expressing views contrary to his own.

Bob

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3192
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

DS battle

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:38 pm

Ciao Bob and all,

I am really not surprised by your reaction but as I said no more fight from my side.

Here your answers, much faster and educated than your ones that I am still waiting for despite your long post.

As said, pragmatic, educated and analytical comparison on the battle maps using the evidences.

Forget the fight and the past.

a) I agree.
The Baron book is correct and proves you wrong with battle map and photo captions.
Photos and battle map are according to my re-construction, please verify.

b) I agree.
Brinkmann battle reports are all correct and well reflect my work.
His signature on the prints is one of my favourite and proves you irrefutably wrong.
More specifically do you mind to explain the Brinkmann order to launch torpedo to Reimann as I have asked you with my question 1.
Do you mind to agree about Brinkmann releasing 3 Torpedo ALARM starting at 06.03, it is my question 2.

c) I disagree.
Your written statements are not correct and do not reflect the report.
Jasper report is perfect and irrefutably proves you wrong once again.
More specifically do you mind to explain the overshooting of Bismarck you have created and Jasper clearly explained never happened, it is my question 3.

d) I disagree.
Your written statements are not correct and do not reflect the report.
Schmalenbach never wrote Bismarck was surpassing to port and never showed photo reversed.

e) I strongly agree.
F.O. Busch clearly wrote Bismarck was to starboard and your theory is wrong consequently.

f) I agree.
That report provide a good estimation of were Bismarck was at 06.03, been second in the line of battle following Prinz Eugen while firing at the retreating HMS PoW.
Go and read it,.. you are wrong again.

g) YES and that is a wrong map.
Schmalenbach produced many different map versions and surely all but one are wrong of course.
The best and more correct one is the one he shared with the Baron book as he even wrote on it that was done after a careful analysis of photos and PG film, go and check it.
He did what you appear to be unable to do doing that.
It is a simple version of my re-construction.

h) YES, and those are other wrong maps.
Like many out there, including your one that is different from the above.
That is why I have made my work.

i) This is my favourite.
Nh 69730 is the ''Flash effect photo''.
This is your '' killer '' as that photo do have inside the Prinz Eugen wake that do prove Bismarck was to starboard and just coming for the re-cross.
Go check it out.


j) I strongly, totally disagree.
I have full evidences of the contrary.
Irrefutable evidences like Bismarck mechanical details, but you appear not to know Bismarck structure well enough to understand it.

k) It was a clear Adm Lutjens order to engage Hood at 05.55.

l) None of them.
They were caught by surprise on that formation with Bismarck around 2000 meters back to Prinz Eugen as photo Nh 69722 shows.

Additionally :

I already apologized all the things you asked time ago, but in case off need I do it again now with no problems.

Now it appears it is your turn to do it my friend.

Closing, can you please take the time and kindly respond to my 3 questions, I am still waiting.

Thanks in advance.

Ciao Antonio :D

George Elder
-
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:23 pm

On repetition...

Postby George Elder » Fri Apr 08, 2005 2:27 pm

Hi All:

As I have said to all concerned, appeals to authority are of little use here. I thus discount the views of Sir Ludovic Kennedy, Prof. Dr. Jurgen Rohwer, the German Office of Military History Research, Robert Gardiner of Chatham Publishing, and the Editorial Staff of the U.S. Naval Institute Press because they did not have access to all the information that has come to light since Rob's book was written. These views were generated in a relative vacuum when compared with what has transpired during the last few years of work.
With regard to this need for others to apologize -- what the heck does that have to do with the present exercise? Antonio is using ample restraint in his presentations here, and what possible good can his words have in healing old wounds? The goal is to move on and finish this exercise.
And Rob, it seems to me that you are not all that willing to work toward a resolution. If you were, why continue dredging up the past, old insults, etc., etc.? So while you don't have time to respond to Antonio's "minutia," you do have time to repeat the same things we have heard for two or three years. I think Antonio has asked some good questions, and a few direct answers would be welcome.

George

Bill Jurens
Supporter
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Appeals to authority...

Postby Bill Jurens » Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:30 am

I'd respectfully disagree with George regarding his contention that a lot of new material has come to light since the publication of 'The Bismarck Chase". In reality, most or all of this stuff has long been available to serious researchers. The POW salvo plot, and the Prinz Eugen track charts, for example -- which many on the internet considereded to be major revelations -- have been "out there" and sitting in various file cabinets (including my own) since about 1975. Even elementary research would (or should) have revealed it.

And that's really the point...

Even a cursory examination by anyone with real research credentials and experience in this area -- I personally know three or four people who would fall into this category -- would have revealed that the author, though well-intentioned and enthusiastic -- had in fact done virtually no primary source research at all. Personally, I would have immediately rejected the manuscript with a request that the author go back, do his 'homework', and re-submit again. I was, frankly, flat-out astounded that material so poorly supported by primary source material had been allowed to reach print, clearly without any anticipation that even a cursory examination of primary source records would reveal fairly serious difficulties with the thesis put forward. The ballistics material would not pass muster in a high-school physics course, and should have been re-written by an expert -- there are plenty of them out there -- or edited under the supervision of one. The difficulties with the tactical maneuvers -- such as those expressed by individuals such as Mr. Bonomi -- should have been anticipated and clearly discussed in the original text, not long after the fact as is happening now. Who, on the editorial staff, played 'Devil's advocate?'.

Sadly, the oft-quoted list of 'experts' in support of the Winklareth theory is, in reality, more apparent than real. Clearly the editorial staff of the publishers were, at least in this case, far from 'expert' in going over the material that was presented to them. A glance at Amazon.com makes it clear that Robert Gardiner, a talented and respected researcher to be sure, specializes in pre-steam technology, not in World War II battle tactics. Dr. Rohwer is a respected historian but, as I understand it, has a primary interest and expertise in WWII German submarine operations. And Ludovic Kennedy is, in reality, a gifted journalist not a naval historian per se. Developing and supporting the Winklareth theory required not historians and journalists, but experts in photogrammetry, WWII archival sources in both Britain and Germany, WWII naval tactics, and (at least elementary) ballistics. Clearly, these were never consulted. And they're not that hard to find...


Although I must admit that I do find Mr. Winklareth's relentless insistence on attempting to prove 'after the fact' that his theory was correct anyhow, a bit tedious, I cannot and will not hold him directly responsible for the confusion that the publication of 'The Bismarck Chase' has caused -- and probably will continue to cause -- into the forseeable future. As I have said before, the failure here, lies, regretfully, with one or more of the editors that approved sending such poorly researched material into print. It is the editor's job to ensure that the author does not embarass himself and/or lessen the reputation of the publisher. In this case, one or more of these individuals failed.

"The Bismarck Chase' (had it survived the course of careful editorial scrutiny) could have been a great book. Unfortunately, instead of representing a step forward in naval history, it represents a distinct step back. And, an unnecessary one...

Bill Jurens.

George Elder
-
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:23 pm

Some new "old" things have surfaced...

Postby George Elder » Sat Apr 09, 2005 7:15 am

... in recent years that shed light on what happened -- such as the exploration of the wreck to locate torpedo damage, etc.. That was not available a long time ago, and it certainly was revealing. Moreover, having worked translating the Bismarck KTB -- that added a few insights to those researchers who are not blessed with German speaking skills.
That being said, I note several texts are in print on naval issues that show little more consultation with primary source material than did Rob's work. Indeed, some have no bib's to speak of, let alone notes. Bill may be correct in heaping the filtering burdon on the editors, and I have ample experience dealing with those folks. Many do not have the background needed to make detailed content judgments, but most should be aware of what needs support by way of a source or two. That is the problem here.
Of course, we are holding this book to an academic standard, and by that measure -- Friedman might be one of the only popular book authors I know who could satisfy some of the standards expected of high-level scholars. The guidelines are very specific, and it would take such an approach, perhaps, to deal with this subject the way it should be. But what we are talking about is a text that is quite different than 80-90% of what the NIP publishes. So I would maintain that Rob's book deserves no more damnation than does a number of others.

George

Randy Stone
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: The Left Coast

I agree with the major points you have made Bill although...

Postby Randy Stone » Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:26 pm

...perhaps, not with precisely the same emphasis.

The first thing I find interesting is this carping about labeling this thread about reversed photographs. Of course, Mr. Winklareth is certainly entitled to request another title for this thread. But this is most interesting given the fact that it was Mr. Winklareth himself who, in his work, “The Bismarck Chase,” page 115, postulated that – and I quote – “...previous sources have printed photography taken from Prinz Eugen in reverse...” from which he concluded (pages 115-116) “...Bismarck followed a straight course while engaging the Hood and Prince of Wales...contradict(ing) some earlier accounts...” and that “...Bismarck always kept Prinz Eugen on her starboard side, where the cruiser would be protected against enemy fire....”

Mr. Winklareth now expresses the sentiment in this thread that, “In view of the highly controversial nature of the reversed photographs, the characterization of those photographs as being the essence of my concept of the battle is prejudicial to my case...(Tue Apr 05, 2005 5:39 pm)

Yet, in reviewing his own text, his entire case is founded upon these very photographs having been printed – so he writes – in reverse. Obviously, Mr. Winklareth is repudiating – whether he realizes it or not – precisely what he himself wrote, in his own “The Bismarck Chase,” by declaring that characterizing these photographs as reversed is “...prejudicial...” to his case. Well, of course it’s prejudicial and shockingly so. As you pointed out Bill – how all this got by various editors – is truly amazing. The red flags should have been everywhere on this one; or, if they were, they were obviously ignored.

Incidentally, Bill, I have always retained within easy reach a copy – it’s yellowed now with age – of an article found in your own journal, 'Warship International'. It is entitled ‘Sources and the Author,’ by Gene Zimmerman and was published by in the Number 4, 1975 issue of the Journal. It has been an article which I have used and recommended for years for the succinct observations it makes within a mere 5 pages (pp333-337). It is highly unfortunate that Mr. Winklareth did not have access to this primer or something similar; it could have saved him from the position in which he now finds himself.

In any event, I agree that, in its present form, “The Bismarck Chase,” should have never seen the light of day. As you pointed out, “...a cursory examination by anyone with real research credentials and experience in this area...would have revealed that the author...had in fact done virtually no primary source research at all...” I believe, in fact, that virtually anyone could have seen this by examining the bibliography – such as it is – of this volume. Of course, numerous individuals have questioned the author’s version of events, which attests to the conclusion that his version of events makes no sense, given the facts at hand.

I originally purchased “The Bismarck Chase” from the Naval Institute Press on December 18, 2000 (yes, I have the original receipt). Upon reading it, my initial impression was one of incredulity. Again, as you put it, it was “...astound(ing) that material so poorly supported by primary source material had been allowed to reach print, clearly without any anticipation that even a cursory examination of primary source records would reveal fairly serious difficulties with the thesis put forward.” The fact of the matter is that no primary source material appears to be ever been consulted, much less referenced.

Not believing what I was reading – in the total sense of the phrase – I immediately consulted other sources within immediate reach, thinking perhaps I had missed something all these years – and then followed up with a thorough review of the author’s bibliography. This exercise revealed extremely serious shortcomings with the author’s grasp of the circumstances of the action. I then asked another individual, who is quite conversant with Bismarck, to review the text. Sad to say, he quite literally laughed at the book; this is not intended as some sort of slur against the author but a truthful statement of precisely what this individual saw in the text of “The Bismarck Chase.”

While I do not particularly share your criticism of the ballistics material – and this may reflect my relative disinterest in the topic – I most certainly agree that there are enormous “...difficulties with the tactical maneuvers...” such as to suggest a complete misunderstanding of naval tactics in general, not to mention a specific misunderstanding of what actually transpired on that fateful morning in the Denmark Strait. In fact, looking to the bibliography – anemic as it is – I was struck by the fact that the author (and his editors, by the way) obviously failed to notice the remarks found in Grenfell’s “The Bismarck Episode” (page 56) which alluded to Schmundt’s Report. That passage should have alerted both the author and his editors to certain facts which, as you pointed out, should have been addressed at that time, namely within his book. That these facts were not addressed now finds the author – long after the fact – attempting to explain matters. Not good.

As for that “...oft-quoted list of ‘experts’...” I am again in agreement with you. Absent any particular and specific comments made by these individuals – which the author has previously refused to forward – we are left with...nothing. Additionally, while you have correctly pointed out that the expertise of these ‘experts’ is somewhat removed from the matters under discussion, I find it more revealing that their comments are denied to us entirely, why ? But what can a series of questionable ‘endorsements’ mean if a work is based upon so little documentation ?

However, one major point where I find myself in disagreement with you concerns the responsibility for this sad course of events. You have, correctly, pointed out how an editor is obliged to ‘steer’ an author in such a manner as to avoid embarassment either to the author or to the publishing house. Clearly this did not occur in this case and as a result there has been a great deal of...debate, to put it mildly. Where I differ with you here is in my opinion that the author clearly bears enormous responsibility for his work – editor or no editor. The first level of productive and successful research lies with the author; the ability to manage an adequate and thorough grounding in the subject again lies with the author who then approaches the editor with a working copy. Now I do not know the precise details of what transpired here between Mr. Winklareth, the various ‘experts’ and his so-called editors...but adequate research and review of his manuscript certainly never occurred – that much is obvious.

I can say, with my experience and knowledge of the US Naval Institute, that their standards and/or abilities had unfortunately declined during the late ‘90’s. In fact, I had cancelled my subscription to their ‘Naval History’ magazine during this time when it became obvious that editorial oversight was failing its task. A perusal of the Editorial Board will reveal the turmoil occurring at this time (these records, which are easily available, can be dug out of my garage with only a ‘little’ trouble) and the fact of the matter is that Paul Stillwell – a former top editor at the Institute – would ‘no way, no how’ ever have allowed such a manuscript as “The Bismarck Chase” to proceed without significant revision and alteration. Of that I am certain although this situation of poor editorial oversight at the Naval Institute has fortunately been recognized and corrective measures have been implemented. Unfortunately, the damage is such as will likely take years to repair.

With regard to your comments George, I have – given a cursory and certainly less than exhaustive perusal – at least 150 titles published under the banner of the US Naval Institute, and some 50 or more distributed by them. Clearly I have never seen a volume quite as devoid of source material or accuracy as “The Bismarck Chase,” published – I'll point out – during the late ‘90’s. And this is particularly important in view of the fact that the author proposed an upending of the historical record as to what transpired during the Battle of the Denmark Strait – one would have expected such a revision of history to have provided an exhaustive and detailed exposition of the facts supporting the author’s case. Unfortunately, this never occurred; and that being the case, I was forced to condemn “The Bismarck Chase” as a poorly researched and deeply flawed work. I regret this conclusion but it is, unfortunately, inescapable. Like Frank Allen of the HMS Hood Site – as well as many others – I otherwise have had little to do with this issue. Had Mr. Winklareth subjected his manuscript to review before publication at a site like this, perhaps he could have been convinced of a folly which could have been avoided.

In addition, contrary to your observation, I do not share your opinion that a fresh look at Bismarck requires an academic work within strict guidelines – whatever that is supposed to mean – other than clear and concise writing supported (in whatever form the author, hopefully Antonio Bonomi, deems appropriate) by the requisite primary and secondary literature available. I would refer you to a brief comment in the article cited above, ‘Sources and the Author,” page 334, paragraphs 3 and 4, which addresses the standards within which a subject can be adequately documented and written. The accuracy of the piece is what counts and the sourcing, while useful needn’t inundate the reader where citations or footnoting crowd out an accurate and readable text. Again, referring to the methods used for citation or reference by John Lundstrom and Richard Frank, in their respective works – even topics as complex and wide ranging as these two fine authors have tackled – needn’t be difficult or cumbersome, which is how some academic papers present themselves.

Certainly the Naval Institute has, over the years, provided a good number of titles which meet or exceed these standards. I would submit that the works of Lundstrom, Messimer, Crenshaw, Roscoe, Friedman and Polmar and many, many others are illustrative of what is normally the quality of work published by the Institute; these authors provide excellent examples of how a fresh volume concerning Bismarck could be structured, written and supported. In that regard, Jon Parshall has recently noted that his new volume on Midway, “Shattered Sword,” co-authored with Tony Tully, was structured with the goal of reaching a greater portion of the readership with a serviceable work. Likewise, Richard Frank, with his superb work, “Guadalcanal,” has demonstrated how an authoritative history can be written and supported, enjoy the ready access of a wide readership and come to be regarded as a sterling and popular work on the topic.

I encourage and support such work and take it to be a worthy manner to follow.

Randy

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3192
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

DS battle maps comparison

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Tue Apr 12, 2005 2:09 pm

Ciao all,

to George, Bill, Vic and Randy :

I thank you for the clear analysis made on the book ‘’ The Bismarck chase ‘’ written by Mr. Winklareth.
I agree with all your above statements.

I would like anyway to be as fair as I can just as I committed to everybody including Bob Winklareth and still allow him to answer to my clearly posted questions and explain himself and his theory consequently.

In addittion I would like to make clear that this is from my side the last offer to him to show cooperation and fairness on resolving this debate that according to what we have and understand now can be closed with no problems.

to Bob :

Having made clear the above points I renew to you my invitation to respond to the first set of 3 questions I have made about your map and theory :

1) First question on the Prinz Eugen failed torpedo attack to HMS PoW

Do you agree that between 06.01 and 30 seconds and 06.03 and 30 seconds ( so for 2 minutes ) Prinz Eugen commander Kpt H. Brinkmann ordered twice to his Torpedo Officer Ltnt Reimann to lauch torpedoes against HMS Prince of Wales ?
This occurence is well reported into Official German documents as well as into PG war diary.

Can you explain how come into your map there is Bismarck between Prinz Eugen and HMS PoW on that moment and consequently into the torpedo firelane if those were launched.

Surely Brinkmann did not wanted to sink the Bismarck and Reimann not lanching the torpedoes never explained to KM senior officers that he did not launch because of Bismarck presence as it should have been if that was the case.
Bismarck was not there as you sustain and Reimann said he did not launch because he was too far and evaluated badly the distances.

Everything is written on German official documents for you to read here in written on clear words :

http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/pg002.html

So please explain us how come Bismarck was there for you.

2) Second question on the potential British Torpedo ALARM issued by Kpt Brinkmann from Prinz Eugen at 06.03

Do you agree that Prinz Eugen commander Kpt H. Brinkmann released at 06.03 a Torpedo ALARM to Bismarck as reported into the Official German documents like the PG war diary as well as showed on the PG battle map.

Here Prinz Eugen war Diary extract were you can find the evidences :

0603, 0606, 0607, 0614 / 0603-0614 hours-

weicht das Schiff drei Torpedolaufbahnen aus, deren Geräusche vom Horchraum laufend gemeldet worden sind und es gelingt, sie alle auszumanöverieren. Die Herkunft der Torpedos kann nicht einwandfrei festgestellt werden, zumal Flugzeuge in der Nähe waren. Bei der Lage und Entfernung können es nur Schüsse von "Hood" sein, dessen Torpedos die größte Laufstrecke haben. Die 2. und 3. Blasenbahn wurde vom Kommandanten auserhalb des Kommandostandes nach dem Durchgang beobachtet.

Ship avoids three torpedo tracks whose sounds are continuously reported by the sound room, and all are successfully outmaneuvered.
The source of the torpedoes cannot be verified with certainty, since aircraft were in the vicinity. According to position and distance, they can be only shots from the "Hood," whose torpedoes have the longest running track. The 2nd and 3rd bubble trails were observed by the Commander from outside the command post after the traverse.

0610 / 0610 hours-

Fliegeralarm Bb achteraus

Air raid alarm portside abaft



and here the Prinz Eugen battle map were you can double check timing and course of the 3 torpedoes Kpt Brinkmann referred to as proof of evidence once again :

http://hmshood.com/denmarkstrait/PGbattlemap.html


3) Third question on the Prinz Eugen overshooting Bismarck never occured

Do you agree about what Jasper wrote that Prinz Eugen never overshooted the Bismarck and kept on firing during the 3 avoidance manoeuvres, been ordered after those ( so after 06.07 for sure ) not to overshoot the Bismarck ( at 06.08 ) and ceasing fire at 06.09.

Please read again Kpt Ltnt Paulus Jasper full report here in, everything is clearly written :


Extract From CRUISER PRINZ EUGEN'S WAR DIARY

Translation by : Ulrich Rudofsky for kbismarck.com website

Time has been changed according to English battle time from DZT ( Deutschland Zeit Time ) time adding 1 hour to match the battle maps.

Report of the 1st Artillery Officer [Korvettenkapitän Paulus Jasper] :

24 May 1941


About 05.45 hours I was awakened by an "Alarm". The 2nd Artillery Officer [Kapitänleutnant Paul Schmalenbach] was located in the foretop, the battle station watch-leader of the portside watch of the battle station watch. A quick report and a panoramic view around the horizon revealed three targets to port, two of which were approaching rapidly. Off the starboard stern stood a fourth target, apparently, the surveillance cruiser from the previous night. We were advancing at the front of the battle-line, [with] Bismarck behind us.
Since no special instructions for firing assignments (division) were ordered by the flagship, and since both of the rapidly approaching ships at this instant opened fire while under full steam, I chose (ordered) to cut to the right. This was the foremost (ship) in the hostile battle-line, which, according to the usual rules of engagement (distribution of targets), appeared to be the point (leading) ship in our line (of fire) (of battle).

I did not recognize the opponents as battleships and until the conclusion [of the battle] my experience indicated they were the cruisers (under consideration, according to my memory or experience "Exeter", "Birmingham", or "Fiji" Class). Accordingly, I decided to use high explosive base fuzed shells [Sprenggranate Bdz.]. I adhered to using this type of projectile during the [entire] course of the battle, since their impacts differentiated them very well from other hits. The impacts stood out clearly as high white water columns amid innumerable clouds of explosive smoke that obviously came from the middle artillery of the Bismarck.
The position (range-finding) station reported 2 contacts off the right bow traveling at 25 knots, distance 210 hectometers. I received "permission to fire" from the bridge at 05.55 hours and immediately commenced firing a full salvo at 202 hectometers. The full salvo was fired using nose fuzed rounds (Kopfzünder) which were stored behind the (gun) barrels as ready-use ammunition. The observed impacts (shell splashes) could not be ascribed with certainty as belonging to our own [shells] because of (key punch) perforation failures in the firing calculator [and thus no range correction report could be made]. Therefore, I repeated [firing] a full salvo, which turned out to be observable and formed a straddle ladder of which I could only observe two brief impacts from the lower limiting [rounds of the] salvo, while the higher and middle [rounds] had to be called questionably too far. The distant impacts were not visible, since they were concealed by the target. By contrast, (after firing) the bracketing group an extraordinarily bright fire flash appeared on the enemy ship's aft section at the level of the aft mast. The fire developed on the portside of the opponent, since the superstructures stood out as sharp silhouettes. Immediately thereafter I received the order from the ship's command to "Change target (to the) left" toward the second opponent, whereby the fire of "Bismarck" and "Prinz Eugen" now crossed. I was unable to observe "Bismarck's" decisive salvo because I was no longer in a position to do so. I ordered the target officer (target giver) to acquire the second target and thus lost the first (target) from the [range finder's] visual field of action. Consequently, I did not perceive the detonation of the first target.
As was the case earlier, I commenced second firing with a full salvo followed by a ranging group (straddle ladder) which zeroed me in as of 05.59. Firing for effect (rapid fire) was then initiated. The distance at that time was 160-170 hectometers. During the completion of measuring fire effectiveness, I observed two well-placed strikes which again were fired simultaneously from the portside by the secondary artillery of the "Bismarck". At around the eighth salvo, the opponent turned hard toward (us).
(Approximately 06.01 hours). Immediately thereafter, I saw the long bow section of a sinking ship traversing behind the opponent, pointing about 45° skyward and extending far above the masts of the target. The opponent apparently tried to avoid the wreckage of the leading ship (Vordermann=man in front). During this phase of the battle indications of a small fire were recognizable on the enemy ship, but it was considerably weaker than [was the case] onboard the first opponent. During this time I observed a covering salvo from Bismarck's heavy artillery, which had changed target. Immediately thereafter, the opponent turned hard onto a reciprocal course. He gave off black smoke and apparently tried to use this to escape from view. In my opinion, this smoke was artificial black fog and did not emanate from a (real) conflagration.

The minimum distance at this time point was about 140 hectometers.

This was (at) 06.02 – 06.03.

At this point even the heavy anti-aircraft guns attempted to participate in the battle.

Then, the distance increased steadily up to 180 - 190 hectometers. Observation from the foretop was intermittently prevented by (gun) smoke from the forward turret group. In these cases, we brought in [ranging data from] auxiliary observation (station).

At the twenty eighth salvo, the ship had turned so far (away) that [our view] of the target from the foretop was obscured by stack (exhaust) fumes. Simultaneously, the forward turrets were in their extreme turning position (at maximal rotation). I gave the order to transfer [fire control] to 1st Lieutenant Albrecht in the aft (gunnery) position, who continued to fire well-placed, rapid, and partial salvos while keeping the battery on target with minor range corrections until cease-fire.

During the battle our own ship turned sharply thrice.

Firing continued during these turning maneuvers.


The battery was twice temporarily and laterally dislodged from the target in this context (connection).

"Bismarck" came directly into the line of fire after the third avoidance maneuver.

Accordingly, I received the order from the ship's command: "Do not fire over Bismarck ''; and immediately thereafter, "cease fire".

Firing ceased at 06.09 hours.

After the cease-fire, I went into the foremast gallery to gain a panoramic perspective [of the battle area].

Now, a heavy cruiser with 3 stacks stood off the portside as a surveillance vessel, while to starboard abaft was a similar cruiser (Norfolk and Suffolk).

In addition, to port and far beyond the cruiser stood our opponent, who still gave off heavy black smoke but had turned back on a parallel course. Further left, a heavy column of smoke marked the site where our first opponent sank ( Hood ).

(We) did not experience any damage to ourselves, and the battery was fully ready for battle. We had expended: Heavy artillery: 8 rounds of nose fuzed shells [Kz. "Kopfzünder], 149 base fuzed shells [Bdz. Bodenzünder], heavy antiaircraft guns: against naval (surface) targets 78 with nose fuzed shells, against air targets 31 with delayed detonators [Zz.=Zeitzündung...pre-set fuze detonators designed to explode in midair upon arriving at a specific set of coordinates] The heavy artillery attained a salvo interval of 27-28 seconds. One technical problem arose in the battery (see material and technical report) so that turret "B" totally failed (to fire) one salvo and (then) fired 13 salvos only from the left (barrel) (with the right barrel) disengaged (out of gear). Furthermore, three operational errors occurred that caused the failure to fire four salvos from turret "A", while turrets "C" and "D" missed one salvo.
.
Personally, I observed nothing of the enemy's countermeasures. According to reports from the duty officers of the main antiaircraft battle station, a number of heavy caliber salvos impacted in the immediate proximity of the ship. Two [salvoes] struck 100-150 meters forward of the bow, one about 50 meters off port forward, which put the decks heavily awash, and quite a few impacts astern in the wake. Later, [salvo] impacts were observed [that came] from the heavy cruiser stationed to starboard, but they landed 4-5000 meters short. A piece of shrapnel from a heavy caliber (shell) was found on the portside deck. It showed the telltale marks of two guide rings [driving bands - slightly protruding metal bands around the base of projectiles that help harness propellant gas energy, impart spin, and stabilize shells as they travel down the rifled bore of naval guns - Editor] and was, according to data tables in a booklet on weaponry news, (not from) the Hood, but was [instead] attributed to a ship of the King George class.

The reported strikes of our own battery were observed by:

Lieutenant Commander Jasper, First Artillery Officer, Foretop.
Lieutenant Commander Busch, (Fritz Otto), Spectator (visitor, witness, co-observer) in the Foretop.
Lieutenant Schmalenbach, Second Artillery Officer, Main Antiaircraft Battle Station.
Lieutenant Jacobsen, Third Artillery Officer and Assistant (Auxiliary) Observer, forward station.
Acting Lieutenant Junior Grade Albrecht, Assistant (Auxiliary) Observer Aft Station (only for first target).
Lieutenant Junior Grade Count von Matuschka, E.M.O. and opponent observer (only during second target, foretop).
Lieutenant Junior Grade Tillesen, battle station leader, light antiaircraft cannons, main fighting top (only during first target).
Ensign Schlenzka, antiaircraft leader station "B" (only at first strike at target 2).

The ordnance and technical report and firing list will be attached separately.

[b]signed Jasper, Lieutenant Commander and First Artillery Officer[/b]



Your map does not support that as according to you Bismarck will be overshooted by Prinz Eugen firing toward HMS PoW starting at 06.04 at least if not even before.

Can you explain.

Closing this last request and summarizing

Bob, as you can see above it seems to me a very easy position for you to take as you have in reality no other options than agree and consequently admit your map, theory and book been wrong as everybody should have clearly understood at this point.

Your silence and avoidance to respond will be only taken as a confirmation anyway and you cannot say anything different from what you read on the official documents you were referring yourself as evidences as well very recently.

I would like to underline from my side that this is not a personal Bonomi vs Winklareth fight or revenge, as I only want to defend the historical truth as it was written and reported to us.

I let you know in advance that after this first set of 3 irrefutable evidences I have a list of other 15 questions to prove your map/theory been impossible and/or wrong.

I hope anyhow that we can close this debate in fairness without going into this long list of evidences that you should mainly already know.

Just to let all the readers know were we stand on the 3 main websites forum I attach some links for them to follow this discussion :

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/forum/view ... df6dbefe04

and

http://www.readybb.com/hmshood/viewtopi ... c&start=20

Bob, I really hope to hear from you soon and in fairness and elegance close this debate.

As said, nothing personal against you, I am very sad to have to do this as I hoped that the evidences themselves provided to you could have allowed me to avoid to do this, but I do not want to go on and on again with this same old story.

Ciao Antonio :D

George Elder
-
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:23 pm

Bob would be crazy to post here.

Postby George Elder » Tue Apr 12, 2005 3:21 pm

Hi Antonio:

Don't place me in the same sentense with some of those who have commented on Rob's book. I detest Rob bashing, which seems to be a popular game. We have folks who haven't displayed the ability and/or courage to write books ripping Rob's work to shreds. We even have someone without an advanced degree advising us about what constitutes an accademic text. It is sickening. Well, Rob's text has its faults, but at least he put the aft torpedo hit on the correct side of the ship. That's better than some experts managed.
And as for your question's, Antonio, do you think Rob would want to post in a place wherein he just got flamed so completely? His work was reduced to so much useless garbadge -- yet this was the text that stimulated more research on the subject than anything else I've seen in the last 20 years. And you ask him to conceed, and that if he doesn't conceed -- we will all know he was wrong. Why is this approach needed? When we found out that the shell-splash method could not be used to determine speed, did anyone ask for a concession or admission -- or did we simply move on?
For heaven's sake, Rob is an 80-year-old man, and the cruelty shown to him speaks volumes about his tormentors. I am certainly no fan of his positions, but what was done to him above is wrong. Rob doesn't owe anyone an explaination, concession, or addmission of error. The truth speaks for itself, so why must we insist of removing a man's dignity by asking him to conceed or rationalize? Will this allow us to thump our chests and say, "We were right and he was wrong!"
And what if Rob opted to put a gun in his mouth and end it all. He would at last be free of insults or questions or calls for addmissions and concessions. If he did that, would it make his detractors feel better, or would they then call him a coward for having run away from a fight? I've done a lot of bad things in my life, but I'm not too keen on the idea of beating up old men. It seems humanity died, and the jackels came to feed on its carcass. I am done with this exercise, and ashamed of what has transpired. Yet I do not think that I am the only one who should feel ashamed.

George


Return to “Bismarck General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron