The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Alberto Virtuani]

HMSVF wrote: "it still took Mearn's 6 years of research and 39 hrs of searching the seabed to find her."

Hi HMSVF,
true, but at the end of these useless searches, he could locate the wreck starting from the last transmitted BC1 position at 5:43, adding the distance sailed until 6:00 based on Rowell map, and it was almost perfectly there. A praise to Cdr.Warrand (navigating officer of Hood) .

you wrote: "I still don't see the RN allowing a captain - who they think to be "lacking" to continue running the RN's newest battleship in wartime"

You are correct, but once a "cover-up" is agreed and well started, it's also difficult to remove a Captain from his command without a reason and without raising tough comments among all the other officers in the RN. I simply think that the decision was to give Leach another chance, under strict control of an Admiral, just my 2 cents opinion.


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

you wrote: "I still don't see the RN allowing a captain - who they think to be "lacking" to continue running the RN's newest battleship in wartime"

You are correct, but once a "cover-up" is agreed and well started, it's also difficult to remove a Captain from his command without a reason and without raising tough comments among all the other officers in the RN. I simply think that the decision was to give Leach another chance, under strict control of an Admiral, just my 2 cents opinion.


Bye, Alberto

Officers were rotated constantly between different assignments with no reasons needed. Any Captain could be relieved by the Admiralty at the stroke of a pen and reassigned.

Renown had 6 captains from 1939-45
Warspite - 7
KGV - 4
DoY-5
PoW-3
The other KGVs 2 each.

Leach was even in the hospital for 9 days (16-25 June) and then on medical leave for 5 weeks but retained command despite PoW being given an acting Captain. The RN had a huge pool of deserving officers and there was no reason to leave someone in command of the RN's newest and most powerful battleship, whom the Admiralty and the MoD (Churchill) didn't have the utmost confidence in.

Not only are your insinuations unfounded and unsupported by the slightest shred of evidence, but they are an insult to Leach, to his memory and to his relatives and also an insult to anyone with an actual interest in naval history. Captain Leach bravely gave his life in the defence of freedom and it's disgusting that you are given a platform to spit on his memory. Yes I am angry.

[HMSVF]

I think that Leach did his duty and paid the ultimate price whilst trying to do so. Ive listened to the arguments from both sides and I would be honest...


I haven't seen anything that would suggest that he was anything but a brave professional that did his best in circumstances we cannot even comprehend. From seeing interviews with his son I'm sure that he knew that the chances of him surviving Force Z's mission were slight,yet he acted bravely.

He was certainly no Fawcett Wray or Byng. I hope we are not going to see revisionism in regards to events that the witness's have no way of replying to.


Best Wishes

HMSVF

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "Captain Leach bravely gave his life in the defence of freedom and it's disgusting that you are given a platform to spit on his memory."

Had Mr.Dunmunro taken the time to think before posting nonsense, he would have remembered that I have ALWAYS (starting 2013...http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... ted#p57495) said that Leach more than "vindicated" his Denmark Strait weakness by acting bravely during the Far East mission.

However my historical judgement about his action on May 24, turning away from a dangerous enemy before doing his utmost to accomplish his duty, cannot be changed by his brave end. If ANYONE feels offended or angry, I cannot care less, because we speak history here.

There were heroes, average officers and cowards in any Navy, including the RN even if it looks this is unacceptable for the RN hooligans. Their problem.

HMSVF wrote: "I hope we are not going to see revisionism"

Hi HMSVF,
I hope we are not going to see politics here, while politely discussing our respective reasons and even accepting each other observations.....
I respect your judgement on Leach, without accusing you to be a "denier", but please respect my one, without insinuating "revisionism" from my side.


Bye, Alberto

[HMSVF]

Hi HMSVF,
I hope we are not going to see politics here, while politely discussing our respective reasons and even accepting each other observations.....
I respect your judgement on Leach, without accusing you to be a "denier", but please respect my one, without insinuating "revisionism" from my side.


Bye, Alberto

No probs.

[northcape]

I hope we are not going to see revisionism in regards to events that the witness's have no way of replying to.

You have seen this on 150+ pages here already and the trolls will continue to do so, this is for sure.

[dunmunro]

I hope we are not going to see revisionism in regards to events that the witness's have no way of replying to.

You have seen this on 150+ pages here already and the trolls will continue to do so, this is for sure.

Yes.

Alberto trolls that Leach was left in command of PoW only because an Admiral was detailed to supervise him. He refuses to produce even a shred of evidence to support his claim and refuses to retract it even when shown how readily the Admiralty changed CO's on RN battleships.

A&A use the same methods as UFO proponents. They present a claim and then "prove" the claim with completely unsupported and unsupportable allegations. They link together factual events with explanations that are not supported by the historical record and they make claims to explain subsequent events without showing any causal connection to prior events but instead supply their own suppositions and inferences.

[Alberto Virtuani]

yes, sure, BRAVO !

Let's try to get the RN hooligans taking the control of a history forum.....

We are just UFO proponents, Leach and Wake-Walker were never menaced an investigation for their blatant timidity , the final reports were written in this shameful way due to simple "innocent" errors and the "fog of war" will prevent forever to reconstruct what really happened .

Pitiable


Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

unfortunately for the " hooligan / deniers " trying to take control of this forum, ... a result that they will never achieve anyhow, ... we have made recently very huge step forward, ... and the knowledge about what happened in reality will be never brought back and reduced/minimized to the novel that they love so much being written by Sir Ludovic Kennedy.

Now we have Stephen Roskill book statements, the Official Royal Navy historian for World War 2, ... we have Sir Henry Leach, the son of Capt Leach and First Sea Lord confirmation, ... we have the majority of the British historians with us, ... and mostly we have many new high level documents from the British archives that has never been presented to the readers before.

Nothing will be like in the past about the knowledge of this argument, ... that now is clear like never before, ... this is for sure.

Like it or not this is where we are now ...

Bye Antonio

[pgollin]

Hello everybody,

NO it is a fact, annoying this guy: Mr.Dunmunro MUST NOW show in which war operation Leach was left alone, without an admiral onboard, after the Bismarck operation.

If only he was ever serving in the Navy, that he apparently never did, he would know very well how a Captain feels regarding his autonomy when an Admiral is present on board his ship.....


Bye, Alberto

.

I cannot comment on how it is in any other navy, but for the RN the ship's captain fights the ship - the admiral has NO, repeat NO, role in commanding the ship.

The Admiral does have a role in commanding the squadron (which after the loss of the Hood practically consisted just of PoW, but he could only give wishes and intentions.

.

[HMSVF]

Hello everybody,

NO it is a fact, annoying this guy: Mr.Dunmunro MUST NOW show in which war operation Leach was left alone, without an admiral onboard, after the Bismarck operation.

If only he was ever serving in the Navy, that he apparently never did, he would know very well how a Captain feels regarding his autonomy when an Admiral is present on board his ship.....


Bye, Alberto

.

I cannot comment on how it is in any other navy, but for the RN the ship's captain fights the ship - the admiral has NO, repeat NO, role in commanding the ship.

The Admiral does have a role in commanding the squadron (which after the loss of the Hood practically consisted just of PoW, but he could only give wishes and intentions.

.

Thanks for the conformation pgolin - I thought that this was the case.

[HMSVF]

I think an awful lot depends on your starting point. If you think that there was a cover up, you will find a cover up. Any surviving documents can either be used for or against your initial thesis.

The final reports were written in this shameful way due to simple "innocent" errors and the "fog of war" will prevent forever to reconstruct what really happened .

This is opinion.Its not fact.

I find it sad that such hostile terms are being bandied about. It hardly gives any weight to a line of argument. IMHO there certainly has been not enough to declare the case "for' closed. And if anything shutting the door in the face of those who have asked reasonable questions is neither polite or good history. If you are putting forward a "sea change" of a recognised event (pun intended) then the onus is to continue to provide evidences to support your assertion. I thought thats how academia works? You present the evidence, its peer reviewed/questioned, its further researched with further supporting evidences (usually from other sources) and re-submitted. It might take several peer reviews and submissions - but that is the name of the game. Ive certainly never submitted work in my own field with the expectation that it would have a free ride. The whole point of critical analysis is to critically analyse. When you have reached a point where the weight of evidence is wholly substantive (and not circumstantial),peer reviewed and accepted surely it feels better?

Shutting the door in the hope of shutting down the argument hardly reinforces a position. If anything its an acknowledgment of weakness in a line of thought or argument which a stakeholder doesn't want to opened up. Far better to accept the challenge.


The issue for me is that all of the rest of the references supporting, seem to come back to the same original source - Tovey. Surely there must be other substantive evidences - cabinet papers, memo's, personal logs from other people who were around at the time? The other issue is that are many other examples of the RN shifting personnel out of post - or trying to - certainly when Churchill was about (the arch meddler and amateur naval incompetent). They got moved to dead desk jobs or far off inconsequential posts or simply put on half pay. Troubridge, Fawcett Wray, AB Heath,Admiral Arthur Christian,Dudley North etc. The RN had form!

They didn't as a rule get promoted or move on to substantive posts. Its a nonsense to suggest that at a time of total war where the UK is at the most serious risk of defeat to employ officers who are deemed "lacking" or incompetent.

Being British I understand the "class system" very well and the "old boys club" - there is no way however that Leach and Wake Walker would be given plumb positions at that time because of who they know. It just doesn't happen that way - they get isolated and moved out,shoved into the background.

Heck even traitors in higher positions were treated the same - Lord Semple had evidence of treason in wartime (see Treachery Act 1940),yet no arrest or prosecution was ordered; Sempill "agreed to retire" from public office. This was after the First Sea Lord had offered a post in the North of Scotland....

Sidelined , moved out of sight. "Retired"....



Best wishes


HMSVF

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
I have read through this debate and while I have no wish to enter the fray on a regular basis this is now approaching a record number of posts seemingly without sight of any end, so may I make a few observations and then withdraw?
It seems that the debate is mainly split into several subjects,
Should PoW have stayed and fought it out?
The answer must be what if she did so? Would she have damaged Bismarck any further and what might have happened if she had taken some more heavy hits that seriously slowed her down enough for PE to use her torpedoes?
Was Capt Leach right to disengage?
The answer must be Yes, there are many illustrations of protagonists retiring from battle in order to save their men or ships, Sheer in his ‘battle turn away’ at Jutland, Jellicoe when faced by a massed torpedo attack in the same battle, even the twins refusing battle on several occasions, even when they outnumbered and could have out gunned the opposition when faced first by Renown, then later Ramillies, Malaya and finally Rodney, (although the latter was probably a wise decision!). Let us also not forget that it was the hit from PoW that made Lutyens eventually decide to withdraw from further combat and would have done so if not hit by the torpedo. If it had gone the other way with Bismarck taking a hiding from PoW do you not think that Bismarck would have done her best to disengage? Neither she nor the twins could afford to take severe battle damage on the open sea.
Was Admiral Wake-Walker correct in not re-engaging?
Again Yes, he could not be sure that PE had gone and was obviously not convinced that PoW
was capable of taking on Bismarck, let alone both, although they did exchange some long range fire.
Was there a threat of a Court Martial?
I would suggest there was, as has been pointed out Churchill was not at his best when things went wrong. I would be quite ready to believe that in a fit of pique he told Adml Pound to organise a Court Martial only to be prevented by Adml Tovey from doing so.
Should Capt Leach and Adml Wake-Walker have faced a Court Martial?
No. The inquiry had accepted the points put forward by Leach and Wake-Walker and that was the end of it, if it had not done so then they would have held a CM which would almost certainly have exonerated both. As it was both officers were decorated, with Wake-Walker eventually being promoted twice during the war and Leach retaining command of PoW until she was sunk. The RN was not given to recommending decorations or promotions for failure. That said, a CM might have settled all the future debates and arguments.
Was there a cover up?
Again No, such a momentous event would be almost impossible to cover up, there were far too many people ‘in the know’ and the truth would be bound to leak out sooner than later. However, as the country was only just getting used to the fact that there had been a major disaster, to Court Martial a senior Captain and an Admiral on top of this bad news it would probably not have been considered to be expedient to do so as there might have been some awkward questions asked about our newest battleships, its Commanders or even the RN itself.
So there we are, that’s my bit, for the third time I just hope and pray that this increasingly bad tempered debate can be brought to an end, it is not good that an excellent Forum such as this should be marred by people referring to each other as ‘Hooligans’ or calling each other ‘Liars’ and generally behaving as if only they and no-one else are correct in their opinions as it is all those views and opinions that make up this Forum. Shoot down my observations if you will, but if you do, please be polite with your criticism when you do so.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi HMSVF,
I'm sorry that, due to the RN hooligans coming in each time to provoke and to insult, I have used "hostile" words: however, they are hostile and they fully deserve them (and worse).
I think we have presented several evidences that show what the Court Martial threat was about. You are free to trust Tovey (+ all serious historians + Sir Henry Leach) or to trust....Kennedy + the hooligans....

Paul Mercer wrote: "It seems that the debate is mainly split into several subjects"

Hi Paul,
yes, thanks for reminding that this thread is dedicated to the Court Martial threat. I have to respect your view about the other topics (Leach and W-W decisions and the cover-up), but I totally disagree, for the reasons I have exposed several times (also in the right threads...) and I will not repeat here.

Regarding the Court Martial, however, you are wrong: most unfortunately, there was no Inquiry at all that could "accept the points put forward" by the two officers . There were only intentionally sugar-coated reports that justified their decisions.


Last but not least, I have never insulted anyone first, and I have recently conceded an accusation, because it was retired immediately, but I will continue to insult the ones who have repeatedly insulted me first, until I get their public excuses !

an insulting guy wrote "the admiral has NO, repeat NO, role in commanding the ship. The Admiral does have a role in commanding the squadron "

very , very funny !

This is Ted Briggs at the second board of inquiry for the loss of Hood, regarding Adm.Holland orders:

94. What did you say the Admiral said about not putting the fire out?
He said to the S.G.O. "leave it until the ammunition had gone". I think they were his exact words......
96. Do you know if the Executive Signal had been made before this last signal before the explosion occurred?
I am not certain but I think it had. There was not a terrific explosion but the officer of the watch said to the Admiral that the Compass had gone and the Admiral said move over to the after control.

Apparently all the officers present to the board accepted as the most normal thing that the Admiral commanded also the ship's operations (for sure it was NOT the squadron in these cases.... ).

I wonder if this guy, who writes in capital letters total nonsense, has ever been on a ship with an Admiral onboard....I have been and I know that an Admiral can always give orders....of course, a Captain can say to the Admiral that he is prevailing his prerogatives according to the regulations, but this Captain must be a very self-assured one....


Bye, Alberto

[northcape]

I thought thats how academia works?

Yes, but your misconception is that we are dealing here with an academic process. Instead, we have 2 amateurs (not a bad thing per se) who, instead of applying an academic/scientific mindset, just propose (over and over) their ideology and factually completely unbased theories. This is why I call them trolls. As indicated by others as well, they show abundant signs of trolling. Add the style of the conversation (not finishing sentences, but just adding "...."; excessive and childish use of smileys; highlighting their own egos and being super-sensitive("I demand an apology! I was in the military so only I know what is going on!'); denouncing other people with repeated and unrelated expressions such as "poor", "low", "hooligans", "deniers" (don't even know what all this should mean)). Finally, this is an internet forum and not an academic/scientific journal. In this case and with these ingredients, you get what to expect from such places.

Again, beimg an amateur is not a bad thing. You may want to argue that Einstein was an amateur when he published his theory of special relativity since he was not in the usual academic circles. However, what makes amateurs really bad, is when they grossly overestimate their own capabilities. Unfortunately, internet forums are a hot spot for such personalities.