The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Alberto Virtuani]

Please ask Correlli Barnett (who AFAIK is still alive) to amend his book regarding the CM threat and to disprove Roskill work, as they clearly believe this fact......as everybody else does, except you and Sean (Wadinga).


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

it simply goes the other way around.

Nobody cares if the Court Martial occurred or not like for the Manchester.

There are available original and official evidence of the Court Martial trial attempt directly from Adm Tovey, thanking Stephen Roskill, ... the Official Royal Navy Historian for Worl War 2.

Who else could have declared what happened during that call?
Who really could have had any interest on doing it ?
Surely not the British politicians or the Royal Navy Admiralty that approved the shameful "Cover Up" that we can read today into the Official documents.

Only Adm Tovey had an interest on doing it and in fact he did it directly with the British most important British naval historian of the time, ... Stephen Roskill, ... that was able to preserve all the evidences and the links to other related documents about the whole story.

The trial to declare Adm Tovey maybe not reliable attempted by Sir L. Kennedy on 1974 was aborted directly by Stephen Roskill almost immediately directly with Sir Kennedy, and officially later on with own publications confirming the reality of that event by Roskill himself on 1976 and 1977.

The Court Martial attempt by Adm Pound is proven and documented above any reasonable doubt by Am Tovey letter to Stephen Roskill and by his declarations to McMullen too, and we have also that BBC interview on the IWM.

The statement Stephen Roskill used twice on his books about Adm Pound addiction to Courts of Inquiry, ... confirmed and reinforced by who, ... like Stephen Roskill, .... worked for him for 5 years, ... tells the whole story, ... and " that historian fully agrees with " ... is closing this story once for good.

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All

Hi Antonio, this is just a few thoughts on your post above, not a criticism or an over write.

As the person who discussed the specific threatened charges and if a conviction could actually be achieved and also visited the Churchill Archive and posted the Tovey letters and their reference, I think I have tried very hard to remain on subject.

But I did not bring the cover up or PoW disengagement or Norfolks position into the subject matter, but I am happy to discuss it if it is required? If not it is ok by me and this can be continued in the relevant threads.

I do not refute there is evidence of a threat of a trial, but no trial was commenced as far as I know? Tovey states he heard no more about it. Would this point then in effect be the end of the CM discussion? That we have evidence from one important source that a CM was threatened without knowing all the facts, rebuffed and nothing more was heard about it?

Speaking of relevance could you tell me the relevance of the Norfolk and Suffolk tracks and the plot to the CM threat by Pound? I believe in your Roskill reference the charge was not re engaging Bismarck after Hood was sunk? This equates to Toveys letter and his reasoning of pushing Bismarck West and away from him.

Indeed at 11.26B on the 24th there is record of a signal from the 1st Sea Lord to CS1 that states "continue to shadow Bismarck even if you run out of fuel in order that C in C may catch up in time".

The cabinet papers deal with the following up of Pounds uncertainty about PoW disengagement that has been included in the CM discussion, but there seems to be no mention anywhere of a CM for Wake-Walkers cruisers involvement in the DS battle is there? Does Tovey mention in his despatch Norfolk engaging Bismarck or is it Prinz Eugen?

William Daniels does mention that the war room seemed happy with Wake-Walkers shadowing apart from Tom Phillips, we dont know his criticisms (maybe the non re engagement?) but Daniels claims them to be unwarranted. Have you managed to read the Staff college appraisal of when the cruisers would have had to be signalled by Holland to allow a concentration to happen?

There are many risks mentioned that would have had to be taken to get the cruisers into position and I think the Staff believed that the Norfolk and Suffolk did not have the required speed to enable this to happen, even if the signal from Holland had happened after contact was re established with Bismarck early on the 24th which would have given away Hood's position.

However these are just thoughts and if you think that the CM or court of inquiry etc was specific to the non intervention by Norfolk and Suffolk, as well as the disengagement of PoW and the non re engagement of Bismarck after Hood was sunk I'm happy to accept your opinion. Again there is no intent of critisism, just some thoughts.

Best wishes
Cag.

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

You claimed Churchill repeated the "Troubridge" performance at the Admiralty War Room on the afternoon 26th. Is there evidence at all or is this just another creative crenullation on the battlements of the Ziggurat of Supposition?

Tom Phillips did not apparently commit any criticism of Wake-Walker or Leach to paper. His only comment is on Dalrymple-Hamilton. If his analysis is based on the limited information available during the chase, he would as ill-informed as Pound when he is alleged to have made the threat, even before receiving Tovey's interim report, let alone anything at all from CS1.

For Cag:

The cabinet papers deal with the following up of Pounds uncertainty about PoW disengagement

By my reading there is not only no reference to disciplinary action in these Cabinet Papers but since there is no discussion, little real interest in having further details of the action. It is only after two whole months have gone by that some bureaucrat asks whether there will be a report. He does not say "where is it", "why haven't we got it?" he says "is there going to be one?" He just needs to tick off something from his outstanding matters list. It is Pound's assistant who concludes it must relate to Leach's actions since nothing else but dodgy radar has actually been mentioned...............like for instance why do British ships blow up as soon as they are hit, which is what the War Cabinet really wants to know. Much safer to continue to pander to Churchill's original outburst (probably forgotten by Monday 26th) than answer awkward questions about exploding battlecruisers or why Tovey charged off in the wrong direction after Lutjens obligingly told the British where he was.

Were there really no revelations about the D/R kerfuffle in Daniels' information?

Some posters need to remind themselves of the function of a FORUM - discussion, not unilateral attempts to shut down conversation. If they want to have the last say on everything, promote their extreme views, with or without valid evidence and stultify further investigation they should create their own website and they can behave as badly as they wish there.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Wadinga wrote: "You claimed Churchill repeated the "Troubridge" performance at the Admiralty War Room on the afternoon 26th. Is there evidence at all or is this just another creative crenullation on the battlements of the Ziggurat of Supposition? "

Hi Sean,
I have read again Brodhurst book and..... it's my mistake....
Brodhurst describes the War Room and Churchill "interest" in the Bismarck chase (Adm.W.Davies even speaks about attempts of interference from Churchill side) and immediately after he accounts for Colville's reported words, I was mistaken by this "vicinity" and I interpreted the words as being repeated in the War Room.
I don't know whether Brodhurst put the two instances so close intentionally or not, but anyway the error is mine.


However, the "Ziggurat" is still very solid as Pound words ("The PoW had then broken off action. Whether or not she had been right in doing so could not be judged on the information so far available") were minuted in writing during May 26 War Cabinet and Churchill comparison accounted by Colville ("the worst thing since Troubridge turned away from the Goeben in 1914") should be quite understandable, as being the clear menace of a following Inquiry/Court Martial.

I wait now for your fair admission that Churchill was very much interested to the Bismarck chase, spending his precious Prime Minister time in the Admiralty War Room on May 26, mentioning neither Crete nor the Ireland conscription...... but the Bismarck only. This interest is well demonstrated also by the papers on ADM 205/10 (e.g. "the very full discussions" of the Prime Minister himself with both Leach and Tovey between June and September 1941)....
Also you should fairly admit that Colville's related words from Churchill were ONLY referred to the PoW retreat (I remember you tried to insinuate that they were related to Crete as well.... ), else I will feel free to say that Brodhurst intended the same words as repeated by Churchill in the War Room

you wrote: "It is only after two whole months have gone by that some bureaucrat asks whether there will be a report....."

Possibly a bureaucrat (the secretary of the War Cabinet....) asked first, but I would not define "bureaucrats" the First Sea Lord, the First Lord and the Prime Minister (all directly involved in the discussions on how to close the "matter" as demonstrated by the papers of ADM 205/10) . Was it a bureaucrat to write "Leave it" ?


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

this thread is about the Court Martial attempt.

This is the reason why to cover the whole " Denmark Strait Court Martial Saga " correlations with all the other arguments I have dedicated a link where everyone interested can find the proper links for the related arguments associated with it to be covered and discussed one by one on the already opened and dedicated threads.

A thread dedicated to RearAdm Wake-Walker missed re-engagement is going to be opened soon, just like another one dedicated to the loss of the Bismarck after, ... and so on.

I am glad when somebody realize and admit that this Court Martial attempt was real and it happened.

I do not see at this point how anyone can refute to do it, so evident and official it is given Adm Tovey original letter found and Stephen Roskill publications and correlations about it.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,


Thanks for demolishing the crenullations, the rest of the rickety tower will come down soon.

Don't bother to remember the complete Colville quote here it is again:

""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. The PM's line is that Cunningham must be made to take very risk: the loss of half the Mediterranean Fleet would be worthwhile in order to save Crete."

Note that it stops being about Denmark Straits and becomes solely about Cunningham in the Mediterranean after "account".

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Sean,
you are welcome, I know how to admit an error, apparently you do not.


The one posted above by you IS NOT the complete Colville quote despite your attempt to state this way.
This is the complete quote:

"The PM cannot understand why the PoW did not press home her attack yesterday and keeps on saying it is the worst thing since Troubridge turned away from the Goeben in 1914. 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. The PM's line is that Cunningham must be made to take very risk: the loss of half the Mediterranean Fleet would be worthwhile in order to save Crete"

I don't see yet your fair admission that you were wrong trying to say that the words: "The PM cannot understand why the PoW did not press home her attack yesterday and keeps on saying it is the worst thing since Troubridge turned away from the Goeben in 1914." were solely referred to Denmark Strait, this first sentence being ONLY for Prince of Wales retreat.
As you see above, there is at this point a "full stop" and THEN your partial quote posted above, that is solely referred to Crete.......


I assume you are too "shy" to admit you were wrong about the interest of the Prime Minister in the Bismarck affair, too........ but I wait for these two admissions from your side.


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

Alberto, I am sorry but you are going to remain without any satisfaction, disillusioned, trust me.

It is years that I was waiting for the obvious and evident to be admitted. Not any longer.

We are left here in only with some " deniers at any cost " against any evidence one can provide.

They are just doing some intentional " trolling ", which is the only thing they can do given the evidence showed here in.

The reasonable persons have left this discussion since a lot of time.

This because everything is more that evident and there is nothing they can say other than admit and agree with sorrow the shame we have demonstrated, written and published even by the most important British historians.

It is time to close all this discussion where nothing is left to be demonstrated, ... and move ahead.

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Antonio,
I do hope you are wrong, at least this time, and that a fair person will show he knows how to admit an error, as I did above.


Just to make things more clear (I see now that my previous post is not so much and a bit convoluted....), here again the Colville's diary complete quote:

"The PM cannot understand why the PoW did not press home her attack yesterday and keeps on saying it is the worst thing since Troubridge turned away from the Goeben in 1914. 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. The PM's line is that Cunningham must be made to take very risk: the loss of half the Mediterranean Fleet would be worthwhile in order to save Crete"

There are three sentences, separated by "full stop".

The first one is clearly referred to the PoW retreat in front of the Bismarck, with the comparison with the Goeben:
"The PM cannot understand why the PoW did not press home her attack yesterday and keeps on saying it is the worst thing since Troubridge turned away from the Goeben in 1914."

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."

Finally the sentence that is ONLY for Crete (and Cunningham):
"The PM's line is that Cunningham must be made to take very risk: the loss of half the Mediterranean Fleet would be worthwhile in order to save Crete"


I hope it's more clear now to everybody that the Troubridge comparison is for Leach only.
I wait for Sean (Wadinga) to show fairness in recognizing this quite trivial error of him as well as the much more severe error when he said Churchill was not interested so much to the Bismarck chase.


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Now it is you who are "jocking"!

Everybody here knows what "on this account" means. Pretty much every description that has used the Churchillian quote has lopped off the reference to Cunningham and the Mediterranean changing the whole meaning of what Colville was describing. The object of the paragraph is to show that WSC had been berating Pound and Alexander. Over what?

Mainly the Mediterranean. This is what had been vexing WSC and the Chiefs of Staff for a week. Cunningham had been told his plans for defending Crete were insufficiently bold, even through everyone knew (from Enigma) there would be no appearance by the Italian Fleet, therefore nothing for him to fight around Crete and his ships and men would be destroyed there, by the Luftwaffe, to no purpose.

The inadequate information WSC had to go on about PoW's readiness to fight in the first place, and the condition of her compass platform after the hit, provoked this particular piece of thoughtless histrionics, but Colville described a dissatisfaction with the Navy, not one officer. Winston's opinion ("cannot understand") is worthless because he didn't know the details of the Denmark Straits fight. Neither did Pound. Pound still didn't know the actual circumstances when he spoke to Tovey on arrival, whatever it is he said, which later, much, much later Tovey remembered as CMDS.

This is why Crete was discussed at the War Cabinet meeting on Monday, not PoW. Because Crete was important, and Leach's actions could not be judged until more was known. WSC had to prepare excuses for the Cabinet and Parliament as to why the Mediterranean Fleet had been frittered away to no purpose and the island and many defenders lost anyway. He clearly had no time for this ludicrous alleged vendetta against two officers and there is no evidence it was pursued by him or his representatives.

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

... and when they finally knew the reality of what happened, ... they changed it according to their needs.

This is what everybody with the intention to know the truth can easily realize.

Of course assuming it is a fair person, able to understand what Official documents and British historians are telling him.

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Antonio Bonomi wrote: " I am sorry but you are going to remain without any satisfaction....They are just doing some intentional " trolling ", which is the only thing they can do given the evidence showed here in."

Hi Antonio, once again on this forum, re. this specific case, you proved to be right.

Wadinga wrote: "The object of the paragraph is to show that WSC had been berating Pound and Alexander. Over what? Mainly the Mediterranean"

Hi Sean,
I'm really disappointed by your attitude here. I was thinking you were able to be a bit more fair, as I have been above.

We are not debating the full paragraph meaning, or about what WSC was infuriated against Pound and Alexander, or whether Crete was important or not in Churchill mind ! Of course it was. Stop with Crete. If you want to open a DIFFERENT thread on a Court Martial threat against Cunningham, please do it (and good luck!).

The first quoted Colville sentence: "The PM cannot understand why the PoW did not press home her attack yesterday and keeps on saying it is the worst thing since Troubridge turned away from the Goeben in 1914." cannot IN ANY WAY be interpreted as referred to Crete. It is ONLY and CLEARLY referred to PoW disengagement, as written. No rational person (and nobody here) is so naive (or mischievous) to believe what you are desperately writing.
Crete is addressed ONLY in the following sentences, but NO comparison with Troubridge (with the consequent clear allusion and menace of a Court Martial) is present regarding Crete, as logical.

Insisting in your side-taken personal interpretation of Colville quote, not supported by any logical or syntactic evidence, shows that you are just here for your personal agenda. In the same identical way, I could easily have said that this same sentence was repeated by WSC in the War Room, as it is written by Brodhurst close to the War Room description.....

Unfortunately, I have to acknowledge that you don't intend to admit your errors, even when they are blatant, and there is no use in discussing with someone who is not ready to open his mind and to admit what is clearly written in Colville quote.


When you will be ready to accept the above, then I will show you some other new evidences that prove how much Churchill was interested to the Bismarck chase (and not so much about Crete......) on May 26, always from Roskill papers, in addition to Brodhurts (pag.179), Correlli-Barnett (pag.307) and mostly to pag. 333 of the ADM 205/10.......


Bye, Alberto

[Cag]

Hi All

Hi Antonio, sorry for the delay very busy at the moment with Christmas approaching rapidly, as I guess are we all! I also guess your remark that 'somebody' realising the CM threat was real may be me?

Again a little unfair as it was this 'somebody' who actually decided to go and find this letter, post it's details and gave you it's reference ?

Hi Alberto, thanks for posting the Troughtbridge quote, it has put everything into context for me. Churchill without detail commented on him not understanding PoW not pressing home an attack yesterday, I presume from the yesterday reference that this comment would have been made on the 25th?

However this is not in the remit of the CM discussion so I will leave this and comment on the correct thread.

Thanks again
Best wishes
Cag.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Mr.Cag wrote: "thanks for posting the Troubridge quote, it has put everything into context for me. Churchill without detail commented on him not understanding PoW not pressing home an attack yesterday, I presume from the yesterday reference that this comment would have been made on the 25th?"

Hi Mr.Cag,
exactly, Colville refers to "yesterday", that seems to mean it should have been on May 25 that he used this comparison.

However, I'm a bit unsure what "press home" (albeit being quite easy to imagine) exactly means in English (I have not found a good translation). Could you please help here ?


Bye, Alberto