The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi HMSVF,

you wrote: "it's hardly fair to say Leach was constantly "babysitted" or "childminded""

Possibly, but it's also impossible to say that the Admiralty confidence in his nerves was untouched, after the Denmark Strait.


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Hi HMSVF,

you wrote: "it's hardly fair to say Leach was constantly "babysitted" or "childminded""

Possibly, but it's also impossible to say that the Admiralty confidence in his nerves was untouched, after the Denmark Strait.


Bye, Alberto

Classic troll.

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

but it's also impossible to say that the Admiralty confidence in his nerves was untouched,

He was put back in charge of Britain's newest battleship with 1500 men at his command, and particularly in time to take the PM to America. I suppose they could have put Britain's entire gold reserve, the Crown Jewels and Vera Lynn on board as well, which would shown even more confidence.


All the best

wadinga

[northcape]

Hi HMSVF,

you wrote: "it's hardly fair to say Leach was constantly "babysitted" or "childminded""

Possibly, but it's also impossible to say that the Admiralty confidence in his nerves was untouched, after the Denmark Strait.


Bye, Alberto

Classic troll.

Yes, one minute it is a fact that Leach was never again in command of his ship, the next minute it is possible that it is not fair to say so. Am I the only one to spot a contradiction? Or, more likely in my view, is this meandering through different story lines just another indication of classical troll behaviour?

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

it is a fact that Leach ordered the retreat of PoW at 06:01, a minute after Hood exploded, at the very first hits received from Bismarck, before having been seriously damaged. There has been no credible alternative timeline presented in this forum, except this very one, thanks to Antonio reconstruction.

It is a fact that Tovey had to add two false statements in point 19 of his despatches (06:13 as PoW retreat time and mostly the "Y" turret jamming before the disengagement decision) to provide justification for this retreat, despite attempts to say that these were "innocent" errors or "typos".

From ADM 205/10 papers it's crystal clear that Leach conduct was (informally) investigated, even by the Prime Minister, for having broke off his engagement. It is a fact, despite the pitiful attempts to deny what is written on Admiralty papers.

It is fact that Leach was never left alone on his ship, after the Bismarck operation, having always an Admiral on board with him. This can be a meaningless casual circumstance, but it can be the result of the Admiralty loss of confidence in his nerves.

The above hysterical reactions of the deniers (not able to provide any fact, just their anger) prove how much these facts annoy the poor RN hooligans here.


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

you wrote :

It is a fact that Leach ordered the retreat of PoW at 06:01, a minute after Hood exploded, at the very first hits received from Bismarck, before having been seriously damaged. There has been no credible alternative timeline presented in this forum, except this very one, thanks to Antonio reconstruction.

It is a fact that Tovey had to add two false statements in point 19 of his despatches ( 06:13 as PoW retreat time and mostly the "Y" turret jamming before the disengagement decision) to provide justification for this retreat, despite attempts to say that these were "innocent" errors or "typos".

From ADM 205/10 papers it's crystal clear that Leach conduct was (informally) investigated, even by the Prime Minister, for having broke off his engagement. It is a fact, despite the pitiful attempts to deny what is written on Admiralty papers.

It is fact that Leach was never left alone on his ship, after the Bismarck operation, having always an Admiral on board with him. This can be a meaningless casual circumstance, but it can be the result of the Admiralty loss of confidence in his nerves.

I will add another couple of facts to the above indisputable fact list :

1) It is a fact that on May 28th, 1941 Adm Pound asked a Board of Inquiry -> Court Martial to Adm Tovey and it is a fact that after the war Adm Tovey explained the whole situation to Stephen Roskill in writing.

2) It is a fact that the whole " Cover Up " with the documents intentional alteration was done on purpose to obtain the Admiralty formal acceptance of the explanations ( Admiralty letter of September 1941 ) in order to enable the Officer recognition with a medal on October 1941, ... which it was obviously not possible given the real facts occurred during the battle that initially were driving the Board of Inquiry request from the Admiralty.

Bottom line we went from a Board of Inquiry -> Court Martial, ... for those events, ... to a formal King recognition.

Last but not least, ... regarding the hysterical and offensive reaction of the " RN Hooligan/Deniers " it is enough to go back at the beginning of the Articles of War thread on this forum to realize how well they knew what was going to surface from a careful analysis of those events, ... as well as how unfair and poorly educated has been their immediate reaction to it.

Bye. Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

1) It is a fact that on May 28th, 1941 Adm Pound asked a Board of Inquiry -> Court Martial to Adm Tovey and it is a fact that after the war Adm Tovey explained the whole situation to Stephen Roskill in writing.

2) It is a fact that the whole " Cover Up " with the documents intentional alteration was done on purpose to obtain the Admiralty formal acceptance of the explanations ( Admiralty letter of September 1941 ) in order to enable the Officer recognition with a medal on October 1941, ... which it was obviously not possible given the real facts occurred during the battle that initially were driving the Board of Inquiry request from the Admiralty.

No the facts are:
1)It is a fact that on May 28th, 1941 Adm Pound asked a Board of Inquiry to Adm Tovey. It is a fact that after the war Adm Tovey mentioned "Court Martial" to Stephen Roskill in writing. "Board of Inquiry -> Court Martial" is your opinion.

2) is no fact at all, but your opinion.

As long as you have problems to distinguish between fact and opinion we will never get forward.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

first of all I am glad that the first 4 facts listed by Alberto Virtuani are not anymore in discussion after almost 120 thread pages here and several other threads about the analysis of them in full details.

Lets now move on our different interpretation related to the other 2 facts I have listed above.

You wrote :

1) It is a fact that on May 28th, 1941 Adm Pound asked a Board of Inquiry to Adm Tovey.
It is a fact that after the war Adm Tovey mentioned "Court Martial" to Stephen Roskill in writing.
"Board of Inquiry -> Court Martial" is your opinion.

Excuse me, but the content of Adm Tovey letter to Stephen Roskill is not enough to prove the direct link between them either occurred on the phone call between them or directly requested thru the May 28th, 1941 letter from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey that we do not have yet ?

Adm Tovey wrote about it in clear words to Stephen Roskill, if for you it is not enough to prove it, can you please explain me why. Thanks

2) is no fact at all, but your opinion.

So the Admiralty letter signed by Sir Barnes accepting only Adm Tovey dispatches event version is just my opinion ?
The rewarding occurred to 2 Officers that only few months before were subject of a Board of Inquiry request by the First Sea Lord to the C in C Home Fleet ( their direct superior ) is just my opinion ?

Can you acknowledge that the 2 above occurrences happened thru Official documents I have listed above are just simple facts.
That will be enough for me. Thanks.

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

I will add another couple of facts to the above indisputable fact list :

1) It is a fact that on May 28th, 1941 Adm Pound asked a Board of Inquiry -> Court Martial to Adm Tovey and it is a fact that after the war Adm Tovey explained the whole situation to Stephen Roskill in writing.

2) It is a fact that the whole " Cover Up " with the documents intentional alteration was done on purpose to obtain the Admiralty formal acceptance of the explanations ( Admiralty letter of September 1941 ) in order to enable the Officer recognition with a medal on October 1941, ... which it was obviously not possible given the real facts occurred during the battle that initially were driving the Board of Inquiry request from the Admiralty.

Bottom line we went from a Board of Inquiry -> Court Martial, ... for those events, ... to a formal King recognition.

Last but not least, ... regarding the hysterical and offensive reaction of the " RN Hooligan/Deniers " it is enough to go back at the beginning of the Articles of War thread on this forum to realize how well they knew what was going to surface from a careful analysis of those events, ... as well as how unfair and poorly educated has been their immediate reaction to it.

Bye. Antonio

1) There were several BofIs regarding the loss of Hood. How many CMs arose from them?

2) Did Tovey tell Roskill that he altered his reports to avoid (something? since the BofI request died almost immediately according to Tovey's letters). Did Tovey ever write anything saying that he or anyone else altered reports to avoid whatever it was? Did Tovey ever state that a BofI was hanging over him after his refusal to a BofI request? Did Leach or Wake-Walker ever state that they altered reports to avoid some threat from the Admiralty? Has any other secondary source come to the conclusion that Tovey or anyone else altered reports to avoid some unnamed possibility?

There were lights in the sky...no one else can say definitively what they were...therefore they must be space aliens...

Tovey's report has discrepancies...No one can say definitively why...therefore he altered them to avoid a CM...

[Herr Nilsson]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

first of all I am glad that the first 4 facts listed by Alberto Virtuani are not anymore in discussion after almost 120 thread pages here and several other threads about the analysis of them in full details.

Says who?

Lets now move on our different interpretation related to the other 2 facts I have listed above.

You wrote :

1) It is a fact that on May 28th, 1941 Adm Pound asked a Board of Inquiry to Adm Tovey.
It is a fact that after the war Adm Tovey mentioned "Court Martial" to Stephen Roskill in writing.
"Board of Inquiry -> Court Martial" is your opinion.

Excuse me, but the content of Adm Tovey letter to Stephen Roskill is not enough to prove the direct link between them either occurred on the phone call between them or directly requested thru the May 28th, 1941 letter from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey that we do not have yet ?

Adm Tovey wrote about it in clear words to Stephen Roskill, if for you it is not enough to prove it, can you please explain me why. Thanks

How did you find out that the white lines on PG's deck were painted during the early stages of Rheinübung?

2) is no fact at all, but your opinion.

So the Admiralty letter signed by Sir Barnes accepting only Adm Tovey dispatches event version is just my opinion ?
The rewarding occurred to 2 Officers that only few months before were subject of a Board of Inquiry request by the First Sea Lord to the C in C Home Fleet ( their direct superior ) is just my opinion ?

Can you acknowledge that the 2 above occurrences happened thru Official documents I have listed above are just simple facts.
That will be enough for me. Thanks.

Bye Antonio

Eh?

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "There were several BofIs regarding the loss of Hood. How many CMs arose from them? "

None of them was called "into the conduct of Leach and Wake-Walker", as requested by Pound on May 28, according to Tovey.

Dunmunro wrote (my underlined): "Tovey's report has discrepancies...No one can say definitively why......therefore he altered them to avoid a CM..."

Of course, deniers will stubbornly try to say that the final report false statements (06:13 retreat time and "Y" turret jamming before disengagement) are just "innocent" errors or "typos"

This despite Tovey had already sent a preliminary report on May 30 that was MUCH MORE CORRECT of his final despatches in this regard, stating that the retreat of PoW was at 06:02 - 06:03 ("within a couple of minutes...") and correctly not mentioning the jamming of Y turret, very astutely inserted later among the battle damages to intentionally (in the absence of any other logical explanation ) provide (IMO well needed) additional justification to Leach.



These facts clearly annoys the RN hooligans, apparently, reading the above posts, left without any countering argument: they will be absolutely furious once they will be published and everybody will be able to read the truth instead of Kennedy's fairy tale.



Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

I remember the many helps I have received from you as well as from many other forum members in the past about several arguments, not only about the Prinz Eugen white lines or the Gotenhafen pier cranes, ... for example.

This is why I always had pleasure to share findings and evaluations on this forum ... because many persons where cooperating and helping, ... and not refuse to admit what cannot be refused of course.

The 4 facts listed by Alberto, as well as the other ones I listed responding to you cannot be refused by any fair person, ... it is so obvious being those available Official documents anyone can still find into the archives.

What can be debated is the way to read and realize the logic behind them, ... connecting them one after the other in a military logic way, ... month after month and event after the event.

But this is what an historian must leave to the readers after having found them and made them available to the public interpretation.

Just like us anybody will have his own way to read and realize the logic behind them, ... depending on his knowledge and personal interpretation, ... and this is my final goal.

In my personal opinion ( military ) the fact that 2 Officers went from a Board of Inquiry request for their conduct while in action from their Admiralty, ... to a medal rewarding them for the same events approved by the same Admiralty few months after, ... is ridiculous and shameful to say the least.

Once one adds to it what happened in between those events, ... one can realize much more about it, ... if he wants to.

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

I remember the many helps I have received from you as well as from many other forum members in the past about several arguments, not only about the Prinz Eugen white lines or the Gotenhafen pier cranes, ... for example.

This is why I always had pleasure to share findings and evaluations on this forum ... because many persons where cooperating and helping, ... and not refuse to admit what cannot be refused of course.

My question about the white lines was easy to answer, because the thread is still existent. But you also wrote:

... someone better go back on this forum and read the explanations I have provided to them, ... but only after having studied the Prinz Eugen layout on the stern area during Op. Rheinubung, ...

I thought "I" it was a memory lapse.

The 4 facts listed by Alberto, as well as the other ones I listed responding to you cannot be refused by any fair person, ... it is so obvious being those available Official documents anyone can still find into the archives.

What can be debated is the way to read and realize the logic behind them, ... connecting them one after the other in a military logic way, ... month after month and event after the event.

But this is what an historian must leave to the readers after having found them and made them available to the public interpretation.

Just like us anybody will have his own way to read and realize the logic behind them, ... depending on his knowledge and personal interpretation, ... and this is my final goal.

In my personal opinion ( military ) the fact that 2 Officers went from a Board of Inquiry request for their conduct while in action from their Admiralty, ... to a medal rewarding them for the same events approved by the same Admiralty few months after, ... is ridiculous and shameful to say the least.

Once one adds to it what happened in between those events, ... one can realize much more about it, ... if he wants to.

Facts are facts can't be refused in any case. But there is almost no sentence of Alberto and you without facts mixed up with judgement and opinion. Every time one is refusing your judgement you're saying we are denier of facts, but this simply not true.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Herr Nilsson wrote: "there is almost no sentence of Alberto and you without facts mixed up with judgement and opinion"

Hi Marc,
where exactly the listed facts are not facts? Let's stop vague considerations and let's speak facts ONLY, please.
Judgements and considerations can be left apart, you are free to amend my ones, if any (I will respect your different view about them, if any), but specifically and not in a generic way like this.

Leach_CM_facts.jpg (61.11 KiB) Viewed 567 times

Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

you wrote :

Facts are facts can't be refused in any case.

I am happy you agree with me that the facts cannot be refused by anyone any longer, above are listed and that is more than enough to explain this story very well to anybody interested on knowing the details of it.

It will be a huge step forward if the " hooligans/deniers " on this forum will agree and accept your simple concept written above.

But there is almost no sentence of Alberto and you without facts mixed up with judgement and opinion.

That is a normal way to expose the facts, provide a way to logically connecting one to the other, ... and please allow me to write here that from what I am reading lately here in, ... it is absolutely necessary in some cases, ... due to the very poor base knowledge and competence showed in writings and concepts by many here in, ... not to forget the base mathematics and geometry ( intentional in my opinion ) ignorance.

Every time one is refusing your judgement you're saying we are denier of facts, but this simply not true.

This is because many like to play " dummy " here in, ... and associate the way to read the facts, ... with the facts themselves and reject everything at once, ... which is their real goal.

Now I hope with your example we can put them with their shoulders against the wall cornering them, ... and show us if they refuse the facts listed above, ... or just only my military and logic interpretation of them.

Of course refusing a logic interpretation is OK ,... assuming one is able to provide a logic different way to read them, ... and I am really looking forward first to read the facts acceptance never read so far by some, ... and after their way to connect them in a logic interpretation comprehensive way like I am doing, ... from the Board of Inquiry request for those 2 Officers, ... until the final rewarding by the King.

Lets see how many fair persons writing here in lately will do it ...

Bye Antonio