Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza
Dugald wrote:I wonder how McLean would have been able to contact the media "almost immediately". It would have been very unlikely that there would have been a phone in McLean's house, and it would have taken some time to reach a phone, and it is also unlikely McLean would have left his mother alone with a captured German pilot.
Apollo wrote:Assuming you're correct about the source of some information I may be referring to (and I'm not referring to any single source, DO however favour those that debunk silly stories, and have given the source of quotes used), exactly what is your point regarding the presence of any particular book on a site "whose main stock-in-trade appears to be cds, records and pop memorabilia"? Amazon probably sells the same book, and even less relevant material, but I fail to see how that influences the content of any book it may sell. Unless, you want to make a particularly weak case for dismissing it by association
Dugald wrote:"Even if there wasn't a phone at the farm I would imagine that there would have been one at Eaglesham House which is just accross the road from the farm and was at the time being used as an army barracks."
Graham, what you say here isn't necessarily so. In 1941 telephones in Scotland were very few and very far between. Even an army "barracks" (although I'd hesitate to call anything around Eaglesham a "barracks") would not necessarily have a phone.
"The assumption is also that McLean and his mother were alone with Hess"
Yes this is an assumption I've always made. Why? I'm not sure. I don't recall that McLean featured to any great extent in the first news of the Hess event. I didn't even become aware of the name until within the last few years! Hess' captor was always just referred to simply as a "ploughman". I don't know whether there were other people living at the farm or not. All the "action" at Eaglesham took place on a Saturday night and a Sunday morning, not times one would expect to find many farm people around the farm.
Dugald wrote:"The assumption is also that McLean and his mother were alone with Hess"
I don't know whether there were other people living at the farm or not. All the "action" at Eaglesham took place on a Saturday night and a Sunday morning, not times one would expect to find many farm people around the farm.
Dugald wrote:Graham, I have used "Item (#)" only for quotations from your post of 3:01 am on April 27th. (I think this lot of mine has more to do with semantics than Hess!)
Item #(1) I don't think I've ever come across a farm around here which is operated on a 9-5 basis and closed at weekends
I know nothing about the farms around Eaglesham, nor anywhere else for that matter. But I do know something about people, and they generally tend to take part in some form of recreation on a Saturday night.
It is possible that the farmer was out at the jiggin' on Saturday night, but, having met him, I doubt it
With regard to the soldiers in the barracks, I must agree with you that upon hearing a plane crash nearby they would be up and out to see what was going on. On a Saturday night however, I'd think most of these soldiers would be out enjoying some recreation. Oh yes, there be some in the barracks, but I wouldn't think too many.
there is nothing much in the way of recreational facilities in the area and I certainly don't recall any tales of any of the three small pubs Eaglesham being full of Polish soldiers at the time
Item #(2) I must point out at this juncture that none of the "action" took place in Eaglesham as you claim - this is a common misconception.
Hey c'mon Graham, isn't the use of "claim" here a bit strong? I simply used "Eaglesham" as the place where Hess and his plane came down. That's what the newspaper told us. I have never heard of "Waterfoot"! Anyway, if someone stopped me on the street today and said, "Hey, Mac, where did Hess land in Scotland?", I'm afraid I'd still answer "Eaglesham". By the way, I'd guess most of the world still believe that Hess landed in England.
I am merely applying the same level of interpretation to your writings as you do to mine. I'm applying local knowledge to my analysis of events whereas by your own admission you do not know anything about the area or it's people.
Item #(3) "...firstly because the word "verbal" implies spoken word when this is obviously not the medium through which this discussion is being conducted..."
I just looked up "verbal" in my old reliable 1954 "Collins", and sure enough, just as I learned at Greenfield School in Govan, "verbal" simply means 'of, by, or relating to, words' ; and, according to a more recent dictionary, "Of, relating to, or associated with words, for example: a detailed verbal description.". Hmmmmm, contrary to what you say Graham, no mention of the words having to be spoken thus, the written word is consistent with the medium through which this discussion is being conducted.
as we are no longer in 1954 I chose to use m-w.com (Websters) which gives the definition as "spoken, not written" , Chambers online dictionary gives exactly the same result
Item #(4) "secondly because you erroniously took the phrase "Alastair Dinsmore also informs me that both Giffnock and Govan police stations also claim to have had Hess as a resident".
On April 3rd @5:29pm you said, "Alastair Dinsmore also informs me that both Giffnock and Govan police stations also claim to have had Hess as a resident, so it looks as if our German visitor must have had quite a busy night being ferried round all these different places!" Now, if you accept what Dinsmore said, and apparently you did, by virtue of your: " so it looks as if our German visitor must have had quite a busy night being ferried round all these different places", then the Govan incarceration is very much a part of the "being ferried around" conclusion, which you accepted! Thus Graham, I did not take your Dinsmore phrase erroneously.
I stand corrected, I should have added a or similar to it to imply that I did not believe this myself (for the record Mr Dinsmore does not believe it either). Had I known my every word was going to be analysed by you I would have ensured that everything I typed was legally correct and not open to misinterpretation have another to make up for this
Item #(5) By your logic I have also committed myself to claiming the press used the words "trusty" in relation to the pitchfork and " nice" to describe the cup of tea he was offered, yet you failed to bring me to task over these two "offences".
The reason I suppose I failed to "bring you to task" over "trusty' and "nice" is that I believe these words might well have been used by that hard-nosed reporter I mentioned: I don't think they were uncommon words in 1941 Scotland, whereas I think "plucky" was.
I notice you have glossed over the bit where you state that I was quoting the word "plucky" from a 1941 publication. As I have said on several occassions now I only used the word in passing to highlight my point and you for some reason have taken it as the very cornerstone of my hypothesis. Have another for good measure.
Item #(6) This, as I am quite sure you would have pointed out had it been me making this statement , is pure conjecture. The fact that you believe it to be true, does not make it so, as I said previously, all either of can do is speculate.
This quote was with respect to the Spandau Prison comments. Yes, it's pure conjecture, and the fact that I believe it to be true does not make it true. For the second time let me say: "I do agree however, that "All either of us can do is speculate on the matter".
for once we seem to agree on something! yet another just to be on the safe side
With regard to your Scotsman-Göring quotation you say:
Item#(7) Once again you are making a suposition and presenting your own personal opinion as if it wer an established and verifiable fact.
No, no, Graham, I did not present my opinion as if it were an established and verifiable fact. I prefaced what I said with the words: " I don't believe for one minute"... clearly I was not presenting my thoughts as an established fact.
Item #(eight) You have no way of knowing whether Göring was making use of hyberbole or not.
Oh yes, I believe I do! The phrase in question is:
"Hess? Which Hess? The Hess you have here? Our Hess? Your Hess?".
To ask which one of the three different Hess's, when there was only one Hess, is to make use of a figure of speech. Since Göring was aware there was only one Hess present, yet chose to speak as if there were three present, he is exaggerating a situation for emphasis: he is bringing to the fore, the fact that it is the court who will decide which Hess is present. This is, by definition, the meaning of hyperbole. I still believe Göring was making use of hyperbole to criticize the Nuremberg trials.
Open to interpretation, as the phrase "I don't believe for one minute...." was applied to your previous sentence, not the one in question and "I don't believe for one minute Göring was making use of hyperbole to criticize the Nuremberg trials." and "Göring was making use of hyperbole to criticize the Nuremberg trials (as written)." can be taken to mean two entirely different things just in case
Item #(9) It would be reasonable to assume therefore that all, or at least some, of his co-accused would show similar signs of mental degeneration, yet this does not appear to have been the case. If Hess had suffered the sort of mental breakdown that you are suggesting, then it casts doubt on your theory of Hess engaging in long,indepth conversations with Speer and Schirach.
Oh yes, I'd think all the Nazi hierarchy suffered mental degeneration to some extent. But I don't think it reasonable to overlook the fact that Hess was the only one who flew to Scotland under extremely challenging conditions, was the only one held prisoner in the UK for four years under more challenging conditions, and was the only one who fell out of favour with the Nazi Party to which I believe he was devoted. I do believe however, Hess was till capable of sensible conversation. His mental illness I think, was an acute depression into which he periodically succumbed. If he'd been raving mad and were an impostor I think he'd have blown the whistle on himself!
Item #(10) Even if they did conclude that this Hess was an imposter do you really think they would alert their captors and urge them to seek out their real compatriate and incarcerate him in place of the doppleganger? Doesn't sound like a terribly persuasive arguement to me!
I have never ever thought the Hess who landed at Eaglesham was an impostor, so I haven't really ever given any thought to whether the Nazis in Spandau would have alerted the captors to an impostor. I do feel however, that they would have blown the whistle on any such Doppelgänger.
The point about Hess' mental state is valid, but I'm not so sure that Speer and Schirach would have run to their captors and informed them that the man imprisoned as Hess had they thought he was an imposter. For all they knew their real compatriate could have been safe and well living under a new identity so I doubt they would have gone out of their way to cause him trouble and initiate a manhunt for him
There we are then Graham, and I feel as if I've done a day's work! (now you know how I felt answering your last TWO posts - Graham) Cheers, Dugald.
Return to Glasgow Chat (Coffee Lounge)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests