The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[pgollin]

.

I only visit the site on a weekly basis - and reviewing the past week's posts has been depressing with A & A being almost entirely negative (and insulting). I'm afraid that I find their continual mixing up of fact with opinion/supposition as disconcerting (and boding ill for any book they might produce).

Two things in particular I find disquietening ;

1: The idea that somehow Churchill's "Leave it" can be definitively stated to be some sort of "war propaganda" expression. It is a weird (and, indeed, rather ridiculous) extension of mind-reading. This (and other) statements which are scattered through the A & A posts on this board will make any book they produce a laughing stock.

2: The "silver bullet" letter/document may, or may not, exist (and may, or may not, turn out to be a "silver bullet") but A & A are so coy about it ad indeed so evasive about it that I doubt its ability to change peoples' minds on the issue. It would be nice if at least some clarity can be given on the following points ;

1: Is the document in question an official document, an official letter, or a private document or letter ?

2: Is it contemporary with the battle (or, say, within 3 months of it) ?

3: Is the original available for public view (once it's reference is revealed) ?

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

the above guy seems to have "forgotten" who insulted first, starting 5 years ago and now he comes back here pretending to be a fair person.....
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... iot#p54913
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... ity#p65653


Of course, in the absence of public excuses for the above insults, he will get no other answer in his "weekly" visits !


Bye, Alberto

[pgollin]

.

Oh dear, . . . . rather indicative of the evasion and "cowardice" (in as much as A & A are too "cowardly" to actually give simple, clear factual answers without loading them up with opinions and suppositions.

There, anyone can throw around the word "coward". But very few can produce a book of facts.

I really do doubt that the book will survive a decent editor, let alone any academic reviews.

.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

poor " hooligan/denier " trying to convince himself while confusing the reality for the other readers.

You simply forgot to mention that Sir Barnes praised WW and Leach using Adm Tovey intentionally falsified dispatches, written after he initially wrote a correct report on May 30th, 1941.

The Plot and the intentional falsification of Norfolk real distance is another evidence, Capt Ellis explained in his autobiography what he did too about his real battle distance.

Stephen Roskill and the majority of the British historians realized well everything occurred about this " regrettable aftermath ".

Sir Henry Leach, surely more competent than the " deniers " writing here in called it the " Denmark Strait Saga ".

Everything almost completely revealed by British very competent and reliable sources, ... that only avoided ( probably intentionally ) to tell the whole story in full details of such a shameful event.

Since I have nothing to hide or protect and no " sacred cows ", I just put everything in the correct connections.

A coward conduct will remain a coward conduct no matter how you try to sell it, ... this is the reality.

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

A low level person just wrote: "Oh dear, . . . . rather indicative of the evasion and "cowardice (in as much as A & A are too "cowardly" to actually give simple, clear factual answers...." "
after having written:
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... iot#p54913
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... ity#p65653


Q.E.D. He doesn't deserve any answer, just my (simple, clear and factual) disgust and contempt !

This is the actual level of the deniers (all of them, because I have seen no reaction from any of them to this poor hooligan repeated insults, since the very beginning, in 2013 ), just because they are unable to counter proven arguments and they are feeling "forced" to insult instead.....e.g.the one posted by this "insulting guy" in his last "weekly visit" was ridiculously demolished here http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 755#p78877....so he possibly decided to be back this week only to provoke...


Bye, Alberto

[pgollin]

.

Amazing how others are "hooligans/deniers" - yet when seemingly favourite recent word ("coward") is used back to him he has no defence.

When will A & A realise that whilst they MAY get a unverified conspiracy past a second-rate vanity publisher, no decent editor working for a major publishing house is going to accept the linking of supposition and opinion masquerading as "fact". No decent editor will accept partial quotes, or deliberately missed out facts.

It is also VERY noticeable that they are desperate to avoid any questions about the "silver bullet" - they used to hold it up as something that would prove their case - given their recent performance, I really doubt that it means anything like they think it does (e.g. look at their weirdly wrong interpretation of the character comparison of WW - a total misunderstanding of simple English).

.

[Alberto Virtuani]

As it is very interesting to see how this low level insulting guy is shameless in his being back this week after his last week poor figure.... I'm still laughing at it...http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 755#p78877

But we have to partially understand him, in his very limited mind he is just furious because his favorite fairy tale, told by Kennedy and blindly trusted, is OVER by now. He still refuses to wake up from the dream and to admit he was always wrong since 2013, when, before insulting, he tried to speak about the...."King's Regs"... instead of the (more annoying, for timid officers) "Articles of War".

[pgollin]

.

Again, insults rather than addressing the problems, especially the problems of a decent editor and "the silver bullet".

( Oh, and it IS the Kings Regs" ( 2 volumes, I believe during WW2 ), not the Articles of War, which are a brief summary. Learn the facts. )

.

[HMSVF]

.

Again, insults rather than addressing the problems, especially the problems of a decent editor and "the silver bullet".

( Oh, and it IS the Kings Regs" ( 2 volumes, I believe during WW2 ), not the Articles of War, which are a brief summary. Learn the facts. )

.

It would be nice if the insults would stop. And the word "coward". I've never seen that word used in texts by even the most voracious of threads or publications. If anything terms such as "deniers",hooligans etc undermine any argument or thesis as it's a Ad hominem rather than a rebuke/answer to a question.


Best wishes


HMSVF

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

possibly this very poorly educated person thinks he can make his first insults forgotten and get any answer:

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... iot#p54913
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... ity#p65653

Simply ridiculous, and good-for-nothing in this discussion (e.g. I have not seen yet posted from him the "misconduct in presence of the enemy" relevant chapters for Leach and Wake-Walker from his "King's Regs", while we have posted already all the relevant "Articles of War" from the "Naval Discipline Act".... ).



@HMSVF:
Hi,
it would have been nice if the insults (and provocations) would have never started: it was the above wretched guy who insulted first ( a fact), without any reason, except his own huge triviality, while NOBODY among the "deniers" rebuked him.... Possibly they preferred to have this "beast" free in the forum: their choice.


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

Since I have nothing to hide

Oh yes you do-o! Come on...… don't be shy, show us your Silver Bullet! Why are you hiding it? Promise we won't laugh, unless it's really silly, like arguing about what instant you call "retreating" for a ship that chased Bismarck for another day, or whether revising a guess with more information is acceptable or even whether an unpublished memoir written many years later is as accurate as a report written at the time

Since Barnes and the entire Admiralty were allegedly in on the Conspiracy, why bother to falsify anything? Besides Wake-Walker was doing such a great job as C-in-C Home Fleet (acting), and Leach was in Winston's good books with a signed photograph.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,
after we got read of the worst person in this forum, let's try to get back to a naval history discussion:

Wadinga wrote: "unless it's really silly, like arguing about what instant you call "retreating" for a ship that chased Bismarck for another day, or whether revising a guess with more information is acceptable or even whether an unpublished memoir written many years later is as accurate as a report written at the time"

Unfortunately, I'm sure that for someone here even the silver bullet will not be enough to accept the CM story.....

I think it is at least as "silly" as saying that:
a ship disengaging from a battle, after 1 minute under fire, after 1 heavy shell received on board, under smoke and full rudder, with a turn away of 160° is actually breaking off the engagement, in any Navy, in any time.
a "memoir" written with the official report quoted in almost each page is far more credible and sincere (if consistent with known facts) than the official report itself, written anyway days after the action, following a Court Martial menace.
Tovey 1961 letter explains perfectly what happened and what was the final aim of Pound/Churchill against the two timid officers, confirming what his 1941 answer to his superior already had mentioned.

However, for sure it is less silly than:
proposing Pinchin's or 1943 Schmalenbach's as actual battlemap for the DS, refusing to agree to a set of initial bearings (that will nail the RN heavy cruisers close to enemy)...
considering point 19 and 17 errors in the "despatches" (and all the other intentional embellishments in declarations) as "typos" or "innocent" errors...
inventing that Brockmann misled Pound, Alexander and Churchill when speaking of the PoW retreat in ADM 205/10...
thinking that Tovey did not want the CM story to be published because unsure of it, instead of to avoid the obvious disgrace to Wake-Walker reputation (as actually he wrote in clear)
insinuating a kind of Roskill's maneuver to push Kennedy publishing the story first (but, after that, confirming it in 2 different books)...


Bye, Alberto

[northcape]

Please let the two clowns ramble on and close this stupidity. No one, absolutely no one, zero people, takes anything here seriously, not a single bit. They have demonstrated on 200 pages that they only want to make fools of themselves, and they succeeded. There is zero chance that they will stop. Let them continue as long and loud as they want, there never was and still not is anyone who considers anything coming out of this as relevant or meaningful information.
In the beginning it was only irrelevant, now it is also utterly silly, and it is becoming totally insane.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

I had just written: "after we got read of the worst person in this forum, let's try to get back to a naval history discussion"

My mistake, I stand corrected, the competition both for the most insulting and the less useful forum member is still open.

This guy came in with no added-value whatsoever (he never proposed his view/evidences, being obviously unable to counter the arguments, but his ignorance can be forgiven....), just to criticize (licit) and provoke/insult (not licit) since the beginning:
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 563#p78563
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 695#p78778
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 725#p78843
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 755#p78888
etc.etc.


Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

The "cover up" conspiracy theory was always very illogical, but now I'm totally confused. Was Pound a conspirator?