The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Reubs64]

I remember reading an article about one of Captain Leach,s modern day relations telling the joke a lot of you may have heard.... The motto of the British S.A.S. is "who dares wins" but what is the motto of the Italian S.A.S. ? "Who cares who wins" :) Maybe the two A,s also read the article and couldn't take a joke hence the tasteless and cowardly diatribes about two servicemen who put themselves in harms way time after time, one of them continuing to until his death. Personally I can laugh at a good joke about Brits but some people are more sensitive and maybe this was the reason why the attempts to besmirch these officers have been made. From what I have read any future book containing this cmds myth will be shot down in flames by historians and quickly forgotten about. What has surprised me is how two intelligent guys have behaved with such immaturity, crowing about winning and losing, victory and defeat, and how they have been deliberately offensive and provocative, using words like coward etc . Such a shame to see a forum I have had years of pleasure from reduced to such levels.

[mstary1]

I have been watching this thread for a long time now but have never posted before on the forum. As such, I would like to thank Bill Jurens for his well though out and sincere post. For me, it is the defining post of this thread.

[Algonquin-R17]

Thank you Mr Jurens for your excellent over view of this discussion. You have encapsulated what many of us observers believe and what many knowledgeable experts have argued in the defense of these British Officers. We all must remember that these men, British and German were fighting for their lives at the time. Certainly I could never appreciate what all of these sailors endured.

Antonio, if you are going to continue to call these officers cowards you should put your " Silver Bullet " into the record.

It would be the honourable thing for you to do.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

if I was looking for a generic explanation on how military reports are evaluated and archived by their superiors I was surely not going to spend my time responding into this forum about this historical event.

I do not need to realize that a map reconstruction is subject to a lot of tolerances by definition, I know it myself very well since years.
The intent is to realize the most precise reconstruction of the event using current available data from both sides and I am satisfied with the work done so far.

We are talking in this thread about an historical event involving 2 Royal Navy Officers, namely RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker and Capt J.C. Leach, occurred to them immediately after they returned from the Bismarck operation.

In my opinion no one in the future can avoid to mention that Adm Pound, the Royal Navy First Sea Lord, wanted them under a board of inquiry for their conduct in action and wrote to the Commander in Chief Home Fleet Adm Tovey, to their direct superior, a formal request for it.
This simply because it is demonstrated by the existing response by Adm Tovey to Adm Pound.

No one can avoid to mention that the same 2 Officers have been rewarded by the King on October 1941, just only few months after the above letter.

What happened in between is well documented by many official documents and the high level closure of the case is contained into the pages 331-332-333-334 of the ADM 205/10 records just as Stephen Roskill explained to the posterity on his books.

Stephen Roskill called it a " regrettable aftermath ", surely it was not a celebration of a clear cut case of some outstanding performances made after some standard reports evaluation as somebody would like to simplify it while describing this event.

What Adm Tovey and the Admiralty did is written into their documents and everybody, like I did, can read them and realize the alteration of the reality they managed to close this case.

Having at hand a good enough made overall map surely helps on understanding the whole scenario much better than an invented piece of paper made on purpose to support some second hand corrected statements ( ref. " The Plot " ).

This process is simply the same one used by Pitcairn-Jones ( Royal Navy Historical Office ) to correct back on 1948 the invented and false 06:13 statement by Adm Tovey for the PoW retreat and bring it back to the more real 06:03 by using the PoW gunnery plot and the Rowell map existing evidence. Everything made, of course, with the due map tolerances.

I do not think that Pitcairn-Jones was a " conspirator ", do you ?

Bye Antonio

[HMSVF]

Nailed it.

Indeed, but conspiracy theorists just aren't interested in reasonable, thoughtful, responses. When confronted with reasonable discourse they just double down on their pet conspiracy theory; just see the post above for proof.

At some point A/A crossed a kind of psychic Rubicon on this and now it seems that no amount of reason or logic can ever dissuade him from it. It is truly tragic.

Dunmunro,


Quite. This particular ship has taken its course and nothing will make its crew deviate from it. It’s all turning out to be rather pointless as short of a Dr Who time machine and a HD recording of those days events nothing will be taken on board. Mr Jurens far more eloquently than I,summed up exactly what I feel in regards to the proposed theory, the falability of charts and the course of events. As you point out this is not what they wanted to hear - and I fully expect that fingers will remain welded in ears for at least, ooh let’s say 15 pages.

It is a real shame.



Best wishes

HMSVf

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

the real shame on this forum and thread is to read incompetent side taken persons try to sell existing official documents content being a recent theory invented by somebody.

Wake up, ... open your mind, ... try to engage your brain if you are able to.

It was Adm Pound on May 28th, 1941 to write a letter to Adm Tovey asking him a board of inquiry for the conduct while in action of 2 Royal Navy officers, ... it is not somebody recently invented theory, ... it is an irrefutable fact and it is well documented now.

It is documented that initial fact ... the subsequent shameful management by the Home Fleet C in C and the RN Admiralty ( ref ADM 205/10 4 pages ), ... and the final solution with the medals from the King.

Like it or not ( which is your attitude ) those are in summary the historical facts and nothing will change them.

Bye Antonio

[northcape]

Nailed it.

Indeed, but conspiracy theorists just aren't interested in reasonable, thoughtful, responses. When confronted with reasonable discourse they just double down on their pet conspiracy theory; just see the post above for proof.

At some point A/A crossed a kind of psychic Rubicon on this and now it seems that no amount of reason or logic can ever dissuade him from it. It is truly tragic.

Dunmunro,


Quite. This particular ship has taken its course and nothing will make its crew deviate from it. It’s all turning out to be rather pointless as short of a Dr Who time machine and a HD recording of those days events nothing will be taken on board. Mr Jurens far more eloquently than I,summed up exactly what I feel in regards to the proposed theory, the falability of charts and the course of events. As you point out this is not what they wanted to hear - and I fully expect that fingers will remain welded in ears for at least, ooh let’s say 15 pages.

It is a real shame.



Best wishes

HMSVf

Yes, once more it is clearly stated and demonstrated that

1) the reconstructed map is useless for interpretation since its creator doesn't have any basic knowledge of the underlying data and their uncertainties, and does not have any idea how to approach this problem in a scientific way

2) the whole theory is without any substance and without any significance for anything or anybody (good luck finding a publisher!)

3) the boundary between internet trolling and pathological fanatic behavior is not clear in this case

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,


sometimes I ask myself how come persons that time ago I have rated reasonable and intelligent can stay aside, feed and team up with such pathetic idiots.


This, according to some very limited persons writing here in should be my theory :

Tovey to Pound May 31st 1941.jpg (28.22 KiB) Viewed 1318 times

Here the above text in a clear and easier to read format :

I have no intention of ordering a Board of Inquiry into the conduct of RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker or Capt J.C. Leach under any circumstances, but I am only too ready to submit to any Board of Inquiry or Court Martial Their Lordship see fit to order to enquire into my own actions.

Obviously the above text was written into a letter from Adm Tovey to Adm Pound on May 31st, 1941.

At that time I was not even born yet … but still some real genius here in call the above event, … my theory.


Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Your theory was that there was a CMDS that was somehow thwarted by Tovey's Despatch. That theory is now

The rest of of your theory, that there was misconduct by Leach, W-W and Ellis falls apart upon examination of the available evidence, so in the end there's nothing except the destruction of your own reputation.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

to refresh memory to everyone here with facts (instead of personal insulting opinions), in addition to May 31 1941 letter, we have here the explanation of what happened between the 1st Sea Lord and the CinC HF, accounted by Lord Tovey to Stephen Roskill.

Tovey_Roskill_14-12-1961_2.jpg (92.99 KiB) Viewed 1315 times

Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

to refresh memory to everyone here with facts (instead of personal insulting opinions), in addition to May 31 1941 letter, we have here the explanation of what happened between the 1st Sea Lord and the CinC HF, accounted by Lord Tovey to Stephen Roskill.


Tovey_Roskill_14-12-1961_2.jpg



Bye, Alberto

We have similar ramblings from Ellis but in both cases we know that it was their memory "playing tricks on them", which is why we have to treat accounts written decades after the fact with great caution.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

why Mr.Dunmuunro is not trying to propose again that both Tovey and Ellis were "demented" as he has falsely insinuated already for Tovey ? (here:http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... tia#p64709)


Bye, Alberto

[HMSVF]

Your theory was that there was a CMDS that was somehow thwarted by Tovey's Despatch. That theory is now

The rest of of your theory, that there was misconduct by Leach, W-W and Ellis falls apart upon examination of the available evidence, so in the end there's nothing except the destruction of your own reputation.

Mr Dunmunro,

It’s dead in the water IMHO - unless the “silver bullet” is as deadly as promised (maybe a correspondence from Pound or Churchill which specifically and uncatergorically states the need for a CM). I suppose I’m labelled one of the idiots, but to be frank I was thinking exactly the same as Mr Jurens - he was able to portray it far more eloquently than I (which in surprising given his vast knowledge and experience). There is certain irony in being called stupid and incapable of using my brain or free thought,but being expected to act like a lemming by throwing myself off the cliff of conspiracy...

Hey ho.


It’s certainly “interesting” following the back and forth.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

as a summary, to refresh everybody's memory with facts, not personal (insulting) opinions, here all the evidences/supporting positions for the threat (nobody has ever said there was a Court Martial official request) against the two timid officers who "did not their utmost" during the Bismarck operation:

Threat_Evidences.jpg (81.43 KiB) Viewed 1060 times

We don't need the agreement of any "denier" here (more or less competent...), as we are in company of the best judges of these facts: S.Roskill as WWII RN historian and Sir Henry Leach as "interested and authoritative" party.


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Taking another look at this:

Tovey 1941 and 1961 letters* (available in full text, both confirming the threat in milder or more tough words) ?
Pound May 28 1941 letter (not yet available in its full text..... , but very clearly referenced by Tovey May 34 answer} ?
*Roskill, Correlli-Barnett and Rhys-Jones historical judgement (all well convinced that the threat was actually there} ?
Barnes answer to Tovey despatches, ADM 205/10 papers and War Cabinet minutes ?

*McMullen testimony in the interview (with Adm Blake present when Tovey accounted the threat) and

*Sir Henry Leach interpretation of the threat in a book about his father ?

* all based upon Tovey's post war letters and thus collectively one source only.



McMullen was not under oath and did not give testimony but a mere recounting of his recollections.