The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Wadinga wrote: "Did you know you left Paragraph one out of the Tovey letter again?"
I know and already told you: you don't deserve to share my documents anymore, until you will beg pardon !
You go to Cambridge, you try to play the historian role finding the documents and you pay for the information, as I did (as well as Mr.Cag). :oops:


you wrote: "When the secretary of the War Cabinet contacted Brockman...there is no indication he said what he wanted...."
It was crystal clear for everybody up to Churchill (and written black and white in ADM 205/10 pag.331, 332), 333), except for YOU ONLY (you should really think about that....).
Even the most fierce "denial advocates" have not dared to support your ridiculous interpretation here, that Brockman just guessed about Leach, that everybody was so stupid to misunderstand, following Brockman error and that Churchill himself spent his time in "very full discussions" with both Leach and Tovey speaking about the accomodations on board PoW. :stop:


you wrote: "someone who worked with him for several years and thus much longer than Roskill, said it wasn't? "
Paffard worked with Tovey during the war (I hope we all consider Tovey mentally sane during this period....): you were unable to show any evidence about Paffard relations with Tovey after the latter retired, while Paffard continued to serve in the Navy. Roskill had relations with Tovey (proved by his letters and visits) and could perfectly judge about his memory, as they discussed his historical work together. Correlli-Barnett and Rhys-Jones followed Roskill judgement, only YOU prefers Paffard, while even Kennedy (in a private letter that you will never have from me...) spoke to Roskill about the CM threat as being a fact, despite Paffard's caveat that he then inserted in his happy-ending novel, against Roskill advise...... :oops:

Here you get again the document that shows to everyone what is Roskill judgement about Tovey recollection, until you will be able to UNDERSTAND what you read. It is not difficult, please try again...... :stop:
Roskill to Kennedy_13-09-1973.jpg
Roskill to Kennedy_13-09-1973.jpg (84.45 KiB) Viewed 1227 times

Thanks for the suggestion about Churchill movie, I'm curious to listen at the PM applauding cowardice and preferring timid behaviors to sacrifice in this new interpretation of his role in WWII...... :negative:
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
you wrote: "When the secretary of the War Cabinet contacted Brockman...there is no indication he said what he wanted...."
It was crystal clear for everybody up to Churchill (and written black and white in ADM 205/10 pag.331, 332), 333), except for YOU ONLY (you should really think about that....).
Even the most fierce deniers have not dared to support your ridiculous interpretation here, that Brockman just guessed, that everybody was so stupid to misunderstand following Brockman error and that Churchill himself spent his time in "very full discussions" with both Leach and Tovey speaking about his accomodations on board PoW. :stop:
:oops: Me as well. In my defence I can only say that (like Alberto and Antonio are stressing they are/were officers) I have (unfortunately) job related experience of high level committees, their minutes and their secretary's offices. :(
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

can you please explain me a bit better what you are trying to state about the Adm 205/10 papers I have posted here in ?

What is the point here ?

What are the doubts ?

Thanks and bye, Antonio :D

Note : Be careful about others curriculum, experience and skills, ... because they can have both the ones you listed above and until you know them personally really well enough, ... you cannot realize at what level they have it too.
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: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,
you don't deserve to share my documents anymore
My underlining. :cool:

You don't own any of these documents, nobody does, unless they are the things you write. This proprietary attitude is the same we suffered when Antonio would cut out tiny thumbnails from maps to promote his groundless speculations whilst hiding the other material which disproved them. I realise both you and Antonio have made significant financial outlay and all parties have recorded their appreciation of the sharing you have done. Your single-minded determination to blacken the reputations of these men, with the only most insubstantial "evidence", suggests you hope to recoup some of this from a future contentious publication. Your increasingly combative tone and refusal to acknowledge any other point of view, suggest you are worried that continued exposure of your errors will hazard such a publication and thus your earnings.

A prime example is redacting that part of a letter in which the author describes things that did not happen, in order to give the impression that the rest has some basis in fact.

Exposure of the shortcomings of your arguments should warn you that your reputation as well as your pockets will be damaged should you make your speculative fantasy more widely available. Bill Jurens, who I seen to recall has never endorsed any part of your speculations, has observed recently on the tendency of commissioning editors to accept material because controversy sells, even if the material is wanting.

Antonio has called these decorated officers a "couple of cowards" and now you say:
applauding cowardice and preferring timid behaviors
are you now calling these men a "couple of cowards" too?

In the Darkest Hour movie you will see IMHO an excellent depiction, coincidentally exactly one year prior to the events of the Bismarck Chase, of Churchill, both the magnificent leader and the irrational bully, struggling under the immense pressure of the Premiership, and showing many facets of his complex character. It fits seamlessly with the irrational uninformed rant described from Chequers and the following day when he turned to other matters, including Crete and conscription in Northern Ireland. It would not require some fantastical conspiracy to divert his attention from a witch hunt against these officers even if he had intended one, merely waiting two days or indeed two months as Pound did. Doing nothing, whilst Matters of State prevailed as 205/10 file shows.

Herr Nilsson, thank you for your valuable observation on how high level committees work and your support, which I will wear always. :wink:

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,


:D :D :D

Somebody is better start studying geometry and mathematics, ...

:D :D :D


Bye, Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@Antonio: and his native language too ! :lol:


Wadinga wrote:"are you now calling these men a "couple of cowards" too? "
FALSE, and clearly showing your trolling attitude. I was speaking of Churchill movie and his preferences either for cowardice or sacrifice..... Please read what I post !


you wrote: "Exposure of the shortcomings of your arguments should warn you that your reputation as well as your pockets will be damaged should you make your speculative fantasy more widely available"
Don't worry about Antonio's and my expenses (my reputation is something I will not allow anybody else than myself to care about...): our pleasure in discovering the TRUTH about this regrettable aftermath fully justifies the disbursement. :lol:
I just do hope I will be allowed by Antonio to contribute in any way to his future publication, being my contribution so limited.....
I do realize however that this future publication will face the hysterical reactions we are experiencing here, on a much larger scale, from people happy to leave with Kennedy fairy tales.


you wrote: "whilst Matters of State prevailed as 205/10 file shows."
Perfectly correct! In my next post for everybody convenience, the "only" few pages related to the the Court Martial, where Leach retreat is made explicit as an "aspect" requiring "explanations" (according to Roskill, not to me, see below from "Churchill and the Admirals"). I think very are clear enough for everybody WILLING to understand:
Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_footnote.jpg
Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_footnote.jpg (40.75 KiB) Viewed 1207 times
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:18 pm, edited 6 times in total.
"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: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

ADM 205/10 pag 331 (signed Brockman to Pound)
ADM205-10_331.jpg
ADM205-10_331.jpg (29.13 KiB) Viewed 1207 times
ADM 205/10 pag 332 (Pound to Alexander)
ADM205-10_332-1.jpg
ADM205-10_332-1.jpg (101.63 KiB) Viewed 1207 times
ADM 205/10 pag 333 (Alexander to Churchill)
ADM205-10_333.jpg
ADM205-10_333.jpg (118.59 KiB) Viewed 1207 times
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

and the closure, ADM 205/10 pag.334 (from Churchill's secretary to Alexander)
ADM205-10_334.jpg
ADM205-10_334.jpg (28.51 KiB) Viewed 1204 times

All the above documents are FACTS and evidences not blah-blah.....


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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio, first of all I just want to make clear that I wanted to say I have my experiences regarding committee matters like you and Alberto have underlined severeal times that you have experience as officers regarding officers matters. I don't say you have no experience in anything else and I don't claim interpretive predominance. I don't want to start a "pissing contest" whose board, committee, panel, their offices, their intern rivalry, their muddleheadedness or whatever is more freaky. So there is no need for a warning.

As I stated several pages before I can't follow your conclusions right after May 24th. Therefore I think it isn't useful to start over again.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Alberto,

I fully agree the above documents are facts, they show that the question of withdrawal, once all the reports, evidences and even face to face talks were established, was considered correct.

They also show that the war cabinet secretaries and 1st Lord consideration of the question of a requirement for further reports was considered unnecessary by Churchill.

This thread is about the threatened court martial for 2 officers, we have established the threatened charge was for not re-engaging Bismarck after Hood was sunk. We have also established that we have evidence from the Roskill papers that Tovey recollected a phone call that threatened such a charge, it was dealt with by Tovey and nothing more was heard about it.

We have established that no proceedings were instigated and that the majority of historians consider that the threat to court martial those officers shows Pound in a bad light and call the notion of a CM as being incorrect and a regrettable aftermath.

So we have established a CM threat, we have established it was defeated and nothing more was heard. That is the CM discussion established.

Your cabinet papers etc, although not connected with the CM threat, have established that, Churchill gave an ill informed remark regarding PoW not pressing home an attack and likens it to another incident that he himself caused, we have confirmed an uninformed war cabinet paper question that states that the withdrawal of PoW had changed from Churchills view to it being unclear whether it was considered wise, and further correspondance between secretaries and senior officers as to whether the raising of this question has been answered, finally resulting in the conformation that after reports and face to face conversations Churchill required no further investigatory report.

Hi Herr Nilsson,

anybody's view is valid in my humble opinion, the more views we have the more we can understand what is going on. I respect your view just as much as Antonio's Albertos and anyone else's.

Best wishes
Cag.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Cag wrote: "....Your cabinet papers etc, although not connected with the CM threat, have established that, Churchill gave an ill informed remark regarding PoW not pressing home an attack..... "
Hi Mr.Cag,
respecting your view, this is not what Roskill understood of this regrettable aftermath (and the other historians as well). For him, ADM 205 /10 papers are indeed connected to the Court Martial, which footnote 38 refers to.
Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_footnote.jpg
Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_footnote.jpg (40.75 KiB) Viewed 1186 times
Apparently Roskill was able to get to the same conclusions Antonio and me have reached, that the Court Martial would have covered both aspects (Leach retreat and Wake-Walker refusal to re-engage) as well as others (I guess the night shadowing, the cruisers conduct during the action and the loss of contact, after new documentation and Antonio's reconstruction are available).


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)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Alberto,

I must say thank you! To quote a character from a film my family watch a great deal, in the words of Sir Henry Higgins from My Fair Lady, "by George I think he's got it!".

Yes we can see Roskill comments on Toveys rememberance of the "regrettable aftermath" , he also gives us further evidence of that "regrettable aftermath" by showing us the documents found in 205/10.

What he does not do is link the CM threat to the cabinet papers and say these are one and the same, that is your interpretation. He states the whole post mortem on the Bismarck operation shows Phillips and Pound in a bad light, not Wake-Walker or Leach, he states the charge specifically and the reasons including the "wholly unfavourable tactical situation".

So the regrettable aftermath is the whole post mortem investigation, the CM threat, the 205/10 papers but does not say they are the same threat, that they are the same investigation, however you have interpreted differently.

Neither Pound, Tovey, Alexander, Churchill nor Roskill state that the CM for not re engaging Bismarck after Hood was sunk is connected with Leach's withdrawal and most definitely do not connect it with Wake-Walkers actions prior or during the DS battle.

Now I agree we can all interpret evidences and form an opinion, I have stated in my previous post the evidence above, it is an interpretation and an opinion which is as valid as yours, that is something you cannot deny.

However note that I state it as an interpretation and an opinion, I do not say that anyone else's interpretation is wrong, I do not say that my interpretation or opinion is the only correct one and everyone else's is wrong or that they are naive to believe anything else, I do not presume to be able to expect everyone to accept my opinion is now capable of being considered a fact.

Can you say the same?

Best wishes
Cag.
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Just to clarify the above post, I do not suggest that anyone's opinion or interpretation is wrong, I accept their interpretation and opinion and respect their work and their right to hold that opinion.

Best wishes
Cag.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi Mr.Cag,
be assured, I respect as well your different interpretation.

I interpret it exactly as Roskill (and all the subsequent historians) did in his footnote 38, that is directly linked with page 125/126 where he speaks about the Court Martial.
Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_pages_125_126.jpg
Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_pages_125_126.jpg (124.86 KiB) Viewed 1516 times
I also interpret it exactly as Wills did in his book "In the highest traditions of the RN" (biography of Capt.Leach) reviewed page by page by Sir Henry Leach, in which the Court Martial for the two officer is logically linked to their own "weaknesses" from a military viewpoint:
Wills_CourtMartial_page93.jpg
Wills_CourtMartial_page93.jpg (25.53 KiB) Viewed 1516 times
I think both Roskill and Sir Henry had come to the same conclusions than Antonio and me, being the logical one..... :think:

I still accept your different opinion, of course....


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)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Alberto,

Again I accept your opinion but without implying any judgement on whether it is correct or not.

Again Roskill does not say or even imply that the CM threat is the same as the 205/10 documentation, he calls the "whole post mortem examination" as being a bad reflection on Pound and Phillips which would suggest he does not think it warranted, would you say that would be a correct interpretation? It is hard to say you agree with his interpretation when he interprets nothing.

John Leach never faced a court martial for his withdrawal, we know this from numerous historians reference and from the letter of the man who received the phone call. Would this be a first hand account? With all due respect to Sir Henry Leach what type of account could we attribute to the Willis reference?

I'm happy to accept your opinion Alberto, let's agree to disagree and as you say respect each other's opinion without need to express it's validity.

Best wishes
Cag.
Locked