The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag » Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:49 pm

Hi All

Forgive me Alberto but the conduct of a person is entirely different to the conduct of an inanimate object such as a battle.

Just to point out an inanimate object cannot be judged as to it's behaviour as it is inanimate. I'm afraid this is a fact.

The phrase used is I believe conduct of the battle, not anything else. Had it been ''conduct in the action' or the 'conduct of officers in the action' then you can assume what you have assumed.

To be fair I understand your mistake but once more for clarity, an inanimate object like a battle cannot display behavioural traits, it is a battle. Therefore conduct in this sense of the word as applied to an inanimate object denotes something else entirely.

Your second example proves this, misconduct in the face of the enemy is applied to a person not an object. A ship for example cannot be charged with misconduct, a person can.

Best wishes
Cag

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag » Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:47 pm

Hi All

Hi Alberto just to add as I missed your point, please believe that I'm not attempting to play with words, to me to discuss the conduct of the action means discussion of what occurred, what and how it happened.

To have discussed the conduct in the action would mean looking at how those participating acted.

I realise it may seem to be splitting hairs but it is quite important to understand the difference. I'm sure if you look it up you'll find there is a difference. I would not want you to base anything on something that may be called into question later.

Hope you understand

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:48 pm

Hi Mr.Cag,
you had written: "We also have mention of the discussions between Churchill and Leach etc regarding the conduct of the action or put another way how the action went."
you have written: "To have discussed the conduct in the action would mean looking at how those participating acted".
I'm very happy to see that you have realized how wrong was your first statement. The second one is totally different and it is exactly one out of the two possible meanings I had put in my previous post:

I wrote: "
conduct" is "how (Leach) behaved during the action" or "how the action was conducted (by Leach)"
Even if I was clearly "preferring" the first one, I'm happy with the second one as well..... . The key point is that the word "conduct" implies the behavior (or how he acted) not the result of the action (as per your first statement):

I'm happy to consider this as an unintentional error of yours, but I would ask everybody here please not to play with words and to try to discuss the important NEW evidence just posted by Antonio.


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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3316
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:21 pm

Hello everybody,

well, ... time is arrived to close this long re-construction that started from the battle data and document mismatches and arrived till the Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill documents connection.

For everybody convenience I put here again the flow charts of the main involved persons starting from the Military reporting chain of Home Fleet until the Admiralty First Sea Lord Sir D. Pound :
Report_flow_chart.jpg
Report_flow_chart.jpg (103.28 KiB) Viewed 330 times
thru the Admiralty board where the Military ( First Sea Lord Adm Pound ) connect with the Politicians ( First Lord of the Admiralty ) :
Admiralty_board.jpg
Admiralty_board.jpg (117.26 KiB) Viewed 330 times
for example you can see it on 1939 when Sir Winston Churchill was the First Lord of the Admiralty ( Politician ) :
Admiralt_Board_6_December_1939_Barnes_Churchill_02.jpg
Admiralt_Board_6_December_1939_Barnes_Churchill_02.jpg (78.72 KiB) Viewed 330 times
continue -->
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: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag » Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:26 pm

Hi All

Alberto I'm afraid I'm not the one playing word games here. I think you need to read my posts again.

You state that conduct implies behaviour, can an inanimate object behave in any way? You have to look at the use of the words "of" and "in".

Conduct of the action, the action is the inanimate subject which Is being enquired about. Therefore the conduct of the action is how the action was conducted, ie what occurred and when, how it happened.

I might ask a surgeon how an operation (inanimate subject) was conducted, he will not tell me anything as regards his behaviour he will only tell me how he did it, what occurred and when.

Conduct in the action, the inanimate object 'the action' is no longer the subject of the enquiry but it is the the behaviour of those involved that is being enquired about, how they conducted themselves, how they acted.

If I ask of the conduct of a surgeon in the operation I'm asking about his behaviour, was he professional, negligible or even drunk as he has lost his watch and my heart valve is ticking.

If you do not wish to know the difference or are happy to carry on believing that the conduct of the action means how Captain Leach behaved feel free.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3316
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:37 pm

continued --->

here you can see the same Admiralty board on 1943 when, ... like in 1941, ... Sir Alexander was the First Lord of the Admiralty ( Politicians ) and you can stil see Sir J. Barnes ( Deputy Secretary ) and the First Sea Lord Sir Adm D. Pound in there just as before on 1939 :
Admiralty_Board_July_16_1943.jpg
Admiralty_Board_July_16_1943.jpg (79.18 KiB) Viewed 330 times
obviously Sir Winston Churchill had become Prime Minister so here we have the Political flow chart we are referring to about this story :
Board_Politicians_Chart.jpg
Board_Politicians_Chart.jpg (48.47 KiB) Viewed 330 times
and last but not least we have the final statement by Winston Churchill of all this story that speaks for itself, after his own early statements at Chequers, ... the scrutiny on early August, ... and his final evaluations : Leave it !
Adm_205_10_page_334_WSC.jpg
Adm_205_10_page_334_WSC.jpg (41.63 KiB) Viewed 330 times
Closing this thread I have opened, where nothing is left to be demonstrated, I like to thank everybody that helped on making all those steps and documents clear to be read and understood.

Enjoy the reading ...

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 )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Sun Dec 03, 2017 5:52 am

We have a whole plethora of people who would or should have been "in the know" about a threatened CMDS yet the only source cited by every book that mentions this is ultimately Tovey... :think:

Strange don't you think?

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:19 am

Hi all, @Mr.Cag,
thanks, I see now the difference between "conduct of the action" and "conduct in the action" in your previous sentences, that I had previously missed in your post.
Cag wrote: "the conduct of the action is how the action was conducted, ie what occurred and when, how it happened."
I have waited some time to see whether any "native speaking" wanted to show a bit of fairness, but it was a waste of time (as this whole discussion....) :think:
According to all the dictionaries I have seen, your definition above is wrong (even when referred to an "inanimate object"), because it does not imply the way something is managed, driven or led, just how it generically happened. Your one is the definition of "development" of the action (sequence of events). :negative:

The word "conduct of an inanimate object" is clearly defined in English Dictionaries: (see second example here:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/conduct
"The manner in which an organization or activity is managed or directed."
or here (point 2):
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conduct
"the act, manner, or process of carrying on : MANAGEMENT . E.g. "praised for his conduct of the campaign" "
or here (point 5):
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... sh/conduct
"The conduct of a task or activity is the way in which it is organized and carried out. "
or here:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... sh/conduct
"the way in which an activity is organized and performed"

Would you mind to post an example (from a dictionary) that can overwhelm what I have shown above and where "conduct of something" (inanimate object) is used as a mere "development of something" as per your "interpretation" (again a nice word) ? :negative:


The word conduct always implies the way something is driven or managed, therefore an analysis not only of the facts, but also of the decisions, of the management and of the leadership shown in an action (as obvious from its latin origin....).
"Conduct of the action" is "how the action was conducted, ie what occurred and when, the way it was carried on, how it was managed and directed/commanded", thus the "behavior" of Leach was well within the scope of the "very full discussions" with Churchill.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sun Dec 03, 2017 8:43 am, edited 6 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:32 am

Dunmunro wrote: "We have a whole plethora of people who would or should have been "in the know" about a threatened CMDS yet the only source cited by every book that mentions this is ultimately Tovey... :think: Strange don't you think?"
Hi Duncan,
not at all. Who else in the "plethora" (I guess only Churchill and Pound, possibly Alexander and T.Phillips too) would have had an interest in speaking or (worse) writing about the fact that a well deserved Court Martial was not done due to convenience and propaganda reasons during wartime ?

Only Tovey, who (erroneously) felt that he himself alone defeated the threat, would have been proud of this and accounted for it. I say erroneously because, obviously, what defeated the threat was not Tovey's menace but the final outcome of the operation, with Bismarck sunk.



Thanks to Antonio, we have now ALL the needed evidences not only of the CMDS (confirmed even by the official historian of the Royal Navy), but also of its "evolution" into a request for "explanations" (June 2nd War Cabinet), with the involvement of the whole military (up to Pound) and political chain (up to Churchill) in the "embellishment" of the facts (duly accomplished by Tovey with the "despatches"), and in the final "closure....." of the matter (with ADM 205/10 papers).


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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3316
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 Dec 03, 2017 9:34 am

Hello everybody,

Alberto Viruani wrote :
Thanks to Antonio, we have now ALL the needed evidences not only of the CMDS (confirmed even by the official historian of the Royal Navy), but also of its "evolution" into a request for "explanations" (June 2nd War Cabinet), with the involvement of the whole military (up to Pound) and political chain (up to Churchill) in the "embellishment" of the facts (duly accomplished by Tovey with the "despatches"), and in the final "closure....." of the matter (with ADM 205/10 papers).
Thanks for the compliments ... :oops: ... that surely I have to share with you that at first started my curiosity about all this with your immense love and knowledge of the Royal Navy best traditions and military conduct rules, ... up to the Capt Horatio Hornblower book that Churchill took on board PoW on his voyage to Placentia bay, ... and surely used to explain to Capt Leach too some of his personal thougths about it, ... and we have to share it also with many other persons here in cooperating with their knowledge too on helping finding the truth about all this court martial aborted attempt story.

Knowing who Stephen Roskill was,... the Official Royal Navy Historian for WW2, ... his letters exchange with Adm Tovey and the Adm 205/10 document content early on 2013, ... the research about the truth was going to be much faster and would have occurred much easier going very fast from the top down until the final evidences, ... thru the War Cabinet minutes, the Admiralty Official position about Adm Tovey dispatches ( Sir Barnes letter ) and finally to Adm Tovey dispatches point 17 and 19 ( plus 22 and 23 ) and the single Officers account mismatches until the Hood First board signed declaration, ... and the Pound/ Tovey phone call being the reason for all this " regrettable aftermath " of the DS battle story.

We have done it bottom up, ... starting from the very evident mismatches and up until finally finding all the needed confirmation of the complete knowledge and continuous participation on the decision making process of the politicians ( Churchill ) on top of the military command chain ( Pound ) since the very beginning of it, ... until Churchill final solution of the case, ... tersely writing : Leave it !.

It has been much more difficult and complicated, ... more elaborated and complex and full of difficulties and correlations to be done in order to keep on following the right path upwards, ... but I have to admit at the end it provide us a greater research competence value overall, ... since we made very minor mistakes while doing it, ... and I am personally very proud and satisfyed about it now.

Last but not less important, I have to thank the diligent and pragmatic historian capabilities of Stephen Roskill, saving all documents on his Cambridge Churchill archive, ... and leaving on his books clear footnote's indications about this historical facts, ... and in this way allowing every really interested person looking for the historical truth, ... to find it on the proper place.

That is what an historian should do and what we did here in and will do with this story on future publications.


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: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag » Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:24 am

Hi All

Dear me Alberto you really exasperate me! Ok here goes last time of trying, thank you for your examples which I will use to explain simply.

1st example. The manner in which an organisation is managed or directed. To manage or direct- to run, direct, control, oversee, lead, head, co ordinate. How the Bismarck operation was managed or directed, what steps were taken and carried out in sequence or who did what and when.

e.g. given in your example link "The war encompassed all spheres of state activity while it's conduct required tremendous outlays.

2nd example. Act manner or process of carrying on : management, see above who did what and when.

e.g. given in your example link praised for HIS conduct of the campaign ie this is describing a person's conduct, where as saying "The conduct of the campaign was long and hard" means the actual business of the campaign the process of carrying it out was long and hard.

3rd example. The conduct of a task or activity is the way in which it is organized and carried out. Process of organisation and the process in which the activity was carried out

e.g. given in your example link " Also up for discussion will be the conduct of free and fair elections" ie discussing doing free and fair elections or that free and fair elections will be done.

4th example. To organize and perform a particular activity ie. how it will be done or the process

e.g. given in your example link we are conducting a survey or experiments were conducted in a laboratory, or police officers will conduct a new inquiry.

Therefore again conduct of the action- management direction and process, conduct in the action- individuals performance or behaviour. If you do not agree I'm happy to accept that, but I will not continue to discuss this any further thank you.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:53 am

Hi all, @ Mr.Cag,
exactly, I agree ! You should carefully avoid to discuss again this point :oops: , I do hope you are able to keep your word! :stop:

You have initially tried to say that "conduct of the action" was meaning "how the action went" :shock: (please read your first post) !

Now, after having realized your error, you are posting again the difference between "in the action" and "of the action" (that I have already acknowledged).
However you are NOT PROVIDING a single evidence (from a dictionary, not from your "interpretation") supporting your initial statement above, while I have given you 4 dictionaries examples (with inanimate objects) in which it's clear that the "conduct of the action" is how the action was conducted, ie not only what occurred and when, but also the way it was carried on, how it was managed and directed/commanded". This "management of the action" was well within the scope of the "very full discussions" of Leach with Churchill.

Apparently you are unable to see the difference between the 2 above "interpretations" :stubborn: :stubborn: :stubborn:



Coming to some more serious matters:
Antonio Bonomi wrote: "Knowing who Stephen Roskill was,... the Official Royal Navy Historian for WW2, ... his letters exchange with Adm Tovey and the Adm 205/10 document content early on 2013, ... the research about the truth was going to be much faster and would have occurred much easier going very fast from the top down until the final evidences, ... thru the War Cabinet minutes, the Admiralty Official position about Adm Tovey dispatches ( Sir Barnes letter ) and finally to Adm Tovey dispatches point 17 and 19 ( plus 22 and 23 ) and the single Officers account mismatches until the Hood First board signed declaration, ... and the Pound/ Tovey phone call being the reason for all this " regrettable aftermath " of the DS battle story.

We have done it bottom up, ... starting from the very evident mismatches and up until finally finding all the needed confirmation of the complete knowledge and continuous participation on the decision making process of the politicians ( Churchill ) on top of the military command chain ( Pound ) since the very beginning of it, ... until Churchill final solution of the case, ... tersely writing : Leave it !.

It has been much more difficult and complicated, ... more elaborated and complex and full of difficulties and correlations to be done in order to keep on following the right path upwards, ... but I have to admit at the end it provide us a greater research competence value overall, ... since we made very minor mistakes while doing it, ... and I am personally very proud and satisfyed about it now.

Last but not less important, I have to thank the diligent and pragmatic historian capabilities of Stephen Roskill, saving all documents on his Cambridge Churchill archive, ... and leaving on his books clear footnote's indications about this historical facts, ... and in this way allowing every really interested person looking for the historical truth, ... to find it on the proper place.

That is what an historian should do and what we did here in and will do with this story on future publications."
:clap:

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

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson » Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:43 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

thanks Marc.

In reality, the single document of Adm Tovey, his report called dispatches is this one : Home Fleet, 5th July, 1941 No. 896/H.F. 1325.

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 9tovey.htm

Here you have the Adm Tovey dispatches document for your convenience in their originally printed version on the London Gazette on October 14th, 1947 :

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/L ... /38098.pdf

The Adm 234-509 containing it and all the other documents is something different, lately called Battle Summary Number 5, and carefully analyzed by Ltnt Cdr Pitcairn-Jones which, ... as we all know well, ... corrected on it on 1948 the incorrect 06:13 statement of Adm Tovey and moved it back to the correct 06:03.

Bye Antonio :D
I wrote:
Herr Nilsson wrote: ...Tovey's own and first despatch is dated 5th July. His second dispatch contains further appendices to his first dispatch and as enclosures Reports from CS1, CS2, CS18, PoW, Rodney, Victorious, Manchester, King George and Suffolk. This despatch is dated 15th July. One can find all about it in the preface of ADM 234-509.
I've never written that ADM 234-509 is the source of the despatches. It's the source of the sequence and its dates.

Edit:

@Alberto and Antonio

In regard of the A.V.A. letters: Thank you, you made me smile.
Regards

Marc

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1296
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:11 pm

Hello All,

Firstly I am cutting myself a huge portion of humble pie :oops: And attempting to swallow and digest it. :wink:

I accept that Pound and Alexander are the origin points of the docs 332 and 333. The sprawling and illegible signature is AVA. I apologise for this error. It seems senior officials were indeed still involved in the matter two and four whole months after the WM 56 on 5th June.

However, :cool:

One of the docs not reproduced on these pages is War Cabinet 56. We have had a carefully chosen excerpt, but here is a fuller extraction:
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.
As Antonio has succinctly put it "everything had changed". Firstly the main actual point of interest is the broadcast by a blabby (Army?) officer, presumably transitting in Rodney, who, based on his experience of shooting at non-moving objects from a non-moving object, thought there had been too many misses. This is one of the items requiring enquiry. Whether or not the War Cabinet ever got a transcript of the broadcast is not really of much interest except if it is the case, then many of the things they showed an interest in were never followed up.

The thing that is not clear is what the certain aspects are. There is no mention of Court Martial or any disciplinary action against anyone in these or the 331-334 series papers.

We know, and WSC and Alexander knew, that the most serious aspect of the operation, now it was completed, was not the ill-informed and over-hasty observation that someone had perpetrated "the worst thing since Troubridge", but that mishandled intelligence had sent Tovey in the wrong direction for hours and jeopardized the interception. Despite the attempt to misdirect us with the suggestion that the tiny encroachment of a CMDS threat into the Real World from a half remembered and barely recorded phone call, and never again referenced by those supposed to prosecute it, represents the tip of an enormous and all-encompassing Conspiracy.

Why my account of the casual and relaxed attitude of the Prime Minister used to getting his own way, and supposedly still livid over the "the worst thing since Troubridge", and determined to punish it, is aboard a ship still commanded by a man who had supposedly perpetrated it, should be characterized as "trolling" I fail to understand. Except when you run out of excuses and even imagination, insults are next to hand...........

The important point in docs 331-334 is not who signs what, but the four month delay since no one is interested any more.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:20 pm

Wadinga wrote: "Firstly I am cutting myself a huge portion of humble pie :oops: And attempting to swallow and digest it. :wink:
I accept that Pound and Alexander are the origin points of the docs 332 and 333. The sprawling and illegible signature is AVA. I apologise for this error. It seems senior officials were indeed still involved in the matter two and four whole months after the WM 56 on 5th June."
Hi Sean,
I'm happy you decided to open your eyes and look at the reality, instead of just denying the evidences.
This is a very fair and dignified approach of yours, that I would like to see from all the ones that (since 2013....) were here, just trying to deviate the discussion, were insulting the ones reconstructing this regrettable aftermath, and even tried to menace legal actions..... :clap:

However: :cool:
you wrote: "Firstly the main actual point of interest is the broadcast...:"
This was the June 2nd War Cabinet minute.
2 to 4 months later (to use your words), at page 332, Pound is clearly mentioning that the main interest was on "the action of the commanding officer of the Prince of Wales in breaking off action with the Bismarck". Then he mention Barnes acceptance of Tovey despatches, where also the failure to re-engage by Wake-Walker is listed.

you wrote: "The important point in docs 331-334 is not who signs what, but the four month delay since no one is interested any more. "
:negative: The four months were duly used to collect the reports, to build up the intentionally incorrect (but "credible" at first glance) Tovey's despatches (July), to allow Churchill to have "very full discussions" with both Tovey and Leach, to run a second board to overwrite the less than cautionary declarations of a certain Rear-Admiral (August), and to finally have the board of Admiralty accepting "Tovey's" version of the story (September)...... I would not say that nobody was interested for 4 months......
However, until September, Pound had still nothing to present to the politicians. After Barnes released the board acceptance, few days passed before Pound wrote to Alexander, Alexander to to Churchill and back...... to have this regrettable aftermath silenced until NOW.....


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

Post Reply