The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

thanks Marc.

In reality, the single document of Adm Tovey, his report called dispatches is this one : Home Fleet, 5th July, 1941 No. 896/H.F. 1325.

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 9tovey.htm

Here you have the Adm Tovey dispatches document for your convenience in their originally printed version on the London Gazette on October 14th, 1947 :

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/L ... /38098.pdf

The Adm 234-509 containing it and all the other documents is something different, lately called Battle Summary Number 5, and carefully analyzed by Ltnt Cdr Pitcairn-Jones which, ... as we all know well, ... corrected on it on 1948 the incorrect 06:13 statement of Adm Tovey and moved it back to the correct 06:03.

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All

Thank you Antonio, I agree with you that the preliminary report was seen as it is mentioned in handwriting at the top of the page on document 332 19th September 41 (ref "See M08524/41' which equates to C in C preliminary report).

The date of the Barnes letter was 10th September which would fit with idea that the despatch and the appendices would be seen including the most important ones including Leach which gave PoW damage lists and the circumstances of the break off.

Best wishes
Cag

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

given what we have analyzed and read I think that even a simple mind cannot believe any longer that all the persons we are talking about did not know the truth and what was going on behind the scenes.

It is logic and it is also obvious, and I am absolutely not surprised about it now like I was not surprised 4 years ago when I first started analyzing and reading about all this story.

Now the whole scenario is vert well defined with key events, documents, dates, ... and the key persons involved on this.

Admiralty_boards.jpg (25.66 KiB) Viewed 1129 times

What surprised me lately is to have find out that there was an Official Historian about Royal Navy on WW2, ... Stephen Roskill, ... and that he knew already everything about it, from the Military involvement up until the political correlations and evidence.

But after I have realized who he was, ... just like Graham Rhys-Jones, ... Pitcairn_Jones, ... and Russell Grenfell, ... everything was a lot easier to follow thru.

The above are just the recent ones I read with a lot of interest, waiting for new ones like Corelli Barnett to be added to my list.

Bye. Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Wadinga:
Hi Sean,
unfortunately, even after having been WRONG on all your recent statements, you don't give up in your distorted view of a kind of "mission" to guard the honor of these officers......

I was thinking not to answer at all to your last trolling post, where you mix "Hornblower" with "That Hamilton Woman", "the yacht" with "Longmore", just because you have NOT a single evidence to provide to sustain your vain denials. Also, you insist with the Pound's "pusillanimous report".....Shame on you, for using this wording, that I don't use, even speaking of much more debatable behaviors here !

However, I cannot let you provide FALSE info to everybody once more (even if I clearly see your trolling attitude now, as Antonio already noticed):

you wrote: "They were sailing across the Atlantic on the Prince of Wales"

Tovey was NOT sailing to Placentia. He had the Home Fleet to manage..... Please think before posting!
According to Alexander, Churchill had very full discussions with Leach AND with Tovey about the "aspects" needing "explanations". Tovey was not sailing with him, therefore the discussions with him did not happen because he had nothing better to do on board of a ship......


also

you wrote: "Although not very legible, and starting with an A, the last two letters are clearly CT. Probably some minor pencil pusher. It would be surprising if the First Lord of the Admiralty had nothing better to do than follow up minor bureaucratic matters "

Not at all. Apart from the fact that it is just a nonsense to think that a "secretary" can write to Churchill suggesting him what to do, you "should" ( ) be able to see the same initials in another page of the same ADM 205/10...... A.V.A. are the initials of Alexander (see here below from his signature), even if only the "A" is clearly readable on page 333.

Alexander_initials(1).jpg (13.59 KiB) Viewed 1124 times

Anyway. he is the First Lord and he is addressed in some papers of ADM 205/10, that means he actually had "nothing better to do" than treating this sensitive matter, apparently not a mere bureaucratic point, as per your nonsense (if it was a bureaucratic matter, why to write to the Prime Minister at all?).


Bye, Alberto

[Cag]

Hi All

Hi Alberto, thank you for posting the Alexander signature to be honest I'm not sure the signature is AVA, the upward rising pen mark at the end of the signature does not match Alexander's finishing A.

Obviously I have only seen the copy shown here and it is probably of no significance in any event.

Hi Antonio please do not take this the wrong way but from what I've read from Graham Rhys Jones Grenfell and Roskill the general feeling given by them regarding the CM threat and Pound and Phillips is that it showed both of them in a very bad light. The words used seem to suggest that any CM would be over zealous etc and not really anything else.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Herr Nilsson]

What doesn't fit will be made to fit.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

Alexander_signature.jpg (58.29 KiB) Viewed 1115 times

Marc, I think as you can see above that the signature was from A.V.A. (First Lord of the Admiralty Sir Albert Victor Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Hillsborough ).
Anyway even if that letter was written and signed by one of his assistants, ...it will be a minor difference, ... because as you can see on the answer on 334 page signature ( in RED ) I am anticipating his signature is there in short form, ... so he was fully aware of both the 4 days before letter to Churchill, ... that I think he signed in short form now almost not readable because of the ink, ... as well as of Churchill response few days after, on the 29th.



CAG, everybody of us surely have his own opinion about Royal Navy traditions, ... the Nelsonian times, ... the Articles of War, ... the WW1 and Jutland still strong discipline ... and the Royal Navy different reality in WW2, ... on a very different time and situations, ... about the strong back seat driving pressure and judgement ... etc etc ...

I do not intend to go into this type of discussions here in of course, it does not make any sense here now.

I wrote it just to let you know that I can read on those books those statemenst very often, ... here and there, ... I am aware of them.

What we need here to finish up is the correct re-contruction of the historical events, ... not to judge or justify them against the changing times and the still very strong discipline articles of war and court martial threats.

The correct historical re-construction enables the correct reading of documents and maps, teh understanding of everything.

Once this will be done, ... everybody of us will have a clear view and eiither change or keep or even reinforce his own previous opinion about the facts, ... this is not important for me.

What is important for me is to find and present the historical truth as much as I can.

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi all,
here the signature on page 333 of ADM 205/10:

333_signature.jpg (7.12 KiB) Viewed 1086 times

the initials of Alexander:

Alexander_initials.jpg (14.98 KiB) Viewed 1086 times

and the initials on page 333 completed of the parts missing in the (bad quality) copy. Sorry for my limited graphic capabilities (I could not have the 2 of them oriented in the same way)....

333_signature_1.jpg (7.5 KiB) Viewed 1086 times

Of course any better interpretation may be valid, but, as Antonio anticipated, there is another ADM 205/10 page (the 334) where the office of the Prime Minister answers to the First Lord (Alexander) minute from September 25, clearly referencing it (that is referencing pag.333)......

Therefore, whoever signed the page 333, the answer from Downing Street was addressed to Alexander, therefore......


The key point at pag.333 is however the FACT that W.Churchill was so poorly interested to the "aspects" requiring "explanations" at Denmark Strait that he had "very full discussionS" (plural.....) with both Tovey and Leach "about the CONDUCT of the action", before he took a decision on what to do next......


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,


BRAVO Alberto,

I have tried to explain the concept of 2 styles of signature, ... the full version and the short version, ... but as I have written days ago, ... it was you that correctly re-constructed the signature of Sir Alexander in the short form version, ... either done by himself or by one of his assistants.

But now, to resolve definitively also this doubt as you correctly anticipated above, here comes the page 334, ... the closing statement by the Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, ... on the next day September 26th, 1941, ... responding to the First Lord of the Admiralty Sir Alexander, and consequently clearing any doubt about who was sending on the previous day the page 333 letter to him, ... that either personally signed by Sir Alexander as we assume, ... or signed by one of his assistants copying his short form signature style ( A.V.A. ), ... was addressing to him the above written questions.

334
Prime minister Symbol
10 Downing Street

26th, September 1941.

Dear Jarret,

The Prime Minister has read the First Lord's minute of the 25th September about the minutes of the War Cabinet meeting on 2nd June W.M. (41) 56th Conclusion, Item 1 ) and has minuted on it : - " Leave it. W.S.C 25.9. "

Your Sincerely, John Peck ( signature )


Note in RED aside left : 1st Sea Lord to act. Signed A.V.A 29/9 ( Sir Alexander )


C.G. Jarrett, Esq., Admiralty

Adm_205_10_page_334_WSC.jpg (41.63 KiB) Viewed 1067 times

NOTES :

Sir John Peck was one of Churchill's wartime private secretaries.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 68846.html

C.G. Jarrett, Esq., Admiralty
Principal Private Secretary to First Lord. — C. G. Jarrett, Esq.
http://digital.nls.uk/british-military- ... nscription

I hope it will be not necessary to explain to everybody what 10 Dowing Street and the Prime Minister Logo means.

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi all,
I have to correct one wrong sentence in my last post.

I wrote:"Therefore, whoever signed the page 333, the answer from Downing Street was addressed to Alexander, therefore....."

It should have been:
Therefore, whoever signed the page 333, the answer from Downing Street was addressed to the Admiralty, referencing Alexander's minute on 25/9, therefore.....

Bye, Alberto

[Cag]

Hi All

Hi Alberto thanks for that, the original scan was too unclear but that helps a great deal.

So we know from correspondance in 205/10 that the M08524/41 preliminary report is also referenced. We also have mention of the discussions between Churchill and Leach etc regarding the conduct of the action or put another way how the action went. The loss of Hood would also be of interest as would be the loss of Bismarck.

We have the M011222/41 despatch and appendices for the board.

Best wishes
Cag

[Alberto Virtuani]

Cag wrote: "the conduct of the action or put another way how the action went. "

Hi Mr.Cag,
I'm afraid I'm really tired of these very unfair "English language sophistries" used with non-native speaking people.....

"Conduct" IS NOT "how it went" as per your "approximate (to be kind....) "interpretation".....

but it is "The manner in which a person behaves, especially in a particular place or situation"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/conduct
or "a mode or standard of personal behavior especially as based on moral principles e.g.questionable conduct"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conduct
or "the way someone behaves" (in Italian "condotta")
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/it/diz ... no/conduct

Therefore in this context "conduct" is "how (Leach) behaved during the action" or "how the action was conducted (by Leach)" because there is always an implication of personal behavior in this word....

This is extremely clear also in the second article from the "Articles of War" : "Misconduct in presence of the enemy", that, btw, is precisely the relevant article in this case:
http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm

I do hope we will not start another discussion like the lamentable one on the "past perfect tense", referred to Leach junior and senior dinner at Singapore.......


Bye, Alberto

[Cag]

Hi All

Forgive me Alberto but the conduct of a person is entirely different to the conduct of an inanimate object such as a battle.

Just to point out an inanimate object cannot be judged as to it's behaviour as it is inanimate. I'm afraid this is a fact.

The phrase used is I believe conduct of the battle, not anything else. Had it been ''conduct in the action' or the 'conduct of officers in the action' then you can assume what you have assumed.

To be fair I understand your mistake but once more for clarity, an inanimate object like a battle cannot display behavioural traits, it is a battle. Therefore conduct in this sense of the word as applied to an inanimate object denotes something else entirely.

Your second example proves this, misconduct in the face of the enemy is applied to a person not an object. A ship for example cannot be charged with misconduct, a person can.

Best wishes
Cag

[Cag]

Hi All

Hi Alberto just to add as I missed your point, please believe that I'm not attempting to play with words, to me to discuss the conduct of the action means discussion of what occurred, what and how it happened.

To have discussed the conduct in the action would mean looking at how those participating acted.

I realise it may seem to be splitting hairs but it is quite important to understand the difference. I'm sure if you look it up you'll find there is a difference. I would not want you to base anything on something that may be called into question later.

Hope you understand

Best wishes
Cag.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Mr.Cag,

you had written: "We also have mention of the discussions between Churchill and Leach etc regarding the conduct of the action or put another way how the action went."

you have written: "To have discussed the conduct in the action would mean looking at how those participating acted".

I'm very happy to see that you have realized how wrong was your first statement. The second one is totally different and it is exactly one out of the two possible meanings I had put in my previous post:

I wrote: "

conduct" is "how (Leach) behaved during the action" or "how the action was conducted (by Leach)"

Even if I was clearly "preferring" the first one, I'm happy with the second one as well..... . The key point is that the word "conduct" implies the behavior (or how he acted) not the result of the action (as per your first statement):

I'm happy to consider this as an unintentional error of yours, but I would ask everybody here please not to play with words and to try to discuss the important NEW evidence just posted by Antonio.


Bye, Alberto