The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:59 pm

Hello Antonio,
I go back to my modeling job and my Tirpitz number 5 book
I hope you're not making up stories of RN cowardice and lying about the PQ 17 campaign, you know what happened last time someone did. :cool:

Enjoy Sardinia, we did.

All the best

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

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:21 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:14 am

The Suffolk incorrect report emerged when I plotted her track and realized that it was impossible for her to have been at 15 sea miles from the enemy before the circle back turn, and in fact when we found Capt Ellis autobiography the truth surfaced : 9 sea miles. I was right once again.

It has been by digging on the documents and making the data correlation that one can realize as we did, that those events had a unique logic flow connecting one to the other until the final King recognition.


Bye Antonio
Now you've resorted to outright lying. I have corrected A/A on this enough times that any further restatement of it by A/A is just a lie. Ellis in his memoirs states that "...when fire was opened Suffolk was roughly 18000 yards astern of the enemy..." = Suffolk at 18k yds at ~0552:30 (according to PoW's salvo chart timing). Working back this places Suffolk at ~3000 yds from Bismarck prior to her turn at ~0542 which is obviously not possible.

Unfortunately, as I've stated many times, you simply pretend that the documentary evidence supports your theory even when it demonstrably doesn't support it. In the case of Ellis, his memoirs reveal, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they're worthless. How you can continue this shameless charade is beyond understanding.

The most probable reason you don't show the "silver bullet" now is because you know that we'll know that it doesn't say what you want it to say, but you're hoping that you can hoodwink later those who are not familiar with the subject material.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3743
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:10 pm

Hello everybody,


bla, bla, bla, bla, .... lots of talking and never a map to show what useless words keeps on stating.

There is a dedicated thread were you can show ( or realize if you are able to ) where Suffolk was that morning.

Probably you better realize that despite those useless statements ... everything is more than ready to be published one day.

I know very well that this is not good for you as from that moment onward your useless " hooligan/deniers " stubborn campaign of writing here in will have no more reason for it to be.

But until that moment you can keep on writing your statements unsupported by any document or map, ... and hope that it has onechance to prevent the truth to surface.

I am curious to see what are you going to do after ... :think:


The PQ 17 ... my Tirpitz book number 4 and Operation Rosselsprung ... :think:

http://bismarck-tirpitz.com/?lang=en

you can see here in what caused that disaster.

Sorry I forgot, ... you are not able to read a warship positions on a map, ... so you cannot realize it ... because there are very precise map in that book, ... :wink:

Bye Antonio
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 )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:49 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:10 pm
Hello everybody,


bla, bla, bla, bla, .... lots of talking and never a map to show what useless words keeps on stating.

There is a dedicated thread were you can show ( or realize if you are able to ) where Suffolk was that morning.

Probably you better realize that despite those useless statements ... everything is more than ready to be published one day.

I know very well that this is not good for you as from that moment onward your useless " hooligan/deniers " stubborn campaign of writing here in will have no more reason for it to be.

But until that moment you can keep on writing your statements unsupported by any document or map, ... and hope that it has onechance to prevent the truth to surface.

I am curious to see what are you going to do after ... :think:


The PQ 17 ... my Tirpitz book number 4 and Operation Rosselsprung ... :think:

http://bismarck-tirpitz.com/?lang=en

you can see here in what caused that disaster.

Sorry I forgot, ... you are not able to read a warship positions on a map, ... so you cannot realize it ... because there are very precise map in that book, ... :wink:

Bye Antonio
A reasonable person would simply admit that Ellis's statements in his memoirs don't support the contention that Suffolk was at ~18k yds at ~0542, and would leave it at that. Instead you continue to claim that Ellis supports your thesis even though it is blatantly obvious that he doesn't. This kind of irrationality seems to present itself whenever a contradiction arises between your theory and the documentary evidence.

Again, I find your reasoning here and your unshakable commitment to it as unfathomable. I hope that it doesn't indicate some underlying pathology.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3743
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:18 pm

Hello everybody,

if only someone would take the disturb ( assuming he is able to ) and will draw a map with the original information contained into the radio messages and the strategical map of Suffolk ( bearings radio + visual ), … one will easily realize the truth, … again I assume one is capable on doing it.

I wrote radio messages and official bearings from the strategical plot, ... not the 1941 report, ... because Capt Ellis was a liar and he lied intentionally on 1941, ... and only partially declared the truth on his autobiography, ... at least recovering some of his dignity.

The drawing of the real data on an easy map will reveal the truth for the one interested.

Keep on a blatant, ... bla, bla, bla, … only shows someone is not capable on do an easy work, ... and keeps on denying something in line of principle, .. and this way it shows clearly his " pathology ".

It is only some months that we are asking this work to be done and agreed, ... on the proper Norfolk + Suffolk track thread.

So go and do the job, … show us your opinion about her position from 04:47 until 06:20 that morning, … you have almost everything already done and published by me on many threads about it, ... and stop this useless ... bla, bla, bla, bla, ... :wink:

Bye Antonio
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 )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:03 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:18 pm


I wrote radio messages and official bearings from the strategical plot, ... not the 1941 report, ... because Capt Ellis was a liar and he lied intentionally on 1941, ... and only partially declared the truth on his autobiography, ... at least recovering some of his dignity.
You refuse to address that fact that Ellis's statement in his memoirs don't support your thesis or your contention that Suffolk was at ~18K yds from Bismarck at ~0542.

You accuse Ellis of lying while at the very same time doing that yourself by intentionally misrepresenting what Ellis actually stated in his memoirs.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3743
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:23 am

Hello everybody,

I do not have any thesis about Capt Ellis, ... I know he lied on 1941 intentionally, ... as it is self evident by his autobiography.

The Suffolk position in relation to the enemy, ... the Prinz Eugen track we have, ... is an easy exercise anybody can do ( assuming he is able to ) by just going on the proper thread and follow his track, with course and speed from 04:47 until 06:20.

We do not need his report or his autobiography, .... the radio messages and Suffolk strategical plot bearings are more than enough and will reveal once again that simply .... he lied on 1941, ... and he lied intentionally of course.

It is not difficult to be realized, ... just do it and open your eyes to the truth, ... instead on keep on writing useless statements on this thread.

Bye Antonio
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 )

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by HMSVF » Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:12 pm

Afternoon all.

I was reading John Winton's excellent "Carrier Glorious" this afternoon when I came across this very interest reply from AV Alexander (First Lord of The Admiralty).

He was replied that "courts martial" were not always held.The loss of the Glorious had been investigated by a Board of Inquiry "but there was no advantage to be gained by holding a court martial in addition".

Now, allowing for the fact that HMS Glorious is probably one of the biggest cover ups (IMHO) the RN ever conducted (why else slap a 100 years rule on the BoI) AV Alexander states that a BoI did not mean automatic court martial proceedings. In regards to Tovey and his memoirs where he states that he had no intention of putting Wake Walker or each through a B o I wouldn't he be aware that whilst a BoI is the precursor to any court martial, it does not guarantee court martial proceedings (taking the above AV Alexander House of Commons reply into account - since he was 1st Sea Lord you would hope he would know his apples!)

He also went onto say that in regards to court martial "all the evidence is in public and that in the present circumstances I am not prepared to publish it."

Now this was in regards to HMS Glorious - a big, well known disaster, where the Admiralty sidelined and interrogated the survivors. In the Bismarcks case if we are following the idea of a cover up there would be many officers and sailors who would be brought for interrogation.

So if the supposed court martial was a real threat it wouldn't just have been Wake Walker or Leach who would be up against the Admiralty wall it would have been their staff as well. If the threat of B o I was that real then Wake Walker and Leach and Tovey and their staff + lower ranking witness's would have been aware. That is an awful lot of people to keep quiet and keep quiet for the rest of their natural lives. The fact that Alexander states in the House of Commons that a Board of Inquiry does not guarantee a court martial is an interesting statement when we have been told that a B o I means automatic court martial.



So I still think what happened is this...

i) Churchill has one of his volcanic losses of temper (before he knows any information.

ii) He tells his 1SL that he wants blood.

iii) Pound "sits on it" whilst the information comes in.

iv) Churchill realises that he has been a complete plonker and says "leave it" to save face and not pee off an already annoyed RN (Think North and Somerville)

v) Tovey through the "whisper mill" gets to here that Churchill has been Churchill again.

vi) When he speaks to Pound he gets the first blow in by saying "lets get one thing straight - I'm not B o I (ing) WW or Leach. Pound says don't worry about it - its sorted.

Vii) Churchill being Churchill decides to carry on as if nothing has happened in regards to being an idiot in regards to his initial responses about the Denmark strait battle. Hence using HMS POW,with Leach to sign the Atlantic Charter,

viii) 20 years later Tovey embelished or plain forgets that he said that he wouldn't have a B o I for WW and Leach (the precursor to a CM according to AV Alexander but not a guaranteed precursor) and goes straight for the CM story. This would explain why not one single Admiralty paper, cabinet document or Imperial staff document states anything about a court martial and why Tovey is the one main source. As an aside, if Pounds papers were that "hot" why were they destroyed and not slapped under the 100 year rule as per other cover ups. Why did subsequent 1SL not give any hints of juicy tit bits they discovered on reading the documentation? And given the circumstances of HMS Glorious incident, which are murkier than the sea off Blackpool, why do the records in regard to this event survive, under the 100 year rule (which makes the events post HMS Hoods sinking pale into insignificance) and yet not a single conclusive ,unambiguous, not open to interpretation piece of documentation has been produced or even suggested to exist in a restricted file?



If this wasn't the case there would be a paper trail 20 miles long and more witness's than a Premier league football fixture. Where are they? Even if you take Pounds correspondence into account there would be others. All we have is Tovey as a source and a source that dates many years after the event and the gentleman's service.
Last edited by HMSVF on Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by pgollin » Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:54 pm

.

Why are people using the wrong (out of date) 1913 edition of The King's Regulations ?

Just for the education of A & A (who sadly seem to need a lot). The way the British legal system works is that Bills are laid before (and hopefully approved by) Parliament, this is the "Naval Disciplinary Act". Within such an Act is the power for Ministers to promulgate "Regulations" - these contain the detail (as I said before, one is the "ten commandments", the others are the legal rules).

And, as was said above Boards of Inquiry are definitely NOT a part of a Courts Martial.

.

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by HMSVF » Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:14 pm

Here is the Hansard link to that HoC with AV Alexander...

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hans ... ts-martial


(which sort of ties in to what PGollin has said above)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:21 pm

Hello HMSVF and P Gollin,

To answer Phil's question: because the 1913 version is published online and easily accessible. If you have found a later one please nominate.

Article 703 says a Court (Board) of Inquiry merely allows "a senior officer to reach a correct conclusion about any matter on which he requires to be thoroughly informed,"

going on to say "OR upon which they may be a question whether it should form the subject of a Court Martial."

So a Court(Board) of Enquiry is not a disciplinary matter as I pointed out above, merely an information gathering exercise.


To HMSVF: Well done in finding the A V Alexander HMS Glorious reference. In fact the matter of whether a Court Martial was required every time a ship was lost was discussed in the House of Lords in 1915 when certain parts of the NDA were being changed. Someone went back through the previous century to show that it was not a requirement. Further, this was pointed out:
It will be remembered that with the exception of the case of the "Oceanic" there have, in fact, been no Courts-Martial in respect of the losses of ships. I am not making and do not intend to make any complaint of that. I think that every one in the country is prepared to support the Admiralty to the utmost, and I can assure the noble Lord that I speak to-night in no spirit of criticism.
Even the idea that a Court Martial was a prosecution of named officers was challenged. Although unlike a Court of Inquiry, it has legal powers to inflict punishment, there is no automatic assumption of guilt as opposed to ill-fortune in the convening of a Court Martial.

A couple of sentences from this 1915 debate, are most illuminating in the matter of personal courage and willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice. This debate on this website has been couched in terms of comic-book heroic cliches or the ancient "Articles or Warre" in which officers far back in history, living in a different society, had complete disregard for the lives of their crews and were expected by the authorities to expend them with no consideration as to whether results might justify casualties. The same men they might have flogged to death for minor infringement. In 1941 attitudes were different even if a few archaic phrases remained in the revised NDS. A WWII fighter pilot like Sgt Ray Holmes who, after expending his ammunition, deliberately crashed his Hurricane into a Dornier, was bravely risking his own life. But his life only, not hundreds. This is what was said in that 1915 debate:
Another reason that I have seen alleged seems to me also a most inconclusive one. I have seen it said that the apprehension of a Court-Martial would lead officers to "play for safety" and not take risks when in the interests of the Service they ought to take them. I believe that to be a profound misconception. Let us take the case of an officer who is hesitating whether he shall take a risk or not. What is it that makes him hesitate to take it? Not because he is thinking of a Court-Martial when he comes home, but because he is thinking of the precious lives on board his ship, of the value of the ship itself, of the injury to the defences of the Empire if that ship should be lost. Those are the things, if anything, that would make him think twice, and not the fear of being tried by Court-Martial.
This is pointing out that the legal practice of a Court Martial follows the presumption of innocence and therefore should allow an officer to justify his actions. This is a protection against any unfair disciplinary actions which the Board of Admiralty or its officers might undertake at its discretion. Admiral North wanted a Court Martial so the reasons for his dismissal might be examined, but was denied one. As has been pointed out many times if there was even a grain of real suspicion about Wake-Walker or Leach they would have been quietly re-assigned with no need for publicity.

HMSVF you are absolutely correct that the last thing Churchill would have actually wanted was a Court Martial, since its legal status meant keeping things under wraps would be impossible, as it proved eventually in Troubridge's case. The evidence got out and showed his exoneration was warranted, his orders were imprecise, his chance of success minimal and Battenberg's determination to scapegoat him unreasonable. Within months Battenberg was forced to retire (for being German) and Churchill followed (Gallipoli), but Troubridge served on with distinction in Serbia.

HMSVF be aware that A V Alexander was only First Lord of the Admiralty, not First Sea Lord- that was Dudley Pound. He was a Labour (Socialist) politician brought into a Government of national unity replacing WSC when he moved on to PM of that government. As I pointed out in another thread, AVA was not even security cleared to see the contents of the Operations Intelligence Centre at the Admiralty. In the same job before him, Winston interfered with operations over Pound's head, appointed his old WW I cronies like Roger Keyes into positions where they caused mayhem, and generally made a lovable, inspiring, maddening, nuisance of himself. Pound didn't let Alexander go that far, but he couldn't stop PM Winston sticking his nose in and causing trouble, as is clear in this case.


All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2818
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:10 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote to his bully supporter": "If you have found a later one please nominate."
:lol: :lol: :lol: "pgollin" who gives a whatsoever value to this discussion ? This would be new ! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Luckily, we need neither this poorly educated person help nor the last King's Regs in force in 1941, because the Naval Discipline Act from 1866 (http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm) contains the relevant "Articles of War" (unaltered until 1941) applicable as charges at a Court Martial for the two timid officers we are speaking about: the articles about the "misconduct in the presence of the enemy", that were never treated in the King's Regs.


Wadinga wrote: "So a Court(Board) of Enquiry is not a disciplinary matter as I pointed out above, merely an information gathering exercise.
"
...and, in case the "exercise" ascertains a dereliction of duty, it is the antechamber of the Court Martial....

Kings_Regs_703.jpg
Kings_Regs_703.jpg (20.43 KiB) Viewed 233 times



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: 1632
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:35 am

Hello Alberto,

I asked P Gollin if he could supply King's Regs in force for 1941.

You say:
contains the relevant "Articles of War" (unaltered until 1941) applicable as charges at a Court Martial
You may well be right, but you have presented no actual evidence to support your assertion, whereas now, like Antonio you quote the King's Regs for the procedure for both Court Martial and Court of Inquiry.

...and, in case the "exercise" ascertains a dereliction of duty, it is the antechamber of the Court Martial....
Equally if it doesn't, it isn't. :D As I showed, the Articles below 703 point out that none of the recorded proceedings of such a Court of Enquiry can be used in a subsequent Court Martial, and all evidence re-acquired under the terms laid out for a Court Martial, ie due legal process, in the relevant part of the King's Regs. So not so much an antechamber, more a completely different building.

As I pointed out, using the same wording the use of "or" in the 703 article shows the exercise to have two entirely different purposes only one of which has anything to do with Court Martials. The Board of Inquiry into Hood's destruction was clearly of the former, information gathering. To determine the cause of her destruction. If it had found evidence that large numbers of cordite charges had been left unsafely stacked around on the upper deck and Chief Gunnery Officer Moultrie had survived the sinking, it might well have led to his Court Martial.



At the time of Pound's letter on the 28th, only the barest scraps of information existed on the details of Leach's and Wake-Walker's actions. Only the very depressed, highly stressed and verbally intemperate PM would have turned his original childish emotional outburst on hearing the bad news into something to bother the First Sea Lord with, as Colville relates, through into the following day. It should be remembered that this was happening on the Sunday 25th May, the very same day Pound and Phillips were sending contradictory information and instructions to Tovey and Dalrymple-Hamilton, whilst also supervising the unravelling disaster in Crete. (If Twitter had existed in 1941 we would have the actual wording of verbally intemperate outbursts just like those of Donald J Trump today)


As for identifying "bullies" around here, Alberto review your and Antonio's posts before applying such classification to others. You have deliberately driven away valuable posters supplying useful information, like Cag and Alan Raven with insults and disparaging comments. It may merely be your drive to be "winners" in an argument, it might be you have identified sources of inconvenient information and decided to tactically "take them out" before their evidence undermines further your flimsy assertions.

All the best

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

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by pgollin » Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:18 am

.

Yes, I have a 2 volume set of The King's Regulations in force at the time in my possession (although one needs to check with AFO's and CAFO's to see which were modified between the official publication and the date of the D.S. action).

I am NOT going to reveal either the date, or relevent paragraph numbers as A & A need to find them for themselves if they have any credibility. (And this matches their idiocy over their "silver bullet".)

Their complete misunderstanding of how the Admiralty actually worked is part of the problem with their thesis/fantasy.

As I have noted before, no external assessor, or competent editor is ever going to accept their work as they have so little understanding how things really worked;

- No idea on how the Admiralty worked,

- No idea on the interface of the Board with Churchill,

- No idea on the nuances of the English language,

- No idea on the practicalities of accuracies of bearings in WW2, nor the accuracy of plotted tracks

- No idea of the way the Admiralty proceeded regarding after action investigations and their choices regarding Boards of Inquiry

And, finally, their deliberate cherry-picking and partial quoting shows a basic dishonesty in their presentation of their case.

.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3743
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:44 pm

Hello everybody,

Someone should tell the most idiot member of this forum that we know and realized quite well how everything worked.

At first they wanted a board of inquiry for the 2 coward
s, and after they gave them a medal.

This is what they did.

Bye Antonio
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 )

Post Reply