The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

I thought you had retreated to your Fortress of Solitude, distaining to converse with those who will not supinely acquiesce to your opinions, but here you are, back again, and repeating a lot of secondary sources without reproducing the words Tovey actually used.

Few of these authors actually reference the 1961 letter at all and even Roskill cites Kennedy as his source, and sadly Rhys-Jones is amongst the worst for embroidering without any evidence. "Automatic Court Martial"? We have found nothing to back this up at all so far, unless your "Silver Bullet" is a 1941 document from these gentlemen suggesting just that.

reputed and published historian

I thought the contention was these men had been promulgating a pack of lies for the last 75 years!

Phillips' only written comment is on Dalrymple-Hamilton's decisions and that is comprehensively rebuked by Pound.

Instead of constantly regurgitating secondary sources we have all seen before, to no purpose, what about following my lead and posting some more original material Say like the rest of, and source of

"... I do not think there is any doubt that had Bismarck not being sunk the question of whether the shadowing was adequately performed the night they gave us the slip would have come accutely to the fore ..."

Your friend Alberto is equally reticent about supplying material in his possession, instead of intuition-driven opinions, since we are still waiting for him to show the 1962 letter.

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

I have only declared that I was not going to respond anymore to the useless and intentionally misleading posts written here in by 3 persons not willing to accept the evident truth and fairly discuss about it.
This because you are only writing here in to try to mud the water and try to deny everything at any cost.
The 3 persons I am talking about are: you, Dunmunro and pgollin.
Talking to you about this argument recently is only a waste of time.
Primary, secondary source above, ... still never published available evidence, ... etc etc .... all of them are with me, ... with the evidence and facts that you do not like to accept, ... surely they are not with you, ... and this is for sure.
Somebody asked to stop posting and fighting here in, ... and I agreed with the initiative, ... but since you are so arrogantly coming back, breaking the silence and trying to mud again the water with your unsupported inventions, ... here I am putting again in your face what your country most famous and recognized historians wrote about this shameful story.
Read carefully all their books and try to learn about it and mostly accept what they wrote and researched.
If researching from your side you will be able to challenge and disprove them just do it.
Otherwise I suggest you just to keep a respectful silence, ... we had enough of your inventions, ... and surely I am not going to have you mudding a water that we are making clear like never before.
Since you as usual are having hard time understanding what is written ... I responded to you again making it more clear.
I am not going to leave you this discussion field, were you and your above listed friends are just poor loosers in this historical discussion.

Lets see if you will understand it now.

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

What we have uncovered in this thread is that Tovey, post-war, wrote letters and told stories about the Bismarck episode which upon review of primary source material written near the time that the events in question transpired, do not appear to be entirely correct, and in some important respects appear to be completely incorrect.

Unfortunately Tovey's postwar recollections have been the basis for numerous incorrect accounts being published over the years. Citing these now proven false accounts, no matter how numerous, will not change the facts as we now know them.

One aspect of historical research is that ideas long held and often widely disseminated via secondary sources often prove to be entirely or partially false and/or misleading. This highlights the dangers of using secondary sources to support extraordinary claims.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

what we have discovered with this thread is that no matter what evidence will be proposed about this argument, there will be a group of persons that at any cost will try to deny the evidence.

They will invent all sort of reasons one can think about in order to try never to admit what cannot be refuted, ... the evident fact that on May 1941 the Royal Navy Admiralty was having an initiative against RearAdm Wake-Walker and Capt Leach for their conduct during the Bismarck chase, ... before rewarding them in September 1941, ... closing a very evident shameful story

May 31st, 1941 letter from Adm Tovey to Adm Pound one of them posted on this forum, ... thinking that avoiding to admit the freigthening word " Court Martial " being pronounced this argument was not existing, ... is by itself more than enough to prove what Adm Tovey declared on the May 31st, 1941 letter and after the war.

The case is closed, ... we just need to find more details about it, ... and nothing else.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

we just need to find more details about it

Yes indeed we do. Both you and Alberto already have additional details which you are currently hiding for reasons unknown. So the case cannot be closed.

Please supply the rest of this material:

"... I do not think there is any doubt that had Bismarck not being sunk the question of whether the shadowing was adequately performed the night they gave us the slip would have come accutely to the fore ..."

We are also waiting for the text of the Tovey-Roskill 1962 letter.

By the way, have you counted up? It's a lot more than three people from half a dozen nationalities who disagree with your opinions.

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

I do not care how many are in agreement or not, ... it is a free world and everybody is entitled to keep his own opinion about it.

What you and your " teammates " are keep on failing to realize is that it is not my opinion, ... it is the opinion of almost all the British historians ( surely all the most important ones ) written on their books and it is based on the available evidences.

But you with your " friends " are not able nor you have the strength ( and you never will ) to challenge them and you are " personally disturbed " by the fact that I am listing them all here and provide the correct way to read their statements and correlate them with the occurred facts providing the only possible logic way to read them.

In this regard Graham Rhys-Jones summarized it lately very well, from the beginning ( Court Martial threat ) until the end ( the final Admiralty Board acceptance of Tovey dispatches written on purpose ) :

Graham_Rhys-Jones_page_227.jpeg (127.29 KiB) Viewed 1673 times

The case is closed and well buried and you helped on putting the coffin on it with your May 31st, 1941 letter from Adm Tovey to Adm Pound which very evidently is confirming the " exchanges " that Graham Rhys-Jones is referring to here above.

Having at hand many more evidences than the ones published here in or published until today, I have already all I need for my future publication about all this event.

I am just looking for some final details, ... here and there, ... just to complete the list of the already known evidences.

Bye Antonio

[pgollin]

.

And around and around we go, with Antonio misinterpreting as he goes.

As I suggested - prepare your "arguments" and put them forward for ACADEMIC REVIEW by a selection of qualified specialists. I doubt we shall ever see it published. Your deliberate and wilful misunderstandings and misinterpretations just will not be accepted by specialist historians.

.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

as everybody can see the " deniers " do not have a single argument to counter the facts as written by some British specialist historians.

For me the above Graham Rhys-Jones summary is more than enough to explain what really happened, ... and if anybody is able to dismantle what he stated on his book at page 227 above, ... just feel free to do it and have him writing an explanation on where he failed on his statements, ... and I wish you a good luck on trying to do it.

Too easy to come here in and write useless statements directed only to me, ... since anybody here in able to read and understand a basic English language can read Graham Rhys-Jones book page above, ... or Stephen Roskill ones, ... or Corelli Barnett, ... etc etc etc ... and realize what all this shameful story was about.

Enough said, ...

Bye Antonio

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
Oh dear, I'm sorry to see the fragile peace has been broken, are we going to subject each other to more of this 'Merry -go-Round' of arguments? It is quite obvious that everyone has fixed opinions on this debate and they are unlikely to ever change them whatever evidence is put forward. I hold no brief for either side as I regret that I am not as knowledgeable as any of you, but I have enjoyed reading the original points that were put forward and it does seem to me that while there may well be some doubts as to what actually was said,written or done at the time it is highly likely that unless some previously unheard of documents are produced in order to provide definitive answers to each and every question that has appeared in these posts, this particular part of the forum will continue for the rest of time - as will the arguments which seem to be getting more vitriolic by the moment.
Come on chaps, I know some of you are passionate in your beliefs on this subject, but surely we should call time on it before we fall out completely over something that is unlikely to be resolved to everybody's satisfaction?

[wadinga]

Hello Paul M,

Unfortunately for your noble, if IMHO misguided, attempt to peaceably resolve matters:

we should call time on it before we fall out completely over something that is unlikely to be resolved to everybody's satisfaction?

there is no win/win solution available here. In fact, one side has already crowed their victory and designated the other loosers (sic) on numerous occasions. In truth, the concept that there was a giant cover-up of cowardice in the Royal Navy over this matter, has indeed gained a victory inasmuch it appears here at all, instead of being dismissed out of hand for the arrant nonsense it is, along with similar concepts- flat earthers, no landing on the Moon, Guilio Cesare hit the Warspite etc etc.

There will be:

Enough said, ...

when those here who withhold information, presumably for personal financial gain, release it for evaluation here.

Since we are going in for dreary repetition:

Pound is entirely supportive of the actions of all sea-going officers in the draft I have supplied, and squashes Phillips' miserable griping over Rodney's movements. The reasoning for the second Hood enquiry is clearly laid out.

What about some discussion of the two new documents I have made available here? Is Pound, who has read both Tovey's preliminary report and the final report is fullsome with praise for everyone. Is he supposed to have been duped by Tovey or an active participant in deception? There is no mention of any requirement to ellicit further information on positions or tactics from Wake-Walker or justifications from Leach over his withdrawal for the second Hood Inquiry.

If people would like a less-contenious subject, what about the D/F controversy?

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

it is very simple to determine who is right and who is wrong on this discussion.

Adm Pound threat on those 2 Officers ( Wake-Walker and Leach ) thru Adm Tovey is clearly demonstrated.
The Admiralty Board acceptance of Adm Tovey dispatches, with the intentional modifications of the facts made by Tovey on purpose to save them is clearly available for everybody to be read and verified.
Graham Rhys-Jones summarized above the whole things very clearly and nothing more is needed in order to explain this shameful event.
The only thing that was missed on his perfect logic summary was the additional shame that those 2 Officers has been rewarded soon after by the King on October 1941.

Those are the irrefutable ( all available on still available Official documents ) facts.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

Adm Pound threat on those 2 Officers ( Wake-Walker and Leach ) thru Adm Tovey is clearly demonstrated.

The exact nature of the "threat" will not be known until we have the 28th May letter. But is not a Court Martial as alleged by Tovey in 1961.

The Admiralty Board acceptance of Adm Tovey dispatches, with the intentional modifications of the facts made by Tovey on purpose to save them is clearly available for everybody to be read and verified.

Does that mean Pound was happy for the Board to be "mislead" because he was part of the deception? Who exactly is supposed to be deceiving who?

BTW One last chance to give us the rest of:

"... I do not think there is any doubt that had Bismarck not being sunk the question of whether the shadowing was adequately performed the night they gave us the slip would have come accutely to the fore ..."

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Paul Mercer wrote: "Come on chaps, I know some of you are passionate in your beliefs on this subject, but surely we should call time on it before we fall out completely over something that is unlikely to be resolved to everybody's satisfaction?"

Hi Paul,
thanks again for your repeated attempt to stop a (by now) useless discussion.

As you have seen, some "hooligans" will never happy to agree to disagree on this matter, they will even be infuriated by your "neutrality" declaration, accusing your attempt to be "misguided " (shame on Mr.Wadinga once more).



The deniers will always feel the need to restore the wrong "official version" of facts and they will not allow anyone to have a single doubt about their "winners" version of facts. Of course, in doing so against all evidences, they will make fools of themselves blatantly mis-using facts at their own convenience like:

Mr.Wadinga wrote: "The exact nature of the "threat" will not be known until we have the 28th May letter. But is not a Court Martial as alleged by Tovey in 1961"

TOTALLY ILLOGICAL ! Not having May 28 letter, Mr.Wadinga cannot say which was the "exact nature of the threat", therefore he cannot say that it was not a Court Martial threat.

Luckily, we do have Tovey 1961 letter, making clear which were Pound's intention: Court Martial.
Apparently the deniers, after having lost the capability to use geometry and to read historical documents, have also given up logic.....



All evidences point to a serious disciplinary threat against Leach and W-W, as already posted several times (here again just to "infuriate" the "hooligans", who are allergic to see these facts in front of them)

Threat_Evidences.jpg (117.08 KiB) Viewed 1578 times

Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Once again you expose where the original motivation for your "intuitions" have come from:

single doubt about their "winners" version of facts

Making up a story of cowardice and conspiracy because you don't care for the reality. Then constantly misrepresenting this as British vs righteous revisionists. Your opponents include Canadian, American, German, etc etc. posters

Not having May 28 letter, Mr.Wadinga cannot say which was the "exact nature of the threat", therefore he cannot say that it was not a Court Martial threat.

Very Good Point! All I can say is that Tovey's letter of 31st May says it was a Board of Inquiry threat and he is more likely to remember accurately one day after he received it, than twenty years after.

Constantly reposting the same secondary source material does not infuriate me, it merely exposes the paucity of new original evidence you ae presenting, because you choose to hide what you have.

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

primary source, secondary sources ... all the sources mentioning this situation only used one threat for those 2 Officers being " asked " by Adm Pound to Adm Tovey and it was : Court Martial.

The Court Martial was " asked " in this way according to he most famous British Historian :

Verbs_CM-DS.jpeg (98.94 KiB) Viewed 1575 times

While Graham Rhys-Jones was more clear about what was the final " solution " for this Court Martial threat after the " exchanges " between Adm Pound and Adm Tovey :

Graham_Rhys-Jones_page_227.jpeg (127.29 KiB) Viewed 1575 times

The closure for it has been the " Cover Up " occurred thru Adm Tovey dispatches accepted by the Royal Navy Admiralty board.

Only thing he avoided to mention that they have been rewarded with medals after, ... probably it was too shameful also for him to write it down, ... such a unique shame.

Bye Antonio