The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait
Moderator: Bill Jurens
- Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait
Hello everybody,
@ Herr Nillson,
you to decide which definition for Adm Pound works the best, ... I have no problem with it.
Facts are that he first asked for a Board of Inquiry for 2 Officers conduct in action ( Wake-Walker and Leach ) to Adm Tovey on May 28th, 1941 ( Ref. ADM 178/322 Adm Tovey May 31st, 1941 response ).
He had at hand all messages and reports, with both the truth as well as the intentionally altered data on Adm Tovey dispatches.
He did nothing as far as we know today.
On September 1941 he was sitting on the Admiralty board where Sir Barnes signed the acceptance of Adm Tovey dispatches being the officially accepted version of the facts ( Ref. ADM 205/10 ).
I leave to you the pleasure to define this attitude ...
Bye Antonio
@ Herr Nillson,
you to decide which definition for Adm Pound works the best, ... I have no problem with it.
Facts are that he first asked for a Board of Inquiry for 2 Officers conduct in action ( Wake-Walker and Leach ) to Adm Tovey on May 28th, 1941 ( Ref. ADM 178/322 Adm Tovey May 31st, 1941 response ).
He had at hand all messages and reports, with both the truth as well as the intentionally altered data on Adm Tovey dispatches.
He did nothing as far as we know today.
On September 1941 he was sitting on the Admiralty board where Sir Barnes signed the acceptance of Adm Tovey dispatches being the officially accepted version of the facts ( Ref. ADM 205/10 ).
I leave to you the pleasure to define this attitude ...
Bye Antonio
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 )
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait
Ok, thank you. So Pound is the impetus and also the end of the line. For a "cover up" we need just Pound. I would call it a change of mind. There is no need for Tovey.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
- Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait
Hello everybody,
@ Herr Nilsson,
Just as I wrote before, ... and Stephen Roskill explained to everybody ( including the hooligan/deniers here in not willing to accept it ) ... long time before I did , ... the ADM 205/10 is the key Official documentation explaining what really happened.
Adm Tovey did the " dirty job " of changing the reports ( with many helps below him, like WW report etc etc ), ... and Adm Pound accepted it.
The politicians, so Sir Alexander and Sir W. Churchill knew everything and approved, ... it is enough to read the pages 331-332-333 and 334 of the Adm 205/10 to easily realize it.
I have re-constructed this shameful events bottom up, ... from the data alteration up to the reasons for it to be done, ... Stephen Roskill did it the other way around, ... from WSC approval down to Adm Tovey dispatches approved by Sir Barnes letter.
Now everything is clear ... and documented at the highest Official level.
Bye Antonio
@ Herr Nilsson,
Just as I wrote before, ... and Stephen Roskill explained to everybody ( including the hooligan/deniers here in not willing to accept it ) ... long time before I did , ... the ADM 205/10 is the key Official documentation explaining what really happened.
Adm Tovey did the " dirty job " of changing the reports ( with many helps below him, like WW report etc etc ), ... and Adm Pound accepted it.
The politicians, so Sir Alexander and Sir W. Churchill knew everything and approved, ... it is enough to read the pages 331-332-333 and 334 of the Adm 205/10 to easily realize it.
I have re-constructed this shameful events bottom up, ... from the data alteration up to the reasons for it to be done, ... Stephen Roskill did it the other way around, ... from WSC approval down to Adm Tovey dispatches approved by Sir Barnes letter.
Now everything is clear ... and documented at the highest Official level.
Bye Antonio
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 )
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait
That means Pound, Tovey, Alexander, Churchill, the Secretary of the Admiralty and the members of the Board of Admiralty were accomplices?
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait
Hello Antonio,
No Antonio, he didn't do "nothing"- he gave Wake-Walker considerable extra trust and responsibilities with command of twin carrier task forces. He also ensured Leach returned to his ship and replaced the temporary captain, specifically in time to sail Pound himself, Churchill and several General Staff and War Cabinet members to the USA. These are positive endorsements of these officers. His attitude is clearly that he was convinced there was no wrongdoing by these officers and his easily relinquished request for B of I was merely in case the PM's ignorant and ill-informed rant continued. Which it didn't.
Hello Herr Nilsson, I'm glad you're confused too. I almost believed it was because I was spending too much time in the Pub to understand this thread, as I was told, but have you been down the Bierkeller too?
Antonio has fabricated his "evidence" from the bottom up, but by implicating everybody (except His Majesty) neatly removed any reasons for doing any cover-up. As you say illogical. There was no Freedom of Information Act in 1941 to worry about, just the Official Secrets Act.
Unless you deeply resent what you consider "triumphalist" accounts of the RN's defeat of Rheinübung and suspect you can make some money out of providing an alternative reality. Mind you, defamation without decent evidence can cost you money too, even if your victims aren't alive to sue, and you have to pulp all those unsold copies- ask David Irving.
In the opinion of myself and apparently many reviewers, Ludovic Kennedy's well-researched and well-written account, from someone who was actually there, and who wrote sympathetically of the motives, actions and sufferings of those on both sides, remains one of the best available.
All the best
wadinga
He did nothing as far as we know today.
No Antonio, he didn't do "nothing"- he gave Wake-Walker considerable extra trust and responsibilities with command of twin carrier task forces. He also ensured Leach returned to his ship and replaced the temporary captain, specifically in time to sail Pound himself, Churchill and several General Staff and War Cabinet members to the USA. These are positive endorsements of these officers. His attitude is clearly that he was convinced there was no wrongdoing by these officers and his easily relinquished request for B of I was merely in case the PM's ignorant and ill-informed rant continued. Which it didn't.
I suspect I/we will never know...………... But you could always try...…………...Unfortunately, I'm sure that for someone here even the silver bullet will not be enough to accept the CM story.....
Hello Herr Nilsson, I'm glad you're confused too. I almost believed it was because I was spending too much time in the Pub to understand this thread, as I was told, but have you been down the Bierkeller too?
Antonio has fabricated his "evidence" from the bottom up, but by implicating everybody (except His Majesty) neatly removed any reasons for doing any cover-up. As you say illogical. There was no Freedom of Information Act in 1941 to worry about, just the Official Secrets Act.
The "cover up" conspiracy theory was always very illogical
Unless you deeply resent what you consider "triumphalist" accounts of the RN's defeat of Rheinübung and suspect you can make some money out of providing an alternative reality. Mind you, defamation without decent evidence can cost you money too, even if your victims aren't alive to sue, and you have to pulp all those unsold copies- ask David Irving.
In the opinion of myself and apparently many reviewers, Ludovic Kennedy's well-researched and well-written account, from someone who was actually there, and who wrote sympathetically of the motives, actions and sufferings of those on both sides, remains one of the best available.
All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
- Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait
Hello everybody,
@ Herr Nillson,
what I am going to publish is just based on what Stephen Roskill, ... and I remember you all we are talking the Royal Navy Official Historian for World War 2, ... did explain us being the path to follow top down about this story, ... from WSC down to Alexander and Pound, ... until Adm Tovey dispatches ( Ref. ADM 205/10 pages 331-332-333-334 ), ... and the Court Martial threat discussed between Adm Pound and Adm Tovey, ... just as Stephen Roskill referenced on his 2 books published after Sir L. Kennedy book Pursuit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Roskill
My value add has been only to reach the same conclusions Stephen Roskill reached, ... but proceeding bottom up, ... from the real battle data to the altered reports and dispatches by Adm Tovey, ... and connect them to what Stephen Roskill so clearly indicated us all, ... many, many years before me.
If somebody does have difficulties to realize the whole events scenario, ... it is his problem, ... not mine, ... I clearly realized what Stephen Roskill indicated us, ... so easy and elementary, ... and well explained it is.
Official documents, ... clear references, ... very reliable sources, ... I do not see any problem at all for the publication.
Bye Antonio
@ Herr Nillson,
what I am going to publish is just based on what Stephen Roskill, ... and I remember you all we are talking the Royal Navy Official Historian for World War 2, ... did explain us being the path to follow top down about this story, ... from WSC down to Alexander and Pound, ... until Adm Tovey dispatches ( Ref. ADM 205/10 pages 331-332-333-334 ), ... and the Court Martial threat discussed between Adm Pound and Adm Tovey, ... just as Stephen Roskill referenced on his 2 books published after Sir L. Kennedy book Pursuit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Roskill
My value add has been only to reach the same conclusions Stephen Roskill reached, ... but proceeding bottom up, ... from the real battle data to the altered reports and dispatches by Adm Tovey, ... and connect them to what Stephen Roskill so clearly indicated us all, ... many, many years before me.
If somebody does have difficulties to realize the whole events scenario, ... it is his problem, ... not mine, ... I clearly realized what Stephen Roskill indicated us, ... so easy and elementary, ... and well explained it is.
Official documents, ... clear references, ... very reliable sources, ... I do not see any problem at all for the publication.
Bye Antonio
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 )
Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait
Hello Antonio,
and substitute in your own manufactured information to replace them, whilst still claiming
All the best
wadinga
My value add has been only to reach the same conclusions Stephen Roskill reached
At no point did Roskill, Rhys-Jones or any other previous author suggest anything like the Conspiracy Theory you have conjured up. Neither did they reach "conclusions" about the CMDS story, since they merely repeated Tovey's uncorroborated allegation, there being no other evidence.and connect them to what Stephen Roskill so clearly indicated us all, ... many, many years before me
Except you will presumably ignore those elements you don't like and redact phrases likewhat I am going to publish is just based on what Stephen Roskill
" Churchill and the Admirals p127"despite the serious damage sustained by the Prince of Wales and the wholly unfavourable tactical position at the time.
and substitute in your own manufactured information to replace them, whilst still claiming
what I am going to publish is just based on what Stephen Roskill
All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait
So instead of a silver bullet, A&A have instead prepared a large batch of cool-aid to accompany their publication...Antonio Bonomi wrote: ↑Tue Jul 17, 2018 3:53 pm Hello everybody,
@ Herr Nillson,
what I am going to publish is just based on what Stephen Roskill, ... and I remember you all we are talking the Royal Navy Official Historian for World War 2, ... did explain us being the path to follow top down about this story, ... from WSC down to Alexander and Pound, ... until Adm Tovey dispatches ( Ref. ADM 205/10 pages 331-332-333-334 ), ... and the Court Martial threat discussed between Adm Pound and Adm Tovey, ... just as Stephen Roskill referenced on his 2 books published after Sir L. Kennedy book Pursuit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Roskill
My value add has been only to reach the same conclusions Stephen Roskill reached, ... but proceeding bottom up, ... from the real battle data to the altered reports and dispatches by Adm Tovey, ... and connect them to what Stephen Roskill so clearly indicated us all, ... many, many years before me.
If somebody does have difficulties to realize the whole events scenario, ... it is his problem, ... not mine, ... I clearly realized what Stephen Roskill indicated us, ... so easy and elementary, ... and well explained it is.
Official documents, ... clear references, ... very reliable sources, ... I do not see any problem at all for the publication.
Bye Antonio
As they say in America...Don't drink the cool-aid!
- Alberto Virtuani
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3605
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
- Location: Milan (Italy)
Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait
Hi Antonio,Antonio Bonomi wrote: "....what I am going to publish is just based on what Stephen Roskill......I do not see any problem at all for the publication."
for once, I don't agree with you.
Roskill understood the "aftermath" and found in ADM 205/10 the evidences confirming what Tovey told/wrote him. However you have done a great step forward: you have reconstructed precisely the battle and you have noticed the intentional alteration of facts done in the reports. Only Rhys-Jones went a bit in this direction, speaking of "Tovey's version" but not studying the battle in detail and thus implicitly confirming the same version.
Looking at the hysterical, offensive and stubborn reactions to your link between the CM story and the sugar-coating in the reports, I'm afraid that many people will be very angry to see L.Kennedy fairy tale totally disproved (after the much more balanced, but still "diplomatically" reticent, account of the Baron).
Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
- Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait
Hello everybody,
@ Alberto Virtuani,
no problems Alberto, ... I like positive and constructive disagreements, ... looking at what we have here in of a much lower level.
Anyhow, I am thankful to both Stephen Roskill as well as to Graham Rhys-Jones for their valuable information.
Of course I went deeper and enlarged the research and plugged in my battle re-construction knowledge.
The key point connecting the bottom up to the top down analysis is obviously the Sir Barnes Admiralty letter statements about Wake-Walker and Leach ( September 1941 ) containing the intentionally altered Adm Tovey dispatches statements ( July 1941 ).
Now from the Court Martial threat until WSC statement : Leave it ! ... and the King recognition, ... everything is clear.
Bye Antonio
@ Alberto Virtuani,
no problems Alberto, ... I like positive and constructive disagreements, ... looking at what we have here in of a much lower level.
Anyhow, I am thankful to both Stephen Roskill as well as to Graham Rhys-Jones for their valuable information.
Of course I went deeper and enlarged the research and plugged in my battle re-construction knowledge.
The key point connecting the bottom up to the top down analysis is obviously the Sir Barnes Admiralty letter statements about Wake-Walker and Leach ( September 1941 ) containing the intentionally altered Adm Tovey dispatches statements ( July 1941 ).
Now from the Court Martial threat until WSC statement : Leave it ! ... and the King recognition, ... everything is clear.
Bye Antonio
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 )
Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait
Hello Alberto,
In clear for you: Tovey said Rodney's blocking position was well chosen. Phillips said it was ill chosen. Tovey's version went to the printers, because Pound realised he was correct and told Phillips he was wrong. Rhys-Jones incorrectly ascribed Phillips' opinion "ill-judged" to Pound.
Rhys-Jones never fabricated evidence as Antonio has done, and never suggested there was any kind of cover-up. He never suggested there was another "version" of the overall chase which varied from Tovey's. He studied the action in detail, but was not interested in making up a Conspiracy Theory with imaginary evidence.
Please confirm you understand Rhys-Jones' error and its significance. Please do not make this same error again and repeat these words again.
We know why you keep saying the same incorrect things over and over
All the best
wadinga
Please read this explanation of your incorrect conclusion due to Rhys-Jones' error carefully. I posted it once already, but you evidently ignored it or forgot it:Only Rhys-Jones went a bit in this direction, speaking of "Tovey's version" but not studying the battle in detail and thus implicitly confirming the same version.
Rhys-Jones book has recently been quoted as in
Alberto said: However, the final proof, that allowed Antonio to understand everything bottom-up even before having entirely the above material available, is the intentional "embellishment" (or "sugar-coating", or "cover-up") of the facts in the reports presented after the battle to get to the final official version.
As Graham Rhys-Jones wisely said in his "The loss of the Bismarck": "it was Tovey's version which went to the printers".
The suggestion that Tovey's version differed from some other version is based on the mistaken reference in Rhys-Jones book regarding Rodney's movements.
He writes "Tovey had described her blocking position as extremely well chosen. Pound, who had gone through the records with extraordinary diligence, thought it very ill-judged (36)"
In the citation (36) he says this is from a letter from Pound to Tovey and then gives the ADM 199/1188 p25. However as you can see from the document I posted at the beginning of this thread [1941 Criticism thread], it is actually nothing of the sort, but an internal memo signed by Tom Phillips to Pound. We know from the other draft response to Tovey that Pound disagreed with and overrode Phillips' opinion, he agreed with Tovey's opinion and on this matter alone, it was correct that Tovey's version went to the printers. There was no contradictory version because Pound and Tovey agreed.
How Rhys-Jones got things muddled up who knows. There is nothing in Rhys-Jones book to suggest he thought there was any cover-up or conspiracy.
In clear for you: Tovey said Rodney's blocking position was well chosen. Phillips said it was ill chosen. Tovey's version went to the printers, because Pound realised he was correct and told Phillips he was wrong. Rhys-Jones incorrectly ascribed Phillips' opinion "ill-judged" to Pound.
Rhys-Jones never fabricated evidence as Antonio has done, and never suggested there was any kind of cover-up. He never suggested there was another "version" of the overall chase which varied from Tovey's. He studied the action in detail, but was not interested in making up a Conspiracy Theory with imaginary evidence.
Please confirm you understand Rhys-Jones' error and its significance. Please do not make this same error again and repeat these words again.
Only Rhys-Jones went a bit in this direction, speaking of "Tovey's version" but not studying the battle in detail and thus implicitly confirming the same version.
We know why you keep saying the same incorrect things over and over
Here the only fairy tale (that has been "imposed" by the "winners" for 75+ years) is Kennedy's novel, full of heroes, honorable decisions and consensus from British side.
The "cover up" conspiracy theory was always very illogical
Unless you deeply resent what you consider "triumphalist" accounts of the RN's defeat of Rheinübung and suspect you can make some money out of providing an alternative reality.
All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait
Possibly I'm not anAntonio Bonomi wrote: ↑Tue Jul 17, 2018 3:53 pm If somebody does have difficulties to realize the whole events scenario, ... it is his problem, ... not mine, ... I clearly realized what Stephen Roskill indicated us, ... so easy and elementary, ... and well explained it is.
Official documents, ... clear references, ... very reliable sources, ... I do not see any problem at all for the publication.
, because I have a lot of difficulties. The whole scenario is absolutely illogical in my opinion. Why covering anything up when all knew about it?average intelligent person
An additional problem is what lead Tovey to falsify the despatch. Was it Tovey's own idea? Would Tovey really gamble with his own career? Would Pound ever trust him again? Illogical. Or did Pound incite Tovey to falsify the despatch? Illogical. Was there an agreement between Pound and Tovey? Illogical.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
- Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait
Hello everybody,
if only those " hooligan/deniers " were going to stick to the facts and not jumping up and down on any interpretation they like to try to sell to this historical fact we were going to live more easily.
It is obvious that Stephen Roskill and Graham Rhys-Jones did not want to provide further analysis to this event, looking at the reactions we are seeing here in it is more than obvious now.
It is a fact that Adm Tovey changed the 06:02 ( after 2 minutes ) to 06:13 ( adding more than 10 minutes ), it is a fact that Adm Tovey " moved in " the PoW Y turret jamming ( compared to Capt Leach Official report ).
It is a fact that the Norfolk 20.000 yards became 30.000 yards already in June/July ( WW report and Tovey dispatches ) long before the Hood second board called in August and the shameful Pinchin " The Plot " incorrectly made on purpose to change it officially too.
Not to talk of what Capt Ellis revealed us thru his autobiography ( 9 sm ) being obviously done on his Official distance report ( wrote 15 sm ).
All is logic and the " Cover Up " well demonstrated by those facts.
The certification of it came from the Admiralty board and Sir Barnes letter wordings, clearly stating that the acceptable version of the facts was the one written on Adm Tovey dispatches.
Open your eyes and use your brain, ... because this is the historical truth no one can avoid to realize now, ... simply because it is written on Official documents and fully supported by available evidence on the archives.
Of course when you learn geometry, ... you can also be able to realize where really Norfolk was from 05:41 until 06:20 that morning ( if you read the Baron you will realize it too ).
Suffolk we know, ... from Capt Ellis now ( 9 sm ).
The PoW retreat, ... it is enough to look at the Rowell maps and gunnery plot, ... and here Pitcairn Jones already cutted it clear : 06:03 at the most, ... surely not 06:13, .. Adm Tovey was wrong.
@ Herr Nillson,
Of course he was wrong, ... he has been intentionally wrong ! With politicians and the Admiralty permission and approval ...
They were all in agreement ( Tovey, Pound, Alexander, Churchill ) immediately after Adm Tovey reaction surely Pound shared it with Alexander and Churchill. Once they decided that it was not positive for propaganda reason to go down that path of inquiry and Court martial involving also Adm Tovey, ... the only chance to resolve it was to manage them exactly like the other officers in the Bismarck operation, so a whole rewarding.
At that point, it only remained to " manage " the reports accordingly and the job was given to Adm Tovey as we can see at the beginning of June, .. and he started working with Wake-Walker and the others to change the facts and the reports accordingly, ... so to allow the Admiralty to approve their conduct and close all the open points and proceed with the rewarding for them too.
Bye Antonio
if only those " hooligan/deniers " were going to stick to the facts and not jumping up and down on any interpretation they like to try to sell to this historical fact we were going to live more easily.
It is obvious that Stephen Roskill and Graham Rhys-Jones did not want to provide further analysis to this event, looking at the reactions we are seeing here in it is more than obvious now.
It is a fact that Adm Tovey changed the 06:02 ( after 2 minutes ) to 06:13 ( adding more than 10 minutes ), it is a fact that Adm Tovey " moved in " the PoW Y turret jamming ( compared to Capt Leach Official report ).
It is a fact that the Norfolk 20.000 yards became 30.000 yards already in June/July ( WW report and Tovey dispatches ) long before the Hood second board called in August and the shameful Pinchin " The Plot " incorrectly made on purpose to change it officially too.
Not to talk of what Capt Ellis revealed us thru his autobiography ( 9 sm ) being obviously done on his Official distance report ( wrote 15 sm ).
All is logic and the " Cover Up " well demonstrated by those facts.
The certification of it came from the Admiralty board and Sir Barnes letter wordings, clearly stating that the acceptable version of the facts was the one written on Adm Tovey dispatches.
Open your eyes and use your brain, ... because this is the historical truth no one can avoid to realize now, ... simply because it is written on Official documents and fully supported by available evidence on the archives.
Of course when you learn geometry, ... you can also be able to realize where really Norfolk was from 05:41 until 06:20 that morning ( if you read the Baron you will realize it too ).
Suffolk we know, ... from Capt Ellis now ( 9 sm ).
The PoW retreat, ... it is enough to look at the Rowell maps and gunnery plot, ... and here Pitcairn Jones already cutted it clear : 06:03 at the most, ... surely not 06:13, .. Adm Tovey was wrong.
@ Herr Nillson,
Of course he was wrong, ... he has been intentionally wrong ! With politicians and the Admiralty permission and approval ...
They were all in agreement ( Tovey, Pound, Alexander, Churchill ) immediately after Adm Tovey reaction surely Pound shared it with Alexander and Churchill. Once they decided that it was not positive for propaganda reason to go down that path of inquiry and Court martial involving also Adm Tovey, ... the only chance to resolve it was to manage them exactly like the other officers in the Bismarck operation, so a whole rewarding.
At that point, it only remained to " manage " the reports accordingly and the job was given to Adm Tovey as we can see at the beginning of June, .. and he started working with Wake-Walker and the others to change the facts and the reports accordingly, ... so to allow the Admiralty to approve their conduct and close all the open points and proceed with the rewarding for them too.
Bye Antonio
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 )
- Alberto Virtuani
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3605
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
- Location: Milan (Italy)
Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait
Hello everybody,
I have never said Toveyìs version was wrong or right in this specific case (as I'm not interested in this Rodney's movements). Rhys-Jones was the only one who understood that it was Tovey's version that went finally to printers (and this applies to Rodney, but then, after speaking of Rodney, Rhys-Jones goes on and speaks about the Court Martial story, also implying that Tovey's version was the one accepted as well, and in this case we know that Tovey's story was an intentional alteration of facts (see Antonio's crystal clear post above), while Rhys-Jones never investigated (apparently) this aspect).
I have clearly recognized to Antonio his great further step compared to Rhys-Jones:
Bye, Alberto
Someone has not read carefully enough what I wrote above.I wrote: "Only Rhys-Jones went a bit in this direction, speaking of "Tovey's version" but not studying the battle in detail and thus implicitly confirming the same version."
I have never said Toveyìs version was wrong or right in this specific case (as I'm not interested in this Rodney's movements). Rhys-Jones was the only one who understood that it was Tovey's version that went finally to printers (and this applies to Rodney, but then, after speaking of Rodney, Rhys-Jones goes on and speaks about the Court Martial story, also implying that Tovey's version was the one accepted as well, and in this case we know that Tovey's story was an intentional alteration of facts (see Antonio's crystal clear post above), while Rhys-Jones never investigated (apparently) this aspect).
I have clearly recognized to Antonio his great further step compared to Rhys-Jones:
It's a pity Mr.Wadinga quibbles about my statements, refusing to read them and (possibly) to understand them before posting.....I wrote: "you have done a great step forward: you have reconstructed precisely the battle and you have noticed the intentional alteration of facts done in the reports..... + your link between the CM story and the sugar-coating in the reports"
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)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait
Logic and well demonstrated is slightly over-exaggerated in my opinion.Antonio Bonomi wrote:All is logic and the " Cover Up " well demonstrated by those facts.
Wow! Such a great effort for a cover up. What for? All knew about it in your scenario....wouldn't it be easier to do nothing at all?Antonio Bonomi wrote:@ Herr Nillson,
Of course he was wrong, ... he has been intentionally wrong ! With politicians and the Admiralty permission and approval ...
They were all in agreement ( Tovey, Pound, Alexander, Churchill ) immediately after Adm Tovey reaction surely Pound shared it with Alexander and Churchill. Once they decided that it was not positive for propaganda reason to go down that path of inquiry and Court martial involving also Adm Tovey, ... the only chance to resolve it was to manage them exactly like the other officers in the Bismarck operation, so a whole rewarding.
At that point, it only remained to " manage " the reports accordingly and the job was given to Adm Tovey as we can see at the beginning of June, .. and he started working with Wake-Walker and the others to change the facts and the reports accordingly, ... so to allow the Admiralty to approve their conduct and close all the open points and proceed with the rewarding for them too.
And don't forget Tovey "heard no more about it". That means in your scenario Tovey is either a liar or a fool to bring it up. Quite illogical.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)