Naval History Forums

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

point 6 is the " Silver Bullet " that will kill any " denier " definitively.

Now the truth cannot be hidden anymore in any way, .... it has been hidden for 77 years, ... and I think it has been long enough.

Mission accomplished my friend ...


Bye Antonio

Hello Antonio,

Outstanding .......those hiding the evidence say

Now the truth cannot be hidden anymore in any way,

I was planning another visit to Kew.

All the best

wadinga

Hello everybody,

plenty of evidences already made available :

1) Tovey's letters AND visits to Roskill, in which he dilated at length on the story, and that allowed the latter to publish it in two different books,

2) Tovey confirmation to McMullen and Blake (reported consistently with his letter),

3) Roskill confirmation about Tovey reliability and his interpretation of the CM as linked to ADM 205/10 papers (confirmed by all historian after him),

4)ADM 205/10 papers mentioning the Tovey's despatches and Barnes's acceptance to them from the Admiralty,

5) Sir Henry Leach identical way of reading Tovey's recollections and ADM 205/10 papers, when clarifying the charges against his father and against Wake_Walker,

It was enough to read.

Bye Antonio

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

plenty of evidences already made available :

1) Tovey's letters AND visits to Roskill, in which he dilated at length on the story, and that allowed the latter to publish it in two different books,

2) Tovey confirmation to McMullen and Blake (reported consistently with his letter),

3) Roskill confirmation about Tovey reliability and his interpretation of the CM as linked to ADM 205/10 papers (confirmed by all historian after him),

4)ADM 205/10 papers mentioning the Tovey's despatches and Barnes's acceptance to them from the Admiralty,

5) Sir Henry Leach identical way of reading Tovey's recollections and ADM 205/10 papers, when clarifying the charges against his father and against Wake_Walker,

It was enough to read.

Bye Antonio

And yet...all roads still lead back to Tovey.

Hello everybody,

6 ) FINALLY,

I'm sure ( as I have already said ) that there are other evidences of what was said between Pound and Tovey ref. the Court Martial.

I encourage everybody to look into the various British archives and find them, as we have done with the above ones.

Good luck, I will congratulate whoever will be able to find at least one ( that we have already in our hands, ready for the publication ) or any new one.

Bye, bye " deniers " of this forum, ... it has not been a pleasure, ... but now it's over, ... FINALLY !


Bye, bye, ... Antonio ...

Alberto Virtuani wrote:

Wadinga wrote: "Did this happen?"

Hi Sean,
sure, I concede this happened, at least according to Duncan's list of messages (however this signal is missing in Norfolk message extract, appendix 1 to Wake-Walker report from June 5th and the message is not addressed to CS1, it looks like an encouragement message for the crews)....

Just for the record:

Gentlemen,
Another question I'm afraid!
Why would they want to Court Martial Captain Leach, surely he was under the command of Admiral Wake-Walker and had to do as he was ordered even if he disagreed with it?

Paul Mercer wrote: "Why would they want to Court Martial Captain Leach, surely he was under the command of Admiral Wake-Walker.....?"

Hi Paul,
absolutely correct.

In his analysis Roskill linked two different "aspects" that needed "explanations" using (correctly IMO, not for other people here) the papers in ADM 205/10, despite Tovey's letter explicitely mentions only the failure to re-engage.
The key document is pag.332 of ADM 205/10, addressed by the First Sea Lord to the First Lord in which both "aspects" are mentioned in the quoted Barnes' answer to Tovey despatches. Sir Henry Leach too correctly interpreted the Court Martial for the 2 officers as linked to two different accusations (see Wills book "In the Highest Traditions of the RN", the biography of Capt.Leach).
Bye, Alberto

Alberto Virtuani wrote:

Paul Mercer wrote: "Why would they want to Court Martial Captain Leach, surely he was under the command of Admiral Wake-Walker.....?"

Hi Paul,
absolutely correct.

In his analysis Roskill linked two different "aspects" that needed "explanations" using (correctly IMO, not for other people here) the papers in ADM 205/10, despite Tovey's letter explicitely mentions only the failure to re-engage.

Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_pages_125_126.jpg

The key document is pag.332 of ADM 205/10, addressed by the First Sea Lord to the First Lord in which both "aspects" are mentioned in the quoted Barnes' answer to Tovey despatches. Sir Henry Leach too correctly interpreted the Court Martial for the 2 officers as linked to two different accusations (see Wills book "In the Highest Traditions of the RN", the biography of Capt.Leach).

ADM205-10_332-1.jpg

Bye, Alberto

What's the date of the letter?

In your opinion is a "thorough investigation" likely to be just a quick read of Tovey's despatch without the accompanying reports?

Hi Duncan,
the letter we have is from 1961. From 1950 till 1960, Tovey came to see Roskill and discussed about the Bismarck Operation with him.

The thorough investigation was based on Tovey despatches (it's written in Barnes' answer....see above). How accurate it was, we cannot say, but the conclusions were based on Tovey despatches.


Bye, Alberto

Alberto Virtuani wrote:Hi Duncan,
the letter we have is from 1961. From 1950 till 1960, Tovey came to see Roskill and discussed about the Bismarck Operation with him.

The thorough investigation was based on Tovey despatches (it's written in Barnes' answer....see above). How accurate it was, we cannot say, but the conclusions were based on Tovey despatches.


Bye, Alberto

Sorry, I meant what was the date of the report that you underlined in red?

Hi Duncan,
ADM 205/10 pag.332 is dated 19th September, 1941.


Bye, Alberto

Hello Alberto,

What thorough investigation?

thorough investigation was based on Tovey despatches

There is no sign of any such thorough investigation or even a cursory investigation. Even if it happened at all, it can only have been based on Tovey's despatch, because he said "the last he heard of it" was on 30th May. If there ever really was an "it". How could you possibly conduct a thorough investigation without even talking to the C-in-C? There is also no indication either of the subjects of any thorough investigation were questioned.

It might have been difficult for Wake-Walker to contribute as he had sailed on 23rd July in command of a Task Force given the ridiculous task of a carrier strike with Albacores during 24 hour daylight in Northern Norway, presumably a political gesture to encourage Stalin. As you have gleefully pointed out, W-W was censured by the Admiralty over the mining of Achates after navigational imprecision due to bad weather. See http://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent. ... ontext=cmh
I expect there was an investigation of which we could find signs, if we wanted to.

We have seen an actual investigation, of Dalrymple-Hamilton actions', and apparently conducted, described and certainly signed for by VCNS Phillips at the end of July when he and Pound were a bit busy with the attack on Petsamo/Kirknes, arranging for Russia convoys and the war at sea in general, and the imminent departure of the latter aboard PoW with Churchill. But we know all about that investigation. Which was clearly an investigation even if they didn't use the word.

One of the things that also happened at the beginning of August was that Capt Leach was welcomed back by his cheering crew after convalescence, taking over from a caretaker captain specifically so he could host Winston Churchill aboard his vessel.

What we don't know anything about is any phantom investigation invented by Pound in September to "fob off" of some pesky bureaucratic paper chase initiated four months previously.

All the best

wadinga

Hello everybody,

nothing was needed since everything was already clear on the way it was going to be done between Adm Tovey and Adm Pound after their call discussion.

The result of it has been the intentionally false dispatches content, ... saving both Leach and Wake-Walker, ... that everybody can read in clear words today.

The only additional need was to " modify/correct " the superficial own signed declaration by Wake-Walker of being at 20.000 yards from Hood and close to the enemy at 06:00, ... released to the First Hood board on inquiry, ... and this was done by calling another Hood Inquiry in August 1941 creating " The Plot " and modifying the previous declaration, ... we all well know about it now, ... it is all written and available.

The result of all this occurrences and evidences at the end is one of the most shameful page of naval history we can think about.

A page where a couple of Officers that were under scrutiny for a potential court martial threat by their own Admiralty, ... after a more careful evaluation, ... saw their destiny changed for propaganda reasons and not only avoided the inquiry they were supposed to have for their conduct, ... but came out rewarded on the best possible way like heroes, ...

This is the truth, involving the Admiralty and up to the politicians including the Prime Minister Winston Churchill and now it is well known and it will be published exactly the way it happened.

Bye Antonio

Hello Antonio,

So are you saying

nothing was needed

means we agree there never was an investigation, because this serious decision was entirely made on the laughably sparse information available before any ships returned, and the Court Martial threat proposed by the Prime Minister and delivered personally by the First Sea Lord was actually scuppered simply by an obstinate Tovey saying No!

All the histrionics about 331,332, 333 and 334 goes out the window because even you admit there never was an investigation of Leach and Wake-Walker.

All the irrelevant stuff about whether Hood was 20,000 or 30,000 yds away has resurfaced because the first guess was a slip of the tongue which accidentally revealed the awful truth, so a lie was created and both are considered a more accurate guide to where Norfolk was relative to Bismarck than the actual measured distances from Norfolk's rangefinder.

In fact the second Hood Technical Enquiry was convened not for the reasons VCNS Phillips gave, highlighting the shortcomings of the first, eg too few witnesses, little cross examination, no technical input, but purely to present 30,000 yds instead and the Plot which although they had several months to prepare, was cunningly made to look like it was cobbled together overnight.

After the threat had been crushed by a simple refusal on the 30th, Tovey set about falsifying his report, ordering the same for those of his underlings, the ship's logs so they would reflect the reports, the evidence given at the Hood Loss Enquiries, the Admiralty Signal Log and swore the individuals to secrecy to their dying days. All of this was done, not because there was going to be an Admiralty investigation, but to deceive who exactly??????? The Washington Post, CNN, Huffington Post in 1941??? In wartime Britain, nobody would be investigating.

Pound apparently happily allowed men he genuinely believed to be cowards and shirkers of duty to continue in their roles, and gave then honours, and in Wake-Walker's case considerable promotion.

I am rendered speechless!

You wouldn't care to tell us anything about the so-called Silver Bullet (independent confirmation of CMDS) would you? Or is that going to be like Alberto's Investigation confirmation which turned out to be a mere index entry?

I'm afraid

the most shameful page of naval history

has yet to be published and I know whose names will be at the bottom of it.

All the best

wadinga