The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3268
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:19 am

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

you are hitting the nail in the head and perfectly analyzing the situation.

Reading back on this thread in fact one can realize that I wrote several times that the problems was the very strong discipline conduct associated to the " relentless search for any failure " and the easy way to ask for a Board of Inquiry/trial for Court Martial by Adm Pound.

This is the reason why I called the first thread about this story on May 2013 " Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War ".

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5830

Everything started from that strong discipline and very high profile demanding approach in place to judge the Royal Navy Officers conduct while in action, and this strong Admiralty approach was felt very much by any RN Officer during World War 2.

Stephen Roskill and Graham Rhys-Jones for example are very clear explaining this Admiralty approach on their books.

The fact that this " regrettable aftermath " occurred cannot be discussed anymore by anybody given what we have now at hand into the Official documents.
Everybody must agree about it, no deniers possibility can be considered anymore.

Once this is assumed and considered out of any future discussion we can share our personal opinions about what could or should have been the outcome of that Board of Inquiry -> trial for Court Martial that never occurred.

Anybody can think that it was correct or not correct to even think about an Admiralty board of inquiry request for those 2 Officers, ... and your last post example underlines the main historians and Adm Leach / Tovey positions about this point.

Anybody can think about what could or should have been the outcome of that board of inquiry in case it was called.

Alberto properly listed the main positions of the various personalities involved, I have my personal opinion about it and everybody is entitled to have his own opinion of course.

What cannot be discussed or denied any longer is the fact that on May 1941 Adm Pound requested this type of action for those 2 Royal Navy Officers to Adm Tovey that refused to do it and soon after the initiative was abandoned.
This cannot be put in discussion anymore.

Keeping on writing that this occurrence was invented by Adm Tovey in his late life is not acceptable any longer in a serious discussion and I personally consider it a provocative initiative.

I hope that my reasoning is clear enough and that everybody will finally agree with my analysis, restoring a fair discussion conduct in this forum about this argument.

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 )

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby wadinga » Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:55 am

Hello Alberto,

Since Antonio is off trawling You Tube here's the question for you

It's straightforward question:

Do you support Kennedy who published the CMDS story or Roskill who hid it for ten years?


Kennedy or Roskill? :D


" relentless search for any failure "/ very strong discipline conduct/high profile demanding approach in place to judge


"I insist you have B of I on W-W and Leach"......."No"......."Oh, OK then, I'll give them medals instead and let them keep their jobs, errr, falsify a lot of evidence to make them look good, would you?".

Instantaneous relenting!


What cannot be discussed or denied any longer is the fact that on May 1941 Adm Pound requested this type of action for those 2 Royal Navy Officers to Adm Tovey that refused to do it and soon after the initiative was abandoned.


How true!

But even Antonio has to fudge the description now, because he knows Tovey's allegation was not true.

and the easy way to ask for a Board of Inquiry/trial for Court Martial


Clear admission that there was no threat of Court Martial on 30/31st May 1941 for these officers, and that Tovey's recollection 20 years later was incorrect as Paffard knew, having been party to the truth in 1941.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:34 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote: "Keeping on writing that this occurrence was invented by Adm Tovey in his late life is not acceptable any longer in a serious discussion and I personally consider it a provocative initiative."

Wadinga wrote: "Tovey's recollection 20 years later was incorrect"

Q.E.D. :lol:

No arguments/evidences anymore, just speculations...... Roskill advised Kennedy NOT to trust these insinuations but the great novelist couldn't resist......

Roskill to Kennedy_13-09-1973.jpg
Roskill to Kennedy_13-09-1973.jpg (84.45 KiB) Viewed 346 times


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:33 am, 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)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby wadinga » Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:12 am

Hello Alberto,

Thank you for some original typescript from the other original material you will not release. I wonder how much contradicts what you say?

Where does he say Tovey told of/remembered the CMDS anytime before 1961? Where does he say he had confirmation of what Tovey alleged. Why is his level of interest important? Roskill knew from 1954 that the "Shores of France" was a figment of extrapolation from the real 11:37B. Whether he was "a hermit" is irrelevant.

What matters is that the only man who is supposed to have been told about the B of I in 1941 said Tovey exaggerated when Kennedy asked him about the Court Martial allegation. That is QED! :lol:

Maybe while you are busy surgically removing bits of text which under scrutiny do not actually say what you allege, you could give us the bit where Tovey says Paffard is his confidant over B of I? I will have it in my hands soon enough, and how much else? :D

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:42 am

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: " I will have it in my hands soon enough, and how much else?"

Good luck to Mr.Wadinga, from his side, ONLY SPECULATIONS AND INSINUATIONS about Tovey reliability, possibly he will be able to find the medical certification proving Tovey's "dementia", for the time being, Roskill judgement is good enough..... :stop:


Wadinga wrote: "you could give us the bit where Tovey says Paffard is his confidant over B of I?"

apparently Mr.Wadinga forgets (intentionally, I do hope for him) things already posted several times, mixing up CM and BofI..... Extremely annoying.... :stop:
( http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=77056&hilit=Tovey_Roskill_14+12+1961_2#p77036 )



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

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby wadinga » Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:52 pm

Hello Alberto,

Mainly because I think it is instructive for you to remember that Paffard knew Tovey was exaggerating when Kennedy quizzed him, because he was actually told the reality in 1941. You keep trying to minimise his devastating impact by expertly, perhaps over zealously, repeating the term "insinuating"* but there is nothing subtle or devious about it. You have suggested he could know nothing about Tovey's memory in 1961. He flat out states Tovey's "memory played tricks on him" because he knew what Tovey told him in 1941 and he knew what Tovey was saying in 1961 and they were different. That should have been enough for the shrewd investigative journalist to smell a rat, dodge the role of Roskill's stooge, and leave the story out altogether.

There might also be other material you have neglected to supply so far. :wink:


* to instill or infuse subtly or artfully, as into the mind: to insinuate doubt.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:36 pm

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "He flat out states Tovey's "memory played tricks on him" because he knew what Tovey told him in 1941 and he knew what Tovey was saying in 1961.....the role of Roskill's stooge"

A pity for Mr.Wadinga theory (who forget things and then invent excuses.... :negative: ) that Roskill knew personally Tovey, having received his visits and discussed with him about his complex historical work. We totally ignore if, when and how many times Paffard saw Tovey after the service with him.

Now Mr.Wadinga insinuates that Roskill manipulated the poor old Tovey for his interests (like Brockman manipulated his bosses.... :negative: what a fantasy ! :clap: ), while it was Tovey to ask him not to publish the story and explaining why.... :negative:
It was Kennedy, being a very poor historian but smelling the cash return of a well written novel to INSERT the Court Martial in his book and then to MISUSE Paffard (btw, why Mr.Wadinga can't provide Paffard's own words, just repeating the Kennedy's version, rejected by Roskill ?) trying to sugar-coat the "regrettable aftermath".


Of course ADM 205/10 was the proof that Roskill was able to find and that corroborated both his interpretation of facts (beyond any doubt), and Tovey's reliability, making a fool of Kennedy who just trusted Paffard without checking the official documents.


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

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby wadinga » Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:36 pm

Hello Alberto,

I'm afraid you wilfully misunderstand.

that Roskill manipulated the poor old Tovey for his interests


Roskill tries to manipulate Kennedy by feeding him the story of the CMDS which is he already suspects is spurious, since the "Shores of France" story is already disproved, and Tovey has also denied his responsibility in the D/R cock-up. Kennedy is too sharp to be fooled and goes to another source, Paffard, where he learns the truth. But you are right, Kennedy knows the monetary value of a contentious issue but unlike Roskill and the other authors he is honest and includes the caveat.

It is a touching naivity that you think just because Roskill was matey-matey with Tovey, that the latter could not be feeding him an utter load of baloney, without even really knowing it was baloney. Poor memory, no diary.

If anybody in the Tovey/Roskill relationship is doing any manipulating it is Tovey. "I'm telling you this, Mr famous author, but don't tell anybody else, no honestly, don't." After years of disappointment that his favourite story of a signal of "criminal stupidity" is being ignored, Tovey decides to spice up another anecdote, of a tentative suggestion that a B of I be proposed. However to give extra zest it is transmogrified into entirely different beast, one with a threat of prisoners, and accused and armed guards and swords. That should get Roskill's attention. Only it doesn't. Roskill ignores it for a decade until the storyteller is safely dead.

Kennedy quotes Paffard's own words at length in Pursuit. How I wish he had written own his memoirs. :wink:

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:51 am

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "Roskill tries to manipulate Kennedy,,,,,Kennedy is too sharp to be fooled and goes to another source, Paffard...."

Mr. Wadinga fantasy in creating a science-fiction scenario deserves admiration. :clap:
Unfortunately for him, this is Naval History Forum and without EVIDENCES like documents, ADM files, letters, etc. his speculations remain....just speculations.....
Again Paffard, whose words we DON'T HAVE, just Kennedy "quotation" of a conversation (letter ?) that we ignore totally and that Roskill demolished anyway (WE HAVE a document stating so), even if it was not "misunderstood" or "exaggerated" by Kennedy..... :negative:



Wadinga wrote: "Tovey....Poor memory, no diary"

....better than the null Mr.Wadinga has in his hands to support his speculations :lol:
At least Tovey WROTE letters from 1941 to 1962, speaking of the "regrettable aftermath" , while Mr.Wadinga loves his own unsupported words. Tovey's poor memory was considered very valuable by the official historian of the RN, who asked several time Tovey advise and judgement (and again we have documents!)....



Wadinga wrote: "If anybody in the Tovey/Roskill relationship is doing any manipulating it is Tovey"

Another imaginary story of manipulation after Roskill and Brockman ones ! :clap:
Even less credible than the others, thinking that Tovey could manipulate an historian of the level of Roskill, who actually searched and found ADM 205/10 in order to fully confirm Tovey's words before publishing such a story...... I'm not sure whether Kennedy ever saw these papers .... :negative: :lol:



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

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby wadinga » Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:26 pm

Hello Alberto,

Time for you to withdraw these words

I'm not sure whether Kennedy ever saw these papers


Amongst 6 pages of recorded sources

Pursuit p244 Documents, magazines, pamphlets newspapers

Amongst 12 major PRO volumes

ADM 205/10 1941

So you Be sure :ok:

Kennedy was well aware of these bureaucratic trivialities and saw them for what they were.

And amongst the 42 involved individuals with whom this "novelist" conducted correspondence/ interviews whilst writing his excellent book, Rear Admiral R W Paffard.

just Kennedy "quotation" of a conversation (letter ?) that we ignore totally


Why is Kennedy's quoting of a letter from Paffard dated 5th May 1973 less valid than Roskill's quoting of a letter from Tovey dated 14th December 1961?

You only "ignore it totally" because it does not serve your purposes, in promoting the long-running erroneous Court Martial story so essential in selling your new valueless Conspiracy Theory. Roskill "demolishes" nothing because Kennedy goes on and includes the Paffard quotation and therefore the caveat. Since Kennedy also conversed with Admiral Sir Alexander Bingley, who was also told the truth by Tovey in 1941 apparently, this might further explain Kennedy's evaluation that Tovey's late life memories were unreliable.

Roskill manipulating Kennedy: Who gave Kennedy the Tovey letters? Who, in his later works cites Kenndy as the source of the CMDS story? Who tries to convince Kennedy to believe Tovey's allegation even after he is informed of Paffard's misgivings, already being aware of the falseness of the "Shores of France" allegation about which Tovey was apparently much more incensed than the persecution of his subordinates.

On the 10th June 1941, instead of obsessing where an imaginary report on the performance of two officers was, Winston Churchill was desperately defending his and his government's actions over Crete, always vastly more strategically important than the Bismarck. See https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1941/jun/10/defence-of-crete#S5CV0372P0_19410610_HOC_357

His method of dealing with hapless individuals he was really keen on getting rid of is shown in this debate:

My right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport asked me who it was who decided that the Air Forces on the aerodromes in Crete were to be withdrawn. It was decided by the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force in the Middle East, on the recommendation of General Freyberg, concurred in by the R.A.F. officer commanding on the spot, Group-Captain Beamish. It was at that request.


He had starved the unfortunate Sir Arthur Longmore (he was in HMS Tiger at Jutland) of fighter aircraft for Crete and Egypt and blamed him for withdrawal from the island and the mauling of Cunningham's ships, before sacking him and putting Tedder in his place as Commander Middle East appointed 1st June.

If Churchill had really wanted W-W and Leach gone, all this fantastical supposition would not have been necessary. They would have been just goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooone. :D

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:39 pm

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "Kennedy was well aware of these bureaucratic trivialities and saw them for what they were"

Thanks, but I wondered whether Kennedy actually saw them. He listed them in the sources (possibly from Roskill as per the letters ? My own speculation......) but he did not mention them (why ? They are crystal clear for everybody except for Mr.Wadinga...) , therefore either he did not read the whole ADM 205/10, or he did not understand it.
Roskill did both.



Wadinga wrote: "Why is Kennedy's quoting of a letter from Paffard dated 5th May 1973 less valid than Roskill's quoting of a letter from Tovey dated 14th December 1961? "

Possibly because we have Tovey's original letter from 1961 (here the transcript: http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=77056&hilit=Tovey_Roskill_14+12+1961_2#p77036), while Mr.Wadinga has not posted yet Paffard's one ? :negative:



All the rest of his post is the usual personal own interpretation and speculation, without admitting it is: we have the proofs, he has nothing to support the untenable (by now) position of denier at any cost. :kaput:


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: 3268
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:56 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto,

I like your continuous explanation of what somebody in line of principle does not want to accept.

But you should remind the " deniers " that as I wrote :

What cannot be discussed or denied any longer is the fact that on May 1941 Adm Pound requested this type of action for those 2 Royal Navy Officers to Adm Tovey that refused to do it and soon after the initiative was abandoned.
This cannot be put in discussion anymore.


If ever there was a single doubt about Adm Tovey letters written to Stephen Roskill about the Board of Inquiry and consequent logic intention of a trial for Court Martial for those 2 Officers ... the recently found May 31st, 1941 letter from Tovey to Pound is removing all possible doubts about it and it is removing all doubts about Tovey later reliability too while writing his letters about this argument.

Keep on discussing about Board of Inquiry versus trial for Court martial is just a waste of time, ... simply because the 2 things were tightly connected and one was just enabling the other and in this case is more than obvious that the result was going to be a Court Martial with most of the charges being confirmed, ... and this is demonstrated by the fact that they changed the reports and the documents after regarding those possible charges.

It is so simple and evident that I really do not realize why you are still spending time explaining it.

If one does not want to see and realize it with the evidence and documents we have at hand as today, he will never realize it in the future no matter what you are going to show him.

More, ... Stephen Roskill maintained his commitment to Adm Tovey request not to publish the story until Tovey died ( January 1971 ), ... and only later allowed Sir Kennedy to publish the story on Pursuit on July 1974.

Without S. Roskill and Adm Tovey original letters, despite the story was well known into the Royal Navy and by many witnesses Sir Kennedy interviewed for Pursuit, ... Ludovic Kennedy was probably never going to be able to find the references he used both for Tovey letters as well as for the Adm 205/10 documents.

Stephen Roskill knew the Board of Inquiry/trial for Court Martial story was real and Adm Tovey was fully reliable about it, and he even wrote it to Sir Kennedy, that in any case preferred to keep is " sugar coating " approach on his novel book by associating the BofI/CM story for WW and Leach to the KGV towing signal uncertainty, ... and in this way making the scoop and allowing the doubts about it to still be a possibility for the readers.

This is what the " deniers " here in will like to keep at any cost, ... but unfortunately for them the towing signal can have some uncertainty still, ... while this " regrettable aftermath " about the board of inquiry/trial for Court Martial initial request later abandoned by the Admiralty for those 2 Officers is more than well demonstrated now and does have all evidence available removing any possible doubt about it.

As simple as that, ... just as Stephen Roskill made clear to Sir Kennedy in writing him a letter, ... as well as on his 1976 and 1977 published books with his footnote about this story. ... :wink:

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: 3274
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:39 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:

If ever there was a single doubt about Adm Tovey letters written to Stephen Roskill about the Board of Inquiry and consequent logic intention of a trial for Court Martial for those 2 Officers ... the recently found May 31st, 1941 letter from Tovey to Pound is removing all possible doubts about it and it is removing all doubts about Tovey later reliability too while writing his letters about this argument.

Keep on discussing about Board of Inquiry versus trial for Court martial is just a waste of time, ... simply because the 2 things were tightly connected and one was just enabling the other and in this case is more than obvious that the result was going to be a Court Martial with most of the charges being confirmed, ... and this is demonstrated by the fact that they changed the reports and the documents after regarding those possible charges.



Again the only mention of a CM comes from Tovey. Is it surprising that after the loss of the Hood that the Admiralty would want a BofI to look at the tactical circumstances before and after her loss? Yet the Admiralty and DP (and thus WSC) did not have their hearts set on it and it died with Tovey's refusal.

You have shown exactly nothing that would convict either Leach or W-W of any criminal fault and the idea that a BofI would inevitably lead to a CM is nothing short of preposterous. You also cannot show that Tovey, Leach or W-W altered their reports specifically to thwart a BofI and/or CM. or that either was ever aware of Tovey's discussions with DP regarding a BofI.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:50 pm

Dunmunro wrote: " Is it surprising that after the loss of the Hood that the Admiralty would want a BofI to look at the tactical circumstances before and after her loss?"

Hi Duncan,
I like the way you say "a BofI to look at the tactical circumstances". :wink: In the letter of May 31 to Pound, Tovey used a quite more explicit expression: "a BofI into the conduct of W-W and Leach". :kaput:


you wrote: " You also cannot show that Tovey, Leach or W-W altered their reports specifically to thwart a BofI and/or CM. "

possibly they did it to seduce some girls...... :negative:
Why on earth an officer would intentionally alter facts in an official report at his own risk ?



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

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3274
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:39 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: " Is it surprising that after the loss of the Hood that the Admiralty would want a BofI to look at the tactical circumstances before and after her loss?"

Hi Duncan,
I like the way you say "a BofI to look at the tactical circumstances". :wink: In the letter of May 31 to Pound, Tovey used a quite more explicit expression: "a BofI into the conduct of W-W and Leach". :kaput:


you wrote: " You also cannot show that Tovey, Leach or W-W altered their reports specifically to thwart a BofI and/or CM. "

possibly they did it to seduce some girls...... :negative:
Why on earth an officer would intentionally alter facts in an official report at his own risk ?



Bye, Alberto


Conduct = conduct of the battle = tactical circumstances.

You cannot show that they altered their Reports of Proceedings. Period. Full stop. Ever.

Why on earth an officer would intentionally alter facts in an official report at his own risk ?


Show us a before (unaltered) and after (altered) official Report of Proceedings by Leach or W-W.


Return to “Bismarck General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests