The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3265
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 11:09 pm

Hello everybody,

here in a shameful page for the Royal Navy changing the facts on purpose :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6799

I avoid to post again the ridiculous WW interview at the BBC of May 28th, 1941, ... where the very smart Officer declared something he was changing on his Official report few days after, ... just like his distance from the Hood at 06:00 of May 24th, 1941, ... changed too ... from 20.000 to 30.000 yards.

Leach changes of PoW guns working when he retreated in front of the enemy is well known too ... from 3 to 5 to 9 at the end, ... but it was not enough to save him, ... so Adm Tovey had to help him with the Y turret jamming " moved in " ... and adding 11 minutes to his retreat from 06:02 to 06:13.

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: 1237
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby wadinga » Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:59 am

Hello Antonio,

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.


As I provided the letter which confirms this, of course I accept it. However you are mistaken when you attempt to distort "the type of action":

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


I have provided comprehensive material showing a Board of Inquiry and Court Martial are entirely different processes. The B of I has only a requirement that witnesses are cautioned that they are giving evidence. A Court Martial is carried out under strict legal provisions set down by the Judge Advocate of the Fleet, requiring presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the nomination of accused with details of charges they face and the provision of trained legal counsel for the accused.

The letter of 31st May 1941 does not say Court Martial for Wake-Walker and Leach. Thus Tovey's letter of 1961 is fundamentally incorrect.

Stephen Roskill maintained his commitment to Adm Tovey request not to publish the story until Tovey died ( January 1971)


Is there any evidence in the material Alberto is still withholding that Roskill ever made such a commitment to Tovey? Tovey may have wanted it, but should his personal preference have got in the way of a serious historical researcher? As many have pointed out, Roskill, despite access to all available material and many other witnesses including confidants Paffard and Bingley never provided any other confirmation whatsoever of Tovey's recollection of 1961. If there is one, maybe in the form of a Silver Bullet, currently being withheld by yourselves, would you be kind enough to show it?

despite the story was well known into the Royal Navy and by many witnesses Sir Kennedy interviewed for Pursuit,


Where is there any evidence of this whatsoever? Nobody has ever provided any confirmation which does not date until after Kennedy's book was published. People have read what it says in Kennedy's book in 1974 except they have forgotten the massive caveat he included based on the words of Tovey's confidant, Paffard.

Kennedy received Tovey's letters from Roskill and used the PRO to access 205/10 files as detailed in the comprehensive sources listed at the end of his book. You owe him a debt of gratitude for publishing Tovey's muddled recollection at all and allowing you to fabricate your fantastical allegations of deceit, around a few irrelevant and immaterial changes from preliminary report drafts to finally delivered documents.

What do you know of Marc'Antonio Bragadin? :D

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:52 am

Dunmunro wrote: "Conduct = conduct of the battle = tactical circumstances. "

Hi Duncan,
INCORRECT
"BofI into conduct of WW and Leach" = examination of their MILITARY behaviour ! Please don't come back with this ridiculous statements and read back here if you don't remember what has been discussed already http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=76811&hilit=conduct#p76811.



you wrote: "You cannot show that they altered their Reports of Proceedings. Period. Full stop. Ever."

I can and we did already.
We have already proven everything here http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6799.
To refresh "memory" for everybody, please read Tovey's preliminary report on May 30 (more or less correct) vs his final despatches (totally misleading), intentionally prepared based on incorrect statements from Wake-Walker...... :negative:
We have many more, but this is largely sufficient.

Tovey_May30.jpg
Tovey_May30.jpg (39.01 KiB) Viewed 482 times

In the above report, PoW retreated within 2 minutes, at 6:02 (more or less correct) and NO Y turret jamming occurred before the retreat (correct)

Point19.jpg
Point19.jpg (83.03 KiB) Viewed 482 times

Here the retreat time is moved shamefully to 6:13 :shock: , with Y turret jamming is intentionally moved BEFORE the retreat decision.


It's you who cannot deny written evidences. Period. Full stop. Ever.(your words) :wink:



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: 3265
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:07 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

I was waiting your move from a stubborn and blind closed position to a reasonable and pragmatic realistic and reasonable one.

Having taken and assumed you last post in this way, I restart replying to you.

May 31st 1941 letter you posted leave no doubts anymore about the " action " going on between Adm Pound and Adm Tovey regarding the conduct of RearAdm Wake-Walker and Capt Leach during the Bismarck operation.

There is of course a difference between a Board of Inquiry ( step 1 ) and a Court Martial ( step 2 ).
Usually the first step is called just to prepare the second step in case of a sure Officer misconduct.
Sometimes like in the case of Sommerville is called to verify the facts not being 100% sure of the misconduct upfront.
What is out of discussion is that it is not a positive occurrence for any Officer in any nation.
A Board of Inquiry call is an investigation of your conduct to verify if your actions have been according to what was expected from you, and surely it is not a call to give you a rewarding or a medal.

For what this discussion is all about, it is the same the utilization of the terms board of inquiry, the trial for Court Martial or the direct Court Martial, simply because everybody understood and realized that the Court Martial was the real goal of Adm Pound initiative, passing thru a preliminary board of inquiry.
in this regard Adm Tovey May 31st 1941 letter is clear enough when he put himself in that position responding to Adm Pound.

I have read this " action " going on between Pound and Tovey also being defined " the Wake-Walker business ", ... and again it is fundamentally the same initiative involving both WW ( apparently the main target ) and Leach, ... starting from a board of inquiry to bring them after in front of a Court Martial at the end of the initial due analysis.

Hope this point regarding the " action " is clear now and not more in discussion.


Tovey wrote to Roskill asking him to leave out the " Wake-Walker story " ( here you have another definition of the initiative ) and aside Tovey letter request rows asking him this Stephen Roskill wrote : " AGREE ".

There are evidence of what I stated regarding Kennedy interviewed persons ( other than Adm Tovey ) and their sure knowledge about this story.
I do not know if Kennedy asked them about it or not, and this fact by itself tells the whole story about Sir Kennedy historical investigation real capabilities.
What is for sure is that they knew about it long before Kennedy published his book on July 1974 since they declared their knowledge about this story soon after the war end.

I thank Sir Kennedy for his book and his references on Pursuit, ... but as you well know many times I had to correct him for having sold his version of the facts in a " sugar coated " way, ... misleading the reader with lots of errors as I have demosntrated, ... and in this case he did it mixing the KGV towing signal uncertainty with the BofI/Court Martial story, ... despite S. Roskill recommendation to him, ... and he failed his evaluations.

Bye Antonio :D

NOTE : there are 2 famous Marcantonio Bragadin.

1) A famous Venetian hero :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Antonio_Bragadin

2) An Italian Admiral book writer that was a direct descendant of the 16th-century Venetian commander Marco Antonio Bragadin :

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcanton ... ammiraglio)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcanton ... n_(admiral)

Please keep this subject out of this thread and in case open a dedicated one on the proper place.
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: 1237
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby wadinga » Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:26 pm

Hello Antonio,

Usually the first step is called just to prepare the second step in case of a sure Officer misconduct.


No, as has been explained, a Board of Inquiry exists to discover factual information. It is not merely a procedural step to be ticked off prior to accusation, appointment of defending counsel etc. You have constantly tried to muddle up the technical Board of Inquiry attempting to find the reasons why Hood blew up, instead of merely sustaining damage, with some kind of investigation into tactics, and a covert witch hunt against certain officers. You have even suggested the Second Board was only convened so that evidence could be changed. The instigation of the second Inquiry was because the first was so informal, not calling all the potential witnesses, recording information properly or inviting suitable technical experts. This shows that Boards of Inquiry are not set up on any kind of legal basis.

If the facts of the case, despite Winston's opinion of Wake-Walker and Leach's performance, were not known and on 30th May 1941 they could not be known, since nobody had submitted any reports, a Board of Inquiry might be called. That there was any suspicion of an officer's performance would not be good for him, but without facts there could be no grounds for a Court Martial. Our study has proved that the "threat" happened on 30th May, not after review of reports either interim or revised, both of which were in Pound's possession. No documentation actually shows there was any kind of investigation. AV Alexander's assurance to the PM is not supported by any evidence whatsoever of investigation either thorough or skimpy.

In fact the Board of Inquiry into Somerville's performance not only exonerated him from any question over his performance, but heartily endorsed his actions.

From the findings Dec 1940
The conduct of the action that ensued was correct and spirited and its success assured the attainment of what had been selected as the primary object of the operation viz the timely and safe arrival of the convoy.


Not a medal but well worth having.
everybody understood and realized that the Court Martial was the real goal of Adm Pound initiative


Who are "everybody"? There is no record of anybody being aware at the end of May, other than Tovey who speaks only of a Board of Inquiry and Pound. If the First Sea Lord and the PM really had the "real goal" of a Court Martial, do you really suppose Tovey's refusal would have made the slightest difference? These are powerful men who are used to getting what they want. Winston had Longmore sacked, just like that. He could have had Wake-Walker and Leach sacked or beached if he really wanted to. The run toward the "real goal", if there had ever been one, stopped instantaneously, at that point.

Two months later, a confused assistant to Pound gets an enquiry whether or not a report about something (unspecified) will be received. That is not a demand about an important matter. It is bureaucratic trivia.

What does this mean?

There are evidence of what I stated regarding Kennedy interviewed persons ( other than Adm Tovey ) and their sure knowledge about this story.
I do not know if Kennedy asked them about it or not, and this fact by itself tells the whole story about Sir Kennedy historical investigation real capabilities.
What is for sure is that they knew about it long before Kennedy published his book on July 1974 since they declared their knowledge about this story soon after the war end.


Are you saying that you have actual evidence, which you may be unwilling to show, that some of the 42 people Kennedy communicated with, knew about the threat to Wake-Walker and Leach and declared it shortly after the War? Just a simple yes or no will suffice for now, I expect we will have to wait for your book to get this proprietary information which you "own". Two of them, of course, would be Admiarl R W Paffard and Admiral Bingley. The former clearly told Kennedy, and maybe Roskill too, that Tovey's 1961 recollections were not to be trusted.

I will move Marc'Antonio Bragadin propagandist for Il Duce's navy to the a new Conspiracy Theory thread.

All the best

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

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3273
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:30 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: "Conduct = conduct of the battle = tactical circumstances. "

Hi Duncan,
INCORRECT
"BofI into conduct of WW and Leach" = examination of their MILITARY behaviour ! Please don't come back with this ridiculous statements and read back here if you don't remember what has been discussed already http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=76811&hilit=conduct#p76811.



you wrote: "You cannot show that they altered their Reports of Proceedings. Period. Full stop. Ever."

I can and we did already.
We have already proven everything here http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6799.
To refresh "memory" for everybody, please read Tovey's preliminary report on May 30 (more or less correct) vs his final despatches (totally misleading), intentionally prepared based on incorrect statements from Wake-Walker...... :negative:
We have many more, but this is largely sufficient.

Tovey_May30.jpg

In the above report, PoW retreated within 2 minutes, at 6:02 (more or less correct) and NO Y turret jamming occurred before the retreat (correct)

Point19.jpg

Here the retreat time is moved shamefully to 6:13 :shock: , with Y turret jamming is intentionally moved BEFORE the retreat decision.


It's you who cannot deny written evidences. Period. Full stop. Ever.(your words) :wink:


Bye, Alberto


Tovey was not the subject of a possible BofI. Tovey's preliminary report is irrelevant.

I asked this question previously, which you declined to answer: "Show us a before (unaltered) and after (altered) official Report of Proceedings by Leach or W-W."


" examination of their MILITARY behaviour" = conduct of the battle = tactical circumstances.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:02 pm

Dunmunro wrote: "Tovey's preliminary report is irrelevant."

Hi Duncan,
I'm sorry it is NOT. It is the written, undeniable proof of the cover-up as what I have posted above shows to everybody. :stop:
It's you who cannot deny written evidences. Period. Full stop. Ever.(your words).


Leach changed his version 3 times (but he just corrected the most incorrect statements like the number of guns in action), Wake-Walker only released a single report (AFAIK), very careful to write nothing compromising (as he had already done in interviews and BofI's like the identification of BC1 at 5:16 and the distance from Hood at 6:00), providing Tovey with most of the "sugar-coating" later used in the despatches (e.g. 6:13 PoW retreat time).


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: 3273
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:53 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: "Tovey's preliminary report is irrelevant."

Hi Duncan,
I'm sorry it is NOT. It is the written, undeniable proof of the cover-up as what I have posted above shows to everybody. :stop:
It's you who cannot deny written evidences. Period. Full stop. Ever.(your words).


Leach changed his version 3 times (but he just corrected the most incorrect statements like the number of guns in action), Wake-Walker only released a single report (AFAIK), very careful to write nothing compromising (as he had already done in interviews and BofI's like the identification of BC1 at 5:16 and the distance from Hood at 6:00), providing Tovey with most of the "sugar-coating" later used in the despatches (e.g. 6:13 PoW retreat time).


Bye, Alberto


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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:18 pm

Hello everybody,

a question that does apply to this argument : what is the role of the " Prisoner's Friend " ?

Into the Royal Navy discipline process in which circumstances this definition is used ?

Where this role apply, what kind of activity is the " Prisoner's Friend " supposed to do ?

Of course I am correlating this definition to the Adm Tovey statement while responding to Adm Pound in relation to his declared initiative versus RearAdm Wake-Walker and Capt Leach.

He informed me that the Admiralty would order a trial ( for Court Martial ).

I replied that if they did I would act as " Prisoner's Friend ", if necessary resigning my command to do so.


Bottom line, ... to make a long story short, ... what Adm Tovey exactly meant by declaring that " Prisoner's Friend " role intention to Adm Pound ?

Here what it seems to mean :

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... 27s_friend

Some supporting evidence for the whole Royal Navy discipline process :

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchills-Nav ... 1844860353

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Lavery

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: 3273
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:48 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

a question that does apply to this argument : what is the role of the " Prisoner's Friend " ?

Into the Royal Navy discipline process in which circumstances this definition is used ?

Where this role apply, what kind of activity is the " Prisoner's Friend " supposed to do ?

Of course I am correlating this definition to the Adm Tovey statement while responding to Adm Pound in relation to his declared initiative versus RearAdm Wake-Walker and Capt Leach.

He informed me that the Admiralty would order a trial ( for Court Martial ).

I replied that if they did I would act as " Prisoner's Friend ", if necessary resigning my command to do so.


Bottom line, ... to make a long story short, ... what Adm Tovey exactly meant by declaring that " Prisoner's Friend " role intention to Adm Pound ?

Here what it seems to mean :

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... 27s_friend

Some supporting evidence for the whole Royal Navy discipline process :

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchills-Nav ... 1844860353

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Lavery

Bye Antonio :D

Thanks to Wadinga we have Tovey's letter of 31 May 1941:

Saturday 31st May 1941

My Dear First Sea Lord,
I have just received your letter of the 28th and am intentionally replying before I see Wake-Walker or Leach. Naturally, like you, I was hoping P of W might be able to re-engage before dark, possibly when the T/B attack was being made by “Victorious”. I knew, however that both W-W and Leach appreciated the necessity for further damage just as well as I did, and that neither would require the slightest encouragement to take risks if they thought it would help us to achieve the object of all of us, to sink the Bismarck or render her impotent to operate on our trade routes. In any case W-W in his reply to the Admiralty made his opinion perfectly clear, after that the responsibility for ordering P of W to re-engage was mine, and mine alone, unless TLs issued an order which I shall never cease to be thankful they did not.

I have no intention of ordering a B of I into the conduct of W-W and Leach under any circumstances but I am only too ready to submit to B of I or C M if Their Lordships see fit to order to enquire into my own actions.

We frequently have to curb our wish to interfere in politics, it is a very great pity politicians cannot be so strong minded when they become critical of our strategy or skill or our tactics. They have done more than enough harm surely in giving information of real value to the Hun – surely the mere fact that the Bismarck was sunk without the loss of another British life or damage to our ships was dramatic enough for anyone.

I refrain from objecting to dangerous talk and ideas when they do not affect directly me or my command but as long as I am in command of the H F I will not submit quietly to information being made public in any place if it endangers ships under my command or prejudices the success of their operations.

Apart from this one point may I say how very deeply I value your letter, and I am sure that you know the last thing I wish to do is to increase your very heavy burden but I must make my stand on this point.

The one thing I value above all is the confidence of my subordinate commanders, and I think you will agree that it was this confidence of officers in TLs and their CinC that was largely responsible for their magnificent work in this operation.

The RD/F question is most important, but we are inclined to attribute most of the jamming to the ship’s own wireless. The night before we got into action I told my COS I intended closing in end-on and that I was convinced the sight of our two ships charging at them would shake the nerves of enemy control officers and rangetakers. COS remarked but unfortunately it won’t affect the R D/F operator. Yesterday evening our own operator told me how fascinating it was to see on the screen our own projectiles going at the enemy, but that, to see the enemy projectiles coming towards him was not nearly so amusing. I now believe one of the reasons for the Bismarck’s shooting going off so soon was their operator was scared stiff by the sight of swarms of bullets approaching him from two directions at once and that quite likely he was the winner in the race to jump over the stress.

I am afraid Andrew is having a terribly trying time but if anyone can pull through he will. I am always trying to think of some way we could operationally relieve the strain on him, but I can’t find any unless the () gives us an opportunity like the other day. But I would recommend most strongly that the Bomber Command should operate at () to the maximum of its capacity and so possibly draw () air forces back from the Near East.

No ship could have stood up to the punishment Bismarck got from the guns of Rodney and KG V and I much doubt that any British ship would have taken the torpedo hits so comparatively lightly- but it is difficult to say without knowing how many times Bismarck was hit or where.
What really causes me concern is that I do not think one KG class ship can by herself be relied to defeat the Tirpitz . Their ships, in addition to excellent instruments & rangefinder glasses have the enormous advantage of being able to spend months training in the Baltic without restriction or embarrassment of any kind, nor, presumably are they constantly having officers and men shifted. I intend missing no opportunity for giving this ship the necessary opportunity for practices, but we are handicapped particularly at night. The limit of the Hun’s effective use of his R D/F appears to be about 24,000 yds: though I shall always seek close action. It would be of inestimable value if our R D/F could range at 30,000 yds and so improve our chances of getting in the first hit, particularly as the Tirpitz unless reduced in speed by T/Bs is almost certain to avoid close action. I urge very strongly that no effort should be spared to give us this increased R D/F range and that drafting from this ship, “The” battlefleet, should be absolutely stopped except by the consent of the Captain.

I am very sad at the loss of the Mashona, I feel it should not have happened, but I will write again after I have seen the () L O Coastal Command who is coming up to see me.

I grudge the FAA none of the credit they have been given, they deserve every bit of it, starting from Rotherham’s reconnaissance from Hataton [sic] but I deeply regret the Hun being given so much valuable information. Apart from anything else, it is encouraging him to include the “Graf Zeppelin” in the next sortie which would be most unfortunate.

I am extremely anxious that any future public references should emphasise as strongly as possible the absolutely devastating effect of our battleship’s gunfire, it was so, and the sailors in the Tirpitz will hate to hear about it. I would even recommend publishing my tribute, so unpopular in political circles, and rub in that it spite of such gallantry no human being could stand it and that even these brave men preferred drowning rather than remaining another instant in the ghastly inferno aboard what was, so short a time before, the pride and hope of the Nazi Navy “invincible and unsinkable”.

Yours very sincerely, even if a trifle obstinate,

Jack C Tovey


I don't see anything about appearing as "prisoner's friend".

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:59 pm

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

Hi Duncan,
everything had been already posted and discussed :stop: .......I hope you are not loosing your memory like Tovey..... (as per your insinuation)


LEACH (from May 27th message to Admiralty and June 4th report)

Leach_May27_June4.jpg
Leach_May27_June4.jpg (96.48 KiB) Viewed 435 times


WAKE-WALKER (from 1st and 2nd Board of inquiry (HMS Hood loss)

WakeWalkersketch.jpg
WakeWalkersketch.jpg (93.76 KiB) Viewed 435 times

W_W_declaration_II_BofI.jpg
W_W_declaration_II_BofI.jpg (77.51 KiB) Viewed 435 times


Are the above official enough and signed blatantly ALTERED DECLARATIONS before and after the cover-up ?

Of course a comparison between Tovey report from May 30 and the final "despatches" (here: http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=78003#p77994 is a much better proof of the cover-up, annoying as it can be for you !


Please, now STOP denying evidences ! I'm a bit fed up of loosing my time to answer (polite) NONSENSE from you and (derisory) NONSENSE from Mr.Wadinga, to re-post again and again the same evidences and to repeat what you both don't want to accept on principle ..... :evil:


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: 3273
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:59 pm

IOW, " you got nothing ".

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby wadinga » Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:26 am

Hello Antonio,

I post a serious reasonable and pragmatic answer -realistic and reasonable response at your request and you categorise it as

(derisory) NONSENSE


I repeat the question

Are you saying that you have actual evidence, which you may be unwilling to show, that some of the 42 people Kennedy communicated with, knew about the threat to Wake-Walker and Leach and declared it shortly after the War? Just a simple yes or no will suffice for now, I expect we will have to wait for your book to get this proprietary information which you "own". Two of them, of course, would be Admiral R W Paffard and Admiral Bingley. The former clearly told Kennedy, and maybe Roskill too, that Tovey's 1961 recollections were not to be trusted.


Just a simple yes or no will do.

You are right, there is also nothing about "Prisoner's Friend" in the 31st May letter, because the Court Martial threat never happened.

All the best

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

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby wadinga » Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:32 am

Hi Alberto,

Sorry you were the one going on about derisory nonsense. Sometimes I forget who is pulling the strings.

Antonio is the one to ask:

Are you saying that you have actual evidence, which you may be unwilling to show, that some of the 42 people Kennedy communicated with, knew about the threat to Wake-Walker and Leach and declared it shortly after the War? Just a simple yes or no will suffice for now, I expect we will have to wait for your book to get this proprietary information which you "own". Two of them, of course, would be Admiarl R W Paffard and Admiral Bingley. The former clearly told Kennedy, and maybe Roskill too, that Tovey's 1961 recollections were not to be trusted.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:58 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Sometimes I forget who is pulling the strings"

yes he does.
As demonstrated by the above posts, either Mr.Wadinga and Mr.Dunmunro too often forget already discussed things, or, as I suspect, based on last Mr.Dunmunro post, they just play tricks to re-open closed matters in order to avoid to accept the overwhelming already posted evidences about the "regrettable aftermath" and the "sugar-coating" of the official version of the story.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)


Return to “Bismarck General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests