The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi Mr.Cag,
I'm not at all interested in a discussion on the precise charges that could have been clearly defined for a CM that never actually happened. We can open a hypothetical naval scenario thread to imagine what would have been the detail charges and how the debate would have been: I will be glad to play the prosecutor role.

The fact is that a CM was threatened against Wake-Walker AND Leach, as confirmed by everybody, including Sir H.Leach.
As Leach (senior) was obviously innocent for not re-engaging, because he was under Wake-Walker orders, this means the Admiralty wanted to inquiry the disengagement too. Logic and simple, no need to be a "lawyer" to understand that after Pound words, there was the clear intention to dig into the proper or improper circumstances of the disengagement of the PoW with "superficial damages" only:
Pound at the Cabinet on May 26: "The PoW had then broken off action. Whether or not she had been right in doing so could not be judged on the information so far available"
What matters here is that , thanks to the final confirmation by Roskill, the CM story is now a clearly established fact, as well as the common process of "weeding" the official records.....


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:03 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ all,

It is Stephen Roskill historian capability to summarize the facts that is clearly defining what happened.

1) An attempt was made by Adm Pound thru Adm Tovey to bring certain senior officers to trial by Court Martial.

2) Adm Tovey stepped in very firmly defeating Adm Pound and killed it effectively.

Those are the facts that involving the Admiralty and W. Churchill started from prodding this defeated initiative to be ended with the last phrase by the Prime Minister after the rewarding of those 2 Officers.

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Alberto, surely this is a discussion regarding fact, the charges are important and relevant to the court martial that is being discussed. Wake-Walker and Leach were the only ones that could possibly be charged for that offence.

If Leach was, in your words, innocent of not immediately re-engaging Bismarck after Hood was sunk then a case against him was of little use pursuing. You cannot now infer what the Admiralty and Pound may or may not have been trying to infer as you have no idea that was the case or any proof. That is a hypothetical argument as it jumps from fact to imaginings.

If we logically follow your reasoning then if Wake-Walker was doing exactly what his S.O. wanted him to do ie Tovey then he has no case to answer either.

Would you then infer that by your reasoning Pound was actually threatening Wake-Walker with court martial because he did not fire during the morning action?

Again I'm happy to accept your opinion, and uphold your right to give it, but please do not state it as fact.

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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi Mr. Cag,
I'm afraid I'm totally unable to follow your reasoning.

The fact is that a CM was threatened against these RN officers. After Roskill books statements are available to eveyone here, this is a fact, not an opinion. The exact charges are another story. The possible outcome of this CM is another one. I'm happy to accept that you think there was no case against both of them, but this is NOT what the Admiralty was thinking.

Pound statement on May 26, "The PoW had then broken off action. Whether or not she had been right in doing so could not be judged on the information so far available" is a clear proof that Leach disengagement was under scrutiny as well as W-W decision to just shadow Bismarck.

My interpretation, exactly reflected in Wills book at pag.93 (reviewed page by page by Sir H.Leach....) is evident to everybody, I think..... :think:


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

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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Alberto if you can't understand then I'm afraid I can't help you as its as clear as I can make it, but again nice tactics! Take a look at the title of the discussion if you're unsure.

Im confused too as you don't think the charges relating to a court martial under discussion in this thread are relevant, but you do think that your opinion on what or what was not going through Pounds mind is?

As for Pounds thoughts on the 26th when he did not know the full facts as shown in the cabinet meeting paper, he could not comment, then obviously once the information was available and a threat was made to court martial officers for not re engaging Bismarck after Hood was sunk then it was the conduct of the officers after the withdrawal that was under his scrutiny?

You have already agreed that there was no case to answer for Leach, it seems that Tovey was of the same opinion for both officers under scrutiny. By the way if you read a few other books Dahlrymple Hamilton and Vian and the Captain of the Piorun were under scrutiny too.

Best wishes
Cag.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2472
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

I am extremely disappointed by your latest allegations about my conduct and would prefer you had stuck with "side taken Hooligan". :cool:
I am not sure yet if I have to consider you just incompetent, or unfair as it seems evident now.
Back on October the 5th I told you about Churchill and the Admirals
I have recently pointed out that in Roskill's 1977 book Churchill and the Admirals he gives Kennedy as the reference for the story of the Court Martial threat, not the letters he himself received from the late-life Tovey. Roskill, though happy to recount stories of WSC's cruel and unjust treatment of various naval officers, obviously did not believe this story was worth investigating further, even though Tovey had written to him mentioning it.

And we later followed with
I thought you had become the expert on when RN officers were being economical with the truth.

No doubts Stephen Roskill would have written about it on 1955 if he wanted and needed to


Roskill said he could have put the Court martial story in ""The War at Sea" but didn't because it wasn't operations. What he did put in was "The difficult decisions taken by Captain Leach and Admiral Wake-Walker were later fully supported by the Admiralty" Although according to you he already "knew the truth" from Tovey's letters, he writes the exact opposite.
That is what Roskill wrote in War at Sea Volume One.

I am not in favour of scanning chunks of books since they may give a selective view of the whole books' content and infringes copyright. Roskill's C and the A is a sustained attack on political interference in Admiralty policy by Chuchill, and although Roskill recounts the CMDS story to add to the balance, he nowhere provides corroborating evidence and disowns the story by citing Kennedy as the source.

I also gave you a lengthy description of file 205/10. Do I need to move that here as well? Or since you ignored its contents a month ago, will you do so again?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@Cag:
Hi Mr. Cag,
using your words, if you can't understand then I'm afraid I can't help you as well. However, possibly M.B.Wills book ("In the highest traditions of the RN - The life of Capt.John Leach MVO DSO", pag.93) might help you to finally see that my "interpretation" is not just an hypothesis without any substance. For your convenience, underlined in orange, the crystal clear charges for both officers.
Wills_page93_CMDS.jpg
Wills_page93_CMDS.jpg (68.48 KiB) Viewed 667 times
This book had been reviewed "page by page" by Sir Henry Leach (who, I'm sure was very interested in this episode) and obviously the "interpretation" of Wills is in line with the one of Sir Henry (you will agree he was quite an expert of the RN procedures). It is exactly the same "interpretation" that I'm repeating since pages on this thread. Not because I'm very clever, but just because it's the only logical one. :stubborn:

Is it clear enough now which would have logically been the charges at the threatened Court Martial, being now a well established fact?


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

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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Alberto, would you say that Mr Wills and Sir H Leach knew much more about the threatened charge faced than Admiral Tovey, Admiral Pound Mr Kennedy and Mr Roskill?

I have no wish to denigrate Mr Wills book, do you think he used a first hand account or information based on second hand sources? Would an account by Admiral Tovey be more first hand? Which alleged official historians evidence do you want to use? What source do you want to use and concentrate on?

Throughout this discussion it has been put forward that the charge was for both men failure to re-engage Bismarck with Pow after Hood sank based on evidence of a primary source. That is why we had such a long discussion about it.

However if you'd like to continue the unresolved discussion as to whether a case of withdrawal would have been successful in a conviction I'm very happy to do so.

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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

so, we are both extremely disappointed about what is going on here in now.
The “side taken “ approach your are keep on showing here in is now deteriorating on a conduct that cannot be accepted anymore by me.
Either you want to cooperate and fairly share and discuss historical material about this 76 years old battle, otherwise I can avoid even responding to you at all, as I am doing with some other persons that in the recent past showed a similar personal and mental very limited attitude.

It is useless from your side to show me the statements where you mentioned Stephen Roskill on the recent past.
Perfectly knowing who Stephen Roskill was and the content of that book as far as the Court Martial for the Denmark Strait, including his notes content where he refers to other supporting evidence, it should have been your duty to highlight them to me and the readers of this forum, especially after I showed you the similar content of Stephen Roskill book about the Naval Policy that you did not know about.

Instead you kept on hiding this very important content from Stephen Roskill and diverged the attention to Sir Ludovic Kennedy that cannot even try to compare himself with Stephen Roskill as far as source of historical references.
You keep on writing that Stephen Roskill did not believe the Cort Martial story and he took it from Kennedy.

Anyone able to read and understand what Roskill wrote including his notes can easily realize that he not only believed on it, but by referencing to it was clearly conferming it and what Kennedy wrote on page 226 where Kennedy referred to the Court Martial threat story thanking Roskill provided material.
Additionally, by mentioning the Court Martial story into his personal books written after Kennedy book, with clear confirmation and notes about it, Roskill was providing also the material to contradict Kennedy unfair note about it and a possible Adm Tovey unreliability while talking about it later on his life, and this was a point that Stephen Roskill did NOT believe at all about Adm Tovey.

Stephen Roskill beleived the Court Martial story simply because it was a real occurrence, provided his own letters exchanged with Adm Tovey to Kennedy and explained why he did it too and did not used them at first. He considered Adm Tovey fully reliable.

It is enough to be able to read what he wrote, ... assuming you know it exist, ... and you knew it since a lot of time but never showed or clearly mentioned it to me here in or privately.

Kennedy was the one that unfairly tried to correlate Adm Tovey reliability with this Court Martial story, and he was the one that instead of spending time with LtCdr Pitcairn-Jones and try to learn something more about this battle events, wrote that PoW retreated at 06:13, so 21 minutes after the open fire and 13 minutes after fighting on alone against the Bismarck.

Anyway, now thanking Stephen Roskill all is clear about this Court Martial attempt events and how it was defetaed by Adm Tovey, as well as who knew about it and possibly asked about it and prodded Adm Pound to proceed for it at first, and accepted soon after to forget about it and reward those Officers after Adm Tovey very firmly defence.

Having this book and those informations from an historian of Stephen Roskill level, everything was going to be defined probably some years ago, … but still, … the attitude did not allow this to be and we had to wait until today.

I hope that now that all is clearly defined about this " Denmark Strait Saga " like Sir Henry Leach called it, ... about this " regrettable aftermath " as Stephen Roskill defined it, ... starting from May 28th 1941 until September 25th, 1941, ... we will be back on a positive attitude only.

Bye Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Just to point out, Wills book references Kennedy as his source for the charge. If you read Kennedy the charge given is not re engaging Bismarck after Hood was sunk.

Thanks to Mr Cadogan for his posting of the relevant pages from the book.

So if Kennedy is based on Toveys letter to Roskill then the charge was only ever the one quoted.

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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi Mr.Cag,
I have to give up in front of your evident refusal of accepting what was fully clear to Sir H.Leach about the charges against his father. :stubborn:
I have to accept that you believe the Court Martial would have been held ONLY for the facts after Hood sinking, while I (together with Sir Henry) believe that in a CM every aspect of the action is analyzed carefully (thus before, during and after Hood sinking).

Let's close this totally useless discussion (the CM was not actually done anyway) here.


Are you able at least to finally accept that the Court Martial attempt for certain senior officerS (for whatever charge you prefer to believe to) cannot be considered anymore an anecdotal story, after Roskill clearly confirmed it as a fact in his books ?


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

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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Alberto please read the two posts above if you can't understand these I can't help you, but I do congratulate you on your persistent tactical postings!

I believe in following a factual trail, using as evidence pieces posted by Antonio and Wadinga and Mr Cadogan,

Tovey to Roskill
Charge: the failure to re-engage Bismarck with Pow after Hood was sunk.

Kennedy book Pursuit from Roskill source
Charge: the failure to re-engage Bismarck with Pow after Hood was sunk.

Roskill Churchill and the Admirals Kennedy source
Charge: the failure to re-engage Bismarck with Pow after Hood was sunk.

Wills quoting Kennedy as his source
Charge: withdrawal from battle and failure to re engage.

Does this help? If you wish to discuss any other charge let me know I'll be happy to help bit perhaps on another thread?

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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi Mr.Cag,
I must admit that I don't congratulate you at all on YOUR tactical postings !

You insist on the wording of the charges at a Court Martial (wording of very limited interest, as this CM was never actually held) but you refuse to accept that Sir Henry Leach and Wills (having, as you say, Kennedy as source and his related "failure to re-engage" :think: ) were well able to understand (as everybody else here, I guess) what was the real meaning of the charges against Capt.Leach (not difficult at all for Sir Henry, having been such a senior officer in the RN....)

However, be it. For the time being, I give up (due to exhaustion only) and I accept that Tovey only spoke and wrote about the re-engagement as a CM charge.


Now, please answer the key question that YOU are tactically ignoring: do you finally accept that the Court Martial attempt for certain senior officerS (for whatever charge you prefer to believe to) cannot be considered anymore an anecdotal story, after Roskill clearly confirmed it as a fact in his books ?


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

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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

my friend this question :
Now, please answer the key question that YOU are tactically ignoring: do you finally accept that the Court Martial attempt for certain senior officerS (for whatever charge you prefer to believe to) cannot be considered anymore an anecdotal story, after Roskill clearly confirmed it as a fact in his books ?
Is NOT necessary anymore given what finally surfaced thru Stephen Roskill, the Official Historian for the Royal Navy during WW2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Roskill

I cannot even imagine somebody so " Bizantine " now trying to disregard what we can all easily read and realize on Stephen Roskill books, becoming a ridicolous and pathetic denier of what cannot be refuted any longer.

The " Denmark Strait Saga " is clearly and definitively a proved fact.

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All,

Hi Antonio may I ask if your use of derogatory remarks is aimed at myself?

Alberto, you give up and are exhausted! Not as much as I am my friend! I think from my very first post I've used the charge given by Wadinga and Antonio, Roskill Kennedy and Tovey?!

I've put it as plainly as I can! Evidence is referenced in books that Tovey stated in a letter a court martial was threatened. That's all I can tell you, and have been doing so for all of my recent posts!

If you really read my previous posts they concern whether a conviction was possible to such a threatened charge, apart obviously from those ones trying to understand whether you want Leach charged for not re engaging or for withdrawal, Wake-Walker charged for not re engaging or not taking part in the DS battle or for placing his ships together on the night of the 24th/25th or for being the cause of the 1930's depression!

You're exhausted! I'm absolutely shattered!

Best wishes my friend
Cag.
Locked