soc.history.war.world-war-ii

aspqrz@pacific.net.au (Phil McGregor) wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
>
> >The 1999 full inquiry of the battle by the Australian government,
> >disagrees with your notion that Detmers lied; one of the conclusions of
> >the report was that his account and that of his officers, was generally
> >accurate.
>
> And they made no attempt to question them or even to determine if the
> testimony they have was a) hearsay or b) cooked up

So your interpretation is right, and the full inquiry of the battle by
the Australian government is wrong (or irrelevant) on the fundamental
issue of how the battle occurred.

Ok.

> >That is far different from alleging without proof that Detmers and his
> >officer staff were guilty of war crimes that should be punished by hanging.
>
> Still don't get it, do you.
>
> I noted that the evidence, so called, comes from only one source, and
> one that lied. And that there is a reason why they may have lied and
> what they may have lied about could be evidence of a war crime/piracy.

POWs of any country are going to tell lies about something, and the fact
that they do is not evidence of a war crime/piracy.

You have no more proof of war crime/piracy by Kormoran, than we do that
the survivors of Sydney committed seppuku. (No, I don't believe that
they committed seppuku).