Hello Carlos,

Mere diplomatic speculation based upon a complete lack of sufficient military intelligence. At that stage in the war the allies knew that several boats had been scheduled to head to Japan including U-234 and U-873, the latter having her orders changed at the last moment, only a short time before she sailed, both arriving at Portsmouth, New Hampshire (USA) after Germany's surrender.

At the same time, the U.S. Navy had mobilized 'Operation Teardrop' comprised of two carrier task force groups, to intercept suspected Seawolf Group boats that were believed to be heading to the North American coast to attack New York City with V-2 rockets. Likewise, no such operation had been taking place, but simply set into motion based upon poor intelligence in the fog of war.

Once again, I must ask you: What boats? What Germans? Where did they go? What boat (according to your book) sank the PE-56? What boat sank the Bahia? What happened to the Nazis and their gold? And the fact that certain German families resided along the Argentine coast is proof of what?

This Admiral Dias, who had served aboard the Bahia more that sixty years ago (most likely as a young seaman), can somehow shed some new light on the circumstances surrounding the Bahia's loss that had been missed by the Court of Inquiry, convened immediately after her loss? At the time of her loss, most of the Bahia crew would likely have been on watch from bow to amidships and below decks, and many of the crew taking part in the Aerial target practice on the stern, above deck, were killed when her depth-charge racks cooked-off. Was Seaman Dias one of those survivors who testified at the Court of Inquiry (CoI) about the 'accident' that caused the loss of their ship. Based upon the size of the Bahia and the fact that he survived, the chances are more likely that he had not been one of the few survivors who actually 'witnessed' the fatal event that led to the sinking. Had he been, his initial testimony of his 'observations' of that event would have been included in the CoI proceedings, and might bolster his later support of your book's claim of a U-boat attack. Have you read the Bahia CoI findings?

It is human nature, for survivors of such 'accidents' to want to believe that their vessel had been lost as the result of enemy action, rather than an unfortunate 'accident.' Even after a Court of Inquiry returns their findings, that rarely kept survivors from questioning the cause. Three such cases that I have researched just in the area of New England that occurred during World War II include: The USS Eagle PE-56 (first declared accident, changed to 'enemy action'); USS Turner DD-648 (clearly an accident, challenged by some of her crew to this day); U.S. Navy blimp K-14 (accident, challenged by survivors' families to this day).

I believe that Admiral Dias' 'opinion' falls short of 'proof' of the entire premise of your book, which purports to detail an alleged fleet of unidentified, phantom U-boats that inserted top ranking nazis and treasures to support their nefarious operations in South America, following the fall of the Third Reich.

Solid, tangible evidence of such a well-kept, secret operation would be gladly accepted with an open mind.

Regards,

Paul