The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3060
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:44 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

you did not understand what that word means once again, sorry for you.

It was enough to read Stephen Roskill note to realize that Adm Pound " addiction to INQUIRY " was exactly his intention from the INQUIRY results to move as soon as possible to a COURT MARTIAL if the INQUIRY provided the reasons to do it.

I think you are having a lot of problems about INQUIRY -> TRIALS for COURT MARTIAL -> and COURT MARTIAL.

Being called into an INQUIRY ( or TRIAL for CM ), ... for a Royal Navy Officer, ... meant to run a very HIGH risk to face very soon a COURT MARTIAL.

Do you understand now what it meant been subject to an INQUIRY by the Royal Navy Admiralty using the Articles of War to judge you during WW2 ?

@ CAG,

you are right with this statement :

as an English speaker the phrase " this was one of the matters into which inquiry would have to be made" means there is something unknown and requires explanation, someone has to find out why.


Only correction I will made on your statement is that an INQUIRY usually require an additional INVESTIGATION being made.
Otherwise you just require a simple EXPLANATION.

That is where the KEY to understand what happened is, just simply following Stephen Roskill clear indications.

From the War Cabinet minute 53 of May 26th, requiring an INQUIRY, everything " changed " by the time the War Cabinet minute 56 Item 1 that was written on June 2nd, 1941, and the INQUIRY of May 26th, became an EXPLANATION request on June 2nd, 1941.

In order to understand the possible " charges " the INQUIRY would have deeply analyzed, ... that later become EXPLANATION to be provided on June 2nd as said, ... it is enough to read the response later provided by the Admiralty to the War Cabinet Minute 56 Item 1 as said above, ... as requested by the War Cabinet secretary of course, ... to close officially the matter.

The Official documents doing all this bureaucratic process of closing the War Cabinet minute 56 item 1, are into the Adm 205/10, just as Stephen Roskill addressed us to look for on his book note, if we wanted to realize what happened about all this " regrettable aftermath " as he called it.

Those documents just as Stephen Roskill wrote on his note are Official Communication among Adm Pound ( Admiralty ), Sir Alexander ( First Lord ) and the Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.

To solve once for good this little enigma, ... of realizing which one could have been the INQUIRY charges, later become EXPLANATION items, .. it is enough to read the Official document on page 332 on Adm 205/10, ... and the enigma/dilemma will be easily solved. I asked Wadinga to post this page and solve the enigma CLOSING this matter.

I am glad to tell everybody here in that I had the solution of the enigma made " bottom up " with my researches and simple reasoning already done some years ago, ... reaching exactly the same conclusions, ... but without knowing Stephen Roskill and his book notes.

Just a little personal satisfaction from my side, ... supported by persons/historians of the level of Stephen Roskill, Russell Grenfell and Pitcairn-Jones, ... and of course thanking everybody challenge and help here in, ... and in particular the invaluable help I have from Alberto Virtuani, ... :clap:

@ Wadinga,

I simply have everything about this battle as usual, ... once I know what to search and look for, ... the Official documents will be in my hands, ... :wink:

@ all,

nobody is perfect and nobody is infallible, and everybody does have always a chance to learn more especially finding well documented archives and official documentation and other reasoning made by persons directly involved and personally knowing the key persons involved into an historical fact.

One day I will put into a book all I am learning and finding, ... and this all story of the Bismarck chase, ... the whole Operation Rheinubung, ... and how it was lived on both sides, ... will have a very different story to tell compared to what we know today.

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 )

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Cag » Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:29 pm

Hi All

I'm afraid it has now been reduced to a discussion on interpretation of wording! To borrow a phrase used by you Alberto, it would seem my English is not very good either!

The whole thing again descends into second guessing what people meant, and opinion and interpretation, a place where ambiguity allows everyone and no one to be correct.

Best wishes
Cag

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1740
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:53 pm

"Cag wrote:"I'm afraid it has now been reduced to a discussion on interpretation of wording!"

I do agree :clap:
As I "kept saying" since a while (e.g. see the "past perfect usage" discussion re. Leach senior and junior in Singapore), not having more serious facts to deny the INQUIRY /CM story anymore.........


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

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 926
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby wadinga » Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:33 pm

Hello Antonio,

Sorry it was indeed Alberto with excerpts from Roskill's letter to Kennedy.

However you say

From the War Cabinet minute 53 of May 26th, requiring an INQUIRY, everything " changed " by the time the War Cabinet minute 56 Item 1 that was written on June 2nd, 1941, and the INQUIRY of May 26th, became an EXPLANATION request on June 2nd, 1941.


Nothing required an INQUIRY (whatever you choose to capitalise) Pound merely said someone would find out why the radar had malfunctioned and other matters. He volunteered "Whether she had been right in doing so". By my reading of WM 41 53 there was no discussion of the Bismarck action, no questioning of why Pound might have thought Leach's action was unwarranted, in fact no reaction at all and therefore no requirement for any response from the Admiralty. If WSC was still supposed be seething why not? There was a discussion about losses on a 20th May convoy. There was more discussion about Crete.

In the May 27th War Cabinet the severely damaged state of Bismarck is mentioned before moving straight on to an important matter - Crete.

By the June 2nd we have the:

A full report would also be made regarding certain aspects of the action which, PRIMA FACIE, seemed to require explanation.


Prima Facie means at first glance ie with only superficial study.



Those documents just as Stephen Roskill wrote on his note are Official Communication among Adm Pound ( Admiralty ), Sir Alexander ( First Lord ) and the Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.


The only references are from underlings. No communication exists between the named parties in 205/10 on this subject.

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3060
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:27 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

poor Sean, what a rude awakening is waiting for you once you will go to Cambridge and find out the truth, ... of course assuming you will be able first to realize it, ... and second to accept the evidence too, ... not easy for you, ... as far as I see since years from your side.

Anyway, ... you wrote above :

By my reading of WM 41 53 there was no discussion of the Bismarck action, no questioning of why Pound might have thought Leach's action was unwarranted, ...


My goodness, ... you are totally out of track here too, ... if you only read the May 26th War Cabinet 53 annexes, ... I will help you to find it, ... just go to page 150+151 of the 65-22, ... and not ONLY the 65-18 like you did that contains only the minutes, ... :wink: ... you will be able to read what Sir Dudley Pound presented to the War Cabinet about the Bismarck and the Denmark Strait battle at 05.00 pm.

You have the FULL DS battle description with the information he had at hand available, the INQUIRY about several matters and the very important phrase HIGHLIGHTED being accurately separated by the rest of the texture. This one :

The PRINCE OF WALES had then broken off action. Whether she had been right in doing so could not be judged on the information so far available.


To be noted that the information you read BEFORE that statement, are of course partial and mostly INCORRECT, ... but very, very FAVORABLE for the PRINCE OF WALES, ... declared being hit on the MAIN fire controls :shock: ... and on the Y turret too :shock: ... which we know was NOT TRUE !

Despite those incorrect and very favorable incorrect information ,... still there was a doubt that PoW could NOT have been right on doing so.

You and everybody else can easily imagine what was going to be the statement by knowing that PoW retreated after 2 minutes, with the guns OK, and based only on " superficial damages ", ... as Capt Leach himself communicated to RearAdm Wake-Walker some hours after and the Admiralty surely realized too.

You keep on mentioning Crete, ... and try to convince me and everybody else that WSC was NOT interested on the Bismarck chase evolution.

Poor Sean, nothing can be more incorrect than this evaluation from your side, ... as usual, ... the 24th on May 1941 was Saturday and WSC was at Chequers with Averell Harriman in direct connection with the Admiralty WAR ROOM following Bismarck closely, ... try to find out where WSC was on May 26th and 27th.

Of course HE moved and only covered CRETE ... AFTER !
Since he already knew EVERYTHING in FULL DETAILS ! ... and HE knew it LIVE !

The explanation request at PRIMA FACIE, ... were required AFTER Adm Tovey defeated Adm Pound trial for Court martial request for WW+Leach probably on May 30 on the phone call, ... and those EXPLANATION requested on June 2nd are the ones that have been responded with the documents into the Adm 205/10, ... especially with the page 332 document, ... the one's confirming the " Cover Up " occurred and the shame of this whole " regrettable aftermath ", ... since the EXPLANATION are of course the Adm Tovey DISPATCHES accepted being the truth by the Admiralty :shock: , ... and we all know now that they have been written INTENTIONALLY INCORRECT by Adm Tovey.

Lucky us this historical re-construction is not based solely on your effort, ... since you appear unable even to find existing documents from under your nose, ... and when you find them on archives or books, ... you are NOT able to properly evaluate them, ... and this is the reason why I am keep on telling you, ... just bring them out, and share them in original, .... because there will be someone able to properly investigate and read them.

Still a question comes to my mind looking at what you did with Roskill books and the Adm 205/10 documents.
Do you really want the truth or just try to still hide it by coming here in diverging from it as much as possible ?

Since you are NOT sharing them, ... I will do it.

Bye Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3060
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:48 pm

Hello everybody,

here the 65-22 annexes full document.

Page_150_65_22_annexes.jpg
Page_150_65_22_annexes.jpg (93.28 KiB) Viewed 82 times


Page_151_65_22_annexes.jpg
Page_151_65_22_annexes.jpg (67.92 KiB) Viewed 82 times


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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3060
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:13 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

here the " shame " everybody must see and read in full details, the one Stephen Roskill referred and directed everybody to read about all this " regrettable aftermath ".

I asked you already several times to allow everybody to read what has been done and formally accepted at the highest level in order to close this shameful series of events, ... and enable the King recognition on October 1941.


Ref. WAR CABINET 56 (41) Item 1 of June 2nd, 1941; point regarding the Bismarck.

A full report would also be made regarding certain aspects of the action which, prima facie, seemed to require explanation.


Lets see what they used to acquire the needed and requested explanation for the War Cabinet.

Lets see which one where the " hot points " that has been answered, ... it it was the RD/F jamming, .. like you and something else is trying to direct our attention toward to ... or it was something else.

Last chance for you to post them ... like you asked several times to me about my original maps from Kew you unfairly kept on writing I was trying to hide, ... while I have been the one sharing ALL I had, ... always.

Now it is your turn to do it and NOT to try to hide them, ... and if you will NOT do it, ... I will do it.

ADM_205_10.jpg
ADM_205_10.jpg (64.22 KiB) Viewed 79 times


They are telling exactly what I told you since years about this shameful story, and I arrived there without knowing their existance.

Now everybody must see them.

Bye Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 3097
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:43 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

here the " shame " everybody must see and read in full details, the one Stephen Roskill referred and directed everybody to read about all this " regrettable aftermath ".

I asked you already several times to allow everybody to read what has been done and formally accepted at the highest level in order to close this shameful series of events, ... and enable the King recognition on October 1941.


Ref. WAR CABINET 56 (41) of June 2nd, 1941; point regarding the Bismarck.

A full report would also be made regarding certain aspects of the action which, prima facie, seemed to require explanation.


Lets see what they used to acquire the needed and requested explanation for the War Cabinet.

Lets see which one where the " hot points " that has been answered, ... it it was the RD/F jamming, .. like you and something else is trying to direct our attention toward to ... or it was something else.

Last chance for you to post them ... like you asked several times to me about my original maps from Kew you unfairly kept on writing I was trying to hide, ... while I have been the one sharing ALL I had, ... always.

Now it is your turn to do it and NOT to try to hide them, ... and if you will NOT do it, ... I will do it.

ADM_205_10.jpg


They are telling exactly what I told you since years about this shameful story, and I arrived there without knowing their existance.

Now everybody must see them.

Bye Antonio :D


Antonio, you'll need to repost the above images at a higher resolution to make them legible.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3060
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:07 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

Duncan, ... you may have read that I have asked Wadinga to do it several times already, ... admitting I was right since the beginning of all this story on 2013 starting the thread of the Articles of War, ... referencing to the mismatch of the data into Adm Tovey dispatches point 17 and 19, ... and I think at this point it is due from the ones that never supported my way to read those events.

I do not need it of course, ... I can live without it, ... but I like fairness and a real gentleman approach, ... and we all will forget about all our sometimes heated discussions.

Here the first piece of the document 331 as a starter :wink:, ... does it look they were interested on the RD/F jamming matters ?

Page_331_01.jpg
Page_331_01.jpg (29.26 KiB) Viewed 72 times


It states :

First Sea Lord,

the secretary of the War Cabinet is enquiring whether any further report will be made regarding the last sentence of the paragraph in Item 1 of W.M. 56th Conclusions attached, which I have marked.

It would appear that the " certain aspects of the action " referred to is a reference to PRINCE OF WALES breacking off engagement with BISMARCK after the sinking of HOOD.


Again, does it look they were mainly interested on RD/F jamming matters ? Like somebody pretend to convince us ?

I do not think so ... it seems to me something of a very different MATTER ... as a subject of further EXPLANATION needed that were NOT satisfactory at PRIMA FACIE.

Bye Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 3097
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:36 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,



Antonio, since you have already posted the above pages, why not make them fully legible?

From what I can tease out of them. I don't see anything untoward.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3060
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:55 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

sorry, before I proceed with the other parts of the document I Iike your agreement of what they mean, ... step by step.

Do you understand and agree that the MATTER they wanted MORE EXPLANATION was the PoW retreat and NOT the RD/F jamming ?

Do you agree that this :

Ref. WAR CABINET 56 (41) of June 2nd, 1941; Item 1; point regarding the Bismarck.

A full report would also be made regarding certain aspects of the action which, prima facie, seemed to require explanation.


Refers to this MATTER :

First Sea Lord,

the secretary of the War Cabinet is enquiring whether any further report will be made regarding the last sentence of the paragraph in Item 1 of W.M. 56th Conclusions attached, which I have marked.

It would appear that the " certain aspects of the action " referred to is a reference to PRINCE OF WALES breacking off engagement with BISMARCK after the sinking of HOOD.


Just like for the Norfolk and Suffolk tracks now I will move ahead ONLY step by step, ... after having received the agreement and acknowledgement from you, Wadinga and all the other ones participating into this debate.

I am sick and tyred to be jocked around on and on every time since years. Enough is enough.

Do you agree the MATTER was the PoW disengagement ? A simple answer from your side will suffice, like for everybody else.

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: 3097
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:33 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

sorry, before I proceed with the other parts of the document I Iike your agreement of what they mean, ... step by step.

Do you understand and agree that the MATTER they wanted MORE EXPLANATION was the PoW retreat and NOT the RD/F jamming ?

Do you agree that this :

Ref. WAR CABINET 56 (41) of June 2nd, 1941; point regarding the Bismarck.

A full report would also be made regarding certain aspects of the action which, prima facie, seemed to require explanation.


Refers to this MATTER :

First Sea Lord,

the secretary of the War Cabinet is enquiring whether any further report will be made regarding the last sentence of the paragraph in Item 1 of W.M. 56th Conclusions attached, which I have marked.

It would appear that the " certain aspects of the action " referred to is a reference to PRINCE OF WALES breacking off engagement with BISMARCK after the sinking of HOOD.


Just like for the Norfolk and Suffolk tracks now I will move ahead ONLY step by step, ... after having received the agreement and acknowledgement from you, Wadinga and all the other ones participating into this debate.

I am sick and tyred to be jocked around on and on every time since years. Enough is enough.

Do you agree the MATTER was the PoW disengagement ? A simple answer from your side will suffice, like for everybody else.

Bye Antonio :D


Antonio. it would be helpful to be able to fully read the files that you posted earlier.

this quote:
First Sea Lord,

the secretary of the War Cabinet is enquiring whether any further report will be made regarding the last sentence of the paragraph in Item 1 of W.M. 56th Conclusions attached, which I have marked.

It would appear that the " certain aspects of the action " referred to is a reference to PRINCE OF WALES breaking off engagement with BISMARCK after the sinking of HOOD.


seems to be extracted from a minute dated 31 July 1941. Therefore it would seem that Pound/Admiralty was unaware that further explanation, regarding PoW breaking off the action, was required prior to that date. The length of time between memos would indicate that this was a low priority request as WSC was famous for demanding replies in a much more timely manner, if he felt them to be a priority. By 31 July all the reports from the various ships and officers involved had already been filed.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1740
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:45 pm

Hi Duncan,
guess what had lowered the priority on May 27..... :wink:

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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: 3060
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:00 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

you wrote :

seems to be extracted from a minute dated 31 July 1941. Therefore it would seem that Pound/Admiralty was unaware that further explanation, regarding PoW breaking off the action, was required prior to that date. The length of time between memos would indicate that this was a low priority request as WSC was famous for demanding replies in a much more timely manner, if he felt them to be a priority. By 31 July all the reports from the various ships and officers involved had already been filed.


As usual playing the deniers role upfront at any cost you try to read the way you like it and you will be pretty soon see that you are absolutely incorrect with your above evaluation.

I suggest you and everybody else, ... to avoid to keep on making incorrect evaluations like you did above and in the past, .... and to wait until the end of this demonstration.

That type of game is OVER now and forever.

I do not care on this moment for your incorrect evaluations trying to minimize this document as usual.

STEP by STEP I said, ... and I suggest it again to you, ... on your advantage, ... :wink:

I renew my question to you.

Do you agree the MATTER was the PoW disengagement ? A simple answer from your side will suffice, like for everybody else.

It is easy, ... and irrefutable, ... just confirm me the subject of the MATTER, ... you cannot do anything else, ... by logic, ... but you can obviously say NO, ... and I will take note of it.

Bye Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 3097
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:21 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

you wrote :

seems to be extracted from a minute dated 31 July 1941. Therefore it would seem that Pound/Admiralty was unaware that further explanation, regarding PoW breaking off the action, was required prior to that date. The length of time between memos would indicate that this was a low priority request as WSC was famous for demanding replies in a much more timely manner, if he felt them to be a priority. By 31 July all the reports from the various ships and officers involved had already been filed.


As usual playing the deniers role upfront at any cost you try to read the way you like it and you will be pretty soon see that you are absolutely incorrect with above your evaluation.

I suggest you and everybody else, ... to avoid to keep on making incorrect evaluations like you did above and in the past, .... and to wait until the end of this demonstration.

That type of game is OVER now and forever.

I do not care on this moment for your incorrect evaluations trying to minimize this document as usual.

STEP by STEP I said, ... and I suggest it again to you, ... on your advantage, ... :wink:

I renew my question to you.

Do you agree the MATTER was the PoW disengagement ? A simple answer from your side will suffice, like for everybody else.

It is easy, ... and irrefutable, ... just confirm me the subject of the MATTER, ... you cannot do anything else, ... by logic, ... but you can obviously say NO, ... and I will take note of it.

Bye Antonio :D


Antonio, I stated that the 31 July memo was about PoW's disengagement. I also stated that the memo seems to indicate that Pound was not aware that further information on that subject was required. These are straightforward observations and not an attempt at subterfuge.


Return to “Bismarck General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest