The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

nobody is IMPECCABLE ! As Stephen Roskill personally wrote to Colin McMullen, ... so he was also a wise man, ... like many others a lot thankful for his life Royal Navy service years.

I agree with him, .. in my life I have done many errors too, ... and always admitted them with no problems.

Stephen Roskill was a very good historian like Pitcairn-Jones, ... precise and organized especially asked and exchanged many information with key witnesses, ... he was a Naval Historian authority, ... and preserved his good archive for the posterity.

Here is what he wrote about all this story for you to read it again :

On a 1976 book :

Roskill_73_note_01.jpeg

On the 1977 book Churchill and the Admirals :

Roskill_pages_125_126.jpeg

and his note 38 :

Roskill_page_313_note_38_01.jpg

The above documents are the ones I asked WAdinga to show us since he has been in Kew PRO archives and read them.

I refer to Stephen Roskill when I consider his inputs reliable, ... just like many other authors, ... and I DO NOT refer to him as well as many others when I consider their inputs NOT reliable, ... since I have more reliable inputs.

It should be not so difficult to be understood, ... and I am open to change opinion if somebody does provide me a more reliable input, ... as obvious.

Mostly I have no side nor version of the facts to protect at any cost, ... I only care for the historical truth.

Bye, Antonio

We've already established that all the info regarding a possible DSCM came from Tovey. Admiralty sources are lacking on this and because they are lacking we cannot establish whether a CMDS threat actually existed, and if it existed the degree to which the Admiralty (Pound) was willing to pursue it.

Pitcairn-Jones revisions to BS5 occurred in 1948, so Roskill had the opportunity to review and, at least partially, to reject them.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

the call occurred between Adm Pound and Adm Tovey, nodody else.

We are lucky to have the original Adm Tovey letters to Stephen Roskill and his responses, we are lucky to have the BBC interview of Colin McMullen explaining Adm Tovey declarations, ... so we have a double confirmation from Adm Tovey side.

Adm Pound apparently never disclose that call attempt to anybody, we only have his minute at the War Cabinet, but it is more than enough to confirm his intentions.

We have the declarations of Adm Tovey and we have the War Cabinet minute of May 26th where Adm Pound wrote about the INQUIRY he wanted about several matters.

What else are you looking for ? We do not need anything else about this attempt/threat that was defeated by Adm Tovey.

By June 2nd, 1941 the whole situation was already changed and they were only looking for explanation.

What happened is clear like it is clear what happened after this event, ...

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Wadinga wrote: " WSC's "Troubridge" phrase applied at least 50/50 to Cunningham actions off Crete"

Hi Sean,
I do see your uncomfortable position now, but, please, try to avoid to repeat "INTENTIONALLY INCORRECT" statements !
NOBODY here will believe you when you say such an enormity. Please read again the FULL sentence that YOU have posted and you will see that the Troubridge comparison is 100% for the PoW, that "did not press home her attack yesterday". There is then a "full stop" and, only AFTER, the account of Churchill great displeasure for Crete situation......

you wrote: "Tovey obviously turned this into an self promoting anecdote in which he came out the hero which he just to tell to Roskill and then wished he hadn't and didn't want published. We know his memory was faulty in 1954."

Again ?
Aren't you ashamed of still trying to insinuate WITHOUT any substance and against Roskill advise that Tovey invented the CM story ? Haven't you read Mr.Cag account of Tovey, being worried in his letter about the reputation of Pound (among the others) ?
Here, once again, the crystal clear Roskill answer to these unfair insinuations in a letter to Kennedy that I have received from the Archives:

Roskill to Kennedy on 1972: "Tovey came in several times to discuss the Bismarck Operation with me, Certainly he felt very strongly about the towing signal and about the threat to Wake-Walker. But he was always in very cheerful, even high, spirits, and I would never have applied the verb "brood" to his reminiscences. I could actually tell you quite a number of other cases where Pound threatened to have senior officers court-martialled, and one or two cases where he actually did so. He was relentless about any failure."

Roskill to Kennedy on 1973: "About Paffard's memories referred to at page 8, I am sure he is only correct about the last years of Tovey's life. Between about 1952 and 1960 he often came to see me bringing letters and papers, and was enormously interested in my work, all of which he read in draft. It was only at the end of his life that he became what Paffard calls a 'hermit'"

Clear enough who is reliable (Tovey memory) and who misused Paffard statement (Kennedy in "Pursuit") ?

you wrote: "Undoubtedly Pound had received an earful from WSC over the weekend"

Finally, you are possibly right here....., as this is also the advise of S.Roskill, whose work "Churchill and the Admirals" was centered exactly on these aspects: just to be back to something productive after many sterile denials, here the content of another letter re. the Court Martial threat, the threat that someone is still trying to deny, being determined not to accept any evidence in this sense....
I have just removed some very, very nasty comments on North's character that are of NO interest at all in this discussion: I will post them in case someone will dare to "insinuate" that I'm censoring things :

Roskill to Kennedy in 1973.jpg (96.96 KiB) Viewed 692 times

Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

the call occurred between Adm Pound and Adm Tovey, nodody else.

We are lucky to have the original Adm Tovey letters to Stephen Roskill and his responses, we are lucky to have the BBC interview of Colin McMullen explaining Adm Tovey declarations, ... so we have a double confirmation from Adm Tovey side.

Adm Pound apparently never disclose that call attempt to anybody, we only have his minute at the War Cabinet, but it is more than enough to confirm his intentions.

We have the declarations of Adm Tovey and we have the War Cabinet minute of May 26th where Adm Pound wrote about the INQUIRY he wanted about several matters.

What else are you looking for ? We do not need anything else about this attempt/threat that was defeated by Adm Tovey.

By June 2nd, 1941 the whole situation was already changed and they were only looking for explanation.

What happened is clear like it is clear what happened after this event, ...

Bye Antonio

What we are looking for is something to confirm Tovey's claim of a possible DSCM.

"Adm Pound apparently never disclose that call attempt to anybody, we only have his minute at the War Cabinet, but it is more than enough to confirm his intentions. "

The war cabinet document discusses the desire for more information - nothing more. The fact that no documentary evidence exists probably indicates that Pound never pursued any possible DSCM beyond some brief discussion between him and Tovey, assuming that Tovey is an reliable source on this matter.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

you are better read more carefully the Stephen Roskill 1976 book " Naval Policy ... " note number 73, the first one I posted again for you yesterday.

You keep on writing DSCM ( Denmark Strait Court Martial ) and I suspect you are not realizing the we are not discussing about the fact that it was really started, formally initiated by the Admiralty, authorized by the War Cabinet, ... or something similar, ... not at all.

What we are stating here in is that Adm Pound had the intention on doing it and just the wording he used during the May 26th, 1941 War Cabinet is enough to demonstrate his clear intentions for " INQUIRY on several matters ".

In more details we are stating that Adm Pound tried to convince Adm Tovey to do it ( WW+Leach being brought to trial by CM ) during a phone call when Adm Tovey arrived in Scapa Flow with KGV, and initially he was rejected by Adm Tovey telling him that those Officers ( WW + Leach ) did exactly what he wanted them to do.

Adm Pound insisted and Adm Tovey replied that NOTHING will have persuaded him to do so.

At that point Adm Pound told Adm Tovey that the Admiralty would have ordered that trial, and Adm Tovey replied that in that case he would have acted as " prisoner friend " and if necessary he would have resigned his command to do so.

As you can see just the the proposal for a trial by Court Martial by Adm Pound was strongly and decisively refused and rejected by Adm Tovey during that phone call.

This is exactly what Stephen Roskill is telling us all with his footnote number 73 on that 1976 book, later confirmed on his 1977 book " Churchill and the Admirals " pages 125 and 126 and footnote 78 above.

Are you getting the point now ?

If I read your last statement it seems you are getting there now :

The fact that no documentary evidence exists probably indicates that Pound never pursued any possible DSCM beyond some brief discussion between him and Tovey, assuming that Tovey is an reliable source on this matter.

No documentary evidence exist about that phone call, just Adm Tovey disclosure and Adm Pound INQUIRY intention declaration at the War Cabinet.

That " brief discussion " you are referring to is what it was, and Adm Pound did NOT pursued any further his initial intentions.

Adm Tovey was at the time of his disclosure a very reliable source, and we have Stephen Roskill clear written statements to Sir Kennedy about it resolving the matter.

It should be no difficult now for you to realize the historical truth about this fact.

Bye, Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

We have the declarations of Adm Tovey and we have the War Cabinet minute of May 26th where Adm Pound wrote about the INQUIRY he wanted about several matters.

No, Pound says: "....; this was one of the matters into which inquiry would have to be made."

There is no "the" inquiry, but there is an "into".

A question to our native speakers: Is it possible to phrase a sentence ordering an inquiry with "into" and without using an article?

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,



Marc, it was enough to use my provided Webster dictionary link above to realize that it is correct, here it is again :

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inquiry

... and here the example contained about the INQUIRY word possible utilization INTO some statements :

Webster_Inquiry_utilization_ examples.jpg (103.35 KiB) Viewed 653 times

If you GOOGLE : " Inquiry Into " you will find thousand of examples of its utilization in that way too.

Another example of : " Inquiry into .... " :

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bu ... smIndustry

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All

Hi Herr Nilsson,

as an English speaker the phrase "this was one of the matters into which inquiry would have to be made" means there is something unknown and requires explanatiion, someone has to find out why.

There was I think no board of inquiry set up to find out why the rdf failed, but rdf experts did visit PoW, according to her log, no doubt to inquire as to the particulars of the reported jamming.

As far as i know the only Admiralty boards of inquiry set up were the Hood inquiries.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi all,

from the Minutes (annexes) to the War Cabinet on May 26 (when Bismarck was lost in the Atlantic):

".....this was one of the matters into which inquiry would have to be made........The PoW had then broken off action. Whether or not she had been right in doing so could not be judged on the information so far available."

.....and would have to be inquired later, when all info would have been available, in the same way the r.d.f. jamming would have been inquired as well, etc., with the clear difference that, in this case, inquiry would not have been made INTO a technical problem but INTO the military behavior of the PoW Captain.

The above are facts. In my very personal and humble opinion, W.Churchill, sitting as chairman of the War Cabinet, was smoking his cigar and was grumbling at Alexander (as he was "keeping saying" since a while): "It's the worst thing since Troubridge turned away from the Goeben in 1914" .


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello All,
Herr Nilsson and Cag are completely correct. The phrase "inquiry would have to be made" is a rather mannered expression indicating a state of affairs which should not have existed and needed correction . The advantage of radar should not have been negated by use of the ship's radio transmitter. I imagine the situation had been trialled whilst in harbour, possibly whilst Roskill himself was testing the radar systems. However, out in the Denmark Strait with freezing salt spray shorting the insulation between aerials and the ship's hull this obviously played havoc with these sensitive systems.

Inquiry is just a questioning. It is interchangeable with enquiry, but has the subtle sense of a more probing question unlike "how are you feeling today?" The establishment of a Board of Enquiry (or Inquiry) is a much more official business.

Confirming copyright situation WRT File 205/10.

Antonio, you have the exact words of Roskill to Kennedy about North, (how nice of you to be more sensitive than Roskill) do you have the exact words about DSCM?

Interesting that after the exoneration of North by Prime Minister MacMillan, the cabal of Admirals who had asked for North's case to be reviewed congratulated Roskill for starting the ball rolling by highlighting how North had been unfairly treated by the Admiralty in the War at Sea Vol 1. And Roskill said

very, very nasty comments

about North privately.

All the best

wadinga

[Cag]

Hi All

I'm really not sure what is being discussed here?!

So matters into which inquiry was needed, were inquired into as the information was not so far available.

However the information was made available and from those pieces of information the validity of Leach's actions were made clear.

As for the constant Troughtbridge quote, if it was unclear as to what the circumstances were and inquiry needed to be made, then it would be logical to assume that such a quote was also made without the same information.

I'm really tired of conjecture and ideas of what may or may not have happened.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Herr Nilsson]

@Antonio

Good example. I think we agree that even there no board of inquiry is meant.

@Cag, Wadinga

My reading of Antonio's and Alberto's posts was that inquiry is a synonym for a board of inquiry. Thank you for clarification

[Alberto Virtuani]

Wadinga wrote: "Antonio, you have the exact words of Roskill to Kennedy about North, (how nice of you to be more sensitive than Roskill) do you have the exact words about DSCM? "

Hi Sean,
I guess you mean me and not Antonio. The shock for seeing that your line of defense is gone forever should be very, very tough for you.... but I recognize that sometimes it happened to me too to mix up the names of the "ones who deny to accept any evidence", as their arguments are the same ridiculous and repetitive ones (e.g. this is not a proven fact...., in English this means........., diversion attempts, as your one above..... etc.)


I will send you a private message, with Roskill words about North that I have not posted because I don't know his story (and I'm not interested in it HERE....). I found them very tough and not really linked to this discussion.

Re. Roskill words on the DSCM , both Antonio (from "Naval Policy" and "Churchill and the Admirals") and me from his letters (1972, 1973) have posted everything we had, in clear and integral way. It's simply clear that Roskill did believe the story and that Kenendy tried to discredit Tovey memory for his agenda (despite the suggestions from Roskill), having in mind to write a kind of "propaganda" book, as the heroic resistance of PoW alone for 13 minutes against Bismarck, as described in "Pursuit", is more than enough to demonstrate.....


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

you did not understand what that word means once again, sorry for you.

It was enough to read Stephen Roskill note to realize that Adm Pound " addiction to INQUIRY " was exactly his intention from the INQUIRY results to move as soon as possible to a COURT MARTIAL if the INQUIRY provided the reasons to do it.

I think you are having a lot of problems about INQUIRY -> TRIALS for COURT MARTIAL -> and COURT MARTIAL.

Being called into an INQUIRY ( or TRIAL for CM ), ... for a Royal Navy Officer, ... meant to run a very HIGH risk to face very soon a COURT MARTIAL.

Do you understand now what it meant been subject to an INQUIRY by the Royal Navy Admiralty using the Articles of War to judge you during WW2 ?

@ CAG,

you are right with this statement :

as an English speaker the phrase " this was one of the matters into which inquiry would have to be made" means there is something unknown and requires explanation, someone has to find out why.

Only correction I will made on your statement is that an INQUIRY usually require an additional INVESTIGATION being made.
Otherwise you just require a simple EXPLANATION.

That is where the KEY to understand what happened is, just simply following Stephen Roskill clear indications.

From the War Cabinet minute 53 of May 26th, requiring an INQUIRY, everything " changed " by the time the War Cabinet minute 56 Item 1 that was written on June 2nd, 1941, and the INQUIRY of May 26th, became an EXPLANATION request on June 2nd, 1941.

In order to understand the possible " charges " the INQUIRY would have deeply analyzed, ... that later become EXPLANATION to be provided on June 2nd as said, ... it is enough to read the response later provided by the Admiralty to the War Cabinet Minute 56 Item 1 as said above, ... as requested by the War Cabinet secretary of course, ... to close officially the matter.

The Official documents doing all this bureaucratic process of closing the War Cabinet minute 56 item 1, are into the Adm 205/10, just as Stephen Roskill addressed us to look for on his book note, if we wanted to realize what happened about all this " regrettable aftermath " as he called it.

Those documents just as Stephen Roskill wrote on his note are Official Communication among Adm Pound ( Admiralty ), Sir Alexander ( First Lord ) and the Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.

To solve once for good this little enigma, ... of realizing which one could have been the INQUIRY charges, later become EXPLANATION items, .. it is enough to read the Official document on page 332 on Adm 205/10, ... and the enigma/dilemma will be easily solved. I asked Wadinga to post this page and solve the enigma CLOSING this matter.

I am glad to tell everybody here in that I had the solution of the enigma made " bottom up " with my researches and simple reasoning already done some years ago, ... reaching exactly the same conclusions, ... but without knowing Stephen Roskill and his book notes.

Just a little personal satisfaction from my side, ... supported by persons/historians of the level of Stephen Roskill, Russell Grenfell and Pitcairn-Jones, ... and of course thanking everybody challenge and help here in, ... and in particular the invaluable help I have from Alberto Virtuani, ...

@ Wadinga,

I simply have everything about this battle as usual, ... once I know what to search and look for, ... the Official documents will be in my hands, ...

@ all,

nobody is perfect and nobody is infallible, and everybody does have always a chance to learn more especially finding well documented archives and official documentation and other reasoning made by persons directly involved and personally knowing the key persons involved into an historical fact.

One day I will put into a book all I am learning and finding, ... and this all story of the Bismarck chase, ... the whole Operation Rheinubung, ... and how it was lived on both sides, ... will have a very different story to tell compared to what we know today.

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All

I'm afraid it has now been reduced to a discussion on interpretation of wording! To borrow a phrase used by you Alberto, it would seem my English is not very good either!

The whole thing again descends into second guessing what people meant, and opinion and interpretation, a place where ambiguity allows everyone and no one to be correct.

Best wishes
Cag