Discussion in 'German U-Boats' started by Eric Brian Brewster, Jun 1, 2017.
Rich, Takao, or lwd: are those photos even of a U-Boat? The quality is so poor I can't tell.
Also, there is no such thing as the
"British Imperial Royal Navy".
But, there is a British Royal Navy Imperial rum. That could explain a lot.
Here's a better photo. Of HMCS U-190 when it was still KM U-190. Under escort on its way to Newfoundland. HMCS U-190 - For Posterity's Sake
And some more photos. The U190 joins the Royal Canadian Navy
Including one of her moored in Halifax.
Sorry, not "semi-pro" or "Semi Pro". I'm published, which is what counts. You're a nutcase, which is also what counts.
Nor is it silencing "400 crewmembers" or crew members or altering the records of "2 ships". It is:
Altering multiple records and silencing the hundreds of thousands of personnel of the Kriegsmarine and the 11 or 12 major German firms building the U-Boote. Literally thousands of records of the contracting, building, manning, training, patrols, and losses of over a thousand U-Boote and 50,000 crew members in order to conceal the construction and service of U-1006.
Altering multiple records and silencing thousands of personnel of the RN and RCN who participated in the actions against U-190 and U-1006, including the five RN and RCN officers that commanded the HMCS U-190 and the 32 RN and RCN officers and men who manned her.
As the name suggests, the Imperial War Museum, is a museum not the official archive. It has an extensive collection of objects, images. paintings and donated documents as well as an extensive sound archive. Collections Lots of great material, but it is not where we go to inspect old secret documents. Any secret files it holds are concerned with its own management or mismanagement of its collections, finances and staff relations.
Our national archive of official documents is held in a massive archive in Kew SW London called "The National Archive". Funding for local authority archives for taking in public records It is where historians go to access the records retained by the British state.There are redacted files in the National Archive - but these are from the post war era. E.g if you want to check the files on Ex Able Archer/Wintex 1983 there is a note explaining that the Foreign Office does not want us to read about it. If you want someone to research the story you posted on your behalf, I am available in January for a modest fee
No, no, my friend. Your "proof" as such consists of a very tall sea story and two highly pixelated photograhs - Which the more I look at them, the more I believe that they are of HMS Graph(ex-U-570 captured by the British in 1941, repaired, and put into Royal Navy service. You see, your U-Boat did not have a deck gun, and the one in your photos apparently does. I had, many months ago, kindly asked you to provide higher quality photos...Are they forthcoming? They would certainly help to clear up matters as to which U-Boat this is.
Regretfully...All you are confirming is the location! You are not confirming the 1.) Identity of the U-boat or 2.) Time of the photograph.
The salient fact that you fail to grasp is that Canada picked up a few U-Boats post-war, and one, U-190, was tested in the Halifax area for a few years.
This is why more detailed photographs are necessary...
Yes, yes, there was a war on...However, the Germans were an enemy, not an ally, and would be rather less than cooperative in altering their records to show that U-1006 was built, launched, and commissioned later than it originally was. Just so that every thing fell inline for Ian Fleming's conspiracy. You see Ian Fleming would have had to co-opt many German agencies, one German shipbuilder, all the German citizens that built the submarine, all the German crew that trained or sailed on her, the Kreigsmarine, the Kriegsmarine records, etc.
And you still want us to believe that this is "the Truth," and not some tall sea story? If so, you are required to provide a lot more two very poor quality photos.
No thank you...I have my dignity. Besides, Photos that do not meet my standards of "proof", certainly will not meet theirs.
Fairly certain it is, but what type and which is the question...
I think it might be U-190 post-war or possibly HMS Graph(ex U-570) captured by the British and used by the RN 1941-44.
And here I had thought this thread had died a peaceful death many months ago.
A revenant . . . maybe its really dead this time . . . as I whistle past the graveyard . . . hand me my stake and mallet.
Ha. Was just about to ask WTF is a 'British Imperial Navy'?
Anyone might think the selection of such terminology indicated a pre-prepared bias.
Or, as you say; Rum.
note: all bold is mine.
A observation totally unconnected to the content of this argument. Over the years on this site I've seen a few people post in this style. Poor sentence structures, multiple exclamation points astride multiple question marks, segments of text in all caps for emphasis, multiple ellipses attached together, etc. In every case the message has been more of an emotional one rather than standing on its own research and citations. Now I've not read this thread through, so Ive no idea of context, but whenever I see this posting style, I know we have a good chance of oddness.
No member that uses this style ever seems to write a book or publish research. There is probably a reason that treatises and scholarly works aren't written in this format. Just an observation.
I have 1 telephone number for Don Spinks, he will be delighted to have Semi Pro-Historians call him.....that is if he wishes to answer, if he feels the same depression I do about not being believed, first is his email address which is, email@example.com, 1-902-775-2858. You should please state you are historians wanting to talk to him about his Grandfather's WW2 story.
There's the operative word.
Bet your mate just loves having his personal contact details plastered all over the internet.
In your first post, "Don Spinks" lives in Ontario. 902 775 **** is a number for someone from Tignish, Prince Edward Island.
My sister-in-laws Great Aunt (twice removed) can corroborate the OP's story, and furthermore, provides evidence for Nazi German UFO technology being hijacked by Russians.
Why, oh, why are you depressed at not being believed?
You have given us nothing to believe in...Except for a barroom story told for free beer and one very pixelated photograph of what may or may not be a German submarine.
Then, when asked to provide a better quality image, you have gotten all indignant, thrown a "poor me" tantrum, and told us to get ahold of Santa Claus by calling him at 1-800-IMSANTA or by e-mailing him at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Perhaps...This is because you are a genealogist, and as such, proof is not required when someone purports to be a direct descendant of Jesus Christ...Their outlandish claim is to be believed, not questioned. Or, if proof is required, illegible scribbling on a piece of of paper with "Birth Certificate" written at the top is sufficient. Regretfully, historians require far more for a story to be believed.
And we all know Santa Claus lives at the North Pole...He has the original.
Don only has a crappy copy that he pawns off on deluded individuals we know as "Conspiracy Theorists."
I'm glad I didn't get involved in this thread a few weeks ago..........Nice story Eric................that's all it seems to be............a story.
As has been pointed out, but I shall repeat:
HMCS Outremont was ordered in October 1941; laid down 18 November 1942 by Morton Engineering & Dry Dock Co., Quebec City; launched 3 July 1943; and commissioned 27 November 1943.
HMCS Annan was ordered 26 December 1942; laid down 10 June 1943 by Hall, Russell & Co. Ltd., Aberdeen, Scotland; launched 29 December 1943; and commissioned 13 January 1944 at Aberdeen.
HMCS New Waterford ordered June 1942; laid down 17 February 1943 by Yarrows Ltd. at Esquimalt; launched 3 July 1943; and commissioned 21 January 1944 at Victoria, British Columbia.
HMCS Loch Achnalt was ordered on 24 July 1942; laid down 14 September 1943 by Henry Robb, Leith; 23 March 1944; commissioned 31 July 1944; and completed 11 August 1944.
None of these ships were in service in November 1942, none of them, not a single one. Is there something that not clear in this?
U-1006 was ordered on 14 October 1941; laid down 30 January 1943, at Blohm & Voss, Hamburg; launched 17 November 1943; commissioned 11 January 1944. Was sunk near 60°59′N 4°49′W on 15 October 1944 while on first war patrol by HMCS Annan by depth charges and gunfire. Annan, assisted by elements of Escort Group 6, including HMCS Outremont, & HMCS Loch Achnalt recovered 44 U-1006 crewmen, six of the crew were killed. EG6 was based out of Londonderry during this period. No confusion here, U-1006 was the only U-boat sunk by Allied forces in October 1944.
U-1006 had yet to be even laid down in November 1942, did not enter service until January 1944, and was never captured and taken anywhere.
Lots of people came home with stories, most did not. Some stories were exciting, some mildly interesting, some tantalizing incomplete, others simply boring, and some, out and out sea stories.
I remember reading an account, offered by someone other than the actual person involved, recounting a head-on engagement between the person involved and an enemy plane that ended with the enemy plane crashing in flames. The person involved dryly remarked when asked of the event, “he (the teller of the tale) neglected to mention we were shooting at each other the whole time.”
If you want to read whoppers presented as actual events, read Gerald Astor’s “Wings of Gold,” there’s some real beauties in there that with about 30 minutes of research he could have easily avoided. Evidently the man never met an oral history he did not like.
Or there were the tales of a 1990’s era huckster of re-pro flight jackets proclaiming his daring-do as a USN fighter pilot in the Pacific in WW2 and, indeed, in an entire USN career . . . except none of his claims ever happened, not a single one. I guess it sure sounded good while selling flight jackets at airshows.
So, some stories are true, some are partially true, and some are out and out lies. Sometimes the truth is in there somewhere, but lost in incorrect details, dare I suggest incorrect dates? Sometimes the person hearing the story gets details wrong which leads to heading off in the wrong direction. You see that a lot in not just a few genealogy enthusiasts because his cousin married someone with a 5th cousin who married a 2d cousin of a 6th cousin and so on, and, lo and behold, old Joe down the street should be the Czar of All the Russia’s, at least so he claims. Real genealogists know blood lines don’t work that way.
You owe it to yourself to really step back, take a deep cleansing breath, and look at the historical facts and then decide what kind of story you really have. Most here already know, especially from your reaction. Kind of why I did not respond to your very first presentation here back in the summer . . . that kind of entrance just screams that there will be no consideration whatsoever of the historical record. Looks like I was right. Shooting the messenger however does not change the message. Most of the claims of missing or altered records usually don't pan out, especially if you are not looking in the right place. And a research truism is: "a lack of evidence is not of itself evidence."
But how did they alter the German records we didn't get until after the war. It's also pretty hard to alter the records of when a ship was put in service.