The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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:Hello everybody,

@ all,

I love this correlation :
A full report would also be made regarding certain aspects of the action which, PRIMA FACIE, seemed to require explanation.
with this one :
Some explanation remains to be made as to my decision to break off the engagement after the sinking of H.M.S. "Hood ...
Now everything is easy to be understood, ... very easy especially after having realized why Adm Tovey did what he did, ... and why Stephen Roskill did not disclose the facts, ... based on his request.

Easy, very easy for the ones that love to understand while re-constructing historical facts ... :wink:

Note : Prima Facie adjective [ before noun ] at first sight (= based on what seems to be the truth when first seen or heard)

Bye Antonio :D
Ambages narras.
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 »

Hi Antonio,
the second sentence you posted is clearly from Leach's report.

However, I have never seen your first one:
A full report would also be made regarding certain aspects of the action which, PRIMA FACIE, seemed to require explanation.
Can you please give a clear reference (source and date) for it as well ?


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:04 pm, edited 1 time 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)
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

I must thank you for your kind words but I do feel a bit of embarrassment as in reality I only saw some letters and put down here what I could and really wish I could put more.

I've been asked by email about access to the file and will read my notes for its reference so that anyone can ask to see it. I'm not 100% sure but think I've seen it referenced in a book somewhere too, (so many notes!) so if anyone knows this before I find it feel free to post it (I'm still at work at the moment catching up!).

Hi Wadinga, yes that is a 1962 letter and there is reference in an earlier letter that it would be preferred if neither the towing nor CM threat was to become common knowledge.

He believed that he could not criticise someone publicly especially if they had no means of reply, he considered their stature, reputation and thought there would be nothing to gain from it. That is not to say he didn't have criticisms, I suppose he had reason to, but he considered he was fallible too and also what he had to thank those people for and what they had done for him.

The second quote yes is him writing about himself.

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,

@ Herr Nillson,

you wrote ;
Ambages narras ( latin from Publio Terentius Varro Atacinus ) = in German : Du sprichst zweideutige Worte; du sprichst in Rätseln. = in English : You speak ambiguous words; you speak in riddles.
Sorry, it was intended to stimulate Wadinga, ... that should have provided us all those information, ... like CAG did immediately , ... as I always do since many years, ... but I was sure that you as well as somebody else was going to ask immediate " explanation " too.

Now that we have found Stephen Roskill, and his path to the information we have 2 main roads to follow, ... the PRO as suggested by Roskill -> namely the Adm 205/10 and the Churchill Archives with all Stephen Roskill information, where CAG went and told us what is in there.

It is really a pity and make me sad that we had to wait 4 years to discover those Stephen Roskill important information, ... all this story should have been closed on 2013 or 2014 at the most.

Anyway, here the explanation.

The first statement is from the May26th - June 2nd, 1941 Prime Minister War Cabinet ( labeled WM ) number 52 and 56 item 1.
You arrive to those documents from the Adm 205/10 inputs.

The second statement as Alberto Virtuani correctly got is from the June 4th, 1941 Capt J.C. Leach report.
It seems absolutely obvious that few days after Capt Leach felt immediately the need to provide the " explanation " formally requested by the war cabinet, to the C in C Home Fleet, Sir John Tovey.

It is not so difficult to realize who asked the " explanation" to Adm Tovey, and was present into the war cabinet too.
Now, thanking Stephen Roskill we have the link to the proper documents.

The war cabinet minutes are public and available online at the PRO website.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabi ... usions.htm

Note : you have both the document minute 65-18 as well as the annexes 65-22; look at both ... :wink:

Logic would suggest that if Sir Dudley Pound was declaring that a report was going to be made with the "explanation", ... he had already requested that report to Sir John Tovey, ... already.

The " puzzle pieces " now start going in the proper position ... logically.

I have never kept the information for myself only, ... but always shared them ... to compare opinions and obtain value add, ... and that is one of the reasons why we arrived here 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 )
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,

I've found the reference, there are quite a few that cover all aspects but Roskill 4/17 covers Bismarck.

Hope this helps

Best wishes
Cag.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:

I do NOT have yet in my hands the full document Adm 205/10, the document Stephen Roskill wrote does contain the correspondence among the Sea Lord Admiral Sir Dudley Pound, the First Lord of the Admiralty A.V. Alexander 1st Earl of Hillsborough and the Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill related to this aborted May 1941 Court Martial attempt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._V._Ale ... llsborough

Even if we are not going to find in that document the correspondence Stephan Roskill read and was referring to with his book note, I will not mind at all given the explanation that Stephen Roskill himself provided about certain historical documents being often eliminated on the Archives with the process he described. Obviously I hope to find them for my curiosity. :wink:

For me is more than enough Stephen Roskill note about their full awareness about the whole story of this " Denmark Strait Saga" and the final September 25th, 1941 statement of Churchill closing it as confirmed by Stephen Roskill too.

I think you would agree on the act that now everything is well proved ... Adm Tovey reliability is NOT in discussion anymore, ... Colin McMullen IWM interview is a reliable evidence too, ... Sir Henry Leach knew about all this story probably also from those evidence, ... and all this story I re-constructed bottom up from the Tovey dispatches until this point is FULLY CONFIRMED.
All references, heretofore, to a DSCM ultimately stem from Tovey.

Has anyone read any document from an Admiralty source that references a DSCM attempt, or threat?

Is there any reference to or from Pound to convene a CM panel or to convene an inquiry into Leach's decision to break off the action?
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 All,

This is the material I provided in September from 205/10.
As a summary, I have discovered only one thing to suggest there was the slightest criticism of Leach's and W-W actions. The documents include the minutes of the British Government Cabinet meeting at 17:00 on the 26th May at which Pound gave a description of the action so far, which lead to a request (from someone) for a more detailed report as to why PoW had disengaged. We should realise that this was full membership meeting including Churchill, Eden, Beaverbrook, and the entire wartime Cabinet, ie an inexpert political caucus who merely understood that 2 British battleships and 2 British cruisers had fought one of each category German ships and they wanted to know why they had lost and disengaged, at a time when Bismarck's demise was not certain or even likely. Later, on the 31st July the secretary of the Cabinet (Private Office), responsible for following up on the minutes has pointed out to Pound's office that no such amplification has been received. Pound's assistant observes that since he, Pound, he has discussed this with Churchill, no further action is required. Pound's own note, written in green ink says he will take Tovey's despatch with him next time. A further note, dated 25th September from Pound's office to Churchill offers to make the report requested to Cabinet, since Tovey's despatch is fully understood, but observes that since Churchill has discussed the matter with both Pound and Captain Leach ie during the Placentia Bay voyage (August), there seems little point in such an exercise. It is clearly an irrelevant requirement since Churchill responds tersely through his representative (signed J K Peek) "Leave it!" on 26th September.

This bureaucratic exchange of requests for "outstanding matters" is all I found suggesting there was any question over Leach's and W-W's actions, and then only from a non-expert question raised during as a minor matter in a Cabinet meeting far more concerned with the unfolding disaster in Crete and whether conscription should be introduced in Northern Ireland. It spent far more time and effort on the outraged communication from De Valera Prime Minister of the Irish Free State demanding that no Irishmen should be forced to serve in the British Forces. As far as the Cabinet was concerned, and the Prime Minister as well, Bismarck was just one of several matters discussed and the request for further information on PoW's retreat an extremely minor matter.
All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro »

Thanks.
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,

you wrote :
This bureaucratic exchange of requests for "outstanding matters" is all I found suggesting there was any question over Leach's and W-W's actions, and then only from a non-expert question raised during as a minor matter in a Cabinet meeting far more concerned with the unfolding disaster in Crete and whether conscription should be introduced in Northern Ireland. It spent far more time and effort on the outraged communication from De Valera Prime Minister of the Irish Free State demanding that no Irishmen should be forced to serve in the British Forces. As far as the Cabinet was concerned, and the Prime Minister as well, Bismarck was just one of several matters discussed and the request for further information on PoW's retreat an extremely minor matter.
What have you read into the Adm 205/10 ?

It seems that you read and took a copy of the pages : 331 ( July 31st, 1941 ) ; 332 ( September 19th, 1941 this page is VERY IMPORTANT !!! ); 333 ( September 25th, 1941 ) and 334 ( September 26th, 1941 WSC final) ?

Are you willing to share their content and analize what is written in there with us all here in ?

I leave you the chance to recover, ... being a gentleman, ... just assuming that you did not realize well what is written in there by whom ... and when, ... :think: ... since your summary is missing a lot of very important correlations.

What seems to finally surface from the analysis of those documents in conjunction with the Roskill/Tovey information from the Churchill Archives, ... is that clearly WSC was a lot more " focused " on Capt Leach and the PoW retreat ( the worst thing since ...) ... while probably Adm Pound was more willing to inquiry on RearAdm Wake-Walker " missing " actions, ... :think:

Now Sir Henry Leach statements about Churchill prodding Pound do appear to me a lot more clear too, ... and similarly on the other side Adm Tovey both to Roskill as well as to McMullen always underlined that Pound wanted Wake-Walker for not re-engaging ( his message to him in the afternoon disregarded ) and Leach, ... for the inquiry, ... :think:

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

I have placed before you the facts of the Roskill papers and have given you the details to see it yourselves.

But as for speculation, imaginings of what such and such may or may not mean, second guessing of what might or might not have happened I'm not interested.

I'm afraid this debate will no doubt rage on for years to come, still without resolve but with victory claimed.

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 »

@Cag

Thank you for all your efforts and especially for this sentence.
Cag wrote: ...
He believed that he could not criticise someone publicly especially if they had no means of reply, he considered their stature, reputation and thought there would be nothing to gain from it.
...
Tovey was very wise and a real gentleman...and you are as well.
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,

@ CAG,

I thank you for your help, your fairness and even for your personal opinion I fully respect.

@ Herr Nillson,

same for you, ... of course, ... even if I have something to underline being a no side taken historian researcher, ... about this sentence where you highlighted your personal positive opinion to CAG :
He believed that he could not criticize someone publicly especially if they had no means of reply, he considered their stature, reputation and thought there would be nothing to gain from it.
That fact I read exactly in a very positive way like you are doing, ... and it explains more than everything else Tovey full reliability while talking with Roskill as he underlined too in writing to Kennedy, ... as well as it explain also why Roskill respecting Tovey desire, ... did not disclose this fact he was well aware of since years.

But, ... for the same exact reason, ... why ViceAdm Holland was not respected exactly in the same way and was unfairly loaded with responsibilities that did not belong to him ?

He became and was used being the " scapegoat " for everything that went wrong at Denmark Strait, ... and it was not correct either.

I personally think that now that everybody is dead, ... and there is NO risk to offend and create personal problems to anybody, ... the truth must be written and surface once for good.

Every reader here in and in the future will have the chance to make up their mind, with no pre-conceived view or incorrect historical references.

My personal opinion is clearly written into my post's signature since years just on this purpose :
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 )


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 Herr Nilsson, that is vey kind of you, I'm not sure I deserve your words but thank you despite this. If I could be half as wise and a gentlemen as the many, including yourself, that post here I'd be happy.

Thanks Antonio, I've tried to be fair and logical but realise I'm not as experienced as others posting here, but hope I've asked the right questions.

I joined this party late and realise that the argument has lasted a long time. I'm not sure it will ever be resolved without some conjecture or a final decision relying on belief. Facts can be viewed from many angles dependant on the viewers perspective, and truth, to coin a phrase, is in the eye of the beholder.

I've tried hard to ask the fundemental questions and when pressed into the realms of opinion tried to stick to the logical and the factual.

The Roskill papers do reveal fact on who critisized certain people, more than those already mentioned, it reveals studies done on the relevant tactics used, opinion by serving officers to serving senior officers as regards actions taken. It reveals the charge that we believe was threatened and the response, it gives first hand info on gunnery problems and why they occurred and the roots of those problems.

I certainly recommend everyone read them if possible and thank those wonderful custodians of history who care for these documents to allow us the freedom today to know those facts.

Im sorry however that I could find nothing in it that reveals any evidence about a cover up that could decide the on going argument for everyone.

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,

@ CAG,

you have done well, ... do not worry about it, ... and you are right about the fact that here in there are many persons with a lot of knowledge and greater experience compared to your one about the discussions that were going on since years already, ... on this forum as well as on other forums now closed, ... about those arguments and many others.

I agree about everything you wrote above, ... especially the gunnery problems Stephen Roskill analyzed too, ... except the last sentence, ... where I think you are failing to realize an easy concept.

This thread about the Court Martial attempt/threat was just dedicated to demonstrate that it happened, ... and we have accomplished this demonstration very evidently, even more than expected.

This thread had nothing to do with the so called " Cover Up " that occurred after it and that was already long discussed and more than demonstrated on another available thread on this forum.

Here the " Cover Up " thread link :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6799

I came to this point "bottom up" from the evident documents alteration looking for the reason of it to be that way, not the other way around as I could have probably done much easier by just only knowing years ago who Stephen Roskill was and his book contents.

To have you realize the logic of all this so called " Denmark Strait Saga ", ... definition that I am taking directly from Sir Henry Leach, ... I recap the elements and the key dates of this " DS Saga ".

It started at Chequers on May 24th, 1941, when WSC mentioned Troubridge on WW1 to declare what he was thinking about what was going on, ... and it ended on September 26th, 1941, ... when still WSC closed the matter writing : " Leave it ! ", ... as Stephen Roskill underlined on his book, ... enabling the final King rewarding on October 1941.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/iss ... 6/data.pdf

The main phases have been : War Cabinet request for explanation -> Court Martial attempt/defeated -> Cover Up by Adm Tovey/Dispatches -> Acceptance by the Admiralty/Barnes of the Tovey dispatches -> Final closure of the War cabinet point, ref. Adm 205/10 documents -> Last WSC Closure letter -> Rewarding by the King

Now as said everything is clear and available for the ones that want to realize the various aspects of this " regrettable aftermath " of the Bismarck chase.

We can all have and keep our own different opinions, the documents and letters are now available to be read and understood.

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 Antonio no problem. I think once you read the Vickers things you'll see what I was meaning.

I would say that thanks to the idea of sticking to treaty limits, the need to pack as much weight of shell as possible into that treaty weight to make up for calibre etc, and then the need to have complex mountings available asap doesn't help matters.

Id rather not get into the old argument again except to point out we should also remember that Leach's report and others reports were available to make a decision on as well as the 30th May report by Tovey to Pound (also contained within the archive files) and who at the Admiralty was critical of aspects of the operation. Also both Pound and Churchill were on board PoW at Riviera.

Should we not also remember throughout the wording of the threatened charge, as compared to anything else that we can imagine.

Added to your valid considerations we can also consider that some of the reasons given by Leach for the withdrawal are confirmed by the GAR and Vickers reports. We can also consider the simple logical thought that if Leach prepared a report in which he explains why he withdrew, and Tovey prepared a report on May 30th that explains his opinion on that taken action, then the explanations were/are already there.

We must also be exceedingly careful when we consider the court martial threat and everything else, adding things up is fine but sometimes 2 plus 2 can add up to 5.

Of course in reality a cover up theory depends on the individuals belief that intentional alteration not mistake or reliance on inaccurate information took place and as you correctly say you can all have your opinion on that.

Also there is the obvious connection that this belief in report embellishment is not related to the threat of court martial for the charge stated in the letters of the men who heard it and heard the story about it but surrounds the validity of the withdrawal which is explained elsewhere.

So far in files I have found no mention of court martial for withdrawal nor for a threat of one. However there is call for explanation and there are documents that explain that decision.

Best wishes
Cag.
Locked