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: 1869
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:50 pm

Hello Alberto,

It is you who brought the evidence to light, proving Tovey was remembering things that never happened from 1950 onwards. :wink: Roskill knew very well Tovey was remembering things that never happened which is why he never published them until he could cite Kennedy. By bluffing over Kennedy over Tovey's memory, he ensured this scurrilous story made it into print, so he could quote it himself. Like many others he left out Kennedy's carefully researched caveats.
in one letter (1962), Tovey wrote to Roskill that the text was:
"if necessary she is to be pursued right up to the shores of France, even if the K:G.V. has to be towed home"

in another letter to Bellairs (1950) Tovey said it was: "you are to continue the pursuit right up to the shores of France even if you have to be towed home"

in another letter to Roskill (1954) Tovey says that the message was "ordering me to continue the chase up to the shores of France, even if the K.G.V. had to be towed back"

Finally in the "Court Martial" letter from December 1961, Tovey wrote that the message was: "you are to continue the pursuit right up the coast of France, even if it means your ship being towed back"
that their guest (Tovey) was "stoned"
Nobody has said he was stoned/senile/suffering from dementia. (Well maybe somebody did in a moment of exasperation) This is your exaggeration for tactical effect. Tovey's exaggeration, noted by his former secretary, Pafford, was going on and on about a signal he never received about the Shores of France for 11 years.

Where does Roskill confirm the "Shores of France"? He never mentioned it in Naval policy between the Wars, he never mentions it in Churchill and the Admirals.
and he confirmed it as reliable
He only repeats what his source Kennedy says. He does not repeat the "Shores of France" because he knew Tovey's memory was unreliable, because the signal doesn't exist and could not possibly be expunged. Roskill knew that.

Where does Churchill write about CMDS in 205/10 without told before hand that he was still supposed to be interested? Pound and Alexander had clearly forgotten all about whatever the report was supposed to be about, until Sir R Brockman guessed it was something to do with Leach.
Apparently you are a better historian that Roskill
Please, please you're too kind :oops: However, I don't have the axe to grind that Roskill did over the pre-war incident pom-pom incident in Warspite, and Brodhurst is clear that the author of War at Sea is often less than fair to Pound. Stephen Roskill. unlike Tovey, clearly has no scruples about "whacking" a dead man, especially when he can offload the responsibility for checking the veracity onto Kennedy. And ignore the results when he does.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3448
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:59 pm

Wadinga wrote: "Tovey was remembering things that never happened from 1950 onwards"
Not at all, but if you want to discuss this topic go here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8246. I will be glad to answer in the right place and explain you that Tovey memory was quite good.

Roskill, being a serious historian, unlike you, kept the CM and the "shores of France" signal separated, he confirmed in his books one (the Court Martial, for your displeasure :lol: ).

This thread is about "The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait" and your obstinacy to mix everything together is just revealing that you have no arguments to propose, despite my request to you to try to stay to the topic and despite other forum members have suggested you to do the same. :negative:
I'm very sad to see that a member who contributed so much to this forum in the past, has now reduced his posts to a stubborn trolling, denying to accept what he cannot discuss anymore, and loosing time to write verbose (very selom documented) posts instead of proposing something new.

you wrote: "He only repeats what his source Kennedy says."
Again, avoid intentionally FALSE statements just to try to deny evidence. I'm tired to post again your shame but you force me to do so: Roskill is not quoting Kennedy here, he explain why Kennedy has published first what he passed to Kennedy, confirming him Tovey reliability against Kennedy (and yours) insinuations, in the letter below that annoys you so much.
Roskill_Naval_Policies_Vol2_464.jpg
Roskill_Naval_Policies_Vol2_464.jpg (127.9 KiB) Viewed 559 times
Roskill to Kennedy_13-09-1973.jpg
Roskill to Kennedy_13-09-1973.jpg (84.45 KiB) Viewed 559 times
you wrote: "Where does Churchill write about CMDS in 205/10"
Still unable to read such a clear document ?
ADM205/10 proves that there were "certain aspects", minuted at War Cabinet 56th 1941, that were under scrutiny in the Bismarck Operation from a military point of view, as Roskill clearly says in his "Churchill and the Admirals", speaking about the Court Martial.
Also, it makes explicit that these aspects were related to the retreat of the PoW in front of the enemy. Had you served in any Navy, you would know that such a behavior, if considered "improper", is a Court Martial automatic very serious imputation.
Please don't try to say that the First Sea Lord, the First Lord and the Prime Minister were all mislead by Brockman, it's just ridiculous. :negative:
ADM 205/10 also mentions (pag.332, within the Barnes' answer to Tovey's despatches) Wake-Walker's decision not to re-engage, as being another debatable (and thus strictly analyzed) aspect before the final approval.

Do you need me to re-post all these pages, explaining you what they mean ?


you wrote: "Stephen Roskill. unlike Tovey, clearly has no scruples about "whacking" a dead man"
As any good historian, having Tovey asked him not to publish the letter, he waited after Tovey's death, but then finally had ..... to tell the truth ! I have already explained that dead men are not immune from the history judgement just because of their death. :negative:
Tovey_Roskill_Court_Martial_1961.jpg
Tovey_Roskill_Court_Martial_1961.jpg (111.62 KiB) Viewed 559 times
BTW, Roskill is not the only one trusting Tovey. Correlli-Barnett and Rhys-Jones do the same and they repeat and quote.... Roskill, not Kennedy..... :negative:


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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1869
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:18 am

Hello Alberto,
Do you need me to re-post all these pages, explaining you what they mean ?
I know what they mean and you keep posting the same material with your same highly biased interpretations. BTW Did you know you left Paragraph one out of the Tovey letter again? :o

The June 2nd War Cabinet minutes do not specify what certain matters are, do they? When the secretary of the War Cabinet contacted Brockman after (nearly) two whole months had gone by, there is no indication he said what he wanted, and even asked whether there was some report coming at all. The June 2nd minutes not only do not mention these two fine officers or any displeasure with tactics, but refer only to the BBC report criticising naval gunnery. About which nothing apparently was done either.

It was Brockman who surmised that it must be something to do with Leach. "it appears that......... means I am guessing here sir, do you know what they want?" Pound does not say he will defend Leach and Wake-Walker, in fact he does not mention them at all. Then he does nothing again. Precisely as he described to Somerville: Listen to Churchill rant, don't be a brick wall, say "whether or not he was correct", say there will be a report in due time. Forget all about it............ because Churchill will have flitted off to something else and forgotten about it. Standard operating procedure.

I suspect Alexander's heavy handed and full description was to remind the PM he had been carrying on in this "childish" (Pound's words not mine) manner, four whole months previously. About the same Captain Leach he had been so matey-matey with across the Atlantic. Then he laid it on thick with the Board of Admiralty's fulsome praise to embarrass Churchill further. :D Alexander was a Labour party man, Not a Tory like the PM. It's called taking the p*ss with a straight face.

BTW how come you can
explain you that Tovey memory was quite good
when someone who worked with him for several years and thus much longer than Roskill, said it wasn't? All the letters you paraphrased clearly show his memory was terrible from 1950 onwards.

Roskill only confirms what he had Kennedy say for him, because he knew it was likely to be as inaccurate as he already knew the "Shores of France" was. If contradicting information came out, say from someone who worked closely with Pound and knew that when he sent "admirable" to Wake-Walker, that he never changed his mind afterwards, Roskill could blame Kennedy.

BTW Go see a movie- Gary Olman as Churchill in Darkest Hour. Imagine him raging about "Troubridge" , quite forgetting that unlike Leach, Troubridge was not shot at, was not blown up and rendered unconscious, did not have his guns falling to pieces and therefore Leach was not comparable to Troubridge in any way. I imagine by Monday 26th May Churchill had realised it too, for there is no evidence he ever mentioned the matter again.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3448
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:11 am

Wadinga wrote: "Did you know you left Paragraph one out of the Tovey letter again?"
I know and already told you: you don't deserve to share my documents anymore, until you will beg pardon !
You go to Cambridge, you try to play the historian role finding the documents and you pay for the information, as I did (as well as Mr.Cag). :oops:


you wrote: "When the secretary of the War Cabinet contacted Brockman...there is no indication he said what he wanted...."
It was crystal clear for everybody up to Churchill (and written black and white in ADM 205/10 pag.331, 332), 333), except for YOU ONLY (you should really think about that....).
Even the most fierce "denial advocates" have not dared to support your ridiculous interpretation here, that Brockman just guessed about Leach, that everybody was so stupid to misunderstand, following Brockman error and that Churchill himself spent his time in "very full discussions" with both Leach and Tovey speaking about the accomodations on board PoW. :stop:


you wrote: "someone who worked with him for several years and thus much longer than Roskill, said it wasn't? "
Paffard worked with Tovey during the war (I hope we all consider Tovey mentally sane during this period....): you were unable to show any evidence about Paffard relations with Tovey after the latter retired, while Paffard continued to serve in the Navy. Roskill had relations with Tovey (proved by his letters and visits) and could perfectly judge about his memory, as they discussed his historical work together. Correlli-Barnett and Rhys-Jones followed Roskill judgement, only YOU prefers Paffard, while even Kennedy (in a private letter that you will never have from me...) spoke to Roskill about the CM threat as being a fact, despite Paffard's caveat that he then inserted in his happy-ending novel, against Roskill advise...... :oops:

Here you get again the document that shows to everyone what is Roskill judgement about Tovey recollection, until you will be able to UNDERSTAND what you read. It is not difficult, please try again...... :stop:
Roskill to Kennedy_13-09-1973.jpg
Roskill to Kennedy_13-09-1973.jpg (84.45 KiB) Viewed 534 times

Thanks for the suggestion about Churchill movie, I'm curious to listen at the PM applauding cowardice and preferring timid behaviors to sacrifice in this new interpretation of his role in WWII...... :negative:
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:18 am, 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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:12 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
you wrote: "When the secretary of the War Cabinet contacted Brockman...there is no indication he said what he wanted...."
It was crystal clear for everybody up to Churchill (and written black and white in ADM 205/10 pag.331, 332), 333), except for YOU ONLY (you should really think about that....).
Even the most fierce deniers have not dared to support your ridiculous interpretation here, that Brockman just guessed, that everybody was so stupid to misunderstand following Brockman error and that Churchill himself spent his time in "very full discussions" with both Leach and Tovey speaking about his accomodations on board PoW. :stop:
:oops: Me as well. In my defence I can only say that (like Alberto and Antonio are stressing they are/were officers) I have (unfortunately) job related experience of high level committees, their minutes and their secretary's offices. :(
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

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 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:23 am

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

can you please explain me a bit better what you are trying to state about the Adm 205/10 papers I have posted here in ?

What is the point here ?

What are the doubts ?

Thanks and bye, Antonio :D

Note : Be careful about others curriculum, experience and skills, ... because they can have both the ones you listed above and until you know them personally really well enough, ... you cannot realize at what level they have it too.
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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1869
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:08 am

Hello Alberto,
you don't deserve to share my documents anymore
My underlining. :cool:

You don't own any of these documents, nobody does, unless they are the things you write. This proprietary attitude is the same we suffered when Antonio would cut out tiny thumbnails from maps to promote his groundless speculations whilst hiding the other material which disproved them. I realise both you and Antonio have made significant financial outlay and all parties have recorded their appreciation of the sharing you have done. Your single-minded determination to blacken the reputations of these men, with the only most insubstantial "evidence", suggests you hope to recoup some of this from a future contentious publication. Your increasingly combative tone and refusal to acknowledge any other point of view, suggest you are worried that continued exposure of your errors will hazard such a publication and thus your earnings.

A prime example is redacting that part of a letter in which the author describes things that did not happen, in order to give the impression that the rest has some basis in fact.

Exposure of the shortcomings of your arguments should warn you that your reputation as well as your pockets will be damaged should you make your speculative fantasy more widely available. Bill Jurens, who I seen to recall has never endorsed any part of your speculations, has observed recently on the tendency of commissioning editors to accept material because controversy sells, even if the material is wanting.

Antonio has called these decorated officers a "couple of cowards" and now you say:
applauding cowardice and preferring timid behaviors
are you now calling these men a "couple of cowards" too?

In the Darkest Hour movie you will see IMHO an excellent depiction, coincidentally exactly one year prior to the events of the Bismarck Chase, of Churchill, both the magnificent leader and the irrational bully, struggling under the immense pressure of the Premiership, and showing many facets of his complex character. It fits seamlessly with the irrational uninformed rant described from Chequers and the following day when he turned to other matters, including Crete and conscription in Northern Ireland. It would not require some fantastical conspiracy to divert his attention from a witch hunt against these officers even if he had intended one, merely waiting two days or indeed two months as Pound did. Doing nothing, whilst Matters of State prevailed as 205/10 file shows.

Herr Nilsson, thank you for your valuable observation on how high level committees work and your support, which I will wear always. :wink:

All the best

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

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 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:22 am

Hello everybody,


:D :D :D

Somebody is better start studying geometry and mathematics, ...

:D :D :D


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: 3448
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:36 am

@Antonio: and his native language too ! :lol:


Wadinga wrote:"are you now calling these men a "couple of cowards" too? "
FALSE, and clearly showing your trolling attitude. I was speaking of Churchill movie and his preferences either for cowardice or sacrifice..... Please read what I post !


you wrote: "Exposure of the shortcomings of your arguments should warn you that your reputation as well as your pockets will be damaged should you make your speculative fantasy more widely available"
Don't worry about Antonio's and my expenses (my reputation is something I will not allow anybody else than myself to care about...): our pleasure in discovering the TRUTH about this regrettable aftermath fully justifies the disbursement. :lol:
I just do hope I will be allowed by Antonio to contribute in any way to his future publication, being my contribution so limited.....
I do realize however that this future publication will face the hysterical reactions we are experiencing here, on a much larger scale, from people happy to leave with Kennedy fairy tales.


you wrote: "whilst Matters of State prevailed as 205/10 file shows."
Perfectly correct! In my next post for everybody convenience, the "only" few pages related to the the Court Martial, where Leach retreat is made explicit as an "aspect" requiring "explanations" (according to Roskill, not to me, see below from "Churchill and the Admirals"). I think very are clear enough for everybody WILLING to understand:
Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_footnote.jpg
Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_footnote.jpg (40.75 KiB) Viewed 514 times
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:18 pm, edited 6 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
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3448
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:39 am

ADM 205/10 pag 331 (signed Brockman to Pound)
ADM205-10_331.jpg
ADM205-10_331.jpg (29.13 KiB) Viewed 514 times
ADM 205/10 pag 332 (Pound to Alexander)
ADM205-10_332-1.jpg
ADM205-10_332-1.jpg (101.63 KiB) Viewed 514 times
ADM 205/10 pag 333 (Alexander to Churchill)
ADM205-10_333.jpg
ADM205-10_333.jpg (118.59 KiB) Viewed 514 times
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:51 am, 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)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3448
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:48 am

and the closure, ADM 205/10 pag.334 (from Churchill's secretary to Alexander)
ADM205-10_334.jpg
ADM205-10_334.jpg (28.51 KiB) Viewed 511 times

All the above documents are FACTS and evidences not blah-blah.....


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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson » Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:13 pm

Antonio, first of all I just want to make clear that I wanted to say I have my experiences regarding committee matters like you and Alberto have underlined severeal times that you have experience as officers regarding officers matters. I don't say you have no experience in anything else and I don't claim interpretive predominance. I don't want to start a "pissing contest" whose board, committee, panel, their offices, their intern rivalry, their muddleheadedness or whatever is more freaky. So there is no need for a warning.

As I stated several pages before I can't follow your conclusions right after May 24th. Therefore I think it isn't useful to start over again.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag » Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:32 pm

Hi All

Hi Alberto,

I fully agree the above documents are facts, they show that the question of withdrawal, once all the reports, evidences and even face to face talks were established, was considered correct.

They also show that the war cabinet secretaries and 1st Lord consideration of the question of a requirement for further reports was considered unnecessary by Churchill.

This thread is about the threatened court martial for 2 officers, we have established the threatened charge was for not re-engaging Bismarck after Hood was sunk. We have also established that we have evidence from the Roskill papers that Tovey recollected a phone call that threatened such a charge, it was dealt with by Tovey and nothing more was heard about it.

We have established that no proceedings were instigated and that the majority of historians consider that the threat to court martial those officers shows Pound in a bad light and call the notion of a CM as being incorrect and a regrettable aftermath.

So we have established a CM threat, we have established it was defeated and nothing more was heard. That is the CM discussion established.

Your cabinet papers etc, although not connected with the CM threat, have established that, Churchill gave an ill informed remark regarding PoW not pressing home an attack and likens it to another incident that he himself caused, we have confirmed an uninformed war cabinet paper question that states that the withdrawal of PoW had changed from Churchills view to it being unclear whether it was considered wise, and further correspondance between secretaries and senior officers as to whether the raising of this question has been answered, finally resulting in the conformation that after reports and face to face conversations Churchill required no further investigatory report.

Hi Herr Nilsson,

anybody's view is valid in my humble opinion, the more views we have the more we can understand what is going on. I respect your view just as much as Antonio's Albertos and anyone else's.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3448
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:47 pm

Cag wrote: "....Your cabinet papers etc, although not connected with the CM threat, have established that, Churchill gave an ill informed remark regarding PoW not pressing home an attack..... "
Hi Mr.Cag,
respecting your view, this is not what Roskill understood of this regrettable aftermath (and the other historians as well). For him, ADM 205 /10 papers are indeed connected to the Court Martial, which footnote 38 refers to.
Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_footnote.jpg
Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_footnote.jpg (40.75 KiB) Viewed 493 times
Apparently Roskill was able to get to the same conclusions Antonio and me have reached, that the Court Martial would have covered both aspects (Leach retreat and Wake-Walker refusal to re-engage) as well as others (I guess the night shadowing, the cruisers conduct during the action and the loss of contact, after new documentation and Antonio's reconstruction are available).


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 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:49 pm

Hi All

Hi Alberto,

I must say thank you! To quote a character from a film my family watch a great deal, in the words of Sir Henry Higgins from My Fair Lady, "by George I think he's got it!".

Yes we can see Roskill comments on Toveys rememberance of the "regrettable aftermath" , he also gives us further evidence of that "regrettable aftermath" by showing us the documents found in 205/10.

What he does not do is link the CM threat to the cabinet papers and say these are one and the same, that is your interpretation. He states the whole post mortem on the Bismarck operation shows Phillips and Pound in a bad light, not Wake-Walker or Leach, he states the charge specifically and the reasons including the "wholly unfavourable tactical situation".

So the regrettable aftermath is the whole post mortem investigation, the CM threat, the 205/10 papers but does not say they are the same threat, that they are the same investigation, however you have interpreted differently.

Neither Pound, Tovey, Alexander, Churchill nor Roskill state that the CM for not re engaging Bismarck after Hood was sunk is connected with Leach's withdrawal and most definitely do not connect it with Wake-Walkers actions prior or during the DS battle.

Now I agree we can all interpret evidences and form an opinion, I have stated in my previous post the evidence above, it is an interpretation and an opinion which is as valid as yours, that is something you cannot deny.

However note that I state it as an interpretation and an opinion, I do not say that anyone else's interpretation is wrong, I do not say that my interpretation or opinion is the only correct one and everyone else's is wrong or that they are naive to believe anything else, I do not presume to be able to expect everyone to accept my opinion is now capable of being considered a fact.

Can you say the same?

Best wishes
Cag.

Post Reply