A Laser Phalanx?

wrote in message
ps.com...

Mr.Black you are just ****ed off that you are proven wrong probably by
your own government which, btw, kept and still keeps classified German
technology documents ranging from synthetic fuel, to aviation secrets,
to beam weaponry, and spaceflight, plus the entire hidden history of
the war locked away.

No they don't.

Very few WWII documents are still secret in the UK and these relate almost
entirly to matters involving treason or disloyalty by people still alive.

If the Nazis had a death ray mounted on a flying saucer, even one, we'd all
be speaking German and wearing silly uniforms by now.

You can also now locate Foo Fighters, which the USAF claimed they had
no idea what they were, under PHOO BOMBS through FOIA and dated from
1944.

The major problem with this one is that the Germans were also designing what
seem to be massivly inferior missile based air to air weapons and deploying
them very late in the war.

If you've got a war winning design then why bother to develop something
inferior?

The history of the R4M indicates that there was nothing better available.

Reading the report "An Evalualtion of German Capabilities in 1945" from the
'Office of the Director of Intelligence' of the US Strategic Airforces in
Europe, which was written some time in early 1945, makes it pretty clear
that what were called Phoo Bombs by bomber crews were in fact Messerschnitt
Me163 Komet aircraft

Also have the inmtelligence to call a German disc a Flugscheibe or
Flugkreisel and NOT a flying saucer- a term coined in 1947 by a
reporter.

The problem is, once more, that both the Germans and the USA were building
'flying wings'.

The Ho-IX was a jet powered fighter bomber aircraft (made of wood) but was
preceded by the Northrop N-1M by some four years.

The 'flying wing' idea isn't new either.

See
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Avi...e_interwar.htm
for loads of details.

These damn things aren't a Nazi invention, were never particularly secret
and aren't that radical in performance. Look up the 'Edwards' who the
'Edwards Airforce Base' is named after and what he was flying when he
died...

What you're seeing is initial evaluations by an intelligence service that is
trying to guess what's going on 'on the other side of the hill' from reports
brought back be people in a highly emotional state who weren't intelligence
officers, and, reasonably understandably, slightly misinterpreting the
results.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:09:16 +0100, "William Black"
wrote:

Very few WWII documents are still secret in the UK and these relate almost
entirly to matters involving treason or disloyalty by people still alive.

Has HM Government actually come out and said this sometime in the past
decade?

I'd be interested in your views on what might still be considered
secret other than that now - I would presume this was altered by the
events of 1991 and their aftermath.

Have the documents referred to by Tolstoy (in The Last Secret)
concerning the children of Russian nationals who were NOT Soviet
citizens but were nonetheless deported to the Soviet Union (usually to
either immediate execution or long stretches in labor camps which
often amounted to the same thing) by both Britain and the United
States ever been declassified?

"The Horny Goat" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:09:16 +0100, "William Black"
wrote:

Very few WWII documents are still secret in the UK and these relate almost
entirly to matters involving treason or disloyalty by people still alive.

Has HM Government actually come out and said this sometime in the past
decade?

2005 I seem to remember.

Sixty years after the end of the war.

All the files retained are now in the Public Record Officeand are numbered

Something like sixty files are not available to the public.

I'd be interested in your views on what might still be considered
secret other than that now - I would presume this was altered by the
events of 1991 and their aftermath.

I believe that, amongst others, the files relating to two officers in the
Italian navy are still not available and the investigation by Anthony Blunt,
who was working for MI-5 at the time, into the relations between the late
Duke of Winsor and Nazi Germany is still secret.

One of the Italian officers was, the last time I heard, campaigning for his
file to be released as he was supposed to have been seduced in the USA when
he was the Italian Naval Atache there, and Italian naval cyphers stolen, or
at least the key to the safe where they were stored were stolen, by his
girlfriend.

He's almost certsainly innocent of anything and the whole story was a
fabrication to cover up the intercepts and decrypts that let to The Battle
of Cape Matapan, but as he's alive they won't release the file...

Have the documents referred to by Tolstoy (in The Last Secret)
concerning the children of Russian nationals who were NOT Soviet
citizens but were nonetheless deported to the Soviet Union (usually to
either immediate execution or long stretches in labor camps which
often amounted to the same thing) by both Britain and the United
States ever been declassified?

All the Don Cossack and similar stuff held by the UK was released years ago,
HMG did withdraw some in 1991 when they were hanging Tolstoy and a crooked
property developer called Watts out to dry, but it's all back on the shelf
now.

Thatcher unveiled a memorial to them over twenty-five years ago, it's
across the road from the Natural History Museum.

No idea about the US stuff but I think all the US files from WWII have now
been released.

Tolstoy's book wasn't called 'The Last Secret', that's a term used by well
know Nazi sympathiser and holocaust denier David Irvine.

Tolstoy's book, the one that got him sued, was 'The Minister and the
Massacres'

It didn't actually get him sued either. Watts was passing out nasty
leaflets that used Tolstoy's book as a source and when he got sued Tolstoy
decided to get himself named as 'co defendant' along with Watts who'd tried
to destroy Lord Aldington's life.

The whole sordid story is related here.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polit...563440,00.html

Now I'm not a man who would normally defend a Tory banker, but it seems to
me that Tolstoy was on the wrong side and got what he richly deserved.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:40:35 +0100, "William Black"
wrote:

Has HM Government actually come out and said this sometime in the past
decade?

2005 I seem to remember.

Sixty years after the end of the war.

All the files retained are now in the Public Record Officeand are numbered

Something like sixty files are not available to the public.
Have the documents referred to by Tolstoy (in The Last Secret)
concerning the children of Russian nationals who were NOT Soviet
citizens but were nonetheless deported to the Soviet Union (usually to
either immediate execution or long stretches in labor camps which
often amounted to the same thing) by both Britain and the United
States ever been declassified?

All the Don Cossack and similar stuff held by the UK was released years ago,
HMG did withdraw some in 1991 when they were hanging Tolstoy and a crooked
property developer called Watts out to dry, but it's all back on the shelf
now.

Thatcher unveiled a memorial to them over twenty-five years ago, it's
across the road from the Natural History Museum.

No idea about the US stuff but I think all the US files from WWII have now
been released.

Tolstoy's book wasn't called 'The Last Secret', that's a term used by well
know Nazi sympathiser and holocaust denier David Irvine.

Tolstoy's book, the one that got him sued, was 'The Minister and the
Massacres'

Hmmmm. I could have sworn that was the title. My copy (which is buried
under literally close to a ton of other books) was a silver colored
Penguin edition with a Cossack on the cover. A quick check on
Penguin's site doesn't locate it (or ANYTHING by any Tolstoy other
than Leo) so it's clearly out of print.

I have not to my knowledge EVER read anything by Irving except a dust
jacket so it's got to be the Minister and the Massacres.

How's that for a 'cite from Hell'?

It didn't actually get him sued either. Watts was passing out nasty
leaflets that used Tolstoy's book as a source and when he got sued Tolstoy
decided to get himself named as 'co defendant' along with Watts who'd tried
to destroy Lord Aldington's life.

The whole sordid story is related here.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polit...563440,00.html

Now I'm not a man who would normally defend a Tory banker, but it seems to
me that Tolstoy was on the wrong side and got what he richly deserved.

I knew the story of his feud with Aldington and I agree with your
assessment. Any wrongdoing was at a considerably higher level than
Aldington - probably Churchill himself at Yalta.

Thanks for the info.

"The Horny Goat" wrote in message
...

I knew the story of his feud with Aldington and I agree with your
assessment. Any wrongdoing was at a considerably higher level than
Aldington - probably Churchill himself at Yalta.

A deal was done by the Allied leaders at Yalta that any traitors captured
would be handed back to the appropriate country for trial and punishment.

At the time it is likely that the British overestimated the numbers involved
on their side with intelligence assessments putting the numbers in hundreds
rather than the dozen or so that actually turned traitor.

A number of British traitors were handed back or captured and some were
certainly executed and others got long prison sentences. It is interesting
to note that the Russians refrained from shooting British SS men out of
hand, as was their normal practice for most SS men they caught. One was in
a Soviet jail for five or six years as they preferred to believe he was a
British spy rather than an SS man.

At the end of the war the USA seems to have made little or no attempt to
bring the members of the American Free Corps to justice, with the notable
exception of Martin Monti, who didn't get out of jail until 1960.

I'm much more interested in why a character called Douglas Berneville-Claye
was up to between being captured in 1942 and turning up in Berlin in March
1945 in an SS captain's uniform.

He was a real traitor, but nobody knows much about him except that at the
end of the war he was an SS captain and was certainly captured and was
promptly allowed to rejoin the army...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1898942.stm


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:20:11 +0100, "William Black"
wrote:


"The Horny Goat" wrote in message
.. .

I knew the story of his feud with Aldington and I agree with your
assessment. Any wrongdoing was at a considerably higher level than
Aldington - probably Churchill himself at Yalta.

A deal was done by the Allied leaders at Yalta that any traitors captured
would be handed back to the appropriate country for trial and punishment.

I know that - the war crime in my eyes was not what happened to the
pre-war Soviet citizens but rather to the children of the 1917-21
White emigres who had (a) never lived in Russia / Soviet Union nor (b)
held Soviet citizenshp.

These people NEVER OWED ALLEGIANCE in any way shape or form to the
Soviet Union - but were handed over to Stalin with the rest of the
Vlasovites.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the Soviet conscripts who didn't want to
return to Russia but at least de jure they were Soviet citizens who
owed some allegiance to an appalling regime.

I have less patience to the non-Soviet citizens who were shipped to
Russia against their will and against all standards of international
decency and justice. I understand that given conditions in April -
June 1945 sorting out Soviet from non-Soviet citizens might have been
difficult given that the Soviet citizens had extreme reasons to lose
their passports and other documents.

A number of British traitors were handed back or captured and some were
certainly executed and others got long prison sentences. It is interesting
to note that the Russians refrained from shooting British SS men out of
hand, as was their normal practice for most SS men they caught. One was in
a Soviet jail for five or six years as they preferred to believe he was a
British spy rather than an SS man.

In their world that's clearly a more likely reason for being in SS
uniform than fascistic convictions. I would tend to make the same
assumption until I knew otherwise.

At the end of the war the USA seems to have made little or no attempt to
bring the members of the American Free Corps to justice, with the notable
exception of Martin Monti, who didn't get out of jail until 1960.

I'm much more interested in why a character called Douglas Berneville-Claye
was up to between being captured in 1942 and turning up in Berlin in March
1945 in an SS captain's uniform.

He was a real traitor, but nobody knows much about him except that at the
end of the war he was an SS captain and was certainly captured and was
promptly allowed to rejoin the army...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1898942.stm

Certainly the evidence seems clear that not all the ex-Nazis in the
French Foreign Legion in the 40s and 50s were Germans...