The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
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

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

1) I think we all need to realize a simple concept here not to play with wordings.

We have read on several documents about :

a) severe criticism
b) personal Officer threats
c) need of investigations on Officers actions/conducts
d) disciplinary actions
e) trials for a board of inquiry
f) a court martial

At the end all the above statements do refer to the same " potential charges " against 2 known Officers, namely W.F. Wake-Walker and J.C. Leach written on historical documents ( letters ) we have at hand now.
Pound tried to go from points a,b,c,d to point e driving consequently the point f, ... but Tovey stopped him.

Everybody should realize that starting from a,b,c,d, ... and officially inizializing the point e ( the Board of Inquiry ) ... the final goal was obviously to bring them to point f ( so in front of a Court Martial ).

We all know that nothing, ... I mean nothing, ... happened to them in reality and the above intended or requested initiatives remained just words of intentions ( a,b,c,d), ... nothing more than that, ... at the end every initiative was abandoned ( never e and f occurred ) and they have been rewarded on October 1941.

This was the cause of what has been done after with the reports and on the Tovey dispatches until the Admiralty letter by Sir Barnes and ADM 205/10 closing the matter with : Leave it !

2) I see, ... but given the evident facts, ... I only can think about that version connected with the above occurrences and reasons for it to be.
Surely not about a " typo " error or something else I have read on those years.


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 )
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio Bonomi wrote: 1) I think we all need to realize a simple concept here not to play with wordings.

We have read on several documents about :

a) severe criticism
b) personal Officer threats
c) need of investigations on Officers actions/conducts
d) disciplinary actions
e) trials for a board of inquiry
f) a court martial

At the end all the above statements do refer to the same " potential charges " against 2 known Officers, namely W.F. Wake-Walker and J.C. Leach written on historical documents ( letters ) we have at hand now.
Pound tried to go from points a,b,c,d to point e driving consequently the point f, ... but Tovey stopped him.

Everybody should realize that starting from a,b,c,d, ... and officially inizializing the point e ( the Board of Inquiry ) ... the final goal was obviously to bring them to point f ( so in front of a Court Martial ).

We all know that nothing, ... I mean nothing, ... happened to them in reality and the above intended or requested initiatives remained just words of intentions ( a,b,c,d), ... nothing more than that, ... at the end every initiative was abandoned ( never e and f occurred ) and they have been rewarded on October 1941.

This was the cause of what has been done after with the reports and on the Tovey dispatches until the Admiralty letter by Sir Barnes and ADM 205/10 closing the matter with : Leave it !
Phew! I was searching the whole morning for the documents you've mentioned, but I can only find the words "board of inquiry" (e), "investigation" and "action" (both c, but without "need") quickly. Please could you give me a hint where I can find documents about a, b, d and f which are not interpretations by Kennedy, Roskill or anyone else years later?
Antonio Bonomi wrote: 2) I see, ... but given the evident facts, ... I only can think about that version connected with the above occurrences and reasons for it to be.
Surely not about a " typo " error or something else I have read on those years.
After having seen other typos in the reports I consider such an explanation for conclusive. That doesn't mean it's right.
Anyway, I accept your opinion.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
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

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

1) Please do not mix Stephen Roskill with the other book writers, ... because he was teh Royal Navy Officially named historian, ... so he was not an average book writer.

Of course some of the examples I have made above ( ref. a,b,c,d ) have been used by average book writers to " tone down " the 2 most freightening terms and steps : Board of inquiry and Court Martial.

Some terms similar to a,b,c,d that I did not list above and you can add to them, ... you can find on official documents are : " Prima Facie requiring explanation ", ... or require a " most critical examination " ... for example, ... and from page 42 onward on this thread you can find them all into the war cabinet minutes or on the Adm205/10, ... on Capt Leach own report.

McMullen used definitions like ; " most awful witch hunt, ... or being criticized "

Still ... a,b,c,d .... etc etc and the others, ... only drive to : e and f.

Again, the 2 most important terms were : Board of Inquiry and Court Martial and we have both of them clearly either written ... or told by C. McMullen recorded interview ... from Adm Tovey.


2) Evidently we have different opinions on the reasons why the reports have been changed.
I exclude the " typo " for obvious reasons, ... and I consider my one conclusive based on Sir Barnes written acceptance of them in writing.

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 )
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

Thank you for this very clear statement:
1) I think you would agree that the May 31st, 1941 letter defines once forever that the Board of Inquiry request for WW and Leach from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey was a real story and not an Adm Tovey late life invention.
IE no mention of Court Martial.

Unfortunately your co-author cannot bring himself to admit the same:
you are right. No (explicit) mention of a Board of Inquiry in Tovey's letters from 1950 onward.
And still maintains the dread words were used in the phone call, and then were forgotten by Tovey when he wrote his 31st letter, hours later. Now who is the Black Knight? :lol:

You are also correct IMHO to identify Pound himself and not the Admiralty as the source of the request to Tovey, who flatly refused to co-operate. Tovey's 31st letter is personal and handwritten, not given to some seaman secretary to type and carbon copy for records. In an age before photocopies that means no copy was retained. This was a direct communication between Jack Tovey and Dudley Pound. Luckily Pound caused it to be retained in Admiralty records, although not in a conventional place, which is why I believe nobody including Roskill has ever referred to it before. I suspect the reason why the 28th May letter from Pound is not easy (may be impossible) to find is that it was the same type of letter, asking for a favour from a friend, albeit a subordinate. An Admiralty letter would be filed in copy, a personal letter probably only existed as a single entity, of which preservation would rely on Tovey retaining.

Tovey's late life invention was to upgrade the mention of a Board of Inquiry in which no defendants are identified, into a Court Martial specifically targeting Wake-Walker and Leach, the kind of typical exaggeration identified by his confidente Paffard and responsibly recorded by Kennedy. We know from Tovey's 31st that the proposed B of I was targeting Wake-Walker and Leach, I believe with the objective of exonerating them, but an unfortunate side effect would be opening examination of the D/F error, an unpardonable mistake, and questioning Tovey's "head-on" attack principle, apparently adopted by Holland. Neither would make edifying reading.
average book writers to " tone down " the 2 most freightening terms and steps : Board of inquiry and Court Martial.


No authors, including Roskill, have toned down anything since Kennedy published, but have all gleefully and with nothing like the analytical effort expended by us, parroted the words Court Martial, without applying the caveats Kennedy included. The 31st letter, which we have seen, has never been quoted, to my knowledge by any author, including Roskill, and since it only mentions Board of Inquiry that is all that was ever proposed in 1941.

All the best

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

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Wadinga wrote: " your co-author cannot bring himself to admit the same""
Hi Sean,
you are wrong, I totally agree with Antonio's logical interpretation.

In your above desperate post, you carefully avoid to mention my COMPLETE answer : :negative:
I wrote: "No (explicit) mention of a Board of Inquiry in Tovey's letters from 1950 onward.
Also no (explicit) mention of a Court Martial apart the two known occasions: 1961 letter and during his visit to McMullen and Adm Blake.
One (implicit) mention to the "regrettable aftermath" involving W-W also in the 1962 letter.
No surprise IMHO that he was VERY careful and reluctant to mention both these frightening words.

As he is now proven to be very reliable in remembering correctly the heavy criticism of Pound (prodded by Churchill) and the disciplinary action proposed against both Leach and Wake-Walker, I don't see any reason why his written letters should not be entirely trusted regarding this "saga", as being all well in the "path of orthodoxy" for the Royal Navy and in line with the D.P.+ W.C. characters involved (as certified by the official historian of the RN, S.Roskill in his books)......

Having been warned of the disciplinary action requests, it's only evident (to me....) that the subsequent reports were carefully prepared in a way to justify the 2 officers in any way, changing their previous declarations and building a more nice story of the operation."
Aren't you really able to see that you have yourself provided (with Tovey's 31 May letter :clap:) a "silver heavy shell", fully confirming that there was indeed a menace of a disciplinary action against the two officers who were suspected of dereliction of their duty ? :stubborn:

Tovey "invented" nothing, stop these ridiculous insinuations that are based on your above long speculation only. He apparently referred to Pound May 28 request in his answer (we don't know the exact wording of Pound.... :negative: ), while he referred Pound words at the telephone in 1961 letter AND during his visit to McMullen and Adm.Blake.

you wrote: "No authors, including Roskill, have toned down anything"
here you are right, the only one trying to "tone down" is you...... :negative:

Roskill accounted it very clearly, correlating it to ADM 205/10 papers (just avoiding to investigate the military action in depth and to unveil the poor conduct of the two officers, as Antonio has only recently reconstructed), Kennedy related it clearly bu insinuated that Tovey memory was unreliable, based on Paffard (whose credibility had been already "destroyed" by Roskill).


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: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,

Yes I provided Tovey's 31st letter perfectly well aware that those relying on intuition instead of research would misread it and even misrepresent it for their own purposes. I am interested in the truth not promulgating some spurious Conspiracy Theory for a fleeting moment of fame/notoriety. However the letter clearly says Board of Inquiry.

Antonio has clearly accepted this, you have, kind of, although I realise it is the bitterest pill, almost impossible to swallow, and neatly removes the entire foundations for the Ziggurat of Supposition.
you are wrong, I totally agree with Antonio's logical interpretation.
Except there is no interpretation required- the words are quite clear and completely unambiguous. Not Court Martial, Board of Inquiry. Why not accept that unequivocally?

You constantly repeat the irrelevant mantra that Tovey repeated his misrememberings to McMullen and Blake as if that any importance. Please desist, it serves no purpose. Blake held a senior status in the Admiralty. If disciplinary proceedings of any sort had actually seriously been proposed, he would already have been aware. Does Tovey say Blake already knew about them? No, of course not. Nobody except Pound with his tentative private proposal to Tovey, quashed in an instant.

In 1941 Tovey wrote "Board of Inquiry" and in 1961 he wrote "Court Martial". He invented Court Martial because his memory wasn't very good. Perhaps even because he wanted to up the ante on Roskill who refused to take his "Shores of France" outrage seriously. Oh no I've Crossed the Streams - that's bad ,right?

Time to wheel out your "Silver Bullet" I believe, although will it only be a small squib? :wink:

All the best

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

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

in my opinion some persons writing here in that have never done a military service being Officers just need to read carefully what it means for an Officer a Board of Inquiry and a trial for Court Martial.

Here some help in order to realize it from USA ( not so different from a Royal Navy 1941 way to manage it ); the main difference is that in the RN they used after the BofI and the Court Martial, the Articles of War :

https://militarylawcenter.com/practice- ... quiry-boi/
Military Board of Inquiry Defense

Military Board of Inquiry – Administrative Separation – Officer Performance & Misconduct Inquiries

A Military Board of Inquiry (BOI) is made up of officers who must be senior in grade to the officer who is the subject of the BOI. Board of Inquiry is an administrative process reserved for officers when looking into alleged of sub-standard performance or misconduct.
If allegations are substantiated, then this Board of Inquiry can go further and make a determination of whether or not the the circumstances justify the officer’s’ separation from the service.
A Board of Inquiry will consist of senior officers.
Sometimes a Board of Inquiry will be convened after an incident occurs that damages the reputation of the officer or the military such as a friendly-fire incident, an aircraft crash, etc.
Other times a Board of Inquiry is ordered following a prior proceeding, such as a Non Judicial Punishment or Court Martial.
Who Participates in a Board of Inquiry ?

A Board of Inquiry (BOI) is made up of officers who must be senior in grade to the officer who is the subject of the BOI.
Because a Board of Inquiry hearing is an adversarial process, each side is permitted to present evidence as in a General Court Martial trial setting.
An experienced military attorney, called a “recorder” represents the government.
The subject of the Board of Inquiry is called the “respondent,” and that officer has the right to assemble a defense team of his or her choosing including a military defense attorney and a civilian defense attorney (at their own expense), to review the evidence against them, put on a defense, and to present evidence for the officer’s future valued military service.
Board of Inquiry – Board Member’s Duties

The Board will then vote as to whether the allegations of substandard performance or misconduct are substantiated and makes their final recommendation(s) to the commander who is empowered to make the final decision whether the officer should be separated and the chosen particulars of discharge.
If the officer slated for separation is not yet eligible for retirement, this might mean a discharge from the military with an “Other Than Honorable” (OTH) discharge.
In the instance where an officer is eligible for retirement, the board/commander could recommend retirement at the rank where the individual last honorably served.

Hire a Civilian Military Defense Attorney for a Board of Inquiry.

When you are notified that you are under investigation or subject of a Board of Inquiry for sub-standard performance or misdeed, it is imperative that you have a skilled and experienced military defense attorney helping build your defense case and who can advocate on your behalf. Military Law Center has extensive experience with Boards of Inquiry at the highest levels, having overseen entire JAG units, personal legal counsel to several Generals, and a Former Federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. When an officer’s career is on the line, he or she should secure a heavy-hitter to join the defense team for the best possible outcome of their Board of Inquiry case.
Under investigation or subject of a Board of Inquiry?
Make sure that you get the right help from a Civilian Military Attorney, in San Diego or Worldwide, built to support your needs. Military Law Center Is Ready to Help You – Right Now. Military Law Center will aggressively advise and defend you – Know Your Military Legal Rights.
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 )
User avatar
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

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Wadinga wrote: "However the letter clearly says Board of Inquiry."
Hi Sean,
is a Board of Inquiry a signal of full approval of the conduct of an officer ? :negative:


Pound (according to 1941 Tovey's letter) wrote on May 28, said Board of Inquiry.
Pound (according to Tovey's 1961 letter and Tovey's visit to McMullen) said Court Martial at the phone, inconvenient as it can be for you.......

Both being very serious investigations over a military debatable conduct, they are more than enough to explain the "sugar-coating" of the official reports, their Barnes' approval and the final political Churchill's decision "Leave it!!


This is what all serious historian had already understood and that Antonio's reconstruction has PROVEN bottom-up. Your refusal to accept it, quibbling over terminology of a very clear military procedure, sounds quite funny now.


you wrote: " I am interested in the truth "
:lol: Had you really been, you would have accepted to work with Antonio proposed set of bearings to reconstruct the FACTS (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8231), you would not loose your time to write long explanations of what is only YOUR interpretation/speculation/insinuation..... :negative:



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)
pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by pgollin »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:

..... just need to read carefully what it means for an Officer a Board of Inquiry and a trial for Court Martial.

Here some help in order to realize it from USA ( not so different from a Royal Navy 1941 way to manage it ); the main difference is that in the RN they used after the BofI and the Court Martial, the Articles of War : ......
No, no, NO ! Your "military" ideas are odd in themselves.

You don't understand what a Board of Inquiry was for (at least in the RN). It was NOT something to condemn an officer(s), it was, as the name implies, to inquire into what happened. There was NO assumption of blame, it was a way of establishing facts. The end result may be "no further action", a minor admonishment or punishment, a recommendation for a Courts Martial, or even the awards of medals.

Likewise, a Courts Martial was a formal process to establish what happened - it was not necessarily investigating an actual deliberate breaking of the King's Regulations, merely the investigation in accordance with the Regs. The most obvious example is the requirement for a Courts Martial over the loss of a vessel - these did NOT prejudge that the loss was someone's fault, merely that it needed investigation. Again, as an example, groundings of ships required Courts Martial, but if the evidence showed that no one was at fault they would be exonerated.

The Regs set onerous conditions for holding Boards of Inquiry and Courts Martials WITHOUT any prejudgement.

.
User avatar
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

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

...as well as, in a process for rape, there is no assumption of blame for the defendant until the sentence..... however, nobody would like to be processed for such an ignominious accusation. :negative:

I have always said (and even Dunmunro agreed) that a Board of Inquiry (as well as a Court Martial) would have been an opportunity for the officers to defend themselves and to explain their decisions, instead of being decorated based on the proven incorrect (IMO intentionally) Tovey's despatches.

However, no officer (AFAIK), would like to undergo an investigation or a trial for dereliction of duty...... :negative:


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: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,

Thank you for this unambiguous statement:
Pound (according to 1941 Tovey's letter) wrote on May 28, said Board of Inquiry.
Added to Antonio's previous admission we at last have acceptance that Tovey wrote only of a Board of Inquiry in connection with Wake-Walker and Leach.................. in 1941.................when it actually happened.


Oh hang on

wrote on May 28

did you have your fingers crossed when you wrote it?
Saturday 31st May 1941

My Dear First Sea Lord,
I have just received your letter of the 28th and am intentionally replying before I see Wake-Walker or Leach.
Tovey said Board of Inquiry on 31st May. Tovey didn't know anything about any disciplinary enquiries on 30th May, but then he also didn't seem to know anything of "criminally stupid" orders either. (oh no I crossed the Streams again....... but no interdimensional rift so I guess it's OK) We have no idea what Pound wrote on the 28th of May except that it can't have included Court Martial because Tovey ONLY refers to Board of Inquiry.

All the best

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

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Wadinga wrote: "Thank you for this unambiguous statement" after I wrote: "Pound (according to 1941 Tovey's letter) wrote on May 28, said Board of Inquiry."
Hi Sean,
I have to thank you for pointing out my syntax error and ask you again my underlined question, to which you have not answered..... I should have written:

Pound (according to 1941 Tovey's letter), wrote Board of Inquiry.
Pound (according to Tovey's 1961 letter and Tovey's visit to McMullen) said Court Martial at the phone, inconvenient as it can be for you.......

Is a Board of Inquiry a signal of full approval of the conduct of an officer ? :negative:

Both being very serious investigations over a military questionable conduct, they are more than enough to explain the "sugar-coating" in the official reports, their Barnes' approval and the final political Churchill's decision "Leave it!!

This is what all serious historian had already understood and that Antonio's reconstruction has PROVEN bottom-up in the last years.


you wrote: " We have no idea what Pound wrote on the 28th of May except that it can't have included Court Martial because Tovey ONLY refers to Board of Inquiry. "
Yes, we don't have idea; therefore, no, it could have included the words Court Martial ! :negative:

Pound may (and the following is my speculation ONLY, as the above sentence is your own speculation only) have written on May 28: "The Admiralty requires you to call a Board of Inquiry in order to analyze the conduct of Leach and Wake-Walker, if not, the Admiralty will order a B of I and/or a Court Martial into them".
Had Pound letter been phrased like this (as fully in line with the phone call, btw), Tovey may have answered in writing as he did, mentioning only the BofI as an initiative requested to him, and mentioning the Court Martial (why on earth should otherwise Tovey have written the frightening words Court Martial to his superior, if Pound himself did not use them in May 28 letter and/or in the phone call ?) while taking all the responsibility on himself.


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: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

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: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

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: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

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!"
Locked