The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by HMSVF » Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:42 am

paul.mercer wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:25 am
northcape wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:11 pm
Please let the two gentlemen clowns alone, this is the only way how to end this stupidity and get back to normal. After all, everyone is entitled to their opinion. If I insist to say that the world is flat and that it was created 6300 years ago by god, and I can prove this by [insert any nonsense her], nobody can stop me from doing this. This is where science and believe diverge, e.g. you cannot prove or disprove one with the other. These two concepts of organizing mind and life are just not compatible. Also, it is clear that nobody, absolutely nobody, takes this seriously. So let A&A live in their fantasy world, if it makes them happy. DS court martial discussion, RIP, please.
Hi Northcape,
DS court martial discussion, RIP, please.
At Last, someone agrees with me about bringing this debate to an end and hopefully restore the mutual respect we once had for each others opinions in this forum.
[/quote]


Agree. It's unresolvable.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:32 am

Hello to those who wish to see things shut down,
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
this is the only way how to end this stupidity and get back to normal. After all, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Unfortunately, Antonio Bonomi who has formerly written highly respected technical reference works, has branched out into fiction and tirelessly promoted this Conspiracy Theory which he has fabricated. If he wished to keep his opinion to himself that would be one thing, but that is not his intention. He wishes to see his alternative history adopted as the "truth". He has recruited an acolyte (one drifted away) and his evangelical effort continues. His "truth" has already been published in an Italian language military magazine, Storia Militare and as we have seen, he plans to have his creation gain credibility by including it in his next technical work as if it had the same value as his work on colour schemes, photo identification etc.
Also, it is clear that nobody, absolutely nobody, takes this seriously.


Only by resisting and constantly exposing the inaccuracies, misrepresentation and omissions of his argument can this happy situation continue. The depressingly-high proportion of the population who believe the Moon Landings were faked despite the clarity of the evidence shows how the stupidest ideas can gain creedence even when the strongest efforts are made to discredit them. There is nothing which will make A & A change their minds, my arguments are not meant for that, because they are beyond help. However the excitement of their new "take" might deceive those just beginning to take an interest in naval history.

There are several threads dealing with PoW's or Bismarck's gunnery, The D/F question and other forums not at all concerned with the Denmark Straits, and none of which include the passions raised here. For those in search of the peaceful, harmonious life of uncontentious "mutual respect" they are a haven. If the vexacious atmosphere here in specific threads is too much to bear, one does does not need to enter. Through the good auspices of the splendid Jose Rico this website covers many different areas and we should all be suitably thankful to him.

they just make the difference between going directly under a Court Martial in case of a Board of Inquiry

Only in the case of vessel loss can a Court Martial be "called directly". In such a opinion-based case, and especially with so little information being available before reports were filed, whatever the preliminary report compiled by one individual said, it would be necessary to have a Board of Enquiry first as per Kings Regs


The May 31st letter proves that CMDS is a myth. The Conspiracy Theory is a myth built on a myth.


All the best

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

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by HMSVF » Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:10 pm

wadinga wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:32 am
Hello to those who wish to see things shut down,
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
this is the only way how to end this stupidity and get back to normal. After all, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Unfortunately, Antonio Bonomi who has formerly written highly respected technical reference works, has branched out into fiction and tirelessly promoted this Conspiracy Theory which he has fabricated. If he wished to keep his opinion to himself that would be one thing, but that is not his intention. He wishes to see his alternative history adopted as the "truth". He has recruited an acolyte (one drifted away) and his evangelical effort continues. His "truth" has already been published in an Italian language military magazine, Storia Militare and as we have seen, he plans to have his creation gain credibility by including it in his next technical work as if it had the same value as his work on colour schemes, photo identification etc.
Also, it is clear that nobody, absolutely nobody, takes this seriously.


Only by resisting and constantly exposing the inaccuracies, misrepresentation and omissions of his argument can this happy situation continue. The depressingly-high proportion of the population who believe the Moon Landings were faked despite the clarity of the evidence shows how the stupidest ideas can gain creedence even when the strongest efforts are made to discredit them. There is nothing which will make A & A change their minds, my arguments are not meant for that, because they are beyond help. However the excitement of their new "take" might deceive those just beginning to take an interest in naval history.

There are several threads dealing with PoW's or Bismarck's gunnery, The D/F question and other forums not at all concerned with the Denmark Straits, and none of which include the passions raised here. For those in search of the peaceful, harmonious life of uncontentious "mutual respect" they are a haven. If the vexacious atmosphere here in specific threads is too much to bear, one does does not need to enter. Through the good auspices of the splendid Jose Rico this website covers many different areas and we should all be suitably thankful to him.

they just make the difference between going directly under a Court Martial in case of a Board of Inquiry

Only in the case of vessel loss can a Court Martial be "called directly". In such a opinion-based case, and especially with so little information being available before reports were filed, whatever the preliminary report compiled by one individual said, it would be necessary to have a Board of Enquiry first as per Kings Regs


The May 31st letter proves that CMDS is a myth. The Conspiracy Theory is a myth built on a myth.


All the best

wadinga

I agree with everything you have said Wadinga

However what is the end point to this debate?We know the stance that has been taken, it will not change, no matter what. The uses of such words as "coward" and "timid" tell you all you need to know. Its been debated at length and shows no resolution, because there cannot be resolution. Recognised experts in the field have said on this forum why the whole cover up story is flawed but the proposers continue regardless. Fortunately in the days of social media people can make their own mind up and review online anybody's work. As long as there are people interested there will be those who will read round the subject and perhaps these very threads and make there own conclusions. The fact that the likes of Alan Raven and Bill Juren's have said that there are flaws in the whole thesis, the fact that the silver bullet seems to have disappeared into the ether is hardly a ringing endorsement.

When an outsider see's the words "loosers" ,"hooligans" and "deniers" on these forums what do you think they will take from that? To start a riposte with an Ad hominem rather than a critical response to a line of debate is hardly a reinforcement of a POV. Neither does it make the forum an attractive place to join. Watch the numbers drop.

Lock the thread, keep it as a uneditable reference to the debate, let the public decide (and review anything published - any review could reference this forum to make it clear the concerns )and move things on would be my suggestion.


Best wishes


HMSVF

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:50 pm

HMSVF wrote: "When an outsider see's the words "loosers" ,"hooligans" and "deniers" on these forums what do you think they will take from that? "
What they will take from words like "idiot" or "stupid" or "ignorant" used MUCH BEFORE by the insulting guys ? :kaput: Please let's be serious !

Now they have for them the words that are more appropriate to define people unable to read the documents (accepting what is written), to look at a map, or to understand what all historians + Sir Henry Leach had explained them. Loosers is obvious from evidences, deniers is blatant from their attitude when presented with a new evidence and hooligan from their poorly educated insults.


The only new aspect Antonio has revealed, the "cover-up", is what make them furious because they still prefer to think that Tovey was making innocent errors when writing points 17 and 19 of the despatches (not attempting to protect two timid officers), that Pinchin left the bearings cut in the middle of the Ocean because of a lack of attention, that Wake-Walker was perfectly honest changing his previous declarations, that Ellis was a poor old sailor when writing his autobiography, that Pound was weak when requesting in writing a BofI into the conduct of the two militarily poor officers, that Tovey was affected by dementia when telling Roskill about the Court Martial threat, etc.etc.....

All the story has been already published on the most serious Italian military history magazine and it will be enhanced and published in English too, because it is supported by all the evidence available (plus some "extras" :wink: ), while they have ONLY their anger for the end of the fairy tale they have loved so much until now. :lol: :lol: :lol:



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)

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 945
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by paul.mercer » Sat Aug 25, 2018 12:18 pm

Wadinga » Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:32 am
Hello to those who wish to see things shut down,
An excellent idea!

Gentlemen,
It appears that what we are arguing about are several different points 1) Should Capt Leach should have continued the battle instead of dis-engaging, (2 Whether Adml Wake Walker should have re-engaged) (3 Whether one or both should or should not have have been Court Martialed (3 Did Adml Pound order a Court Martial and (5 Did Adml Tovey threaten to haul down his flag and offer to be the 'prisoners friend' and finally (6 Should Capt Leach be regarded as a coward for taking the action that he did?
We have heard all the arguments put forward by those whom I personally consider to be extremely knowledgeable on Naval affairs over 151 posts (so far) without coming to any real conclusions and it would appear that this debate is obviously going nowhere except in circles as both sides are firmly entrenched with their views and nothing, it seems will change them.
What concerns me most is the tone this and one or two other debates in this Forum are taking, generally speaking we have always respected each others views even if we totally disagree with them and should it continue then there is a real chance that this Forum will lose some of its best and most knowledgeable contributors over something that may or may not have occurred after the battle of 77 years ago.
Can we not stop this now, agree to disagree and as HMSF said " Lock the thread, keep it as a un-editable reference to the debate, let the public decide (and review anything published - any review could reference this forum to make it clear the concerns)and move things on would be my suggestion".
Over to you Gentlemen.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:25 am

Hello everybody,
it's a great pleasure for me to see that we are (finally) all in agreement by now about the fact that the shell splashes visible in the PG film are from PoW Y turret local controlled salvos (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8526&start=45#p84777).
Nobody has been able to raise any solid argument (captions (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8526#p82783), generic accounts (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8526&start=30#p82880) and "indeterminateness" excuses (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8526&start=15#p82814) excluded, of course...) against this quite evident fact, confirmed by all the serious available battlemaps.

In the hope that everybody is now more open to accept the truth, I would therefore re-open this other topic (sorry for the newcomers if this thread is extremely long, but it is very interesting indeed), following the info contained in the new publication "Battleship Bismarck - A Design and Operational History" from Garzke, Dulin & Jurens.



First of all, the book obviously accounts for the Court Martial threat as being an historical fact at pag.129, within the Capt. Leach short biography presented out of the main text without questioning it at all (as someone was able to do here in the past, despite having found and posted himself a letter from May 31, 1941 in which Adm.Tovey explains to Sir D.Pound why he would not call a Board of Inquiry into the conduct of Leach and Wake-Walker: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&hilit=May+31+T ... 050#p77747).
In this aspect, the book just adds to all the serious historians (e.g. Roskill, Correlli-Barnett, Tarrant, Brodhurst, Rhys-Jones, etc.) who have never doubted about this story and who has correctly interpreted it as the result of Churchill/Pound temper and attitude.



However, the description of the Court Martial requested against Leach only (I don't know whether also the CM threat against Wake-Walker is described too elsewhere) is extremely interesting in this new book:
pag. 129: "Some criticized Captain Leach decision to leave battle - most noticeably Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who demanded his Court Martial."
This clear and logical description of the accusations against Leach according to the Articles of War (Art.2.3) in vigour in 1941 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/186 ... on/enacted)
is very significant, as in almost all sources and books (see above) that account for the Court Martial threat, the position of Capt.Leach is instead always linked to Adm.Wake-Walker's one and the charge is "for not re-engaging the Bismarck after the DS battle", a responsibility that almost entirely would have weighted on Wake-Walker shoulders anyway.



There is only one other source (AFAIK...) that correctly describes the threat against Leach providing this logical charge (the disengagement of the Prince of Wales during the battle), aligned to the War Cabinet Minutes and to the ADM 205/10 papers (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=76657&hilit= ... ute#p76657), and this is M.B.Wills' book "In the highest traditions of the Royal Navy", the biography of Capt. Leach:

Wills_page93_CMDS.jpg
Wills_page93_CMDS.jpg (46.16 KiB) Viewed 759 times

Up to now, we had only a strong suspect that Wills got this information directly from Sir Henry Leach (the son of the PoW commander) because he had spoken to his father in Singapore, before the death of Capt.Leach, on December 6th, 1941, probably hearing directly from him about the threat of Court Martial for his decision to disengage.
As a matter of fact, Sir Henry had reviewed "page by page" Wills' book before its publication (see Wills'acknowledgements at pag.8 of his book).


Now we have another confirmation that Sir Henry is most likely the source: the new publication "Battleship Bismarck - A Design and Operational History" does not mention Wills' book among the consulted bibliography (therefore it cannot come from Wills), but it does mention in the "Correspondences and Interview" section Sir Henry Leach (pag.589) who is also mentioned in the Leach short biography at pag. 130... It is therefore clear who gave to the authors of both books the correct description of the charges against Capt.Leach: it was his son, that most probably had got the info from his father himself when in Singapore (despite the "certitudes" of someone here:viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=65605&hilit=singapore#p65605).


Another piece of the Court Martial story is more clear now, thanks to this new publication: the only criticism is that an explicit reference to the source of this charge against Leach is missing at pag.129.... a pity.


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)

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by pgollin » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:21 am

.

DON'T FEED THE TROLL

.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:37 am

Please, don't listen at (since long time offensive viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5830&p=54913&hilit=idiot#p54913) deniers! :lol:

Stick to FACTS.
"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
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:11 am

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens has just written (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8254&start=15#p84796) : "speaking only as 'a guy', i.e. not the moderator..."
The "guy" is always present to applaud his "bodyguards" (the ones ready to loose their own credibility to protect him even in the most "embarrassing" and "untenable" situations viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=45#p84740, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=45#p84706), who evidently have no intention at all to speak about the Court Martial into Leach conduct (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=84799#p84789), for very evident reasons by now, having lost once again the debate....

but where is the "moderator" :think: when they explicitely insult (see viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&start=2250#p84790) ? Poor forum!


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)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Sep 28, 2019 2:29 am

My apologies. The moderator was not aware of recent postings in this thread, and is just reading them now. I thought it was dead.

I find Mr. Virtuani's commentary a bit difficult to understand, which means that either it's not particularly well written, my brain is not really working very well today, or (most probably) some combination of both. The text in the book is intended to be fairly general in nature, and is not intended to be subjected to word-by-word tenth-century style scholastic desputation. It's a general text, representing the consensus of the co-authors supplemented by some editorial work done by the publishers, in general reflecting the consensus of a great deal of previously published information, i.e. it represents what we believe to be a reasonable, probably somewhat conservative and necessarily approximate, reconstruction of what actually may have happened. Extremely detailed and historically rigorous discussion of such events can only be addressed in the academic literature. The accounts regarding the alleged courts-marshal, etc. are so inconsistent and fragmentary in nature as to render any definitive resolution impossible. The lack of extensive discussions in the academic literature reflects the overall triviality of the issue as a whole. After a lot of apparent screaming and shouting, it really didn't seem to matter very much, and hardly affected the overall outcome of the Bismarck operation.

I think it is appropriate in this case to caution participants regarding offensive commentary and insinuations made against others submitting commentary. There is, nor should there be, any need to be personally offensive.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:12 am

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "It's a general text, representing the consensus of the co-authors supplemented by some editorial work done by the publishers, in general reflecting the consensus of a great deal of previously published information, i.e. it represents what we believe to be a reasonable, probably somewhat conservative and necessarily approximate, reconstruction of what actually may have happened."

Thanks for the explanation. Therefore we have to understand that the authors have agreed about the historical fact that W.Churchill demanded a Court Martial against Leach for having left his battle, as just logical in view of the PM's reaction at Chequers.
pag. 129: "Some criticized Captain Leach decision to leave battle - most noticeably Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who demanded his Court Martial."

The question for the authors is very simple: where have they got the above charge against Capt.Leach when ALL the other publications/documents refer to the Court Martial charge as "for not re-engaging the Bismarck" ?
The correct charge against Leach (AFAIK) is NOT in a "great deal of previous publications" but ONLY in one: Will's biography of Capt.Leach ("In the highest tradition of the Royal Navy") download/file.php?id=3590 and this book (that is not in their bibliography) was written with the supervision and the approval of Sir Henry Leach.

Therefore the source of the authors can be only Sir Henry Leach himself (that they interviewed/corresponded with as per pag.589 of their book) and who met his father in Singapore. Antonio and me had already understood that Sir Henry was the source for Wills, despite all the denials at that time.


Is the question more clear now ? Can we have the confirmation of the source of the authors for the correct CM charge against Capt.Leach ?

Thanks in advance for providing a clear answer: it may convince the most obstinate forum members who have tried to deny these facts since 2013...


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: 2125
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:08 am

Fellow Contributors,
Therefore we have to understand that the authors have agreed about the historical fact that W.Churchill demanded a Court Martial against Leach for having left his battle.
Not having a copy, yet, of the new book in question, I am personally extremely disappointed to hear that in 2019 such a prestigious work continues to perpetrate the canard about CMDS. Ten years of impassioned diatribe here by two individuals attempting to promote it as a historical fact have failed to provide a single piece of evidence that it occurred. No document or eye witness account shows WSC demanded a Court Martial about anything to do with Denmark Straits, or that any of his subordinates did. Since no evidence exists such a threat was made, it is a trivial matter to argue the exact wording of a charge so insubstantial. Only a late-life recollection by Admiral Tovey, contradicted by his own correspondence to Pound at the time, without confirmation from any other source not referring to Tovey's recollection, makes any reference to it. Like Kunht's undamaged rudders it is almost certainly a product of misremembering long after the event in question.

As has been detailed above, nowhere in Sir Henry Leach's autobiography Endure No Makeshifts, does he say his father told him of such a threat, and the detailed description of their conversations in Singapore makes no mention of it. Wills only references Tovey's recollection with regard to CMDS, despite having close discussions with Sir Henry and access to John Leach's confidential personnel report "only released to next of kin". Neither of these sources are quoted to independently confirm the CMDS story, and there is no evidence Sir Henry was even aware of the allegation prior to the publishing of Ludovic Kennedy's book, which itself gave a major caveat about its reliability. That Sir Henry approved a rough draft of Wills' book does not mean he was the source of any information about the CMDS story. The most revealing quote from Wills' book is on page 97 when describing the arrival of the supposed accusers aboard PoW:
There is no evidence that either Pound or Leach ever spoke of the former's attempt to court martial the latter less than three months previously.
How could there be? There is no evidence it ever happened and the most powerful evidence it did not happen was Leach's continuing command of the ship transporting his supposed accusers and their evident trust and regard for him?


No-one who has endured the endless tirade attempting to promote CMDS as a historical fact on this forum has been convinced of their arguments, and one after another posters have made this clear, whereupon they have been derided as loosers(sic), deniers and believers in fairy tales. One of the individuals has voluntarily chosen to cease posting because his arguments have been consistently exposed as bogus and rejected by all other posters. Unfortunately the other still posts and has embarked on completely unwarranted personal attacks on the moderator, who I am sure we all agree is doing a magnificent job. I am not sure there is any requirement for a moderator to remain neutral in matters of fact, they should be allowed to reinforce truth where they identify it.

I strongly disagree that the CMDS story is trivial especially if it used as the basis of imaginary allegations of cowardice, conspiracy and cover-up.

All the best

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

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by HMSVF » Sat Sep 28, 2019 11:12 am

wadinga wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:08 am
Fellow Contributors,
Therefore we have to understand that the authors have agreed about the historical fact that W.Churchill demanded a Court Martial against Leach for having left his battle.
Not having a copy, yet, of the new book in question, I am personally extremely disappointed to hear that in 2019 such a prestigious work continues to perpetrate the canard about CMDS. Ten years of impassioned diatribe here by two individuals attempting to promote it as a historical fact have failed to provide a single piece of evidence that it occurred. No document or eye witness account shows WSC demanded a Court Martial about anything to do with Denmark Straits, or that any of his subordinates did. Since no evidence exists such a threat was made, it is a trivial matter to argue the exact wording of a charge so insubstantial. Only a late-life recollection by Admiral Tovey, contradicted by his own correspondence to Pound at the time, without confirmation from any other source not referring to Tovey's recollection, makes any reference to it. Like Kunht's undamaged rudders it is almost certainly a product of misremembering long after the event in question.

As has been detailed above, nowhere in Sir Henry Leach's autobiography Endure No Makeshifts, does he say his father told him of such a threat, and the detailed description of their conversations in Singapore makes no mention of it. Wills only references Tovey's recollection with regard to CMDS, despite having close discussions with Sir Henry and access to John Leach's confidential personnel report "only released to next of kin". Neither of these sources are quoted to independently confirm the CMDS story, and there is no evidence Sir Henry was even aware of the allegation prior to the publishing of Ludovic Kennedy's book, which itself gave a major caveat about its reliability. That Sir Henry approved a rough draft of Wills' book does not mean he was the source of any information about the CMDS story. The most revealing quote from Wills' book is on page 97 when describing the arrival of the supposed accusers aboard PoW:
There is no evidence that either Pound or Leach ever spoke of the former's attempt to court martial the latter less than three months previously.
How could there be? There is no evidence it ever happened and the most powerful evidence it did not happen was Leach's continuing command of the ship transporting his supposed accusers and their evident trust and regard for him?


No-one who has endured the endless tirade attempting to promote CMDS as a historical fact on this forum has been convinced of their arguments, and one after another posters have made this clear, whereupon they have been derided as loosers(sic), deniers and believers in fairy tales. One of the individuals has voluntarily chosen to cease posting because his arguments have been consistently exposed as bogus and rejected by all other posters. Unfortunately the other still posts and has embarked on completely unwarranted personal attacks on the moderator, who I am sure we all agree is doing a magnificent job. I am not sure there is any requirement for a moderator to remain neutral in matters of fact, they should be allowed to reinforce truth where they identify it.

I strongly disagree that the CMDS story is trivial especially if it used as the basis of imaginary allegations of cowardice, conspiracy and cover-up.

All the best

wadinga
How could there be? There is no evidence it ever happened and the most powerful evidence it did not happen was Leach's continuing command of the ship transporting his supposed accusers and their evident trust and regard for him?

Quite.

At a time when Churchill was knocking down officers careers like bowling pins,Leach gets to keep command of the most powerful vessel in the Royal Navy?

If there was any substantive evidence it would have been recorded somewhere or discussed with somebody. Its very difficult to silence a service indefinitely. Things come out eventually, even if protected under, say legislation such as the 100 year rule. Something would be written somewhere.Anything else is wardroom whispering.

And to be honest this is a tiny footnote in history. We know about far more controversial decisions, orders and cock ups that were suppressed initially that had far more weight than what happened over the period of 3 days in May 1941. As much as we like to think that the Bismarck episode was a critical event, IMHO the real crisis was off Crete. The RN was not far off from being brushed out of the Mediterranean leaving thousands of desperately needed troops behind and many ships lying at the bottom.


All the best HMSVF

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:01 pm

Hello everybody,
HMSVF wrote: "As much as we like to think that the Bismarck episode was a critical event, IMHO the real crisis was off Crete."
if not interested in this discussion about the Court Martial, go and speak about Crete somewhere else with "fellow contributors" also interested in Crete operation, opening a new thread OUT of the "Bismarck General Discussion" forum.

This forum is for Bismarck related discussions.


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
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:23 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "I am personally extremely disappointed to hear that in 2019 such a prestigious work continues to perpetrate the canard about CMDS"
Sorry for you, it does, as well as all the other serious historical works from Roskill, Correlli-Barnett, Tarrant, Brodhurst, Rhys-Jones, Wills, etc. , in 2019 (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=84821#p84789) and...forever and ever, after we will publish our book with all the related original documents.
The only one who doesn't believe this story is Mr.Wadinga, plus the doubts of a journalist (Kennedy).... :lol:

Wadinga wrote:"That Sir Henry approved a rough draft of Wills' book does not mean he was the source of any information about the CMDS story"
Please, let the author answer the question (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=84821#p84811) about who provided him the correct charges against Capt.Leach: we don't need your fantasy, just a simple answer from the author...


Wadinga wrote: "they have been derided as loosers(sic)...."
Because they:

1) have just lost regarding the battle reconstruction, when their moderator "adopted" in toto Antonio's 2005 reconstuction (errors included), rubbishing forever their fantasies about Bismarck turning on course 270° before 06:00 (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&hilit=hard+nut ... =15#p80815) or never (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&hilit=hard+nut ... 150#p80999)

2) have just lost regarding the shell splashes we see in the PG film, attributing them to the Hood :shock: (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8526&start=45#p84777), that is simply impossible due to the battle reconstruction (pag.211 map) of their own moderator. They are now proven by the map to be the PoW local salvos splashes.

3) have just lost here about the Court Martial threat, that is considered an historical fact in all serious books and is now confirmed by their "moderator". Actually the self-goal of the posted letter from Tovey to Pound was the decisive defeat factor here more than the moderator new book obvious confirmation (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&hilit=May+31+T ... 050#p77747)....

As a side note, "loosers" can be irritating for self opinionated people, but it is much less insulting than "troll", I guess....

Wadinga wrote: "..Unfortunately the other still posts and has embarked on completely unwarranted personal attacks on the moderator,..."
...very unfortunately the "fellow contributor" still posts after all the above defeats...


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)

Locked