The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:38 pm

Hello Antonio,

I presume for you
Since the " trolling " activity intent is to overwrite my post
overwriting means you absolutely insist on having the very last word in any thread. This is rather high-handed don't you think? :cool:
we never know what we can still find about all this shameful story


All the more reason to continue to investigate. although there is nothing "shameful" found so far, merely the collation of various accounts and clarification of minor anomalies. Since your intent has been to automatically assume guilt of some sort in every case the mere changing of information in the light of new information is proof of such guilt.

As for Duncan and myself being the only remaining arguers, well I suspect everyone else is bored to death with this unreasoning witchhunt , but acquiescence surely does not imply agreement.

Since we established that Pound, if he made this threat, did so without actually having any more information on Leach's actions than he did on the 24th, and had endorsed Wake-Walker's actions with "admirable", we move on to what documentary evidence there is that any RN officer's actions were under review in the Bismarck Chase.

All the best

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

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag » Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:44 pm

Hi All

The main point here is the wording used in the letter or indeed every quote taken directly from this letter.

If we are to use this evidence we must use exactly the terms written by the person who made them. Tovey states that on his return to Scapa a telephone conversation took place in which

a) the charge threatened was not re engaging Bismarck to both Leach and Wake-Walker.
b) Toveys reasoning against this threat was his concern of pushing Bismarck too far West and away from his ships which were in pursuit.
c) Tovey states (and according to McMullens memory of Tovey talking about this in 1962) that after his rebuttal of Pounds threat he heard no more about it.

If Pound, Churchill and Alexander were complicit and a cover up which was instigated by Pound and carried out by Tovey is put forward, we are then suggesting that this last statement is a lie. This telephone conversation would have taken place before all the facts were available. The charge regards re engagement not disengagement.

In his letter Tovey states he only confided in Bingley and Paffard about the conversation, and he wished this not to become public because he did not want Wake-Walker (not Leach note) criticised and because to put it in his own words "to have a crack at DP while he was unable to have a crack back".

The matter of the disengagement is covered in Toveys personal letter to Pound, and Leach's report, both of which we have seen either mentioned in the cabinet meeting papers or were included in Toveys despatch.

We know PoW Y turret was out of action until 08.25hrs and that Y2 gun was out of action until 13.00hrs.

Best wished
Cag.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:20 pm

Hello everybody,

and here we go with no value add with the " trolls " coming here again with the only intention to turn the page of this thread and hide the full re-construction logic links where everybody can read in full details the shame of what has been done 76 years ago.

The shameful " cover up " done in order not to proceed with a deserved investigation for a couple of cowards and instead recognize them with a medal by the King, everyhing blessed by Admiralty and Politicians, even intentionally modifying official documents in order to do it.

Everything written and available to be read by everybody in the archives.

Like turning a page on this forum can hide the above truth and reduce the bad smell of this can of worms finally opened and under the eyes of everybody to be realized.

A pathetic way to act by the ones that are with no arguments left anymore, with all the evidence cleary against them and written by British Official Historians.

Here the links once again, so everybody can read the shame of what as been done, how and by whom :

1) The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait -> The beginning of this story with the War Cabinet May/June 1941 minutes
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728

2) Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War -> The real reasons for the inquiry initial intention by Adm Pound.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5830

3) Hit on POW compass platform -> The truth about the HMS Prince of Wales disengagement time and reasons
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6276

4) The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait -> The truth about the 2 heavy cruisers distance during the battle
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8231

5) The Plot -> What as been done in order to "change" the previously declared heavy cruiser distance during the battle
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6495

6) Cover up synopsis -> What has been done by Adm Tovey to "change" the reality and enable the Officers recognition
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6799

7) The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait -> The final closure by the Admiralty and Churchill on Adm 205/10
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728

Obviously, ... in the highest tradition ...

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: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:23 pm

Hi all,
refusing to accept what Tovey wrote re, CMDS, despite it was confirmed by all the historians (from Roskill to Ryhs-Jones from Tarrant to Correlli Barnett), by direct witnesses (Roskill and McMullen) and by Sir Henry Leach (vey much interested in the story....), just means "denying" facts. :stop:


After Churchill words "the worst thing since Troubridge turned away from the Goeben in 1914" (not only a private outburst, but repeated on May 26 in the Admiralty War Room !) and Pound words "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" (on May 26, minuted in writing, in front of the War Cabinet), it should be obvious to anyone (with just a minimum knowledge of the Royal Navy), that the "atmosphere" was foreshadowing a Court Martial..... :stubborn:

But having seen the demonstration that the whole story has been changed with the intentional alteration of the official reports, "adjusted" to invent a better version of the key aspects that "prima facie required explanations", only a very, very naif person can imagine they were full of "innocent" errors or typos, and not just....excuses and justifications.....:negative:

Finally, despite this "embellished" version of the "aspects" was accepted by the Admiralty (see Barnes), to close the matter, Churchill felt necessary to have "very full discussions" with both Leach and Tovey, before minuting sharply "Leave it"...... :shock: What else would be needed to demonstrate that the actions of certain officers at DS was under scrutiny and tough critics ?


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: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:31 pm

Hello everybody,

bottom line, the Court Martial attempt was only the reason for all this to have happened.

What is absolutely shameful to say the least is what has been done after to "Cover Up" the truth and proceed with the King rewarding instead.

All is up there to be read, realized and it is, .... and always will, ... smell really bad.

Enough said ...

Bye Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:40 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: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag » Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:33 pm

Hi All

Antonio no one is trolling, there is a question to answer, Tovey states the charge, and his reason to rebuff it. You maintain that the lack of cruiser involvement and the withdrawal are part of an investigation into the battle and I'm ok with that. Other documents deal with those issues.The charge noted by the man who had the conversation if different to that of non intervention and disengagement..

Now as previously posted are we saying that in a private letter to Mr Roskill Tovey lied when he said he heard no more about the threat of a court martial?

Best wishes
Cag
Last edited by Cag on Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:45 pm

Hi Mr.Cag,
come on, try not to be too "naif", analyzing words ! The "CM" threat was over immediately (possibly in Churchill mind it had been already over at the time Pound told it to Tovey, as Bismarck had been sunk by then).

We can trust Tovey when he says he did not hear more about the "Court Martial".
After June 2nd, he did hear about another task to perform: providing the "explanations" for those aspects that "prima facie" required them. He duly provided the intentionally incorrect Despatches and Barnes answered clarifying which were the aspects that these despaches (point 17 and 19) were indeed clarifying ...... Also, he had to provide explanations to Churchill during "very full discussions",......but possibly the word "Court Martial" was not pronounced anymore.......

For sure, on May 26, ALL the officers listening at Churchill in the War Room understood what "the worst thing since Troubridge turned away from the Goeben in 1914" meant in terms of disciplinary actions..... :wink:


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:55 pm, edited 2 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: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:53 pm

Hello everybody,

to Alberto Virtuani, .... :clap: :clap: :clap:

Maybe they will be able to understand now, ... what Churchill present with Alexander in person in the Admiralty War Room, ... was meaning while keep on repeating on and on what you just wrote above ... still on May 26th, 1941, ... :shock:

.... surely Tom Philips ( the "Bull Terrier" ) and Pound had no doubts what it meant in tems of disciplinary actions ... as Stephen Roskill explained to us all ... knowing Pound very well.

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: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag » Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:01 pm

Hi All

Thank you Alberto, although I'm not sure what naif means, do you mean naive?

Again Troughtbridge is a comment from the man who caused that particular Admirals problems in the first place.

Troughtbridge was cleared was he not?
Troughtbridge shadowed and did not engage and discontinued the chase is that correct?
Leach did engage and did so twice more did he not?
He continued to shadow until contact was lost but without that loss of contact intended to re engage with Home Fleet support is that correct?
PoW sailed from CS1 after the loss of contact in order to search for Bismarck, even heading for a sighting of masts finding it was Norfolk before turning for Iceland did it not?
Did Churchill know this when he made such a comment two days after the action?
Was he aware of PoW lack of training, her gunnery 'problems'?
Do we now know all this and still think that his comment is applicable?

Come come Alberto.

So no more was heard about a CM by anyone of anyone, that is all I required thank you.

Tovey told only two people about that threat, Bingley and Paffard. Is that correct according to the Roskill letter?

The cabinet office was chasing up the result of whether the disengagement had been investigated was it not?

Churchills response of leave it was to Alexander asking if a further report was required was it not?

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:14 pm

Hello everybody,

it is all perfectly written, analized and re-constructed step by step.

It is available here :

1) The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait -> The beginning of this story with the War Cabinet May/June 1941 minutes
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728

2) Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War -> The real reasons for the inquiry initial intention by Adm Pound.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5830

3) Hit on POW compass platform -> The truth about the HMS Prince of Wales disengagement time and reasons
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6276

4) The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait -> The truth about the 2 heavy cruisers distance during the battle
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8231

5) The Plot -> What as been done in order to "change" the previously declared heavy cruiser distance during the battle
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6495

6) Cover up synopsis -> What has been done by Adm Tovey to "change" the reality and enable the Officers recognition
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6799

7) The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait -> The final closure by the Admiralty and Churchill on Adm 205/10
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728

Just read and study it and mostly, ... allow everybody to be able to do the same, ... they have the right to do so.

Bye Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:22 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 )

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:19 pm

Hi Mr.Cag,
Troubridge comparison is the one used by Churchill and repeated in front of the officers at the War Room on May 26, even if you are annoyed by it.....
I find it just PERFECT (both Troubridge and Leach failed to do their utmost to prevent vitally dangerous enemies to accomplish their mission), you don't. Be it. It's worthless to discuss this again and again.

But, please, don't try to say that the matter was closed "because Tovey did not hear the word Court Martial anymore", it was not closed at all, until September. Tovey stood in defence of his officers and he had to prepare in the meantime a report that could support his view. This he duly did with the intentionally incorrect despatches point 17 and 19.


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: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag » Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:39 pm

Hi All

Alberto you seem to believe that the words of an ill informed Churchill annoy me. I'm afraid that they don't, more important things annoy me.

Im pretty easy going to be honest, I tend to read what Tovey wrote in his letter to Pound, what Captain Leach wrote in his report and what Dahlrymple Hamilton wrote in his letter to Cunningham and take them at their word. I read PoW GAR and the Barben letter and Mr Murphy's letter and allow those to give me a picture. That seems to back up Leach in his opinion of the wiseness of continuation of a battle, as opposed to disengagement to await another more favourable opportunity?

If you do not and believe the two different actions are the same it's ok by me.

Again I have not said the matter was closed, the CM threat was rebuffed, the reason for PoW disengagement was investigated and answered by her Captains report, her GAR etc. Her reason for not re engaging is also answered in her GAR and damage reports. Those were available to the board as we now know.

Best wishes
Cag

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:01 pm

Hello everybody,

did you realize that they have intentionally modified Official documents and lied by doing so ?

Did you realize that the evidence demonstrate that they were all together by doing all this ?

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: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:55 pm

Hi All

Hi Antonio could you please point out where Leach lied in his report? Is his reasoning for disengagement a lie?

Could you tell me in which regard is PoW GAR a lie, or her damage report? Is McMullen a liar in his gunnery assessment? Is Mr Murphy a liar? How is Dahlrymple Hamilton a liar? How is Tovey a liar in his assessment of PoW lack of work up?

Do you realize that saying that Leach, McMullen, the GAR its maps, Rowells maps etc are all lies is incorrect? I understand your argument regarding the cover up, but these are not falsified reports, are those that inspected PoW in Rosyth in on the cover up? How far does this inclusion in guilt go?

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:34 pm

Hello everybody,

Adm Tovey lied about Capt Leach disengagement on point 19 on his dispatches about 06:13 and Y Turret jamming event.
If you read the above links you will realize it and everybody agreed about it being an intentional lie.
Barnes approved for the Admiralty board an intentional false document.
Capt Leach took his undeserved medal only thru that intentional lie by Adm Tovey approved by the Admiralty.

Same lies on Adm Tovey dispatches for RearAdm Wake-Walker on point 17 with the around 15 sea miles declaration.
In this case even a second board and another intentional falsification using "The Plot" was needed to enable the Admiralty approval and his final undeserved King recognition. Same shame, same process.

If the Admiralty had used as it was supposed the correct data and documents you are referring that were available to them too, there were not going to be any recognition but the deserved investigation and inquiry according to the Articles of War in place on those years.

Barnes Admiralty Board final approval statement was provided according to the only fact version they evaluated, the Adm Tovey dispatches, an intentional false written version of the events, and you can find it also on the documents Adm 205/10.

Did you finally realize now why they were all partners in this shameful crime ?

If you are stilll unable to realize this easy fact, I again suggest you to study the links I provided and you keep on overwriting with useless statement on and on.

The truth is in there and now finally available to everybody.

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 )

Locked