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: 2053
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:04 am

Hello Alberto,
Is a Board of Inquiry a signal of full approval of the conduct of an officer
If a B o I is set in motion over the actions of a person, as opposed to the more generalised version seeking to establish facts, like the Hood technical boards, then it means the authorities believe that individual's actions merit investigation. This implies that with the knowledge they have, the authority believes the individual's actions are not approved. It is therefore entirely different to a Court Martial where a body of evidence already exists, which needs to be answered under full legal process.

It is clear that a Board of Inquiry can only establish the facts about the supposed shortcomings of a single individual, so there would need to be seperate proceedings for Wake-Walker and Leach.

As Mr Gollin observes quite rightly, the idea that Tovey muddled up two entirely procedures in his 31st letter is just impossible. In 1941 he wrote Board of Inquiry and that is what he meant. Nothing about what he remembered many years after is "inconvenient" for me. Were Roskill to have shown him his own letter in his own handwriting in 1961, and asked him where it said Court Martial for Wake-Walker and Leach, it might have been inconvenient and a little embarrassing for him. It would be interesting to know why it says nothing at all about the famous phone call either. Roskill apparently kept on asking him about "Shores of France", Tovey's exposed evidential anomaly, seemingly receiving no adequate explanation, but of course that must be addressed elsewhere when the correspondence is made available.

Antonio has provided a lengthy, but not verbose of course, description of the modern procedure in an entirely different service, which only shows how much bureaucratic procedure is necessary for any action in any military service, which I am sure you will agree with from your own experience. It is surely not entered into lightly with so little preparation and forethought that it can be stopped by a single obstinate "No"! We know from Somerville's experience that it required approval of both Pound and Alexander to order his Board of Inquiry and they proceeded against their specialist advice.

Antonio's evidence of sugar coating, is that different to lying under oath etc, remains a miasma of irrelevancies, guessing at distances, fuzzy memories written thirty years after the event etc etc. It was concocted specifically as an unwarranted attack on the veracity of the Royal Navy and its personnel, provoked entirely by the apocryphal CMDS threat mentioned by Kennedy with considerable caveats. There is now overwhelming contemporary evidence there never was a Court Martial threat as shown in this letter of 31st May, itself never referred to by either Roskill or Kennedy, likely because they never saw it. Therefore the shaky foundations of the Ziggurat of Supposition have been demolished, leaving the structure to crumble to dust as it deserves.

All the best

wadinga

All the best

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

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 » Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:29 am

Wadinga wrote: "it means the authorities believe that individual's actions merit investigation"
Hi Sean,
exacty, and a Board of Inquiry is therefore a signal of non-complete approval of the conduct of an officer (as clearly perceived by Somerville for Spartivento).

Therefore a BofI threat is more than enough to explain the "sugar-coating" in the following official reports/declarations.
From this point of view, the 1941 letter just confirms without any doubt the "motive" of the "embellishment" (being the doubts over the conduct of two officers) and closes forever the debate on this point.....


you wrote: "In 1941 he wrote Board of Inquiry "
In 1961 (AND during his visit to McMullen/Blake) he clearly wrote (said) Court Martial, that is not surprising at all as a Court Martial follows a Board of Inquiry in case this last cannot close the doubts over the conduct of the officers.....

However also in 1941 he wrote Court Martial in his letter, when taking the responsibility on himself, therefore the letter strongly suggest that Pound used the frightening words in his May 28 letter and/or in the phone call at least.
Nobody would be so stupid to write to his superior about a Court martial, if the superior had not used this words before.
Therefore the letter support the Court Martial threat instead of "demolishing" it as you try to sell here...... :negative:

you wrote: "Antonio has provided a lengthy.....description of the modern procedure in an entirely different service"
while you have provided nothing, just your interpretation of what is in the RN a BofI and a CM. Please provide the official definitions/links! :negative:

I don't need to comment on the "cover-up", being well demonstrated here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6799)for who want to see the facts (and not to deny them at any cost).



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: 2053
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:33 pm

Hello Alberto,

What Tovey says is
but I am only too ready to submit to B of I or C M if Their Lordships see fit to order to enquire into my own actions.
My own actions, not anyone else's. He is disobeying a "request" from the First Sea Lord, albeit couched in an unofficial letter and he counter threatens. There is no comeback, there is no actual commitment to pillory Wake-Walker or Leach or to upbraid Tovey for impeding the process, Pound merely shrugs and gets on with more important business. There is no copy of the 28th letter on file as there would be if this were an Admiralty request.
Apart from this one point may I say how very deeply I value your letter, and I am sure that you know the last thing I wish to do is to increase your very heavy burden but I must make my stand on this point.
Deeply value a letter in which his subordinates are threatened with Court Martial? Tovey talks about B o I because that is all there is.
as you try to sell here
Both you and Antonio have reluctantly had to admit that the 31st May 1941 says specifically Board of Inquiry and you are left with justifying why Tovey's memory of 20 years later is different, whilst ignoring the most obvious reason.

All the best

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

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 » Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:57 pm

Wadinga wrote: "My own actions, not anyone else's. He is disobeying a "request" from the First Sea Lord, albeit couched in an unofficial letter and he counter threatens"
Hi Sean,
you "forget" Tovey words in the previous sentence: "the responsibility for ordering PoW to re-engage was mine, and mine alone", therefore he could have been trialed by CM for this as well......

Anyway, are you saying that Tovey used the words Court Martial on his own initiative, when writing to his superior a "friendly" (IMO just "appeasing") letter ? :negative:
No sane officer uses such words if not already used by someone else, Tovey was a smart officer, not like Wake-Walker (who lightly admitted both the 05:16 identification of BC1 and his real distance from the enemy, before realizing he was "speaking inappropriately"). :negative:
Pound, already in the letter, probably menaced the Court Martial; what is sure is that, according to Tovey, he actually said "Court Martial" during the phone call.

you wrote: "Both you and Antonio have reluctantly had to admit that the 31st May 1941 says specifically Board of Inquiry "
Not at all, we were both deeply grateful to you for having provided us the ultimate proof of the "regrettable aftermath" that caused the "cover-up". :dance:
You seems unable to understand this point: BofI or CM are (in this sense) exactly the same as a valid "motive" for the intentional alteration of the facts.


BTW, as you look interested in quibbling over military procedures, where are the official definitions + procedures for a BofI and a CM in the Royal Navy ?
In the absence, the US definitions provided by Antonio will be good enough, much better than your own "interpretation"....


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: 2053
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:22 am

Hello Alberto,

There an often used expression in English "put up or shut up". The phrase
Anyway, are you saying that Tovey used the words Court Martial on his own initiative, when writing to his superior a "friendly"
is just that, a challenge, a gauntlet thrown down, raising the stakes on Pound, forcing him to go forward with a Board of Inquiry or forget all about it his plan to mollify a perceived Churchillian unhappiness. Which is exactly what Pound does. Backs down, forgets the idea, never initiates any of the bureaucratic machinery necessary, doesn't remove either of the supposed miscreants from their positions of responsibility and recommends higher rewards for them than the original committee. The idea was never a serious suggestion and Tovey's attitude has derailed it at the very first bend.

There never were any grounds other than the overwrought histrionics at Chequers, Pound remains perfectly happy to leave these officers in their positions of responsibility and as it happens, it appears Churchill had already forgotten his vendetta, even when the First Sea Lord was writing his letter of the 28th.
what is sure is that, according to Tovey
Nothing is sure, unless it is corroborated by other evidence. Both Roskill and Kennedy identified the shortcomings of his recollections and either ignored or quoted them with caveats.

To avoid verbosity here is the simple difference between Board of Inquiry and Court Martial "No sword/ Swords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swords_in_courts-martial

Also armed escort
In 2004 Her Majesty's Government declared that it would no longer require the accused to be marched in with an armed escort
Also a Court Martial required the co-operation of
The Judge Advocate of the Fleet was an appointed civilian judge who was responsible for the supervision and superintendence of the court martial system in the Royal Navy from 1663 to 2008.
Enough?

All the best

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

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 » Fri Mar 30, 2018 10:40 am

Wadinga wrote: "put up or shut up"
Hi Sean,
in this case it should have been "put up more or shut down", as Tovey used the words Court Martial in his answer to Pound and you still think that the latter never wrote/pronounced these words..... :negative:

I respect your personal interpretation, but IMO Tovey would have never added the words CM in his May 31 answer if they had not been already in Pound May 28 letter OR in the phone call.

you wrote: "Enough?"
thanks for this interesting "sword" tradition, that I knew from the age of sail, but I discover it was well in use even after 1941.
However, absolutely not enough ! We need the definitions and procedures of the Court Martial vs Board of Inquiry as in 1941 to appreciate the difference.
From US Navy today, it looks like the BofI can only inflict administrative punishment, but it may have been different in the Royal Navy in 1941.


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: 2053
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Sun Apr 01, 2018 2:18 pm

Hello Alberto,

If you care to check

http://www.godfreydykes.info/The%20Cour ... ERCURY.htm

There is an extensive volume of contemporary material addressing the sinking of HMS Mercury, a minesweeper, in the St George's channel in 1940.

As the website owner points out:
You will have read on the page "The Story of HMS Mercury" that after the sinking, a Board of Inquiry was ordered, and it more or less exonerated the Commanding Officer to such a degree that the Flag Officer in Charge Milford Haven recommended to C-in-C Western Approaches/Plymouth, that there was no need to go for a Court Martial.
We now turn our attention to the period after the Sinking [25th December 1940] to the end of the Board of Inquiry when the decision was taken by the C-in-C Western Approaches/Plymouth that there would be a Court Martial.
This clarifies the huge difference between a Board of Inquiry which seeks to establish facts which may lead to a Court Martial, and that ultimate disciplinary procedure.

Both you and Antonio have at last accepted that Tovey's letter of 31st only mentions a Board of Inquiry in respect of Wake-Walker and Leach, and this example shows the difference between the two bureaucratic procedures. I stand by my observation:
Which is exactly what Pound does. Backs down, forgets the idea, never initiates any of the bureaucratic machinery necessary, doesn't remove either of the supposed miscreants from their positions of responsibility and recommends higher rewards for them than the original committee. The idea was never a serious suggestion and Tovey's attitude has derailed it at the very first bend.
If any of the procedures outlined in the "Mercury" example, even for a Board of Inquiry, had ever been seriously contemplated by Pound there would be evidence, and there is none, apart from a muddled uncorroborated memory recorded 20 years after.

All the best

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

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 » Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:31 pm

Wadinga wrote: "This clarifies the huge difference between a Board of Inquiry which seeks to establish facts which may lead to a Court Martial, and that ultimate disciplinary procedure. "
Hi Sean,
this is clear but a CM is seeking to establish facts too.... no surprise here.

The most similar (to Leach and Wake-Walker) case, however, is not a mining, but the Troubridge case, intentionally evoked by Churchill, when a Board of Inquiry was called, the BofI found that Troubridge actions deserved a Court Martial (for failure to engage the enemy) and the CM exonerated him (albeit somehow reluctantly). Despite being exonerated, Troubridge was discharged to the half-pay list and never got a command at sea anymore. This is exactly the way the PM would have liked the Admiralty to act on May 25 and 26.
The difference, that allowed Tovey to stand against the request, was that Goeben safely arrived at Constantinople, while Bismarck never reached Brest.


you wrote: "Both you and Antonio have at last accepted that Tovey's letter of 31st only mentions a Board of Inquiry"
We have, it's you who seem to have problems accepting that such a request of a serious disciplinary procedure (that could take to a Court Martial or not), countered by the CinC HF taking the responsibility on himself, is more than enough to explain the subsequent alteration of the facts/reports..... :negative:



I "stand by my observation" too:
No sane officer uses such words (Court Martial) if not already used by someone else, Tovey was a smart officer, not a Wake-Walker (who lightly admitted both the 05:16 identification of BC1 and his real distance from the enemy, before realizing he was "speaking inappropriately"). :negative:
Pound, already in the letter, probably menaced the Court Martial (after the BofI); what is sure is that, according to Tovey, he actually said "Court Martial" during the phone call.

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: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:40 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote: This is exactly the way the PM would have liked the Admiralty to act on May 25 and 26.


Wake-Walker (who lightly admitted both the 05:16 identification of BC1 and his real distance from the enemy, before realizing he was "speaking inappropriately"). :negative:

Pound, already in the letter, probably menaced the Court Martial (after the BofI); what is sure is that, according to Tovey, he actually said "Court Martial" during the phone call.

Bye, Alberto[/quote]

Can you provide proof of what the PM wanted?

We've all agreed that the ranges stated in the triangle of doom are incorrect

Tovey's memory has been proved faulty.

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 » Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:50 pm

Dunmunro wrote: "Can you provide proof of what the PM wanted?"
Hi Duncan,
Colville (his secretary) wrote: "The PM cannot understand why the PoW did not press home her attack yesterday and keeps saying it is the worst thing since Troubridge turned away from the Goeben in 1914."
Is it clear enough "what the PM wanted" and expected on May 25 / 26 as clear consequence of the fact that Bismarck was free ?

you wrote "We've all agreed that the ranges stated in the triangle of doom are incorrect"
All ? :shock: Who ? :lol: Where is your proposed battlemap ? :stop:
Nobody has been able to present a different battlemap up to now because of....geometry.... (not even an experienced navigator like Pinchin....see here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6495). :negative:
I have only seen clumsy attempts to prevent Antonio's work to be published, because inconvenient, not a single serious attempt to present a different scenario, because, for this very poor military story, you would have preferred the "fog of war" instead of the light of history.

you wrote: "Tovey's memory has been proved faulty."
....only in your dreams.....more and more Tovey proved to be very reliable, as already established by Roskill, who spoke to him about the "regrettable aftermath".


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: 2053
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:36 am

Hello Alberto,

We have established the phone call, if it were ever made , happened before the letter of the 31st. Therefore:
what is sure is that, according to Tovey, he actually said "Court Martial" during the phone call.
Tovey in 1941, hours after the supposed phone call, does not say Pound wanted a Court Martial for W-W and Leach at all in the 31st letter. Therefore his memory in 1961 is faulty, and all those who have happily parroted his accusation over the years have been misled. Please do not repeat the ludicrous excuse Tovey could mention things said on the phone in a letter.

As the "Mercury" example shows the B of I establishes whether a Court Martial with armed guards for the accused is warranted under proper legal process supervised at the highest level by a civilian judge. What happened to Troubridge nearly thirty years previously is irrelevant, you asked for a contemporaneous example and here it is. The bureaucratic process is recorded and there is nothing like it for Leach and Wake-Walker, therefore it never happened.

You have accepted "Both you and Antonio have at last accepted that Tovey's letter of 31st only mentions a Board of Inquiry"

ONLY mentions. ONLY mentions.

Do you accept:
Which is exactly what Pound does. Backs down, forgets the idea, never initiates any of the bureaucratic machinery necessary, doesn't remove either of the supposed miscreants from their positions of responsibility and recommends higher rewards for them than the original committee. The idea was never a serious suggestion and Tovey's attitude has derailed it at the very first bend.
If any of the procedures outlined in the "Mercury" example, even for a Board of Inquiry, had ever been seriously contemplated by Pound there would be evidence, and there is none, apart from a muddled uncorroborated memory recorded 20 years after
Time for Antonio to get out his "silver bullet" before the cordite denatures. :D

All the best

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

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by pgollin » Mon Apr 02, 2018 2:37 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Wadinga wrote: "it means the authorities believe that individual's actions merit investigation"


Hi Sean,
exacty, and a Board of Inquiry is therefore a signal of non-complete approval of the conduct of an officer (as clearly perceived by Somerville for Spartivento). .......

........ Bye, Albert
o


Again, no, No, NO !

It may signal that, or merely that there is something which is perceived to be require investigation - you are doing you implication to someone being guilty trick again - PLEASE try to remember English law.

.

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 » Mon Apr 02, 2018 5:40 pm

Wadinga wrote: "Please do not repeat the ludicrous excuse Tovey could mention things said on the phone in a letter.
"
Hi Sean,
please do not repeat the ridiculous idea that Tovey mentioned the Court Martial in the May 31 letter when Pound had never used these words, either in the May 28 letter (implicitly or explicitly), or in the phone call whose content is clearly accounted by Tovey in 1961 and to McMullen during his visit. :negative:
Writing his answer, Tovey was just trying to appease Pound and for sure he was not such a naive officer to mention a more severe military action if not mentioned before by his superior.

In any case, a Board of Inquiry to explain things that "are perceived to require investigation" :lol: , is felt as a very tough disciplinary procedure against an officer (especially when the "aspects" to be explained include an "improper withdrawal from the fight" and the dereliction of the duty "to do the utmost to bring your ships in action" as it would have been in this case, please see Somerville, whose "offensive spirit" was questioned for a much less serious failure at Spartivento) and it fully explains the subsequent alteration of facts in the "official reports".


you wrote: "What happened to Troubridge nearly thirty years previously is irrelevant"
No it's not, I have not yet seen the definitions of BofI and Cm in 1941, but it is a FACT that in 1941 and in 1914 the Naval Discipline ACT applicable from 1866 till 1957 was exactly the SAME, as well as the Articles of War ( http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm ).
Therefore the only RELEVANT comparison is the Goeben case, clearly evoked by Churchill in his secretary (Colville) words: "The PM cannot understand why the PoW did not press home her attack yesterday and keeps saying it is the worst thing since Troubridge turned away from the Goeben in 1914.".


you wrote: "... therefore it never happened."
here you are right. :(
It was covered-up instead, due to the simple fact that Bismarck was sunk while Goeben was given intact to the Ottoman Empire.....
We can easily guess that, had Milne sunk the Goeben with Indomitable and Indeflexible the day after, Troubridge criticism would have been limited to Lord Fisher rant ("SHOT, à la Byng!") and he would not have been court-martialled, in the same exact way than Leach and Wake-Walker.
Possibly, Troubridge would not have been decorated afterward, while the two officers involved in the Denmark Strait "saga" were..... :oops:


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: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:54 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:Dunmunro wrote: "Can you provide proof of what the PM wanted?"
Hi Duncan,
Colville (his secretary) wrote: "The PM cannot understand why the PoW did not press home her attack yesterday and keeps saying it is the worst thing since Troubridge turned away from the Goeben in 1914."
Is it clear enough "what the PM wanted" and expected on May 25 / 26 as clear consequence of the fact that Bismarck was free ?

you wrote "We've all agreed that the ranges stated in the triangle of doom are incorrect"
All ? :shock: Who ? :lol: Where is your proposed battlemap ? :stop:
Nobody has been able to present a different battlemap up to now because of....geometry.... (not even an experienced navigator like Pinchin....see here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6495). :negative:
I have only seen clumsy attempts to prevent Antonio's work to be published, because inconvenient, not a single serious attempt to present a different scenario, because, for this very poor military story, you would have preferred the "fog of war" instead of the light of history.

you wrote: "Tovey's memory has been proved faulty."
....only in your dreams.....more and more Tovey proved to be very reliable, as already established by Roskill, who spoke to him about the "regrettable aftermath".


Bye, Alberto
Churchill making bombastic statements is not the same as Churchill dictating a letter or memo to DP ordering a BofI or CMDS of Leach and W-W.

Here's the triangle of doom:

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 1DiagB.jpg

My last recollection was that Antonio accepted the range from Norfolk to Bismarck as being 12.5nm at 0600, not 11nm as per the triangle of doom.

We have had proof positive presented here that Tovey's letters from 1950 onward are riddled with errors with respect to his written correspondence with DP.
Last edited by dunmunro on Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:57 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto,

nothing to add to your perfect analysis of those facts ... :clap:

There is not a worst blind person, than one that does not want to see.

Lucky us our forum readers do have good eyes and like to see and understand the 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 )

Locked