The Bismarck surrender option

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Bismarck surrender option

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Oct 25, 2019 9:14 pm

Hello everybody,
pgollin wrote: "The 1913 version was NOT the one in force in 1941"
...and NO subsequent version changed this article (download/file.php?id=3596), even not the 1943 one.
No evidence has been ever presented here about the "King's Regs" having (at any time) "superseded", "replaced" or "amended" in any way the Naval Discipline Act (NDA) for the Court Martials (CM) or for the treatment of the "Misconduct in the Presence of the Enemy" crimes.
The NDA, as a matter of facts, was still in force after the war and was changed only in 1957 but it contained again the "Articles of War" and the CM rules....





Please note the mocking and provoking tones of the above post viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8742#p84977.

I personally find them distasteful and without any "levity", in a context where I cannot say anything without being censored or banned, but they are apparently allowed to him.
@ Mr.Rico: I wonder when you will take a clear position regarding how things go on recently in his forum (and when you will hopefully take actions to change things...), by simply answering here: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8347#p84945).

In the meantime, let's try to answer in a calm tone. :silenced:



Wadinga wrote: "no-one can be found "guilty" by a Board of Inquiry"
So sorry, I should have said that "his BofI decided to...Court Martial him". An unforgivable mistake and a profound difference indeed.
Could we say that his BofI was not a success for him and close the discussion ?


"The case of HMS Berwick has been specifically chosen because it is directly applicable to the Bismarck case."
Sure. An 18th century sailing wooden ship example is applicable to Bismarck's case. Possibly forgetting that in 1700 wooden sailing ships used to surrender (even more than once during their lifetime): they were not "scuttled", but taken by the enemy as prey.

Anyway, after Raeder directive (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8725&start=60#p84904), the surrender option was not there anymore for Lutjens and, apparently, it was not an option for Kennedy with the Rawalpindi (and for any other WWII Captain) as well.

Langsdorff scuttling (no surrender) was IMO a military error anyway.



Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Bismarck surrender option

Post by pgollin » Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:11 am

.

You keep trying to avoid the King's Regulations and going off on a tangent, deliberately trying to mislead people.

.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Bismarck surrender option

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Oct 26, 2019 11:46 am

Hello everybody

Incorrect, sorry. I don't avoid them, I have read and even posted from them....

I just ignore them in this discussion because they are totally irrelevant for the definition of the crime of "Misconduct in the Presence of the Enemy", just referencing for any Court Martial key aspect (including charges and accusations) to the "Naval Discipline Act 1866" (therefore the "Articles of War").
(from the King's Regulation themselves: download/file.php?id=3596 Quite clear and understandable).

This should be considered a well proven fact by now, as none has been able to present anything different, "failing to mislead anyone" since years (starting in 2013, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5830#p53994) with his... King's Regs...


Bye Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Bismarck surrender option

Post by pgollin » Sun Oct 27, 2019 11:37 am

.

When someone is tried in Italy are they charged under the Ten Commandments, or under the relevant law(s) ?

Until you get that straight you are misleading yourself.

.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Bismarck surrender option

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Oct 27, 2019 11:58 am

Hello everybody,

and the relevant laws in force in the Royal Navy in the WWII were not the Commandements but the "Articles of War" (download/file.php?id=3595) contained in the "Naval Discipline Act" (https://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm) in force at the time, explicitely referred as being "the law" (based on which charges should be framed in case of a Court Matial) by your favourite King's Regs (download/file.php?id=3596 that establish how a Court Martial convenes, the roles, the rights, etc.etc. in the above mentioned specific articles). Sorry you cannot counter this crystal clear and easily understandable fact.

Until you get that straight you are misleading yourself, and unfortunately, despite your insistence, I have proven that since a while to everybody (because I have posted the proofs of what I say, while you have posted only your own words)....


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Bismarck surrender option

Post by wadinga » Mon Oct 28, 2019 7:48 pm

Fellow Contributors,

As was established, P Davis who was the original source used by Antonio Bonomi when accessing the Articles of Warres had this to say:
The 1749 act established the powers and independence of naval Courts-martial, but gave them little latitude to vary or avoid the (severe) penalties prescribed in the Articles of War. The inflexibility of this act led to the execution of Vice-Admiral John Byng in 1757, and only 22 years later was an amendment introduced which allowed Courts-martial some measure of discretion. Nonetheless the specified punishments were still draconian, and were starting to become unacceptable by the time of the Napoleonic Wars, and were in practice quite ignored by the middle of the 19th century.
It may be quite difficult for other nationalities to understand features of our British Parliamentary system where archaic laws and wording are left on the Statute books, but ignored when required and contradicted by more relevant regulations. In the other thread there is plenty of detail about this irrelevant matter.

As we have established from P Davis they quite ignored by 1794 and the case of HMS Berwick, which had only one dead and a few injuries. Anyway, many might consider what might happen in the RN to have nothing to do with what might happen in the Kriegsmarine. As we have established the Imperial German Navy had several ships which surrendered (well most of them actually).
The German flag will be hauled down at sunset today and will not be hoisted again without permission
the surrender option was not there anymore for Lutjens
Why, what could Berlin do to him? On the 27th May? Exactly. Unless there was a hidden political commissar with a secret cadre of fanatical Nazis on board prepared to mutiny against him if he tried to surrender, having got the OK for an insurrection via a secure private line to Berlin, it seems unlikely. (Sean Connery would have just broken this guy's neck first and put him in the freezer.) Nobody disobeyed Langsdorff's order to destroy his vessel, and he left no detailed explanation of why he did so. I have heard from a museum proprietor when visiting Montevideo that there was significant damage to a fuel treatment system for the diesel engines and that would have crippled the vessel during any attempted escape.

So your opinion is your own, but is based on your knowledge only:
Langsdorff scuttling (no surrender) was IMO a military error anyway.
BTW most people use IMHO.

Would you like to know what the last message from HMS Rawalpindi was?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Bismarck surrender option

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:52 pm

Hello everybody,

Very good. Once finally accepted that the Naval Discpline Act 1866 (in force until 1957) was written using archaic words (also the Constitution of almost all countries is written with archaic words, but it's still obeyed, else you must change it) but that it was however the one in force, regulating the "Misconduct in the Presence of the Enemy" and the charges for a Court Martial, in the total absence of anything else superceeding it, let's move on:


Wadinga wrote: "As we have established the Imperial German Navy had several ships which surrendered "
We who ? Possibly this is an example of the archaic usage of "plural majestatis"....
Please consider the usage of "IMHO" when you propose this kind of incorrect statements as "established facts".

The German fleet in WWI was ordered to surrender by its country under the terms of an armistice, it never surredered in "the Presence of the Enemy", as well as the Italian fleet in WWII at Malta, differently from how you were trying to propose, mentioning Cunningham's triumphalistic message (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8742&p=84970&hilit=lordships#p84970)...

Nebogatoff surrender was decided by him "in the Presence of the Enemy" and against his orders. If you don't see the difference between the actions of Nebogatoff's, Von Reuter's and Oliva's surrenders, please ask for further clarifications.




and (quoting me): ""the surrender option was not there anymore for Lutjens" Why, what could Berlin do to him?"
He had a clear directive from Raeder (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8725&start=60#p84904) and he knew his duty. In your mocking description from red October you seems to deliberately ignore that punishment is quite irrelevant for a soldier doing his duty, honour is more important, of course.
Is it so difficult to understand the military behavior ? What is still unclear to you, after all these years spent discussing military events ?




"So your opinion is your own, but is based on your knowledge only: "Langsdorff scuttling (no surrender) was IMO a military error anyway""
...that's correct: that is my opinion (IMO) as well as your opinion is based on your "knowledge" only and is yours own only....
My opinion was surely shared by Raeder (see his directive....and Raeder is meant to have had a better knowledge than your friend in Montevideo about the Graf Spee damages, about the pro's and con's of her surrender and about the circumstances of her scuttling): I have tried to explain you why it was a severe error from a military viewpoint...


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Bismarck surrender option

Post by wadinga » Tue Oct 29, 2019 1:39 am

Fellow Contributors,

Whilst the Articles of Warre have nothing to do with a Bismarck surrender option it is worth noting there is only one penalty specified for mutiny, even mutiny without violence. Death.

How many British seaman were executed after the Invergordon Mutiny?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Bismarck surrender option

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:00 am

Hello everybody,

thanks to Mr.Wadinga for having once again demonstrated that, despite the "moderator" point of view (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8742#p84972), I am right saying that it is always better (even when "native speaker", apparently...) to post attachments with the correct text of what we discuss, to avoid to be misled....


Wadinga wrote: "there is only one penalty specified for mutiny, even mutiny without violence. Death."
Totally incorrect: I wonder why a simple text like the below one cannot be understood in the right way...

Death is just the most severe penalty foreseen even for mutiny with violence, many others (even quite mild in case of "mere" negligence) are foreseen by the archaic (but still "human") Articles of War in force at the time.

Article_10-11.jpg
Article_10-11.jpg (53.21 KiB) Viewed 384 times

Please, let's avoid to post evidently incorrect statements within a serious discussion. :stop:

Regarding Invergordon question (where the ringleaders were imprisoned and 200 men were dismissed from the RN), how many were hanged at Spithead under the much more severe Articles of War in force at the time ?
"Only" 30 men were hanged at Nore, not all the mutineers anyway...


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Bismarck surrender option

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:22 am

Hello everybody,

I have to (slightly) correct what I posted above: here the "Articles of War" in force from 1866 till 1957 (https://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm).

Article_10-11_1866.jpg
Article_10-11_1866.jpg (60.93 KiB) Viewed 371 times

They very slightly differ, for their wording only, from the ones posted above (being part of the 1860 NDA version https://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1860.htm).

The conclusion is the same: Mr.Wadinga was wrong speaking of Death as being the sole penalty for mutiny without (and even with) violence.



Please see Part III article 52 and followings from 1866 NDA (above link) for the list of the "Other Punishments" mentioned in the text.
As you see, only the most severe penalty is explicitly mentioned in the 1866 version, leaving the choice between the full list of "minor" penalties to the judgement of the court...



Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Bismarck surrender option

Post by wadinga » Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:29 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Again what does British Naval Disciplinary Law have to do with Bismarck?

Precedents of German ships surrendering under fire as presented in another thread:
Returning to the options of warships when disabled and unable to fight, at the Falklands Captain Ellerton of HMS Cornwall offered Leipzig quarter by signalling
"Am anxious to save life. Do you surrender?"
Leipzig continued to return fire with what guns could still do so despite the observations of one of her officers
"The Lyddite would burst in the middle of a group and strip them of their arms and legs- men would rush about with exposed bones, crazy from the effects of the shell"
By 19:00 Leipzig fired torpedoes but the ship stopped shortly after and seacocks were opened but the ensign still flew. The crew were given permission to jump into the freezing sea but surrender was not authorized. After a further cannonading, by 21:00 two green flares were fired which the British took to mean surrender, firing stopped and rescue boats were lowered. By delaying the inevitable until it was dark, Captain Haun who went down with his ship, ensured that the rescuers, working by searchlight saved only 18 of Leipzig's 300 crew.

Nurnberg, another of Von Spee's cruisers was brought to bay when her boilers blew up, and when in a severely damaged condition was closed by HMS Kent to see if she would surrender. Her ensign still flew and a single shot was fired , hitting the Kent. The latter responded with full broadsides and a few minutes later Nurnberg hauled down her flag. After repairing her shattered boats HMS Kent rescued just 12 survivors.

Dresden also hoisted the White flag whilst skulking and infringing Chilean neutrality and was taken under fire when anchored close inshore and out of fuel. The ship was scuttled while the crew watched from the shore, cheering just like the watching British crews as the demolition charges blew her magazines up. HMS Glasgow took Dresden's wounded to hospital in Valparaiso.
To which we can add Emden which hauled down her flag when Sydney returned from catching the auxiliary vessels and re-commenced cannonading.

The German High Seas fleet mutinied rather than emerge to face the Grand Fleet in 1918 and only met it when protected under the terms of the Armistice.

The British took possession of Langsdorff's ship by the simple expedient of buying it.

The Italian Fleet was menaced by air bombardment in 1943 and surrendering meant it was saved from the RAF and USAAF but not from the Luftwaffe.

Indeed death was not the sole punishment for mutiny in the British Navy but...From the Web:
There was a further naval mutiny in Russia, that of the gunboat 'Cicala' in the White Sea. Death sentences were imposed on the 'ringleaders'. The fact that these were later commuted to one year's imprisonment reflects the continuing strength of the sailors' movement.[6]
Mutinies in the forces of intervention were not confined to the Navy. There was a large mutiny in a Marine battalion at Murmansk. The 6th Battalion of the Royal Marines, formed in the summer of 1919 at a time of unrest over demobilisation, were originally intended to police Schleswig Holstein. But, at short notice, the Battalion had been diverted to cover the evacuation of Murmansk. They were sent to the Lake Onega region, a further 300 miles south of Kem. In August 1919 two companies refused duty: 90 men were tried and found guilty of mutiny by a court martial. Thirteen men were sentenced to death and others to up to 5 years imprisonment.
None of the death sentences were actually carried out. The 90 mutineers were shipped to Bodmin prison, where they continued their resistance to arbitrary authority. (In this they were acting in the best traditions of the Royal Marines. In December 1918 some Marines had been involved in a mutiny inside Bodmin prison which had resulted in three death sentences, later commuted to five years penal servitude.) Continued resistance paid off. The ninety men arrested after the Murmansk incident had their sentences reduced as follows: the 13 sentenced to death were commuted to five years, but 12 were released after only one year, and the other after two years. Twenty men, originally given 5 years, were released after six months. 51 men sentenced to two years were also released within six months.
Hardly the Draconian enforcement available under the outmoded Articles of Warre, with all these example Post WW I sentences commuted. Death sentences were given under the authority of the wording and then then sensibly rescinded as they were unwarranted.

At Ivergordon
There were more than 8 ships in the Atlantic Fleet, up to 15 including different classes of warship, but not all were involved in the mutiny to the same extent, 2 or 3 possibly not at all.
Estimates put the number of men involved in the mutiny at 12,000.
The party’s identification with it intensified when two prominent Communists, Shepherd and Allison, were arrested on trumped-up charges of inciting ratings to further mutiny and given stiff prison sentences.
W G Shepherd and George Allison were charged under the Incitement to Mutiny Act and sentenced to 18 months and 3 years penal servitude respectively in November 1931 for trying to spread communism among sailors (after the mutiny). Security files confirm that they were set up with the help of an informer.
Neither Shepherd nor Allison were naval personnel and so not subject to the Articles of Warres. The wording of the Incitement to Mutiny act still required penal servitude for life in 1931 (it was of course death originally in 1797) and only reduced to imprisonment for life in 1948. They did not get life but 18 months and 3 years. Another case of the archaic wording not being followed.
Twenty four so-called ringleaders of the strike were unceremoniously kicked out of the Navy. A further 93 men were groundlessly discharged.
At Invergordon 12,000 involved, none imprisoned, only outside agitators from the British Communist Party sent to jail under Civil Law, and just over 100 discharged from the Navy. The archaic and obsolete wording was clearly largely ignored by 1931.

The attempt to keep alive Antonio's unfounded allegations that certain officers should have been charged under these same Articles, and hidden in this debate which is supposed to be about Lutjens' options in a German battleship is bogus.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Bismarck surrender option

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:22 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "The Italian Fleet was menaced by air bombardment in 1943 and surrendering meant it was saved from the RAF and USAAF but not from the Luftwaffe."
Surely the Regia Marina was menaced by air attacks by the end of summer 1943, however the surrender did not happen during the confrontation with the British fleet or due to air menace but ONLY under the terms of the Armistice signed by the Italian government.
Several Italian Navy officers expressed their disagreement with the above terms and insisted to scuttle the ships without surrendering them, but the orders of the King's government were finally respected at the cost of the RN Roma crew sacrifice.

Please don't try to re-invent history (we have had enough of that). The facts are well known and your nationalism is quite ridiculous (and also a bit distasteful).

I leave to our German friends to explain you why and how the High Sea Fleet surrendered in WWI, if they have time to spare for you.





To use your words, again, what does mutiny laws have to do with Bismarck?
Wadinga wrote: "Indeed death was not the sole punishment for mutiny in the British Navy"
after having written: "there is only one penalty specified for mutiny, even mutiny without violence. Death...."
Indeed, and, in fairness, you should first of all admit you were simply wrong when you stated that Death was the only penalty foreseen by the law (Articles of War), instead of trying to divert the discussion, speaking of all the cases of mutiny in history...

All the cases you mention just confirm the severity of the mutiny crime and the freedom of the Court to establish penalties that were sometimes less than Death or the possibility of a grace in the other cases.... but this has nothing to do with the law itself.





The FACT that the Articles of War 1866 (contained in the Naval Discipline Act 1866 (valid until 1957)) are the Disciplinary Law in force during WWII for the Royal Navy (both for "Misconduct in Presence of the Enemy" download/file.php?id=3595 and "Mutiny" download/file.php?id=3598) ) is clearly demonstrated and confirmed by the King's Regs (download/file.php?id=3596).
You may like it or not, you may consider it outmoded and archaic, but if you don't have another written law to present here, superseding the Articles of War, you are just spending your words in vain, just trying to tediously "keep alive" your (by now failed) attacks against Antonio (in his absence, when he has been lately proven correct on everything recently discussed, instead: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&start=2250#p84821)...


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Bismarck surrender option

Post by wadinga » Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:51 pm

Fellow Contributors,
what does mutiny laws have to do with Bismarck
If Lutjens had ignored the Raeder directive and surrendered and saved his crew it would be mutiny.

Field commanders who ignored Berlin.

In December 1941, General Hans Graf von Sponeck ignored a Hitler "no retreat" order to avoid encirclement of his division on the Kerch peninsula in the Crimea.
On 23 January 1942, Sponeck was tried in front of the Court President Hermann Göring where he maintained that he had acted against orders, on his own initiative, in order to avoid the destruction of his division. He was found guilty of disobedience to a superior officer and given the death sentence. Adolf Hitler (on Manstein's proposal) commuted the sentence to seven years in prison. Sponeck was to serve as an example to those who disobeyed Hitler's new order not to retreat. Sponeck was imprisoned in the Germersheim Fortress.
Wikipedia

When the 1944 plot failed to kill Hitler, Himmler ordered von Sponeck executed even though he had an excellent alibi (well, he was in prison at the time) as a reprisal. After the war he had an airbase, streets etc named after him, as a symbolic "good soldier" victim of the Nazis (like some other officers), but when proof of his
role in "numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity in the southern Ukraine and Crimea in 1941,"
emerged, he lost his victim status and the memorials got renamed.

Near namesake
Major-General Count Theodor von Sponeck, commander of the 90th Light Division, had surrendered unconditionally to the 2nd New Zealand Division, after threatening to fight till the last round.
Wikipedia

Ah the old Die Letze Granate again. Well he didn't, along with 275,000 who surrendered in Tunisia.

Many commanders have made sensible decisions against their "duty" or "orders from above" and their men owe their lives to such brave decisions.

Indeed, and, in fairness, you should first of all admit you were simply wrong when you stated that Death was the only penalty foreseen by the law
You didn't read the post did you?
Indeed death was not the sole punishment for mutiny in the British Navy but..
Although those British cases of mutiny I listed were convened under the terms of the NDA and fully lawful sentences of death were pronounced they were all ignored by the very body supposed to enforce them, many being reduced to only a year in prison. A law ignored because it is obsolete is not a law.
You may like it or not, you may consider it outmoded and archaic, but if you don't have another written law to present here,
I don't need one, just evidence the letter of the law and verdicts given under it were being ignored as long ago as 1919.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Bismarck surrender option

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:03 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "You didn't read the post did you? "
Oh yes, I did. Is it you the Mr.Wadinga who wrote (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8742&p=85011#p84993):
"there is only one penalty specified for mutiny, even mutiny without violence. Death...." ?
Then, after realising your evident mistake (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8742&p=85011#p84995), you tried to mention all the history cases of surrender/mutiny to hide your error. Come on, try to be fair and admit you have just posted the above incorrect statement... it would be more dignifying...




Wadinga wrote: "Although those British cases of mutiny I listed were convened under the terms of the NDA and fully lawful sentences of death were pronounced they were all ignored by the very body supposed to enforce them, many being reduced to only a year in prison. A law ignored because it is obsolete is not a law. "
Very Good ! :clap:
Finally an admission that the law is the Naval Discipline Act (this the Articles of War) and that sentences were issued according to the law, despite the gross attempt of another "fellow contributor" to deny this evident fact (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8742&start=15#p84986). Congratulations for finally giving up the support of the above misleading attempt.


The law foresees death or any other minor punishment, therefore the law was always literally respected in the sentences. The military Court correctly gives its sentence evaluating the "extenuating circumstances" (if any) , and then the supreme authority (civil/political) can diminish the punishment: this is true in any country, at any time (and not only for military laws).

However, the NDA law was still in force in WWII and until 1957: for sure any surrender would have been judged according to the law by the Court, as well as any mutiny and any "dereliction of duty". The final outcome in terms of punishment has nothing to do with the law itself, that clearly punishes "misconduct in presence of enemy", "mutiny" and "unjustified surrender", while it doesn't foresee medals for the ones who break it.

I don't understand this insistence on the fact that (even in eighteen century, see Spithead mutiny) the maximum penalty was not blindly applied lightly: this is simply normal at any time... Nobody would imagine that Leach could have been hanged for his retreat in front of the enemy or that Wake-Walker would have been "flogged" due to his lack of initiative and (as per Sponeck case that you have posted) possibly even Lutjens would not have been shot, had he surrendered Bismarck on May 27.
However this act would have been contrary to his orders, to his duty and to his honour, from a pure military perspective, and for sure he would not have been congratulated and decorated by Hitler for that, as well as Kennedy would not have got a medal for surrendering the Rawalpindi without any resistance.

This is the shame of the British side DS "regrettable aftermath", that you aren't willing to accept...


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1400
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Bismarck surrender option

Post by Herr Nilsson » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:53 am

I wonder if Nelson's behaviour on June 22nd 1798 is condemnable. In terms of Alberto's interpretation of the NDA: definitely.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

Post Reply