The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1339
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:28 am

Hello Alberto,

You are seriously suggesting that although you fabulate (I love that word) Pound actually thought W-W was guilty of cowardice and incompetence in the face of the enemy so serious as to warrant at least a Board of Inquiry, the lucky happenstance that somebody else sank the Bismarck, magically removed all this and made him a candidate for Pound's understudy. Even you must accept how ridiculous that sounds. Once again you truncate the sentence. Presumably if Wake-Walker had actually been court martialled you would consistently truncate "Not Guilty" to "Guilty" :lol:
I have great admiration for him and have found him an excellent fellow to work with, but there is no doubt, like myself he talks emphatically which does sometimes give an unfortunate impression; however I believe that in such a responsible position he could and would set a guard on his tongue, he certainly has the brains and the capability for hard work.
You misquote Tovey, (does that sound systemic of your and Antonio assertions) he says could and would, not should. Therefore such modification of outspokenness would be voluntary based on W-W's own excellent judgement, not outside opinion.
6 months later in 1942


Actually appointed April 1942. So he continued as Rear-Admiral until when exactly? Everybody deserves a short break after strenuous sea service.

RN unit histories http://www.unithistories.com/officers/R ... -Walker_WFsays

died only a few hours after accepting the appointment as Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean
I provided Antonio an extensive listing of the characteristics of trolls, have you checked to see how many boxes you fill?

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2341
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "he says could and would, not should."
oh, sorry, my deep excuses to Mr.Wadinga , I "do not pick up on nuances" :lol: , however it does confirm that Wake-Walker normally had problems to "set a guard to his tongue" .... :lol:

The essence is that all the recently surfaced letters confirm the shame:
1) "I know however both W-W and Leach appreciated the necessity for further damage....BofI into the conduct of W-W or Leach" (Tovey, May 1941),
2) "Had BS not been sunk, the matter of whether the shadowing was adequately performed the night they gave us the slip would have come accutely to the fore"....."the sacrifice of 1 8" cruiser...would have been justified" (Pound, July 19)
3) "he could and would set a guard on his tongue" (Tovey, September 1941),
4) "he wished Wake-Walker and Leach brought to trial by Court Martial....I should hate the implicit criticism of Wake_Walker" (Tovey, 1961)
5) "the Wake-Walker business.... I would be glad if you leave it out" (Tovey, 1962)

making clear we had understood the full story in the correct way since years ago, while Mr.Wadinga has apparently not yet, preferring to invent his own fantasies (I love that word) to explain the facts..... :stubborn:

I intentionally post only the relevant statements (I can't care less of Mr.Wadinga low accusations) as anyone can check the content of these documents, made available thanks to Antonio Bonomi, Mr.Wadinga and me on this very thread.....


Wadinga wrote: "I provided Antonio an extensive listing of the characteristics of trolls, have you checked to see how many boxes you fill? "
I probably fill some, Mr.Wadinga fills many more than I do, but ALL boxes are surely filled by a person that, providing NO added value at all to the discussion, came here only to insult. :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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1339
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:39 am

Hello Alberto,

Once again you truncate sentences in order to change their meaning:

”.
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.
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.
I have great admiration for him and have found him an excellent fellow to work with, but there is no doubt, like myself he talks emphatically which does sometimes give an unfortunate impression; however I believe that in such a responsible position he could and would set a guard on his tongue, he certainly has the brains and the capability for hard work.

You would indeed misrepresent a verdict of "Not Guilty" as "Guilty", claim you had included the relevant part only and try to bluff your way through when challenged.


Like Antonio you you edit reality and then present your distortions as if they were the only "relevant" parts, leaving the reader to hunt for what you wish to hide. You eventually included the Paragraph one you preferred to keep secret. Antonio ia still withholding the "Silver Bullet". You are the ones making the accusations, defaming these men's reputations, you are the ones who should show evidence. All the evidence.


All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2341
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:50 am

Hello everybody,

once again Mr.Wadinag quibbles over "truncated" sentences just to avoid to accept what is the ESSENCE of the letters recently surfaced: a shame covered-up ONLY because Bismarck had been sunk, as Pound clearly wrote in July to Tovey.

All above mentioned evidences of the threat are here in this very thread, for the ones willing to understand simple statements and clear intentions. The others can keep on denying what is clear to everybody. :negative:
The evidence of these officers' "timid" attitude in front of the enemy is in the battle reconstruction itself and in the shadowing analysis.


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: 3388
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:01 pm

Hello everybody,

I cannot avoid to comment this ridiculous and incorrect statement by an " hooligan/ denier ".
You are the ones making the accusations, defaming these men's reputations, you are the ones who should show evidence.
Adm Pound and Adm Tovey have been the ones ... " ... making the accusations, defaming these men's reputations ... " ... referencing available official documents and letters written at the time of the events and after.

Stephen Roskill ( the Royal Navy Official Historian for World War 2 ) and the major British historians have been the ones ... " ... who should show evidence ... " and they did it thru the years with their books.

Everything is clear and well documented now.

It was just enough to read the documents and the books, ... to understand the whole scenario.

Whoever is able to read English text can do it, ... assuming he is able to understand what he is reading, ... :wink:

Bye Antonio
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: 1339
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:26 am

Hello Antonio,

There is no evidence Pound defamed anyone. The only evidence is that on the 26th May he thought that the withdrawal of PoW merited further investigation. At a time when he had no information. Later, when he had more information, it didn't.


Tovey certainly didn't defame W-W and Leach. He wrote of Wake-Walker, in case you have forgotten what the rest of the sentence, from which you triumphantly severed a fragment, when you thought no-one had the rest, says

I have great admiration for him and have found him an excellent fellow to work with, but there is no doubt, like myself he talks emphatically which does sometimes give an unfortunate impression; however I believe that in such a responsible position he could and would set a guard on his tongue, he certainly has the brains and the capability for hard work.
Only you have called them "a couple of cowards". Your evidence of their misdeeds is a gauzy, insubstantial, miasma of irrelevancies. Character assassination without evidence is defamation.

The only person to have been defamed before your current efforts, is Dudley Pound, by the suggestion he made an entirely unwarranted CMDS threat against these men. There is no corroborating evidence of this late-life assertion by Tovey. He has the excuse of a self-confessed unreliable memory and a host of personal issues with Pound and Winston relating to PQ 17 and other matters colouring his hazy recollections. You see an opportunity for notoriety, a return on investment and the opportunity to air your "intuitions". You claim to have important evidence which you refuse to make available to this forum. Where is it? Why bother to be in the Forum if you have material but do not wish to contribute it?


All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3388
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Jun 23, 2018 7:39 am

Hello everybody,

from a Military stand point nobody can refute to admit that the conduct in action on May 24th, 1941 of RearAdm Wake-Walker and Capt Leach was surely not an example of the Nelsonian fighting attitude they teach in Dartmouth to the Royal Navy Officers, ... just the opposite, ... and I was not the one defining the Prince of Wales " the coward ship ", simply because that is the correct definition in the opposite of courage in military terms : the cowardice.

It does not take to have been an Officer to realize that this statement :
I have no intention of ordering a Board of Inquiry into the conduct of Wake-Walker and Leach under any circumstances but I am only too ready to submit to Board of Inquiry or Court Martial if Their Lordships see fit to order to enquire into my own actions.
is surely not a request for an award for an Officer conduct while in action, ... or a statement congratulating an " admirable " conduct during the operation, ... but just the opposite.

Any average intelligent person can understand it quite easily, ... and realize that consequently who requested the action ( Adm Pound - the Royal Navy First Sea Lord ) to their superior ( to Adm Tovey - the Commander in Chief Home Fleet ) by doing that was obviously and consequently defaming these Officer's reputations.

Explaining the matter years later to the Royal Navy Official Historian for World War 2, ... namely Stephen Roskill, ... only added more details to the occurrence, ... while fully confirming the event, ... from Adm Tovey side.

Those are the facts, ... and nothing can change them because we have irrefutable evidence available at hand, ... still in the archives.

Bye Antonio
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: 1339
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Sun Jun 24, 2018 12:29 am

Hello Antonio,

This
nobody can refute to admit that the conduct in action on May 24th, 1941 of RearAdm Wake-Walker and Capt Leach was surely not an example of the Nelsonian fighting attitude
is your opinion. You may have a comic-book derived concept of heroic but pointless sacrifice, but we are in the real world here. Real dead crews, real sunken ships. To no advantage. You have followed your "intuition" that because suicidal attacking did not occur, somebody is guilty of something. As Dunmunro has pointed out, you are so disappointed that Lutjens ran away and did not destroy PoW as well, scoring a total victory you have created an alternative reality.

Pound's motive was obviously not:
by doing that was obviously and consequently defaming these Officer's reputations.


Because if it had been , if he really believed they were incompetent cowards, it would have made no difference if Bismarck were sunk. They could not be trusted in those positions because of the next lives and operations they would put at risk. He was the First Sea Lord and could fire or reassign anybody for any reason, or no reason at all.


He did nothing.
is surely not a request for an award for an Officer conduct while in action, ... or a statement congratulating an " admirable " conduct during the operation, ... but just the opposite.

Requesting, not commanding or ordering, Tovey carry out a B of I is precisely what Pound would do if all he wanted was a sham exercise to keep Churchill happy if he was still making a nuisance of himself. Which in the event, he wasn't. There is no suggestion Winston though ill of these officers after his ill-informed outburst. Tovey refused to go along with this subterfuge, and anyway the exercise was pointless as Winston no longer cared. Hence business as usual. Leach returns to his command, W-W stays in command and gets the Petsamo raid with a carrier task force to control.


Once again Roskill provides no confirmation, there is no other evidence mentioning Court Martial than Tovey's hazy recollection.


All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3388
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:57 am

Hello everybody,

a long series of words written with the useless intent of trying not to admit that 2 Officers has been not courageous enough given the needs and the situation they were into, ... to be noted that they were sent there intentionally for the kill, ... not to run away cowardly while doing nothing.

To confirm what I stated above it is enough to read both Capt Leach ( ... without the Hood I felt ... ) and Adm Tovey ( ... it was surely their intention to damage as much as they could the enemy ... ) main justifications after the events.

The Court Martial request was confirmed by Adm Tovey, ... their superior, ... who knew what has been said on the phone with Adm Pound.

Stephen Roskill understood everything and when Sir Kennedy wrote his " novel " book, ... corrected his statement writing him a letter telling him that he was wrong about Adm Tovey memory, ... and published 2 times his facts version. End of the historical debate about it.

In any case it does not matter the Court Martial being requested in words ( phone call ), writing ( Pound May 28th letter ? ) or intentions thru a preliminary Board of Inquiry, ... becoming Court of Enquiry ( see HMS Manchester occurrence ), ... and soon a Court Martial given the facts, ... because the negligent conduct while in action of those 2 " timid " Officers ( clear cowardice intended ) was conveyed with no doubts from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey, ... as we can read on Adm Tovey response about it on his May 31st, 1941 letter, ... and this is what counts at the end.

Those are the facts and on the end of May 1941 they were not talking about recognition or medals for such an " admirable " conduct, ... but about an inquiry for a clear negligent conduct while in action about those 2 Officers.

June, July and August changed the situation thru the known " Cover Up " occurred and in September the Admiralty accepted the new version of the facts, intentionally altered on purpose.

In October the same 2 Officers have been rewarded by the King together with all the others for the Bismarck operation.

This is the truth of this " regrettable aftermath " ( S. Roskill ), ... the shameful " Denmark Strait Saga " ( Sir H. Leach ).

Bye Antonio
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 )

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by HMSVF » Sun Jun 24, 2018 12:22 pm

My first attempt at contributing after many years reading posts on this boards and the HMS Hood website.


There seems to be a circular argument occurring. Personally I think Bill Jurens nailed it with this post....
It is with some reluctance that I enter this discussion, but feel that at this time some comment might be appropriate, though perhaps not welcomed by all.

So far as approaching with "A" arcs open or closed, and based upon the best estimates of the relative courses, positions, and speeds of the vessels involved, a simple Applonious diagram -- sort of "Example 1" in the Maneuvering Board Manual -- will show that the options open to the British, should they wish to cut the Germans off before entering the Atlantic, i.e. should they wish to force an engagement, were really remarkably small. Anyone on the bridge of any of the capital ships involved could have laid the situation out on the maneuvering board and reached this conclusion quite rapidly. It's really only a 'two ship' problem, four ships in two two-ship groups...

I am concerned about the issue of falsifiability in some of the discussions. It appears than an hypothesis has been put forward, that being in essence that the British operations were in some way substantively incompetent, and -- more importantly -- that there was some sort of subsequent 'cover up' attempt to disguise the inadequacies of British command. This strikes me as unlikely on the face of it. Further, if one proceeds along the path that any document which in some way supports this hypothesis represents some revelation of actual truth, while any document which disagrees is part of the alleged 'cover up', then the conclusion itself is forgone, representing what amounts to a self-proving tautological argument. The methodology itself defines the outcome.

So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, my general sense of things is that the outcome of the action at Denmark Strait represented a considerable surprise to the British, and -- although this is rarely mentioned -- quite possibly to the Germans as well. In the heat of the outcome, with the British being delivered a fairly severe beating, and in the process essentially failing to prevent the German breakout into the Atlantic, there was during the immediate time after the action a fair amount of fairly ill-informed bluster and arm-waving going on, the general gist of which was that somebody must have badly mismanaged the British tactical situation. Subsequent analysis proved this to be incorrect, and -- particularly insofar as Bismarck was sunk in the end -- and, although some written commentary remains, most of this knee-jerk reaction was later more or less forgotten. In any tactical situation one can re-examine in hindsight and find that sometimes less-than-optimal actions were taken. All commanders make them, and there is something to be learned from a post-action analysis, but the presence of what can later to have been seen as tactical blunders does not render those in command in any way substantively incompetent.

Regarding the long discussions regarding the errors and alleged falsifications in the track charts during the Bismarck chase, my general feeling is that these issues were, at least after the fact, not really seen to be of any practical significance, and -- particularly with the need to concentrate more on issues-at-hand as the war went on, most of this was not really seen to be very important. As at Jutland, there are many discrepancies to be found in such charts, but -- except in isolated incidences -- the presence of formal 'cover-ups' are rare, and usually of little practical consequence. In the case of the Boards of Inquiry into the loss of Hood, it should be remembered that the thrust of the inquiries was to determine the cause of the loss itself, not to reconstruct the tactical situation either side of the gunfire action itself, and particularly after the loss of Hood, with any great precision. So generalized diagrams, primarily intended to determine roughly where witnesses were with respect to Hood when she blew up were seen to be 'good enough'.
Using them to try to reconstruct the entire action in detail, and finding fault in their precision, is probably a futile endeavor. That's just not what they were made for.

The bottom line, is that I don't really find the case for any substantial and organized 'cover up' in the Bismarck chase, nor any real long-term concerns that anybody on the British side committed anything resembling a court-martial offence to be very convincing.

Hoping this helps, and intended constructively,

Bill Jurens
I think the problem is that if you set out with a preconceived view you can end up making trying to make the evidences "fit" rather than take them for what they are. Also a lot of the evidence presented to confirm the hypothesis seem to come from secondary sources.Personally I treat secondary sources with suspicions lot of the time you can have a replication of a view or opinion that may or may not be correct - certainly with witness testimony. That does not mean that a witness to an event is lying, demented or infirm. Its just that the human brain isn't always the most reliable when it comes to absorbing and retelling events. One of my favourite topics is The Battle of Jutland, there are many witness accounts that turned out not to be true. For instance a midshipman on HMS Dublin described seeing HMS Queen Mary explode and saw her bow sail on before sinking, he described seeing those in the bridge superstructure. What we now know is that was impossible,HMS Queen Mary's bow was obliterated in the explosion. Another witness described HMS Defence being "blown to atoms".In actual fact HMS Defence is pretty much intact. A witness on HMS Spitfire described seeing a four funnelled cruiser ablaze from stem to stern ,roaring like a furness. The inference was that he saw HMS Black Prince, the problem is that the timings and relative positionsdon't correlate. What I suppose I am trying to say is that witness testimony can be shakey, certainly as time goes on.

If the hypothesis is to be proven fact, then surely hard, unequivocable evidence is required ? At present it all appears a bit "he said, she said". Wouldn't there be a paper trail between the Admiralty,Churchill and those at the scene? Even if some documentation was lost/destroyed there would still be others that were definitive surely? Even if it was under the 100 year rule it would at least exist - like the files on HMS Glorious. Now here was an incident that really did deserve a court martial (for D'Oly Hughes).The files were simply shut off from public reading, but they still exist.


Personally I think Byron was right in his earlier post when he said that this whole issue smells of Churchill having one of his epic strops. The war is going badly in the Mediterranean,HMS Hood has been sunk,HMS Prince of Wales has had to withdraw. He wants blood before he even knows the events. As the days go on his tantrum subsides but the wardroom whispers are doing the rounds in the RN in regards to his comments. I don't think that would put me in the "denier" category. I just think that the case is unproven and relies on circumstantial evidence ,which is not surprising it was 70+ years ago. If you make a big historical statement I personally think you need more than this.




Just my thoughts of course! Be gentle I'm a newbie!

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3388
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:10 pm

Hello everybody,

my only comment is very easy and clear.

We have this event confirmed by the Royal Navy Official Historian for World War 2: Stephen Roskill.

We have the confirmation of the occurrence from the son of one of the 2 Officer involved : Sir Henry Leach that has been Royal Navy First Sea Lord.

We have a May 31st letter from the Commander in Chief Home Fleet in response to a board of inquiry request on the conduct of the 2 Officers by the First Sea Lord Adm Pound ( May 28th, 1941 ) contained into the Court Martial file ADM 178/322.

We have a post war detailed explanation of Adm Tovey into the letters to Stephen Roskill on the Churchill Archives.

We have Roskill explanation of the Admiralty, up to WSC involvement and the related evidence link into ADM 205/10.

Still we read here in a statement like this : " I just think that the case is unproven and relies on circumstantial evidence ,which is not surprising it was 70+ years ago. If you make a big historical statement I personally think you need more than this. "

It would be good to know which kind of evidence some persons will evaluate being sufficient to prove what happened ...

Bye Antonio
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 )

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by HMSVF » Sun Jun 24, 2018 8:17 pm

It would be good to know which kind of evidence some persons will evaluate being sufficient to prove what happened

Any official documents that state that the events occurred, be it an Admiralty signal, paper or memo or cabinet documentation or telegram that specifically highlights and supports the assertion as opposed to being suggestive or "in essence"(i.e WSC to Pound - "I want WW and Leach to face court martial into their conduct").

I don't think that is an unreasonable position. Strong statements demand strong evidence. I have read this and other threads on this site and the HMS Hood forum (where did that go? ) for the last 8 years with great interest. I have great respect and acknowledge the immense work and knowledge that is frequently shown in regard to this topic and others from the contributors to this forum. I just don't think that there is anywhere near enough to conclusively stamp the issue "closed/proven" as yet.

If the required info does surface then I will be the first to congratulate and offer a hearty "well done" for their hard work.

Regards


HMSVF

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3388
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:51 pm

Hello everybody,

@ HMSVF,

so what is this according to you ?

It was written in response ( from Tovey to Pound on May 31st, 1941) to a request from the Royal Navy First Sea Lord Adm Pound ( May 28th, 1941 ) to the Commander in Chief Home Fleet Adm Tovey, so to their superior :
I have no intention of ordering a Board of Inquiry into the conduct of Wake-Walker and Leach under any circumstances but I am only too ready to submit to Board of Inquiry or Court Martial if Their Lordships see fit to order to enquire into my own actions.
and what is the letter from Adm Tovey to Stephen Roskill explaining the full details of it and the call between them too.

What does those 2 evidences demonstrate ?

Bye Antonio
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: 1339
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:55 pm

Hello HMSVF,

Thank you for your cogent observations, please do not be inhibited by any attempts to bulldoze or sideline your opinions. It is interesting to hear of those who read for years but do not post. You might only have additionally observed that the easy way out of this circular argument would be for the principal defamer to present his so-called "Silver Bullet" for detailed analysis, rather than teasing us with its supposed definitive and unanswerable nature. But then he hopes to sell a "controversial" book on the back of it so it seems unlikely. Your observations are most telling about the Jutland sinkings and whether the wrecks confirm or contradict eye witness accounts.

I would only take issue with one minor point:
the wardroom whispers are doing the rounds in the RN in regards to his comments
I would imagine such whispers originated in the poorly informed lower decks of other ships, who like some ignorant MPs (and others) assumed PoW, with her poorly designed (treaty limitations), installed and performing armament (of which they knew nothing and understood less) should have stood toe-to-toe with Bismarck, in a fight to the finish. Inter-ship rivalry was encouraged in the RN and PoW's sailors had a punch-up with Kent's marines as recorded in Battleship by Middlebrook. We should take a more informed and reasoned view. It is most unlikely Pound provided a transmission path for any weekend outburst Churchill emitted and the lack of any corroborating evidence seems to confirm this.

Once again:
We have this event confirmed by the Royal Navy Official Historian for World War 2: Stephen Roskill.
He does not confirm anything, he merely repeats Kennedy's version of Tovey's allegation of CMDS.
We have the confirmation of the occurrence from the son of one of the 2 Officer involved : Sir Henry Leach that has been Royal Navy First Sea Lord.
Nothing in Sir Henry Leach's autobiography suggests any independent confirmation of Tovey's allegation of a threat of CMDS as recorded with caveats by by Kennedy.
We have a May 31st letter from the Commander in Chief Home Fleet in response to a board of inquiry request on the conduct of the 2 Officers by the First Sea Lord Adm Pound ( May 28th, 1941 ) contained into the Court Martial file ADM 178/322


Having read this file myself it includes many other items besides mentions of Court Martials. Which its proper full title reflects. Nothing in the 31st May letter by Tovey confirms a Court Martial request and as such it is the divergence from reality of Tovey's imaginings of 10-20 years later which is confirmed as Kennedy suspected.

It is amazing that you have followed, but resisted posting for no less than 8 years. We here are all very much indebted to the most excellent Mr Jose M Rico for maintaining this debating forum, long may it continue to be the principal web location for this subject. :clap: :clap: :clap:

The Hood site's decision to change forum format led to its fall in popularity but there are many useful links from this site to its website with research materials.


All the best

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

pgollin
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by pgollin » Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:47 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:57 pm
.

ONLY because Bismarck had been sunk..... Tovey had forgotten nothing, as he said W-W should "set a guard on his tongue"....

.


Oh dear - YET AGAIN - this is pure misrepresentation. The full quote shows that he was comparing WW with himself - having the same failing and hence should be acting as he himself should !

This both shows the dishonesty of only providing partial quotes, and the desperate need to have a native English speaker to help you out with your interpretation of documents.

NO native English speaker reading the full quote would take anything other away from it other than the fact that WW was in the same mould and need to be politic (AS THE WRITER SHOULD BE) about his outbursts.

PLEASE be honest in your quotes, and PLEASE try to understand what was written.

.

Post Reply