Cover up synopsis

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Mr. Cag,
sorry for not answering before, but we were diverted from the main discussion .....my 2 cents opinion re. your questions:

1) Tovey's May 30 report (I refer here just to points 7 and 8 as posted by Antonio at pag.34 in this same thread) is quite correct and does not contain any shameful intentional "embellishment" . Minor errors are present such as:

• a) the turn to open arc (the first happened at 5:55 and the second was never executed)
  b) Bismarck secondary armament was already firing at PoW before Hood sank
  c) water was coming in aft after the decision to disengage (as per damage report, but anyway within 2 minutes)
  d) the 2 minutes (and damages) before the decision to disengage are overestimated (as per PoW map the ship was turning away at 6:01:30, thus the turn was ordered just after 6:01:00 within 1 minute)
  e) Leach decision to "temporarily" break off action (why Tovey inserted the word temporarily ? )

All these above errors can still be considered (on May 30) "innocent" ones as Tovey had not yet available all the reports, with the exception of the e) one, where he added the word "temporarily" not present in Leach message on May 27 (the one that should have been the main base for the CiC May 30 report and that was posted by Antonio at pag.29 of this thread.).....

In any case, bottom line, I agree that May 30 report is much more correct than point 19.


2) I agree that we cannot know and I accept that probably the Admiralty had available all the documents and not only Tovey's despatch. I'm also afraid (my opinion) that they had actually read and understood all the other documents.....
However, in their answer they stated clearly that they based their approval of PoW retreat based on Tovey's version.....

Admiralty_Point_13_V2.jpg (35.19 KiB) Viewed 1823 times

Bottom line, we cannot make any conclusion based on speculations about which other document were taken into account and which were not. We know only that their formal position was based on Tovey's despatches , where the key point 19 for the damages suffered is totally (and intentionally at that date) incorrect, as we have at long discussed.

Bye, Alberto

[alecsandros]

Making smoke doesn't involve some irreversible process that excluded the possibility that Leach would have resumed the action at longer range.
.

I don't think so. Making smoke means putting own gunnery at rest , as the smoke would hinder visibility of own gunners as well as the enemy's.
Thus making smoke means breaking off the action.

[Cag]

Hi All

Hi Alberto that is entirely ok I understand fully no problem at all I respect your opinion.

I agree that the 30th May message can be viewed as mistaken, whether you perceive only 2 hits or 4 hits before any decision it makes no difference, the most severe hits being the compass platform hit and the hacs tower were most probably taken prior to the disengagement decision. It actually just adds to the number of mistakes made in all evidence and reports made and allowance should be made.

The messages from PoW have been discussed, the first is from 08.00 on the 24th which is disputed as we know due to Leach signalling information on survivors that were not even as of yet rescued and no official record of a signal on that date at that time from PoW is to be found only in Wellings book which has other errors.

The second message is understandable as in 3 guns in action, as we know there would have been 3 and 2 guns salvos being fired with Y turret wooded at the time period described.

The third message is understandable and amplifies the first as per guns in action, Y turret is wooded and with A turret missing one gun 5 guns in total were available for action at that point, it seems logical and makes sense.

Again these are interpritations not facts for or against and we must be very careful not to allow an opinion to formulate or influence the facts.

I also agree that we do not know what evidence was available to their Lordships, but if we do not know we cannot provide nor restrict any evidence to suit our purposes. As part of that if we solely use Tovey's despatch again we can not restrict what points they used and what was meant by the phrase 'fully set out' simply to suit our own purpose.

Tovey's despatch is part of adm 234/509 and together with 234/510 fully sets out everything upon which a decision could be made. We do not know if this is the case which logically means both options are still a viable proposition.

Parts of adm 234/509 as well as other items from other sources are included in Tovey's despatch which fully sets out the circumstances of the actions taken. If their Lordships did not restrict themselves to which parts of a despatch they used what right have we to do so?

We are again stating opinion as fact. Until something is proven it is speculation and opinion, not the undiscovered truth or a proven fact. Simply linking things and stating 'there you go' does not constitute the truth because as you correctly state we do not know.

Yes point 13 mentions damages, but not in what context it considers those damages. Point 13 does not mention a jammed turret, it does not mention point 19, it states that the circumstances were fully set out in Tovey's despatch. It does not restrict a itself as to where but tells you that everything relevant was considered. Otherwise it would not have said 'fully' but restricted itself to certain points or paragraphs and it does not.

Please do not feel that I am saying your opinion is wrong, nor that I am saying that you're opinion is not valid, or I am saying you haven't the right to express your opinion. If you believe that Leach and Wake-Walker should have faced courts martial I accept that. If you believe that Leach, Wake-Walker, Tovey, Pound, Phillips, Alexander, Churchill and their Lordships were complicit in a grand cover up I accept that. All I am saying is that it is still a belief and not a fact.

We can not take whatever we individually believe point 19 to be and then link it to whatever we individually believe point 13 to be and call it fact when we do not know for sure what was known used believed misinterpreted etc etc etc by those who actually did the decisions.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Mr. Cag,
thanks for your usual fairness. I do respect your personal opinion that point 19 and 13 are not clear enough to be strictly linked together and therefore used as proof.

From my side, I still see them clear enough to conclude that the embellishment was surely done (Tovey despatches with the intentionally incorrect point 19) and that the Admiralty accepted this version of facts (point 13).


Bye, Alberto

[Cag]

Hi All

That's ok Alberto thank you. I respect your opinion and understand fully your point of view.

I'm sure the cover up synopsis debate is not over and there are plenty of things to be discussed.

Best wishes
Cag.

[dunmunro]

Making smoke doesn't involve some irreversible process that excluded the possibility that Leach would have resumed the action at longer range.
.

I don't think so. Making smoke means putting own gunnery at rest , as the smoke would hinder visibility of own gunners as well as the enemy's.
Thus making smoke means breaking off the action.

The forward turret RFs and the forward FC director would be clear of the smoke, but turning smoke on and off is not a lengthy or complex task.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Dunmunro wrote: "Making smoke doesn't involve some irreversible process that excluded the possibility that Leach would have resumed the action at longer range. "

Hi Duncan,
this possibility is categorically excluded by Leach himself: he decided to "break off action and consolidate position", NOT to re-engage, for all the "circumstances" he had already listed:

Point22_1.jpg (12.29 KiB) Viewed 1743 times

The word "temporarily" related to the disengagement was first added by Tovey in his message on May 30, based on ....nothing, and repeated in the shameful point 19 of the despatches, that was intentionally incorrectly written to embellish the whole story.....


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ All,

I think Alberto has correctly pointed out, ... with his correct analysis of the word " temporarily " appearance on the PoW disengagement description, ... the events modification logic/timing of the " Cover Up " occurred.

After the first Official communications, ... even when still at sea on the way back home as Graham Rhys-Jones correctly described on his book, the exchange of information started been modified, ... altered, ... reshaped, ... key words have been added, ... justifications provided.

From Graham Rhys-Jones book at page 225 :

There had been signs almost from the beginning that the Admiralty was going to judge the conduct of its admirals and captains by very exacting and very traditional standards.

Everybody must keep in mind that for the Royal Navy Officers, the standards were the Articles of War :

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

Following this logic one can immediately realize why on Capt Leach May 27th, 1941 radio message the word " temporarily " is not mentioned, ... but on Adm Tovey May 30th, 1941 first report it first appears.

As McMullen told us on his IWM interview Adm Tovey was immediately noticed about the inquiry request by Adm Pound once in the harbor, and consequently some more justifications had to be provided.

Consequently on the reports to Adm Tovey from Capt Leach and RearAdm Wake-Walker we see some new data being declared for the first time, lets point out the main 3 ones :

- the around 15 sea miles distance for Norfolk and Suffolk on RearAdm Wake-Walker report of June 5th, 1941 at point 9.

- the 06.13 time for PoW disengagement, first written on Wake-Walker report of June 5th, 1941 at points 10 and 11.

- the PoW Y turret jamming event, after the turn away, first written on Capt Leach report of June 4th, 1941.

As we can easily realize the reaction to the inquiry potential request was very fast and the initial " Cover Up" actions started at once, ... just a matter of few days, ... as we can see, ... and the " main actions " were already is place.

Based on the above written declarations by Capt Leach and RearAdm Wake-Walker, ... on July 5th,1941 we had Adm Tovey Official dispatches release and we can read how " astutely " he played with those new set of data made available to him.

- The first above statement was used to create the point 17 on the Tovey's dispatches and overcome Adm Blake minute of the Hood First board placing the Norfolk at 11 sea miles from the enemy at 06.00. The Hood second board and " The Plot " will close the case after, ... in August 1941, ... for this one.

- The second point was used on Tovey's dispatches to overcome his own initial " 2 minutes " description for PoW engagement alone before the turn away on his own May 30th first document, ... based on Capt Leach May 27th radio message. This modification being necessary to sustain also the third point to come.

- The third point about the PoW Y turret jamming event was moved from after the turn away as declared by Capt Leach report, before the turn away and inside the damages sustained by PoW before the turn away order was released, ... and in this way provided a much more solid reason ( most likely the only valid reason ) for a still " temporarily " disengagement action on going to be evaluated, ... becoming definitive after having realized that Y turret was jammed.

Of course all the above events description being FALSE and intentionally created on purpose, just to be in condition to write a statement like the dispatches point 17, ... and this following one, ... from Adm Tovey dispatches at point 19 :

The Commanding Officer considered it expedient temporarily to break off the action and, at 0613, turned away under smoke.

Which everybody now must compare to Adm Tovey previous one on May 30th, 1941 first report :

Within two minutes she had been hit on the compass Platform and aft, both 5.25 directors were out of action and water was coming in aft. The Commanding Officer considered it expedient temporarily to break off the action.

If one now removes the word " temporarily " from the second statement of May 30th,1941, will obtain the correct statement that the C in C of the Home Fleet should have used for his Official dispatches.

But it did not happen, and instead it was the intentionally modified second " Tovey's version " that " went to the printers " and was positively commented by the Royal Navy Admiralty board on September 1941, ... as Graham Rhys-Jones correctly underlined on his book.

As Alberto correctly pointed out, ... ... Capt Leach never considered " temporary " is decision to break off the action, and Y turret surely jammed after his order to disengage, as everybody can verify on his radio messages and report.

You can call this shameful series of progressive modification of the data and the events on their correct sequence and timing the way you like it better ... this is the " Cover Up ".

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All

13. Their Lordships desire to express the view that the action of HMS PoW in breaking off the action with Bismarck after being damaged in the engagement was entirely correct having regard to the circumstances of the case which are fully set out in the C in C Home Fleet despatch.

The key phrases are the 'circumstances of the case' and 'fully set out'. Not circumstances of the case in point 19, not circumstances of the case as regards damages caused. The case is whether or not Leach was correct in breaking off the action. The evidence that has been fully set out in the despatch includes point 19 but is not restricted solely to point 19.

If their Lordships ignored prima facie evidence supplied by the man who's decision is after all what the case is fundementally about it would be as illogical as a leader who's premis is to bury bad news with good receiving bad news then good and then creating their own bad news only to be complicit in a cover up to bury it.

If we logically look at this we have an accusation that Churchill and the Admiralty were complicit in a cover up, if this is the case how can point 19 be shameful if it is done with the blessing of these men? After all if it is done with their complicity are they not all shameful?

Again we all have an opinion which we are all entitled to being promoted as fact. But we cannot promote something as a fact when we are not privy to the actual facts behind the case (whether things are intentional or mistakes or whether things are modifications to create a lie or as a result of new evidence from new sources) as at that point anything we think or believe is just that a thought or a belief and if we want the truth rather than something that could conceivably be classed as fiction we must be careful to make use facts not assumptions.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Cag wrote: "If we logically look at this we have an accusation that Churchill and the Admiralty were complicit in a cover up, if this is the case how can point 19 be shameful if it is done with the blessing of these men? After all if it is done with their complicity are they not all shameful?"

Hi Mr.Cag,
you are right, logically looking at all this, Churchill and the Admiralty were complicit in this embellishment of the story, but as you said, we cannot prove it beyond any doubt.

What we know for sure is that their Lordships wrote themselves that they approved Leach decision to break off action, after being damaged, based on Tovey's despatches. All points of the despatches are surely relevant, but as the damages are detailed at point 19 only (in a totally wrong and misleading way), we can easily say that point 19 is shameful (referring to the historical truth, being intentionally and astutely incorrect), whether the embellishment was instigated by Churchill (my personal opinion), or by the Admiralty (also possible), or it was Tovey's own product (I don't believe he would have exposed himself writing all this, without knowing that it was going to be blessed anyway without any serious scrutiny).


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

you correctly wrote :

If we logically look at this we have an accusation that Churchill and the Admiralty were complicit in a cover up, if this is the case how can point 19 be shameful if it is done with the blessing of these men ? After all if it is done with their complicity are they not all shameful ?

YES, I agree with you. On May 1941 it was the right thing to do, even if shameful, like many political things are.
Analyzed 75 years after, we can have a different way to evaluate what was done by ALL of them, ... someone more involved, ... more responsible and shameful then the others ... as we can easily realize by reading what has been done and by whom.

you commented :

Again we all have an opinion which we are all entitled to being promoted as fact. But we cannot promote something as a fact when we are not privy to the actual facts behind the case (whether things are intentional or mistakes or whether things are modifications to create a lie or as a result of new evidence from new sources) as at that point anything we think or believe is just that a thought or a belief and if we want the truth rather than something that could conceivably be classed as fiction we must be careful to make use facts not assumptions.

We can have different opinions, and I will respect everybody opinion, on the way to evaluate all this.

We cannot refute that the evidence above provided are solid facts, written into the Official documents properly dated and signed.
We cannote refute that some of those data were intentionally incorrectly provided in order to change the reality as I showed you above, ... point by point and event by event.

Again, after having verified and accepted all those intentional modifications occurred, I can hardly see anyone able to avoid to admit those being real evidence and irrefutable facts.
After having realized those facts, ... we can still read them the way we like to, ... like you are doing, ... and I have no problems with it.

Moving into your way to read the Admiralty Board minute point 13, you underlined 2 statements, ... very important, ... but those 2 statements follows a previous one more important and only to be correlated to the intentionally incorrectly written point 19 submitted on his own desptaches by AdmTovey.

I underline them for you so you can follow the correct logic sequence.

This is the point 13 first part as originally written ( including the corrections ) by Sir James Barnes :

13. Their Lordships desire to express their ( unanimous opinion - CANCELLED ) view ( instead of : unanimous opinion ) that the action of H.M.S.Prince of Wales in breacking off action with Bismarck after being damaged in the engagement was entirely correct having regard to the circumstances of the case which are fully set out in the Commander in Chief, Home Fleet’s despacth.
( They wish to record – CANCELLED ) It is ( instead of : They wish to record ) their opinion that the extremely difficult decision called for accurate judgment and very high courage on the part of her Commanding Officer.

Just as Alberto above correctly underlined to you, ... the damages sustained during the engagement as well as the engagement duration are only written on point 19, ... which is FALSE and intentionally " astutely " written in that way by Adm Tovey as I showed you above, ... both for the engagement duration until 06.13 as well as for the damages listed, which include the Y turret jamming event before the ordered turn away by Capt Leach.

In summary I agree with Alberto :

... logically looking at all this, Churchill and the Admiralty were complicit in the embellishment of the story, but as you said, we cannot prove it beyond any doubt.

The fact that no one can prove it in a court of justice, ... and nobody wants to do that 75 years after those events, ... does not mean that we have no real available evidence and facts of what has been done and by whom, ... since we do have many.

We only want to write history in the correct way, ... and we will, ... finally, ...

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All

I understand your points but may I point something out.

Point 1 the still disputed reasons as to why Wake-Walkers distance evidence changed. Blake's inquiry was disputed by the Admiralty itself. Blake's himself said that pieces of evidence were subject to correction. In your original re-evaluation, and in my attempted one, of the battle map the distance between Norfolk and Hood was estimated at around 12 nm so Wake-Walker was correct in adjusting the distance? Can the idea that it was done deliberately as part of a cover up beyond reasonable doubt be proven?

Looking at references I've used at 05.37 05.41 05.43 05.44 05.50 and 3 references at 05.53 it's getting closer to 13 to 14nm. But this can be disputed therefore I cannot declare it a fact. Your opinion is valid but others still dispute it therefore you cannot declare it as fact.

Point 2 the still disputed facts surrounding the incorrect timing in Tovey's despatch. Have we proven beyond resonable doubt that Tovey actually wrote it? Have we proven beyond reasonable doubt that the timing of 06.13 was not a mistake or an incorrect belief that the mean of the 3 ships logs for withdrawal was correct? Is the opinion that this was deliberate falsification still disputed?

Point 3 do we have proof beyond reasonable doubt that their Lordships Churchill and Pound were complicit in a cover up? Is this also still disputed?

You have to honest and decide if you have answered these points beyond any reasonable doubt. In my opinion they are still being disputed, one cannot declare them as fact simply because it suits a preconceived theory. The facts you are using to prove a disputed theory of a cover up are themselves disputed. You cannot simply dismiss prima facie evidence from the 'acussed' because it is not contained in point 19 as this would not be within the remit of being fully set out in a despatch.

Please believe me in my opinion I am an idiot. I am not of the calibre of others that post on this forum. But if I, a self confessed idiot, can spot this what will the academics do when they read your book? I respect your work Antonio and do not want to see that happen.

Your opinion and theory are valid but not yet proven.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
Best wishes
Cag.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

I see your points and I think I need to be more precise about what I consider an irrefutable fact well proven beyond any reasonable doubt versus what can be and probably will always be argument of discussions and different opinions.

Point 1 : No doubts First Blake board placed Norfolk at 11 sea miles from the enemy at 06.00, no doubts Wake-Walker signed it, no doubts WW wrote 5 days later on his report he was at 15 sea miles from the enemy and no doubts Adm Tovey wrote " astutely " around 15 sea miles on point 17 on his dispatches on July 1941 without providing the exact time for that distance measurement. No doubts Hood Second board thru " The Plot " corrected the Norfolk distance to 15 sea miles from Hood at 06.00 on August 1941. Those are ALL facts.

We can still have different opinions and doubts about the real distance of Norfolk from the enemy at various times and we are trying to better realize it.
This will not change what happened about it being well documented Official facts as I wrote above.

Point 2A : The 06.13 time for the PoW turn away was first written by RearAdmiral Wake-Walker on his report at point 10, this is a fact. Adm Tovey probably took it fromthere and used it on his despatches at point 19, this is another fact. No typo and no errors.
The fact that this time was incorrect was certified by the Admiralty on 1948.
Both were intentionally written statements on Officially signed documents submitted to their superiors, this is a fact.

Unless you are thinking to tell me that those 2 Officers were not able to undestand what they were writing, ... and signing, ... those will remain 2 irrefutable facts.

Point 2B : The moving into the damages list occurred before the PoW turn away of the Y turret jamming event from after the PoW turn away as declared by Capt Leach on his written report to before the PoW turn away event, ... is another irrefutable fact done by AdmTovey on his point 19 dispatches and no one can dispute it was done intentionally.

Like above, unless you are thinking to tell me that this Officer was not able to undestand what he was writing, ... and signing, ... this will remain an irrefutable fact.


Point 3 : This is obviously the hardest point to demosntrate, since everything before was not done thru Official documents and only the closure of it was done thru the Admiralty Board minute on September 10th,1941.

Here the only think I can tell you is that having received ALL the previous radio messages and Official communications, having at hand all the various reports and maps, ... only being complicit in those events description modification would have enabled a positive comment by the Admiralty Board.

Again, unless you are going to tell me that even in this case we were facing persons that were not capable of understanding what their were reading, commenting and signing.


Honestly I have all I need and I am convinced about my work, ... call it a " Cover Up " ... an " embellishment " ... a " sugar coating " ... or a " can of worm " ... a series of unfortunate " innocent errors " ... which are the definitions of those events that I have read thru the years, ... I will use it for my work about this battle one day.

Again, I have to underline once again that unfortunately it will be not my " scoop " to use a journalistic therminology, ... because Graham Rhys-Jones already drafted pretty well what happened on his book, ... but I am sure that the many details and reference I will be able to provide to those events will be interesting for many persons reading thru it.

You are as good as everybody else, ... including me, ... no genius and no idiots here in.
We are only exchanging opinions about a 75 years old naval battle, ... do not forget about it.

Respect, education, fairness ... as the forum rules dictate, ... and you are among the best respecting it, ... that is why I like to exchange my opinions with you.

Lets concentrate on the map, ... here I do not think we need to spend more ink, ... over there a lot to do, ... and any help is welcome, ... of course, ...

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All

Thanks for the kind words Antonio, I still do believe that yourself and others are more experienced and knowledgeable than myself.

I agree with your listing of those facts it is just as regards our interpretation of them that is my concern.

I'm afraid I have not been able to find Wake-Walkers report and have not seen point 10. Do you have a adm reference for that or a date I can follow in the archives?

Best wishes
Cag.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

I agree with you, ... and that is perfectly ok with me of course.

Here what you asked me from the ADM 234 - 509 at page 88 :

856_189_9_to_12.jpg (119.67 KiB) Viewed 1665 times

This is the document number for RearAdm W.F.Wake-Walker report to Adm Tovey referencing the above points.

856_189_1st_cruiser_squadron.jpg (28.81 KiB) Viewed 1665 times

I am sure you will immediately notice :

1) At point 9 the declared distances of Suffolk and Norfolk before and during the action, especially the 15 sea miles on bearing 230° from Hood when she blew up. Only few days before he was signing to the Hood First board a 20.000 yards distance ( 10 sea miles ) from Hood on that moment

2) At point 10 the time of the PoW turn away being declared 06.13 just before the smoke being released from PoW

3) At point 11 the engagement description subsequent to the 06.13 PoW turn away with the enemy keep on firing to her

Now you can see from where Adm Tovey took some of the incorrect inputs he " astutely " used after to write his own dispatches later on.

The other one was the Y turret jamming, ... from Capt J.C. Leach report, ... but I must say clearly that in that case Capt. J.C. Leach did not offer any evident " intentional help " like we can see here above very evidently.
Capt Leach report is correctly written regarding the Y turret jamming event occurrence.

In that case it was Adm Tovey to take it from that report and move it before the 06.13 turn away time provided above ... into the damages list before the turn away at 06.13

Bye Antonio