The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

Mr Mills puts a footnote reference at the end of his account of the Court Martial story. What is his source, please?

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

I knew you were going to ask me that Sean, ... ... but I needed to be sure you have read the whole statements on it first and realized the differences with the previous declarations above ... here you go with the footnote 101 placed after Adm Tovey statement taken from L. Kennedy book Pursuit.

Mills_note_01.jpg (57.18 KiB) Viewed 2652 times

Now please tell us from where the following statements written on Mills book carefully scrutinized by Adm Henry Leach for his father biography are different compared to what we have read about it before :

Wills_book_court_martial_reasons.jpg (134.61 KiB) Viewed 2652 times

I am sure you will be able to realize the differences that are not minor between Kennedy court martial written reasons and Mills ones shared with Adm H. Leach, ... and this is the reason why I asked to have above L. Kennedy statements written in English to be produced in order to show the differences of the court martial requests to Adm Tovey for both Wake-Walker and Leach ... without the translation in Italian being a factor of discussion.

Surely Mills did not use Kennedy court martial reasons, ... but wrote something different and more precise, for each of the 2 involved Officers, ... and the source cannot be Kennedy book ...

Now I am sure you are also able to correlate those reasons with other subsequent occurred facts we already covered on other threads here in ...

Bye Antonio

[northcape]

"I am sure you will be able to realize the differences that are not minor between Kennedy court martial written reasons and Mills ones shared with Adm H. Leach,"

Well, exactly. The differences are not only not minor, but non-existing. The Mills excerpt states exactly what Kennedy writes, and he uses Kennedy as a reference for his excerpt.

No offense, but if it walks like a duck, and if it talks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Northcape,

here following in BOLD your " not existing " differences :

Sir Ludovic Kennedy from PURSUIT :

Pound informed Tovey that he wanted Wake-Walker and Jack Leach of the Prince of Wales brought to trial by court martial :

- for failing to engage Bismarck during the run south after the action with the Hood.

Colin McMullen on the Imperial War Museum interview on reel 3 :

Admiral Dudley-Pound First Sea Lord rang him up ( Adm Tovey ) and said that they were considering Court Martialing Admiral Wake-Walker and my Captain :

- for not immediately re-engaging the enemy.

Matthew B. Wills with Admiral Henry Leach cooperation and supervision :

Nevertheless, Pound’s efforts to court martial both Admiral Wake-Walker and Captain Leach were reprehensible. He proposed to Admiral Tovey that Wake-Walker and Leach be tried :

- for Leach’s decision to disengage from his battle with the Bismarck

and

- for Wake-Walker’s decision to shadow the Bismarck rather than re-engage.

Now if you are able to correlate the above reasons with the Naval Discipline Acts 1866 in place you will be able to realize the differences among them as far as charges / accusations :

Misconduct in the Presence of the Enemy.

2. Every Flag Officer, Captain, Commander or Officer commanding subject to this Act who upon Signal of Battle, or on Sight of a Ship of an Enemy which it may be his Duty to engage, shall not,

(1.) Use his utmost Exertion to bring his Ship into Action;
(2.) Or shall not during such Action, in his own Person and according to his Rank, encourage his inferior Officers and Men to fight courageously;
(3.) Or who shall surrender his Ship to the Enemy when capable of making a successful Defence, or who in Time of Action shall improperly withdraw from the Fight,

shall, if he has acted traitorously, suffer Death; if he has acted from Cowardice shall suffer Death, or such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned; and if he has acted from Negligence, or through other Default, he shall be dismissed from Her Majesty's Service, with or without Disgrace, or shall suffer such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned.

Taken From here ( Articles of War ) :

http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm

Now lets see if you are able to realize the difference between a duck and a dog.

I can anticipate you that every Officer can easily realize the big differences as far as charges and their relations with the Articles of War in place while in front of a Court Martial.

That is the reason why Admiral Henry Leach help to Matthew B Wills while writing his father biography was fundamental on realizing that the charges were more than one and were different for the 2 Officers involved.

Sir Ludovic Kennedy written reasons on PURSUIT are not even close to it.

Notice that the failure to re-engage definition on Adm H. Leach/M. Wills statement is not related to a particular time of event or situation like on Kennedy ( run south ) or McMullen ( immediately ) statements.
It applies to the overall conduct, from the Hood explosion ( immediate ) until he lost contact with the enemy ( sailing south ).

Bye Antonio

[A Raven]

I have to admire Mr Bonomi, who is attempting, and failing, to prove that black is white, while NOT having read some of the official source documents.

[paulcadogan]

Antonio,

With all respect, I really feel you're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill here.

Isn't it obvious that IF charges were to be laid against Leach it could only be for his conduct in the immediate period of his disengagement from Bismarck since, subsequent to this he came under orders from R-Adm Wake-Walker and therefore it was no longer his prerogative to decide to re-engage? Subsequent to the DS he followed WW's orders as he did V-Adm Holland's prior to Hood's destruction.

Additionally, the description of any event or issue, especially that stemming from an original verbal communication, by different people will be coloured by their own use of language. This is why stories passed along among persons can change tremendously over time as each adds their own (conscious or sub-conscious) "spin". The fact that no official documentation of the court martial debate has come to light, means that it is left wide open for interpretation by all those who have related or are relating it.

What it seems you are doing now amounts to trying to arrive at a precise factual conclusion from various streams of hearsay...

Paul

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Paul Cadogan,

I really do not know what you are all thinking I am going to do with all this, ... other than writing a summary of all we have discussed on this forum ... one day on a book.

Is there an Official documentation about the court martial request ? Not that I am aware of.

Are there evidence of an initiative on that direction from Adm Pound/Churchill ? YES.

I am not the first one that wrote about it, since we have posted above statements/interview about it that has not been written/released by me but by British Royal Navy well known Officers and by a son of one of the Officers involved, later becoming First Sea Lord too.

Do we have to believe something about it really happened ? Surely YES, because otherwise I do not think that a Royal Navy First Sea Lord will have compromised his father reputation in that way.
Captain J.C. Leach biography book is in fact an admission of what happened in reality and also a justification about it.

All I am doing is to correlate those evidence with other proven facts occurred immediately after that in light of the above events, may have a clear explanation.

It is in fact curious that with a potential court martial charge request for "... disengage from his battle with the Bismarck " than the PoW retreat time has been erroneously moved from " after a couple of minutes ", so 06.03 ... to 06.13 ... .

It is similarly curious that Norfolk was moved from 10 to 15 sea miles ( out of range ) once there were potential charges not only for the re-engagement failure later on the battle, ... but also for not having participated to the early action after the " Enemy in sight ! " being in condition to do so ... and that could have determined a very dangerous position for the Senior Officer involved, with potential charges about the sub-article 1; 2 and 3 of the misconduct in presence of the enemy.

But again, the PoW retreat time declaration error is not my finding, it has been the RN Admiralty to correct it, ... like it is not my finding the change of WW declarations from the 1st to the 2nd Hood board, ... it is written on the documents.
I only have the credit to have demonstrated that the document used to do it, so " The Plot " is incorrect, ... but at that point it was an easy catch for me, ... so obvious it was after having read the events.

In summary, do you all want to believe that all this was occurring because of the " fog of war " ? That they were all innocent errors ? You surely can and I am OK with it.

Personally, I am of the opinion that it has been a well coordinated series of actions to " cover up " what really happened and to enable the decoration of those Officers, in fact occurred on October 1941, like all the other ones involved into the sinking of the battleship Bismarck.

As I have explained above the majority of the above elements were all there long before I started putting them together and were not written by me, but to present them now in a logic way seems to be something that a lot of persons are not willing to take and accept.

Try to stop this to surface is an useless effort, ... it is all out there readable and hundred of persons now have read about it already, ... and they all have their own opinions about it now.

Bye Antonio

[paulcadogan]

Hi Antonio,

I think you misunderstood what I was writing about. I was specifically referring to your post about the differences between Kennedy's, McMullen's and Wills' accounts. Given the fact that they are ALL based on the same original source - i,e, Tovey - and are subject to how each of the three men supplied their own descriptions, based on their understanding following whichever chain of re-telling of the conversation they are in, and their own choice of words.

To explain:

Let's say.....Tovey has a conversation with Pound, he then, at some juncture relates the story to John Leach, Leach then tells his son Henry, then Henry, many years later, relates it to Matthew Wills.

But then Tovey, about 19 or 20 years after the event tells the story to McMullen, who then relates it in his interview.

With Kennedy, I'm not so sure what the chain of re-telling of the story is, as it's not clear in the book (correct me if I'm wrong).

In the end you WILL have differences in the way the story is told. That IS simply human nature.

So my point is not to disclaim the validity of the court martial conversation's occurrence, but to advise you not to over-analyse the ways different persons have related the story.

I've suggested to you in the past that it's all well and good to present the discrepancies we've all seen in the records and charts. It is not all well and good to present your interpretation the intentions behind it all as a fact. The evidence is all circumstantial, thought-provoking, but still circumstantial as there is nothing to prove that Tovey, Wake-Walker and Leach actually met and colluded together. You may, IMHO, present it as a "where there's smoke there's fire" possibility, and leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions on its merit or lack thereof. I assure you...that's what they'll do!

Paul

[Alberto Virtuani]

While Paul is, as usual, showing his balance and fairness, I'm really astonished (but not surprised... ) that after reading Wills pages (scrutinized by Adm.H.Leach himself, as per book's preface) and Tarrant's book Adm.H.Leach comment below Capt.Leach photo, many knowledgeable people still insist that the Court Martial request was surely just a "rumor" and never actually happened....

Yes, the "smoking gun" is missing (e.g. a written admiralty document stating it), but If Sir Henry Leach fully trusted it, then it means that the fact was taken for granted in the whole Royal Navy, and the son's need to defend his father, although very worth of praise, demonstrates that the conduct of Capt. Leach on May 24 was debatable and..... actually debated !

Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Paul Cadogan,

You wrote :

I think you misunderstood what I was writing about. I was specifically referring to your post about the differences between Kennedy's, McMullen's and Wills' accounts. Given the fact that they are ALL based on the same original source - i,e, Tovey - and are subject to how each of the three men supplied their own descriptions, based on their understanding following whichever chain of re-telling of the conversation they are in, and their own choice of words.

Sorry, and I have to thank for making your question more precise, so I have the opportunity to explain a bit better what is very clear to me, … but I am an Officer, … so I think that with no intention to offend anybody, … being an Officer makes it a little easier to understand what the differences are among the 3 statements we are comparing.

First of all I have to agree with you that most likely the source for all 3 was Admiral J. Tovey, either directly like for Colin McMullen, or indirectly for Sir. L. Kennedy and probably for Sir H. Leach thru his father in Singapore, although I think that after the war, being Adm Tovey a close friend of Capt J.C. Leach and his family, he surely had the occasion to talk with the future Adm Henry Leach personally.

Back on the differences on the 3 statements, I think I am not over analysing them but just trying to underline for the readers that are not in condition to understand the difference of the charges in relation to the Articles of War the Officers were subject to, in case of a court martial.

On this matter the explanation of Adm H. Leach are the most complete and precise, no doubts.

Now if I got correctly your point, you are suggesting me not to correlate the evidence we have about the court martial request discussion with other facts occurred on the same period, like the PoW retreat time change and the Norfolk distance enlargement, showed on the official documents and present those “ possible correlations “ being facts.

I do not think I have ever written that those connections are proved on official documents and consequently are facts, of course I cannot do that, since I have no evidence that Adm Tovey, RearAdm Wake-Walker and Capt Leach actually met and colluded together.

But being a logic mind, … I think anybody can easily think about it and as you are suggesting, … make his own opinion about it, … given the changes occurred on the reports and documents on the same period of time.

So basically I agree with you and your approach, which I make mine too : “ Where there's smoke, there's fire possibility ! “

@ Alberto Virtuani,

well, I think now it will be very hard for anybody to try to sustain that the court martial discussion between Adm Pound and Adm Tovey never occurred, given Sir Henry Leach clearly defined position about it.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

I knew you were going to ask me that Sean, ...

You surely didn't think I would let you get away with a bluff like that, did you?

Thank you for confirming that Mills so uncritically uses Kennedy as his primary source for the Court Martial story. As I observed previously, he, like so many other authors, does not even include the massive caveat on the veracity of the story, and thus its sole source, Tovey, which Sir Ludovic Kennedy did when he first revealed it. Since Mills' book is not a general naval history, nor yet another inexpert retelling (B&H) of the Bismarck action, but specifically a John Leach biography, one might think the author would have put a little more effort into confirming a significant occurrence in his subject's career. Does he reveal any stunning new evidence from Sir Henry after their communications? No. Is there a shocking confirmation of such action from John Leach's confidential file? No. Why would Sir Henry have anything new to contribute? Well because in his role as First Sea Lord, if anyone on Earth were in a position to dig up actual evidence that a Court Martial of his father for cowardice in the face of the enemy was ever even contemplated, he would be the man to find it. Was anything found? Apparently not.

I notice you have barely commented at all on Sir Henry's own autobiography In it is just another tired restating of Kennedy's account, together with clear evidence from the minutae of discussion between father and son in December 1941 that they had not the slightest suspicion of disciplinary action attached to Leach senior. Even having spent a significant amount of time in PoW in the company of Churchill and Pound who are supposed to have schemed to destroy his career, John Leach suspected nothing! Because they had actually decorated him for his exemplary conduct instead!

Paul C and Northcape have rightly exposed the emptiness of your attempt to divert attention with the demarcation of two separate Court martial threats for Leach and Wake-Walker. It perhaps spells out the lack of confidence Kennedy himself has in the whole Court Martial story, that he does not delineate the separate allegations. The Court Martial story has two different versions, one based on the phone call on arrival, the other on evaluation of reports after some weeks. Obviously Tovey's newly-remembered revelation lacked consistency.

So Sir Henry Leach, both in his autobiography and in Mill’s biography of his father merely repeats Tovey’s story, originating in 1961. Contrary to the Cape Spartivento incident, there was no Board of Enquiry (the precursor to a Court Martial) awaiting the ships on arrival. The BoE that did occur was a purely technical matter over Hood's destruction, and was never concerned with DS tactics.

Sir Winston Spencer Churchill was a controversial politician all his life, and even in his Greatest Hour, as the man who arguably “Saved the World”, by refusing to compromise with Adolf Hitler and Nazism, there were many who loathed him. Socialist politicians and their supporters today in the UK, have a deeply held folk history that he set machine guns against striking miners in the 1920s. No amount of actual evidence that they were not soldiers who were sent , but mounted police with batons, and that Churchill as Home Secretary countermanded orders originated elsewhere deploying troops, will dissuade them.

His mercurial switches from self-belief and enthusiasm to utter depression, his “Black Dog” periods, freely admitted by himself, his poor treatment of some subordinates over perceived poor performance are a matter of record. His inability not to interfere in military matters best left to those on the ground is legendary, but even those sorely tried by him often honour his leadership and determination.

This has nurtured a willingness amongst some to believe the worst of Winston at every opportunity and a ready cynicism about those who served him. Tovey’s “late-life” recollection of things he never remembered before, of a Court Martial proposal which is nowhere independently confirmed, was a seed falling into fertile ground. Pound, despite his failing health, often tempered Winston's extremes, but at this time it was Crete which dominated the PM's attention.

I believe after the controversial "intentions" message to W-W a later one was sent by the Admiralty congratulating him on his actions. Does anyone have the text?

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello verybody,

@ Wadinga,

so now you have realized that Henry Leach did talk with his father about Bismarck and the Denmark Strait in Singapore while having a dinner alone with him on board the HMS Prince of Wales.

Did you also realize the difference between Kennedy charges and the ones Adm Henry Leach authorized Wills to write on his father biography book :

Nevertheless, Pound’s efforts to court martial both Admiral Wake-Walker and Captain Leach were reprehensible.

He proposed to Admiral Tovey that Wake-Walker and Leach be tried :

- for Leach’s decision to disengage from his battle with the Bismarck

and
- for Wake-Walker’s decision to shadow the Bismarck rather than re-engage.

Did you realize that according to the charges Adm Henry Leach declared being requested to Adm Tovey, ... Adm Pound was most likely thinking to propose an inquiry/court martial for:

1) Capt J.C. Leach -> For misconduct in the Presence of the Enemy; because in Time of Action improperly withdrew from the Fight.

2) RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker -> For misconduct in the Presence of the Enemy; did not use his utmost Exertion to bring his Ship( s) into Action; did not during such Action, in his own Person and according to his Rank, encourage his inferior Officers and Men to fight courageously; did in Time of Action improperly withdrew from the Fight.

Would you agree now that it is a very curious set of combinations that those have been exactly the area of some documents and declarations progressive modifications occurred on the early days of June 1941.

In fact the 06.03 versus the 06.13 modification was related to the single potential charge on Capt J.C Leach, ... while the change from 10 to 15 sea miles of Norfolk was directly connected to the 3 potential charges that could have been moved toward RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker.

We know the court martial did not happen and it was probably not recorded anywhere that Adm Pound asked about it to Adm Tovey, ... but still ... what a coincidence ...

Remember : “ Where there's smoke, there's fire possibility ! “ ... and we have lot of smoke here ...

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Tovey stated (apparently) that he had a telephone conversation with Pound regarding an inquiry/CM. No where is it stated/implied/inferred that anyone ever informed W-W and/or Leach about the same.

[RF]

We know the court martial did not happen and it was probably not recorded anywhere that Adm Pound asked about it to Adm Tovey, ... but still ... what a coincidence ...

Remember : “ Where there's smoke, there's fire possibility ! “ ... and we have lot of smoke here ...

Bye Antonio

It is still assumption and conjecture on your part. These details do not constitute any proof of such charges you wish to prefer.

[dunmunro]

Hello verybody,

@ Wadinga,

so now you have realized that Henry Leach did talk with his father about Bismarck and the Denmark Strait in Singapore while having a dinner alone with him on board the HMS Prince of Wales.

Did you also realize the difference between Kennedy charges and the ones Adm Henry Leach authorized Wills to write on his father biography book :

Nevertheless, Pound’s efforts to court martial both Admiral Wake-Walker and Captain Leach were reprehensible.

He proposed to Admiral Tovey that Wake-Walker and Leach be tried :

- for Leach’s decision to disengage from his battle with the Bismarck

and
- for Wake-Walker’s decision to shadow the Bismarck rather than re-engage.

Did you realize that according to the charges Adm Henry Leach declared being requested to Adm Tovey, ... Adm Pound was most likely thinking to propose an inquiry/court martial for:

1) Capt J.C. Leach -> For misconduct in the Presence of the Enemy; because in Time of Action improperly withdrew from the Fight.

2) RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker -> For misconduct in the Presence of the Enemy; did not use his utmost Exertion to bring his Ship( s) into Action; did not during such Action, in his own Person and according to his Rank, encourage his inferior Officers and Men to fight courageously; did in Time of Action improperly withdrew from the Fight.

Would you agree now that it is a very curious set of combinations that those have been exactly the area of some documents and declarations progressive modifications occurred on the early days of June 1941.

In fact the 06.03 versus the 06.13 modification was related to the single potential charge on Capt J.C Leach, ... while the change from 10 to 15 sea miles of Norfolk was directly connected to the 3 potential charges that could have been moved toward RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker.

We know the court martial did not happen and it was probably not recorded anywhere that Adm Pound asked about it to Adm Tovey, ... but still ... what a coincidence ...

Remember : “ Where there's smoke, there's fire possibility ! “ ... and we have lot of smoke here ...

Bye Antonio

Any possibility of an inquiry/CM seems to have vanished after Tovey's supposed phone conversation with Pound. After that there was no reason for Tovey, W-W or Leach to do anything other than report the facts, and even with an inquiry or C-M hanging over their heads any clumsy attempt to alter documents or lie during other inquiries would only confirm their guilt at the actual inquiry or CM.


The timing for the PoW disengagement is supported by the war diaries (made on the spot) of the ships involved.

There never was any "10 sea mile" range from Norfolk to Bismarck during the morning the 24th. ~15nm is consistent with the ranges recorded by Norfolk's GO via Norfolk's DCT.