It is you who brought the evidence to light, proving Tovey was remembering things that never happened from 1950 onwards. 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"
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.that their guest (Tovey) was "stoned"
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.
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.and he confirmed it as reliable
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.
Please, please you're too kind 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.Apparently you are a better historian that Roskill
All the best