@ Dunmunro,
Duncan, during a demonstration the presenter can utilize part of documents or maps highlighting them in order to have the readers attention on particular aspects of the discussion going on.
Just be patient, ... you will have the whole document and the time to comment on it, ... do not worry.
Now, talking about unfairness ( and I am kind now ) lets see what somebody was trying to reduce this argument to having had the chance before anybody here in to read the Adm 205/10 documents and correlate them to the War Cabunet minutes 56 ( and obviously the 53 ) that the 56th is clearly referring to.
Here what Wadinga wrote ( by wadinga » Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:33 pm ) :
So, I read it :However you say
Nothing required an INQUIRY (whatever you choose to capitalise) Pound merely said someone would find out why the radar had malfunctioned and other matters. He volunteered "Whether she had been right in doing so". By my reading of WM 41 53 there was no discussion of the Bismarck action, no questioning of why Pound might have thought Leach's action was unwarranted, in fact no reaction at all and therefore no requirement for any response from the Admiralty. If WSC was still supposed be seething why not? There was a discussion about losses on a 20th May convoy. There was more discussion about Crete.From the War Cabinet minute 53 of May 26th, requiring an INQUIRY, everything " changed " by the time the War Cabinet minute 56 Item 1 that was written on June 2nd, 1941, and the INQUIRY of May 26th, became an EXPLANATION request on June 2nd, 1941.
1) NO discussion according to him about the Bismarck action on W.R. 53 -> " By my reading of WM 41 53 there was no discussion of the Bismarck action,... " ...
2) Nothing requiring an INQUIRY according to him -> " Nothing required an INQUIRY (whatever you choose to capitalise) " ...
3) NO reaction and NO response from the Admiralty according to Wadinga about Capt Leach being unwarranted for the PoW disengagement -> " ... in fact no reaction at all and therefore no requirement for any response from the Admiralty. " ...
Now in light of that Adm 331 first part request from the W.R. secretary referring the 56 open explanations needed on " certain aspects referring to PoW disengagement while in action " ( and back to the 53 when the explanation were INQUIRY matters ) lets see and compare the content of Adm Pound presentation with Wadinga above statements :
Here you go, we just compare now with the above statements by Wadinga :
It should be clear to everybody ( either English native speackers or not ) by the way the Adm Pound presentation is written, that it was a narrative about the action involving the Bismarck ( 1st Wadinga point being clearly incorrect ), ... with a clear reference to an INQUIRY to be done on several MATTERS, ... ( 2nd point by Wadinga clearly incorrect too ) ... and a CLEAR STATEMENT interrupting the narrative, ... consequently HIGHLIGHTED, ... where Adm Pound is clearly stating ( STATEMENT ) that the PoW disengagement is going to be evaluated for being right or not due to the previosus narrative period events listed before, ... consequently it is one of the MATTERS in discussion for the INQUIRY previously declared, ... and in my opinion the MOST IMPORTANT ONE, ... given the fact he interrupted the narrative in order to make that clear STATEMENT ( 3rd point by Wadinga being incorrect too and misleading ), ... while he did not do that for the RD/F jamming less important matter.
Are you able to follow me now ?
Lets see what the Adm 331 first part is highlighting now :
It is clear like the sun that it refers to this statement on W.M. 56 Item 01 ( Note : W.M. = War Cabinet Minute ) :
But we are lucky, because it connects the WR. 56 Item 1 with the previous W.R. 53 Adm Pound presentation very evidently ( ref. is PRIMA FACIE = Adm Pound presentation on May 26th on W.M. 53 ), ... and it does provide us the way to read it correctly, ... and what in PRIMA FACIE remained to be now EXPLAINED is very clearly the STATEMENT that Adm Pound put in between the 2 narrative periods on May 26th, 1941, ... when he was talking about an INQUIRY need into several MATTERS, ... and NOT ONLY about " certains aspects " explanation they had become only by June 2nd, 1941 on W.M. 56.Ref. WAR CABINET minute 56 (1941) Item 1 of June 2nd, 1941; point regarding the Bismarck.
A full report would also be made regarding certain aspects of the action which, PRIMA FACIE, seemed to require explanation.
Of course the Adm 331 part 1 above also demonstrate Wadinga point 3 being absolutely incorrect since the Admiralty had probaly still a report ( ref. further report ) to be provided about the PoW disengagement MATTER on July 31st, 1941, ... as it is clearly written in there.
Hope that you are still with me now, ... because this is NOT only the way I read this, ... but more important it is the way Stephen Roskill read it, ... and the way Wadinga has been unable to read and realize according to yesterday totally incorrect post he wrote.
Unable or he did not want it to and tried to minimize it intentionally with a subterfuge ?
Will you be able to read it correctly now that I took you by hand thru the logic of it STEP by STEP ?
It is ALL here above for you and everybody else to read it now.
Bye Antonio