The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[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 !

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......



Bye, Alberto

[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.

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

All the best

wadinga

[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. "

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 ), has surely read also Pound 28 letter, because he stated in his book:

Brodhurst_pag180.jpg (87.17 KiB) Viewed 696 times

In case he disagrees, Mr.Wadinga can go and accuse Brodhurst himself for his "error" , 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.....


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

any average intelligent person should and can realize very easily that the May 31st, 1941 letter between Adm Tovey and Adm Pound only reinforce and additionally confirms what Adm Tovey wrote to Stephen Roskill about this Board of Inquiry -> Court Martial attempt story years after the war.

In fact I can hardly imagine anybody trying to sustain that the May 31st, 1941 letter between Tovey and Pound was requesting anything different that the above, ... or later supporting the rewarding for the 2 involved Officers, namely Wake-Walker and Leach, that occurred on October 14th, 1941.

Here is what this debate is all about, ... apparently there are persons that still like to support Sir L. Kennedy novel and version of the facts written on his book Pursuit, ... despite what has been found and demonstrated lately, ...

... and there are persons that in the opposite are supporting Adm Tovey and Sir Henry Leach, ... Stephen Roskill, Corelli-Barnett, Graham Rhys-Jones, Robin Brodhurst, ... and many other British recognized historians, ... about this " regrettable aftermath " that the " Denmark Strait Saga " is all about.

I personally support only the second group of persons and I can very hardly see anybody writing about this story from now onward, ... trying to propose once again Sir Ludovic Kennedy " sugar coated " invented version of those facts, in light of the recently surfaced evidence we have today.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

(only he is able of such low insinuations in a formerly civilized forum)

Wadinga wrote: "Did you remove the reference to the towing signal when you reproduced the 1961 letter leaving 1)


Hi Sean,
yes I did,


So you freely admit withholding the 11 lines. This surely accepts that you have redacted Tovey's letter.

I believe this is quite impossible:

Mr.Wadinga should demonstrate that Brodhurst never read what he explicitely quoted in bibliography, if he is able to do it

Quoted in bibliography? Never read? What on earth does this even mean? Prove somebody never read something because they never quote from it, never cite from it and never refer to it specifically. Simply because he lists several folios including many hundreds if not thousands of pages?

"He wrote to Tovey demanding" Where is the quote of the actual words, where is the footnote, where is the detailed citation? There are none because "it would appear" (remember that is what we say when we are guessing/ speculating) he lazily parroted the allegation from secondary sources, without verifying it himself, an appalling shortcoming for a biographer of Pound. Nowhere in the material we have access to does Tovey say "he wrote to me". It was always a telephone call.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Mr.Wadinga is confiming in the above post to be a very unfair person, accusing others to redact info just because they avoid to reproduce the full text of a book when quoting a page........ Shameful and very miserable.
I just remind to everybody that he has already been told (by a person who was sustaining his position) that my account of Tovey letters was fair.

Wadinga wrote: "he lazily parroted the allegation from secondary sources, without verifying it himself,"

What an authoritative judgement from the great histonian Mr.Wadinga, a poor person who is unable to admit his defeat.
He should address these nice comments to Brodhurst, who would slam him as he deserves.....


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

You have said:

Mr. Wadinga should address this comment to Mr.Brodhurst, who dedicated his

reputed historian skill

to write a biography of Sir D.Pound

My underlining.

Although most of Mr Brodhurst's book is excellent, you may recall I brought it to most people's attention, it has its limitations.

His credentials are that he attended Sandhurst and he is Head of History at one of Britain's foremost public schools, Ampleforth. Churchill's Anchor appears to be his only published work. He cannot be considered an authoritative naval historian.

I address my comment to you because you have quoted Brodhurst. Do you accept Brodhurst wrote:

"He wrote to Tovey demanding"

That there is no quote of the actual words, there is no footnote, and there is no detailed citation. In Brodhurst's book, there is no evidence at all to support this statement, which contradicts Tovey's own assertion that it was a phone call.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "He cannot be considered an authoritative naval historian.....most of Mr Brodhurst's book is excellent.....He lazily parroted the allegation from secondary sources, without verifying it himself,"

while Mr.Wadinga cannot be considered an historian at all.
"Most of Brodhurst book is excellent" but.... just about the DS Court Martial.... he is wrong.....

Having available both May 31 1941 letter and 1961 letter (as per his bibliography), he stated that pound WROTE to Tovey to Court Martial Leach and Wake-Walker. Why ? Mr.Wadinga should ask him not me, because between Brodhurst and Mr.Wadinga I have no doubt who I have to trust.

BTW, parroted who ? Who else is stating that the threat was in writing ?


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Having available both May 31 1941 letter

You have the May 31st letter because I supplied it. Antonio must have had the May 31st letter a long while before you, because he went to the National Archives and was in the same building as it, even if he didn't know it.

One of the few things this long wrangle has established is that the only source of information is Tovey, and Tovey only wrote of a phone call.

Whilst you continue to grossly denigrate Ludovic Kennedy's authoritative book, Pursuit, and his credentials as an honoured investigative writer on matters of history, there is no reason why I cannot have and share an opinion on certain aspects of Brodhurst's work.

There has been so much erroneous writing over the Court Martial threat, little if any of which cites the only source, Roskill's 1961 letter, that identifying those who have added "colour" without evidence eg "infuriated" or "wrote" or "ordered" would be a pointless exercise.

All the best

wadinga

[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"

Therefore Mr.Wadinga CANNOT doubt (without evidence) that Brodhurst read the May 31 letter, being interested in Pound correspondence, and as he stated "Pound WROTE to Tovey" IMO this means he had read also Pound May 28 one, in the same file Mr.Wadinga is hiding to prevent any check......

Wadinga wrote: "there is no reason why I cannot have and share an opinion"

Sure, but his opinion, without ANY supporting evidence, counts less than zero compared to Roskill, Correlli-Barnett, Rhys-Jones AND (mostly in this case) Brodhurst one..... Kennedy insinuation about Tovey memory is proved to be false by May 31 letter and by Roskill written opinion to him.


BTW, who did Brodhurst parrot ? Who else is stating that the threat was in writing ?


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

in the same file Mr.Wadinga is hiding to prevent any check

Do you honestly think that having made the breakthrough in destroying the Court Martial myth that bringing the May 31st letter to light, I believe for the first time ever, I would not go for the "double" if the 28th letter was there? Remember I am only interested in the truth, not selling a fatuous made-up conspiracy theory. Even if the 28th letter were a direct threat of CMDS, I would take the greatest pleasure in bringing it into the light of public view, something Roskill, Schofield, Grenfell, Rhys-Jones, Brodhurst or any other writer has never been able to do.

Who wrote, "wrote"?

There has been so much erroneous writing over the Court Martial threat, little if any of which cites the only source, Roskill's 1961 letter, that identifying those who have added "colour" without evidence eg "infuriated" or "wrote" or "ordered" would be a pointless exercise.

Probably the same kind of people who said the fatal shell screamed down almost vertically, until Bill Jurens proved it was much nearer the horizontal. Another Denmark Strait myth busted. Busting the Court Martial myth is just a matter of time.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: I" am only interested in the truth..."

as he clearly demonstrated hiding the source of what he has posted.....

Wadinga wrote: "Even if the 28th letter were a direct threat of CMDS, I would take the greatest pleasure in bringing it into the light of public view,"

...sure.... ...in the same way he was willing to take to public view the 205/10 papers that confirmed the threat at the highest level, military and political...... he even dared to say that they contained nothing relevant..... until someone else posted them and he was obliged to invent the funny fantasy story of the secretary misleading his bosses......

Wadinga wrote "Who wrote, "wrote"?"

without giving any precise answer, because the first one was Brodhurst, who had access to May 31 letter as well, to Mr.Wadinga scorn......


Bye, Alberto

[Byron Angel]

Hmmm ..... so much for that "agree to disagree" idea. I'll check back in a year or so to see how everyone is doing.

Byron

[wadinga]

Hello Byron,

Thanks for stopping by.

Hello Alberto,

as he clearly demonstrated hiding the source of what he has posted

The source , well no, its the National Archives, The content I have given you.

confirmed the threat at the highest level, military and political...... he even dared to say that they contained nothing relevant.

Which they don't, merely some bureaucratic noise in the system.

Brockman really didn't know what "certain matters and Prima Facie" were, made it clear he was guessing in the memo to Pound and after two months of continuing high-pressure warfare neither did Pound or anybody else remember. Since it never actually says what they are in the War cabinet 54 nobody knew.

This what certain matters actually were:

Attention was called to a BBC broadcast made by a military officer who had been on board one of his Majesty’s ships in the Bismarck action, which had given an unfavourable impression of our ships’ gunnery. Enquiry was being made by the Admiralty into this matter, and a copy of the broadcast should be circulated to the War Cabinet.
A full report would also be made regarding certain aspects of the action which, prima facie, seemed to require explanation.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "The source , well no, its the National Archives, The content I have given you."

Thanks to Mr.Wadinga for confirming that he is intentionally (why? ) hiding the file name of the letter.



And then..... here he is back with his personal fantasy story about Brockman misleading his bosses and British ships gunnery ! Without any shame.....

Not even worth to answer as anybody can read (except a denier like Mr.Wadinga ) which were the "certain aspects" clearly identified in ADM 205/10, like here by Pound (+ Alexander and Churchill).

ADM205-10_332.jpg (68.54 KiB) Viewed 548 times

I asked: "who did Brodhurst parrot ? Who else is stating that the threat was in writing ?"

Of course no answer from this genial historian about the parroting (that Mr.Wadinga invented), because Brodhurst was the first one to clearly state that the Court Martial was required in writing to Tovey.



Bye, Alberto