The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

Once again you make the deliberate mistake, even though you have posted the relevant wording yourself for the purpose of a Board of Enquiry as stated in King's Regs.

Like it or not that was a start of a discipline action

No. like it or not it would have been merely the start of an information gathering exercise. There is no mention of "discipline" for anyone. And it was abandoned instantaneously by the apparent instigator, because, obviously, he personally had no real interest in pursuing it. He knew there was no truth in it.

It will be interesting to find out the exact brief of Lord Cork was when required to investigate "something" about Sparviento.

accept the simple fact that it did happen, since it is proven and properly documented now. Why ?

With completely fabricated "motives" "facts and "evidence". Why not?

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

somebody that very evidently has never been an Officer, ... does not like to admit the simple fact that a request of a Board of Inquiry for the conduct while in action of 2 Officers is NOT an informative request like he would like to try to sell it.

It is a well defined disciplinary action request, and in fact it is listed in that paragraph on the index, ... the final goal was the Circumstantial Letter by Tovey starting the Court Martial for them in fact, ... just as Tovey declared after to Roskill.

In any case is something far away thousand miles from a request of a medal, ... that was the solution taken after few months, ... after some intentional lies written ( Tovey dispatches ) and accepted ( Admiralty - Barnes letter ).

Are you able to realize it ? Finally ...

I still cannot believe there are still " deniers " trying to avoid to accept this simple fact ...

Bye Antonio

[northcape]

@ Herr Nillson,

thanks for having underlined that here in this forum we have a lot ( apparently ) of persons writing about military arguments that never wear an uniform and pretend to explain to the ones having done it, ... even being Officers, ... what are the usual way to do things into a military environment.


Bye Antonio

Don't have basic knowledge about navigation? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time.
Don't know how to evaluate documents and historic notes? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time.
Being not responsive to facts and arguments, even if it presented a thousand times? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time.
Being obsessed with irrelevant information? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time.
Being caught all the time of lying and intended misrepresentation of facts? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time.
Cannot write a single sentence without putting three dots in the center or adding a childish smiley? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time.
Don't know how to evaluate relevant data (logs, times, bearings)? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time.
Having a fantasy idea about real-world military actions? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time (in peace time).
Repeating the same nonsense again and again and again? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time.

I see now, that is really comfortable!

[wadinga]

Hello All,

I haven't found Lord Cork's brief, but here is his personal letter to Somerville, after he had delivered his official verdict.

I hope that after what passed yesterday that you not feel I have not sympathised with you in the position in which you have been placed after your successful action last week. I have very much.

It is possible however that you take rather too harsh a view of the Admiralty action for the following reasons.

There are always critics ready to raise their voices and suggest what might have been done although they are quite ignorant of what really happened or of the prevailing conditions.

These people, impatient for results, exist both in and out of Admiralty and in high quarters (I speak from personal experience) and no doubt have raised their voices on this occasion and the most expeditious way of silencing them has in this case been adopted.

As a result I do not think you need anticipate anything further, this is as far as I can judge and sincerely hope.

All best wishes for the future to you personally, and to your fine command.

"too harsh a view of the Admiralty action" - ie Pound had to do it Winston forced him.

"critics ready to raise their voices" - ie Winston

"quite ignorant of what really happened" - ie Winston

"the most expeditious way of silencing them" - ie have an enquiry and shut Winston up.

Does any of this sound familiar? Except that Pound knew there was so little reason for an enquiry into W-W and Leach he abandoned the idea instantaneously.


Winston had Somerville down for replacement long before Spartivento, because he had gone on record criticizing the Oran attack and the dismissal of Admiral North over Dakar, another of Churchill's wheezes. Therefore Winston was keen to push for an enquiry because of personal animosity. The PM had no such longstanding animosity against Wake-Walker and Leach, may not even have known their names, and Pound could be confident he would forget all about his childish outburst at Chequers soon enough, which he did. Pound could give Wake-Walker the effective role of C-in-C Home Fleet for the forthcoming carrier operations and return Leach to his ship ready to chauffeur Winston across the Atlantic, not because of a complex reimagining of reports, but because there never was any cause for an enquiry in the first place. He had complete faith in his officers.

Tovey never mentioned a circumstantial letter in in his late-life recollections, he never mentioned a Board of Enquiry either, a requirement before any Court Martial could be instigated. It is splendid that Antonio seizes on one element of procedure, to give a semblance of interest in truth, whilst ignoring the main elements. Unless there was loss of a vessel, there could be no proceeding to Court Martial immediately, something Tovey's hazy recollections of 15-20 years later conveniently forgot. CMDS is a myth.

As for wearing a snowy white suit in a minor Peacetime navy, mostly nailed to the dock (end on) enjoying La Dolce Vita, chatting up the Ragazze, conferring superior insight into the circumstances of RN life in 1941, Yeah Right!

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

obviously I do not respond to ignorant incompetent persons writing offensive statements and never been able to write a single post with value add in this forum.

Moving ahead it seems that finally somebody realized that the Board of Inquiry was asked by Adm Pound to Adm Tovey about RearAdm Wake-Walker and Capt Leach conduct while in action.

@ Herr Nillson,

please take note and move ahead from your " denier " position, ... somebody here above has finally admitted that the Board of Inquiry was asked in writings, ...

... alleluja, ...

... hopefully we are moving ahead now, ... from a stubborn blind refusal position that cannot be maintained anymore after we have found the May 31st, 1941 letter in response from Adm Tovey to Adm Pound.

Now everybody knows that the same 2 Officers have been rewarded with medals by the King on October 1941.

The " deniers " now should be able to make the final effort, ... realizing how they went from position A ( Board of Inquiry ) to the position B ( Medals ).

It is not that difficult, ... I suggest everybody, ... even the incompetent ignorant limited brain writing here above, ... to read carefully Stephen Roskill and the ADM 205/10 at pages 331, 332, 333 and 334.

They are written in English, ... so even the very limited brain one's can read them if mother language ...

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

Once again you bend the truth to your purpose. But first, let me remind you (in case you had forgotten) who made this May 31st letter available to all interested parties and who refuses to make the so-called "Silver Bullet" available.

somebody here above has finally admitted that the Board of Inquiry was asked in writings,

We infer from Tovey's writing that Pound wanted an enquiry into W-W and Leach's conduct, but until we have the 24th May letter we do not know exactly what Pound asked for. Tovey's phrase "under any circumstances" is revealing. It is either just reinforcement, that is to say even if you gave me a direct order under threat, it would not happen or it refers to a qualification that Pound wrote in his May 24th letter?


This might have been, my speculation, "Winston is being tiresome again, just as in the Somerville case, and in order to mollify him, I want you to do some sort of Board of Enquiry, which will of course find there is no case to answer." (Because there is no case to answer, not because of a Conspiracy.) Tovey, who is aware of the sense of outrage at all levels in the fleet over the Board of Enquiry carried out on fellow Admiral Somerville, regarding an action in which he,Tovey, was a subordinate to him, says "not under any circumstances" that is whether it was a serious concern over the accused's performance or merely a charade to persuade Winston to stop interfering.


This seems to me extremely likely. Tovey spends little time defending W-W and Leach's actions, dismisses Pound's request in a peremptory fashion, and moves on swiftly to other, more cheerful matters. It is clear he knows Pound does not believe there is actually a case for W-W and Leach to answer, presumably from his wording of the May 24th letter, and he wastes no time in an extended defence. He knows Pound will accede. As we know "he heard no more of the matter".

Pound could give Wake-Walker the effective role of C-in-C Home Fleet for the forthcoming carrier operations and return Leach to his ship ready to chauffeur Winston across the Atlantic, not because of a complex reimagining of reports, but because there never was any cause for an enquiry in the first place. He had complete faith in his officers.

I am not sure if I am the particular

incompetent ignorant limited brain writing here above

so even the very limited brain one's can read them if mother language

But I have read

to read carefully Stephen Roskill

and I know he deliberately offloaded responsibility for the veracity of Tovey's allegations onto Kennedy. I have read the

ADM 205/10 at pages 331, 332, 333 and 334.

even before you, and I know that nowhere do they mention discipline, or Board of Enquiry and certainly not Court Martial.


All the best

wadinga

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
I see the debate is not diminishing!
Perhaps someone could take time to answer this for me.
If an officer, private or seaman heard or suspected that charges of anything from neglect of duty to cowardice are being prepared or even talked about do they not have a right under the articles of War to demand an inquiry or even a Court Martial to answer those charges and perhaps clear their name?
If so and Capt Leach and Admiral Wake- Walker had knowledge that Admiral Pound wanted a Court Martial why did they not demand one so they could clear their names?

[pgollin]

to explain to the ones [ having worn a uniform] having done it, ... even being Officers, ... what are the usual way to do things into a military environment. ......

...... the May 28th, 1941 letter from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey asking him to call a Board of Inquiry ....

....... Like it or not that was a start of a discipline action, ...

But you have demonstrated (despite your very limited, and hardly relevant, military experience) that you do NOT understand "the usual way to do things in(to) a military environment of the wartime Royal Navy. Indeed you demonstrate an extreme aversion to learning from people who have studied how the Royal Navy worked.

As pointed out above, you completely misunderstand what the purpose of a Board of Inquiry was. It was to establish the facts, it was not some sort of presumption of guilt - that may (I doubt it) be how the modern Italian military works, it certainly isn't how the RN worked either then, or now.

As long as you make simple errors and expose your ignorance then people have the right, indeed duty, to point out your errors and try to educate you.

.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: We infer from Tovey's writing that Pound wanted an enquiry into W-W and Leach's conduct....This might have been, my speculation, "Winston is being tiresome again, just as in the Somerville case, and in order to mollify him, I want you to do some sort of Board of Enquiry, which will of course find there is no case to answer." (Because there is no case to answer, not because of a Conspiracy.)"

Well, my own speculation about what Pound wrote is:
"Winston is furious and he wants the two of them, who left Bismarck escaping in Atlantic, postponing the importance to inflict further damage to her to their own safety (as per Troubridge case), to be Court Martialled, therefore please arrange a BofI in order to provide the evidence for holding a Court Martial."
This seems to me extremely MORE likely than Mr.Wadinga speculation, as the word Court Martial is well present in Tovey's answer and no sane officer would pronounce the word CM first, if not already used by his superior in clear.

The subsequent phone call, accounted for in the 1961 Tovey's letter to Roskill, clearly confirms my interpretation, countering Mr.Wadinga one.

Paul Mercer wrote: "...do they not have a right under the articles of War to demand an inquiry or even a Court Martial...?"

Hi Paul,
yes they have, but instead of "formally" accusing/inquiring/removing them, due to the fact that nobody after Bismarck sinking had any interest in ascertain the truth and/or in punishing them, the decision was to simply provide a version of facts that could exonerate the three of them (including Ellis) from any charge and this was the end of story with a "sugar-coating" or a "cover-up" instead of any serious inquiry.
Due to the "delicate" position of them (in case a serious reconstruction of timings, positions and decisions had been done), of course none of them had ANY interest as well in asking a BofI/CM.....



Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

OK let's run your scenario:

"Winston is furious and he wants the two of them, who left Bismarck escaping in Atlantic, postponing the importance to inflict further damage to her to their own safety (as per Troubridge case), to be Court Martialled, therefore please arrange a BofI in order to provide the evidence for holding a Court Martial."

"No"

End of story.

It doesn't really work does it? The PM is rightly furious and nothing at all happens. The First Sea Lord wants a Board of Enquiry because he believes these men are guilty, and nothing at all happens. In fact they promote W-W to acting C-in-C Home Fleet and keep Leach in command of the RN newest battleship.

You see you were in with a chance of selling your imaginary story when you were pretending Tovey was fooling Pound and everybody above him with a changed report. But then we discovered Tovey had sent in his draft report as well as the updated report so Pound had both. So then you changed the Conspiracy fantasy to include Pound, because he knew about the changes (and realised they were trivial and irrelevant). But then Antonio was carrying on about propaganda and good news stories, so then you thought you could explain away why Churchill suddenly thought it was OK for W-W and Leach to continue in their roles, and was so nice to the latter on his ship. So you included Winston in the Conspiracy as well.


Of course you had unfortunately destroyed your own fabrication by expanding the Conspiracy, because by now everybody was in the Conspiracy and there was no point in changing reports and statements because there was no one to fool and the secret documents would be never been seen. Since Pound was in on the Conspiracy it made no sense to want a Board of Enquiry and especially not a Court Martial. Your entire construction collapses in a chaos of illogicality.


Your desperation over the content of the 31st letter which destroys the CMDS myth is plain to see when you clutch at Tovey's mention of Court Martial with regard to himself as if merely including the words would validate the misremembered version he would create 15-20 years later.

The real reason why

who left Bismarck escaping in Atlantic, postponing the importance to inflict further damage to her

was the combined fumbling of the D/F intelligence for which Pound and Tovey knew they were equally responsible and did nearly let Bismarck get away. That is the subject of the Cover-Up if there was anything which deserved the name, and it was a lesson well learned and resulted in a lot of sunken U-Boats.


The only person who says there was a phone call at all is Tovey, who also misremembered ROOF and the bearings incident. He didn't remember the 28th and 31st letters, which actually happened. What he doesn't mention in his 31st letter, is the phone call, which if it actually existed, with it's theatrical three-act threat to resign as C-in-C Home Fleet, was supposedly made on arrival at Scapa. It is clear he invented the phone call for which there is no evidence it happened at all. CMDS is a myth.


All the best

wadinga

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
While not wanting to get ‘sucked in’ by the ongoing controversy of whether a Court Martial was suggested or should or should not have taken place, it might be worthwhile looking at the records of both Capt Leach and Adm Wake-Walker.
Both joined the RN in the early 1900’s and given that in those early days the RN brought up their young officers in the strictest conditions of the Navy of that time, where loyalty and honour was paramount and only the best succeeded to higher promotion. Both served in WWI and went on to higher promotion. Adm Wake-Walker was decorated with the Companion of the Bath for his part in the Dunkirk evacuation where, after his destroyer was sunk by Stukas he continued to command from a MTB whilst under fire.
I am not a student of Naval history, but to my way of thinking the service records of these men are not ones that are compatible with some of the charges of timidity and even cowardice that have been bandied about in these columns. After all, they undoubtedly acted as they thought best at the time and although there are still some may continue to criticize their actions, they were not there either during or after the battle, so their input is merely speculation and it is quite wrong to attempt to dishonour these men 77 years after the event.
Perhaps there should have at least been an inquiry or even a Court Martial to clear it up once and for all, the fact that there was neither can be argued for all time – as can the events during and after the battle and it may be that the RN considered that to bring two senior officers to trial by Court Martial was not appropriate at a time when the war was not going well for the country, personally I have no doubt that they would both have been exonerated.
However, once again I feel that I must express my dismay on the way this debate between members whose knowledge I deeply respect has degenerated into what can only be described as a ‘slanging match’ and I do wish that that all involved could be good enough to draw a line under this matter

[Alberto Virtuani]

Paul Mercer wrote: "it might be worthwhile looking at the records of both Capt Leach and Adm Wake-Walker. "

Hi Paul,
Troubridge record is full of promotions as well (even after his CM, I think this is normal life), but he undoubtedly acted timidly when he allowed the Goeben to get to Turkey, possibly ill advised by his staff) causing serious damages to Britain. The inquiry estimated he was responsible of dereliction of duty, while the Court Martial was a bit more indulgent, having Troubridge got the ambiguous order not to engage superior forces.
This was (AFAIK) the case neither of Leach nor of Wake-Walker, whose position, in front of a Court Martial would have been much more "delicate", had Bismarck not been sunk.

The decision to "sugar-coat" facts was the only possible one to allow decorations and promotions for everybody without a serious investigation of militarily poor behaviors. preferring celebrations for a very important victory instead.



Regarding Mr.Wadinga pitiable attempt to deny what Tovey wrote (imagining a Pound's May 28 letter softer than the answer... ) and what all serious historians well understood about the CM (even insisting that a BofI into the conduct of an officer is not the antechamber of a disciplinary action.... , as very well perceived by Somerville, in Lord Cork's words, in an immeasurably less serious situation), I will not spend any more word to counter his unsupported speculations (already destroyed by his fair own-goal posting Tovey's 1941 letter ).
All the already posted written documents (Tovey's 1961 letter to Roskill, McMullen interview, Roskill and all historians judgement, ADM 205/10 and even Sir Henry Leach interpretation) plus the last Antonio's battle reconstruction allow to understand how things went on.
He is free to live in his fairy-tale, all-heroes false story, that was sold to the world for 75+ years.



Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Thank you for correctly attributing the unveiling of the 31st May letter, (Real New Evidence) your co-author seems to have forgotten.

This:

The only person who says there was a phone call at all is Tovey, who also misremembered ROOF and the bearings incident. He didn't remember the 28th and 31st letters, which actually happened. What he doesn't mention in his 31st letter, is the phone call, which if it actually existed, with it's theatrical three-act threat to resign as C-in-C Home Fleet, was supposedly made on arrival at Scapa. It is clear he invented the phone call for which there is no evidence it happened at all. CMDS is a myth.

answers this:

(Tovey's 1961 letter to Roskill, McMullen interview, Roskill and all historians judgement, …..and even Sir Henry Leach interpretation

because none of these people ever refer to, quote or mention the existence of the May 31st letter which definitively mentions only a Board of Enquiry.

And

I have read the
ADM 205/10 at pages 331, 332, 333 and 334.
even before you, and I know that nowhere do they mention discipline, or Board of Enquiry and certainly not Court Martial.

If Bismarck had got away, nobody would have wasted time imagining whether Prince of Wales' faulty guns would or could have held together long enough to avoid her and the two tinclads being shot to pieces by Bismarck. Second guessing with hindsight whether Wake-Walker's dispositions for shadowing could have been improved wouldn't have been considered for a moment. Such What Ifs wouldn't have mattered. Instead they would have asked why Pound was telling Rodney to follow the C-in-C and head for Norway around lunchtime on the 25th and 9 minutes later Phillips was telling Tovey to head for France, when they both had been sure the enemy was heading for France hours previously, and had failed to send Tovey the unambiguous information he needed to intercept. I expect Tovey in turn would have had to explain his own obstinacy was a significant factor and that his error in not telling the Admiralty what he had concluded and what he was actually doing, was a major factor in him sailing the wrong way, not towards France for eight whole hours.


Unfortunately we have been wasting too much time on your tireless attempts to sell an anti RN Conspiracy theory fabricated to beat your fellow Storia Militare contributor Enrico Cernuschi, instead of considering things which really happened in 1941.

All the best

wadinga

[pgollin]

....... I have no problems even if Alberto Virtuani on this case is more informed than me having been an Officer in the Italian Navy, I have been an Officer in the Army.

As Antonio and Alberto keep prattling on about the "military", might I ask what their actual RELEVANT experience is ?

Obviously Antonio has been an peacetime army officer, so has no "relevant" experience.

Alberto, might or might not have any relevant experience, but certainly he knows nothing about WW2 era navigation/radio/visual bearings.

.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,
Mr.Wadinga may have read the documents, but apparently he is unable to understand their meaning, including his own-goal of the May 31 letter...

Wadinga wrote: "If Bismarck had got away, nobody would have wasted time imagining whether Prince of Wales' faulty guns would or could have held together long enough to avoid her and the two tinclads being shot to pieces by Bismarck."

Correct, as per Troubridge case, whose fears to loose 4 armored cruisers caused the Ottoman Empire to join WWI, had Bismarck got away (and possibly sunk the WS8B), nobody would have wasted time: a Court Martial would have been surely held (NOT only menaced) and a couple good ropes would have been prepared at the yardarm, already before the sentence was pronounced....



Bye, Alberto