The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

you wrote :
There is no indication from Henry Leach or Wills that John and Henry Leach ever talked about a possible CM after the Bismarck action. You are making assumptions that are not supported by the works you have referenced. There is also no indication that John Leach ever discussed a possible CM with Tovey or anyone else.
You are right.
We are sure that John and Henry Leach talked the night of December 6th, 1941 in Singapore, we have the list of the arguments Henry wanted to talk with his father, but we do not have the precise list of what they really talked about.

This is exactly the reason why I wrote above :
3) Sir Henry Leach information about the Court Martial request regarding his father were never correlated neither to Kennedy nor to Roskill. He spent the evening of December 6th, 1941 in Singapore talking all night long with his father and that is the most probable source of his information about the Court Martial story he was well aware of during his life. In any case, it is very possible that he also met either Adm Tovey as well as Roskill before they died, but never used them as reference on his books.
His statements about the Court Martial request are clear.
We only HAVE the two books of Sir Henry Leach clearly stating he knew about the Court Martial initial request from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey and the defence of Adm Tovey that defeated Adm Pound initiative.

This we DO HAVE !
That is what this matter is all about.
A clear INDICATION of the fact that Sir Henry Leach knew about it, and considered it a REAL FACT !
Sir Henry Leach knew about it and referenced about it on two books plus the caption on Tarrant book.
This should have stopped the useless debate you keep on carrying on, but apparently it does not for well known reasons.

Is it clear enough for you now ?

Talking about " no indications ", someone here in is trying since years to correlate Adm Tovey last life period with a potential dementia and his declarations about this Court Martial initiative from Adm Pound.

You had " no indications " about it, ... just like Sir Kennedy had " no indications " about it, ... but you kept on trying to convince everybody about your unsupported theory, ... on and on as we can all read on this thread pages, ... until the truth about Stephen Roskill letters received from Adm Tovey on 1954 surfaced ... killing definitively this unsupported " theory " of trying to connect and correlate the Adm Tovey Court Martial declarations with his last life period and a potential dementia he was suffering on that period. A very unfair trial from your side.

@ CAG,

if you are not able to realize the difference between a proven evidence of a fact occurred declared by a reliable witness from an anecdotal evidence of something that might have happened but it is not proven by anybody, this is your problem and not mine.

Same concept apply to documents, timing, maps and messages intentional alteration occurred one week after a previously released similar documentation with a main event in between changing completely the scenario for the Officers releasing those data.

There are persons not able to understand evidence and facts, ... there are person not willing to realize it and accept it unless they are well proven, ... there are persons that will NEVER accept any evidence becoming a fact no matter what type of evidence you are going to show them, ... last there are persons willing to INVENT all sort of ridiculous theories in order to counter until the end any evidence you can show them in order to avoid to accept them being a proven fact.

I leave to you the correlation of some forum members we can read here above ... :wink:

Bye Antonio :D
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 )
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Alberto/Antonio, read back through my posts, no denial only questions. I have said constantly absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But tell me do you have documented proof of a court martial, or do you have spoken evidence and opinion written in books (aka anecdotal evidence) for a court martial?

Do we have interviewed or remembered evidence of reports that the Admiralty actually began proceedings or do we have evidences that at one point in time that they may have thought they may want to?

You seem to be saying that we have memoirs that state there was a threat, not that one actually was started? You seem to be ignoring the reasons why one was extremely difficult to conduct without recourse to evidences you say were 'intentionally altered'. We can all pointfingers

Could you also tell me how discussing the reasons that a court martial would be hard to achieve has nothing to do with a possible court martial discussion?

Could you also help me understand how discussing the very valid reasons why the sole charge that is anecdotally mentioned as being possible (not engaging Bismarck after Hood was sunk) would have serious problems, has nothing to do with a court martial?

If we constantly mention cover up (what has that to do with evidence of a court martial?) could you explain why the above relevant points are invalid and yet the cover up theory is not? You cannot with one hand wipe away relevant considerations and yet with another pull in equally questionably relevant ones.

The problem is there is enough unaltered evidence to suggest that a court martial was problematic to do, without resorting to a cover up (note I say hard to do, not that a cover up was not a possible thing that was done ie not a denier). Therefore should not those relevant pieces of information be ironed out, not ignored or afforded a skilfull attempt at pushing them to the sidelines?

But it is up to you what we discuss, there is logical evidence that some alterations were done because of new evidence or better inquiry methods. All evidence is open to interpretation and opinion and so if you do not agree fine, if you ignore it fine, if you decide to condemn people as deniers or not being capable of judging evidence for themselves fine, if you constantly deny other evidence fine, but then I'm afraid there is then not just one set of deniers.

Best wishes
Cag..
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio Bonomi wrote: A clear INDICATION of the fact that Sir Henry Leach knew about it, and considered it a REAL FACT !
I'm wondering why he called it a saga if he considered it a real fact. :think:
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Cag wrote: "....a court martial was problematic to do...."
Hi, Mr.Cag,
it was not so problematic to do it against "poor" Capt.H.Drew, who had several good reasons why he scuttled his ship......Against Leach, Wake-Walker and Ellis it would have been much, much easier for a Navy that is quite exigent re. duty... :negative:

you wrote: "some alterations were done because of new evidence or better inquiry methods" :shock:
how can you write such a statement ? Alterating a map leaving bearings lost in the sea is INTENTIONAL (Pinchin), changing your own previous report (May 30) AND Leach report (Y turret jamming after turn away) to write point 19 is INTENTIONAL, smartly writing point 17 to give a wrong impression of a 15 sm distance at battle time is INTENTIONAL.
These are all INTENTIONAL embellishments of an otherwise poor story, as evident to everyone who just want to open his mind and understand what has been done.


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

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

I thought you had become the expert on when RN officers were being economical with the truth.
No doubts Stephen Roskill would have written about it on 1955 if he wanted and needed to
Roskill said he could have put the Court martial story in ""The War at Sea" but didn't because it wasn't operations. What he did put in was "The difficult decisions taken by Captain Leach and Admiral Wake-Walker were later fully supported by the Admiralty" Although according to you he already "knew the truth" from Tovey's letters, he writes the exact opposite. :shock:

So, maybe not 1954 at all, but later, say 1961 as Corelli Barnett suggests. At least that means that Roskill is not sitting on this bombshell for 20 years before he leaks it to Kennedy, maybe with the admonition "you didn't hear it from me- don't mention my name".

Can you say exactly where the Roskill.jpg comes from? Is it main text or footnotes from "Naval policy"? The Italian Google Books knows I am not in Italy! Surprising then, that having "outed himself" as the purveyor of the story based on the Tovey letters, he then cites Kennedy as the source in Churchill and the Admirals 1977. Maybe he is just modest, and since Kennedy has broken the story first believes the author should get the glory. Except even Kennedy loads it with caveats, because he is suspicious Roskill has given him this scoop instead of keeping it for himself.
Colin McMullen interview on 1989 recall a visit Adm Tovey made to his uncle Adm Blake most likely in the early 1960's years
McMullen says IIRC "before Tovey died" . So there is no indication when this occurred but before 1968 when Geoffrey Blake passed away. You want it to be early 60s because you want it not to be tainted by Rear Admiral Pafford's observations on Tovey remembering things that didn't happen. However that means McMullen has to remember the details of a conversation for something like 27 years until recording.
Singapore talking all night long with his father and that is the most probable source of his information about the Court Martial story he was well aware of during his life.
and
but never used them as reference on his books.


Sir Henry knew his father was blown across the bridge, knocked unconscious and herniated (all things you discount) and these may have come from a previous letter, or a conversation that night but what Sir Henry actually recounts is that they talked about radar. Since Sir Henry makes no mention in his book of the momentous threat of Court Martial when describing this conversation it is not "most probable". Since Tovey apparently told only Roskill of the threat, but not Grenfell or Schofield for their books, it is extremely unlikely he told Sir Henry. Since Sir Henry is not included in the 52 individuals named as correspondents by Kennedy he did not get direct from him either. I wonder whether he got a gratis copy of "Pursuit"?

Hi Cag, You asked how the defence might have acted in a Court Martial. I suspect the first question would have been "Sir Dudley, what exactly is your understanding of the term admirable? :dance:

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

you wrote :
I'm wondering why he called it a saga if he considered it a real fact. :think:
Not knowing which statement you are referring to, ... I cannot try to help you on the above statement.

What I think is that if a son of the experience of Sir Henry Leach into his 45 years on the Royal Navy, is authorizing a book author to publish the statements we know very well on the books we referenced many times on this thread, ... and in case of Tarrant he is personally providing it to him, ... all related to the initial Court Martial request involving his father, from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey, defeated by Adm Tovey position about it, ... well, ... I hope you will agree that in every part of this world that will be considered a fact really occurred.

Do you agree with me ?

@ Wadinga,

please no more personal interpretation on the way to read things we do not have in original and we cannot refer to, since we have " NO Indications " about it.

Now we need the letters and all the precise reference dates about Stephen Roskill and Sir L. Kennedy, ... what they had from Adm Tovey and when, ... and it will be good to read the letters if possible from Adm Tovey to Roskill (1954) about all this, ... precisely.

The Paffard letter is dated 1973 and talks about a different topic with Sir L. Kennedy, ... not about the Court Martial letters.
Please no more correlations between Adm Tovey last years with his 1954 letters to Roskill.

We have McMullen interview (1989) and we have the dates Adm Blake and Adm Tovey died, surely it happened before July 1968.
McMullen does not report anything strange on Adm Tovey mental status on that occasion.

We do have Sir Henry Leach books and his statements about this Court Martial story related to his father.

So far more than enough to believe it was a real fact, ... due to the above 3 different source of reliable inputs.

Now we need to find more evidence, from the original Adm Tovey letters that must be somewhere on the archives.

Bye Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 )
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,
and in case of Tarrant he is personally providing it to him
We know he provided a photo and possibly some unrecorded facts and impressions and experiences. There is no indication he provided any statements. Kennedy is cited as a source.

Sir Henry called the CM threat and subsequent return to command, honours and awards etc a saga in Endure no Makeshifts and we know Sagas are are made up of fact and fantasy................

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Alberto, at the risk of going on and on which I'm sorry, I must admit is for me and I'm sure others is really frustrating, could you then explain successfully the numerous points raised in my previous posts as regards Y turret, Wake-Walkers opinions and PoW actually physically re-engaging Bismarck? I mean, forgive me if I have not understood the evidence, but shells were fired were they not?

I'm sorry to say that instead once again you pull together two completely different things to attempt to prove one of them. The case against Captain Drew has nothing in connection with the case against Leach?! One does not prove or disprove a fact in the other.

As for your 2nd point I write those words because for some that is their opinion! May I ask, do you not read what I write? Do those people's opinions not count? If you deny them their evidence does that not immediately make you also a denier? It is a very silly circular argument.

Could it not be thought intentional that every point I make here is cherry picked for quotes to point fingers at and yet quietly ignore or gloss over the other more relevant parts?

Is 10nm in the Blake inquiry a correct distance?
Is 15nm in the Walker inquiry a correct distance?
Is it more likely that both are equally incorrect?

Therefore:

Opinion..........is it due to added evidence from Suffolk unavailable at the Blake inquiry and an attempt at an intentional correction/estimation to maps that the originator himself states are 'good enough for the purpose of the inquiry' and 'may be subject to correction..........or due to an intentional cover up instigated by Tovey or Churchill to stop a court martial for Leach and his superior Wake-Walker?

I don't have an opinion, you do and others do. Both opinions are valid, both opinions have plausible logical evidences both written and anecdotal, both opinions have flaws, both opinions are not facts. That is my point.

We don't know what Leach junior spoke to senior about, so can't say anything for a fact, from bits I've read in books in Singapore it was Leach, Tennant and Leach junior. The conversation was also about the Japanese and how Leach senior and Tennant thought Leach junior was under estimating the threat and about home life but who knows, I know both Leach.men were letter writers.

Best wishes
Cag.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

are you able to read it ?
Tarrant_page_61_Leach_photo_caption.jpeg
Tarrant_page_61_Leach_photo_caption.jpeg (100.04 KiB) Viewed 607 times
On the last part of Sir Henry Leach photo caption we can clearly see now the " saga " definition clearly surfacing, ... in terms of " ... with the result that instead of a court-martial Leach was awarded ... " .

Thanks Sean, ... now the " saga " concept it is even more clear to me ... :wink:

you wrote :
Sir Henry called the CM threat and subsequent return to command, honors and awards etc a saga in Endure no Makeshifts and we know Sagas are are made up of fact and fantasy................
WHOW !!!!!!!!

That is a real SCOOP for me, ... and I fully agree with him of course, ... 100 %, ... this all series of events I have re-constructed can surely be defined in that way, ... just a ridiculous and unbelievable series of actions that a serious Navy should have never even thought about, ... a Court Martial call, ... defeated, ... documents alteration soon after, ... incorrect dispatches submitted to justify and change the reality, ... a rewarding proposal and recognition while keeping the ship command, ... it was really something that very few will believe being real, ... a kind of saga.

Unfortunately for him and for you it was a real series of events ... and he had to accept it being real as we can read, ... what about you now ?

Bye Antonio :D
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 )
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi Mr.Cag,
I still do respect your personal opinions but there are pages of discussions on all the points you raised and I'm tired of discussing them again and again with people not wanting to see the truth.

I have just given you 2 examples (Pinchin Plot and Tovey points 17 and 19) that CANNOT be in any way interpreted as "innocent errors". I proposed to discuss something new from Capt.Ellis autobiography, but it seems a bit inconvenient for your side.....

I will discuss only a specific aspect here, because your list is far too long: Adm Tovey had already made a report on May 30 (please read it, no mention of Y turret), he received Leach reports (where, WHEN mentioned, Y turret jamming occurs after the turn away) and he INTENTIONALLY mixed the Y turret jam among all the battle damages received BEFORE the ship was disengaged: "One four-gunned turret HAD jammed" (this recurring past perfect tense....)

There is no way this can be done by mistake: it's an intentional embellishment of this otherwise apparently poor story, to give some substance to Leach decision, together with the unlikely 06:13 as retreat time.

At least re. this aspect, is it clear enough now ?


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:50 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
@ Herr Nillson,

you wrote :
I'm wondering why he called it a saga if he considered it a real fact. :think:
Not knowing which statement you are referring to, ... I cannot try to help you on the above statement.

What I think is that if a son of the experience of Sir Henry Leach into his 45 years on the Royal Navy, is authorizing a book author to publish the statements we know very well on the books we referenced many times on this thread, ... and in case of Tarrant he is personally providing it to him, ... all related to the initial Court Martial request involving his father, from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey, defeated by Adm Tovey position about it, ... well, ... I hope you will agree that in every part of this world that will be considered a fact really occurred.

Do you agree with me ?
I can't agree to something I don't understand. In his own memoirs from 1993 he wrote:
Leach.jpg
Leach.jpg (115.84 KiB) Viewed 602 times
For me this means he considered it a saga. Maybe (partially?) true, maybe not.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

first of all thanks for sharing it.

For me it is always much better to work and evaluate real inputs, rather than personal opinions ... :clap:

It is clear to me now, ... thanking both Wadinga and you, ... that Sir Henry Leach considered a " saga " what I have described above using my simple words, ... I mean the whole story starting from the real events, ... thru the Court Martial request, ... the defeated of the CM request by Adm Tovey, ... to end up with his father recognition.

That is exactly what has been written on Tarrant book photo caption in a summary easy words way too, ... as you can read above.

It is obvious in my opinion that for a son, ... an Officer in The Royal Navy, ... it is incredible and almost unacceptable to live those events in this way, ... one should never be in condition to find himself in 15 days from a potential Court Martial risk ( for good or bad reasons this is not important for this evaluation ) to a recognition from the King for what he has done.

Call it a " saga ", ... an incredible series of events, ... a nightmare, ... whatever, ... it seems impossible.

Problem is that it was for real, ...and his father was in the middle of it, ... and that is what he had to realize and from what we can read he believed on for the rest of his life, ... until he worked on publishing his father biography with Wills help as the book author, ... with the clear intent to let everybody knowing the truth, ... looking at the book title too.

Bye Antonio :D
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 )
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

Did you remember that the name in brackets is the source of the photograph, not the source of the caption?

There are many quotes in Tarrant's book but I have yet to find one attributed to Sir Henry.

It is worth reminding ourselves that Tarrant highlights the glaring timing inconsistency in the Threat story. On p 60 Tarrant says:
But, Dudley Pound, the First Sea Lord, after studying all the reports on the operation.......
ie sometime after reading Tovey's and others dispatches (in their alleged doctored/whitewash forms).

Whereas the other version is that Tovey's conversation happened directly KG V was attached to the secure telephone line, but this contradicted on p 81 by:
Tovey immediately put through a call Admiral Pound, the First Sea Lord, to vent his feelings. Dudley Pound, who had apparently disagreed with the signal but was unable to dissuade Churchill, apologised to Tovey, agreeing it should never have been transmitted. Tovey, however, was inconsolable and it rankled with him for years
.

This call was not about the CM threat but about the "run out of fuel, get torpedoed and die" message. :shock:

For this and many other good reasons including PQ 17 Tovey held a growing grudge against Pound and Churchill from this time on. Who knows how this ill-feeling manifested itself? :think:

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Alberto, I respect your opinion too.

Again I did not ask however anything about Toveys report, I'm not sure how that is relevant to the question I did ask. Im saying this in a non argumentative way, is it possible for you to answer the questions I asked not answer questions i did not? (You'd make a good politician!)

I asked did Y turret jamming prevent PoW and Leach re-engaging Bismarck? Is this correct or false?

Did Wake-Walker give an opinion to his superior officers on May 24th in response to their question as to why tactically he thought it not tactically and materially a good idea to re-engage Bismarck with PoW alone which was not disagreed with by those superiors by any reply and so in effect prevented Leach from engaging Bismarck? Is this correct or false?

Did PoW and Leach in fact despite this actually re-engage Bismarck on two further occaissions to defend the two shadowing cruisers and did he receive signals from his CO not to continue and risk pushing Bismarck away from the HF? Is this correct or false?

I understand your point regards Ellis but of what relevance is this man's opinion to this incident to a court martial for Leach and Wake-Walker for not re-engaging Bismarck with PoW after Hood was sunk? What you want WW tried for is very different from what the Admiralty wanted it seems.

The quoted piece by Antonio and yourself is a CM for failing to re-engage Bismarck after Hood sank, apparently it now also includes not engaging Bismarck during the Denmark Strait battle, despite evidence that points to a follow and flank mark tactical function, and the senior officer on the battle field (Holland) did not signal otherwise, and for placing his ships together whilst zig zagging and shadowing the enemy during the night of the 24/25th.

How is this relevant to the CM actually in question in this thread?

It is interesting to note that Leach says this saga emerged later.

Best wishes
Cag.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

this is from where Roskill statements I posted above are coming from :

https://books.google.it/books?id=-haODQ ... al&f=false

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Naval-Policy-B ... 147387744X

Remember, the most precise description of what Adm Tovey lived with Adm Pound is the one we can listen from Colin McMullen interview, ... in absence of any other better and more reliable input, ... that is how the story went between them.

I agree on the fact that between Adm Tovey, ... Adm Pound and Churchill, ... they were not good friends, especially after the KGV received messages and the PQ17 story. No doubts Adm Tovey had progressively more critical opinions on them, ... it was understandable.

Bye Antonio :D
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 )
Locked