The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote: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 :shock: .

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 :D
We've previously discussed the limitations of 1940's long range radio technology and the very low data rates possible via that technology. Consequently the Admiralty had to wait for PoW to reach port before all the inquiries could be answered via tactical reports and by specialist's investigations into radar, FC and gun mounting performance.

You are misusing the English language to suggest that this sentence: This (the RDF's failure) was one of the matters into which inquiry would have to be made... or this sentence: 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”. Means anything more than what it plainly states: more information was needed.
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 »

@Dunmunro:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: AhAh


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)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:@Dunmunro:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: AhAh


Bye, Alberto
I think you know that there's nothing in the cabinet document that supports an intent to CM anyone, hence your inability to write a coherent reply.
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,

Did Pound say in the cabinet meeting that he had ordered an inquiry, or did he say there was things he was unsure of which required them to be inquired into or explained? Surely if the exact details are unknown and he is unsure, inquiries should be made to have it explained?

Therefore did Leach in his report include an explanation?

Did Tovey explain reasons why he thought Leach had acted correctly?

So if both a request for clarification was made, and one was actually produced what are we actually discussing here? Could someone perhaps answer that rather fundemental question?

Was Leach's report falsified? No.
Was Toveys 30th May report falsified? No.
Do we have evidence that a Court martial for disengagement threat was made by Pound? No.
Do we have evidence Pound required an answer to something he was unsure of? Yes.
Do we have evidence that was naturally done? Yes.

However you wish to interpret the wording the fact remains any explanations that were needed were more importantly answered without the neccessity to read a despatch.

Again do existing documents we have available that are not a despatch answer those inquiries? The answer is yes. If those documents are available today, were they available then? The answer is yes.

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,

@ Dunmunro,

I think you are becoming progressively more and more ridiculous with your stubborn refusal of the evidence we have at hand now.

Why is it so difficult for you, Wadinga and someone else to accept what you cannot refute to admit any longer ?

Even Stephen Roskill, the Royal Navy Official historian for WW 2 clearly stated what WE are stating and YOU are keep on refuting to accept and admit.

Why ?

@CAG,

before you become ridiculous too with your statements, I suggest you to get informed and read all the threads that we have written on the last 4 years about this very " shameful " series of events.

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, rather than resorting to inference that people are becoming ridiculous or advising them to search through 4 years of subject matter could you simply answer the question?

I may not be as experienced as some on this forum but I believe the questions are valid and pertinent.

Due to inaccessibility to all the facts was a reference made in a cabinet meeting etc etc to inquiries being neccessary as to whether the act of disengagement was correct?

Were answers given by reports (not a despatch) by those involved and those in charge that would fully answer that inquiry and lack of knowledge?

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,

CAG,

I have already suggested you days ago to read what was already written on several threads, including the ones on the very evident and demonstrated INTENTIONAL alteration of the Official documents and reports.

So, again, before writing unsupported statements were the demonstration of the opposite of what you are trying to state is ALREADY available, you better go and read them on the proper threads.

Surely I am NOT going to restart explaining them to you once again here in.
I am sick and tired of this endless game now from all the stubborn deniers of the obvious.

It is your duty to get informed of the status of the discussion and demonstrations of what you are talking about if you want to participate on it like you are doing now, otherwise you run the risk to become ridiculous like you did writing the statements above.

The only difference in your favor in this moment is that I am sure that Dunmunro and Wadinga know everything about it and still like to play the dummy and stubborn deniers role, while you have still the benefit that I am NOT sure you are aware of everything already.
But please get properly informed from now on before writing the way you did about those arguments already discussed.

This thread is about the Court Martial and INQUIRY request, NOT about the Cover Up and the documents intentional alteration already discussed on another thread and well demonstrated.

So, please go and read it, and if you have something new to tell us, do it there where it belongs.

On this thread we have demonstrated that an INQUIRY was intended to be called by Adm Pound on May 26th, 1941.

In fact it is clear now that Adm Pound was asking for an INQUIRY about more than one matter, just 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, ... "

Adm Pound inquiry intentions declared at the War Cabinet on May 26th, 1941 directly correlate to what Adm Tovey declared happened as soon as he reached Scapa Flow at the end on May after having sunk the Bismarck, ... to both Stephen Roskill and Colin McMullen/Adm Blake, ... and the case is CLOSED about it.

What happened immediately after their phone call about the INQUIRY request from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey is another story and belongs to the " Cover Up " thread.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6799

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, I'm sorry but you have not understood at all and I'm afraid you are wrong on the subject matter of my question.

My question above is not about a cover up, it has no connection. It is plain and simple exactly what it refers to.

You are correct that this thread is about the court martial. We have discussed the CM threat and its exact charge. You, not I, have brought into the discussion the question regarding a withdrawal inquiry, and you are now avoiding a direct question regarding it.

If you are discussing an inquiry into the investigation as to the as of yet unknown facts regarding PoW withdrawal, and state one was considered or even done, then why are you now avoiding answering a question as to whether that exact question was actually answered in reports available to all?

The question I have asked is so far removed from a cover up theory I'm not sure why you connect it. It is obvious to everyone that the question relates to your introduction of a discussion regarding the PoW withdrawal.

If you are unwilling or unsure how to answer it, that's ok by me, but please do not try to suggest that a relevant, pertinent and fundemental question to your proposal of a Pound inquiry into the withdrawal is about something else, it is not. Because I have not been on this forum for as long as others does not mean that my question to your proposal is not logical.

The idea that inquiries should be made into rdf interference and withdrawal are entirely separate to a threat to CM people for not re engaging Bismarck after Hood was sunk. You do not have access to what was said in that telephone conversation and so any inference is pure speculation.

No where in Churchill and the Admials does Roskill infer anything about the withdrawal either. He states that the idea to CM for not re engaging showed Pound and Phillips in a bad light and in the reference used (38) that an investigation by the Admiralty into that charge was carried out. Churchill told him to leave it.

By the way I am not in any way shape or form being disrespectful, I'm asking a very obvious question.

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,

@ CAG,

now that the INQUIRY intention on May 26th, 1941 from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey regarding some ( plural ) Officers ( ref. S. Roskill and C. McMullen ) is clearly defined and demonstrated we are moving into the INITIAL CHARGES that Adm Pound should or could have highlighted to Adm Tovey during that end of May 1941 phone call.

You are right about this :
You do not have access to what was said in that telephone conversation ...
Of course I do not have the precise text of what was said between Adm Pound and Adm Tovey in that conversation.

I only have Colin McMullen declarations about it on the BBC interview at the IWM, ... and ... in the close future, ... the letters from Adm Tovey to Stephen Roskill that you had the chance to read in details, ... while I have not yet done it myself.

So in this time frame I avoid any precise correlation about which Officer could have been charged for what in case that INQUIRY/COURT MARTIAL was going to start.
We know also that it never happened being aborted/defeated by Adm Tovey reaction on that phone call itself.

Meanwhile everybody interested on doing that correlation can utilize what has been written thru the years, starting from that War Cabinet minute on May 26th, 1941 and referencing at what has been altered and modified on the Official declaration soon after, on documents and reports, and make up his own mind about it.

Point 17 and 19 on Adm Tovey dispatches as well as point 22 and 23 here below listed, do provide a good " food for thought " in this direction :
Decision to Break off the Action

22. The Commanding Officer of Prince of Wales in his report says:
"Some explanation remains to be made as to my decision to break off the engagement after the sinking of H.M.S. Hood - a decision which clearly invites most critical examination.

23. The Rear-Admiral Commanding, First Cruiser Squadron, in his report says:
"At 15:45 Admiralty signal 14:45 had been received. At that time I had no evidence that the enemy's speed was in any way reduced by damage and I did not consider it likely that he would fight or that we could catch him, as his policy was obviously evasion.
The question whether I should re-engage with Prince of Wales had been exercising my mind for some time before the receipt of this signal.
The Official response of the Admiralty on September 19th, 1941 is another good source of evaluations about the potential INQUIRY/COURT MARTIAL initial charges, ... meanwhile become required explanation response provided by Adm Tovey with his dispatches.

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, thanks but my question remains unanswered but I'm ok with that.

You do reference in your post a suspected altered despatch which is not really relevant to my question. If we forget that despatch, leave it to one side and concentrate only on documents, reports interviews etc available to all from late May into June, July and August (the Newfoundland operation) then the documents that were already available explain the decisions made by those involved.

Therefore this would mean that an inquiry into anything related to the operation would be able to access these documents during this time.

On May the 26th Tovey was at sea and could have no idea of Admiral Pounds inquiries on the specific uncertain aspects of the operation to the war cabinet at that time. There was no signal to Tovey putting forth these inquiries.

I agree we have no idea of the exact composition of the telephone call on Toveys return, nor exactly when it happened, but we do have evidence from Tovey and McMullen and the opinion of Roskill and Kennedy who saw that evidence.

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 All,
My goodness, hasn't everybody had a busy day.........................

That the main radio transmitters in PoW rendered the radar ineffective is obviously something somebody technical would have enquire into. Nobody needs to get Court Martialled to do this. The War Cabinet doesn't care why it happens. I gave an explanation for this years ago. Latching onto the magical word "Inquiry" does nor imply anything legal is going to happen.

I gave the relevant section of Pound's inaccurate, hastily-prepared report given to the War cabinet meeting back in September, when I did not have the capability to post images. When I did get it, it was far more important to present the entire maps of DS, from which Antonio was editing tiny postage stamps, so everybody could see what was being hidden from the rest of us.

I made it clear Pound was obviously prepared to throw Leach "under the bus" with his phrasing in this interim statement and his words literally invited that somebody would want elucidation. However nobody in the War Cabinet was qualified to understand or approve or disapprove Leach's decision even if they had all the details. Only someone with sea-going experience like Pound could try and then only with hindsight. Undoubtedly Pound had received an earful from WSC over the weekend, and this was a way of deflecting the PM's ire away. Or "kicking it into the long grass" as we say. There is no evidence Pound or anybody else demanded a fuller explanation than would be normally forthcoming when the ships returned to harbour and the various officers submitted their standard reports. Besides the far bigger disaster of Crete was happening simultaneously and this together with conscription in Northern Ireland takes up much more of the Cabinet's time. WSC's "Troubridge" phrase applied at least 50/50 to Cunningham actions off Crete. Cunningham had been told his proposals to defend Crete were inadequate in no uncertain terms and told to revise them. About 1800 sailors died as a result and Crete still fell.

The only person who actually became a target of WSC's sustained ire at this time was Sir Arthur Longmore, Air Officer Commanding Middle East, who was sacked from his post over the lack of any air defence of Crete or the Mediterranean Fleet. He had had pleading for months for resources which he did not get, and then blamed when there were no fighters to shoot down the Ju52 shuttle service delivering troops to Crete, or the bombers which knocked out half Cunningham's ships.
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says the following about Longmore during the first few months of 1941:
Longmore's constant demands for reinforcements resulted in some unwelcome attention from Churchill, who hated pessimists and senior commanders who complained about their lack of resources. After some acerbic correspondence, in which Churchill accused Longmore of failing to make proper use of the manpower and aircraft he had, Longmore was recalled to London in May 1941. He was succeeded in the Middle East by Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder.
As I believe I corrected reported back in September, it was only a query after two whole months by the Secretary of the War Cabinet at the end of July, obviously clearing up his "to do" file, that Pound's underling was asked where the further explanation requested back in May was. It still has not been responded to by the 19th September when Pound's underling suggested that it was said "a thorough investigation has been made regarding the action of the Commanding Officer in breaking off action" had been made, followed by an extract from the Board of Admiralty letter to Tovey wholly endorsing Leach's actions "accurate judgement and very high courage".

Months have elapsed without WSC or the War Cabinet showing any interest at all in getting an explanation. Also there is no evidence any enquiry was mounted by the Admiralty.

[/i]If WSC had really wanted W-W and Leach's scalps, Tovey's showboating threat would have meant nothing. In time of war the C-in-C Home Fleet does not get the luxury of deserting his post to play at lawyers.

Tovey's interim report which he calls a "first report" is dated 30th May and says "The reports of Flag and Commanding Officers concerned, technical reports and further comments which I may wish to make, will be forwarded later". It is therefore clear that a revised report will be created later when he has had a chance to correlate with the other commanders some of whom are thousands of miles away. Not surprisingly it is different when he incorporates their information.

This argument still hinges around ridiculous concepts like arguing over the actual minute the Battle of Denmark Straits finished. Is it when the last German shell lands or the last British? Is the battle still going on even if no-one is firing? Did the Battle of Waterloo finish just because Lord Uxbridge's Household Cavalry retreated halfway through the afternoon? Changes to the timing of the "Last Minute" are irrelevant.

I speculate Pound, desperately defending his name on the "run out of fuel" signal said something like" that was nothing, if I had done what Winston wanted that weekend I would asked for a Court Martial!" To which Tovey might have answered, without meaning it for a minute "and I would have hauled down my flag" to which Pound might have said "Then I would have had to Court Martial you for desertion of duty." Unfortunately Tovey obviously turned this into an self promoting anecdote in which he came out the hero which he just to tell to Roskill and then wished he hadn't and didn't want published. We know his memory was faulty in 1954. What part of this threat is real and what part exaggeration? We know the War Cabinet took no action. We believe the Admiralty took no action because there is no evidence whatsoever of a "thorough investigation". Suggesting there had been one was just a way of allowing the Secretary of the War Cabinet to tick off his box. Eventually WSC put an end to this trivial to and fro with "Leave it!"

Cag I hope you will make that information about the gun failures available somewhere.

Antonio, we know what is on pages on 47 and 48 don't we? :cool:

All the best

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

@ CAG,

you can evaluate the reports ( not Adm Tovey dispatches ) containing intentionally altered and incorrect data provided into the " Cover Up " thread initial post's I wrote.

To make a long story short, ... it seems that Capt Leach only avoided to provide precise data on his report, ... while RearAdm Wake-Walker not only altered his own CS1 data, .. but provided the altered data also to enable Tovey to write the incorrect dispatches based on his report for the PoW retreat time, making also on the same document a ridiculous timing error too about it.

It is an interesting exercise I invite you to do to understand it.

@ Wadinga,

a long useless post, ... a lot of talking, ... and almost no value add and no answers about direct questions directed to you.

The INQUIRY intention by Adm Pound is clear, ... Adm Tovey reliability is no more under discussion, ... the Admiralty and the War Cabinet full awareness well demonstrated, ... WSC knew everything about all this.

Will you post the Adm 205/10 pages ? The ones demonstrating the shame of those events.
I left you the possibility to recover a missing input on us, It seems to me you do not care, to show us their content.

No, I do not know anything about 47 or 48 yet, ... please go ahead and show us them too, ... I have no problems about the truth, ... differently than you and Dunmunro, ... I have nothing to protect and hide at any cost.

The KING is nude Sean, ... his paint are OFF ! ... :cool:

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: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:

Even Stephen Roskill, the Royal Navy Official historian for WW 2 clearly stated what WE are stating and YOU are keep on refuting to accept and admit.
At the risk of becoming more ridiculous, I'll ask: what did Roskill clearly state?

In any event you are very happy to toss Roskill into the waste bin when you don't agree with him.
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,

@ Dunmunro,

nobody is IMPECCABLE ! As Stephen Roskill personally wrote to Colin McMullen, ... so he was also a wise man, ... like many others a lot thankful for his life Royal Navy service years.

I agree with him, .. in my life I have done many errors too, ... and always admitted them with no problems.

Stephen Roskill was a very good historian like Pitcairn-Jones, ... precise and organized especially asked and exchanged many information with key witnesses, ... he was a Naval Historian authority, ... and preserved his good archive for the posterity.

Here is what he wrote about all this story for you to read it again :

On a 1976 book :
Roskill_73_note_01.jpeg
Roskill_73_note_01.jpeg (105.75 KiB) Viewed 618 times
On the 1977 book Churchill and the Admirals :
Roskill_pages_125_126.jpeg
Roskill_pages_125_126.jpeg (74.97 KiB) Viewed 618 times
and his note 38 :
Roskill_page_313_note_38_01.jpg
Roskill_page_313_note_38_01.jpg (39.05 KiB) Viewed 618 times
The above documents are the ones I asked WAdinga to show us since he has been in Kew PRO archives and read them.

I refer to Stephen Roskill when I consider his inputs reliable, ... just like many other authors, ... and I DO NOT refer to him as well as many others when I consider their inputs NOT reliable, ... since I have more reliable inputs.

It should be not so difficult to be understood, ... and I am open to change opinion if somebody does provide me a more reliable input, ... as obvious.

Mostly I have no side nor version of the facts to protect at any cost, ... I only care for the historical truth.

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 thanks for inviting me to look at that. So would I be right in saying you believe that the report from Leach is also doctored to suit?

I have looked at Leach's report many times and find he explains exactly the reasons why he broke off the action. The explanation he gives is fairly consistent with the gunnery officers breakdown report and the Vickers report and is consistent with other opinions regarding the ships readiness for battle and her future chances against Bismarck.it also shows an expectation to renew any action once the opportunity presented.

Hi Wadinga, I'm not sure what to do with the Vickers report, it's bound by copyright. I think Dunmonro was going through a GAR exercise at some point, but I'm not sure how to go about it but Im open to ideas and suggestions. But Im not going to post details here and break copyright promises, I'm sure you all understand.

Best wishes
Cag.
Locked