The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2566
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:37 pm

@ Herr Nilsson,
no Marc, I have countered your wrong statements (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 922#p78913) with facts. If you are unable to see the difference between opinions and facts or (as I think) you are simply UNABLE TO ANSWER (for your admission :clap: ) with facts, please let's stop here, and simply accept that you cannot counter any of the following ! :kaput:
no, it's not. It's clear from PoW maps that the order to the helmsman was given NOT later than 6:01.

6:13 is mentioned by W-W in a report that says PoW retreated after 10 minutes battle (5:53+10= 6:03 if mathematics is a science and Tovey was not stupid) . The Y turret jamming was NEVER mentioned by anyone as a battle damage happened BEFORE the order to disengage (it's pure invention of Tovey misusing Leach correct statement about the jamming). Both statements are not present in Tovey preliminary (and more correct) report, so they were added intentionally by Tovey (opinion, but there is no other logical explanation IMO).

ADM 205/10 is stating that the PoW retreat was an aspect that had to be investigated. Opinions are welcome, but it is a fact what is written at pag.331 and 332. I hope you don't support Mr.Wadinga "fantasy" about Brockmann as your "opinion"....

Phillips was absent for few days and NEVER Leach was left alone in action anymore.



Dunmunro tediously repeated his stubborn mantra :stubborn: : "Tovey's report has discrepancies...No one can say definitively why...therefore he altered them to avoid a CM..."
I will not loose my time to write again an answer to a denier who has decided to believe his (by now gone) fairy tale. He can try to read and understand, if he can, what I already wrote.
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 922#p78908



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

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1215
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:30 pm

Alberto, Alberto, what am I going to do with you?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2566
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:47 am

Marc, Marc, why are you acting this way, refusing to discuss with specific arguments while just trying to use generic statements re. opinions ? :think:

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

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1215
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:50 am

Alberto,
I think no one can accuse me of not being cooperative (even when I was insulted). That’s why I proposed to create a set of reliable bearings for example. At that time I wrote:
I mean to say all problems we had in the discussions are caused by not agreeing about the simplest issues. I'm afraid we will not agree in most issues, but maybe it's possible to find a "common denominator" at least. Perhaps this helps not to go over the same issues again and again. If it turns out that the differences are still too big, we should even consider not to discuss any further until new sources arise.
In my opinion this is still a valid approach. Now we have the problem that we disagree about what is fact and what is opinion. And that’s not just a detail, that’s fundamental! Without a shared understanding we should stop this discussion at this point, because that will get us nowhere (and I also don’t like to be insulted again by the way). In any way I'll keep my fingers crossed for you that I’m wrong.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2566
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:01 am

Hi Marc,
very simply, what you have not given is the explanation why my 4 facts (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 785#p78911) are not facts but opinions in your view.

You have said they are opinions, giving some (IMO wrong, but understandable and detailed) reasons: http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 785#p78913

I have answered pointing out why they are facts and not opinions: http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 785#p78914.

You have given up, posting they are "just" opinions (without providing any explanation/reason)......http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 785#p78917


If you are unable to counter the arguments, let's close here the debate, if you have to say something supporting your view that the listed 4 points are opinions, you are welcome, but please let's stay to facts and evidences, not to "lessons" on what is a fact and what is an opinion...... :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: 1508
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:16 am

Hello All,


it is unfortunate that a thread supposed to be dealing solely with the Court martial threat has restarted other debates.

The only relevant fact is that both Leach and Wake-Walker stayed in their positions of trust and enormous responsibility, were not censured in any way by Pound and so therefore the threat whatever it was, if it existed, was not followed through. Reasons to justify this fact have been postulated by those asserting conspiracy.

The trouble is we are not dealing with opinions pretending to be facts, but intuitions doing so. Opinions can be swayed by evidence. Intuitions cannot.


Here is an "intuition" dressed up as a fact
1) It is a fact that on May 28th, 1941 Adm Pound asked a Board of Inquiry -> Court Martial to Adm Tovey and it is a fact that after the war Adm Tovey explained the whole situation to Stephen Roskill in writing.
Since no-one has Pound's 28th May letter we do not know Pound asked for even a Board of Inquiry. It is also not a fact that a B of I automatically leads to a Court Martial. We infer from Tovey's letter of 30th May there was a request for Tovey to conduct a Board of inquiry, motive unknown. Tovey supplied information to Roskill between 10 and 20 years after the events. None of the information mentioned a Board of Enquiry, or referred to the actual letters that existed. They referred to a phone call about which no corroborating evidence exists.

Another example of an "intuition" dressed up as a fact:
ADM 205/10 is stating that the PoW retreat was an aspect that had to be investigated.
Pound's green ink reply says he will take Tovey's report with him, one presumes when he sails with Churchill and Leach in a few days' time. Nowhere are Court Martials, Board of Inquiry or disciplinary measures mentioned. Nowhere is an investigation mentioned. This is two months after the action. A month and a half later, Pound suggests to Alexander that they tell the War Cabinet a thorough investigation has been made. There is no sign any such investigation was made, or even contemplated. Thus it never "had to be investigated". Tovey confirms he, as C-in-C, heard no more about it after he alleges a threat was made on the 30th May.

Alexander's memo to the PM offers to make a report, "if necessary" therefore it did not qualify as "had to be investigated". His closing sentence makes it clear only Churchill's opinion, and not any underlying real concerns, would motivate such a report.


It is disappointing is that those misrepresenting their intuitions as facts, claim to be in possession of further actual factual evidence, but they refuse to show it in the spirit for which this forum exists. The reason for withholding it is clear.


All the best

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

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1215
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:52 am

@wadinga
Not having the new sources you, Alberto and Antonio have digged out lately I have to rely on my memory. When I wrote:
Herr Nilsson wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:33 am
1)It is a fact that on May 28th, 1941 Adm Pound asked a Board of Inquiry to Adm Tovey.
I had the letter of the 30th in mind.

I stand corrected. It must be read:
1)It is a fact that on May 30th, 1941 Adm Tovey mentions a request for a Board of Inquiry.

However, it's a good example that memory doesn't serves right.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:08 pm

Hello everybody,

too many persons are playing dummy here among facts and interpretations, ... with the obvious useless intent to try to refuse and reject this shameful event.

Lets see how many will disagree about those being facts now :

Fact number 1) On May 31st 1941 Adm Tovey responded to Adm Pound that he was not going to call a Board of Inquiry on the conduct of Wake-Walker and Leach ( those names being clearly written on the letter.)

Fact number 2 ) On July 1941 Adm Tovey issued his dispatches. ( reading points 17 and 19, 22 and 23 are of particular interest being those directly correlated to the conduct of the 2 above listed Officers )

Fact number 3 ) On September 1941 Sir Barnes ( Admiralty Secretary ) issued a letter of the Admiralty acceptance in relation to the conduct of Wake-Walker and Leach, clearly referencing ONLY Adm Tovey dispatches version of the facts.

Fact number 4 ) On October 1941 the same 2 Officers listed on the fact number 1 above, ... namely Wake-Walker and Leach, ... have been rewarded by the King.

Lets see who will try to refuse those being facts.

@ Herr Nillson,

May 30th was Adm Tovey first and correct report submission, ... his response to Adm Pound May 28th letter, was dated May 31st, 1941.

You are right, ... sometimes memory does not work right, ... that is why the writing letters dated and with full explanation of the real events are conserved by the careful historians like Stephen Roskill.

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

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:12 pm

Herr Nilsson,

I quoted Antonio's post of 07:17 yesterday
1) It is a fact that on May 28th, 1941 Adm Pound asked a Board of Inquiry -> Court Martial to Adm Tovey and it is a fact that after the war Adm Tovey explained the whole situation to Stephen Roskill in writing.

2) It is a fact that the whole " Cover Up " with the documents intentional alteration was done on purpose to obtain the Admiralty formal acceptance of the explanations ( Admiralty letter of September 1941 ) in order to enable the Officer recognition with a medal on October 1941, ... which it was obviously not possible given the real facts occurred during the battle that initially were driving the Board of Inquiry request from the Admiralty.
The second intuition masquerading as a fact is so confusing and self contradictory (is the "Admiralty" requesting a Board of Inquiry or creating a conspiracy to ensure it doesn't want one?) I decided to ignore it.


Please don't apologise for being slightly mislead by Antonio, sadly he's had a lot of practice. His special skill is only presenting only part of the evidence, like those thumbnails from maps, fragments from documents, redacting the rest and leaving his reader to draw an inaccurate inference. He actually justified this practice somewhere, but I can't find it again, perhaps he will remind us. However on 1) above he merely fabricated evidence and tried to bluff it through. Nobody knows what is in the 28th May Pound letter.

Fact number 3 ) On September 1941 Sir Barnes ( Admiralty Secretary ) issued a letter of the Admiralty acceptance in relation to the conduct of Wake-Walker and Leach, clearly referencing ONLY Adm Tovey dispatches version of the facts.

Barnes' letter dated 10th September (I will post the original IN FULL Antonio) is addressed to Tovey with regard to receiving his despatch dated 5th July and consists of 14 paragraphs relating to the entire operation. Nowhere does it state it uses only Tovey's despatch as a source of knowledge. Since resources not under Tovey's command, eg Somerville and Coastal Command are involved it is extremely unlikely. Only in one of the 14 paragraphs are Leach and Wake-Walker specifically mentioned. This is the one later quoted by Pound in his suggestions to responding to the tedious, irrelevant, ill-defined bureaucratic matter of the War Cabinet minutes question (whatever it might have been). In another Barnes mentions vessels "not being fully worked up".
Fact number 1) On May 31st 1941 Adm Tovey responded to Adm Pound that he was not call a Board of Inquiry on the conduct of Wake-Walker and Leach ( those names being clearly written on the letter.)
Fact number 1.1 should include that "both Leach and Wake-Walker stayed in their positions of trust and enormous responsibility, were not censured in any way by Pound, and so therefore the threat whatever it was, if it existed, was not followed through."


All the best

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

northcape
Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by northcape » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:27 pm

wadinga wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:12 pm
Herr Nilsson,

I quoted Antonio's post of 07:17 yesterday
2) It is a fact that the whole " Cover Up " with the documents intentional alteration was done on purpose to obtain the Admiralty formal acceptance of the explanations ( Admiralty letter of September 1941 ) in order to enable the Officer recognition with a medal on October 1941, ... which it was obviously not possible given the real facts occurred during the battle that initially were driving the Board of Inquiry request from the Admiralty.
The second intuition masquerading as a fact is so confusing and self contradictory (is the "Admiralty" requesting a Board of Inquiry or creating a conspiracy to ensure it doesn't want one?) I decided to ignore it.
Yes, amazing, isn't it? I had the same thought. So it is either a fact that there is a cover-up, or it is a fact that the cover-up was done specifically to allow to give out medals to the offficers. Actually, the second option requires the first one. So where is the proof for the fact (e.g. a written note of one of the persons involved saying "We did a cover-up")? This should be the silver bullet, where is it?

As said on several occasions, people who are not able to distinguish between facts and opinions (in particular if it is even obvious to the blindest of the blind) are for sure anytrhing but "historians". Again, troll is still the most kind description one might want to sue.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:02 pm

Hello everybody,

I see that the usual " hooligan / deniers " unable to do either easy mathematics calculation or geometry evaluations now try to challenge some logical facts connection.

Are you sure to have your brain engaged ?

Well, if so are you able to realize that it is NOT common practice in any army or navy in this world to have 2 Officers subject to a Board of Inquiry request for their action conduct by their superiors ( Admiralty ), few months after being rewarded with a medal by the King, ... after the same Admiralty approval :shock:

Are you able to realize that something must have changed the initial Admiralty request ?

I doubt you are able to find the 2 Official documents I am referring to above and make that easy logical connection.

But maybe you are able to surprise me ... :wink:

NOTE : still mathematics and geometry are waiting for you ... :wink:

Bye Antonio
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 )

northcape
Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by northcape » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:43 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:02 pm

I see that the usual " hooligan / deniers " unable to do either easy mathematics calculation or geometry evaluations now try to challenge some logical facts connection.
"Logical facts connection" - I had to laugh out loud. What on earth should that be? I know what facts are, and know what opinions are. But I don't know what a "logical facts connection" could be. So is the discussed statement now a fact or not? And by the way, to hear the word "logical" out of the mouth from a troll is not without irony either.

Finally, if some maths for trolls are required, here it is: 1 + 1 = 2, and not 3. But I know this is applies only in the real world, and not in fantasy land.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:24 am

Hello everybody, ,

I renew my invitation to you " hooligan / deniers " of logical facts connected one to the others.

On May 31st, 1941 the Commander in Chief Home Fleet John Tovey responded in writing to the Admiralty First Sea Lord Sir Dudley Pound that he was NOT going to proceed with the requested Board of Inquiry he asked for the conduct in action of RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker and Capt. J. C. Leach.

This is a fact, ...the first, ... and it is irrefutable even by an intentional denier.

On October 1941, as we can read on a London Gazette publication, the King rewarded the same 2 Officers listed above for the same action.

This is another irrefutable fact, ... the second.

I made it very easy for you, ... so you should be in condition to realize the problem we are facing above.

Now, do you mind to try to explain to this forum readers what happened in between those 2 facts ?

What was done by the Commander in Chief Home Fleet and by the Royal Navy Admiralty to enable the final King recognition ?

I cannot make it easier than this, ... and the above 2 facts cannot be refuted even by an " hoooligan/denier "

Now we wait for your logic explanation of the events occurred in between the 2 facts listed above.

In addition, since you seems to be good in mathematics, an easy evaluation for you : if you sum up 10 minutes to 05:53 what time are you going to have on your clock ?

I am helping you with 2 possible responses : either 06:03 or ... 06:13. ( I hope you will do better than Wake-Walker and Tovey :wink: )

I guarantee you that if you pass this elementary mathematics examination, ... I will raise you to the level of the geometry one that somebody else unfortunately is still unable to respond, ... :shock:

Have fun ...

Bye Antonio
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 )

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by HMSVF » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:22 am

Phillips was absent for few days and NEVER Leach was left alone in action anymore

As I mentioned before, any hand holding was the reverse.Tom Phillips had not been to sea since 1938-39 when he was Commodore Commanding the Home Fleet Destroyer Flotillas. Prior to that he was in command of HMS Hawkins (in 1935) and HMS Campbell in 1929.1938 to 1939 he was Naval ADC to the King
from,1st Jun 1939 to Dec 1941: Lord Commissioner of the Admiralty and Deputy (later: Vice) Chief of Naval Staff.

So he never commanded anything bigger than a cruiser, hadn't been to see in more than 3 years and spent a lot of time doing desk jobs....

Leach would have been the one with the experience, not only in running a battleship but also in modern war. Any baby sitting would come from the captain, not the admiral.


Best wishes


HMSVF

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2566
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:07 am

Hi HMSVF,

I see your point, but in case of Leach and Phillips, the "baby-sitting" (I prefer "supervision") would not have been related to "running a battleship" or knowledge of "modern war" technical aspects, IMO more on other aspects related to command duties..... :wink:


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

Post Reply