The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

still from Stephen Roskill :

Roskill_1976_about_Adm_Pound_page_464.jpg (121.04 KiB) Viewed 753 times

Roskill_1976_about_Pound_page_464_footnote_1_.jpg (117.71 KiB) Viewed 753 times

Enjoy the reading of one of the " conspirator " accoring to the competent " hooligan/deniers " writing on this forum.

Is a " theory " started many years ago, ... it seems to me, ... isnt it ?


Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

still from Stephen Roskill :


Roskill_1976_about_Adm_Pound_page_464.jpg


Roskill_1976_about_Pound_page_464_footnote_1_.jpg


Enjoy the reading of one of the " conspirator " accoring to the competent " hooligan/deniers " writing on this forum.

Is a " theory " started many years ago, ... it seems to me, ... isnt it ?


Bye Antonio

Yes, Roskill invented this theory (the CMDS theory) by using an old man's failing memory to attack DP, whom Roskill apparently intensely disliked. Unfortunately for you, there is no support for the theory in the Admiralty's records (which Roskill by his own admission searched through carefully in a failing attempt to corroborate Tovey's post-war tall tales) and there is no support from Tovey that he acted in a conspiracy to thwart justice, rather just the opposite, namely that after his discussion with DP, the matter (which in fact was a proposal for a BofI) was dropped and in Tovey's own words "...he heard no more about it...".

The fact that Roskill invented this story by arranging for the publishing of Tovey's allegations is the real story and it is easily demonstrated to be true, whereas your conspiracy theory, and lack of evidence for it, only serves to destroy your own credibility.

[pgollin]

.

Antonio, you do realise just how ridiculous you are by just cherry-picking those quotes and not looking at the whole of his work, nor the historiography surrounding it.

.

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

You seem to have forgotten Roskill cites Kennedy as the source of the story, having offloaded all responsibility for its veracity. Of course the Court Martial story did not start with you. Your unique intuition was that you could make up a story based on it, in order to beat Cernuschi in attempting to dishonour the Royal Navy in general in WWII, two officers in particular, and many other named individuals as well, and that is all your own work. Alberto has helped a bit.

This is a story already partially explained and published by the majority of the British historians on their books.

No author, British or otherwise has ever mentioned any part of your Conspiracy Theory before. It is entirely a figment of your own fertile imagination. The recent May 31st letter from Tovey disproves his recollection of CMDS 15-20 years later, and I believe if any of them had read it they would have been even more sceptical than Kennedy was with his major caveat.

The recent expressions of disbelief of your arguments and disgust at the terms you use in regard anyone who fails to accept your assertions should alert you to the fact your lack of success is based on a lack of any evidence.

It will take time to have the British readers

And the Germans, and the French, the Americans, the Canadians and the Jamaicans! You cannot use the excuse of nationality any more.

Proper business: I believe the existence and partial duplication of subjects between the Naval Discipline Act and the King's Regulations is easily explained. The NDA is an Act of Parliament and as such can only be changed after debate and by vote in the British Parliament. I provided examples of the changes being debated over punishments and the Prize Laws during WW I. Obviously the RN cannot wait for such a cumbersome mechanism so the device for enforcing the NDA is the King's Regs which can be changed by the Board of Admiralty without need to involve Parliament. The words come from the NDA the deeds and detail from the King's Regs.

An 1757 version of the Articles of War are reproduced at www.hmsrichmond.org/rnarticles.htm

Every person in the fleet, who through cowardice, negligence, or disaffection, shall in time of action withdraw or keep back, or not come into the fight or engagement, or shall not do his utmost to take or destroy every ship which it shall be his duty to engage, and to assist and relieve all and every of His Majesty's ships, or those of his allies, which it shall be his duty to assist and relieve, every such person so offending, and being convicted thereof by the sentence of a court martial, shall suffer death.

Notice how lenient things had got by 1866, when the Articles of War had disappeared, being replaced by the NDA. Here it's death or nothing, no excuses that being negligent or disaffected would get you a lesser punishment- you're for the chop.

As A & A's own source says:

The 1749 act established the powers and independence of naval Courts-martial, but gave them little latitude to vary or avoid the (severe) penalties prescribed in the Articles of War. The inflexibility of this act led to the execution of Vice-Admiral John Byng in 1757, and only 22 years later was an amendment introduced which allowed Courts-martial some measure of discretion. Nonetheless the specified punishments were still draconian, and were starting to become unacceptable by the time of the Napoleonic Wars, and were in practice quite ignored by the middle of the 19th century.

All the best

wadinga

[northcape]

It will take time to have the British readers

And the Germans, and the French, the Americans, the Canadians and the Jamaicans! You cannot use the excuse of nationality any more.

Please add Austrian on my behalf!

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

first of all let me make clear that I do realize that there are incompetents and ignorant all over the world, ... in every nationality, ...

This is for sure and I agree.

Second, ... I am deeply shocked now that someone has finally realized that it was not me or Alberto to " invent " ( write about ) this " theory " or better to say about this story, ... " but the Official Royal Navy Historian for World War 2, ... namely Stephen Roskill.

I am not aware of any problem occurred to him or his editor, ... why ?
No " peer reviewer " able to proceed with legal actions against a " conspirator " defaming 2 Royal Navy honorable Officers ?
How was this ever possible ?

Very good, some " hooligan/deniers " was able to make a huge step forward now, ... finally.

Probably no one had the courage to make any action against an historian of the level of Stephen Roskill, neither other writers after ( Corelli-Barnett or Graham Rhys_Jones or Robin Brodhurst for example ).

So bottom line I do not see any reason myself to be afraid about writing something that clearly relates and expand what was already declared by such an historian authority, ... and many after him, ...

Now we need you to realize what Stephen Roskill told us in writing on 1976/1977 and what he did not tell us, ... and it can be for lack of documents availability ( May 28th and 31th letters between Pound and Tovey ) or ... even intentionally, .... like the rewarding for those 2 Officers on October 1941, ... and how we went from a Board of Inquiry -> trials for Court Martial request to the Churchill closure of the matter AFTER having received the Admiralty comments in writing by tersely writing : LEAVE IT ! ( ref ADM 205/10 pages 331;332;333;334 ).

So Roskill missed the May 28th and 31th letters between Pound and Tovey, the real beginning of this story.
He started immediately after, from Adm Tovey 1960 letter and his declared phone call probably on May 30th, 1941, he trusted Tovey ( to be noted that Tovey did not tell Roskill about the 28th and 31st letters ... ).

Roskill missed the closure of this story, the King rewarding, and closed it with Churchill statement on ADM 205/10.
It is incorrect, the rewarding is part of this story but he avoided ( in my opinion intentionally ) to increase the shame of this story up to the King level.

Similarly he avoided ( intentionally too in my personal opinion ) to explain how they went from the beginning until the Admiralty approval ( ADM 205/10 ) so the very shameful " Cover Up " occurred by intentionally altering the reports thru the Adm Tovey dispatches.

He made the main frame correctly almost entirely, ... but avoided to open the " can of worms " with a very bad smell, ... and to expose to the readers the shame of what was done in details.

Now we have a lot more, ... and mostly not being subject to any pressure by anybody, ... we can rewrite this story in an historical correct and precise way with full details.

This is what me and Alberto are doing, ... and no one will stop us from doing it.

Bye Antonio

[pgollin]

.

Any competent editor will stop your book.

Your ideas lack substance and are full of cherry-picking and misunderstandings (mostly likely deliberate).

Your latest idea that the shame goes up to king level is even more absurd.

.

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

namely Stephen Roskill.

I am not aware of any problem occurred to him or his editor, ... why ?

Because he had neatly offloaded responsibility for the veracity of Tovey's made-up story of CMDS onto Kennedy. After sitting on it for 10-15 years. If his editor quizzed him about it, he can just point at the citation and shrug his shoulders. Better still by crowing about handing over the Tovey letter, he gets the credit for finding the "scoop" whilst evading the blame when someone discovers it's not true. Best of both worlds.

At no point does Roskill mention, allude to or even speculate on:

so the very shameful " Cover Up " occurred by intentionally altering the reports thru the Adm Tovey dispatches.

... and to expose to the readers the shame of what was done in details.

This is entirely your invention and you should have full credit/blame for it.

BTW Do you remember we established Roskill was not:

but the Official Royal Navy Historian for World War 2, ... namely Stephen Roskill.

This is what me and Alberto are doing, ... and no one will stop us from doing it.

In a world of free speech no one can. But they can stop anyone...……………. believing you. Indeed you are doing most of the work yourself these days.

A warm welcome to the Austrian delegation from all the other nationalities of " incompetents and ignorant denier/Hooligans". It gratifying to see our numbers growing.

All the best

wadinga

[Bill Jurens]

In the interests of attempting to move things forward, one might put forth the hypothesis that the historical reconstruction(s) put forward by Mr. Bonomi -- whom I assume is the generator of the 'cover-up hypothesis, merely supported by Mr. Virtuani -- is not being 'denied' as much as it is being misunderstood. Perhaps it's true, and rather than denying it, the opponents of the thesis are honestly misunderstanding it.

This is more plausible if indeed some 'silver bullet' exists which could somehow prove the "A&A" conjecture to be correct, in which instance all (or most) of the "hooligan deniers" are really -- for whatever reasons -- being deliberately misled. If that is true, the withholding of the'silver bullet', for whatever reasons, may be seen to represent a secondary 'cover up' on the part of those who claim to hold it. If true, it would seem difficult to represent such actions as other than historically irresponsible.

Alternatively, if misunderstanding (rather than outright subterfuge) is the culprit, perhaps some other author or correspondent of significant historical stature, who supports the "A&A Conjectures" might be willing to step into the debate and, by restating and perhaps elaborating, clarity the Bonomi/Virtuani arguments, so that the deniers can more easily understand. In other words, another 'explainer' has to take the podium.

Along those lines, I would suggest that some progress might be made if either:

a) the 'silver bullet', or at least the general nature of the "silver bullet' were released for discussion

and/or

b) Some other reasonably well-respected authority might elaborate and restate, on Mr. Bonomi's and Mr. Virtuani's behalf, the strengths of their arguments.

Definitely not a 'hooligan', and not -- at least not as yet -- any sort of strong 'denier', either...

Bill Jurens

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

first of all let me make clear that the so called " Silver bullet " will not be disclosed before our publication, so it will take few more years for the readers to know that long time before Adm Tovey disclosed this story to Stephen Roskill on 1960, ... someone else was in full knowledge about this story.

What I state here above by itself should remove once for good any doubt about Adm Tovey reliability someone unfairly tries to bring forward following Sir L. Kennedy example on Pursuit, ... simply because it is incorrect.
Adm Tovey was fully reliable ( when he was not intentionally lying like many others ) and others knew about all this long before the 1960.
In this regard the surfacing of May 31st, 1941 letter from Tovey to Pound closes the matter once for good about his reliability ( Gold bullet ! ).
We need to find Adm Pound May 28th, 1941 initial letter to Adm Tovey to completely define those early events re-construction ( Platinum bullet ! ).

Now let me move to the most interesting part of your above post, ... the " alternative ", ... as I see that your wise post finally tries to break someone else blind and stubborn ( mostly useless in this case ) attitude to deny everything no matter what, ... by proposing a common better understanding on what we all really mean when we use certain terms in some statements and their real relation to the existing official documents.

As far as I am concerned I like your " B " idea, because surely you have the stature and the leadership to do it.

Are you by chance willing to take that " explainer " position on this forum ?

In any case I applaud your initiative ... just let me know.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello All,

Appointing an expert to promote A & A's Conspiracy theory on their behalf may run in to problems as the prospective candidate will have to negotiate phrases such as

Adm Tovey was fully reliable ( when he was not intentionally lying like many others )

without subsiding into helpless laughter.

It is interesting to read:

In this regard the surfacing of May 31st, 1941 letter from Tovey to Pound closes the matter once for good about his reliability ( Gold bullet ! )

So a letter which specifically only refers to Board of Inquiry not a Court Martial, and thus disproves Tovey's memories of 15-20 years later, is a higher standard of currency and proof than the so called "Silver Bullet" which seems therefore to have devalued somewhat. It may be, as some have suspected that the "Silver Bullet" was base metal all along.

No matter what the metallugist may say on examining these projectiles, none mentioned so far refer to the Conspiracy Theory being promulgated, and are only concerned with the CMDS Myth. The "Gold Bullet" shoots a major hole through it. Since we have several statements presented without embarrassement or apology that the "Silver Bullet" will be withheld for financial reasons, it means we must redouble our efforts to independently discover it and present it for examination. Ditto the Platinum.

All the best

wadinga

[pgollin]

"..... will not be disclosed before our publication, so it will take few more years ...."

.

The last I heard your book was due out early- to mid-next year - have you decided to delay it ?

.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

here the explanation on why a Board of Inquiry ( Court of Inquiry ) is called and what is her ultimate goal : the Court Martial

From_Board_of_Inquiry_to_Court_Martial.jpg (48.76 KiB) Viewed 1102 times

I have already explained the Circumstantial Letter process time ago back on this thread.


To be noted and realized that no Board or Court of Inquiry are necessary to reward any Officer.
Just for the records.



I have currently published my ( with Robert Gehringer of course ) Tirpitz Volume 4 book :

http://bismarck-tirpitz.com/

The volume 5, ... the last about the Tirpitz will be published on November 2019, ... for the sinking 75th anniversary.

After we will start the Bismarck, ... one book every year, … year 2020 will see Bismarck volume 1 in the Baltic area, ... the year 2021 will see Op. Rheinubung part 1 and year 2022 the part 2 of Op. Rheinubung.

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote (on another thread): " I have shown several of the early Articles of the NDA were considerably modified in wording even by WWI and were different to 1866."

FALSE !

No change, even in wording, from the 1866 NDA (till NDA 1957) for its the relevant part of the "Articles of War".

Mr.Wadinga is intentionally lying in front of everybody after he asked (correctly) to move this topic here.....

http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA.htm (thanks to Herr Nilsson)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... de=ywar20&

The 1866 Naval Discipline Act was NOT altered in its "Articles of War" section by the 1884 NDA, being replaced ONLY by the 1957 NDA.
Its "Articles of War" were the ones in force in 1941 and were the ones containing the "misconduct in the presence of the enemy" possible charges for Leach and Wake-Walker (article 2 and 3), had a BofI and a Court Martial been held, as it was the case for Troubridge (article 3).


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

You accuse me of lying. Even by your own appalling standards of behaviour on this forum describing those who disagree with you as ignorant, poorly educated hooligans you have plumbed new depths.

Luckily I don't care about your insulting behaviour and I realise how desperately depressed you must feel at the moment as Antonio and your efforts at defamation of RN officers have been dismissed as worthless by so many posters, so I will proceed. Others will undoubtedly judge you more harshly.

I have pointed out previously that the wording of the NDA could only be, and was modified on several occasions, by Act of Parliament after a debate and vote. I have already pointed out that I do not know which clauses remained unchanged from the original 1866 wording except that the punishment wording for making or actually striking an officer was changed, by Parliament and those original clauses referring to prize money were removed during WW I, by Parliament. Therefore the wording of those parts of the NDA which were incorporated from the obsolete Articles of War were different to 1866. I suggested we needed the version current at 1941 to know whether all that archaic stuff about "an enemy then flying" was still in it. If one wanted to plough through a century of Parliamentary debates one could find all the changes they made.


Here is an excerpt from Hansard the official record of Parliamentary proceedings showing how the preamble was officially removed in 1893, but was still quoted:

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
HC Deb 08 March 1915 vol 70 cc1177-93
1177
§
Order for Second Reading read.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.


Under the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, the Preamble to the Naval Discipline Act, 1866, was struck out. These words have been used as a Preamble to every Naval
1188
Discipline Act since 1661. These are the words:—
"Whereas it is expedient to amend the law relating to the government of the Navy, whereon, under the good Providence of God, the wealth, safety and strength of the Kingdom chiefly depend,"
then follow the words,
"Be it enacted,"
and so on. Those words were proposed to be struck out and I have no doubt were struck out, literally and legally, by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893. Notwithstanding that fact, I have to stand here and say that that Preamble has ever since appeared in the Naval Discipline Act. Clause 15 of this Bill proposes to give due and proper authority for the retention of those words. Clause 15 further gives due and proper authority for the continuance in Section 86 of the original Act of the definition of the terms "Admiralty" and "Lord of the Admiralty," which definition, curiously enough, was similarly struck out by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, but which definition, singularly enough, has continued to appear in print ever since. We now propose in the Bill before the House to give proper authority for its retention.

The long winded debate goes on for pages and pages but of interest is:

But I have one word to say about that. When the Admiralty hold a Court-Martial, although they have the right to withhold the evidence if they think it would be to the detriment of the public service to publish it, they have, in my opinion, no right to withhold from publicity the result of the Court-Martial. They have no business to bring an officer to trial and not publish the result. I say this with special reference to the case of Admiral Troubridge, because although it was announced with the authority of the Press Bureau that he had been ordered to haul down his flag and come home to be tried by Court-Martial, there has never been, so far as I know, any official announcement that he has been acquitted by that Court-Martial. The whole of the public knowledge on that subject has been derived from unofficial information in the public Press, and I say, in the most emphatic way, that although the Admiralty have the right to withhold the evidence in the interests of the public service, they have no right to suppress the result of a Court-Martial when once an officer has been tried.

So the members of Parliament thought that the Troubridge case was controversial in that there was legal process without public report. Churchill as First Lord was instrumental in trying to keep the Admiralty's unfair behaviour under wraps. By 1941 he had forgotten all that.


Whatever remnants of the ancient Articles of War which were still in place after Parliamentary modification throughout the first half of the twentieth century were swept away by an entirely new NDA in 1957.

Herr Nilsson's pdavis site confirms this and your tandf url is truncated so can't be followed.

BTW have you noted Antonio now quotes the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions as a Court Martial reference 700 series and not the 26 from the NDA you keep banging on about? He has accepted his original mistake and moved on, why can't you?


All the best

wadinga