Gold Warriors possible inaccuracy?

was it 3000 hahahaha
yup GMA could have saved a lot of dollars if she just purchased five kilos of beef and have it cooked in the philippine embassy hehehehe

-seeker-

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,8649.msg54496.html#msg54496

Thanks for the input, Rational Observer. Can you recommend other books which tell the real history?

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,8649.msg54516.html#msg54516

		Quote:			Posted by Hobbyist
	Mystery solved and understood, thanks. I thought my browser had a bug in it.

Unfortunately, we all suffer from the same problem, I have seen some work-arounds such as asterisk or comma in place of an apostrophe, mostly, I have been avoiding contractions. 

goldigger

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,8649.msg54614.html#msg54614

		Quote:			Posted by goldigger
	In a discussion with someone, here, offline, it was suggested that perhaps the bank was set up/established with this bullion, wherever and whenever it came into being, thus, someone is withholding information, does not know, or is just plain telling untruths, somewhere. It may be just as the authors state, but they may have no more proof than hearsay.... do not kill the messenger, so-to-speak. I have not looked at the book, yet, but is sounds like a good read, if this discussion is any indication. goldigger

A little logic can go a long way. During British colonial times, institutions of any importance in Malaya had their names in the King's English. Therefore, the Malay name "Bank Negara" could have never existed then. Furthermore, Bank Negara was only established in 1959. The author's claim of the WW2-era Golden Lily discovering gold in the vaults of Bank Negara is therefore erroneous. I can't make it any plainer. In any case, I'm still waiting for a reply from the authors. If I don't get a reply, I'll write in to Verso books and see what happens. Whether the authors are just the messengers or the actual creators of the message is debatable...and more importantly, is moot. They are responsible for the writings in a book which credits their names as the writers.

Now as for your "outside" discussion where it was suggested that the bank in question was set up with the discovered bullion, why would the Japanese set up independant Malaysia's central bank in 1959? That is what Bank Negara is...our central bank. Would not the discovered bullion have been looted as war spoils? On what basis was that suggestion made?

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,8649.msg54753.html#msg54753

		Quote:			Posted by Hobbyist
	A little logic can go a long way. During British colonial times, institutions of any importance in Malaya had their names in the King's English. Therefore, the Malay name "Bank Negara" could have never existed then. Furthermore, Bank Negara was only established in 1959. The author's claim of the WW2-era Golden Lily discovering gold in the vaults of Bank Negara is therefore erroneous. I can't make it any plainer. In any case, I'm still waiting for a reply from the authors. If I don't get a reply, I'll write in to Verso books and see what happens. Whether the authors are just the messengers or the actual creators of the message is debatable...and more importantly, is moot. They are responsible for the writings in a book which credits their names as the writers. Now as for your "outside" discussion where it was suggested that the bank in question was set up with the discovered bullion, why would the Japanese set up independant Malaysia's central bank in 1959? That is what Bank Negara is...our central bank. Would not the discovered bullion have been looted as war spoils? On what basis was that suggestion made?

I really am at a loss to understand your issue here. There is no requirement for the bank to exist during WWII if the items were found AFTER WWII, which 1959 certainly qualifies as being. The book does not give a date, or so you indicate, so there's no way to determine when the items were discovered. The bank itself could be using an older bank and its buildings for a foundation of its offices. As I explained earlier, banks consolidate their offices and personnel during mergers or new bank creations. Why would you assume otherwise? Why presume that the bank was formed from all new buildings and all new offices? That defies logic.

The important question to ask is when was it discovered. Only then can you really take issue with the information being incorrect.

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,8649.msg54776.html#msg54776