The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Algonquin-R17
Junior Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:40 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Algonquin-R17 » Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:39 am

Sir Frederic Wake-Walker
The Third Sea Lord. January 1944, Admiralty. Vice Admiral Sir W Frederic Wake-walker, Kcb, Cbe, Third Sea Lord and Controller. A23581.jpg
Wake-Walker when Third Sea Lord - January 1944
Birth name William Frederic Wake-Walker
Born 24 March 1888
Died 24 September 1945 (aged 57)
London, England
Allegiance United Kingdom
Service/branch Royal Navy
Years of service 1903–1945
Rank Admiral
Battles/wars Operation Dynamo
Battle of the Denmark Strait
Last battle of the battleship Bismarck


and,


John Catterall Leach
Captain J C Leach.jpg
Captain John Leach on the deck of HMS Prince of Wales in 1941
Born 1 September 1894
Died 10 December 1941 (aged 47)
HMS Prince of Wales, South China Sea, near Kuantan, Malaysia
Allegiance United Kingdom
Service/branch Royal Navy
Years of service 1907–1941
Rank Captain
Commands held HMS Prince of Wales (1941)
HMS Cumberland (1936–38)
Battles/wars
First World War
Second World War

Denmark Strait
Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse †
Awards Distinguished Service Order
Member of the Royal Victorian Order
Relations Admiral of the Fleet Sir Henry Leach (son)

Take note of the years in service.

Sir Fredrick Wake Walker 42 years, Captain J C Leach 34 years, and let us not forget that both men DIED IN HARNESS.

I cannot appreciate the courage and resolve of these British Officers who held the lives of so many young men in their hands under such conditions and facing such formidable German foes in conditions of war not peace. Let's not hear anymore about how 18 months of peace time service in the Italian Navy affords anyone a better perspective or capability to judge the sentencing these Officers as cowards than those who have not served.

Pure, incontrovertible facts are necessary for such a statement. So far you have nothing, otherwise there would be no dispute.

Bob

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2809
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:43 am

Hello everybody,

as anyone can see from the above posts, full of personal attacks ( :lol: ), the "deniers" and the "hooligans" have no way to counter the demonstrated FACTS:

1) The "Misconduct" Articles of War contained in the 1866 NDA (http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm) were still in force in 1941 and almost unchanged even after 1957 (King's Regs are irrelevant in this discussion).
2) Instead of holding an Inquiry and/or a Court Martial, the poor part of the story was sugar-coated with intentionally false declarations (e.g. Tovey's despatches point 17 and 19 or Pinchin's Plot).
3) Tovey letters (1941 and 1961) describe very well the mood at the end of May 1941 (following Churchill and Pound statements) and explain the consequent reports "preparation" to sell a different, better story (process ended as per ADM 205/10).
4) No alternative battlemap has been presented here to counter Antonio's reconstruction, that nails all the timid officers to their responsibilities during the battle.





@Herr Nilsson:
2 quick answers to your points: 1) we all know the orders for Lutjens not to engage battleships in order to accomplish a different mission, we don't have here the British orders (that were usually much less"cautionary" than German ones....) but they were aimed to prevent Bismarck from her mission. Therefore your observation re.Lutjens is not pertinent.

2) "Someone" was Mr.Dunmunro who correctly mentioned the NDA article 29, not you, I hope for you that you never supported the thesis of the poorly educated guy who tried (without providing any evidence) to say that the King's Regs were the reference for the "misconduct in the presence of the enemy" disciplinary rules....


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

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by HMSVF » Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:13 pm

Afternoon all.

1) The "Misconduct" Articles of War contained in the 1866 NDA (http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm) were still in force in 1941 and almost unchanged even after 1957 (King's Regs are irrelevant in this discussion).
It appears that there were several versions between 1913 and 1957. The good news is that I found a link. The bad news is that they are not exactly numerous and the nearest copy seems to be at The National Maritime Museum in Greenwich...

http://www.worldcat.org/title/kings-reg ... sView=true
2) Instead of holding an Inquiry and/or a Court Martial, the poor part of the story was sugar-coated with intentionally false declarations (e.g. Tovey's despatches point 17 and 19 or Pinchin's Plot).
This is interpretation.


3) Tovey letters (1941 and 1961) describe very well the mood at the end of May 1941 (following Churchill and Pound statements) and explain the consequent reports "preparation" to sell a different, better story (process ended as per ADM 205/10).
Again this interpretation and certainly the Tovey letters of 1961 should be treated with a degree suspicion as the were 20 years after the event.

4) No alternative battlemap has been presented here to counter Antonio's reconstruction, that nails all the timid officers to their responsibilities during the battle.

But what would be the point? We have had a world renowned expert (and cartologist to boot) say that for various reasons an accurate map cannot be produced.It would like asking us to produce our own perpetual motion machine. You may have made one, but it doesnt/cannot work. So asking the rest of us to make our own is a bit pointless.


Best wishes


HMSVF

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:06 pm

Hello All,

Alberto has done very well to discover that the archaic wording was nostalgically passed on to the new 1957 "Nuclear Age" version of the NDA, and therefore may have been on the statute books in 1941, but that it beside the point. I have already supplied that part where they discussed other nostalgic wording:
We are particularly sad to repeal Section 44, which contains these time-honoured words: … punished according to the laws and customs in such cases used at sea.

Giving a great deal of latitude to those imposing punishment, with this Article of the NDA approved by Parliament providing authorisation and protection for those applying unspecified punishments for unspecified offences. :shock:

As we have seen, from another, earlier, Parliamentary discussion, flogging was still officially endorsed by statute into the 20th Century, but it was precluded by Admiralty Order. They simply overruled certain aspects of the NDA.

It would appear that, from the listing of Court Martials in WW II, nobody was ever subject to these charges of 2, 3 and 4 in World War II.

2) Instead of holding an Inquiry and/or a Court Martial, the poor part of the story was sugar-coated with intentionally false declarations (e.g. Tovey's despatches point 17 and 19 or Pinchin's Plot).
This is interpretation.

No I'm afraid it is intuition. The interpretation is generated subsequently to align precisely with the pre-existing intuition. Facts are changed, facts are left out.


The same is true of the battle-map and timeline. Precious few bearings are shuffled about in location and time to provide the required picture. Those which don't are supressed. Anonymous splashes are identified definitively as particular salvoes precise to the second, solely to fit the required answer. Alternative explanations are dismissed with insults and derogatory remarks about "education" or demands for alternatives, of which there could be hundreds.

But what would be the point?
The objective is to out-Cernuschi Cernuschi in fabricating and gaining acceptance for a story denigrating the Royal Navy in general and certain unfortunate officers in particular. There are many who secretly harbour grudges against the Allied cause and a feeling that "winners" tell only their version of the truth. For these avid potential consumers these fabrications are "tailor-made" because they share the intuitions of the fabricators.

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3734
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:10 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

thanks for having underlined that here in this forum we have a lot ( apparently ) of persons writing about military arguments that never wear an uniform and pretend to explain to the ones having done it, ... even being Officers, ... what are the usual way to do things into a military environment.

This alone defines quite well the level of this discussion, ... between some ignorant ( I mean they ignore ) and better qualified persons of course.

Anyway, the Adm Lutjens orders were clear and we know them, ... unfortunately we do not have the same luck about the Royal Navy ones ( :shock: ) that like many other documents about this battle ( an evident Royal Navy defeat ) simply disappeared, ... guess why ?

However, once again I have to remind you and all the other " deniers " that it was not our invention the May 28th, 1941 letter from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey asking him to call a Board of Inquiry on the conduct while in action for RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker and Capt J. C. Leach.

It was the Royal Navy First Sea Lord to ask the Commander in Chief of the Home Fleet to do it.

Put this concept clearly in your mind, ... it is a fact.

Did you got the point, ... apparently you did not, ... but it has been done, ... for real on May 1941, ... and it is an irrefutable fact.

Like it or not that was a start of a discipline action, ... and not a rewarding proposal.

Is it so difficult for you all to realize it and admit that it did happen ?

Apparently it is, ... and this defines with whom we are talking to, ... reference the above first statement, ... probably you know very little about the meaning of such a request at that level.

Neither it was an help for you Stephen Roskill, ... Corelli-Barnett ... or lately Graham Rhys-Jones, ... explaining to you what happened.

It is simply incredible that after all those evidence, ... there are still " deniers ", ... about this fact.

Anyway, the truth is out now, ... available for everybody.

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: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:34 pm

Hello Antonio,

Once again you make the deliberate mistake, even though you have posted the relevant wording yourself for the purpose of a Board of Enquiry as stated in King's Regs.
Like it or not that was a start of a discipline action
No. like it or not it would have been merely the start of an information gathering exercise. There is no mention of "discipline" for anyone. And it was abandoned instantaneously by the apparent instigator, because, obviously, he personally had no real interest in pursuing it. He knew there was no truth in it.

It will be interesting to find out the exact brief of Lord Cork was when required to investigate "something" about Sparviento.

accept the simple fact that it did happen, since it is proven and properly documented now. Why ?

With completely fabricated "motives" "facts and "evidence". Why not?

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3734
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:21 pm

Hello everybody,

somebody that very evidently has never been an Officer, ... does not like to admit the simple fact that a request of a Board of Inquiry for the conduct while in action of 2 Officers is NOT an informative request like he would like to try to sell it.

It is a well defined disciplinary action request, and in fact it is listed in that paragraph on the index, ... the final goal was the Circumstantial Letter by Tovey starting the Court Martial for them in fact, ... just as Tovey declared after to Roskill.

In any case is something far away thousand miles from a request of a medal, ... that was the solution taken after few months, ... after some intentional lies written ( Tovey dispatches ) and accepted ( Admiralty - Barnes letter ).

Are you able to realize it ? Finally ...

I still cannot believe there are still " deniers " trying to avoid to accept this simple fact ... :think:

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 )

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by northcape » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:14 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:10 pm


@ Herr Nillson,

thanks for having underlined that here in this forum we have a lot ( apparently ) of persons writing about military arguments that never wear an uniform and pretend to explain to the ones having done it, ... even being Officers, ... what are the usual way to do things into a military environment.


Bye Antonio
Don't have basic knowledge about navigation? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time.
Don't know how to evaluate documents and historic notes? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time.
Being not responsive to facts and arguments, even if it presented a thousand times? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time.
Being obsessed with irrelevant information? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time.
Being caught all the time of lying and intended misrepresentation of facts? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time.
Cannot write a single sentence without putting three dots in the center or adding a childish smiley? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time.
Don't know how to evaluate relevant data (logs, times, bearings)? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time.
Having a fantasy idea about real-world military actions? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time (in peace time).
Repeating the same nonsense again and again and again? Doesn't matter, I was in the military for some time.

I see now, that is really comfortable!

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:08 pm

Hello All,

I haven't found Lord Cork's brief, but here is his personal letter to Somerville, after he had delivered his official verdict.

I hope that after what passed yesterday that you not feel I have not sympathised with you in the position in which you have been placed after your successful action last week. I have very much.

It is possible however that you take rather too harsh a view of the Admiralty action for the following reasons.

There are always critics ready to raise their voices and suggest what might have been done although they are quite ignorant of what really happened or of the prevailing conditions.

These people, impatient for results, exist both in and out of Admiralty and in high quarters (I speak from personal experience) and no doubt have raised their voices on this occasion and the most expeditious way of silencing them has in this case been adopted.

As a result I do not think you need anticipate anything further, this is as far as I can judge and sincerely hope.

All best wishes for the future to you personally, and to your fine command.
"too harsh a view of the Admiralty action" - ie Pound had to do it Winston forced him.

"critics ready to raise their voices" - ie Winston

"quite ignorant of what really happened" - ie Winston

"the most expeditious way of silencing them" - ie have an enquiry and shut Winston up.

Does any of this sound familiar? :D Except that Pound knew there was so little reason for an enquiry into W-W and Leach he abandoned the idea instantaneously.


Winston had Somerville down for replacement long before Spartivento, because he had gone on record criticizing the Oran attack and the dismissal of Admiral North over Dakar, another of Churchill's wheezes. Therefore Winston was keen to push for an enquiry because of personal animosity. The PM had no such longstanding animosity against Wake-Walker and Leach, may not even have known their names, and Pound could be confident he would forget all about his childish outburst at Chequers soon enough, which he did. Pound could give Wake-Walker the effective role of C-in-C Home Fleet for the forthcoming carrier operations and return Leach to his ship ready to chauffeur Winston across the Atlantic, not because of a complex reimagining of reports, but because there never was any cause for an enquiry in the first place. He had complete faith in his officers.

Tovey never mentioned a circumstantial letter in in his late-life recollections, he never mentioned a Board of Enquiry either, a requirement before any Court Martial could be instigated. It is splendid that Antonio seizes on one element of procedure, to give a semblance of interest in truth, whilst ignoring the main elements. Unless there was loss of a vessel, there could be no proceeding to Court Martial immediately, something Tovey's hazy recollections of 15-20 years later conveniently forgot. CMDS is a myth.

As for wearing a snowy white suit in a minor Peacetime navy, mostly nailed to the dock (end on) enjoying La Dolce Vita, chatting up the Ragazze, conferring superior insight into the circumstances of RN life in 1941, Yeah Right! :cool:

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3734
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 Aug 17, 2018 4:56 pm

Hello everybody,

obviously I do not respond to ignorant incompetent persons writing offensive statements and never been able to write a single post with value add in this forum.

Moving ahead it seems that finally somebody realized that the Board of Inquiry was asked by Adm Pound to Adm Tovey about RearAdm Wake-Walker and Capt Leach conduct while in action.

@ Herr Nillson,

please take note and move ahead from your " denier " position, ... somebody here above has finally admitted that the Board of Inquiry was asked in writings, ...

... alleluja, ...

... hopefully we are moving ahead now, ... from a stubborn blind refusal position that cannot be maintained anymore after we have found the May 31st, 1941 letter in response from Adm Tovey to Adm Pound.

Now everybody knows that the same 2 Officers have been rewarded with medals by the King on October 1941.

The " deniers " now should be able to make the final effort, ... realizing how they went from position A ( Board of Inquiry ) to the position B ( Medals ).

It is not that difficult, ... I suggest everybody, ... even the incompetent ignorant limited brain writing here above, ... to read carefully Stephen Roskill and the ADM 205/10 at pages 331, 332, 333 and 334.

They are written in English, ... so even the very limited brain one's can read them if mother language ... :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: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:43 pm

Hello Antonio,

Once again you bend the truth to your purpose. But first, let me remind you (in case you had forgotten) who made this May 31st letter available to all interested parties and who refuses to make the so-called "Silver Bullet" available.

somebody here above has finally admitted that the Board of Inquiry was asked in writings,

We infer from Tovey's writing that Pound wanted an enquiry into W-W and Leach's conduct, but until we have the 24th May letter we do not know exactly what Pound asked for. Tovey's phrase "under any circumstances" is revealing. It is either just reinforcement, that is to say even if you gave me a direct order under threat, it would not happen or it refers to a qualification that Pound wrote in his May 24th letter?


This might have been, my speculation, "Winston is being tiresome again, just as in the Somerville case, and in order to mollify him, I want you to do some sort of Board of Enquiry, which will of course find there is no case to answer." (Because there is no case to answer, not because of a Conspiracy.) Tovey, who is aware of the sense of outrage at all levels in the fleet over the Board of Enquiry carried out on fellow Admiral Somerville, regarding an action in which he,Tovey, was a subordinate to him, says "not under any circumstances" that is whether it was a serious concern over the accused's performance or merely a charade to persuade Winston to stop interfering.


This seems to me extremely likely. Tovey spends little time defending W-W and Leach's actions, dismisses Pound's request in a peremptory fashion, and moves on swiftly to other, more cheerful matters. It is clear he knows Pound does not believe there is actually a case for W-W and Leach to answer, presumably from his wording of the May 24th letter, and he wastes no time in an extended defence. He knows Pound will accede. As we know "he heard no more of the matter".
Pound could give Wake-Walker the effective role of C-in-C Home Fleet for the forthcoming carrier operations and return Leach to his ship ready to chauffeur Winston across the Atlantic, not because of a complex reimagining of reports, but because there never was any cause for an enquiry in the first place. He had complete faith in his officers.

I am not sure if I am the particular
incompetent ignorant limited brain writing here above
so even the very limited brain one's can read them if mother language

But I have read
to read carefully Stephen Roskill

and I know he deliberately offloaded responsibility for the veracity of Tovey's allegations onto Kennedy. I have read the
ADM 205/10 at pages 331, 332, 333 and 334.
even before you, and I know that nowhere do they mention discipline, or Board of Enquiry and certainly not Court Martial.


All the best

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

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by paul.mercer » Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:18 pm

Gentlemen,
I see the debate is not diminishing!
Perhaps someone could take time to answer this for me.
If an officer, private or seaman heard or suspected that charges of anything from neglect of duty to cowardice are being prepared or even talked about do they not have a right under the articles of War to demand an inquiry or even a Court Martial to answer those charges and perhaps clear their name?
If so and Capt Leach and Admiral Wake- Walker had knowledge that Admiral Pound wanted a Court Martial why did they not demand one so they could clear their names?

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by pgollin » Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:54 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:10 pm

to explain to the ones [ having worn a uniform] having done it, ... even being Officers, ... what are the usual way to do things into a military environment. ......

...... the May 28th, 1941 letter from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey asking him to call a Board of Inquiry ....

....... Like it or not that was a start of a discipline action, ...


But you have demonstrated (despite your very limited, and hardly relevant, military experience) that you do NOT understand "the usual way to do things in(to) a military environment of the wartime Royal Navy. Indeed you demonstrate an extreme aversion to learning from people who have studied how the Royal Navy worked.

As pointed out above, you completely misunderstand what the purpose of a Board of Inquiry was. It was to establish the facts, it was not some sort of presumption of guilt - that may (I doubt it) be how the modern Italian military works, it certainly isn't how the RN worked either then, or now.

As long as you make simple errors and expose your ignorance then people have the right, indeed duty, to point out your errors and try to educate you.

.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2809
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:40 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: We infer from Tovey's writing that Pound wanted an enquiry into W-W and Leach's conduct....This might have been, my speculation, "Winston is being tiresome again, just as in the Somerville case, and in order to mollify him, I want you to do some sort of Board of Enquiry, which will of course find there is no case to answer." (Because there is no case to answer, not because of a Conspiracy.)"
Well, my own speculation about what Pound wrote is:
"Winston is furious and he wants the two of them, who left Bismarck escaping in Atlantic, postponing the importance to inflict further damage to her to their own safety (as per Troubridge case), to be Court Martialled, therefore please arrange a BofI in order to provide the evidence for holding a Court Martial."
This seems to me extremely MORE likely than Mr.Wadinga speculation, as the word Court Martial is well present in Tovey's answer and no sane officer would pronounce the word CM first, if not already used by his superior in clear. :lol:

The subsequent phone call, accounted for in the 1961 Tovey's letter to Roskill, clearly confirms my interpretation, countering Mr.Wadinga one.


Paul Mercer wrote: "...do they not have a right under the articles of War to demand an inquiry or even a Court Martial...?"
Hi Paul,
yes they have, but instead of "formally" accusing/inquiring/removing them, due to the fact that nobody after Bismarck sinking had any interest in ascertain the truth and/or in punishing them, the decision was to simply provide a version of facts that could exonerate the three of them (including Ellis) from any charge and this was the end of story with a "sugar-coating" or a "cover-up" instead of any serious inquiry.
Due to the "delicate" position of them (in case a serious reconstruction of timings, positions and decisions had been done), of course none of them had ANY interest as well in asking a BofI/CM.....



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

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:53 am

Hello Alberto,

OK let's run your scenario:
"Winston is furious and he wants the two of them, who left Bismarck escaping in Atlantic, postponing the importance to inflict further damage to her to their own safety (as per Troubridge case), to be Court Martialled, therefore please arrange a BofI in order to provide the evidence for holding a Court Martial."

"No"

End of story.

It doesn't really work does it? The PM is rightly furious and nothing at all happens. The First Sea Lord wants a Board of Enquiry because he believes these men are guilty, and nothing at all happens. In fact they promote W-W to acting C-in-C Home Fleet and keep Leach in command of the RN newest battleship.

You see you were in with a chance of selling your imaginary story when you were pretending Tovey was fooling Pound and everybody above him with a changed report. But then we discovered Tovey had sent in his draft report as well as the updated report so Pound had both. So then you changed the Conspiracy fantasy to include Pound, because he knew about the changes (and realised they were trivial and irrelevant). But then Antonio was carrying on about propaganda and good news stories, so then you thought you could explain away why Churchill suddenly thought it was OK for W-W and Leach to continue in their roles, and was so nice to the latter on his ship. So you included Winston in the Conspiracy as well.


Of course you had unfortunately destroyed your own fabrication by expanding the Conspiracy, because by now everybody was in the Conspiracy and there was no point in changing reports and statements because there was no one to fool and the secret documents would be never been seen. Since Pound was in on the Conspiracy it made no sense to want a Board of Enquiry and especially not a Court Martial. Your entire construction collapses in a chaos of illogicality.


Your desperation over the content of the 31st letter which destroys the CMDS myth is plain to see when you clutch at Tovey's mention of Court Martial with regard to himself as if merely including the words would validate the misremembered version he would create 15-20 years later.

The real reason why
who left Bismarck escaping in Atlantic, postponing the importance to inflict further damage to her
was the combined fumbling of the D/F intelligence for which Pound and Tovey knew they were equally responsible and did nearly let Bismarck get away. That is the subject of the Cover-Up if there was anything which deserved the name, and it was a lesson well learned and resulted in a lot of sunken U-Boats.


The only person who says there was a phone call at all is Tovey, who also misremembered ROOF and the bearings incident. He didn't remember the 28th and 31st letters, which actually happened. What he doesn't mention in his 31st letter, is the phone call, which if it actually existed, with it's theatrical three-act threat to resign as C-in-C Home Fleet, was supposedly made on arrival at Scapa. It is clear he invented the phone call for which there is no evidence it happened at all. CMDS is a myth.


All the best

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

Post Reply