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 »

Hello everybody,

now, just in order to diverge discussion, Mr.Dunmunro try to mix Roskill historical judgement on the whole WWII background with his appreciation for Kennedy "Pursuit", that he reviewed from an naval historian expert viewpoint, never digging too much (AFAIK) into the details (invented or real) of the operation. Kennedy very often, but not always (like in case of Paffard....), followed Roskill suggestions.

Unfortunately, the "fiction" had already been established by Tovey's despatches on July 5, Roskill just adopted Tovey despatches and Kennedy added some sugar-coating to an already embellished version..... :stop:

Dunmunro wrote: "Roskill cannot lay his hands on any documentary evidence"
TOTALLY AND INTENTIONALLY FALSE ! Roskill knew personally Tovey, who accounted him the "saga" during his visits to him during 10 years, he managed to get a written clear confirmation by him in 1961 letter, for the posterity, he had ADM 205/10 papers and War Cabinet Minutes that for everybody (except the inveterate deniers) are clear enough in showing how the "regrettable aftermath" was closed at the highest levels using the incorrect Tovey despatches AND finally through a sharp decision of the Prime Minister.

Roskill had more than he needed to establish the Court Martial threat as an historical truth, he wrote about it and he got confirmed by all serious historians, we have also McMullen interview and Sir Henry Leach interpretation of the facts and finally the May 31 1941 letter from Tovey to Pound in which a threat to Leach and Wake-Walker is confirmed even in writing, not only in a heated phone call.
Now D&S can try to write their own version of the story, denying the whole aftermath against all these evidences, and get it published.... :lol:


Dunmunro wrote: "why is part of the letter, regarding Admiral North, redacted?"
I have already clearly explained why, when I first posted it.... Mr.Dunmunro can go back and, in the meantime, try to learn something. I will not repeat it to answer such a low insinuation. :stop:


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: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Dunmunro,
"Roskill cannot lay his hands on any documentary evidence"
he could not lay his hands on the evidence, the silver bullet, which Antonio claims to have, or the confirmation from any of the extensive range of RN contacts who Antonio claims (YES!) knew all about this immediately after WWII.

Roskill had more than he needed to establish the Court Martial threat as an historical truth
and so forgot about it from 1961 until 1977. He is supposed to have kept this "shameful" (actually imaginary) business under wraps through sensitivity to Tovey's wishes for over a decade, since he did not have any access to the corroborative evidence Antonio claims to have now.

Hello Byron,

are you aware that when quizzing about citations for the Court Martial story, Roskill credits Kennedy 1974 instead of the letter from Tovey (and all those discussions) he has had in his own possession since 1961? In rugby football this is called an "offload" as you get rid of the ball to a teammate to avoid taking the bruising tackle yourself. :D

All the best

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

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: ".....and so forgot about it from 1961 until 1977. "
NO, he did not forget ! In Tovey 1961 letter, the reason why Roskill did neither publish nor send to anybody this infomation is clearly written.
Tovey_Roskill_14-12-1961_2_und.jpg
Tovey_Roskill_14-12-1961_2_und.jpg (98.88 KiB) Viewed 1210 times
If Mr.Wadinga is unable to read his own language or (worse) unwilling to recognize Roskill fairness toward someone who unveiled him this "sensitive" matter, it's his problem only.... :negative:

Roskill found all the confirmations reading ADM 205/10 + War Cabinet Minutes (referring to them in his "Churchill and the Admirals") and correctly interpreted the "story", as did all following historians and Sir Henry Leach.
Of course, having to quote the story, he was obliged to mention Kennedy, who published the story first.

The refusal of Mr.Wadinga to admit such trivial facts is astonishing.... :stubborn:


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: 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,

After "1977" it says
He is supposed to have kept this "shameful" (actually imaginary) business under wraps through sensitivity to Tovey's wishes for over a decade, since he did not have any access to the corroborative evidence Antonio claims to have now.
Did you stop reading?

Endlessly reposting the same material serves no purpose, don't you have anything new................or course, yes you have. :wink:

All the best
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
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 »

Hello everybody,

Better to re-post evidences than endlessly re-posting the same speculations and interpretations of the hidden reasons of Roskill etc .....

This way, anyone can judge by himself whether it's more wise to trust Tovey's 1961 words from his original letter or Mr.Wadinga funny fantasies, (e.g. his Kennedy manipulation..... :shock: ).

There is no way for Mr.Wadinga to counter the 1961 letter posted above, that accounts for the Court Martial threat AND explains why Roskill did not publish or divulgate the "regrettable aftermath" until Tovey's death, but he just cannot admit his miserable defeat. :stop:

Of course, having already miserably given up on geometry side (in the reconstruction of the battle), it's easier for this nonsense talker to try to "interpret" British documents and to "speculate" on secret reasons behind historians behavior. :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)
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Byron Angel »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:Hi Byron,
Q.E.D.

Mr.Dunmunro has lost another opportunity (given by you) to shut up, avoiding further making a fool of himself.

Deniers will never accept to agree to disagree..... they are just hooligans: they cannot accept what was written by Tovey and by Roskill.....Now it's the official historian of the Royal Navy who had an agenda.... :shock: ... and this just to defend a couple of timid officers who, according to the standards of any Navy, well deserved a Court Martial....

Bye, Alberto
- - -

Hi Alberto (and everyone else),
I really hesitate to get any more deeply embroiled in this matter, but honesty compels me to say that IMO this breakdown in collegiality has largely been a "team effort" by both sides of this debate. When it may have started and who may have uttered the first harsh comment is immaterial. I think it is time to exchange olive branches and return to the sort of friendly civility that first attracted me to this forum.

Strictly my opinion.

Byron
Last edited by Byron Angel on Tue May 15, 2018 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Byron Angel »

wadinga wrote:Hello Dunmunro,

Hello Byron,

are you aware that when quizzing about citations for the Court Martial story, Roskill credits Kennedy 1974 instead of the letter from Tovey (and all those discussions) he has had in his own possession since 1961? In rugby football this is called an "offload" as you get rid of the ball to a teammate to avoid taking the bruising tackle yourself. :D

All the best

wadinga
- - -

Hi Sean,
No I was not so aware, but I do believe that I understand the thrust of your "offload" comment, in the sense that the author of any "official history" of a large corporate organization is sometimes obliged to tread a discrete path among the large personalities of some of its inhabitants. If anyone has any doubt on that score, he need but review the decade long melodrama that arose in the post-WW1 period with respect to writing the navy's official operational history - the gutting of the Harper Report, the alteration of Jutland track charts, the disappearances of the BCF's records, "destruction" of LION's Jutland signal log-book, the ex post facto alterations made to BARHAM's Jutland signal log-book.

To be sure, I do not raise the above example to suggest that I believe this suppressed Bismarck court martial theory is a fact. None of the documents laid out here stands as convincing proof. They are simply too subject to alternate interpretations of language. Inferences, suspicions, extrapolation, selective correlations and deductions, no matter how clever, do not in my view equate to evidence. It is simply too easy to construct differing interpretations. Hence my belief that this court martial suppression scenario would be best (and most honestly) served if presented as a theoretical possibility rather than as any sort of factual event.

One of the perplexing points is this: if Dudley Pound was so angrily passionate about the necessity for a formal court martial proceeding, why did he so quickly reverse his position and then apologize to Tovey? I see several explanations -

1 - Churchill told Pound to drop the matter for reasons of public and intra-service political expediency.

2 - Pound had gotten his blood up on the basis of fragmentary, incomplete and possibly misleading details that filtered through during the action proper; once the true circumstances of the engagement were laid out in their entirety during the formal "wash-up", he realized that his initial impressions had been too hasty.

3 - Pound weighed the value of his relationship with Tovey against the perceived value of a sure to be messy court martial proceeding and backed off "for the good of the service".

For the record, I think Case 2 is probably the closest to the truth. Please do not challenge me to "prove it", though.


Strictly my opinion, FWIW.

Byron
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 Byron,

Your peace-keeping efforts are appreciated, but serious allegations have been made on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence. Their stain cannot be left but must be eradicated. It was either Edmund Burke or Charles Frederic Aked said:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”


And I do consider the attempt to suggest these allegations of cowardice, lying under oath, and falsification of records is evil. At their base is the up to now uncontested allegation by Tovey in 1961. Accepted by many because of its actual irrelevance. No charges were made, no-one's record was affected and the parties were actually given awards.

Roskill was quite brave enough and his reputation high enough hto have released the story himself despite Tovey's request not to do so. I believe he did not do so because he knew how flimsy the evidence was, there was no corroboration from people like Paffard and Bingley, Tovey's confidants, or anyone from the Admiralty, like Brockman, Pound's assistant who lived until 1999. Roskill was in a position to quiz all these men, but the allegation was hidden from 1961 until Kennedy's book in 1974. Roskill offloaded the story so if there was outrage, it would be Kennedy who took the flak. Kennedy did quiz Paffard himself and the answer was unequivocal, Tovey exaggerated. Kennedy put this caveat to the story in his book , but nobody who came afterward wanted to spoil the party by repeating the whole truth.

Every time A & A insists on posting I am bound to reply. I try to bring new, original evidence, not keep reposting old discredited secondary sources.

I believe you have missed out the fourth and most likely possibility. Churchill's uninformed rant at Chequers concerned Pound because Cunningham and the Mediterranean were under a cloud as well. There really were issues there of exhausted, panic-stricken officers and crews wilting under Luftwaffe bombardment, discipline breaking down and a concern that the Navy might let the Army down. WSC's great mate Roger Keyes was making waves as well, undermining Pound's authority.

Pound had earlier let Alexander's Board of Inquiry go ahead on Somerville to embarrass WSC and it worked. The Board exonerated Somerville, and Winston was left with egg all over his face. Pound had got the message through- "stop interfering with the Navy".

What works once can work again. With Bismarck safely despatched why not overreact to Churchill's forgotten rant and rub his nose in it again? I suspect the 28th letter Pound to Tovey requested the latter's help in the subterfuge. However, Tovey wanted no part of the machinations, he says in the 31st letter he understands Pound's difficulties. He does not say in the letter, but I believe he meant he would not let his subordinates be set-up like this, even if everyone was confident they will be exonerated. The tone of the letter is not the outrage one might expect, passes swiftly on to cheerier matters, because Tovey knew it was not a real threat, and certainly not anything as serious as a real Court Martial.

Pound apologised to Tovey about another completely different thing, the Run Out Of Fuel signal, another WSC motivated intervention.

Pound had never got his blood up, was never angrily passionate about anything in the Bismarck pursuit and when Tovey said he would not play ball on the subterfuge it was dead and buried. Right then, not after analysis, but on the 30th at the famous phone call, and Tovey's resolute written "not under any circumstances" hammered it home the following day.

Pound shrugged his shoulders, and anyway WSC was busy annoying other people, and getting rid of senior personnel like Longmore RAF Middle East and Wavell Western Desert general.

Unfortunately, WSC's next sally into Naval Strategy and Tactics was the deployment to Singapore with disastrous results.

I still have hopes of discovering the 28th May letter to Tovey. :D Don't be downhearted there are plenty of threads where the olive branches are waving gaily but round here, as President Merkin Muffley memorably said
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!
:lol:

All the best

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

Byron Angel wrote: "Hi Alberto (and everyone else), I really hesitate to get any more deeply embroiled in this matter, but honesty compels me to say that IMO this breakdown in collegiality has largely been a "team effort" by both sides of this debate. When it may have started and who may have uttered the first harsh comment is immaterial. I think it is time to exchange olive branches and return to the sort of friendly civility that first attracted me to this forum. Byron"
Hi Byron,
I agree :clap: and I have already accepted the suggestion to agree to disagree three times by now.

However, as you see from the immediate answer from a person to your post, the deniers cannot shut up, because "the stain has to be removed" :shock: in their wrong idea of a kind of crusade instead of historical truth search.

Unfortunately for them, well demonstrated by Mr.Wadinga inability to counter evidences with evidences (forcing him to write a long verbose post, to explain how, according to his ill fantasy, things went on, when we have written evidences that demonstrate the contrary), the stain is there and it was rendered permanent by the final decorations attributed to officers whose behavior was initially ("prima facie") considered worth of a Board of Inquiry / Court Martial by the Admiralty AND by the politics (FACTS) .

I'm full satisfied with the evidences posted, that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt the threat for a disciplinary action, that was not done for any of the reasons you have suggested (IMO 3 is the more close to reality), but I will be compelled to point out the false statements and the free speculations advanced by these people (like the above own personal interpretation of Pound feelings, totally in contrast with what we know about him from Roskill and Brodhurst :negative: ).


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: 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,

If you had the slightest interest in:
historical truth search
you would have supplied the 1962 letter and Roskill's comments by now.

You are only interested in promulgating this Conspiracy Theory and..........................having the last word in any thread!

All the best

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

Hello everybody,
Wadinga shamelessly wrote: "If you had the slightest interest in: historical truth search you would have supplied the 1962 letter and Roskill's comments by now."


:lol: If Mr.Wadinga had the slightest interest in historical truth (or nothing to hide....), he would not have kept secret the origin of the complete source file of Tovey's May 31 letter by now...... :lol:


He is only "devoted" to defend the two timid officers and.........................having the last word in any thread.
I had accepted from my side Paul Mercer's and Byron Angel's wise suggestion to agree to disagree (three times already by now), while he is totally unable to leave this thread without re-posting his unsupported personal interpretations to try to counter WRITTEN DOCUMENTS !



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: 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,

I have told you the May 31st letter is in one of the files listed in Brodhurst's book, I have told you Antonio could have found it when he was at Kew. I have supplied the complete text. What more do you want? The precise page number so you can order your own copy, but then you don't need to give anything in return. Quid Quo Pro.

Antonio hid the source of the "accutely" quote, but I have published it on the other thread. You hid the fact you had Tovey's 30th letter until I provoked you into boasting you "had it all along", but apparently keeping it hidden for your own reasons. I published it. Now all I ask is that you give us the text of the 1962 letter, unredacted of course, but then it will be a minor matter to go to Cambridge................

Harder to expose is Antonio's silver bullet or the assertion that the Court Martial threat was common knowledge in the RN at the end of the war. Not apparently to Roskill. Or Grenfell. Or Schofield. But we will uncover in time. :cool:

Every time you hide evidence there are two potential motives. One is merely to mislead so that you can "win" and those who oppose your fantasy can be "loosers". The other is to enhance the potential profit from some potentially-libellous article or book to be sold on the back of this Conspiracy theory. Neither have anything to do with
historical truth search
All the best

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

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "I have told you the May 31st letter is in one of the files listed in Brodhurst's book, I have told you Antonio could have found it when he was at Kew. I have supplied the complete text. What more do you want? The precise page number so you can order your own copy, but then you don't need to give anything in return. Quid Quo Pro. "
Brodhurst lists a hunderd different sources.... Mr.Wadinga accuses me not to post 1 letter out of 4 (I have published already 3 giving all the references), but he is INTENTIONALLY HIDING the exact file name (I don't need the page, but it would be nice of him) where he found the May 31 letter, why this secrecy ?

I already told him I'm ready to publish 1962 letter in exchange of the reference (because I don't have anything to hide), but he refused. Therefore his real hidden reasons are very clear now ! :kaput:

All the other instances he is listing are irrelevant to this discussion (May 30 letter has no relevance to CM discussion) and he was even so shameless to hide for a long time both Roskill pages and ADM 205/10 vital papers...... :oops:



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: 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,
but he is INTENTIONALLY HIDING the exact file name


But importantly none of the text.

This is a very different attitude to a few pages ago

Wadinga wrote: "Roskill, Kennedy, Rhys-Jones.....none of them ever saw it. "

possibly. However, Brodhurst had May 31, 1941 letter from Tovey (citing the file in his bibliography) and, despite that, he clearly wrote:
So now we have established that merely having access to a file does not mean reading and evaluating an individual document. As I observed there are many hundreds of pages in folio/file. Antonio has had access to the file but does not mention the document.

So do you now accept since Brodhurst does not refer to, or quote from or cite the May 31st letter it is almost certain he never read it and therefore his opinions are stated in ignorance of information you now have, since you have read the entire, unredacted content of the letter? Is not the same true of Roskill and Kennedy and Rhys-Jones? Since none of these luminaries refer to, or quote or cite from this vitally important letter they too were probably ignorant of information you now have......... courtesy of me. Further, Sir Henry Leach may have been mislead by reading these experts who were not as fortunate as you.

I am surprised you are more interested in getting the reference than a simple photographic confirmation that the text is genuine and complete. :think:

I must reread Cag's information about the 1962 letter.

All the best

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

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "I am surprised you are more interested in getting the reference than a simple photographic confirmation that the text is genuine and complete. :think:"
Mr.Wadinga insists in hiding the source of the letter he posted. It's not that I insinuate he redacted/modified the text (only he is able of such low insinuations in a formerly civilized forum) but because he is aware/afraid that in the same file is present also Pound May 28 letter (as logical when you preserve an answer in a file to have also the question in the same file (e.g.the 205/10) ......).

Wadinga wrote: " do you now accept since Brodhurst does not refer to, or quote from or cite the May 31st letter it is almost certain he never read it "
Clearly Mr.Wadinga dreams and confuse his dreams with facts....... Brodhurst, having access to May 31 letter (as per his bibliography, Mr.Wadinga should demonstrate that Brodhurst never read what he explicitely quoted in bibliography, if he is able to do it :negative: ), has surely read also Pound 28 letter, because he stated in his book:
Brodhurst_pag180.jpg
Brodhurst_pag180.jpg (87.17 KiB) Viewed 1469 times
In case he disagrees, Mr.Wadinga can go and accuse Brodhurst himself for his "error" :lol: , keeping in mind that Brodhurst had access both to the file with Tovey's May31 letter AND to the Roskill papers with Tovey's 1961 letter: despite these, he clearly stated that Pound WROTE to Tobey about a Court Martial....

For me, Brodhurst statement is definitive regarding the Court Martial request in writing too and this, in addition to Tovey's 1961 letter accounting for the phone call, should make things clear for everybody, except the deniers at any cost and against any evidence, of course..... :stubborn:


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