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,

@ CAG,

the remarks I have written above is for everybody that would like once again to try to diverge from the available evidence we now have at hand provided in written form on his books by the Official Historian of the Royal Navy for WW2, namely Stephen Roskill.

They were NOT in particular directed to you, since you personally did not dedicated your forum activities on the recent past on doing so.

If I can provide to you my personal opinion about the " charges " discussion you are having with Alberto, I think we all shloud be looking now to find the original letters between Adm Tovey and Stephen Roskill and read what is written into them.

It seems to me evident that the main target of the Court Martial threat discussion was Wake-Walker from a certain point after, that is why the main argument utilized referring to the Court Martial attemp was the failure to re-engage, and in fact listening to Colin McMullen interview on the IWM that is what he referred to while recalling is memory from Adm Tovey visit to his uncle Adm Blake/02

Obvioully a possible more careful review conducted on his father biography book by Sir Henry Leach went a bit deeper on the reasons for the Court Martial attempt toward his father, and we can read the different potential logic charge clearly written in there.

We need to dig a bit deeper into the Adm 205/10 as Stephen Roskill wrote as well as into his letters exchange with Tovey and maybe with somebody else too about this " regrettable aftermath " that no one can put in discussion any more.

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 »

Cag wrote: "...you give up and are exhausted! ....... I'm absolutely shattered!"
Hi Mr.Cag,
yes you are right. I have given up and I'm ready to admit that the Court Martial charge was ONLY "failure to re-engage after Hood was sunk". You can easily "win" here now. :stop:


HOWEVER, before I do, PLEASE ANSWER the key question I'm repeating to you since pages: do you finally accept that the Court Martial attempt for certain senior officerS (for whatever charge you prefer to believe to) cannot be considered anymore an anecdotal story, after Roskill clearly confirmed it as a fact in his books ?

It will not take much time to you. A simple yes or no will suffice. No direct answer (not really needed anymore according to Antonio wise considerations above) from you demonstrates just that you are to be listed among the ones that "refuse at any cost all evidences", (as I have suspected since the beginning) and as I have already told you: in case of no answer, I "win" here. :wink:


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)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All,

Hi Antonio no problem I'm glad I'm not a Byzantine denier as I would have to look it up in a dictionary to understand it (Ha ha)! I'm due some archive visits next week so I'll let you know what I find out.

Hi Alberto, I'm sorry but this must be very boring for a lot of people, including you and I. I'm really confused by your meaning as I've been answering your question for the past few posts.......and beyond! If you read my previous posts they mainly concern whether a conviction was possible to such a threatened charge so I'm a bit shocked by the phrase 'finally accepting' too! If discussing how likely a conviction was is not proof of acceptance I'm not sure what is!

I have to wonder is it that I'm not making it clear enough for you or are you missing the point of what I've written? I'm not sure what I can do to clarify it any more than I have already have done.

However I will attempt one more time (I hope!!) to reiterate what is already stated in my earlier posts just for you,

Yes I believe there is evidence referenced in the books that I mentioned in my posts above that Tovey stated in a letter that a court martial was threatened. Yes I believe that Roskill and or Kennedy must have seen such a letter and the charges it contained to quote them in their books. No I don't believe Wills saw such a letter as he uses the Kennedy book as his source and his threatened charges differs from theirs. No I don't know how Roskill and or Kennedy personally viewed the validity of the threat in the letter not having spoke to them, Wadinga states it was unfavourable, but I don't know and so can't and won't guess as this would be pure opinion and not fact.

I hope this helps and you 'finally accept' that I have been answering your question for the past few posts!

Best wishes
Cag.
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 »

Hi Mr. Cag,
thanks, everything is much more clear now except whether you consider the CM threaten as a fact (like me, Antonio, Sir Henry Leach and of course Roskill) or as a Tovey invention (like Wadinga and Kennedy).
Can you please clarify ?

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)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All,

Hi Alberto, please forgive me but....are you seriously asking again?

Best wishes
Cag.
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 »

Hi Mr. Cag,
yes because I don't like indirect answer.
Do you consider the CM threaten as a fact (like me, Antonio, Sir Henry Leach, Mc Mullen and of course Roskill, as per his clear statements) or as a Tovey invention (like Wadinga and Kennedy) ?

Is it so difficult to answer ? :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)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All,

Hi Alberto I'm sorry but this is getting a bit ridiculous.

If you cannot be bothered to actually read what I wrote in my post above specifically and clearly answering the points what can I do.

Best wishes
Cag.
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 »

@ Mr.Cag,
Q.E.D.
no answer to this simple question (fact or invention ?) will move you to the list of the ones "who deny any evidences at all costs".
Your game of being "open minded" is over.

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 All,

I would like to remind everybody I have not kept any material back and have reported accurately on the content of both Roskill's Churchill and the Admirals (even recommending people buy it!) and the contents of ADM 205/10

As these quotes prove:
I reactivated this thread because I had found new evidence ie the Cabinet Papers and the text of Pound's interim report in which he highlighted the need to establish whether PoW's temporary withdrawal was justified. I also highlighted the fact that neither from the Cabinet side nor the Admiralty side was anybody interested in following up on this and Churchill minuted "Leave it."

I emphasised that apart from this new information there was not a single instance of criticism, in a thick file of records at the National Archives including many secret documents, of either Leach or Wake-Walker, and only VCNS Phillips thought an award for Dalrymple-Hamilton unwarranted.
Oct 10th

As a reminder, this is what is actually in 205/10 and there is no indication there ever was detailed correspondence between WSC, Alexander and Pound about the CMDS threat. Roskill is deliberately misleading by suggesting there is anything there other than bureaucratic loose-end chasing over a requested response to Pound's incomplete, inaccurate interim report. I posted it on Sept 5th.

As a reminder, Alberto, Pound's unhelpful, premature and ill-informed remarks to the Cabinet meeting were related to Leach's withdrawal, not any renewal of action. How could they relate to Wake-Walker as Pound was on record as saying his actions were "admirable".
As a recent retiree, I now have more time to devote to this matter, and have recently visited the PRO at Kew and viewed the documents which Antonio has kindly reproduced as well as many others on the subject, which he may also have seen. As my web skills improve I hope to make photos of original documents available.

As a summary, I have discovered only one thing to suggest there was the slightest criticism of Leach's and W-W actions. The documents include the minutes of the British Government Cabinet meeting at 17:00 on the 26th May at which Pound gave a description of the action so far, which lead to a request (from someone) for a more detailed report as to why PoW had disengaged. We should realise that this was full membership meeting including Churchill, Eden, Beaverbrook, and the entire wartime Cabinet, ie an inexpert political caucus who merely understood that 2 British battleships and 2 British cruisers had fought one of each category German ships and they wanted to know why they had lost and disengaged, at a time when Bismarck's demise was not certain or even likely. Later, on the 31st July the secretary of the Cabinet (Private Office), responsible for following up on the minutes has pointed out to Pound's office that no such amplification has been received. Pound's assistant observes that since he, Pound, he has discussed this with Churchill, no further action is required. Pound's own note, written in green ink says he will take Tovey's despatch with him next time. A further note, dated 25th September from Pound's office to Churchill offers to make the report requested to Cabinet, since Tovey's despatch is fully understood, but observes that since Churchill has discussed the matter with both Pound and Captain Leach ie during the Placentia Bay voyage (August), there seems little point in such an exercise. It is clearly an irrelevant requirement since Churchill responds tersely through his representative (signed J K Peek) "Leave it!" on 26th September.

This bureaucratic exchange of requests for "outstanding matters" is all I found suggesting there was any question over Leach's and W-W's actions, and then only from a non-expert question raised during as a minor matter in a Cabinet meeting far more concerned with the unfolding disaster in Crete and whether conscription should be introduced in Northern Ireland. It spent far more time and effort on the outraged communication from De Valera Prime Minister of the Irish Free State demanding that no Irishmen should be forced to serve in the British Forces. As far as the Cabinet was concerned, and the Prime Minister as well, Bismarck was just one of several matters discussed and the request for further information on PoW's retreat an extremely minor matter.

There is no evidence here at all that any court martial was contemplated.................
Antonio, when you read all of Churchill and the Admirals you will see many detailed examples of WSC's meddling, even down to demanding an officer be put on half-pay for failing to prioritise information in relation to the North Case. If there had ever been a serious suggestion of CMDS, do you really think a petulant counter threat by Tovey would have |"defeated it"?

Cag, you are maintaining your cool well under intense provocation........we have all experienced it at times. But please hang on in there. You are well informed (archive visits) and a most valuable contributor. You are the latest to have reviewed A & A's unfounded allegations and when you question them find yourself branded "denier". Keep this up and you will achieve "side-taken Hooligan" in no time! :clap: :clap: :clap: Watch out for what you say however:
and the charges it contained to quote them in their books
Actually nobody, NOBODY quotes detail from the letters. Roskill and Kennedy represent the content, but not the actual words, except for the glib phrase "I heard no more about it". I consider neither Roskill nor Kennedy believed the content of the threat enough to quote it.

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,

@ Wadinga,

now, before taking any other step about this now well proved " regrettable aftermath " I want to have everything available in my hands, either from the Adm 205/10 as well as from the Churchill archives where all Stephen Roskill material is preserved.

However, it should be considered that :

1) There are NO DOUBTS about Stephen Roskill fully supporting this fact, as clearly stated on his 2 books with notes too.

2) There are NO DOUBTS that Kennedy first wrote what he knew being really written by Adm Tovey about the Court martial attempt he defeated on his book chapter, well knowing that it was a real Adm Tovey disclosure thanking Roskill/Tovey letters that Roskill nicely provided to him, ... and only AFTER and I can add VERY UNFAIRLY tried to define Adm Tovey unreliable with his footnote referencing a potential late life dementia affecting Adm Tovey.

I personally think you got confused between the books and the footnotes if I go back and read your post's where you always stated that it was Roskill always getting information's from Kennedy, while in reality it was the other way around.

You are correct only about one thing which is the fact that Stephen Roskill did not want to be the first one to disclose this " regrettable aftermath " I suppose respecting the Royal Navy image traditions that was not going to be shining about it, ... but after Sir L. Kennedy did it and did it on the way we can all read as I have told you above, ... we can read what was Stephen Roskill reaction about it.
First he clearly explained why he did not do it himself, and soon after provided a confirmation with supporting evidences of this fact.

To make a long story short, as I have told you several times already, you are here comparing a " mountain " ( Stephen Roskill ) with a " small stone " like Sir L. Kennedy appears when compared to an historian of the level of Stephen Roskill.

Now you and everybody else can choose if you like to remain on the " small stone " side with that ridiculous and offensive trial to disqualify Adm Tovey done by Kennedy on his book Pursuit, ... or more wisely move yourself on the " mountain " side and accept what Stephen Roskill wrote on 2 books about this story.

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 )
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All,

Hi Alberto, right lets tackle this head on, if an eminent writer in his book tells me that a person gave him his memory of an event in a letter, and a similarly eminent writer also gives me an example of a similar reference it must mean the letter and the evidence of it in the published works has substance. Any problems or doubts so far?

As I have repeated throughout my posts and in my lengthy explanation above when dealing in actual facts my belief and opinion are irrelevant to the discussion as they are opinion not fact.

If you still require my opinion then personally I have no doubt in the existence of the letters and of the remembrance by the originator contained within them are real.

However out of respect for that originator I'm not going to be drawn on the state of that persons memory at that time and no one will alter that. I did not know him or anyone who did and have no access to that persons medical records, none of us do so I will not comment. Again any problems or doubts so far?

As far as I can recollect McMullen supports, by his personal memory, the originator of it talking about it. That further gives proof of existence of the originators recollection.

One of the eminent writers as well as others give their opinion of the merit of the memory of the originator at the time of the writing of the letter. I can neither vouch or refute that and anything else would be speculation on my part.

The other makes no mention of his personal opinion of the memory of the originator whatsoever as far as I can tell only stating that he received letters holding those memories. Any opinion of that is again speculation. Similarly what Mr McMullens opinion on the memory of the originator is as far as I know also unknown.

Essentially we have a set of statements regarding a recollection, and we have here on this forum two opposing views of the merit of that recollection.

Then we have a no doubt very large group of people who retain an open mind as in reality all we have to go on is varying opinions here on this forum. If you believe it to be factual that a threat took place, I'm happy to accept that. If Wadinga believes that it came from a false or confused memory I'm happy to accept that too.

You have my personal belief above but as I have said in my previous post I can't and won't guess or state it as a fact because I can't until I have seen the documentation myself and even then it is open to personal interpretation and any possible unconscious bias.

I will add that I do not consider this discussion as someone winning or losing, if that is your interpretation then I'm unsure how to respond to that.

I do believe that everyone has the right to express an opinion or withhold an opinion if they so choose without being subject to silly accusations or a demand to make their opinion known.

Best wishes
Cag.
Last edited by Cag on Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Hi Mr.Cag,
if I try to summarize your post, the answer to my question (fact or invention) is that YES you personally believe that the CM threat was real, but that you consider it just a personal OPINION and not a fact, despite Roskill (an historian) is supporting it against a novelist (Kennedy) and we are speaking about history.

I'm happy to accept this position of yours and of course thanks for your patience: I need direct answers.We will see if we can find some more evidence in addition to Roskill that will add also to McMullen and Sir Henry.


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)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All,

Hi Alberto, I think I've given very direct answers, and thank you I do have a great deal of patience, my worry however is everyone else's patience on this matter may be rapidly wearing out.

From notes I made from Roskills book Churchill and the Admirals I think he states he had letters from Tovey regarding this 'regrettable aftermath' am I correct? Does it state his personal opinion of the merit of this memory or is there nothing except a statement that he received letters? Does he cite Kennedy as a source, the page etc?

Luckily we can also see what Kennedy thought in these pages at the beginning of this discussion. However out of respect I will not discuss the state of Toveys memory, and also because I have no idea of the medical or family details regarding it and will not therefore speculate nor should I, nor will I comment on your description of the relative merits of Mr Roskill versus Mr Kennedy.

As given above my personal opinion is that I consider the threat of a court martial as remembered by Tovey as a reality as is his memory of a signal made by Churchill.

Now without knowing his mental state (and not really wanting therefore to speculate upon it without the facts) and having opposing opinions regarding it I can only offer my personal opinion given above and in my previous posts. But it is not a statement of fact but just my personal belief.

I think that I've again stated my position pretty much as clearly as I can, as I say an open mind is all I can offer as in a factual discussion without having all the facts that is all anyone can really do.

Best wishes
Cag.
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 »

@all:
I have just received the material I have ordered to the Churchill Archive. A very expensive set of letters and files, covered by copyright.
However, in order to close this very unfair novel invented by Kennedy to discredit Tovey, I can post here their content that relates to:
Cag wrote: " From notes I made from Roskills book Churchill and the Admirals I think he states he had letters from Tovey regarding this 'regrettable aftermath' am I correct? Does it state his personal opinion of the merit of this memory or is there nothing except a statement that he received letters? "
Hi Mr.Cag, yes it does.

This is the content of a letter written by Roskill to Kennedy when he was reviewing his draft "Pursuit" and correcting the many errors in it, due to Kennedy poor naval knowledge and historian skill, mostly inspired by his agenda to magnify the DS protagonists:
Roskill to Kennedy on 1973: "About Paffard's memories referred to at page 8, I am sure he is only correct about the last years of Tovey's life. Between about 1952 and 1960 he often came to see me bringing letters and papers, and was enormously interested in my work, all of which he read in draft. It was only at the end of his life that he became what Paffard calls a 'hermit'. "
This will hopefully close the debate about Tovey's memories when referring to the Court Martial, a clear and evident fact, not an opinion, confirmed in writing by Roskill against the very unfair Kennedy insinuations, inspired by his "one-sided" view. :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)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:@all:
I have just received the material I have ordered to the Churchill Archive. A very expensive set of letters and files, covered by copyright.
However, in order to close this very unfair novel invented by Kennedy to discredit Tovey, I can post here their content that relates to:
Cag wrote: " From notes I made from Roskills book Churchill and the Admirals I think he states he had letters from Tovey regarding this 'regrettable aftermath' am I correct? Does it state his personal opinion of the merit of this memory or is there nothing except a statement that he received letters? "
Hi Mr.Cag, yes it does.

This is the content of a letter written by Roskill to Kennedy when he was reviewing his draft "Pursuit" and correcting the many errors in it, due to Kennedy poor naval knowledge and historian skill, mostly inspired by his agenda to magnify the DS protagonists:
Roskill to Kennedy on 1973: "About Paffard's memories referred to at page 8, I am sure he is only correct about the last years of Tovey's life. Between about 1952 and 1960 he often came to see me bringing letters and papers, and was enormously interested in my work, all of which he read in draft. It was only at the end of his life that he became what Paffard calls a 'hermit'. "
This will hopefully close the debate about Tovey's memories when referring to the Court Martial, a clear and evident fact, not an opinion, confirmed in writing by Roskill against the very unfair Kennedy insinuations, inspired by his "one-sided" view. :negative:


Bye, Alberto
Kennedy notes in Pursuit (p.284) Tovey's errors in memory during 1954 regarding D/F bearing errors and a signal from the Admiralty. We have documented proof, via letters from Tovey to Roskill in 1954, that Tovey's memory was failing in the early to mid 1950s.
Locked