The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Herr Nilsson]

@Alberto

Leach ordered the retreat is a fact. 06:01 is an opinion.

06:13 is mentioned as retreat time and the turret jamming as well. That's a fact. "Tovey had to add two false statements to provide justification" is an opinion.

ADM 205/10 is ADM 205/10 and it is a fact. I read it in a different way than you. So we both have opinions.

As far as I remember Phillips wasn't aboard after Ceylon. So we can hardly speak of a fact. "Never left alone" is a judgement.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Marc,

no, it's not. It's clear from PoW maps that the order to the helmsman was given NOT later than 6:01.

6:13 is mentioned by W-W in a report that says PoW retreated after 10 minutes battle (5:53+10= 6:03 if mathematics is a science and Tovey was not stupid) . The Y turret jamming was NEVER mentioned by anyone as a battle damage happened BEFORE the order to disengage (it's pure invention of Tovey misusing Leach correct statement about the jamming). Both statements are not present in Tovey preliminary (and more correct) report, so they were added intentionally by Tovey (opinion, but there is no other logical explanation IMO).

ADM 205/10 is stating that the PoW retreat was an aspect that had to be investigated. Opinions are welcome, but it is a fact what is written at pag.331 and 332. I hope you don't support Mr.Wadinga "fantasy" about Brockmann as your "opinion"....

Phillips was absent for few days and NEVER Leach was left alone in action anymore.

Antonio Bonomi wrote: "Now I hope with your example we can put them with their shoulders against the wall cornering them"

I'm not so optimistic, in view of what was objected above.....


Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

Alberto,

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to answer. All of your points are opinions. I respect them, but they are still just opinions.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

I am astonished.

We have discussed in details long time ago about the famous invented time of 06:13 for PoW retreat.

If I recall correctly, ... you as well as many others here in, ... even the most " hooligan/deniers " had to accept and agree on the fact that it was an incorrect statement and that Pitcairn-Jones with his famous Battle Summary Number 5 corrected it back Officially from the Royal Navy Admiralty Historical Office to the most acceptable 06:03 at least.

We all know that Adm Tovey on his first report on May 30th, 1941 declared after a couple of minute after Hood exploded, ... so 06:02, ... and we know what Capt Leach declared on his report, ... 06:02 and 30 seconds.

We all know from where that 06:13 invention came, ... from Wake-Walker report that on the same report was able to write that PoW retreated after 10 minutes engagement 05:53+10 = 06:03, ... and also the invented 06:13 as well, ... a real genius.

I do not know if that was done on purpose for the subsequent Adm Tovey dispatches ( I highly suspect that anyhow ) or it was only one of the many superficial statements we are used to listen and read by Wake-Walker.

What I do know is that Adm Tovey immediately took it and used it on his dispatches adding the Y turret before it and teh Admiralty accepted everything, ... a real shameful historical event.

Last but not least we had another genius, .. namely Sir L. Kennedy that declared that PoW retreated at 06:13 after 21 minutes battle, ... and here we do know we are at the novel level so loved by the " hooligan/deniers ".

Are you calling back your agreement now about 06:13 being an incorrect statement ?

Is this what I have to realize you are stating ?

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

@Antonio

Eh? I wrote:

Leach ordered the retreat is a fact. 06:01 is an opinion.

I don't know when the retreat was ordered. There is absolutely no connection between my sentence and 06:13.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Herr Nilsson wrote: "I don't know how to answer. All of your points are opinions"

Hi Marc,
I have answered your observation point by point with facts, not with opinions. If you are unable to answer my ones.... let's close here, respecting each other point of view.

For me these are facts, proven by documents (that I have listed). If you prefer to still think they are opinions, so be it.


Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

@Alberto

Herr Nilsson wrote: "I don't know how to answer. All of your points are opinions"

Hi Marc,
I have answered your observation point by point with facts, not with opinions. If you are unable to answer my ones.... let's close here, respecting each other point of view.

For me these are facts, proven by documents (that I have listed). If you prefer to still think they are opinions, so be it.


Bye, Alberto

Answer to what? I see no questions.

But because of:

For me these are facts, not opinions, proven by documents (that I have listed).

which has changed in the meantime to

For me these are facts, proven by documents (that I have listed). If you prefer to still think they are opinions, so be it.

I agree to

...it's totally useless to continue this discussion.

which has changed in the meantime to

...let's close here, respecting each other point of view.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Marc,

you wrote: "Answer to what? I see no questions. "

I have "answered" point by point to your observations (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 922#p78913) about my listed facts (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 785#p78911) with:

no, it's not. It's clear from PoW maps that the order to the helmsman was given NOT later than 6:01.

6:13 is mentioned by W-W in a report that says PoW retreated after 10 minutes battle (5:53+10= 6:03 if mathematics is a science and Tovey was not stupid) . The Y turret jamming was NEVER mentioned by anyone as a battle damage happened BEFORE the order to disengage (it's pure invention of Tovey misusing Leach correct statement about the jamming). Both statements are not present in Tovey preliminary (and more correct) report, so they were added intentionally by Tovey (opinion, but there is no other logical explanation IMO).

ADM 205/10 is stating that the PoW retreat was an aspect that had to be investigated. Opinions are welcome, but it is a fact what is written at pag.331 and 332. I hope you don't support Mr.Wadinga "fantasy" about Brockmann as your "opinion"....

Phillips was absent for few days and NEVER Leach was left alone in action anymore.

If you are unable to "answer" these points, as per your own words (please don't even try to play tricks or to say there are no question marks, else we will be back to foreign language "nuances" ), your problem, not mine....


Bye,Alberto

[dunmunro]

Hi Marc,

you wrote: "Answer to what? I see no questions. "

I have "answered" point by point to your observations (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 922#p78913) about my listed facts (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 785#p78911) with:

no, it's not. It's clear from PoW maps that the order to the helmsman was given NOT later than 6:01.

6:13 is mentioned by W-W in a report that says PoW retreated after 10 minutes battle (5:53+10= 6:03 if mathematics is a science and Tovey was not stupid) . The Y turret jamming was NEVER mentioned by anyone as a battle damage happened BEFORE the order to disengage (it's pure invention of Tovey misusing Leach correct statement about the jamming). Both statements are not present in Tovey preliminary (and more correct) report, so they were added intentionally by Tovey (opinion, but there is no other logical explanation IMO).

ADM 205/10 is stating that the PoW retreat was an aspect that had to be investigated. Opinions are welcome, but it is a fact what is written at pag.331 and 332. I hope you don't support Mr.Wadinga "fantasy" about Brockmann as your "opinion"....

Phillips was absent for few days and NEVER Leach was left alone in action anymore.

If you are unable to "answer" these points, as per your own words (please don't even try to play tricks or to say there are no question marks, else we will be back to foreign language "nuances" ), your problem, not mine....


Bye,Alberto

There were lights in the sky...no one else can say definitively what they were...therefore they must be space aliens...

Tovey's report has discrepancies...No one can say definitively why...therefore he altered them to avoid a CM...

[Herr Nilsson]

Alberto,

there are opinions and there are facts. I‘ve tried to explain the difference several times. This time you asked me „where exactly the listed facts are not facts“. I tried to explain it once again ...point by point. Then you’ve explained your opinions by more opinions, but that doesn‘t make a opinion into a fact. That means I already answered your question. There is no need to analyse additional text.

[Alberto Virtuani]

@ Herr Nilsson,
no Marc, I have countered your wrong statements (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 922#p78913) with facts. If you are unable to see the difference between opinions and facts or (as I think) you are simply UNABLE TO ANSWER (for your admission ) with facts, please let's stop here, and simply accept that you cannot counter any of the following !

no, it's not. It's clear from PoW maps that the order to the helmsman was given NOT later than 6:01.

6:13 is mentioned by W-W in a report that says PoW retreated after 10 minutes battle (5:53+10= 6:03 if mathematics is a science and Tovey was not stupid) . The Y turret jamming was NEVER mentioned by anyone as a battle damage happened BEFORE the order to disengage (it's pure invention of Tovey misusing Leach correct statement about the jamming). Both statements are not present in Tovey preliminary (and more correct) report, so they were added intentionally by Tovey (opinion, but there is no other logical explanation IMO).

ADM 205/10 is stating that the PoW retreat was an aspect that had to be investigated. Opinions are welcome, but it is a fact what is written at pag.331 and 332. I hope you don't support Mr.Wadinga "fantasy" about Brockmann as your "opinion"....

Phillips was absent for few days and NEVER Leach was left alone in action anymore.

Dunmunro tediously repeated his stubborn mantra : "Tovey's report has discrepancies...No one can say definitively why...therefore he altered them to avoid a CM..."

I will not loose my time to write again an answer to a denier who has decided to believe his (by now gone) fairy tale. He can try to read and understand, if he can, what I already wrote.
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 922#p78908



Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

Alberto, Alberto, what am I going to do with you?

[Alberto Virtuani]

Marc, Marc, why are you acting this way, refusing to discuss with specific arguments while just trying to use generic statements re. opinions ?

Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

Alberto,
I think no one can accuse me of not being cooperative (even when I was insulted). That’s why I proposed to create a set of reliable bearings for example. At that time I wrote:

I mean to say all problems we had in the discussions are caused by not agreeing about the simplest issues. I'm afraid we will not agree in most issues, but maybe it's possible to find a "common denominator" at least. Perhaps this helps not to go over the same issues again and again. If it turns out that the differences are still too big, we should even consider not to discuss any further until new sources arise.

In my opinion this is still a valid approach. Now we have the problem that we disagree about what is fact and what is opinion. And that’s not just a detail, that’s fundamental! Without a shared understanding we should stop this discussion at this point, because that will get us nowhere (and I also don’t like to be insulted again by the way). In any way I'll keep my fingers crossed for you that I’m wrong.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Marc,
very simply, what you have not given is the explanation why my 4 facts (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 785#p78911) are not facts but opinions in your view.

You have said they are opinions, giving some (IMO wrong, but understandable and detailed) reasons: http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 785#p78913

I have answered pointing out why they are facts and not opinions: http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 785#p78914.

You have given up, posting they are "just" opinions (without providing any explanation/reason)......http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 785#p78917


If you are unable to counter the arguments, let's close here the debate, if you have to say something supporting your view that the listed 4 points are opinions, you are welcome, but please let's stay to facts and evidences, not to "lessons" on what is a fact and what is an opinion......


Bye, Alberto