Hi Byron,Byron Angel wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 2:31 pmIndeed, the fog of war can be easily eliminated by a simple spray bottle filled with some facts and evidence mixed into a solution of assumptions, opinions, inferences, interpolations, extrapolations, guesses, pre-judgments.
Works every time. That is why the study of history is so elementally simple.
I am still awaiting any sort of real evidence to support the claim that British authorities held their tongues in order not to contradict the report of Captain Leach. The same repeated responses offered up so far have nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. I am beginning to suspect that no such evidence exists. As such, it reminds me of the great Bismarck forward bulkhead penetration debate of several months ago.
While not disputing your statement in any way, there were (I believe) many occasions during the war when certain 'occurrences were not made public and relatives were only told that someone had 'died in action' or some other excuse. I was watching a documentary about the ramming of a cruiser escort by the Queen Mary last night and it appears that this was also 'hushed up' for security reasons (how they managed this with several thousand US troops on the QM who witnessed the disaster is a mystery!) but the point I am trying to make is that the British Government at the time was, quite rightly, obsessed with secrecy and while I don't want to reopen the 'cover up' theories that have been expressed in this Forum it seems obvious that HM Government at the time was not going to let anything out that might be an advantage to the enemy and even today many archives are buried under a 100 year (or whatever)rule and some have been destroyed or will never be released.