The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[dunmunro]

This thread about the Court Martial attempt/threat was just dedicated to demonstrate that it happened, ... and we have accomplished this demonstration very evidently, even more than expected.

I asked, and had my query answered as to the question of whether there was any evidence uncovered of a DSCM attempt coming from/to Pound and the answer was no.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

you wrote :

I asked, and had my query answered as to the question of whether there was any evidence uncovered of a DSCM attempt coming from/to Pound and the answer was no.

You must be jocking, ... just ask as I did Wadinga to post here in the documents from Adm 205/10 and the War cabinet minutes/annexes associated with them that I have provided the link toward to.

I do not need to have each/all of the documents signed by everybody involved, as you seems to pretend to have, ... in order to demonstrate what happened well known by everybody involved ( ref S. Roskill notes too).

We have a fully reliable Adm Tovey declarations to Stephen Roskill and Colin McMullen and that is more than enough, ... not to forget Sir Henry Leach.

Everything else S. Roskill directed us toward to, ... up to the War cabinet minutes ( and Pound was obviously in there ), ... are additionally demonstrating this " regrettable aftermath " I have demonstrated bottom up from the intentionally modified declarations occurred after, ... up until the War cabinet minutes Roskill directed us toward to thru the Adm 205/10 documents confirming all happened after that I have already demonstrated long time ago ... even without knowing the existence of such a " shameful " confirmation into the Official records.

We do not need anything more, ... since ALL of THEM knew everything, ... being copied into the Official minutes, ... and the case is CLOSED !

Bye Antonio

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

you got the points.

Being this thread about the Court Martial, I avoid to repeat myself about the " Cover Up " occurred after as a direct consequence of it, since you can read all the answers to your questions in there already more than answered.

You wrote :

However there is call for explanation and there are documents that explain that decision.

YES, that is the KEY to understand this " Denmark Strait Saga " and you are right, ... but the problem is that the explanation provided was NOT the correct initial May 30th report from Tovey to Pound, ... but a much different incorrect ( and intentionally modified ) point 19 dispatch of July 1941.

That is the Adm Tovey dispatch point/explanation that the Admiralty accepted being real ( ) and approved ( signed by Barnes ), as you can verify also into the Adm 205/10 too and was used as the reference answer for the War Cabinet requested explanation, becoming the closure point .

The Court martial threat/attempt caused ALL the previously released documents/declarations to be modified in order to provide a more " protecting/shielded " version of the events for the involved Officers, ... it is not a difficult concept to understand.

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

you wrote :

I asked, and had my query answered as to the question of whether there was any evidence uncovered of a DSCM attempt coming from/to Pound and the answer was no.

You must be jocking, ... just ask as I did Wadinga to post here in the documents from Adm 205/10 and the War cabinet minutes/annexes associated with them that I have provided the link toward to.

I do not need to have each/all of the documents signed by everybody involved, as you seems to pretend to have, ... in order to demonstrate what happened well known by everybody involved ( ref S. Roskill notes too).

We have a fully reliable Adm Tovey declarations to Stephen Roskill and Colin McMullen and that is more than enough, ... not to forget Sir Henry Leach.

Everything else S. Roskill directed us toward to, ... up to the War cabinet minutes ( and Pound was obviously in there ), ... are additionally demonstrating this " regrettable aftermath " I have demonstrated bottom up from the intentionally modified declarations occurred after, ... up until the War cabinet minutes Roskill directed us toward to thru the Adm 205/10 documents confirming all happened after that I have already demonstrated long time ago ... even without knowing the existence of such a " shameful " confirmation into the Official records.

We do not need anything more, ... since ALL of THEM knew everything, ... being copied into the Official minutes, ... and the case is CLOSED !

Bye Antonio

Antonio, I asked a simple question and the answer was NO.

I don't doubt, as per Wadinga, that something was said that caused Tovey to write his letters and privately state a possible/threatened/mentioned DSCM/inquiry coming from Pound. However the absence of any documentation from any source, other then Tovey, certainly doesn't make for a compelling case that there was ever any serious intent to CM anyone over their actions at DS.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

you wrote :

Antonio, I asked a simple question and the answer was NO.

I don't doubt, as per Wadinga, that something was said that caused Tovey to write his letters and privately state a possible/threatened/mentioned DSCM/inquiry coming from Pound. However the absence of any documentation from any source, other then Tovey, certainly doesn't make for a compelling case that there was ever any serious intent to CM anyone over their actions at DS.

Obviously Wadinga was NOT correct on his answer and you did NOT read my provided document list about the War Cabinet minutes and related annexes from 53 ( May 26th ) to 56 ( June 2nd ).

This is the reason why I want the original document to be properly analized.

Already on May 26th. 1941 Adm Pound was asking for some inquiry as you can read yourself now :

" ... this was one on the matters into which INQUIRY would have to be made. "

Pound_War_Cabinet_53_May_26_Annexes.jpg (68.61 KiB) Viewed 532 times

That intention of INQUIRY something that CANNOT BE JUDGED on May 26th with the available information became just, ... explanation ... on June 2nd.


Now you and everybody else know also the possible dates of Pound calling Tovey for the inquiry/CM request, ... obviously it was before June 2nd.

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi all,
another great and new discover from Antonio !

Now, even in the official documents we have the clear "INQUIRY" word, despite a MUCH MORE favorable PoW "damage account" fairly given by Pound at the War Cabinet........ (Hit on Y turret, main directoir out of service,...... ).

Surely, May 30 report from Tovey was far from providing the required "explanations" and he had to build an intentionally incorrect point 19 in his despatches instead..... This point 19 was just accepted ONLY because Bismarck had been sunk without further losses......


Bye., Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

???? ....But "inquiry" relates just to the available information about RDF malfunctions and "could not be judged" relates to the lack of information at a particular time.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi all,
of course, the word INQUIRY must be read in its context.......

"This (the RDF's failure) was one of the matters into which inquiry would have to be made.......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”.

Based on this clear statements, the PoW retreat was obviously "one of" (and the main of) the points on which an inquiry would have to be made (as well as Hood explosion) and that was not apparently enough explained by Tovey May 30 report, as he had to write instead the incorrect point 19 in his despatches, in order for them to be accepted by the Admiralty.

Thanks again to Antonio, who was able to post the WHOLE annex to the minute of the war cabinet n.53 and not only an extract with the already clear Pound final statement.......

What is still to be proved is that it was Churchill to push Pound for an inquiry against Leach and not only against Wake-Walker....as Roskill is clearly suggesting.....


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Inquiry = request for further information and does not signal intent for CM or intent to convene a board of inquiry.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

please just STOP playing with the words and the way to read that statement that is clear enough in front of you and everybody now.

You asked and underlined the missing wording in that direction ( INQUIRY ) from Adm Pound and you now have the evidence you were asking for into an Official War Cabinet minute.

It is there and it is CLEAR enough, and it was even written in PLURAL form, so MORE THAN ONE INQUIRY was going to be made.

The " INQUIRIES " planned on May 26th, ... later became " EXPLANATION " on June 2nd, ... and has been satisfied with an intentional incorrectly written dispatches by Adm Tovey, ... completely changing a previously Adm Tovey released document on May 30th, ... that Adm Pound already had in his hands .

No more is needed to prove what happened and the fact that all of them were fully aware of what was going on, in the Admiralty as well as into the War cabinet, and at Downing Street 10.

The Adm 205/10 documents closed the matter and accepted Adm Tovey dispatches with J.S. Barnes wording we all know, ... and that document is one of the worst pages one can read about this " regrettable aftermath ", ... these " shameful " events.

Just as Stephen Roskill clearly realized too, ... and wrote in clear form on his book notes.

The case is CLOSED, ... just : Leave it !


Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

Antonio,

it's not playing with words, it's reading comprehension. For quite a while I have the dim feeling that the whole cover up theory is about reading comprehension.

[Cag]

Hi All

Hi Alberto, if I make an inquiry as to how you are it does not mean I'm ordering a full medical evaluation of the state of your health.

So if an inquiry would have to be made, ie to find out what happened as it was not clear on the 26th where would the information come from? From a despatch dated when? Or from the C in C report to the First Sea Lord dated 30/05/41 explaining events, or perhaps from the reports by Leach dated 4th and 12th June giving his full reasons?

Would signals sent from Rosyth and dockyard evaluation be used?
Would actually talking to those involved take place? Would the Vickers evaluation dated 01/06/41 be looked at?
Do you know the exact nature of the telephone conversation between Pound and Tovey?
Was the withdrawal discussed before a threat of other types were made?
Tovey was C in C, but do you think he could stop Admiralty officials from seeing anything they wished?
Do you think the VCNS would be stopped from anything if he had the power to order a 2nd Hood inquiry?

What you are proposing is presently conjecture, we are implying as in reality no one knows. Taking pieces of information and adding them to other pieces is something both sides could do to attempt prove an opinion and yet actually proves nothing factually.

The whole thing is based on this being decided solely on the despatch being incorrect in regards to Y turret and 06.13. But the matter of the points regarding the tactical decision made, the gun problems, the lack of working up, the damage being inflicted against the damage being done are totally ignored.

The threatened charge to Tovey on his return, in his letters, in Roskills book, in Kennedy's book in McMullens letter remains different to the one we are now discussing. We are attempting to connect two different discussions.

You yourself say that in hindsight you think Leach's actions were correct, and that you believe the despatch was falsified. If you think it was the correct action for Leach to disengage and yet know of the existence of what you believe was a falsified report, don't you think those at the Admiralty came to the same conclusion that the action was correct before the despatch was even produced?

Do you think that although Pound wanted to inquire as to why PoW disengaged he would not want to see the report specifically and naturally made by her Captain regarding it? That he would not actually inquire, put it another way, find out what went on? Or would he just sit back, wait for a despatch and threaten a court martial for a completely different charge?

A V Alexander visited the fleet, and PoW in Rosyth post arrival back, would he not ask what happened to those who were there, or would he wait for a despatch?

Did Churchills telephone not connect with Pound or Tovey?

Was a question or inquiry asked?
We're documents, not including the despatch, available to be read and understood that answered that question?

Best wishes
Cag.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

exactly, the meaning of that statement and letter is more than clear.

Adm Pound was declaring to the War Cabinet on May 26th, 1941 that INQUIRIES ( more than one = plural ) were going to be made about the events ( one of the matters ) of May 24th, 1941 at DS.

Is it so difficult to be understood from the clear words of Adm Pound attached above ?

Lucky us everything is more than clear about what have been the Adm Tovey explanation accepted by the Admiralty on Adm 205/10.

But I am sure that somebody will have something to say about it too ...

Anyway, ... we moved forward thanking Stephen Roskill, ... from the Tovey potential unreliability unfairly written by Kennedy, ... to Adm Pound wording looking at " singular versus plural ", into a War Cabinet Official minute annexes document :

" ... this was one on the matters into which INQUIRY would have to be made. "

To me the fact that an inquiry was going to be made on more than one matter ( matters = plural ) is very easy to be understood in English language form.


Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All

Examples,

Hi Antonio how is the Tirpitz book going? Is your Tirpitz model going well?

Two inquiries both of which I would like to find an answer to because I'm not 100% sure.

Hi Antonio, my wallet was stolen, police are making inquiries into it's loss.

One inquiry but multiple questioning.

I also note that you cut off the rest of the cabinet meeting paper where Pound states that PoW reopened the action?

Best wishes
Cag.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

now we are down to single word definition of INQUIRY versus EXPLANATION meaning, ... since the clear word INQUIRY now has been finally definitively associated to Adm Pound into an Official War Cabinet document on May 26th, 1941.

Here INQUIRY :

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inquiry

I like in particular this Webster dictionary INQUIRY definition which is " right on the money " :

The board ordered an INQUIRY to determine whether the rules had been followed.

Here EXPLANATION :

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explanation

Is it clear to everybody that Adm Pound was asking for an INQUIRY about more than one matter ?

So consequently about several MATTERS ?

Surely, as written by Pound himself immediately after, one of the INQUIRY matters was :

" Whether she ( PoW ) had been right on doing so, ... "

I have provided the link to ALL the War Cabinet minutes 53 and 56 plus annexes days ago, everybody interested on this argument can read everything.

Bye Antonio