Oh yes, I did. Is it you the Mr.Wadinga who wrote
But it is also me who wrote
Indeed death was not the sole punishment for mutiny in the British Navy but..
which has been ignored as if it were not there on the page.
We have to be clear when discussing German not British punishments which von Sponeck is involved.
Hans merely retreated, disobeying orders, using his decision making skills and initiative as a Commander, but he did not surrender. Lutjens arguably also disobeyed his specific orders by engaging British capital ships. Maybe he would have been jailed on return, if his superiors had been bone-headed enough to disapprove of his initiative, (such as it was), since he only really refused action with a damaged enemy, after 06:03, instead of starting earlier (well maybe he did). Although of course Bismarck's track was not recorded accurately in 1941, despite recent attempts to imagine up a substitute.
It was Theodor who promised to fight to Die Letze Granate, but actually didn't and surrendered the 90th Light Division, elite formation of the Afrika Korps. If he had fallen into Hitler's hands presumably he would have been shot.
The military Court correctly gives its sentence evaluating the "extenuating circumstances" (if any)
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 A law ignored because it is obsolete is not a law.
Their Lordships were responsible for the fate of these Naval men, not civil/political elements. They were sentenced to death under Military Law, Their Lordships overrode the sentences of their own courts because the Law was obsolete.
Finally an admission that the law is the Naval Discipline Act (this the Articles of War)
No, the articles of Warres as claimed by Antonio were no longer in force having been subsumed into the NDA long before, the provisions, judgements and sentences of which were ignored by Their Lordships as early as 1919. It seems circular letters, not even integrated into the KR, could disable parts of the NDA without requiring it to be submitted to Parliament for change.
This is the shame of the British side DS
Is as non-existent as when it was proposed here, so many years ago.
It is surprising that Kennedy the Father is held up as a shining example whilst his son is dismissed as a liar and perpetrator of "Fairy Tales" . That is worth investigating in a dedicated separate thread.
All the best