The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi all,
refusing to accept what Tovey wrote re, CMDS, despite it was confirmed by all the historians (from Roskill to Ryhs-Jones from Tarrant to Correlli Barnett), by direct witnesses (Roskill and McMullen) and by Sir Henry Leach (vey much interested in the story....), just means "denying" facts. :stop:


After Churchill words "the worst thing since Troubridge turned away from the Goeben in 1914" (not only a private outburst, but repeated on May 26 in the Admiralty War Room !) and Pound words "The PoW had then broken off action. Whether or not she had been right in doing so could not be judged on the information so far available" (on May 26, minuted in writing, in front of the War Cabinet), it should be obvious to anyone (with just a minimum knowledge of the Royal Navy), that the "atmosphere" was foreshadowing a Court Martial..... :stubborn:

But having seen the demonstration that the whole story has been changed with the intentional alteration of the official reports, "adjusted" to invent a better version of the key aspects that "prima facie required explanations", only a very, very naif person can imagine they were full of "innocent" errors or typos, and not just....excuses and justifications.....:negative:

Finally, despite this "embellished" version of the "aspects" was accepted by the Admiralty (see Barnes), to close the matter, Churchill felt necessary to have "very full discussions" with both Leach and Tovey, before minuting sharply "Leave it"...... :shock: What else would be needed to demonstrate that the actions of certain officers at DS was under scrutiny and tough critics ?


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

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

bottom line, the Court Martial attempt was only the reason for all this to have happened.

What is absolutely shameful to say the least is what has been done after to "Cover Up" the truth and proceed with the King rewarding instead.

All is up there to be read, realized and it is, .... and always will, ... smell really bad.

Enough said ...

Bye Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:40 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 )
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Antonio no one is trolling, there is a question to answer, Tovey states the charge, and his reason to rebuff it. You maintain that the lack of cruiser involvement and the withdrawal are part of an investigation into the battle and I'm ok with that. Other documents deal with those issues.The charge noted by the man who had the conversation if different to that of non intervention and disengagement..

Now as previously posted are we saying that in a private letter to Mr Roskill Tovey lied when he said he heard no more about the threat of a court martial?

Best wishes
Cag
Last edited by Cag on Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi Mr.Cag,
come on, try not to be too "naif", analyzing words ! The "CM" threat was over immediately (possibly in Churchill mind it had been already over at the time Pound told it to Tovey, as Bismarck had been sunk by then).

We can trust Tovey when he says he did not hear more about the "Court Martial".
After June 2nd, he did hear about another task to perform: providing the "explanations" for those aspects that "prima facie" required them. He duly provided the intentionally incorrect Despatches and Barnes answered clarifying which were the aspects that these despaches (point 17 and 19) were indeed clarifying ...... Also, he had to provide explanations to Churchill during "very full discussions",......but possibly the word "Court Martial" was not pronounced anymore.......

For sure, on May 26, ALL the officers listening at Churchill in the War Room understood what "the worst thing since Troubridge turned away from the Goeben in 1914" meant in terms of disciplinary actions..... :wink:


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

to Alberto Virtuani, .... :clap: :clap: :clap:

Maybe they will be able to understand now, ... what Churchill present with Alexander in person in the Admiralty War Room, ... was meaning while keep on repeating on and on what you just wrote above ... still on May 26th, 1941, ... :shock:

.... surely Tom Philips ( the "Bull Terrier" ) and Pound had no doubts what it meant in tems of disciplinary actions ... as Stephen Roskill explained to us all ... knowing Pound very 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 )
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Thank you Alberto, although I'm not sure what naif means, do you mean naive?

Again Troughtbridge is a comment from the man who caused that particular Admirals problems in the first place.

Troughtbridge was cleared was he not?
Troughtbridge shadowed and did not engage and discontinued the chase is that correct?
Leach did engage and did so twice more did he not?
He continued to shadow until contact was lost but without that loss of contact intended to re engage with Home Fleet support is that correct?
PoW sailed from CS1 after the loss of contact in order to search for Bismarck, even heading for a sighting of masts finding it was Norfolk before turning for Iceland did it not?
Did Churchill know this when he made such a comment two days after the action?
Was he aware of PoW lack of training, her gunnery 'problems'?
Do we now know all this and still think that his comment is applicable?

Come come Alberto.

So no more was heard about a CM by anyone of anyone, that is all I required thank you.

Tovey told only two people about that threat, Bingley and Paffard. Is that correct according to the Roskill letter?

The cabinet office was chasing up the result of whether the disengagement had been investigated was it not?

Churchills response of leave it was to Alexander asking if a further report was required was it not?

Best wishes
Cag.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

it is all perfectly written, analized and re-constructed step by step.

It is available here :

1) The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait -> The beginning of this story with the War Cabinet May/June 1941 minutes
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728

2) Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War -> The real reasons for the inquiry initial intention by Adm Pound.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5830

3) Hit on POW compass platform -> The truth about the HMS Prince of Wales disengagement time and reasons
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6276

4) The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait -> The truth about the 2 heavy cruisers distance during the battle
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8231

5) The Plot -> What as been done in order to "change" the previously declared heavy cruiser distance during the battle
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6495

6) Cover up synopsis -> What has been done by Adm Tovey to "change" the reality and enable the Officers recognition
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6799

7) The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait -> The final closure by the Admiralty and Churchill on Adm 205/10
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728

Just read and study it and mostly, ... allow everybody to be able to do the same, ... they have the right to do so.

Bye Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:22 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 )
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi Mr.Cag,
Troubridge comparison is the one used by Churchill and repeated in front of the officers at the War Room on May 26, even if you are annoyed by it.....
I find it just PERFECT (both Troubridge and Leach failed to do their utmost to prevent vitally dangerous enemies to accomplish their mission), you don't. Be it. It's worthless to discuss this again and again.

But, please, don't try to say that the matter was closed "because Tovey did not hear the word Court Martial anymore", it was not closed at all, until September. Tovey stood in defence of his officers and he had to prepare in the meantime a report that could support his view. This he duly did with the intentionally incorrect despatches point 17 and 19.


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

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Alberto you seem to believe that the words of an ill informed Churchill annoy me. I'm afraid that they don't, more important things annoy me.

Im pretty easy going to be honest, I tend to read what Tovey wrote in his letter to Pound, what Captain Leach wrote in his report and what Dahlrymple Hamilton wrote in his letter to Cunningham and take them at their word. I read PoW GAR and the Barben letter and Mr Murphy's letter and allow those to give me a picture. That seems to back up Leach in his opinion of the wiseness of continuation of a battle, as opposed to disengagement to await another more favourable opportunity?

If you do not and believe the two different actions are the same it's ok by me.

Again I have not said the matter was closed, the CM threat was rebuffed, the reason for PoW disengagement was investigated and answered by her Captains report, her GAR etc. Her reason for not re engaging is also answered in her GAR and damage reports. Those were available to the board as we now know.

Best wishes
Cag
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

did you realize that they have intentionally modified Official documents and lied by doing so ?

Did you realize that the evidence demonstrate that they were all together by doing all this ?

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: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Antonio could you please point out where Leach lied in his report? Is his reasoning for disengagement a lie?

Could you tell me in which regard is PoW GAR a lie, or her damage report? Is McMullen a liar in his gunnery assessment? Is Mr Murphy a liar? How is Dahlrymple Hamilton a liar? How is Tovey a liar in his assessment of PoW lack of work up?

Do you realize that saying that Leach, McMullen, the GAR its maps, Rowells maps etc are all lies is incorrect? I understand your argument regarding the cover up, but these are not falsified reports, are those that inspected PoW in Rosyth in on the cover up? How far does this inclusion in guilt go?

Best wishes
Cag.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

Adm Tovey lied about Capt Leach disengagement on point 19 on his dispatches about 06:13 and Y Turret jamming event.
If you read the above links you will realize it and everybody agreed about it being an intentional lie.
Barnes approved for the Admiralty board an intentional false document.
Capt Leach took his undeserved medal only thru that intentional lie by Adm Tovey approved by the Admiralty.

Same lies on Adm Tovey dispatches for RearAdm Wake-Walker on point 17 with the around 15 sea miles declaration.
In this case even a second board and another intentional falsification using "The Plot" was needed to enable the Admiralty approval and his final undeserved King recognition. Same shame, same process.

If the Admiralty had used as it was supposed the correct data and documents you are referring that were available to them too, there were not going to be any recognition but the deserved investigation and inquiry according to the Articles of War in place on those years.

Barnes Admiralty Board final approval statement was provided according to the only fact version they evaluated, the Adm Tovey dispatches, an intentional false written version of the events, and you can find it also on the documents Adm 205/10.

Did you finally realize now why they were all partners in this shameful crime ?

If you are stilll unable to realize this easy fact, I again suggest you to study the links I provided and you keep on overwriting with useless statement on and on.

The truth is in there and now finally available to everybody.

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: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Captain Leach did not lie in his report as to his reasons for disengagement. His report is included in Toveys despatch as is his explanation. His enclosure iv gives maps etc showing the times of disengagement etc.

Despite the loss of Hood and his ship hit Leach continued to shadow and engage his enemy with the intention of making a decisive action once KGV arrived. He continued his search and hoped for possible action until lack of fuel prevented further search, perhaps this is why he won a medal?

Leach's report PoW GAR Rowells maps and enclosure iv hold no lies, and it would be nice if you did not suggest they did.

We both know that 15 miles was incorrect but Norfolks actual position as we have been working out was neither 15 nor was it 10 and in fact probably closer to 15 than it was 10.

Wake-Walker was not being charged with non intervention during the battle, no matter how much you think he should be, he was being threatened with non re engagement. If you read the Barnes letter this is what was referenced not the battle, and I think in the thread regarding the plot it was agreed that neither 10 nor 15 miles was correct, but not the reasons why, as per usual nothing was resolved.

Best wishes
Cag.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Cag,

Sorry to have left you out of the distinguished list. There are many who have listened to this agenda, remained unconvinced, pointed out its threadbare factual nature and the high level of aggressive supposition and moved on. None have been apparently convinced by it.

For Antonio and Alberto:

Aggressive supposition:
The shameful " cover up " done in order not to proceed with a deserved investigation for a couple of cowards
At least we are not being mealy-mouthed any longer! :shock: Unbiased analysis or a targeted witch-hunt? :negative:

I am a little unclear about:
After Churchill words "the worst thing since Troubridge turned away from the Goeben in 1914" (not only a private outburst, but repeated on May 26 in the Admiralty War Room !)
and repeated in front of the officers at the War Room on May 26
Repeated in the War Room? Where is this described? Colville says this rant against Cunningham's attitude and Leach's action was made at Chequers on the 25th referring to "yesterday". Once again the full text, from Colville, not edited to make it seem like it is all about Leach:
""He berated the First Lord and First Sea Lord continuously, both on this account and because in the Mediterranean, the navy shows, he thinks a tendency to shirk its task of preventing a seaborne landing in Crete since Cunningham fears severe losses from bombing. The PM's line is that Cunningham must be made to take very risk: the loss of half the Mediterranean Fleet would be worthwhile in order to save Crete."
In fact one and a half sentences out of two is about Cunningham, not Leach, and "admirable" Wake-Walker is not mentioned at all.

What Brodhurst says is that (p 183)
Certainly by the early afternoon Churchill would have been at the Admiralty, and equally certainly Pound was instrumental "in restraining him from sending impulsive signals to Tovey and others engaged in the operation"
and cites Admiral Sir William Davis in the Roskill Papers. Is there evidence here that Churchill was still banging on about Troubridge and was it 75% about Cunningham anyway? How about giving us the Davis text?

Brodhurst also points out that Barnett is almost certainly wrong about Churchill spending much time at the Admiralty on the 26th. He didn't leave Chequers until 12:30 and had to be present at the War Cabinet at 17:00. Where neither he nor anybody else apart from pusillanimous Pound is minuted as saying anything about Bismarck!

Even on the 2nd June War Cabinet minutes, no one says anything about shortcomings of individuals, disciplinary measures or anything specific, except for the BBC report alleging poor naval gunnery.

If there is anything shameful about this whole sorry business, it is the willingness of several distinguished authors to unquestioningly believe the 20 year old recollections of an embittered 76 year old, with no corroborating information. Some have even embroidered things alleging a written letter after analysis by Phillips and Pound that cannot be found. They should have stuck to the actual words of Tovey's allegation. They should have included the caveats that Kennedy made when he decided to act as Roskill's "patsy" and give this sorry story the oxygen of publicity.

Sadly nothing here can be overwritten, even when it is palpably incorrect, but it can be gainsaid and seekers after truth can see all and make their own decision. Not just look at the last page.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hellop everybody,

I have had enough patience with the " trolls " writing here in that for one reason or another try to play dummy and keep of writing non sense in order to try to hide what has been stated about this topic.

This game started time ago and now is time to put a stop on it.

If you are still unable to understand the arguments do not ask questions about it changing subject and do not write here in any longer.

STOP changing subject all the time and if you do not have anything new to add about the topic, just avoid to write.

If you keep on doing it with the clear intent to overwrite on topic post's and deny at any cost despite the irrefutable evidence of the opposite, you will be patented by " trolling " actitivites, which is just what you are keep on doing.

Read the documents and read the British historians and try to learn, ... if you are capable of doing it.

Enough said.

Here the Admiralty conclusion for this regrettable aftermath, the shameful " Denmark Strait Saga " that was able to trasform a due inquiry and potential Court Martial for 2 Royal Navy Officers ( Capt Leach and RearAdm Wake-Walker ), on 2 clearly not deserved King recognitions :
Page 332

First Lord,

The report on certain aspects of the BISMARCK operation referred to in W.M. ( 41 ) 56th Conclusions, Item 1, is still outstanding.

I suggest that the report to the War Cabinet should be on the following lines :

“ With reference to W.M. (41) 56th, Conclusions, Item 1, a full report has now been received by the Commander in Chief , Home Fleet, on the Bismarck operation and a thorough investigation has been made regarding the action of the commanding Officer of the PRINCE OF WALES in breaking off action with the BISMARCK after the loss of the HOOD.

The following is an extract from a letter from the Board of Admiralty to the Commander in Chief Home Fleet, in connection with his full report of the operation : “

“ Their Lordships desire to express their view that the action of H.M.S. PRINCE OF WALES in breaking off action with BISMARCK after being damaged in the engagement was entirely correct having to the circumstances of the case which are fully set out in the Commander in Chief Home Fleet’s ( Adm Tovey ) Despatch. It is their opinion that the extremely difficult decision called for accurate judgement and very high courage on the part of the Commanding Officer (Leach). Similarly the decision of the Rear Admiral Commanding 1st Cruiser Squadron (Wake-Walker) not to re-engage the enemy with PRINCE OF WALES at that time is considered by Their Lordships to have been entirely correct and to have shown good judgement and correct appreciation of the situation. “

19th September 1941
This page alone is the summary of this shameful series of events, it says it all


Here the recap links :

1) The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait -> The beginning of this story with the War Cabinet May/June 1941 minutes
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728

2) Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War -> The real reasons for the inquiry initial intention by Adm Pound.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5830

3) Hit on POW compass platform -> The truth about the HMS Prince of Wales disengagement time and reasons
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6276

4) The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait -> The truth about the 2 heavy cruisers distance during the battle
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8231

5) The Plot -> What as been done in order to "change" the previously declared heavy cruiser distance during the battle
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6495

6) Cover up synopsis -> What has been done by Adm Tovey to "change" the reality and enable the Officers recognition
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6799

7) The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait -> The final closure by the Admiralty and Churchill on Adm 205/10
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728

I just hope that the reader will have the chance to see the post and read all the story.

If the " trolling " activity will continue, clearly against the forum rules, I will take the necessary actions about it.

Enough is enough ... and I had enough patience already.

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 )
Locked