The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "There is no evidence all that stuff about a "flying enemy" was not superceded by King's Regs and Admiralty Orders long before 1941, but sometime after 1915"

So now it's me who should counter Mr.Wadinga pure speculation that the 1866 "Articles of War" for "misconduct in the presence of the enemy" (we are not interested in buggery, are we ?) were in some way modified sometimes after 1915 but not until 1913....

If Mr.Wadinga (or his bully impolite supporter) has a version of the "Articles of War" n.2,3,4,and 5, modified in any way between 1866 and 1941, he can post them (Good luck for this search !), but as they were not modified in their substance (just because, unfortunately for Leach, Wake-Walker and their supporters, running away from an enemy or avoiding to engage an enemy was not a nice thing to do, in 1600 as well as in 1941), please let's stay to FACTS not to Mr.Wadinga hopes and suppositions....


Relevant "articles" 2,3,4 and 5 in force in 1941 are here http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm and nobody has posted anything that can deny them, not even in their wording, not speaking of their timeless substance.

Leach and Wake-Walker would have been charged against article 2 and 3, if a cover-up and a different version of their poor story had not been preferred (for good wartime reasons, due to Bismarck final defeat) to a well deserved Court Martial.



Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Were any RN commanding officers CMed for"misconduct in the presence of the enemy" In WW2?

[HMSVF]

Leach and Wake-Walker would have been charged against article 2 and 3, if a cover-up and a different version of their poor story had not been preferred (for good wartime reasons, due to Bismarck final defeat) to a well deserved Court Martial.

Please feel free to post any evidence ...

If there is one in the chamber, it must be getting rusty...

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

So all you have is your insistence they must have been in force because you say so. If you, or is it Antonio, say there would have been a charge in 1941 you have to prove the charge still existed then, not witter on about 1915. You said "J'Accuse", therefore you have the responsibility to prove the charge as stated existed. No actual evidence apart from a website that leaves out the documented changes after 1866, which have been proved by reference to Parliamentary proceedings.

Here is a list of WW II court martials www.godfreydykes.info/WW2%20BRITISH%20N ... ARTIAL.htm 2nd bit 20NAVAL%20COURTS%20MARTIAL.htm [glue it together] maybe there is something there, however it's not obvious.

But when you are conjuring up imaginary charges which were never actually brought, over imaginary infractions that never actually happened, it doesn't really matter whether anything similar actually happened - you can just say they were all obviously hushed up by the perfidious Royal Navy.


This Conspiracy theory stuff is really easy, isn't it? Providing you don't give a damn about the truth, or the memory of those you defame.


All the best

wadinga

[dunmunro]

Were any RN commanding officers CMed for"misconduct in the presence of the enemy" In WW2?

Thanks to Wadinga and:

http://www.godfreydykes.info/WW2%20BRIT ... ARTIAL.htm

It seems the answer is no. There were several related to allowing one of HM ships to be lost however. Despite's DP's claimed proclivity for CM and BofIs, there wasn't all that many, and none without reasonable cause, IMHO

[northcape]

Leach and Wake-Walker would have been charged against article 2 and 3, if a cover-up and a different version of their poor story had not been preferred (for good wartime reasons, due to Bismarck final defeat) to a well deserved Court Martial.

Bye, Alberto

Oho - now the ill-informed Italian armchair officer numero duo is giving an ultimative judgement on what has happened 75 years ago, on the ocean, in a battle, in the real world. And he is doing right from his computer screen, what a brave and modest move indeed.

Can it get any more ridiculous?

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "So all you have is your insistence they must have been in force because you say so"

I have posted these supporting evidences saying that the NDA 1866 version was still the reference for disciplinary matters in 1941:
Davies: http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA.htm (thanks to Herr Nilsson)
Sears: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... de=ywar20&
while Mr.Wadinga has provided NOTHING to prove that the "Articles of War" n.2,3,4 and 5 were ever modified between 1866 and 1941, except his speculation and the implicit support of some faithful guard dogs....

Until he will be UNABLE to post the same "Articles" (2,3,4 and 5) modifications from 1866 to 1941 (therefore, forever), the proven FACT is that these would have been the "misconduct in the presence of the enemy" relevant articles for Leach and Wake-Walker (as they were for Troubridge), had not a "cover-up" been preferred.


Possibly, to avoid to admit we were right since the beginning, the "deniers" (nobody among them ever wearing an officer uniform ) would even prefer to say that between 1915 and 1941 the Royal Navy modified the "Articles of War" to allow to decorate "timid" sailors, but this is not the case, unluckily for them and luckily for the Royal Navy, in which honor and courage were still appreciated in 1941 as well as today.



Bye, Alberto


P.S. BTW almost the same misconduct "Articles of War" (n.2,3,4 and 5) were still in force in the Naval Discipline Act from 1957, because the "Misconduct in the presence of the enemy" (1866) or "Misconduct in action and assistance to enemy" (1957) does not change a lot through centuries, as any officer knows quite well....(http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1957.htm#A2) Therefore, no major change between 1866 and 1941, for sure.... to the scorn of the deniers....

[pgollin]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "So all you have is your insistence they must have been in force because you say so"

I have posted these supporting evidences saying that the NDA 1866 version was still the reference for disciplinary matters in 1941: ........

....... Possibly, to avoid to admit we were right since the beginning, the "deniers" (nobody among them ever wearing an officer uniform ) would even prefer to say that between 1915 and 1941 the Royal Navy modified the "Articles of War" to allow to decorate "timid" sailors, but this is not the case, unluckily for them and luckily for the Royal Navy, in which honor and courage were still appreciated in 1941 as well as today.

Bye, Alberto ......

Oh dear, you're still doing your evasion instead of answering rubbish.

First, you AGAIN miss the fact that it is the Kings Regulations that are important.

Then, you avoid the fact that you still haven't found the right set of King's Regulations that were actually in force at the time of the DS Action.

You insist on throwing your credibility out of the window at every opportunity.

.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

this petulant insulting hooligan, unworthy to write on this forum due to the extremely poor education he received (e.g. http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... iot#p54913), is still insisting that his King's Regulations can contain the "misconduct in the presence of the enemy" charges for the two timid officers at DS, despite the posted evidence that he is (as usual ) wrong....

He is unable to substantiate with an evidence what he says and he even adds as excuse that we need to loose time to get irrelevant procedure details in the King's Regs, while we don't need them.
Once forever, we are NOT interested at all in details about British legislation, powers, CM / BofI procedures,Judges and Advocates etc. but ONLY to the disciplinary rules in force in 1941, that for "misconduct" are NOT included in his favorite King's Regs but ONLY in the NDA 1866, Part I, "Articles of War" (http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm).

In any case, as NDA 1957 still contains the same "articles of war" n.2,3,4 and 5 (http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1957.htm#A2), we can live without his 1941 King's Regs, at least if he is unable to prove how they "overwrote" the NDA during the period between 1915 and 1957..... and he is NOT....Case is closed once more with the defeat of "deniers at any cost"....


Bye, Alberto

[northcape]

Possibly, to avoid to admit we were right since the beginning, the "deniers" (nobody among them ever wearing an officer uniform )

It is almost impossible to believe that you have served, and even more impossible to believe that you have served as an officer. If so, you put a lot of shame on your military. What kind of military service would deal with such clownish and immature behavior like A&A have expressed over the last months and years?

[HMSVF]

Hello everybody,

this petulant insulting hooligan, unworthy to write on this forum due to the extremely poor education he received (e.g. http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... iot#p54913), is still insisting that his King's Regulations can contain the "misconduct in the presence of the enemy" charges for the two timid officers at DS, despite the posted evidence that he is (as usual ) wrong....

He is unable to substantiate with an evidence what he says and he even adds as excuse that we need to loose time to get irrelevant procedure details in the King's Regs, while we don't need them.
Once forever, we are NOT interested at all in details about British legislation, powers, CM / BofI procedures,Judges and Advocates etc. but ONLY to the disciplinary rules in force in 1941, that for "misconduct" are NOT included in his favorite King's Regs but ONLY in the NDA 1866, Part I, "Articles of War" (http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm).

In any case, as NDA 1957 still contains the same "articles of war" n.2,3,4 and 5 (http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1957.htm#A2), we can live without his 1941 King's Regs, at least if he is unable to prove how they "overwrote" the NDA during the period between 1915 and 1957..... and he is NOT....Case is closed once more with the defeat of "deniers at any cost"....


Bye, Alberto

Once forever, we are NOT interested at all in details about British legislation, powers, CM / BofI procedures,Judges and Advocates etc. but ONLY to the disciplinary rules in force in 1941,

Wow.

Trying to force a legal POV without the legislation, powers ,procedures, precedent or persons who run the military judiciary.

Certainly different.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

talking about " immature behavior ", .. we have on this and some other threads the most clear example on how an " hooligan/ Deniers " side taken blind and stubborn approach can define the writings of some persons with " doubtful personality ".

We are talking " poor persons " unable to read and accept official documents still available on their archives and try to do any sort of invention in order not to admit : YES, of course this event occurred and we just like you and everybody else can read what has been done on the summer of 1941.

It is not a difficult effort, ... any average intelligent persons can do it, ... apparently not those persons.

That's life, ... and we can live with it and accept this shameful " deniers " approach despite having at hand official documents demonstrating what we are simply stating since years.

Obviously they are trying in any way to move away from the subject in discussion and accuse us personally, ... with sarcasm and personal offenses trying in this way to accuse of unreliability the writers, ... their last unfair ( and against the forum rules ) way to counter what cannot be countered or hidden anymore.

The shame of those events is finally out in full details, ... no one will " cover up " anything anymore in the future.

You better accept it, ... and quit this personal series of attacks, ... because you are only going to receive back what you are trying to deliver, ... with the related interests.

Bye Antonio

[pgollin]

.

These are not personal attacks, they are justified criticism of your ridiculous claims.

You are not dishing out what was delivered with interest, you are embarrassing yourselves with evasive answers which highlight your lack of knowledge and understanding of the practicalities and procedures of the time.

THINK about what you write, and especially what you claim - otherwise any competent editor will throw your book out when presented to them.

.

[HMSVF]

You better accept it, ... and quit this personal series of attacks, ... because you are only going to receive back what you are trying to deliver, ... with the related interests.

Lets get one thing straight. I don't like personal attacks.I think that it weakens any counter argument. If you have to resort to a ad hominem then you've probably lost the argument or there is a serious failing in a line of debate.

That's life, ... and we can live with it and accept this shameful " deniers " approach despite having at hand official documents demonstrating what we are simply stating since years.

Obviously they are trying in any way to move away from the subject in discussion and accuse us personally, ... with sarcasm and personal offenses trying in this way to accuse of unreliability the writers, ... their last unfair ( and against the forum rules ) way to counter what cannot be countered or hidden anymore.

The shame of those events is finally out in full details, ... no one will " cover up " anything anymore in the future.

This is pretty strong stuff. If the "silver bullet" exists the now is the time to deploy it. If you are going to call people timid or cowards then the onus is on the proposer to provide the evidence.So far it is shakey and was based on intuition . If this is the case then you have started from a position where you already think you know the result. The problem with this is you already know the result and nobody will persuade otherwise. Now my problem with this is that you might as well close the forum. If you cannot point out counter argument then its just an echo chamber between two people. You have had a respected historian who has told you that its impossible to definitively work out the tracks of ships involved in the Denmark Strait. You have quoted a single source 20 years after the event as definitive. Nobody else has produced evidence or the "for" argument because it flies in the face of convention and common sense. The rottweiler has forcibly stated various parts of the NDA but comes out with a quote of

we are NOT interested at all in details about British legislation, powers, CM / BofI procedures,Judges and Advocates etc. but ONLY to the disciplinary rules in force in 1941,

Well,the whole point is that you have to have an understanding of legal process to understand the whys, whats ,for.



Rather than go for the poster go for the post. Example...

because you are only going to receive back what you are trying to deliver, ... with the related interests

Try.......



"The reason I disagree is because of X,W,Z.....




Any ad hominem's just reinforce how shakey the foundations for your POV are. And again I don't agree with the personal attacks from either side. I do disagree with the use of the word "coward". If somebody uses such a term they better be 100% sure. When the likes of Bill Jurens and Alan Raven disagree surely tis time to think that you maybe barking up the wrong tree.....

Unless the "silver bullet" is a golden shot?

In which case disclose the evidence and put us all to shame. At the moment the silver bullet looks more like pewter. Has its place in the world but is not what was advertised. Merely shouting down the naysayers does not make a position fact.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

an insulting person wrote: "It is almost impossible to believe that you have served"

however I did, while he has NOT !

HMSVF wrote: "the whole point is that you have to have an understanding of legal process to understand the whys, whats ,for."

Thanks for lowering down tones, despite not condemning explicitly who insulted first.

I agree we should study legal procedures if we would be called to hold an actual Court Martial: the point here is that NO Inquiry/Court Martial has been officially requested/initiated, preferring the sugar-coating of the poor part of the story and the decoration for everybody, even the ones who "prima facie" would have had to justify their actions/decisions in any Navy.

Therefore it's enough to understand the Royal Navy discipline rules in force in 1941, leaving to an hypothetical scenario the actual Court Martial development. procedure, judgement, advocacy, sentencing, etc., according to the British legislation.

We have seen how the disciplinary rules ("Articles of War") in force in 1941 were the ones from NDA 1866 (http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm) and they were still almost the same even in 1957 (http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1957.htm), as logical.
The relevant "Articles" for Leach (underlined in red) and Wake-Walker (underlined in green) are IMO n.2 and 3, from the section "misconduct in the presence of the enemy":

Articles_2_3.jpg (68.71 KiB) Viewed 1085 times

Bye, Alberto