The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:25 am

Cag wrote: "You do know what my answer was, to repeat the answer, this has no relevance to the points raised in relation to a proposed court martial of Leach "

Hi Mr.Cag,
I respect your opinion, IMO the answer to the question I asked in clear above ("do you agree point 19 is an INTENTIONAL alteration of the facts known by Tovey himself ? ") is MORE than relevant to demonstrate the existence of a potential case against Leach, NOT limited only to his "failure to re-engage". I have to register the fact that you prefer not to repeat your answer with a simple yes or no, and I fully understand why, being (IMO) this intentionality irrefutable....

However, I accept your proposal to "leave it at that".


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:16 am

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

you wrote :

My reading is different from yours. How can a saga "emerge later", if it's an just incredible series of events that simply happened ? Why emerge ? Why later ?


This is a very interesting set of questions.

Lets assume for a moment that only 3 persons knew about this initial Court Martial defeated initiative and the consequent document alteration in order to enable the Admiralty approval needed for the King recognition, ... because this is what Sir Henry Leach defined a " Saga ", ... and as I wrote before I agree 100 % with him, ... and I think that from now on I will use this term in order to define the full set of those events from the beginning until the end.

DS Saga = ( Initial evidence -> + -> Court Martial request/defeated -> + -> Documents intentional alteration / COVER UP -> + -> Home Fleet Dispatches -> + -> Admiralty positive response -> + -> King Official Recognition )

So, lets just assume that only 3 persons knew about " The Denmark Strait Saga ", those being Sir Winston Churchill, the First Sea Lord Sir Dudley Pound and obviously the Home Fleet C in C Admiral John Tovey.

It is obvious that during and immediately after the war nobody was going to declare what really happened on the summer of 1941.
If someone does not understand this, ... better to manage something else rather than participate on this discussion.

The war was over and both RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker ( died Sept 1945 ) and Capt J.C. Leach ( died Dec 1941 ) were dead by 1946.

Nothing surfaced until 1954, even if there were rumors about it, but on 1954 Stephen Roskill contacted Lord Tovey.

Who was Stephen Roskill on that moment and why he contacted the ex Admiral John Tovey ?

Very simple answer : On retiring from active service in 1948, Roskill was appointed by the Cabinet Office Historical Section to write the official naval history of the Second World War. His three volume work The War at Sea was published between 1954 and 1961.

We all know that between Adm Tovey and Adm Pound + Churchill there were no very good relations even during the war and during Adm Tovey service in the Royal Navy, ... so what a very good occasion was that one offered by Stephen Roskill to Adm Tovey to declare the truth about what really happened during those years, ... war was over, both the Officers were dead so nobody was going to be directly impacted and he was going to have his revenge on Adm Pound and Churchill.

The above explanation should be enough to clarify the why and when this " Saga " part about the Court Martial initial request surfaced at first, ... on November 1954 by Adm Tovey to Stephen Roskill for the above reasons.

What did Stephen Roskill do with those revelations he received by Adm Tovey letters apparently ?
Just nothing because of the reasons he declared on his book note on 1976 we can all read today.

Time passed, ... other 20 years, ... and we arrive on 1974 and Sir L. Kennedy probably contacting Stephen Roskill regarding his book Pursuit about the Bismarck. Probably Stephen Roskill thought that being a dedicated book on that event those letters could have been interesting for Sir L. Kennedy and gave them to him as he declared.

What did Sir L. Kennedy do with those Adm Tovey letters he received on 1973/74 from Stephen Roskill ?
He published the content of them, and added a note regarding Adm Tovey exaggerations when responding to Adm Pound he got from Tovey secretary on 1973 related to other events between Tovey and Pound.

This was the reason the CM part of the " DS Saga " emerged, ... a journalist scoop by Sir L. Kennedy on 1974, ... 20 years later when compared to its initial declaration in writing between Tovey and Roskill, ... and 33 years after the real events.

Now what did Stephen Roskill do after the Kennedy book publication on 1974 ? Nothing, but confirmed the story of the CM initial request defeated by Tovey 2 years later on 1976 as we can read.
Did Roskill considered Kennedy note about Tovey exaggerations and/or Tovey reliability being in question ?
Not at all, neither a mention about it by Roskill, which highlighted Adm Pound " addiction to enquiries " regarding that CM defeated request story he was confirming from his side referencing Kennedy 1974 book page 226.

What could a Royal Navy Officer in career like Sir Henry Leach have done on 1974 when this Court Martial initial request story " emerged/ surfaced " involving his loved father memory after being decorated by the King after his Royal Navy Admiralty proposal about the Denmark Strait battle events.

Lets see Sir Henry Leach career situation at that point :

Leach became Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff (Policy) at the Ministry of Defence in April 1971, receiving promotion to rear admiral on 7 July 1971,[7] and then became Flag Officer First Flotilla in May 1974, with promotion to vice admiral on 6 July 1974.[8] He became Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff in January 1976,[5] and having been appointed a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath in the 1977 New Year Honours,[9] he was promoted to full admiral on 30 March 1977[10] on appointment as Commander-in-Chief Fleet and NATO Commander-in-Chief, Channel and Commander-in-Chief Eastern Atlantic.[5] He was advanced to Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath in the 1978 Birthday Honours.[11]
Leach was appointed First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff on 6 July 1979[12] and in that role fiercely resisted naval cuts proposed by Defence Secretary John Nott.[13]


He just started a defense writing campaign in order to preserve his loved father memory from it.
Did he accused Adm Tovey of being a liar or suffering dementia ? Never !
Did he accused Sir Kennedy to have written a false scoop on his book Pursuit ? Never !
Did he accused Stephen Roskill to have written a false story on his 1976 book note ? Never !
Did he refused the Court martial story being NOT a real occurrence involving his loved father ? Never !
He just commented against the reasons for it to be, and called all this events a " saga " surfacing and emerging later ... confirming Adm Tovey defense of his father by defeating Adm Pound without refusing the occurred event, ... and in favor of the recognition his father received from the King.

Hope my simple explanation is good enough ...

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1011
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Herr Nilsson » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:32 pm

Antonio,

are you saying Leach talked about the court martial with his father and in the seventies he feared his carreer would be affected by saying the story was wrong? Sometimes I think you consider the Royal Navy for beeing just a bunch of carreer obsessed prevaricators. :lol:
The memoirs containing the word "saga" is from 1993 and Leach was already retired. In 1993 he could write everything: The story is wrong, the story is right or the story is a saga. If he knew the story was right and he had written that, nobody would have cared about it, because everybody knew his father made the right decision. The reputation of his father wouldn't have not been affected, because it was already published.

I think Leach knew Kennedy's book and only that, but he didn't know whether the court martial story was right or not. That's a much simpler explanation.
Regards

Marc

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Cag » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:50 pm

Hi All

Hi Alberto, well I can't fault you for trying! Tactics are tactics.

The discussions we were having were supposedly separate to any cover up theory and only if the subject was relevant to the fundemental discussion would it be included. A number of points were suggested to be irrelevant but were then subsequently proven relevant. Here are the subjects more or less to help,

Subject 1. Question - Was a court martial something that was rumour or reality?
Subject 1. Answer - Still an on going saga in its own right!

Subject 2. Question - What, if any dependant on the above question being resolved, was the charge proposed to be brought?
Subject 2. Answer - From all anecdotal evidence taken from books etc it was proposed to be "Failure to re-engage Bismarck with PoW after Hood was sunk" (proposed means suggested not that proceedings were started)

Subject 3. (Our debate) Question - Is Leach guilty of the above charge from evidence that is not part of a cover up theory? (ie would a proposed case be taken further on review of just the facts, without any added help by Tovey)
Subject 3. Answer - The 3 points raised in mitigating circumstances were agreed by yourself as showing that Leach either, could not materially re-engage due to the inoperable Y turret, could not tactically re-engage without disobeying his CO on the scene or without a higher authorities blessing, or actually did re-engage twice more despite his CO's orders.

Those were the subjects and parameters that all of my posts have been trying to stick to. Not trying to go off at tangents regarding Wake-Walker and his handling of his ships, not why did Leach disengage in the first place, but specifically relevant to the proposed charges. People can then decide for themselves what opinion they have, and still retain their view on whether a cover up took place. In other words an actual coming together on something at long last and allowing people to form their own opinion.

Then if you want to discuss other possible charges, off you go, but remember that the only charge mentioned is failure to re-engage, everything else is an opinion too (initial disengagement has been discussed round and round in another thread and the handling of WW ships on the night of the 24/25th is another matter which I'm not sure what charge you would bring for that to be honest?).

So from this you can also see that your initial question never had a yes or no option, it was a statement designed to help me realise something, which in reality (your or my opinion as regards point 19), in connection to the discussion then on going was irrelevant, ie forgetting the cover up did Leach have justifiable reasons why he did not immediately re-engage, and is there evidence that at some point he actually did re open fire on the enemy, ie did re-engage.

I hope that clears things up and you are able to understand the fundemental question. But I will congratulate you on your debate tactics, far better than mine!

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:01 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote: "Sir Henry Leach.... called all this events a " saga " surfacing and emerging later ... "

Hi Antonio,
writing that the saga emerged later, IMO Sir Henry is implicitly saying he was well aware of it already before. Else, he would have indignantly written that he had never heard a word about it before and that he was astonished about it..... :wink:

Most probably, in the RN environment, the saga was well known and even considered a fact, since 1941.


Bye; Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:06 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

you wrote :

Writing that the saga emerged later, IMO Sir Henry is implicitly saying he was well aware of it already before. Else, he would have indignantly written that he had never heard a word about it before and that he was astonished about it..... :wink:
Most probably, in the RN environment, the saga was well known and considered a fact since 1941.


Your personal opinion is very close to my one. It was going to be very difficult to keep that " Saga " hidden for so many years given what has been done and the many persons involved at the various stages of it. Surely in the Royal Navy there were a lot of rumors about it.

That is the reason why in my personal opinion Sir Henry Leach used the terms " emerged / surfaced " ... :wink:

@ Herr Nillson,

you wrote :

are you saying Leach talked about the court martial with his father and in the seventies he feared his career would be affected by saying the story was wrong ? Sometimes I think you consider the Royal Navy for being just a bunch of career obsessed prevaricators. :lol:


No Marc, all I am saying is that in any way you look at this sad story, ... you are evaluating a son ( Sir Henry Leach ) which was working and belong to the same organization, ... the Royal Navy, ... that acted in this way versus his loved father. It is more than obvious that this situation he had a very difficult position to manage during the whole events. I do not know if Henry talked with his father about this CM story in Singapore, it can be both ways but we will probably never know for sure.

Royal Navy is an high standard tradition organization very demanding and with strong discipline and rules to be observed. I admire it and my favorite Admiral is Horatio Nelson that more than everybody else is the symbol of the Royal Navy tradition standards.
Problem is that sometimes they had troubles and difficulties just like every other organization in this world, simply because they are human at the end, ... just like all of us.

The memoirs containing the word "saga" is from 1993 and Leach was already retired. In 1993 he could write everything: The story is wrong, the story is right or the story is a saga. If he knew the story was right and he had written that, nobody would have cared about it, because everybody knew his father made the right decision. The reputation of his father wouldn't have not been affected, because it was already published. I think Leach knew Kennedy's book and only that, but he didn't know whether the court martial story was right or not. That's a much simpler explanation.


He cannot write everything like you believe, in my personal opinion he did not want to attack the Royal Navy in line of principle, as an organization, ... that for me is out of discussion, ... just look and think the title of the book he dedicated to his father memory : " In the highest tradition of the Royal Navy ".

Sure once retired and after having been First Sea Lord and having had the possibility to read and evaluate all sort of documents still existing about this story, he could have taken a different position versus anybody as you wrote, but in my personal opinion he carefully evaluated the plus and minus of every initiative from his position and personal side and we all know what he decided to do, ... when and in which way.

In summary, ... he did not attack anybody writing about it, neither Kennedy nor Roskill, ... he confirmed the occurrence, ... he charged Adm Pound ( unfairly pressed Tovey ) and Churchill ( prodding Pound ) for being the responsible of the unfair initial Court Martial initiative ... he underlined positively Adm Tovey defense action ( refusing to land himself to this travesty of justice ), ... that doing so directed ( with the result that instead ) the correct recognition in his opinion, .... the well deserved DSO.

Above statements on parenthesis are from Tarrant book caption, ... you can find even more precise and stronger similar statements into Capt Leach biography book Sir Henry Leach supervised on page 93 .

Bottom line he took Kennedy version without his note about Tovey unreliability, ... and just like Stephen Roskill did on 1976 fully confirmed the occurrence and the event sequence, ... positively underlining from his side still on 2011 Adm Tovey personality : " Tovey then showed his character and his personal regard for both WW and Leach. He bluntly told the First Sea Lord that if the Admiralty ... "

This is my current opinion based on what I have found so far ... and Stephen Roskill now has become the stronger input we have among the 3, ... in my opinion, ... stronger than Sir Henry Leach and McMullen ... but the 3 of them together leave no chances to anybody now to deny what has happened.

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 885
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby wadinga » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:01 pm

Hello Antonio,

Stephen Roskill now has become the stronger input we have among the 3,


Roskill quoted Kennedy as the source in Churchill and the Admirals 1977. He thus disowned the story of the CMDS. He may have realised just how sensitive the subject was and left the "Patsy", Kennedy, to face the music alone. Especially when he read all the caveats Kennedy provided. Pafford's letter to Kennedy is dated 5th May 1973

P 239 in Kennedy makes it clear Tovey's errors in recollection date from as early as 1954. Do you have access to these words in Epilogue: Footnote one?

Again in 1954 he was under the impression he had received the signal about the KG V being towed home before Ark Royal's last attack and decided that "if Ark Royal failed to damage the Bismarck........to disobey the signal and turn back while we still had enough oil to get back to an English port" In another letter the same year he imagined that the signal had ordered him to continue the chase "up to the shores of France" Tovey to Roskill, Nov 11th 1954 and Nov 20th 1954).


Then follows the lengthy description by Pafford of Tovey's memory failings, but the examples quoted above date back to 1954 and Roskill knew they were wrong then.

What turns a simple story into a Saga? Well naval officer is in battle, performs well, gets injured, gets awards, gets his command back, chauffeurs Prime Minister to USA and then meets President is an uplifting story. But a straightforward story.

Naval officer is in battle, performs well, gets injured, gets threat of court martial, doesn't actually get court martialled even though top brass want him to, gets his command back, chauffeurs Prime Minister to USA and then meets President is a Real Saga. One that only emerged in 1974 when Sir Henry read Kennedy's book. Which is why it eventually emerged. :D

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:15 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

let me give you a suggestion Sean, ... simply forget to keep on highlighting the Kennedy note about Adm Tovey secretary personal impressions on Adm Tovey memory in relation to two details.

No one between Stephen Roskill and Sir Henry Leach used that note to write anything about Adm Tovey reliability, neither did it Colin McMullen.

This should be sufficient for any person fairly discussing now this argument.

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1011
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Herr Nilsson » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:20 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:He cannot write everything like you believe, in my personal opinion he did not want to attack the Royal Navy in line of principle, as an organization, ... that for me is out of discussion, ... just look and think the title of the book he dedicated to his father memory : " In the highest tradition of the Royal Navy ".


You should read his memoirs. He doesn't mince words.
Regards

Marc

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:24 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

you wrote :

You should read his memoirs. He doesn't mince words.


What do you mean ? Please explain it to me.

Are you referring to his book : Endure no makeshift of 1993 ?

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1011
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Herr Nilsson » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:38 pm

Yes
Regards

Marc

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:55 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

I understand you now, ... I have the other one about his father biography but I have never purchased this one, ... now I think I will add it on my list of next purchase, ... with the Stephen Roskill ones too, ... :wink:

I had never realized what was the role of Stephen Roskill among other navy writers, ... but having now just realized he was the Official Royal Navy historian, ... I think I will have all his books sooner or later.

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:15 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

1) Sir Henry Leach opinion and position about the potential Court Martial involving his father being a real occurrence does not change. It is debatable only the source of his information, just as I wrote before, and it can be both ways, probably we will never know it.

2) I am glad that at least you stopped talking about a completely invented and unsupported diagnosis of dementia about Adm Tovey.

I disagree with you and your way to try to build up Adm Tovey potential unrelaiability based on a very vague description done 20 years after by his secretary in order to justify to Sir Kennedy some errors Adm Tovey could have done about some details on an event occurred many years before.

One thing is to remember exactly all the details or make confusion, ... another is to remember, forget or invent an event, ... a complete different story is becoming unreliable because your brain does not work anymore correctly.

This approach about Adm Tovey is just unfair without a clear diagnosis from a Doctor we do not have and you seem to follow Sir Kennedy on trying to raise this doubt in order to denigrate a person and consequently try to demolish his statements.

3)If we listen to Colin McMullen there is no evidence at all he suspected to have talked to a person that he rated unreliable, ... just the opposite based on what he said, ... and in fact Colin McMullen is reporting with no additional comments what Adm Tovey told them in that occasion.

Stephen Roskill does not even put in discussion what Adm Tovey wrote to him despite Sir Kennedy note on the details you mentioned above.

4)Sir Henry Leach did not believe Adm Tovey being an unreliable person offending his father memory with an unsupported invention and in fact he wrote about it and commented the occurrences. He never declared Adm Tovey being unreliable and consequently the CM story being probably an unsupported invention, just the opposite.

5)As I wrote you above, still 3 out of 3 different sources were still there confirming the Cour Martial initiative occurrence, with no change at all despite Sir Kennedy book note on 1974, and 2 of them are very high profile sources like Roskill and Sir Henry Leach, while McMullen his a very solid source since he met Adm Tovey in person directly while talking about all this story.

Changing subject ...

6)I never discussed the differences between an official report details and a declaration containing small differences made many years after by an Officer.
I am discussing a difference between Official declarations and reports made one a week or a month after the other and completely changing the declaration released before, ... while having a good reason to do it, ... and not changing few details many years after without changing the whole meaning of that declaration.

To make you understand this difference why you do not check on Kennedy book when Wake-Walker released that BBC interview declaring his awareness of BC1, ... Kennedy reported the date of those interviews at the end of May 1941 with the list of the persons interviewed and WW is in there of course as we all know now, ... and than you check Wake-Walker official written report done few days after at the beginning of June 1941, ... so just few days after, ... neither a week after.
In the interview he declared he was AWARE soon after 5 am, ... on his report he declared himself UNAWARE until 05:50 ... :shock:

Now please tell me in which way you are going to read this clear potential " failure of memory " on this Officer and how are you going to diagnose him ? We do not need in this case his secretary suggestions, ... we have both his direct inputs available.

Same goes for Capt Leach radio message versus his report, same timing of few days, ... and the same for Adm Tovey between his May 30th document and his early July dispatches, just a month after ... and I can continue the list.

What do we have to assume now about those " failure of memory ", do I have to use Sir Kennedy way to try to demolish their reliability ?

Bye Antonio :D

1) HL's (HL = Henry Leach, JL = John Leach) opinion is just that, it is not a verified fact. One thing that seems certain is that HL's opinion was formed on the basis of Tovey's letter's published by Kennedy.

2) Tovey suddenly retired from public life and the House of Lords around 1952-53, apparently, to care for his wife. During that time retired he appears to have written no memoirs about his naval career and beyond letters to Roskill we have nothing from him. We know from his letters that his memory was failing in 1954.

3) I know from personal experience that the tales told by someone having memory problems can seem completely rational and believable and may not be discovered as being false until the facts recounted are reconciled with other sources. Unfortunately, Roskill with his wide access to Admiralty records was not able to verify Tovey's claim of a possible CM. That in itself should raise red flags about the story of a possible CM. Lacking verification Roskill could not use Tovey's information because some of the named parties were still alive and active in public life (Churchill for one and it is a pity that Roskill did not write to him about it). By 1974 Kennedy could use the material without fear of recriminations but he does caution the reader about the veracity of the CM source. I have mentioned that my mother's memory is failing, but I also researched my late father's account of his time spent in the military ( I found a detailed history of his battalion) during WW2 and I discovered some serious discrepancies where my father's memory had obviously "played tricks on him".

4) Henry Leach did not know Tovey and even though they served together on HMS DoY, HL fails to mention that they even talked to one another during that time on DoY. I suspect that if HL thought that Tovey's letters would be used to try and prove accusations of cowardice and corruption against JL that he would have investigated Tovey's veracity carefully. In fact HL thought, like most of us, that there was no basis for a CM against JL and so, if such a threat existed, it was quietly dropped due Tovey's resistance to it and due to the facts around it making it clear that a CM was not warranted.

5) You continue to claim (despite all the evidence to the contrary - which in itself is telling) that there are three sources supporting a possible CM but this is clearly wrong and there is only one source, and that is Tovey via his letters to Roskill, which were made partially public via Kennedy.

6) We have discussed that an official report takes information recorded at the time and compiles and reconciles it (as possible) into a readable narrative. We know from our extensive discussions that radio transmissions, RDF (not radar), optical ranging and bearing taking, were problematic during WW2 and especially so in the Arctic. We also know that everyone operated in the "fog of war" so discrepancies in any source are almost a certainty, as a matter of course, and cannot be used as evidence of conspiracy. Taking official accounts and statements and looking for discrepancies is the bread and butter of all conspiracy theorists who want to avoid using the most direct and simple explanation in favour of an exotic and highly improbable explanation.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:57 am

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

I read with interest your wrap up above, ... going from the Cour Martial request until the documents intentional alteration, ... so addressing the whole " Denmark Strait Saga " that Sir Henry Leach and myself now are referring to.

Of course now you as well as all the other " deniers at any cost " here in, ... a well known list of persons, ... are left with very few chances to hang on to in order to try to demonstrate that what I have demonstrated so far, ... is with no basis.

No doubts everything started by Adm Tovey, ... who else could have had the reason to declare what happened, ... surely not Churchill neither Adm Pound, ... both looser in this case, ... only Adm Tovey had the interest to declare it as he did, ... he was the winner at the end defending WW and J. Leach, ... avoiding the CM for them and having them rewarded just like all the other Officers involved on the Bismarck sinking.

So who you must attack now in any possible way, ... Adm Tovey of course, ... since we have now 3 very reliable source of inputs for his CM story, ... 2 very high profile persons ( Roskill and Sir Henry Leach ) and one being a direct witness ( Colin McMullen ).

None of them ever mentioned Adm Tovey unreliability, ... NEVER, ... you hang on to a letter on 1973 from his secretary to Kennedy written to explain a couple of mismatches, ... in a very simple way years after those errors, .. to try to declare him totally unreliable on 1954.

Given the current evidence we all know today, it is your ONLY and LAST chance to try to refute all this " DS Saga " story.
Because everything is clear and well demonstrated now with reliable witnesses and in writing, ... you are left with the only possibility to declare Adm Tovey unreliable, ... having consequently invented this story himself. This is your theory now and your last trial to refute the evidence as it shows.

This is unfair and unacceptable, ... with no certification about it you do not have the right to state something like this.
In the opposite we have all the right to state he was reliable based on McMullen direct talking to him and with no real proof of evidence of Adm Tovey ever being declared totally unreliable on 1954 or even after by anybody.

Your main problem you will NEVER be able to over turn is that Stephen Roskill on 1976 did NOT support Kennedy note and confirmed Adm Tovey reliability by writing again this story on his book, ... and Sir Henry Leach NEVER used this doubt to declare Adm Tovey unreliable and the " DS Saga " story with no basis.
Consequently you have lost with this trial, just like Kennedy ( on 1974 ) versus Roskill ( on 1976 ) not supporting him on this.

I will not spend much time on the rest of the " DS Saga " and on the documents intentional alteration we have well demonstrated on several threads here in, ... you will never have a chance to try to cancel what we all know today about it, ... with an easy statement like you are trying to do.

Look at the thread with the bearings, ... you all are refusing even an easy acknowledge of a well known series of official data, ... because you all know that it will demonstrate once again and forever that a series of documents and declarations have been intentionally altered after an initial correct declaration, ... released just a week before.

It is your defense line now that looks " exotic " to me, ... and to hundreds of readers that thanking our article now know the truth and do have the chance to realize themselves what really happened during those years about this " Denmark Strait Saga ".

Personally I am more than satisfied to have now Stephen Roskill ( what a new entry this is for me now :dance: ) and Sir Henry Leach on my side on this, ... and I am waiting to find more evidence in the close future, ... like it ALWAYS has happened in the past since I have started this re-construction effort.

I know you and the " deniers at any cost " will never quit and accept the reality as it shows, ... but you can be absolutely sure that with the evidence I have in my hands and using what I have already demonstrated, ... I will never quit supporting my case as well.

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:10 am

Hi all,
it's really funny now to see the "deniers at any cost" trying to refuse the CM story.

Of course the story came from Tovey: who else could have accounted the phone call with Pound ? Tovey account came to Roskill and he did not publish it in 1955 ONLY because "it did not affect the operations", NO mention of any doubt from Roskill.... :negative:
Tovey repeated independently the SAME story to McMullen and Blake. Kennedy published it, after having got it from Roskill, AND, after that, Roskill CONFIRMED it as a "more clear-cut" example of Pound being addicted to inquiries.

No reaction to this account came from ANYBODY at that time. Tarrant published it in a very well known and respected book, Wills repeated it and got Sir Henry Leach blessing. Now, in 2017, the "deniers" react all together indignantly.......why ? :think:


Possibly, because Antonio Bonomi, with his scientific reconstruction of the battle in 2005 and 2017, demonstrated clearly that at least 3 officer should have answered VERY difficult questions at a court martial and that, in order to celebrate and decorate them instead, it was needed to INTENTIONALLY ALTER the facts in official reports, building a "better" story. :cool:

The "fog of war" is now dissipated and it is revealed clearly as a "smoke screen". :D


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:32 am, edited 6 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)


Return to “Bismarck General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest