Hi Antonio, please let me start by saying I respect you and your work. This is in no way meant as an attack, it is I hope a plea for calm, if I may can I try to explain my feelings on this matter as I have no right to explain anyone else's.
I'm afraid I also have faced abuse, I have been told I'm unintelligent or cannot grasp the truth or naive, I've been described as being disrespectful or trying to be funny or ironic etc etc etc etc the list goes on. I was accused of this because I asked fundemental questions that were not answered but dismissed, or because at a point where a consensus was possible the thread was closed.
Yet I had not accused anyone of anything, I had not disrespected anyone at all? No one should experience any kind of personal attack I agree, but we are all "grown ups" and I like others have had to take it on the chin, I do not respond in kind plus adding a little bit because my ego is damaged, I ask is this kind of response really helpful to the discussion? Or even in the past I have withdrawn from the thread (which was probably the desired result).
Perhaps Antonio the thread title is a response to people putting forward equally valid evidence and opinion only to be told it's wrong and accused of being a denier at all costs.? You must admit that this accusation has been going on, in various threads, for quite a while without retaliation. To post an opinion and not to expect both agreement and opposition is perhaps an error, especially when one uses the words cowards?
If someone puts forward a question or actually posts a serious opinion against serious asserted opinion only to have it ignored and instead face being accused of something is that not also wrong?
I have read quite a lot of opinions on this forum that were valid, that have been denounced as they did not fit the accepted wisdom, but I heard no complaint from their authors.
I have tried to defuse this argument, to suggest that no one is a conspiracy theorist or denier because it helps no one and does no good.
As others I have put forward my own personal ideas, listened to critisism of them, and have been grateful and listened to those experts who freely give advice and opinion. I have gone away and modified my idea or sometimes I've stuck with it. But the one thing that struck me, and has always struck me, is that on a forum dedicated to Bismarck the only discussion that ever takes place is Leach, Wake-Walker, Tovey and cover up.
You must agree that there is a very big difference between finding evidence that 2 men were "threatened" with a CM for a specific charge and attempting to link this to every other action they took in the operation and stating this was a part of the CM charge and its investigation but required complicity by everyone and a cover up. You will face opposition surely? Let's go through the suggested charges,
It has been suggested that Churchill having bad news of Hood, being given good news of Bismarck decided to destroy it and then require his senior officers to cover up his self inflicted bad news to create more good news.
It has been suggested that Tovey was an architect of a cover up of implied critisism of actions that we honestly have no evidence were critisised. But it was not only Tovey that was involved, but he was assisted by Pound Phillips, Alexander, the 2nd Hood Board, Churchill, Wake-Walker, Leach, Ellis etc.
It has been suggested that Wake-Walker was threatened with CM for not re engaging Bismarck after Hood was sunk, which it would also include his shadowing before the DS battle, his actions during the battle, his actions in the moments during the loss of contact and that to stop this an incorrect 1st board distance to Hood was intentionally altered in a despatch and in a 2nd board plot to an equally incorrect distance.
It has been suggested that despite the available evidences of Wake-Walker, Captain Leach, the Hood board witness testimony, the Rowell map, the PoW gunnery report and salvo map the board decided to accept the two points in Toveys despatch to exonerate Leach.
It has been suggested that Wake-Walker was inept and he gave a BBC reporter the actual truth of his timid actions in a broadcast interview to the world but then mistakenly gave the board of the Admiralty the lie and expected them to believe it at face value or they were complicit in its lies.
It has been suggested that Ellis lied when he stated that the cruisers tactical function was to follow and flank mark and that his firing would have only confused BC1 spotting of fall of shot and he tried to contact Hood on the gunnery channel to flank mark.
It has been suggested that despite the availability of all the official reports in Toveys Despatch, the board only used the intentionally altered sections (and ignored the unintentional mistakes) to cover up for officers, meaning the whole board were complicit.
It has been suggested that Roskill etc were in agreement with a cover up, despite his known position written in his book calling the whole post mortem examination as being a regrettable aftermath and showing those who tried to conduct it in a bad light.
It has been suggested that Roskill is in agreement with the findings of a cover up even though he does not say the CM charge is connected with Wake-Walker not engaging in the morning action which required an estimated distance in two separate documents to be falsified and covered up, nor does he seem to imply it.
It has been suggested that he gives the references used for the CM threat, (ie Kennedy) and he gives the files in which material connected to the post mortem are held to connect them to both Leach and Wake-Walker despite Wake-Walker not being mentioned in 205/10 and despite him not saying here is a cover up and the CM was for all of Leach and Wake-Walkers actions. (Im afraid that despite my attempts I have not found in the Roskill papers any part where he questions Wake-Walker or Leach's actions, he questions why Holland did not signal his intentions or attempt to concentrate on the cruisers).
Would you agree that his research suggests that for Roskill the onus was on Holland to inform the cruisers to engage?
I'm sorry Antonio, as this is most definitely not yet another attack, but as you can see people have reservations to the assertions that are being made. It is to be expected, I can honestly say I cannot say your idea is totally wrong, but there are so many still unanswered really important questions and reasonable doubts that I cannot say you are correct.
I hope you see what I am trying to say, this is not a personal attack or an attack on your work, and sorry for the long post, I'm just trying to help us all see that argument is not the answer, discussion is, but with acceptance that no one can know for sure what we assert as opinion is a fact.