The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Cag » Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:32 pm

Hi All

Just to clarify the above post, I do not suggest that anyone's opinion or interpretation is wrong, I accept their interpretation and opinion and respect their work and their right to hold that opinion.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:57 pm

Hi Mr.Cag,
be assured, I respect as well your different interpretation.

I interpret it exactly as Roskill (and all the subsequent historians) did in his footnote 38, that is directly linked with page 125/126 where he speaks about the Court Martial.

Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_pages_125_126.jpg
Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_pages_125_126.jpg (124.86 KiB) Viewed 225 times

I also interpret it exactly as Wills did in his book "In the highest traditions of the RN" (biography of Capt.Leach) reviewed page by page by Sir Henry Leach, in which the Court Martial for the two officer is logically linked to their own "weaknesses" from a military viewpoint:

Wills_CourtMartial_page93.jpg
Wills_CourtMartial_page93.jpg (25.53 KiB) Viewed 225 times


I think both Roskill and Sir Henry had come to the same conclusions than Antonio and me, being the logical one..... :think:

I still accept your different opinion, of course....


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

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Cag » Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:22 pm

Hi All

Hi Alberto,

Again I accept your opinion but without implying any judgement on whether it is correct or not.

Again Roskill does not say or even imply that the CM threat is the same as the 205/10 documentation, he calls the "whole post mortem examination" as being a bad reflection on Pound and Phillips which would suggest he does not think it warranted, would you say that would be a correct interpretation? It is hard to say you agree with his interpretation when he interprets nothing.

John Leach never faced a court martial for his withdrawal, we know this from numerous historians reference and from the letter of the man who received the phone call. Would this be a first hand account? With all due respect to Sir Henry Leach what type of account could we attribute to the Willis reference?

I'm happy to accept your opinion Alberto, let's agree to disagree and as you say respect each other's opinion without need to express it's validity.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:45 pm

Cag wrote: "Roskill does not say or even imply that the CM threat is the same as the 205/10 documentation,"

Hi Mr.Cag,
while I respect your interpretation of the docyuments available, I don't see how you can say the above:
Roskill (I have posted his pages above), after having spoken of the towing signal, clearly says that the "post mortem" of the operation included also the Court Martial threat. Then in the footnote he points to ADM 205(/10 for the papers regarding this "regrettable aftermath" (it is the CM on which Tovey "dilated at length" and it cannot be the signal, as it mention the papers that never fere to the signal). Why you say he did not interpret this way ?

While we can agree to disagree about the interpretation given by Roskill that the papers in ADM 205/10 are actually linked to the CM, I think that Roskill opinion is very clear here.....


Re. Sir Henry Leach, I have no clue why he allowed Willis book, reviewed page by page by him, to go out specifying the imputation for his father exactly as reported in ADM 205/10. The Tovey version about his father accused of not re-engaging Bismarck was much more easy to counter,a s Leach was under W-W command......but again we can agree or not with his information and interpretation of the facts.
I agree with his interpretation, while respecting yours.


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: 3261
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:32 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

all I have done is available here in on dedicated precise threads.

I cannot realize if one likes or not to follow all my reasoning unless someone ask or tell me.
One can also be not interested on certain arguments I am working on and posting here in.

I have never refused help to anybody, ... and never pretended to convince anybody, ... today even less than in the recent past.

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: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Cag » Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:37 pm

Hi All

Hi Alberto

He gives a reference to Kennedy for the CM threat.

He gives a reference of 205/10 for the correspondance regarding other parts of the 'post mortem'.

He does not link them, but you do.

His opinion on the matter is clear, it shows those that suggested a CM as being in a bad light (ie not in a good light) and that the whole post mortem examination was a regrettable aftermath (ie something that should be regretted).

Best wishes
Cag

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:51 pm

Hi Mr.Cag,
with all due respect, are we reading the same pages ?

Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_pages_125_126.jpg
Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_pages_125_126.jpg (124.86 KiB) Viewed 187 times

As you should easily verify above, the "post mortem" that showed in bad light Pound and Phillips is the [u]Court Martial threat for not re-engaging[/u], as accounted by Tovey in his letter (1961). This is a fact, isn't it ?

The footnote 38 regarding this "post mortem" refers Kennedy because he wrote first about it (based on the papers received from Roskill). It confirms that the Court Martial threat was referred by Tovey to Roskill in his letters and in his personal visits. It references the ADM 205/10 for the correspondence about it and it clearly says (mentioning Churchill final decision) which are the pages in this file that are of interest (331,332,333 and 334).
This is another fact, isn't it ?

I can accept to disagree on opinions, but cannot accept that a fact or a written statement is denied, or, worse, that they are "interpreted" as my personal opinions. :negative: Please show me the exact wording that allow you to read the above sentences as you would like, because your below one is simply wrong (and never written by Roskill):

you wrote: "He gives a reference of 205/10 for the correspondance regarding other parts of the 'post mortem'."

Where does Roskill speaks about "other parts" :shock: of the "post mortem" ? :negative:



Once accepted the facts, we can agree to disagree on Roskill interpretation of the ADM 205/10 papers (that mostly speak about Leach retreat) as being linked to the CM threat (to Wake-Walker for not re-engaging), as accounted in Tovey's letter.
I personally agree with his interpretation (that they are the same story) but I agree it is an opinion, albeit a heavyweight historical opinion, being the history of the RN Roskill primary interest and being the same opinion shared by Sir Henry Leach when Wills listed the accusations against his father and Wake-Walker.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:07 pm, edited 9 times 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: 3261
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:57 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

I fully agree with Alberto about the only way to read Roskill.

More, Corelli-Barnett and Graham Rhys-Jones are very evidently in line with this unique way to read Stephen Roskill statements.

Those are not opinions, ... are facts by British historians.

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: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Cag » Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:29 pm

Hi All

Hi Alberto and Antonio, please see my post on the conspiracy thread.

To defend Roskill the post mortem is directly related to the Bismarck operation, not just one aspect of it, therefore Roskill is talking about any part of that post mortem process regarding the whole operation. Both the CM threat and the correspondance in 205/10 is part of the operation and its post mortem process and are mentioned. However he is not linking them as being one and the same investigation, ie the CM threat for not re engaging is exactly the same as for withdrawing. It is logical to see from the wording (not re engaging as opposed to withdrawing) that this is not the case.

Question

Do the pieces of correspondance in 205/10 reference a CM for not re engaging Bismarck after Hood was sunk or are they cabinet papers regarding war cabinet meeting references to Leach withdrawing?

Answer
They are the second option.

Question

If the withdrawal of PoW is an action taken before the re engagement and the cabinet meeting reference of withdrawal was before the threat of CM, and the very fact that in the whole of the 205/10 correspondance it does not contain a single CM reference or reference to a threatened CM for another charge can they be linked?

Answer
No

Question

Does the Tovey recollection of a CM threat by Pound mention anywhere that it included Wake-Walkers actions before and during the DS battle or Leach's withdrawal?

Answer
No

Again you ask me to show the exact wording to show you where Roskill implies the post mortem is about other parts, well look at 205/10 which is not about a CM, and Toveys letter threat that is specific in its CM charge. Did Roskill know this fact? If he knew they were not connected why is he apparently implying they are connected?

Now can you show me exactly where Roskill says that the CM charge and the cabinet papers regarding withdrawal of PoW are one and the same CM investigation?

Could you show me where in the correspondance in 205/10 where the engagement of Bismarck by the cruisers is shown to be part of the CM charge?

Or are we just saying that it is implied? I'm happy to accept that it is implied.

No doubt your response will be forthcoming, unfortunately I will not be able to respond myself, not due to unintelligence, or admission of defeat which no doubt I may be accused of, but because the constant back and forth rehashing of a debate that never ends achieves nothing.

You have your opinion, I accept it, you have gathered your evidence and have interpreted it yourselves, may I add without the need to put others names alongside it that cannot or have not agreed or denied that they in agreement with you or not, and so I honestly wish you all the best with your future publications.

As always best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:14 pm

Cag wrote: "please see my post on the conspiracy thread"

Hi Mr.Cag,
sorry, I prefer not to look at an abject provocative thread that NOTHING has to do with "Bismarck General Discussion" section in this forum, opened ONLY due to total lack of arguments to counter the evidences. :negative:



In the above post, you just confirm me that we are still reading different pages (please read them word by word):

Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_pages_125_126.jpg
Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_pages_125_126.jpg (124.86 KiB) Viewed 168 times


The Court Martial is the only "post mortem" of the Bismarck operation mentioned by Roskill. There are neither "other parts" nor "any part" as you had incorrectly said, and Roskill links the CM threat only (as mentioned by Tovey letters and visits) to ADM 205/10.

Cag wrote: "He gives a reference of 205/10 for the correspondance regarding other parts of the 'post mortem......Roskill is talking about any part of that post mortem process regarding the whole operation. :shock: "
:negative:
Footnote 38 gives references for this only "regrettable aftermath", the Court Martial "post mortem".

All your post questions Roskill interpretation of the link between the Court Martial as per Tovey letter and the ADM 205/10, and you can keep your (well argued) opinion (while I have the same opinion as Roskill who spoke to Tovey and was able to see beyond the exact wording of the charges.....).
What you cannot say is that Roskill did not link them together, because this is a fact. He does explicitly in footnote 38, interpreting the evidences in his possession (Tovey letter/visits and ADM 205/10 papers) with his (IMO correct) historical judgement, mentioning Barnes' answer , in which both Leach withdrawal and W-W failure to re-engage are present, as the main linking argument.


Only when you will have finally accepted that Roskill text is a FACT, not an OPINION, we can go further with your questions and answers. I will then be happy to debate them, in order to discuss whether Roskill was right linking CMDS and ADM 205/10 together or not (opinions and not facts).


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: 1227
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby wadinga » Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:06 pm

Hello Alberto,

At last we agree:

sorry, I prefer not to look at an abject provocative thread that NOTHING has to do with "Bismarck General Discussion" section in this forum,


Although intrasigent denial of points made to the Conspiracy theorists has caused some frustration.

However,

On post-mortems:

It is not clear to me who is carrying out this post-mortem. Up to now I had only thought, as I argue below, that it referred to a real 1941 evaluation by the only people qualified to do it, that is Pound and Phillips. However, maybe Roskill refers to an impartial imaginary PM ie the author's opinion and the reader's own evaluation when his book is read. For me "The" means a single evaluation carried out in 1941 by Pound and Phillips which for the simple timing issue outlined cannot have occurred.

Have you read the things you post? "The post-mortem on the Bismarck operation also showed Pound and Phillips in an unfavourable light." Tovey's recollection is that the threat was made as soon as he docked. How can Pound and Phillips carry out a post-mortem, they have not even seen his report? You allege he later changed details to protect certain officers but he has already "defeated" the proposal before they have even read his interim report. As we know the various second hand retellings of this story were always vague about when the fabled phone conversation took place, but Tovey is clear - on arrival. Why is Roskill muddled? He has had Tovey's story since about 1950, spent loads of "quality time " with him and he writes here in 1977! There is no time for a post-mortem such as he describes, and no need for the distortion of facts and downright lies you and Antonio have alleged, because the threat has already been defeated on the 31st May.

Who is Roskill's source? As you have shown us quite clearly, Tovey definitely says the CMDS threat in the letters Roskill has had in his possession since the 1950s happened on arrival at Scapa Flow. That is on the 31st May. However in Churchill and the Admirals Roskill says there is time for a Post-Mortem. Why? Because he is actually using Kennedy's Pursuit version as his source, which says P226:

Having read all the reports on the operation and studied the track charts, Pound informed Tovey that he wanted Wake-Walker and Jack Leach brought to trial...........


Kennedy, even having been given and studied Tovey's letters does not respect Tovey's timing, but substitutes his own, delaying by several weeks the "threat", which Roskill effectively repeats.

Interesting Roskill says Tovey dilated at length.....in several letters. You have described him only mentioning CMDS in two out of four. Several usually means more than two. IMHO what you have shown us is not "at length at all" but a very basic stripped down description, but if that is all there is, and I am sure it is, that is all we have. There is no description of precisely what any Court Martial charges might be for, which is the point Cag has made.

and was able to see beyond the exact wording of the charges


There is no exact wording described.

BTW WRT Graham Rhys-Jones' book may regurgitate the CMDS story without Kennedy's caveat, but in the chapter discussing the D/F controversy he says

But we should not regard Tovey's evidence as conclusive; he was not a notably reliable witness in old age


Another denier to replace Cag, whose patience has apparently expired? Hopefully, since he has bowed out before and returned, he will return again with his valuable information and insight.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:40 pm

Wadinga wrote: "How can Pound and Phillips carry out a post-mortem, they have not even seen his report? "

Hi Sean,
so what ? On 25 and 26 May, when Bismarck was lost after a Captain had disengaged his battleship having received only "superficial damage" and a Flag Officer had refused to re-engage in numerical superiority, there was no need of reading Tovey report to think about a Court Martial request. The "post mortem" starts with Pound threat and ends with Churchill "leave it" (or possibly with the recognitions).


you wrote: "You allege he later changed details to protect certain officers but he has already "defeated" the proposal before they have even read his interim report"

I'm sure Churchill had no intention to proceed already when Pound spoke to Tovey, having Bismarck been sunk. After some days the Court Martial request became a request of "explanations" over "certain aspects" as there was already an interest in exploiting the victory, instead of prosecuting. However a good story had to be presented for acceptance.
Tovey despatches (where he did change "details") are exactly what was needed to approve the whole story and to allow its closure.


you wrote: "Kennedy, even having been given and studied Tovey's letters does not respect Tovey's timing, but substitutes his own"

As you still like Kennedy, please, try to find out why he gives another timing. I have no clue (and honestly no interest, having understood the poor research done by Kennedy for his book).


you wrote: "There is no exact wording described. "

There is: "for not re-engaging" (Tovey letter mentioned by Roskill) and "for breaking off engagement" (ADM 205/10). By the way, it's the same Wills wrote in his book under the supervision of Sir Henry Leach.



Regarding Rhys-Jones, he did not know Tovey as Roskill did and he simply repeated Kennedy: do you have any evidence Rhys-Jones had solid information regarding Tovey late years unreliability, except Kennedy (e.g. a medical certificate ) ? :negative:


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: 1227
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby wadinga » Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:38 pm

Hello Alberto,

after a Captain had disengaged his battleship having received only "superficial damage" and a Flag Officer had refused to re-engage in numerical superiority, there was no need of reading Tovey report to think about a Court Martial request


19:16 24th May Admiralty to Norfolk, Suffolk "Shadowing by Norfolk has been admirable. Keep it up and good luck


Wake-Walker had not been re-engaging for about twelve hours since 06:30 and did engage in re-engaging about 18:47 when his ships popped off a few salvos.

At no point did Pound order, as the long hours passed by, a different course of action, merely approve that which was being done.

There is no denying Roskill has adopted Kennedy's timetable "The post-mortem on the Bismarck operation also showed Pound and Phillips in an unfavourable light." You suggest a post mortem conducted solely on the fragmentary information available from signals received during the action and prior to Tovey's arrival, and directly contradicting the evidence you brought to light from Admiral Davies of the war Room consensus? A rash, premature and ill-informed post mortem delivered before the cadaver is even on the slab, is the best you could say.

Roskill actually says the threat results from the post mortem, not the other way round. A professional navy would obviously analyse all the information before taking such Draconian measures. Perhaps you are prepared to accept that Roskill realised that in addition to imagining the Shores of France and the direct order to continue to them, Tovey also imagined that "the threat" happened on the 31st of May, and in fact happened some days/weeks later. No wonder Roskill sat on the story for years.

Both Kennedy and Rhys-Jones realised Tovey's recollections did not add up, and neither should have included the CMDS story in main text and hidden the caveats away until later. But then sensationalism sells books- oh.................... I guess you know that :D Faced with Tovey's patent unreliability as a late life raconteur, Kennedy has rationalised the story to something that sounds at least vaguely credible, since he cannot as a journalist ignore the scoop, but includes major caveats.

I frankly do not understand what;

I'm sure Churchill had no intention to proceed already when Pound spoke to Tovey


means :? Are you accepting that the Churchill Chequers rant was the main instigator for the CMDS threat (if there was one) and that he had in fact forgotten/regretted it by 31st May?

After some days the Court Martial request became a request of "explanations" over "certain aspects"


Sorry, did Tovey "defeat" it or not on the 31st of May as he claimed? If Pound and Phillips had actually been digging around looking for evidence to rehash a threat, how could the C-in-C possibly hear "no more about it"? As the actual documents make clear, the War Cabinet minutes do not say what "certain aspects" are. Reflecting the will and focus of the entire British Government they are far more likely to be the need to know why German battleships can be pounded for hours by heavy gunfire and remain afloat, but British ones blow up after a couple of hits. Rather than chasing a couple of officers about over whether their spur-of-the-moment decisions were right or not. Two months later Brockman guesses what they are............... and guesses wrong.

And finally:

having understood the poor research done by Kennedy for his book).


Why don't you review the impressive listing of sources in Kennedy's book including correspondence or interviews with no less than 42 individuals actually involved in the chase, assess rationally the threadbare evidence behind you and your co-author's assertions of lies and cover-up and then review your own use of the word "Arrogance" :lol:

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:20 pm

@Wadinga:
Hi Sean,
I honestly can't follow your reasoning about the timing..... :think:

Roskill says that the "post mortem" of the operation (ended on May 27) included the CM threat (May 31), as accounted by Tovey in his letter (in which Tovey says that his refusal to court martial his subordinates defeated the threat) and that the correspondence related to this "regrettable aftermath" is in ADM 205/10. The aftermath simply DID not end on May 31, but on September 26 with Churchill "leave it", after Barnes' formal acceptance of Tovey's despatches.
Nowhere Roskill assumes that the CM threat was done at a different timing than as per Tovey letter (the only evidence he mentions regarding this point in his books and even in his papers).

If you want to question Roskill interpretation of the facts in his possession (Tovey letters and visits + ADM 205/10 pag.331-334), I have to accept your opinion (as I know I will be unable to convince you), but I still stay with Roskill's. I don't see any hesitation in Roskill apart from his respect for Tovey desire not to have the letters published, at least until the latter died.
Tovey may have not heard about the CMDS anymore, but for sure the Court Martial menace was clear for him when he prepared the official reports, don't you think so ?


It's Kennedy inventing the "few weeks after" (I have only the Italian translation of Kennedy book, please correct me), thus the time that passed between the phone call on May 31 and the Court Martial threat, even moving it "after having read the reports and the maps" :?:. This is (another) error of Kennedy, as he had (apparently, AFAIK) no evidence supporting it and just following your (IMO wrong) reasoning about the timings. There is no evidence even in Roskill papers that he ever discussed with Kennedy about any different timing than the one in Tovey's letter.

If you want to stay with Kennedy interpretation, you must find the evidences (in case Kennedy used any....I doubt but, as you pointed out there is a long list of documents he apparently consulted in his bibliography) supporting the fact that the threat was done after reading the final reports, weeks later.... :shock:
It's exactly the other way round. Tovey despatches were prepared and used in order to close all the "aspects" that had provoked the Court Martial threat and they are quite significantly different from his May 30 initial report.


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: 1227
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby wadinga » Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:30 pm

Hello Alberto,

Small steps then.

Did this happen?


19:16 24th May Admiralty to Norfolk, Suffolk "Shadowing by Norfolk has been admirable. Keep it up and good luck


Does this signify approval of not re-engaging?

All the best

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


Return to “Bismarck General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests