The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Alberto Virtuani]

Dunmunro wrote: "it all comes from a single source, Tovey"

Hi Duncan,
for the time being (and, as already told to Wadinga, I'm sure already we will find more ) Tovey is more than enough, as confirmed by all serious historians and by Sir Henry Leach.

Your attempt to link Tovey reliability re. Court Martial to the "shores of France" signal makes no sense. Roskill analyzed both and concluded the CM was a real threat, while he was unable to confirm the "shores of France" message, that is not the same as "the signal never existed"..... but this is not the thread about the signal.


Bye, Alberto

[Alberto Virtuani]

Wadinga wrote: "What does Para one say? Why is it so important to keep it hidden? Is it so damaging to Tovey's veracity?"

Hi Sean,
No it's not. You have the relevant text from 4 different letters.

I'm afraid you insist in your accusations to me. Therefore, in the absence of your public excuses, I will not post anymore ANY info. You go to Cambridge and you get the sources yourself.


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

from Capt. Russelll Grenfell ( RN Retired ) book " The Bismarck Episode " Faber & Faber 1948, at page 84 :

Actually Rear Adm Wake-Walker did decide that he and his Flag Captain should split the night between them.

In consequence, Rear Admiral Wake-Walker was asleep when contact was lost, and for about an hour afterwards.

Capt Ellis biography confirmed it, ... and Ellis just like Phillips have been interviewed by Grenfell for that book.

Of course, ... the shadowing by Norfolk has been really admirable, ...

Bye Antonio

W-W was asleep for about an hour after Bismarck was lost because that's how long it took Ellis to signal that he had lost touch with Bismarck. Grenfell states Ellis considered that he (Ellis) was too slow in signalling that he had lost touch. You also left out the part where Grenfell states that W-W had gone the previous 40 hours without sleep and that Ellis had gone 30 hours without sleep and had had very little sleep for 4 days; this of course explains why Ellis' memory was so faulty in his memoirs.

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Knowing how much you like your Latin legal quotes:

Testis Unus, Testis Nullus is a legal maxim which means one witness is not a witness. It is a law principle expressing that a single witness is not enough to corroborate a story.

Therefore:

Tovey is more than enough

is demonstrably wrong, especially when all his other content included in the same letter, describing the same conversation in cases where there can be corroborating information, shows this content is incorrect. Kennedy realised this and included caveats. I believe Roskill knew it too and it took twenty years before he found a "patsy" to break the story and allow him to cite another author. By citing Kennedy, Roskill could get the damaging effect against the wartime naval establishment for his later writing, and leave pointing out the shortcomings of the original source to his source.

The predilection of some other authors to parrot the story and demonise Churchill and or Pound on the basis of this unverifiable claim without any caveats, is no evidence of its veracity either, merely of their prejudice and perhaps of the need to find a sensationalist element- to boost sales.

Thank you for selecting the relevant text from four different letters for me. It perhaps will require a trip to Cambridge to find out which relevant text hasn't been presented yet.

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

4 pages on this thead full of uselles " trolling " with the only intent to try to put in discussion what cannot be discussed any longer.

This is and will remain a fact, ... the only fact that counts.

Tovey_Roskill_Court_Martial_1961.jpeg (111.62 KiB) Viewed 646 times

I am sure that the intentional " trolling " is not going to stop also this time.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

For your interest here is an example of troll behaviour from the Official Manual of Internet Trolling. Of course originally it derives from the fishing technique of towing stinky bait on long troll lines to attract hapless fish who just can't resist it

It’s very important at this stage to bring up some important key point in my argument – one that is really just a theory, or better yet a completely made-up statement, which I will then use as incontrovertible fact in justifying my stance. I’ll constantly be referring back to this key point, and if anyone tries to note that it is not a fact, but a theory based on no actual evidence, I will pretty much ignore them, reaffirm my key point, and return to my stance. if they persist, I'll simply write them off by labeling them a 'fanboy' or 'troll'.

and

By using my made-up key points, and hammering home my “keyword”, I will now wrap up my big controversial thread topic by reaffirming my stance, making a grand declaration, subtly insulting anyone who might hold a different opinion, then stick this thread out on the forum like bait to bring in those who want to bandwagon with me, and those who can be easily goaded into a defensive counter argument. I’ll even pose it as a question, so that it looks like my motivations were purely curiosity, and that I might not be doing this for any ulterior motives…thereby prompting responses that might otherwise not come if it were simply posted as an opinion.

Does this sound at all familiar? You'd better cover all the mirrors at home.

But even this guy never thought of starting a thread then getting all weird when others tried to post on it.

this post and thread is NOT for discussion but only to be used as REFERENCE LINK for ALL the related threads written on the many years of discussion on this forum already made.

Since the arguments frame should be considered CLOSED and we expect no more BIG argument news, I kindly ask anybody willing to add post's about this subject to use the already provided threads listed for this reason here below.

Back at the subject: WRT Tovey's 1961 letter of which we have not seen all because your co-author refuses to release the information.

Testis Unus, Testis Nullus is a legal maxim which means one witness is not a witness. It is a law principle expressing that a single witness is not enough to corroborate a story.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Wadinga wrote: "Testis Unus, Testis Nullus is a legal maxim which means one witness is not a witness"

Hi Sean,
as you like latin legal expressions: "Testes non numerantur sed ponderandum" (This rule says that more regard is to be paid to the character of the evidence adduced in support of a case than to the number of the witnesses who gave the evidence)

However, Roskill, being an historian and not a lawyer, carefully weighted Tovey declaration and confirmed the story, after having found in ADM 205/10 the relevant papers, because it was so logical that even Sir Henry Leach plainly accepted it.


You just refuse it NOW, while you were considering it a well known story when you wrote your article (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... olland.htm), because it now gives the "motive of the crime" for the cover-up.....


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Once again, where in 205/10 does it make any mention of a Court Martial threat? Nowhere. By the time Alexander wrote his note to WSC, Wake-Walker had been in command of a fleet attacking Norway and Leach was back in command of PoW and would soon set off on Operation Halberd. Do you really think these men would be kept in their roles as part of a Public Relations stunt, when the First Sea Lord and the PM really thought they should be Court Martialled, and could have had them quietly removed from their commands without a ripple?

Do you really think that after the obstinate C-in-C of the Home Fleet thwarted their plans, they just shrugged their shoulders, and said ""well they are just a "couple of cowards"", so what?

That is something exclusive to Tovey's recollection.

Pound apparently accepted Phillips position with his request to Tovey to Court Martial Wake-Walker.....

Where does Phillips criticise Wake- Walker's actions? His only recorded criticism is of Dalrymple-Hamilton.

You have put your finger on a valid point:

more regard is to be paid to the character of the evidence

Indeed it is. It is so scurrilous, attractive and exciting that people, even Roskill, forget that it is supplied by only one witness. Kennedy spent much of his journalistic career fighting many cases of legal injustice and he knew that however compelling the evidence, one witness is not reliable.

than to the number of the witnesses who gave the evidence

It says witnesses plural. More than one witness, even two would be corroboration or confirmation. But otherwise Testis Unus, Testis Nullus supervenes. Roskill does not confirm Tovey's recollection, he merely confirms his belief in them. Maybe, maybe not. If he really believed he would not have cited Kennedy.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Wadinga wrote: "Once again, where in 205/10 does it make any mention of a Court Martial threat....Roskill does not confirm Tovey's recollection, he merely confirms his belief in them. "

Hi Sean,
I have discussed this at lenght with Mr.Cag already.....

It's Roskill who interpreted ADM 205/10 papers as being the reference for the Court Martial story (as per Tovey letters and visits to him) and of all the investigations needed to clarify the "certain aspects" that "prima facie" were.....simply NOT in line with the Royal Navy tradition.
You may disagree with his judgement of course, but this is what Roskill says and what all historians after him have plainly accepted. The same interpretation was later shared even by Sir Henry Leach, who correctly had Wills to split the charges between W-W and his father, according to ADM 205/10 and Barnes's acceptance of Tovey despatches.

I respect your personal opinion, but, believing Roskill knew Tovey better than you (and had his account of this story), and believing he was able to understand the RN mechanisms better than you (only in the most recent times, because you believed it in the past when you were writing a quite good article.... ), I stay with him.

Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_pages_125_126.jpg (124.86 KiB) Viewed 598 times

you wrote: "Where does Phillips criticise Wake- Walker's actions? "

sorry, both Mr.Cag and I have already given you the answer to the very same question of yours, it was Adm.Davies in his account of the War Room events on 26 and 27 May...... how many times we will need to repeat things ?
If this is not an intentional "trolling" attitude, please avoid to ask again and again the same questions and accept facts.

you wrote: "If he really believed he would not have cited Kennedy."

Totally incorrect. Even if the papers were from him, Kennedy was the first to publish them. He was OBLIGED to cite Kennedy, being a fair writer and not a plagiarist.


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Wadinga wrote: "Once again, where in 205/10 does it make any mention of a Court Martial threat....Roskill does not confirm Tovey's recollection, he merely confirms his belief in them. "

Hi Sean,
I have discussed this at lenght with Mr.Cag already.....

It's Roskill who interpreted ADM 205/10 papers as being the evidence of the Court Martial request. and of all the investigations needed to clarify the "certain aspects" that "prima facie" were.....simply NOT in line with the Royal Navy tradition.
You may disagree with his judgement, but this is what Roskill says and what all historians after him accepted. The same interpretation was later shared by Sir Henry Leach, who correctly split the charges between W-W and his father, according to ADM 205/10 and Barnes's acceptance of Tovey despatches.

I respect your personal opinion, but, being sure Roskill was able to understand the RN mechanisms, I stay with him.

Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_pages_125_126.jpg

you wrote: "Where does Phillips criticise Wake- Walker's actions? "

sorry, both Mr.Cag and I have already given you the answer to the very same question of yours, it was Adm.Davies in his account of the War Room events on 26 and 27 May...... how many times we will need to repeat things ?
If this is not an intentional "trolling" attitude, please avoid to ask again and again the same questions and accept facts.

you wrote: "If he really believed he would not have cited Kennedy."

Totally incorrect. Even if the papers were from him, Kennedy was the first to publish them. He was OBLIGED to cite Kennedy, being a fair writer and not a plagiarist.


Bye, Alberto

I've seen nothing presented from ADM 205/10 that supports a CMDS attempt. Roskill cites Kennedy, who cites Tovey and then we are all back to Tovey again.

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Dunmunro:
same as for Wadinga above, if you disagree with Roskill (and with all the others) interpretation, it's YOUR problem and YOUR personal opinion that I will respect, but it is not mine.

I'm a bit tired of repeating the same FACTS and just getting back the same answers.


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

@Dunmunro:
same as for Wadinga above, if you disagree with Roskill (and with all the others) interpretation, it's YOUR problem and YOUR personal opinion that I will respect, but it is not mine.

I'm a bit tired of repeating the same FACTS and just getting back the same answers.


Bye, Alberto

I respect Roskill as an author and historian and for his service and contributions to the RN before and during WW2. I do not agree with everything he has written, however, and in some cases I have strongly disputed what he wrote.

Other people's opinions are not FACTS and cannot be presented as though they are facts. Tovey's allegations about a thwarted CMDS have not been proven by the information presented here, and there doesn't appear to any conclusive supporting evidence in the War Cabinet minutes and/or Admiralty records (at least that I've seen).

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Duncan,
I have to respect your opinion, that is clearly different from Roskill's one.
I suggest you to write your own publication questioning his conclusions and underlining his mistakes interpreting the story of the Royal Navy in WWII, including the Court Martial, while Antonio (with my contribution, I hope) will write his own publications, showing to everybody not only the true story of the battle of Denmark Strait, but also the subsequent "sugar-coating" of the official version/reports and the "motive" of the alteration, the Court Martial threat, as it was interpreted by Roskill.

I wish you good luck for your work.

you wrote: "Tovey's allegations about a thwarted CMDS have not been proven by the information presented here"

I'm afraid that the followings:

• 1) Tovey's letters AND visits to Roskill, in which he dilated at length on the story, and that allowed the latter to publish it in two different books,
  2) Tovey confirmation to McMullen and Blake (reported consistently with his letter),
  3) Roskill confirmation about Tovey reliability and his interpretation of the CM as linked to ADM 205/10 papers (confirmed by all historian after him),
  4)ADM 205/10 papers mentioning the Tovey's despatches and Barnes's acceptance to them from the Admiralty,
  5) Sir Henry Leach identical way of reading Tovey's recollections and ADM 205/10 papers, when clarifying the charges against his father and against Wake_Walker,
  6) finally, I'm sure (as I have already said) that there are other evidences of what was said between Pound and Tovey re. the CM. I encourage everybody to look into the various British archives and find them, as we have done with the above ones. Good luck, I will congratulate whoever will be able to find at least one (that we have already in our hands, ready for the publication) or any new one.

are more than enough for Antonio and me to publish our conclusions about this regrettable aftermath, adding and linking to them the intentional alteration of the reports (as clearly demonstrated on this forum) done to counter the menace of a CM and to "explain" the "certain aspects" that required a very careful investigation.


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

you wrote: "Tovey's allegations about a thwarted CMDS have not been proven by the information presented here"

I'm afraid that the followings:

• 1) Tovey's letters AND visits to Roskill, in which he dilated at length on the story, and that allowed the latter to publish it in two different books,
  2) Tovey confirmation to McMullen and Blake (reported consistently with his letter),
  3) Roskill confirmation about Tovey reliability and his interpretation of the CM as linked to ADM 205/10 papers (confirmed by all historian after him),
  4)ADM 205/10 papers mentioning the Tovey's despatches and Barnes's acceptance to them from the Admiralty,
  5) Sir Henry Leach identical way of reading Tovey's recollections and ADM 205/10 papers, when clarifying the charges against his father and against Wake_Walker,
  6) finally, I'm sure (as I have already said) that there are other evidences of what was said between Pound and Tovey re. the CM. I encourage everybody to look into the various British archives and find them, as we have done with the above ones. Good luck, I will congratulate whoever will be able to find at least one (that we have already in our hands, ready for the publication) or any new one.

are more than enough for Antonio and me to publish our conclusions about this regrettable aftermath, adding and linking to them the intentional alteration of the reports (as clearly demonstrated on this forum) done to counter the menace of a CM and to "explain" the "certain aspects" that required a very careful investigation.


Bye, Alberto

The above might be sufficient for a publisher looking for a salacious story, but since all roads lead back to Tovey's letters I am sorry to say that your entire theory hangs on the thinnest of threads, and the more you parade your supporting material the more painfully obvious this becomes.

On the one hand you tout Tovey as a paragon of truth via his letters and in the same breath accuse him of criminal misconduct via "intentional alteration of the reports". Surely you must see the contradiction in terms that this implies?

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Duncan,
again I respect your personal opinion on the CMDS evidences, despite more authoritative opinions being against you, but they are there and they will allow anybody to realize what happened. To quickly answer your question, Tovey was not "stoned" (but, very smartly, he intentionally altered facts in his report to cover his subordinates).

However, the one mentioned in point 6) below is NOT related to Tovey recollection in any way ! We have it already and, being a totally different input from another source , it will close once forever this denial nonsense.
I invite you (as well as Sean) to try to find it and to gain my congratulations (also for being fair, publishing it and thus admitting you were wrong since the beginning on this "regrettable aftermath"). It's available in a British repository....

Evidences_CMDS.jpg (126.06 KiB) Viewed 859 times

In the meantime, points 1) to 5) will suffice. .


Bye, Alberto