The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,
it's really a pity that a denier at any cost "personally cannot" accept an honorable way of escape from a lost discussion (offered by Paul Mercer wise proposal) and came back to provoke, posting nonsense and offenses.
Mr. Wadinga will get back what he deserves now, in form of EVIDENCES (a word he is clearly allergic to, as well as to geometry, preferring his own interpretation to proven and written facts).

Wadinga wrote: "This is not a debate between two reasonable opinions where they are equally reasonable interpretations of known facts"

Here Mr.Wadinga is right! The two opinions are NOT equivalent as one is supported by evidences (+ historian evaluations) while the other one is only based on his desperate denial attempts.


We have proven beyond ANY DOUBT that there was a serious threat aiming to disciplinary actions against both Leach and Wake-Walker (as a recap, I re-post here all the evidences we have already collected, I'm sure new ones will emerge from published and unpublished books/documents):

Threat_Evidences.jpg (65.16 KiB) Viewed 2135 times

Against these EVIDENCES, Mr.Wadinga is free to continue to believe to his fantasies (based on nothing):

that Tovey was mis-remembering things ,
that Pound, Alexander and Churchill were misled by a secretary regarding such a delicate matter ,
that everybody in the RN was approving a still efficient British battleship retreating in front of the enemy
and a flag officer refusing to re-engage when in superiority (+ then loosing contact with the enemy) ,
that the son of Capt.Leach (former First Sea Lord) was unable to interpret facts regarding the honorability of his father ,
that the alteration of reality done in Tovey's despatches was due to "typos" ,
that, had Bismarck safely reached France, there would have been no consequence for Leach and W-W ,

but I would suggest him to think carefully before posting anymore, overwhelmed by his "crusader" spirit in defense of two militarily very "poor" officers, having wasted a good opportunity to quietly move to other subjects.


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Has anyone else noted the only mention of "Court Martial" in your last post is in the pre-existing title block?

a serious threat aiming to disciplinary actions against both Leach and Wake-Walker

Are you accepting that the Tovey letter of 1941

we have already collected

actually I collected it, really only says Board of Inquiry?

Any date forthcoming for the presentation of the Silver Bullet? Or the 1962 Tovey Roskill letter you promised? Let alone Antonio's latest mysterious quote?

Speaking of Geometry

a word he is clearly allergic to, as well as to geometry

I am really disappointed no-one has posted at all on the D/F Controversy thread. This is a real thing that happened in the real world, and offers plenty of real opportunities to criticise the actual performance of British Naval Officers. If there were ever actually a British cover up in the Bismarck Chase, this is it. But not one single follow up posting. Obviously of no interest.


All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "Are you accepting that the Tovey letter of 1941...actually I collected it, really only says Board of Inquiry? "

While can accept it very easily (but again the key point is what Pound was saying in his May 28 letter.....), Mr.Wadinga seems to be unable to accept that Tovey in his letter of 1961 (...actually I collected it ....) only says Court Martial and the Court Martial was confirmed in McMullen interview, as being the threat menaced by Pound during the phone call with Tovey.


Mr.Wadinga now has no other way than to insist in denying all other Tovey's recollections and to quibble over BofI vs CM, to avoid to admit that the threat was actually done.
But this is now well proven (thanks also to him, for having provided Tovey 1941 letter confirmetion) and nobody will be able to deny the motive of the cover-up anymore.



Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "Are you accepting that the Tovey letter of 1941...actually I collected it, really only says Board of Inquiry? "

While can accept it very easily (but again the key point is what Pound was saying in his May 28 letter.....), Mr.Wadinga seems to be unable to accept that Tovey in his letter of 1961 (...actually I collected it ....) only says Court Martial and the Court Martial was confirmed in McMullen interview, as being the threat menaced by Pound during the phone call with Tovey.


Mr.Wadinga now has no other way than to insist in denying all other Tovey's recollections and to quibble over BofI vs CM, to avoid to admit that the threat was actually done.
But this is now well proven (thanks also to him, for having provided Tovey 1941 letter confirmetion) and nobody will be able to deny the motive of the cover-up anymore.



Bye, Alberto

So Tovey's 20 year after the fact 1961 letter shows that he misremembered while McMullen can only repeat what Tovey told him.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Dunmunro wrote: "Tovey's 20 year after the fact 1961 letter shows that he misremembered"

Hi Duncan,
unfortunately you too have lost a good opportunity (offered by Paul Mercer) to accept an agreement to disagree, about the way to read this story.....

It is clearly NOT the way you write above....Tovey remembered correctly what Pound told him while it looks like he just "lowered down" the threat in his May 31 answer to Pound: Robin Brodhurst (in his ultimate "Churchill's Anchor" Sir D.Pound biography) is very clear about this:

Brodhurst_pag180.jpg (87.17 KiB) Viewed 2077 times

It looks like Pound WROTE (in his May 28 letter) that the Admiralty aim of the "investigation" was a Court Martial (as obvious to everybody, except to the ones who refuse to face such a clear fact at any cost).

I hope the above will close this useless debate, at least until someone will be able to (and I think we will ) find Pound's May 28 letter text.

Of course (after you have found the letter), you or Mr.Wadinga could write your own publication, accusing Brodhurst of such a "severe" error (before doing so, I suggest you get all the bibliograghy that Brodhurst lists at the end of his volume), together with the explanation that Brockman misled Pound, Alexander and Churchill in ADM 205/10, that Tovey's despatches point 19 was just a "typo", etc.etc..
Good luck for your fantasy work !


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

You have uncovered another serious error in Tovey's 1961 letter, unless of course Brodhurst merely parroted stuff without bothering to check, that he had read elsewhere. Tovey specifically says the threat was made in a phone call, not a letter. We established this some time ago. Since he only mentions a threat of B of I in his own response to Pound's 28th letter, we may conclude that is what was in Pound's 28th letter. There is no indication anywhere, like the Davies account of the War Room, that you kindly provided, that Pound was in the least bit "infuriated" by any officer's actions. In fact he specifically signalled to Wake-Walker that his actions had been "admirable". This is something Brodhurst has no reference for, and we have already noted the inadequacy of his rendition of Churchill's Chequers outburst, leaving out all reference to Crete. Just as it is disappointing Wills did so little detailed investigation of Leach's situation in that biography, Brodhurst too has done little investigation, compared with us, into his subject, Pound, during this specific period.

It is interesting that approve of Brodhurst's sources but fail to acknowledge Kennedy's equally impressive listing with the added advantage of Kennedy's conversation with 42 veterans.

Hello All,

Now to NEW ORIGINAL INFORMATION which is all Crown Copyright

The first is Pound's draft for response to Tovey's report, for VCNS Phillips to review. Note how he squashes Phillips' previous negative comment about Dalrymple-Hamilton's positioning. After reviewing the track charts, Pound concludes everybody has done an excellent job. There is not the slightest suggestion of criticism of anyone. No doubt the Prosecution will suggest these charts have been doctored, but I am confused as to whether Pound is supposed to be in on the deceit or not.



The second is Pound informing Alexander there must be a second Hood enquiry. Not for any ludicrous reasons like changing testimony, but purely to do a better technical job. As we know from Phillips' recommendation, I supplied.



Now Alberto, about that 1962 letter you continue to withhold.........................

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote (my underlined): "Tovey specifically says the threat was made in a phone call, not a letter. We established this some time ago. "

TOTALLY INVENTED !
Nobody has established that, except the fantasy of Mr.Wadinga.
Tovey accounted for the phone call when writing to Roskill (the call was possibly was much more "hot" and crystal clear than the letter), but he NEVER said that no threat was done in writing in a letter. Simply, he never mentioned the letters to Roskill (both Pound one and his one.....) and that's all.

Brodhurst clearly says that Pound WROTE to Tovey about the Court Martial, this is the only FACT here and the "conclusions" of Mr.Wadinga are totally irrelevant !

If Mr.Wadinga is in disagreement with Brodhurst, and he thinks this serious author is wrong here, he can ask him why he wrote this and/or publish his version of Pound reactions to the Bismarck episode.

Wadinga wrote: "Brodhurst too has done little investigation, compared with us, into his subject, Pound, during this specific period"

REALLY SHAMELESS !
Mr. Wadinga should address this comment to Mr.Brodhurst, who dedicated his reputed historian skill to write a biography of Sir D.Pound.....
Apparently R.Brodhurst knows what Pound wrote to Tovey (while we don't) and this is what he writes (despite he was aware of all Roskill material that only contains the phone call story...).

Brodhurst_pag180.jpg (87.17 KiB) Viewed 2056 times

Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Pound must have been furious with Leach and W-W to write this scathing condemnation:

The destruction of the BISMARK was the result of the co-ordinated efforts of all the forces placed under the command of Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet.

The cruisers made the initial sighting at 1922/23 and shadowed with such skill that the enemy were engaged by the HOOD and PRINCE OF WALES ten hours later resulting in the enemy being damaged and then torpedoed by aircraft from the VICTORIOUS after a further interval of eighteen hours. Altogether these cruisers maintained touch for 31 hours and during this long and arduous chase C.S. 1 was faced with an exceedingly difficult situation when he saw that the HOOD had been destroyed and the PRINCE OF WALES damaged. His decision not to engage the enemy closely at this juncture is considered to have been courageous and correct.

[dunmunro]

Wadinga wrote: "Brodhurst too has done little investigation, compared with us, into his subject, Pound, during this specific period"

REALLY SHAMELESS !
Mr. Wadinga should address this comment to Mr.Brodhurst, who dedicated his reputed historian skill to write a biography of Sir D.Pound.....
Apparently R.Brodhurst knows what Pound wrote to Tovey (while we don't) and this is what he writes (despite he was aware of all Roskill material that only contains the phone call story...).

Brodhurst_pag180.jpg

Bye, Alberto

The above underlined and bolded section seems to me to be a rather shameless assertion.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro parroted Pound words posted by Wadinga re.Wake-Walker: ".... His decision not to engage the enemy closely at this juncture is considered to have been courageous and correct...."

Mr. Dunmunro (starting now I will not address anymore this guy too with his first name) should be able to remember that the same Pound had already written to Tovey to instruct a BofI (according to Tovey answer) or a Court Martial (according to Brodhurst) against Wake-Walker, before the cover-up had been decided.



Mr.Dunmunro is SHAMELESS at least as Mr.Wadinga is his obstinate denial against ALL EVIDENCES !


They have both been given an undeserved opportunity (by Paul Mercer, who I do thank for that attempt anyway) to retire without further "disgrace", after having been wrong (and ridiculed) since years on this forum for their nonsense and obstinacy.

They have decided to come back to provoke and, in doing so, they have both chosen to be further pilloried: their choice, they will be !

For the time being, in the absence of any proof that he was wrong, Brodhurst (Pound's biographer) words are definitive about what was Pound's WRITTEN threat against W-W and Leach (before the Cover-Up decision was taken): Court Martial !

Brodhurst_pag180.jpg (87.17 KiB) Viewed 2052 times

Bye, Alberto

[Byron Angel]

I have been playing the role of silent lurker for some time. 3+ years and counting with respect to this particular thread ..... just unbelievable.

Speaking strictly for myself, I consider the argument about a court martial cover-up to remain unproven. I do not discount the possibility that a threat/demand might have been made in the heat of the moment: Churchill was well known for his impulsive and mercurial personality. Pound's career (IIRC) had materially benefited from Churchill's patronage going all the way back to pre-WW1 days, so it would not by any means be unreasonable to imagine that Pound would have communicated Churchill's sentiments to Tovey, with the matter ultimately being dropped as a result of Bismarck's subsequent destruction and Tovey's threat to resign if charges were pressed.

One sticky issue needs to be addressed, however, before the argument of a court martial cover-up scheme can be expected to float. Churchill confronted a somewhat similar situation 27 years earlier with respect to the failure of Milne and Troubridge to intercept/engage Goeben in 1914. Troubridge underwent a court martial proceeding and was acquitted of all charges, yet he never held another sea-going command. Milne was not even court-martialed, but also never held another sea-going command. What this suggests is that, even if court martial proceedings against Leach and Wake-Walker were forestalled by Tovey's threat to resign, Churchill and Pound had another clear option to exact revenge upon Leach and Wake-Walker - sub-rosa destruction of their careers by means of bureaucratic denial of any sea-going command and exile to some isolated and unpleasant shore command. This did not however occur. Leach remained aboard Prince of Wales to meet his end in battle. Wake-Walker, by all accounts, carried on through the balance of the war with distinction: OBE for Bismarck episode, promotion to Vice-Admiral, appointment as Third Sea Lord, KCB, then promotion to full admiral and CiC Mediterranean. Churchill and Pound would presumably have had ample opportunity to frustrate, delay or deny any or all of these accolades.

At the end of the day, if the court martial option was dropped for political reasons, why was the quiet "alternative bureaucratic solution" not exercised? It is, I think, a question that needs to be addressed. "The dog that didn't bark", so to speak.

Hope everyone is keeping well and still loving one another on what must be the longest-running "debate" in the history of the internet.

Byron

[Alberto Virtuani]

Byron Angel wrote: "why was the quiet "alternative bureaucratic solution" not exercised? "

Hi Byron,
I respect what you have written above, including your doubts about the "cover-up", that is for me evident reading the reports/declaration before the Court-Martial threat and the reports after.

Coming to your question, the key difference with Milne/Troubridge case was IMHO the final result: a blatant failure against Goeben and a full success against Bismarck. Bismarck sinking changed everything, even the long term "judgement" of their actions, suggesting a celebration instead of a prosecution.
In any case, Leach subsequently got a Prime Minister or an Admiral on board of his ship and Wake-Walker, after his CS1 role end, never got another command at sea, albeit promoted (Troubridge was promoted too, after the Goeben episode.....).


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Who is more likely to know whether the threat was in a phone call or a letter, Tovey or Brodhurst? The latter has lazily parroted those writers who have not even bothered to read the words of1961 letter as we have (thanks Alberto). Tovey does not mention a letter at all. only a phone call.

As Wake-Walker was commanding a carrier task force in July this was obviously a larger role than merely CS 1 therefore reflecting both Tovey and Pound's faith in his ability. As for this obssession with "never got another command at sea" that's what happens to talented individuals- they get promoted to higher management. Overseeing the production of the landing craft fleets which will liberate Europe is a bigger job than commanding a couple of cruisers.

Pound is entirely supportive of the actions of all sea-going officers in the draft I have supplied, and squashes Phillips' miserable griping over Rodney's movements. The reasoning for the second Hood enquiry is clearly laid out.

Byron, how splendid that you have been keeping an eye on things I don't believe you have allowed for the retasking of the two officers to lowly positions without any of this disciplinary measure twaddle. With absolute power, WC and Pound could have given them a demotion without explanation. They didn't because both of them knew they had done nothing wrong.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "The latter has lazily parroted those writers who have not even bothered to read the words of1961 letter"

No comment about the arrogance (or is it desperation) of an "amateur" versus a reputed and published historian.


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

now that it is clear and demonstrated that we had also a letter exchange between Adm Pound ( letter to Adm Tovey on May 28th, 1941 ) and Adm Tovey ( response to Pound on May 31st, 1941 ) together with the " famous " call between them probably on May 30th, 1941, ... lets see how the many British historians defined those occurred communications regarding the Court Martial request for RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker and Capt. J. C. Leach.

Here how it was defined ( the verb used ) by the majority of the British historians on their books :

Verbs_CM-DS.jpg (98.94 KiB) Viewed 1797 times

Very interesting is now to read Graham Rhys-Jones definitions about all this " regrettable aftermath " :

Graham_Rhys-Jones_page_227.jpg (127.29 KiB) Viewed 1797 times

He used the term " Exchanges " which can be everything, ... both by voice or letters, ... and it is plural, ... and not a singular occurrence, ...

Of course he underlined Tovey was responding with his intention to act as " prisoner's friend " in case, confirming the Court Martial threat.

Very interesting to notice how the whole argument was closed by the Board after the " Cover Up " occurred thru the Tovey dispatches according to Rhys-Jones, ... as I have re-constructed and we all know very well now.

The researches are continuing, ...

Bye Antonio