The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Sun May 20, 2018 9:35 am

Hello Alberto,

I have already explained there is no file name or page number for the 31st letter, it is in a folio of several hundred pages, not dissimilar to 205/10.

Since Brockman clearly states "it would appear" showing it is his guesswork which causes Pound's confusion and belief the forgotten issue has resurfaced and therefore the note you have reproduced (again) this is evidence this is mere bureaucratic bungling caused by the imprecise war cabinet wording:
Attention was called to a BBC broadcast made by a military officer who had been on board one of his Majesty’s ships in the Bismarck action, which had given an unfavourable impression of our ships’ gunnery. Enquiry was being made by the Admiralty into this matter, and a copy of the broadcast should be circulated to the War Cabinet.
A full report would also be made regarding certain aspects of the action which, prima facie, seemed to require explanation.
Interestingly, rereading Roskill's account of the mythical Court Martial threat in Churchill and the Admirals (citing Kennedy as source) he perpetrates the other Denmark Strait myth on the very same page- p125:

...Bismarck's shells , which at the range of the battle would have descended at a very steep angle and could have penetrated the old battle-cruisers deck armour."

This was written in 1977 and only ten years later, Bill Jurens exploded this frequently re-related myth with his Warship International paper.

It is bizarre that when you read Brodhurst and he says Pound "wrote" you want to imagine he had access to some secret piece of evidence which he never divulges in any form, when the only actual evidence, poor as it is, being based a memory of twenty years after the event, says it was a phone call. A more obvious conclusion is that Brodhurst is just wrong about this.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2701
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun May 20, 2018 10:45 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "it is in a folio of several hundred pages, not dissimilar to 205/10"
and he is intentionally hiding the folio number to prevent to possibly find Pound May 28 letter or any other reference to it .... :lol:



I will not comment again on the crazy personal theory of Mr.Wadinga (up to now, nobody has dared to support it, not even among the deniers.... :lol: ) about Brockman error, as it is very clear that Pound, Alexander and Churchill correctly understood what the "certrain aspect" were (Churchill had even discussed them with Leach and Tovey and they could not be related to the gunnery aspects on May 27.... :lol: ). Evidences like this from Alexander are clear enough, despite Mr.Wadinga rubbished initial position that in ADM 205/10 there was nothing relevant.... :negative:
ADM205-10_333.jpg
ADM205-10_333.jpg (86.54 KiB) Viewed 468 times
Wadinga wrote: " A more obvious conclusion is that Brodhurst is just wrong about this"
Apparently, only the "great historian" Mr.Wadinga is right, against all professional historians..... :lol:

The only obvious conclusion (if open-minded) would be that Brodhurst had seen also Pound written request for a Court Martial, having in his bibliography both Tovey's 1941 (BofI) and 1961 (phone call) letters.


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Sun May 20, 2018 3:48 pm

Hello Alberto,
would be that Brodhurst had seen also Pound written request for a Court Martial
which he then forgot to refer to in any detail at all, quote from, or even give a citation for in his biography of Pound.

We have already established Brodhurst misquotes Colville both in substituting "rates" for "berates" . You even pointed out he chops a sentence in half without highlighting this.
Then there is a second sentence that is referring to both PoW disengagement and Crete situation, for both Churchill was infuriated against Pound and Alexander regarding the Royal Navy attitude:
"He berated the First Lord and First Sea Lord continuously, both on this account and because in the Mediterranean, the navy shows, he thinks a tendency to shirk its task of preventing a seaborne landing in Crete since Cunningham fears severe losses from bombing."
Brodhurst quotes extensively from Pound's 19th June letter to Tovey but apparently forgets to quote, or provide citation for some other mystery communication you want to believe in, that allows him to say Pound "wrote" about a Court Martial threat. :D

Brodhurst is just like so many others including Tarrant lazily parroting what "everybody knows" without even bothering with whether it was a letter or as Tovey alleges, a phone call. The actual evidence including detailed references, quotes and citation dries up as soon as they start talking about the Court Martial myth because there is no serious evidence. Proper historical practice starts again once they are past it.

Now just play nice and you might get a present you want on "Hood Day" :cool:

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3641
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun May 20, 2018 7:41 pm

Hello everybody,

lets make clear some definitions that here in the " deniers " at any cost are trying to confuse in order to avoid to admit what was going on between Adm Pound and Adm Tovey on May/June of 1941.

Enquiries -> Board of Inquiry -> Court of Enquiry -> trials for Court Martial -> Court Martial.

For any Officer in any country what those actions mean is clear.

It seems that here in there are persons that still like to play dummy in order to try to keep them separeted in order to hope to avoid to accept that there was a serious discussion about the conduct of 2 Royal Navy Officers soon after the Bismarck operation, ... namely Rear Adm W.F. Wake-Walker and Capt J.C.Leach, ... and the discussion between Adm Pound and Tovey on May 31st, 1941 was not about which type of decoration/medal they deserved due to their " Admirable " job.

So, lets see what those definitions mean for the Royal Navy Official Historian, from Stephen Roskill directly from his book : Naval Policy between the Wars pages 463 and 464.
Pound had no intellectual interest or social graces; his whole life was bound up with the Navy, and his only recreations where fishing and shooting.
Admiral James writes that he was “ hard work and efficient at his job, but he failed to evoke wholehearted response from his subordinates ”, and that he “ loved schedules and Courts of Enquiry “ (note 1) an opinion with which this historian, who served under him for five consecutive years in the Mediterranean Fleet Flagship and the Admiralty 1937-41, fully agrees.
Surely everybody has noticed the wording used by Stephen Roskill above : Courts of Enquiry

Lets see now which definitions he used on the footnote 1 of the above statement.
Roskill_Naval_Policy_II_page_464_note_1_small.jpg
Roskill_Naval_Policy_II_page_464_note_1_small.jpg (113.45 KiB) Viewed 444 times
To be noticed that Stephen Roskill defined the trials for Court Martial being Pound addiction to Enquiries, ... knowing very well that the request of the enquiry or inquiry, ... was intended being the " starter " of the Court Martial process.

We have already analyzed what occurred to Sommerville and Wakle-Walker/Leach, ... but not yet what happened in the HMS Manchester case.

Lets see what Robin Brodhurst wrote about it on his book at page 253 :
Brodhurst_Manchester_page_253.jpg
Brodhurst_Manchester_page_253.jpg (123.86 KiB) Viewed 444 times
Footnote 39 : Letter from Dan Duff to the author, 23 October 1998
Footnote 40 : S. Roskill, War at Sea Vol 2, page 306
Footnote 41 : Imperial War Museum, Whitworth papers


Here what has been done in the Manchester case from Wikipedia :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Manchester_(15)
Aftermath

Her commanding officer, Captain Harold Drew, was court-martialled due to the Admiralty's belief that the ship was still navigable and capable of reaching a neutral port.

Captain Drew was initially led to believe that he was taking part in an enquiry, and was only informed at the end of the trial that he was in fact being charged with negligence by a court martial.[3]

He was found guilty, and was reprimanded and dismissed. It was and remains a contentious decision; the ship had been crippled, and the Captain had feared the ship, including her radar gear, might fall into enemy hands. Many of the ship's crew were rescued by the Allied warships Pathfinder and Eskimo.

Others, including Nigel Malim, fell into the hands of the Vichy French and were interned at Laghouat,[4] to be released in November as a result of Operation Torch. Notably, the surviving crew members strongly supported both Captain Drew's assessment of the ship's situation and his decision to scuttle her, with one seaman stating: "We were down to 10-15% ammunition, listing at nearly 45 degrees, with one engine destroyed and not much hope of getting the other working. The Captain decided that his choices were to wait until dawn and get blown to buggery, or to save the men."

Now it should be easy by reading May 31st, 1941 letter from Adm Tovey to Adm Pound to realize what the Royal Navy First Sea Lord was asking Adm Tovey for WAke-Walker and Leach :
Wadinga_Tovey_to%20Pound_31May.jpg
Wadinga_Tovey_to%20Pound_31May.jpg (27.09 KiB) Viewed 444 times
Was it a recognition or medal request for an " Admirable " job, ... or was it something very similar to what happened to Capt Drew of the HMS Manchester ?

Anybody should be able now to make up his mind about it, ... well before reading the Adm Tovey 1961 letter to Stephen Roskill that would disclose in detail what was going on between Adm Pound and himself on that situation.

NOTE : I will not comment intentionally on what Adm Cunningham wrote to the Royal Navy Second Sea Lord, ... but it provides very well the state of the affairs in the Royal Navy on that period.

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3619
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Sun May 20, 2018 9:38 pm

Loss of HMS Manchester.

The definitive account of this is given in:

THE WATERY GRAVE The Life and Death of HMS Manchester, Richard Osborne, 2015

When a RN ship is lost a BofI and CM can be combined into one proceeding. However there was a BoFI that convened that found that the ship was prematurely abandoned and subsequently a CM was called under section 92 of the Naval Discipline act (where the court has CM powers). This 2nd proceeding was quite lengthy and called numerous witnesses and it resulted in Cptn Drew being prohibited from further commands at sea, although he subsequently served ashore until 1952, when he retired.

The book fully concurs that Drew was negligent and prematurely abandoned his ship, whose list was only a couple of degrees and was able to steam at 10-12 knots on one engine. Most of the main and secondary armament was also fully functional. It seems most likely that Cptn Drew made poor decisions as a result of sleep deprivation, as he had been awake for more than 30 hours prior to abandoning ship with little sleep for about 72 hrs.

In the Bismarck action only Hood's Cptn Kerr and his crew, had they survived, could have been tried under Section 92.
Last edited by dunmunro on Sun May 20, 2018 11:15 pm, edited 6 times in total.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3619
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Sun May 20, 2018 9:40 pm

duplicate

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3641
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon May 21, 2018 6:50 am

Hello everybody,

I knew perfectly that when a Royal Navy ship was lost a board of inquiry was going to be made, we have many examples on the archives, ... like HMS Ark Royal, HMS Sussex, ... etc etc

That was not the point I was trying to make, ... the point is how they did it, ... in which way they approached the Court Martial, ... as described by Dan Duff to Robin Brodhurst and available to be read on the Wikipedia page about the HMS Manchester.
Captain Drew was initially led to believe that he was taking part in an Enquiry, and was only informed at the end of the trial that he was in fact being charged with negligence by a Court Martial.
It is fairly easy to realize that the initial ENQUIRY ( Board of Inquiry ) became a COURT OF ENQUIRY, and after it end up being a COURT MARTIAL in reality.

Anybody having had an uniform being an Officer knows this process very well, ... it is logic and consequent one after the other once you are going to be evaluated for your doubtful conduct while in action.

If you are going to be subject to an ENQUIRY ( Board of Inquiry ) you know that it is a risk for your career and your life in war time, ... surely it is NOT a call in order to tell you that your conduct has been " ADMIRABLE " and you are going to be rewarded with a medal.

Here the evidence of what was requested from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey om May 1941 regarding Wake-Walker and Leach :
Wadinga_Tovey_to%20Pound_31May.jpg
Wadinga_Tovey_to%20Pound_31May.jpg (27.09 KiB) Viewed 403 times
Is it so difficult to be understood this concept now having Pound request to Tovey clearly stated ?
It is evident that for some persons here in it is very difficult to be realized and mostly ... accepted.

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3619
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Mon May 21, 2018 9:13 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

I knew perfectly that when a Royal Navy ship was lost a board of inquiry was going to be made, we have many examples on the archives, ... like HMS Ark Royal, HMS Sussex, ... etc etc

That was not the point I was trying to make, ... the point is how they did it, ... in which way they approached the Court Martial, ... as described by Dan Duff to Robin Brodhurst and available to be read on the Wikipedia page about the HMS Manchester.
Captain Drew was initially led to believe that he was taking part in an Enquiry, and was only informed at the end of the trial that he was in fact being charged with negligence by a Court Martial.
It is fairly easy to realize that the initial ENQUIRY ( Board of Inquiry ) became a COURT OF ENQUIRY, and after it end up being a COURT MARTIAL in reality.

Anybody having had an uniform being an Officer knows this process very well, ... it is logic and consequent one after the other once you are going to be evaluated for your doubtful conduct while in action.

If you are going to be subject to an ENQUIRY ( Board of Inquiry ) you know that it is a risk for your career and your life in war time, ... surely it is NOT a call in order to tell you that your conduct has been " ADMIRABLE " and you are going to be rewarded with a medal.

Here the evidence of what was requested from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey om May 1941 regarding Wake-Walker and Leach :
Wadinga_Tovey_to%20Pound_31May.jpg
Is it so difficult to be understood this concept now having Pound request to Tovey clearly stated ?
It is evident that for some persons here in it is very difficult to be realized and mostly ... accepted.

Bye Antonio
The initial BofI concluded with a finding of probable negligence on 17 Sept 1942. The CM under section 92 concluded on 20 Feb 1943. The two proceedings were entirely separate. Moreover Drew knew that under Section 92 the court was empowered to bring charges and pronounce sentence if the proceedings warranted it:
Finally Captain Drew was brought into the Court and made the following statement: When I came down to attend this Court, I was under the impression that I would have to satisfy the Court as to my actions on a matter of judgement – a decision made under most unusual circumstances. The nature of this Court under Section 92 of the Naval Discipline Act, of course means that it is only at the end that you discover what you are accused of and now I find that I am charged with negligence. It was so remote from my recollection of that night that I am afraid that there is nothing further that I can say.

The Watery Grave: The Life and Death of HMS Manchester
The initial BofI determined probable negligence so this outcome should not have been a surprise to anyone.

However, Section 92 CMs were very rare and only four were called during WW2, up to mid 1943. It is entirely wrong to say that Drew was not aware that he could be charged during a Section 92 CM. It is also wrong to say that a BofI could turn into a CM. A BofI can make a determination that wrong doing may have occurred but only a CM can lay charges and pronounce judgement.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3619
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Mon May 21, 2018 9:34 am

Roskill_Naval_Policy_II_page_464_note_1_small.jpg
To be noticed that Stephen Roskill defined the trials for Court Martial being Pound addiction to Enquiries, ... knowing very well that the request of the enquiry or inquiry, ... was intended being the " starter " of the Court Martial process.

We have already analyzed what occurred to Sommerville and Wakle-Walker/Leach, ... but not yet what happened in the HMS Manchester case.

Lets see what Robin Brodhurst wrote about it on his book at page 253 :
Brodhurst_Manchester_page_253.jpg
Footnote 39 : Letter from Dan Duff to the author, 23 October 1998
Footnote 40 : S. Roskill, War at Sea Vol 2, page 306
Footnote 41 : Imperial War Museum, Whitworth papers


Here what has been done in the Manchester case from Wikipedia :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Manchester_(15)

Aftermath

Her commanding officer, Captain Harold Drew, was court-martialled due to the Admiralty's belief that the ship was still navigable and capable of reaching a neutral port.

Captain Drew was initially led to believe that he was taking part in an enquiry, and was only informed at the end of the trial that he was in fact being charged with negligence by a court martial.[3]

He was found guilty, and was reprimanded and dismissed. It was and remains a contentious decision; the ship had been crippled, and the Captain had feared the ship, including her radar gear, might fall into enemy hands. Many of the ship's crew were rescued by the Allied warships Pathfinder and Eskimo.
Pound's minute regarding Drew and HMS Manchester was made after the BofI released it's findings. Roskill has very unfairly tarnished Pound here because Pound did not prejudge or prejudice the Type 92 CM, because the automatically convened BofI (which was standard procedure when a ship was lost) came to the conclusion of probable negligence. Pound did not order the BofI nor the section 92 CM:
On 25 November 1942, the Head of Naval Law reported that all interned survivors had returned to the UK. He observed that the Commanding Officer of HMS Manchester had not yet forwarded a report on the loss of his ship and should be ordered to do so. He also suggested that a court martial should be convened under section 92 of the Naval Discipline Act. Such an approach would be more rapid than convening a second Board of Enquiry followed by a court martial.
but he did have a letter entered into Drew's file prohibiting him from command of HM ships which could not be removed unless a BofI or CM determined that Drew was not negligent. This was all Pound could do since Drew and most of the crew of Manchester were a POWs in a Vichy French prison.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Mon May 21, 2018 9:47 am

Hello Dunmunro,

Excellent research work :clap: :clap: :clap: in demolishing this attempt to blur the lines between a Board of Inquiry and a Court Martial. This was a ship loss by voluntary scuttling, not a "Monday Morning Quarterback's" opinion (without even having read reports) on whether tactical matters could have been done better.
but it provides very well the state of the affairs in the Royal Navy on that period.
What happens in 1942 has nothing to do with 1941. Precedent doesn't work backwards.

Many, like Cunningham, might think Dan Duff was harshly treated, but accepting the account and opinion of the designated "guilty" party as gospel on their treatment is extremely naïve. Or convenient.

Roskill's bias against Pound, which flavours all his writing, is described in Brodhurst pages 102 onwards. Despite Alberto's constant attempts to suggest Wake-Walker's family connections helped him, in the Duff case, undoubtedly Pound made sure no one could accuse him of naval nepotism towards his son-in-law.

Roskill, in Churchill and the Admirals, describes how personnel who really were the victims of WSC's ire were dismissed without all this Court Martial business. If there had been anything more than a short-lived, ill-informed tantrum at Chequers Leach and Wake-Walker would have been would have been instantly gone. On p94 Roskill describes the early 1940 dismissal of Captain V H Danckwerts Director of Plans for even daring to criticize the lunatic plan to sail the battlefleet into the Baltic, one of Winston's Wheezes reanimated from WWI. Further down he details the sacking of Captain A G Talbot, Director of Submarine Warfare, in mid 1940, because he "argued the toss" over u boat casualties with the PM. Pound's weakness in not defending his people in these cases is highlighted.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3619
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Mon May 21, 2018 10:13 am

wadinga wrote:
Many, like Cunningham, might think Dan Duff was harshly treated, but accepting the account and opinion of the designated "guilty" party as gospel on their treatment is extremely naïve. Or convenient.
Duff admitted to the court that he had made some severe errors in judgement and his "harsh treatment" was 6 months loss of seniority and a severe reprimand. In fact the court was extremely lenient to all concerned especially when the outcome of PEDESTAL was such a near run thing. Manchester could have tipped the balance much more firmly onto the Allied side if Drew had proceeded to Malta and aided the destroyers which fought the surviving merchant ships into Malta.

The other factor that has to be emphasized is that the BofI and CM were composed of serving naval officers who rendered their findings and professional judgement in a very fair and impartial manner. These were hardly kangaroo courts whose outcome was politically determined, as the trial records and transcripts clearly showed.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2701
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon May 21, 2018 12:42 pm

Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: " a CM was called under section 92 of the Naval Discipline act"
Wadinga wrote: "Excellent research work "
:?:
Would someone explain me where article 92 of the Naval Discipline Act (http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm) addresses and justifies the "dirty trick" to call Cpt. Drew in front of a BofI, and then "transforming" it into a Court Martial ? I don't see any reference in article 92 regarding this "transformation" from BofI to Court of Enquiry and then to Court Martial..... while this "device" is very well explained (and motivated in wartime) by Dan Duff in his letter to Brodhurst or here http://www.oswestrygenealogy.org.uk/har ... anchester/ .

This kind of "transformation" could clearly apply to any violation to the Articles of War, why only to a loss of a ship ?
Naval_Discipline_Act_92.jpg
Naval_Discipline_Act_92.jpg (47.61 KiB) Viewed 369 times
Brodhurst_Manchester_page_253_2.jpg
Brodhurst_Manchester_page_253_2.jpg (61.49 KiB) Viewed 367 times
Drew_1.jpg
Drew_1.jpg (18.41 KiB) Viewed 369 times
Wadinga wrote: "What happens in 1942 has nothing to do with 1941. "
No it has, as procedures had not been changed in the meantime.

Wadinga wrote: "Despite Alberto's constant attempts to suggest Wake-Walker's family connections helped him, in the Duff case, undoubtedly Pound made sure no one could accuse him of naval nepotism towards his son-in-law."
W-W family connections and frequentation of the royal palaces surely did help him in this case as well as in other "admirable performances" (e.g. Maplebranch ramming and HMS Achates mining), ensuring him very easy career steps.
Pound lacked "any social graces" (as per S.Roskill) and had to behave correctly in any circumstance.

Wadinga wrote: "Brodhurst is just like so many others including Tarrant lazily parroting what "everybody knows"
Absolutely not supported by any evidence. Brodhurst is the very first one, having in his bibliography both Tovey 1941 and 1961 letters, to say that Pound WROTE to Tovey that he wanted Leach and Wake-Walker Court Martialled. Either he saw Pound's May 28 letter or he interpreted Tovey's May 31 answer in the light of what happened to HMS Manchester officers, with a BofI "becoming" suddenly a Court Martial .... :negative:

Wadinga wrote: "The actual evidence including detailed references, quotes and citation dries up as soon as they start talking about the Court Martial myth because there is no serious evidence"
Except the crystal clear and definitive Tovey's letter from 1961 that confirmed, in writing, what Tovey had already told from 1950 to 1960 to S.Roskill for "getting at the truth" about Pound's final intentions, expressed during the phone call ...... :lol:

Wadinga wrote: "Now just play nice and you might get a present you want on "Hood Day"
A present will deserve another present in exchange, of course.... :wink:



Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Mon May 21, 2018 3:04 pm

Hello Alberto,

If you say:
having in his bibliography both Tovey 1941 and 1961 letters,
then because Antonio has been to the National Archives, he has seen the original of the 31st May letter. And by inference so have you. Brodhurst does not refer to, or quote from or give a citation for the 31st May letter or indeed the 28th May one.

there is no evidence whatsoever for:
Either he saw Pound's May 28 letter or he interpreted Tovey's May 31 answer
Once again you attempt to unjustifiably smear Wake-Walker's character.
W-W family connections and frequentation of the royal palaces surely did help him in this case as well as in other "admirable performances" (e.g. Maplebranch ramming and HMS Achates mining), ensuring him very easy career steps.
There was no favouritism as he lost the original decision on the Maplebank and every subsequent appeal:

Wake-Walker then appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Imperial Privy Council, at that time the highest court of appeal for the British Empire. That court dismissed the appeal. Speaking for the Judicial Committee, Viscount Sankey agreed with the courts below that Wake-Walker had not discharged the onus to prove that the accident had been inevitable.[5] Wikipedia

He won his promotions for merit and bravery:

In May 1940 Wake-Walker was appointed rear-admiral in command of all ships and vessels off the Franco-Belgian coast for the evacuation of Dunkirk. Wake-Walker reached Dunkirk in the minesweeper HMS Hebe on 30 May. On 1 June his flagship, the destroyer HMS Keith, was sunk by Ju 87 Stukas, and he thereafter directed operations from the motor torpedo boat MTB 102 in the harbour. For his role in the evacuation he was appointed Companion of the Bath.[3] Wikipedia

During the Petsamo raid there was very poor visibility hence poor navigational accuracy approaching Iceland. Only afterwards were their Lordships able to decide Wake-Walker had chosen the wrong one of the various different positions his navigators said his squadron might have been in. Appalling use of hindsight in their criticism, which damaged his career not a bit as he was promoted up to Third Sea Lord.
what Tovey had already told from 1950
where is that specified?

Once again the same person telling any number of different people the same thing, is not confirming it, it is merely repeating it.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2701
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon May 21, 2018 4:56 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Brodhurst does not refer to, or quote from or give a citation for the 31st May letter"
But he has listed (for your own admission) in his bibliography the file/folio identification of the one containing the May 31 letter.
There is no reason whatsoever to say that Brodhurst has not read what he listed in bibliography (except to put in doubt his historian skill or his memory.....), therefore (in the absence of any solid evidence) we can assume he had seen May 31 Tovey's letter.

Wadinga wrote: " ..."what Tovey had already told from 1950"....where is that specified? "
In three different places:
  • 1) Tovey letter from 1961 is saying "when I first told you about these happenings..." (re. the Court Martial threat), therefore Tovey told Roskill about it before writing the letter.

    2) Roskill to Kennedy in 1973 letter "Between about 1952 and 1960 he" (Tovey) "often came to see me bringing letters and papers...."

    3) Roskill in his "Naval Policy..." book says "I did not mention this "(the Court Martial threat) "in The War at Sea vol.I because it did not affect the operations". The "War at Sea, vol.I" was published in 1954, therefore Roskill was aware (from Tovey) of the Court Martial threat since the early 50's and could have mentioned it already.
The three evidences perfectly matches, confirming that Tovey told Roskill about this "saga" well before his 1961 letter. :dance:

Wadinga wrote: "He won his promotions for merit and bravery"
It would be one of the very few examples of a member of an influential family, used to frequenting the royal palaces, to have done so....but sometimes (in exception) even the fairy tales may become real .... :think:
Anyway, Pound had no family influence and he was used to behave correctly, even with his son in law, while Wake-Walker, initially menaced of a disciplinary procedure for dereliction of duty, was finally decorated and got promotions until "post mortem"...... :kaput:


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3619
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Mon May 21, 2018 8:13 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: " a CM was called under section 92 of the Naval Discipline act"
Wadinga wrote: "Excellent research work "
:?:
Would someone explain me where article 92 of the Naval Discipline Act (http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm) addresses and justifies the "dirty trick" to call Cpt. Drew in front of a BofI, and then "transforming" it into a Court Martial ? I don't see any reference in article 92 regarding this "transformation" from BofI to Court of Enquiry and then to Court Martial..... while this "device" is very well explained (and motivated in wartime) by Dan Duff in his letter to Brodhurst or here http://www.oswestrygenealogy.org.uk/har ... anchester/ .

This kind of "transformation" could clearly apply to any violation to the Articles of War, why only to a loss of a ship ?
Naval_Discipline_Act_92.jpg
Brodhurst_Manchester_page_253_2.jpg
Drew_1.jpg
Section 92 CMs after the loss of a ship were not unusual and had been introduced in WW1.

As I've patiently explained, including using Drew's own words, there had been a BofI that found probable negligence in the loss of HMS Manchester. After his release from a Vichy prison Drew was informed of this BofI and it's findings. He was then summoned, with over 80 of his crew, to a Section 92 CM and Drew knew full well what that meant:

The initial and automatic BofI concluded with a finding of probable negligence on 17 Sept 1942. The CM under section 92 concluded on 20 Feb 1943.
The two proceedings were entirely separate. Moreover Drew knew that under Section 92 the court was empowered to bring charges and pronounce sentence if the proceedings warranted it:

Finally Captain Drew was brought into the Court and made the following statement: When I came down to attend this Court, I was under the impression that I would have to satisfy the Court as to my actions on a matter of judgement – a decision made under most unusual circumstances. The nature of this Court under Section 92 of the Naval Discipline Act, of course means that it is only at the end that you discover what you are accused of and now I find that I am charged with negligence. It was so remote from my recollection of that night that I am afraid that there is nothing further that I can say.

The Watery Grave: The Life and Death of HMS Manchester
There were no "dirty tricks" involved. The only "dirty tricks" that were associated with this incident, IMHO, were from lazy or vengeful historians who wanted to use this example to tar DP, when he had little to do with it, other than discharging his own duty as 1st SL by placing a disciplinary letter, based upon the BofI's findings into Drew's file. The court was extremely thorough and extremely lenient: In the days of sail Drew could have expected a hangman's noose or a firing squad for tamely scuttling one of HM's most powerful ships, with her mobility merely impaired and her fighting power largely intact. Yet not a single man, including Drew, was broken from the service and none were incarcerated. It is patently obvious from this example that any BofI that looked into Leach and W-W's actions at DS, or even after, would have completely exonerated them.

Post Reply