The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Marc,
simply because we (in this forum) don't have..... then I added yet


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

if at this point you still have doubts about the data being intentionally altered between what they first released and what has been written into the dispatches by Adm Tovey, ... we have a serious problem here, ... after what has been discussed and agreed for years.

I just list the 3 main ones ...

1) the 06:03 becoming 06:13 for PoW retreat

2) the 20.000 yards becoming 30.000 yards for Norfolk distance from Hood

3) The Y turret jamming after the turn away and because of the turn, becoming a turret jammed before the turn away adding 4 unusable guns before the retreat

Do you agree those data have been intentionally altered from the first released version ?


Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

Of course not, the only who had agreed were you and Alberto. I have never agreed that it was altered intentionally.

[wadinga]

Hello All,

Unfortunately this thread has been hijacked with a pointless discussion about several irrelevant Pillenwerfers including at what precise minute an intangible concept like Prince of Wales "withdrawing" took place, and the significance of its modification from the guess Tovey made that it was when the bridge was hit, versus the revision when he later had access to Wake-Walker's description, who was present. Many, many electrons were expended over this trivia long ago...………….


Wake-Walker's guess of the irrelevant distance to Hood at the first Hood Enquiry was modified at the second. It was still irrelevant in terms of recording distance to Bismarck.


Contrary to McMullen's breezy assurance the guns were not fine, they were still failing 25% of the time even when allowed 90 second reload time instead of the nominal 30 seconds.


So we can completely forget about them here, and follow them on their respective threads.


What is more significant is Antonio's arcane, pseudo-significant observation:

I am sure you have noticed that into the 1960 letters from Adm Tovey to Stephen Roskill he never mentioned the May 28th letter received from Adm Pound neither the May 31st letter he wrote back to Pound.

Yes I am sure we all have, so what? He could hardly refer to them because they both contradict his imaginary story of CMDS. This is consistent with his misremembering confirmed by other identified mis-rememberings, like the timing of ROOF and "no D/F solutions, bearings only", accurately related by Kennedy.

Other people who have not referred to these letters include everybody who has ever commented or written on the Bismarck Chase, until I put them in this thread complete and unredacted for everyone to read and understand. Whether anybody else here had seen them and kept them secret for their own reasons is not clear. Alberto's forlorn best effort to denigrate their importance is that Brodhurst must have seen one or both and ignored them because he mentions ADM 178/322 in the many sources he lists.


So what does:

I am sure you have noticed that into the 1960 letters from Adm Tovey to Stephen Roskill he never mentioned the May 28th letter received from Adm Pound neither the May 31st letter he wrote back to Pound.

actually mean?


All the best

wadinga

[northcape]

Again, it is pointless to argue with conspiracy theorists. Don't feed the trolls. Really, it should just be stopped. Let the two guys live in their fantasy world. Absolutely nobody takes their fabulations seriously.
You can't argue with self-convinced and uninformed people, they drag you down to their lower level where they will beat you with their expertise and skills in sillyness. If it goes together with intentional faking and oppression of information, like in this case, it is in particular bad.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

ok, ... lets make it progressively.

Do you agree those data have been altered/modified on their second version compared to their first original release ?

1) The 2 minutes after Hood sunk for PoW turn away ( Tovey first report ) becoming 06:13 by adding 10 minutes ( WW report and Tovey dispatches ).

2) The 20.000 yards ( Hood First Board ) becoming 30.000 yards ( Hood second board ) for Norfolk distance from Hood at 06:00.

3) The Y turret jamming after the turn away ( Leach report ) becoming the Y Turret jamming before the turn away ( Tovey dispatches )

I hope you do not need me to put here in the original documents and their original second modified versions showing once again them, ... since you should know quite well them all by now.

This way it should be an easy answer from your side now.

After your obvious admission, ... we will go for the other questions in order to realize why and when they did it.

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

Antonio,

this is really the wrong thread, but for the sake of convenience:

1) Tovey probably took the time from WW's report. WW's report has another typo to his disadvantage. So if WW was such a trickster, why didn't he pay attention to the time he was really responsible for. -> You can't rule out a typo. Additionally I already showed you how the - for this case - harmless timings of the carrier attack are differing in the various reports.
2) A correction? That doesn't mean it's correct.
3) I do not read it this way. I don't have the impression that the despatch is in complete chronological order anyway.

If you still want to discuss this, we should move to another thread.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

I see your current opinion and I have obviously a very different one, especially when I think that those 2 Officers are the same Officers subject of the inquiry required to Adm Tovey from Adm Pound because of their conduct.

Changing the initial declarations after the inquiry request was issued from Pound to Tovey, ... is not only very suspicious to say the least, ... from a military stand point means a lot more than that, ... much, much more.

Anyway, ... if you like to discuss them on another thread feel free about it, ... to me those are the evidence of the " Cover Up " occurred because of the Board of Inquiry / Court Martial threat on those 2 Officers, ... just as I have already explained to you on September 2015 when you started the " Cover Up Synopsis " thread, ... which I think is the proper thread to discuss them in details.

I am very satisfied that after that post on September 2015 all the Official evidence surfaced have confirmed my way to read the events and the responsibility of the various RN Officers involved, ... and even today I will fully confirm what I wrote about it almost 3 years ago, ... with a very minor correction in the negative direction of course.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello All,

It is interesting that now both Antonio and Alberto are backtracking and referring to the

occurred because of the Board of Inquiry / Court Martial threat on those 2 Officers

Does this adoption of dual status mean they now begin to understand and accept the 31st May and 19th September letters prove there was no Court Martial threat at all and therefore the last of the Tovey mis-rememberings and exaggerations of the 1950s and 1960s is gone? Kennedy and therefore Roskill didn't believe the ROOF on the 26th story, didn't believe Tovey's complaint about receiving "bearings only" and Kennedy didn't really believe CMDS either and Roskill, still "cracking" his old commander, was quite happy to see it promulgated...……….under somebody else's by-line and citation.

We still don't have an answer over what

I am sure you have noticed that into the 1960 letters from Adm Tovey to Stephen Roskill he never mentioned the May 28th letter received from Adm Pound neither the May 31st letter he wrote back to Pound.

Is supposed to mean. Surely we are not fabulating (thanks Northcape - precisely the right word added to my lexicon that these letters are suspect in some way?

Now there is little more to say here until we lay hands on the 28th May letter and/or the Silver Bullet from wherever it resides.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

northcape wrote: "Don't feed the trolls"

We have never personally insulted this guy, but now, in his side-taken, blind approach, he feels free to accuse of "trolling the forum" people who have contributed with several new documents and thoughts to the discussion here since years. He has added NO value to the same discussion whatsoever since his appearance..... Who is the troll here ?

Apparently, not having any way to counter the facts, the deniers are only able to come to personal attacks.... This is the best demonstration of their noticeable defeat (despite Mr:Wadinga pityful and evident attempts to keep his hopeless troops assembled ).

Wadinga wrote: "Alberto's forlorn best effort to denigrate their importance is that Brodhurst must have seen one or both and ignored them .... "

Wrong. Brodhurst must have seen one or both and correctly evaluated them also in light of Tovey's 1961 crystal clear letter, concluding that the Court Martial threat was done in writing (implicitly or explicitly, we need to have Pound's May 28 letter to verify)....
Was this letter really "destroyed" / "weeded" ?

Wadinga wrote:"Does this adoption of dual status mean they now begin to understand and accept the 31st May and 19th September letters prove there was no Court Martial threat"

NO, it doesn't.
It just means that we are sure there was at least a "BofI into the conduct" threat (thanks to Tovey 1941 letter) in writing, possibly more than this (as per Pound's May 28 letter); while we know (thanks again to Tovey 1961 letter) that, during the phone call, Pound made clear to him what was the aim of the preliminary investigation (as explained by Antonio): a trial by Court Martial.
The September 19 letter (written after the "cover-up line" had been already "accepted") proves only how high was Wake-Walker standing in Pound's consideration and that even Tovey was admitting that he should learn to "set a guard on his tongue".

Anyway, a threat of a serious disciplinary investigation was done even in writing (this is the great importance of May 31 letter, unfortunately for Mr.Wadinga), and this is more than enough to provide a solid "motive" for the subsequent alteration of reports and declarations (Cover-Up).



Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

In any case a clear threat of a serious disciplinary investigation was done even in writing

So terrifyingly, unrelentingly, serious that Tovey had completely forgotten about it when he recommended Wake-Walker to be Pound's understudy only three months later.

proves only how high was Wake-Walker standing in Pound's consideration

Indeed it does, stratospherically high, no job for him as Pound's jobsworth, he is out of the running, because he is being promoted way above this level to Third Sea Lord! Ahead of John Cunningham, McGrigor et al who will have to make do with second best.

I am sure you have noticed that into the 1960 letters from Adm Tovey to Stephen Roskill he never mentioned the May 28th letter received from Adm Pound neither the May 31st letter he wrote back to Pound.

Do you know what Antonio means by this? You're quoting the 31st letter, but your co-author is trying to fabulate something about it, what exactly?


BTW you are not the first person to be called a Troll on this thread, I believe that is my honour, but perhaps the first to self-identify.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "So terrifyingly, unrelentingly, serious that Tovey had completely forgotten about it "

ONLY because Bismarck had been sunk..... Tovey had forgotten nothing, as he said W-W should "set a guard on his tongue"....

Wadinga wrote: "he is out of the running, because he is being promoted way above "

6 months later in 1942.... and then in 1945 promoted again "post mortem"

Wadinga wrote: "you are not the first person to be called a Troll"

but the first being called a troll by a "no-value added" person, without having provoked him before .....


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

You are seriously suggesting that although you fabulate (I love that word) Pound actually thought W-W was guilty of cowardice and incompetence in the face of the enemy so serious as to warrant at least a Board of Inquiry, the lucky happenstance that somebody else sank the Bismarck, magically removed all this and made him a candidate for Pound's understudy. Even you must accept how ridiculous that sounds. Once again you truncate the sentence. Presumably if Wake-Walker had actually been court martialled you would consistently truncate "Not Guilty" to "Guilty"

I have great admiration for him and have found him an excellent fellow to work with, but there is no doubt, like myself he talks emphatically which does sometimes give an unfortunate impression; however I believe that in such a responsible position he could and would set a guard on his tongue, he certainly has the brains and the capability for hard work.

You misquote Tovey, (does that sound systemic of your and Antonio assertions) he says could and would, not should. Therefore such modification of outspokenness would be voluntary based on W-W's own excellent judgement, not outside opinion.

6 months later in 1942

Actually appointed April 1942. So he continued as Rear-Admiral until when exactly? Everybody deserves a short break after strenuous sea service.

RN unit histories http://www.unithistories.com/officers/R ... -Walker_WFsays

died only a few hours after accepting the appointment as Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean

I provided Antonio an extensive listing of the characteristics of trolls, have you checked to see how many boxes you fill?

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "he says could and would, not should."

oh, sorry, my deep excuses to Mr.Wadinga , I "do not pick up on nuances" , however it does confirm that Wake-Walker normally had problems to "set a guard to his tongue" ....

The essence is that all the recently surfaced letters confirm the shame:
1) "I know however both W-W and Leach appreciated the necessity for further damage....BofI into the conduct of W-W or Leach" (Tovey, May 1941),
2) "Had BS not been sunk, the matter of whether the shadowing was adequately performed the night they gave us the slip would have come accutely to the fore"....."the sacrifice of 1 8" cruiser...would have been justified" (Pound, July 19)
3) "he could and would set a guard on his tongue" (Tovey, September 1941),
4) "he wished Wake-Walker and Leach brought to trial by Court Martial....I should hate the implicit criticism of Wake_Walker" (Tovey, 1961)
5) "the Wake-Walker business.... I would be glad if you leave it out" (Tovey, 1962)

making clear we had understood the full story in the correct way since years ago, while Mr.Wadinga has apparently not yet, preferring to invent his own fantasies (I love that word) to explain the facts.....

I intentionally post only the relevant statements (I can't care less of Mr.Wadinga low accusations) as anyone can check the content of these documents, made available thanks to Antonio Bonomi, Mr.Wadinga and me on this very thread.....

Wadinga wrote: "I provided Antonio an extensive listing of the characteristics of trolls, have you checked to see how many boxes you fill? "

I probably fill some, Mr.Wadinga fills many more than I do, but ALL boxes are surely filled by a person that, providing NO added value at all to the discussion, came here only to insult.



Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Once again you truncate sentences in order to change their meaning:

”.

I knew, however that both W-W and Leach appreciated the necessity for further damage just as well as I did, and that neither would require the slightest encouragement to take risks if they thought it would help us to achieve the object of all of us, to sink the Bismarck or render her impotent to operate on our trade routes.

I have no intention of ordering a B of I into the conduct of W-W and Leach under any circumstances 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.

I have great admiration for him and have found him an excellent fellow to work with, but there is no doubt, like myself he talks emphatically which does sometimes give an unfortunate impression; however I believe that in such a responsible position he could and would set a guard on his tongue, he certainly has the brains and the capability for hard work.

You would indeed misrepresent a verdict of "Not Guilty" as "Guilty", claim you had included the relevant part only and try to bluff your way through when challenged.


Like Antonio you you edit reality and then present your distortions as if they were the only "relevant" parts, leaving the reader to hunt for what you wish to hide. You eventually included the Paragraph one you preferred to keep secret. Antonio ia still withholding the "Silver Bullet". You are the ones making the accusations, defaming these men's reputations, you are the ones who should show evidence. All the evidence.


All the best

wadinga