The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3075
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:26 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

I disagree.

The sentence is very clear and linear on the explanation of the events the way I have explained you above.

Surely Adm Tovey told both RearAdm Wake-Walker as well as Capt. Leach about the risk they were both running, because immediately after they changed the version of their declarations and released their reports, providing exactly the modified inputs Adm Tovey needed to build up his incorrect dispatches based on their new and altered version of the facts.

Sorry, not only Kennedy letter was the source of the court martial request and what happened after, Sir Henry Leach is another source both from Tarrant book as well as on his father biography book by Wills.

Bye Antonio :D


LoL!

If events happened as you suggest above John Leach would have had to say something like this to his son:

"...The admiralty accused me of cowardice when I ran away from Lutjens...luckily, even though I am a complete and worthless coward and did run away, W-W, who is also a worthless coward, Ellis, also a coward, and Tovey, who seems to love worthless cowards, covered for me and all of us submitted false reports to cover our tracks... Son, to preserve our family's' honour, never repeat this to anyone! In fact I don't know why I am telling you this because you're certain to put it in your memoirs..."

Antonio, this is getting just too fantastic.

Fortunately Wills and Henry Leach both state in their respective books that Henry and John did not discuss the Bismarck action. All such references go back to Tovey via Kennedy.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2974
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:48 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

I am very sorry for you Duncan, I know the English language well enough to be able to read and understand those statements and their logic sequence one after the other, .. and it is a totally different way when compared to your one.

It is clearly written that they spoke about the Bismarck episode and much more, ... just about all the arguments that Henry wanted to talk with his father since a lot of time, .. and it happened on the evening of December 6th, 1941.

Surely everything started from Adm Tovey, ... he did save them, ... and it is curious that today, ... it is Sir Henry Leach writing about it that is going to save Adm Tovey memory and dignity from the ones that like you, ... try to denigrate his revelations trying to state that they were made from a persons not anymore able to realize and understand what he was doing, ... while who talked about his last life period only wrote that he was a bit exaggerating while talking about Churchill and Pound, ... and NOT inventing never occurred things, ... simply exaggerating, ... and made no reference about Adm Tovey having invented this court martial story.

That was another invention and incorrect correlation by Sir L. Kennedy on his book, ... just like the 21 minutes of Prince of Wales engagement against the Bismarck ... :shock:

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1681
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:53 pm

Dunmunro wrote: "...."had had" is used in place of "to have"...."

Hi Duncan,
I'm not sure I can understand here. Are you telling us:
1) that Wills was a near-illiterate who could not write simply " Henry and his father HAD NOT SEEN one another for more than a year and HAD no time to discuss the battle with the Bismarck...." ? :think:
2) that due to a "typo" HAD was printed twice ? :negative:
3) that in English (or American) you can use the past perfect (HAD HAD) to replace the infinitive (TO HAVE) ? In this case, for which please provide some examples, I still don't see any meaning in the sentence as you would like to read it. :?:

I don't even want to imagine that someone here is playing VERY UNFAIR language tricks with non native English speaking people......


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3075
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:36 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

I am very sorry for you Duncan, I know the English language well enough to be able to read and understand those statements and their logic sequence one after the other, .. and it is a totally different way when compared to your one.

It is clearly written that they spoke about the Bismarck episode and much more, ... just about all the arguments that Henry wanted to talk with his father since a lot of time, .. and it happened on the evening of December 6th, 1941.

Surely everything started from Adm Tovey, ... he did save them, ... and it is curious that today, ... it is Sir Henry Leach writing about it that is going to save Adm Tovey memory and dignity from the ones that like you, ... try to denigrate his revelations trying to state that they were made from a persons not anymore able to realize and understand what he was doing, ... while who talked about his last life period only wrote that he was a bit exaggerating while talking about Churchill and Pound, ... and NOT inventing never occurred things, ... simply exaggerating, ... and made no reference about Adm Tovey having invented this court martial story.

That was another invention and incorrect correlation by Sir L. Kennedy on his book, ... just like the 21 minutes of Prince of Wales engagement against the Bismarck ... :shock:

Bye Antonio :D


Antonio this is what you wrote:

Surely Adm Tovey told both RearAdm Wake-Walker as well as Capt. Leach about the risk they were both running, because immediately after they changed the version of their declarations and released their reports, providing exactly the modified inputs Adm Tovey needed to build up his incorrect dispatches based on their new and altered version of the facts.


You are stating that Leach committed a criminal offence and falsified his reports to the Admiralty, further you are claiming that he confessed his criminal actions to his son.

If either Leach was alive today you would be sued for liable.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2974
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:51 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Duncan,

if Adm Tovey had had any son reading here, ... and also Capt Ellis, ... probably somebody here in was going to be in trouble too.

You did not get exactly what I stated, ... I wrote that Capt Leach and RearAdm Wake-Walker changed their initial declarations ( even signed in some case ), radio messages and reports, ... after having talked with Adm Tovey and becoming aware of the risk they were both running, ... and immediately after they wrote new reports to Adm Tovey, with new data, distances and timings, ... the awareness became unawareness, ... the 20.000 yards became around 15 sea miles, ... the couple of minutes became 13 minutes, ... the y turret jammed before the turn away, ... enabling Adm Tovey to use them in order to write his incorrect dispatches, ... with a special mention to points 17 and 19.

Please follow the sequence of what happened after, ... for the report " second versions " :

- WW and Leach to Tovey HF; --> Tovey HF dispatches to Admiralty; --> approved by Admiralty and to the King for the recognition

Clear enough ?

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

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3075
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:00 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: "...."had had" is used in place of "to have"...."

Hi Duncan,
I'm not sure I can understand here. Are you telling us:
1) that Wills was a near-illiterate who could not write simply " Henry and his father HAD NOT SEEN one another for more than a year and HAD no time to discuss the battle with the Bismarck...." ? :think:
2) that due to a "typo" HAD was printed twice ? :negative:
3) that in English you can use the past perfect (HAD HAD) to replace the infinitive (TO HAVE) ? In this case, for which please provide some examples, I still don't see any meaning in the sentence as you would like to read it. :?:

I don't even want to imagine that someone here is playing VERY UNFAIR language tricks with non native English speaking people......


Bye, Alberto


Yes, the author used clumsy wording:

" 1)Henry and his father HAD NOT SEEN one another for more than a year and HAD HAD no time to discuss the battle with the Bismarck, the voyage with Churchill or the action in the Mediterranean.
2)Beyond that there was much that Henry wanted to share with his father about his life in the Royal Navy.
3)Henry 's first opportunity to visit his father was on Saturday evening, 6 December on board Prince of Wales. "


This the meaning above, clarified:
1) Henry had not seen his father for a more than a year and consequently could not discuss the battle with the Bismarck, the voyage with Churchill or the action in the Mediterranean.
2)Both men wanted to discuss other events.
3)Henry 's first opportunity to visit his father was on Saturday evening, 6 December on board Prince of Wales.

Henry's conversation with his father is summarized in his own book Endure no Makeshifts, in the excerpt that I posted earlier and in his own book he does not state that he discussed the Bismarck action with his father (nor does he state that his father confessed to criminal conduct and cowardice in the face of the enemy). Wills does not claim otherwise.
Last edited by dunmunro on Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3075
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:03 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Duncan,

if Adm Tovey had had any son reading here, ... and also Capt Ellis, ... probably somebody here in was going to be in trouble too.

You did not get exactly what I stated, ... I wrote that Capt Leach and RearAdm Wake-Walker changed their initial declarations ( even signed in some case ), radio messages and reports, ... after having talked with Adm Tovey and becoming aware of the risk they were both running, ... and immediately after they wrote new reports to Adm Tovey, with new data, distances and timings, ... the awareness became unawareness, ... the 20.000 yards became around 15 sea miles, ... the couple of minutes became 13 minutes, ... the y turret jammed before the turn away, ... enabling Adm Tovey to use them in order to write his incorrect dispatches, ... with a special mention to points 17 and 19.

Please follow the sequence of what happened after, ... for the report " second versions " :

- WW and Leach to Tovey HF; --> Tovey HF dispatches to Admiralty; --> approved by Admiralty and to the King for the recognition

Clear enough ?

Bye Antonio :D


It clear that you believed all these men engaged in a criminal conspiracy and made false reports.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1681
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:15 pm

Dunmunro wrote: "Yes, the author used clumsy wording:
" 1)Henry and his father HAD NOT SEEN one another for more than a year and HAD HAD no time to discuss the battle with the Bismarck, the voyage with Churchill or the action in the Mediterranean.
2)Beyond that there was much that Henry wanted to share with his father about his life in the Royal Navy.
3)Henry 's first opportunity to visit his father was on Saturday evening, 6 December on board Prince of Wales. "

This the meaning above, clarified:
1) Henry had not seen his father for a more than a year and consequently :shock: did not discuss the battle with the Bismarck, the voyage with Churchill or the action in the Mediterranean.
2)Both men wanted to discuss other events. :shock:
3)Henry 's first opportunity to visit his father was on Saturday evening, 6 December on board Prince of Wales."



You must be really desperate to think that someone can believe the nonsense you are writing" ! :kaput:
Play your tricks with someone else. NOBODY (not even the fair "deniers") will support you in this enormity. :stop:


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

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3075
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:42 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:[


You must be really desperate to think that someone can believe the nonsense you are writing" ! :kaput:
Play your tricks with someone else. NOBODY (not even the fair "deniers") will support you in this enormity. :stop:


Alberto


Here's a quote from Wills that covers the entire meeting between father and son:
Henry and his father had not seen one another for more than a year and had had no time to discuss the battle with the Bismarck, the voyage with Churchill or the action in the Mediterranean. Beyond that there was much that Henry wanted to share with his father about his life in the Royal Navy. Henry's first opportunity to visit his father was
on Saturday evening, 6 December on board Prince of Wales. (Because of the International Date Line, Singapore was one day ahead of London, Washington and Pearl Harbor.) Being accustomed to the strict dress code of the Royal Navy, Henry dressed in the evening uniform equivalent to a dinner jacket. To his surprise Henry discovered that his father, who was always meticulous about the dress code, was still wearing his white tropical uniform consisting of an open neck shirt and shorts.
Admiral Phillips had not yet returned from his meeting in Manila with General Mac Arthur and Admiral Hart; this meant that the Admiral's dining quarters were available. While Leach had the option of taking his son to dinner in the wardroom with the other officers, he preferred to dine in private. Before dinner they had a chance to talk in the captain's cabin where Leach had been writing a letter to his wife, Evelyn, at his roll-top desk. He handed the last page of the letter to Henry who added a note to his mother.
Henry was offered a cigarette with the comment,'! don't know what bad habits you've fallen into this year.'146 After they had talked about family matters, their conversation turned to naval subjects. Leach asked his son about Mauritius'?, RDF (Radio Direction Finding).This was a reference to what would be renamed radar. Henry had served in Mauritius for nine months and had kept watch regularly on the bridge, but he had never even heard of RDF.
The approaching war in the Pacific was foremost in Leach's mind. Referring to the mounting Japanese threat, he asked his son, 'What d'you make of the situation out here?'(147) Like other midshipmen Henry had total confidence in the Royal Navy. He replied,'Let 'em come ... Let's have a crack at them.'(148) With a grave look his father quietly said, 'I don't think you have any idea of the enormity of the odds we are up against.'(149)
That night, the final Saturday night of peace, the smartly dressed ladies and gentlemen at Raffles carried on as if nothing would ever change.

(146) Endure no Makeshifts, p.7
(147) " "
(148) " "
(149) " "


Note that Wills is citing Endure no Makeshifts (and not a personal communication from Henry Leach) and in that book there is no mention of Bismarck:


Shortly after the big ships arrived at Singapore I returned from my brief leave in Malaya and dined with my father in Prince of Wales. For dinner in the Flagship I had put on Mess Undress (evening uniform equivalent to a dinner jacket) and on arrival on board was surprised to find father, who was meticulous about his dress, still in tropical open-necked shirt and shorts. Though his usual cheerful self he seemed a trifle subdued and I could tell that a nagging anxiety was never far from his mind. Not having seen each other for nearly a year – and a highly eventful year for us both – there was much to talk about alone in his cabin and we quickly slipped back into our old, easy, very close relationship. He had a nearly-finished letter to my mother on his desk and had left space for me to add a tailpiece; it was the last letter home he ever wrote. After dinner we sat together on the sofa and talked. ‘Cigarette?’ he tentatively enquired. ‘I don’t know what bad habits you’ve fallen into this last year.’ ‘Thanks,’ I replied, taking one. ‘You’re quite right – I have!’ ‘What RDF’ (Radio Direction Finding – later to be renamed Radar) ‘do you have fitted?’ he asked next. ‘I don’t know,’ I said after a moment’s thought and feeling rather ashamed of my ignorance. In retrospect perhaps it was excusable; I had been in Mauritius for nine months and kept watch regularly on the bridge and in the main armament director control tower; never in all that time had I heard the term RDF even mentioned. How quickly that was to change. ‘I expect you’ve got Type 79,’ father speculated. This was one of the earliest sets, mounted at the masthead and entirely hand-operated; it gave some rudimentary warning of aircraft approaching at high level. It was not long before we turned to the subject which was clearly absorbing all his attention: the position of Singapore and the mounting Japanese threat. ‘What d’you make of the situation out here?’ my father asked. ‘Let ’em come,’ I replied without thinking. ‘Let’s have a crack at them.’

Father suddenly looked very grave. ‘I don’t think you have any idea of the enormity of the odds we are up against,’ he said. And he was right; I hadn’t. We agreed to meet at the Naval Base swimming pool two nights later and I left. Our poolside meeting proved to be prophetic. It was very hot that evening as there had not been the usual afternoon rain-storm. Being a poor swimmer I merely sploshed about to get cool. Towards 1830 my father remarked, ‘I must be getting out soon. I’ve promised to meet Bill Tennant, Captain of Repulse, for a drink before we go back on board.’ ‘Am I in on that?’ ‘Yes of course, but don’t be too long. I’m just going to swim a couple of lengths. You never know when it may not come in handy.’ Gin and tonic had not yet caught on; the popular drink out there (apart from whisky) was John Collins or Gin Sling. I had not previously met Captain Tennant but took to him at once. Tall, well set-up and with a kindly weather beaten face much lined by life in the open from which looked out two shrewd eyes of clear faded blue. He spoke softly and when he did his whole face and eyes creased into lots of little wrinkles. A real countryman as well as a sailor, at home with birds, wild animals and nature. It was obvious that the two Captains were close friends and held each other in mutual respect. That they were under considerable strain at the prospect which had all the ingredients of a one-way mission was also not hard to discern for the talk was rather desultory – of trivialities and of home. We parted and two hours later Force Z sailed. I never saw my father again.

Leach, Henry. Endure No Makeshifts


Wills cites only Endure no Makeshifts ( IIRC, this was already mentioned ) and does not cite Henry Leach directly for any footnotes, nor as a source in the extensive bibliography, so if father and son discussed the Bismarck action, that discussion was not made available to Wills. Chapter VIII has 23 footnotes and none are from Endure no Makeshifts while Kennedy is cited 9 times.

" 1)Henry and his father HAD NOT SEEN one another for more than a year and HAD HAD no time to discuss the battle with the Bismarck, the voyage with Churchill or the action in the Mediterranean.
2)Beyond that there was much that Henry wanted to share with his father about his life in the Royal Navy.
3)Henry 's first opportunity to visit his father was on Saturday evening, 6 December on board Prince of Wales. "

This the meaning above, clarified:
1) Henry had not seen his father for a more than a year and consequently did not discuss the battle with the Bismarck, the voyage with Churchill or the action in the Mediterranean.
2)Both men wanted to discuss other events. :
3)Henry 's first opportunity to visit his father was on Saturday evening, 6 December on board Prince of Wales.


So while the above is perfectly clear to me, if I'm wrong then there should be some hint of that in the text after the disputed quote, in one or both, of the books by Wills and Henry Leach, and there isn't.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1681
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:15 am

Duncan,
very, very unfair to play tricks with language ! Shame on you, trying to invent a new English grammar for foreigners, unable to accept the truth.

Wills text: "Henry and his father HAD NOT SEEN one another for more than a year and HAD HAD no time to discuss the battle with the Bismarck, the voyage with Churchill or the action in the Mediterranean.Beyond that there was much that Henry wanted to share with his father about his life in the Royal Navy. Henry 's first opportunity to visit his father was on Saturday evening, 6 December on board Prince of Wales. "

Your translation in your new dialect: "Henry had not seen his father for a more than a year and consequently :shock: did not discuss the battle with the Bismarck, the voyage with Churchill or the action in the Mediterranean. Both men wanted to discuss other events :shock: . Henry 's first opportunity to visit his father was on Saturday evening, 6 December on board Prince of Wales."


For me, and EVERYBODY ELSE HERE,(if any British friend has the courage to deny, please, raise his hand !) the sentence is clear enough.
You can keep your nonsense for yourself !


In any case the reference to the court martial for Leach and Wake-Walker is at pag.89/90, confirmed at pag.93, after Tovey was back. Sir Henry Leach apparently had nothing to object, reviewing the manuscript "page by page" with Wills. Story is closed for who wants to understand.


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

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby RF » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:18 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
You must be really desperate to think that someone can believe the nonsense you are writing" ! :kaput:
Play your tricks with someone else. NOBODY (not even the fair "deniers") will support you in this enormity. :stop:
Alberto


Gentleman:

It may be unfair that I have selected this particular quote but I think it does encapsulate my view that this thread has run whatever productive course it had. Contributors have such dug in dogmatic views that no amount of further discussion is going to yield anything useful.

I have my own views on this subject which I expressed a very long while ago. After seeing how this thread has developed since then I have seen nothing that would alter my view and I don't think anything further is going to do so, especially if it is going to go to the intellectual level of the ''climate change debate'' and descend into abuse, name calling and clichés.

Time to close this thread methinks.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1681
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:41 am

Hi RF,
before leaving, would you mind, as British, just confirming the English meaning of the Wills sentences above ?

I understand my post is VERY tough (and I confirm it was my intention to be in this case, even if this makes me feeling bad), but to take advantage of speaking a language to support one's preconceived views it's not only unproductive, but also SHAMEFUL.

I'm able to beg pardon if I am wrong, I would like other people to do the same when they are using very unfair methods.


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: 901
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby wadinga » Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:58 am

Hello All,

I reactivated this thread because I had found new evidence ie the Cabinet Papers and the text of Pound's interim report in which he highlighted the need to establish whether PoW's temporary withdrawal was justified. I also highlighted the fact that neither from the Cabinet side nor the Admiralty side was anybody interested in following up on this and Churchill minuted "Leave it."

I emphasised that apart from this new information there was not a single instance of criticism, in a thick file of records at the National Archives including many secret documents, of either Leach or Wake-Walker, and only VCNS Phillips thought an award for Dalrymple-Hamilton unwarranted.

There are others places to discuss whether somebody today with no specialist knowledge thinks PoW's gun problems were negligible or her damage superficial (which took a month of dockyard repairs).

Here I am trying to establish whether there ever was a Court Martial threat in 1941 and there is no evidence other than Tovey's late-life recollection passed to Roskill and McMullen shortly before Tovey's death.

Leach's cordial letter to the PM, thanking him for his and his crew's awards, and obviously his reappointment as Captain of PoW after a month's convalescence after his serious hernia operation, make the likelihood there was ever a serious CM threat in 1941 diminishingly small.

I continue to research for any further material, but all post 1974 publications are tainted with reference to Kennedy. There has been no indication that Sir Henry had any other source for the CM threat than Kennedy, and after all his father had received the awards he deserved, so whatever other action had been contemplated, it came to nothing. No closed mind will close this debate.

A further accolade for Wake-Walker was that he was on the Parliamentary Committee, as expert advice, set up to investigate the loss of PoW and Repulse "Battleship" Middlebrook.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1681
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:08 am

Hi Sean,
before, correctly, reverting to the main subject, would you mind, as British, just confirming you too the English meaning of the Wills above sentences at pag 127 ?

I would like to beg pardon or to receive excuses for being unfairly teased......


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

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3075
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:45 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:Hi RF,
before leaving, would you mind, as British, just confirming the English meaning of the Wills sentences above ?

I understand my post is VERY tough (and I confirm it was my intention to be in this case, even if this makes me feeling bad), but to take advantage of speaking a language to support one's preconceived views it's not only unproductive, but also SHAMEFUL.

I'm able to beg pardon if I am wrong, I would like other people to do the same when they are using very unfair methods.


Bye, Alberto


"Had had" is used to discuss/modify the past and it does not say or imply anything about the present or the future. It is not equivalent to a double negative.

In my post of Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:00 am I stated:

" 1)Henry and his father HAD NOT SEEN one another for more than a year and HAD HAD no time to discuss the battle with the Bismarck, the voyage with Churchill or the action in the Mediterranean.
2)Beyond that there was much that Henry wanted to share with his father about his life in the Royal Navy.
3)Henry 's first opportunity to visit his father was on Saturday evening, 6 December on board Prince of Wales. "

This the meaning above, clarified:
1) Henry had not seen his father for a more than a year and consequently could not discuss the battle with the Bismarck, the voyage with Churchill or the action in the Mediterranean. [edit: because they had been apart].
2)Both men wanted to discuss other events.
3)Henry 's first opportunity to visit his father was on Saturday evening, 6 December on board Prince of Wales.


Had Had”

Another double you might encounter is “had had,” and Frank from New York would like to know if it’s a correct phrase. It is correct, though it too might seem a bit awkward. To understand “had had,” we need to take a look at the present perfect and past perfect tenses. Take this sentence: “I have had too many chocolates today.” That sentence is in the present perfect tense. You use that tense when you’re talking about a past action that is continuing into the present. This sentence means that I started eating chocolates in the past but the chocolate eating is continuing up to the present. Present perfect tense uses “has” and “have” plus the past participle, as in “have had” and “has gone.”

Now let’s put the chocolate sentence in the past tense. To do so, we’ll use past perfect tense, which uses “had” plus the past participle, as in “had had” and “had gone.” So in the sentence “I had had too many chocolates, so I was too full to eat dinner yesterday,” two things happened in the past. First was eating chocolates; second was trying to eat dinner.

When you have two past-tense occurrences, you use past perfect to express the action that came first. If you are using the verb “to have” in past perfect, you need to use two “had”s.

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/educat ... e-words-ok


"...they had had no time..." does not mean or imply that they had time later. It does not modify the "no time" clause. The author would have to state that they did have time on the date in question and he doesn't and neither did Henry Leach.


Return to “Bismarck General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alberto Virtuani and 2 guests