The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:59 pm

Hello Antonio,

Hello Antonio,

If you were First Sea Lord and you imagined you had two cowards running immensely important vessels/operations, why would you leave them in place or promote them?

Because you never imagined it was true in the first place, because you were merely mollifying a silly old politician who had imagined it, but you knew would regret it soon enough. Which he did.


All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2818
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:51 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "you have presented no actual evidence to support your assertion"
I did SEVERAL TIMES but Mr.Wadinga does not accept them (as well as all the other evidences presented here regarding the poor story of the DS battle from British side... :lol: ).

The NDA, 1866 (http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm) contains the "Articles of War" in force in 1941, because no change to NDA was impacting Part I in the meantime (http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA.htm).

An additional demonstration is simple and it was provided by Mr.Wadinga himself, when posting the charges at the CM against Troubridge: exactly the wording of article 3.

The King's Regs are very interesting and detailed indeed and I will continue posting from them (just to scorn some petulant hooligans infesting this forum), but they are totally IRRELEVANT for the potential charges against Leach and Wake-Walker, because they DO NOT CONTAIN the articles regarding the "misconduct in the presence of the enemy", just because they are "details" and NOT "substance" regarding discipline.


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: 1632
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Sun Aug 12, 2018 7:26 pm

Hello Alberto,

You just saying the unmodified 1866 version of the NDA article 3 was in place in 1941 does not make it so. You have presented no evidence, even though several examples of changes unnoticed by pdavis have been supplied to you.

My Troubridge evidence referred to 1915, how exactly does that affect what was happening in 1941?

As we have established whereas in the case of loss of a vessel one can go straight to Court Martial under King's Regs, this is most unusual in the case of
"misconduct in the presence of the enemy" where such a circumstance would first have to be established by a Court of Enquiry. It is clearly remiss of Tovey to have forgotten this procedure, but then memories can be confused when 15 or 20 years have passed by. This is probably why he completely forgot that is what Pound apparently asked for in his letter of the 28th, and which he addressed and refused in his own hand, and not a Court Martial because CMDS is a myth.

As you will be aware there was required to be a Board of Inquiry into Troubridge's decisions before it went to Court Martial. Tovey's suggestion that things would go straight to Court Martial is yet another demonstration of how pretty much everything he told Roskill was wrong. Wrong about ROOF. Wrong about bearings. Wrong about CMDS.


Of course you could throw some additional light on things if you showed the "Silver Bullet"- or maybe it's not as significant as you once pretended. A bit like Tovey telling McMullen the same fanciful story he told Roskill ie not significant at all.


All the best

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

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by pgollin » Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:31 am

.

I am SURE I have posted this before, but I will post it again.

There is something in "The Articles of War" about punishment for unnatural acts/buggery/homosexuality - this was carried over, in detail, into the King's Regulations.

HOWEVER, around the time of the invasion of France there was a CAFO to ignore the wording of the King's regulations and basically told commanding officers to lay off discipling or comming down too hard on gay sailors as the Admiralty had noted the need for mass conscription and realised that they had to live with what they got. This meant that unless some act was so blatant or well known around the ship punishment was to be light and forgotten.

As soon as the war was over one of the first Cafos issued was to reinstate full imposition of the King's Regulations.

However, according to "The Articles of War" A & A would have us think that this was impossible.

.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:04 pm

Hello P Gollin,

I do not propose to dive into the anatomical elements of the NDA modification by regulations, especially regarding the buggery element of "Rum, Buggery and the Lash. :o


However here is parliamentary discussion from 1909 confirming disregard for an article of the NDA and its superceding by the relevant Admiralty Order.

www.godfreydykes.info/NAVAL%20DISCIPLINE%20BILL.htm
This Bill seeks, by means of a Schedule, to make a very large number of amendments in the Naval Discipline Act, and when we reach it, I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be able to give us full and detailed information regarding them.
and
With regard to what is called flogging in the Navy, namely, the corporal punishment inflicted under Sections 52 (4) of the Naval Discipline Act, that has been entirely suspended by Admiralty Order since 1881, and no man has since that date been subject to the punishment. The hon. Gentleman has some anxiety lest by a stroke of the pen the old system may be re-enacted. I do not think he need have any anxiety on that point. There is not the slightest prospect of it so far as I know.
Mr. KEATING
Then why not put it in the Bill.
Dr. MACNAMARA
That is exactly the point to which I am coming. That would mean such a very considerable change in the whole scope of the Bill, and objections might be taken to it in certain quarters, with the result that at this late period of a very long Session, we might endanger this reform upon which we have set our hearts. If we were revising the Naval Discipline Act my hon. Friend would be able to raise the point.
This confirms P Gollin's point that the NDA could be modified by schedules which required parliamentary debate and approval, which could be slow and cumbersome, or merely by changing the Admiralty Orders in the King's Regs.

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 Alberto:

"You just saying the unmodified 1866 version of the NDA article 3 was in place in 1941 does not make it so. You have presented no evidence, even though several examples of changes unnoticed by pdavis have been supplied to you."

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2818
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:20 pm

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.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

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.... :negative:


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
"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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:10 pm

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

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by HMSVF » Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:57 pm

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...

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:39 am

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? :D Providing you don't give a damn about the truth, or the memory of those you defame. :negative:


All the best

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

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:06 am

dunmunro wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:10 pm
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
Senior Member
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by northcape » Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:36 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:20 pm

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?

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2818
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:44 am

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.... :lol:

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 :oops: ) 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.... :lol: :lol: :lol:
"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: 276
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by pgollin » Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:27 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:44 am
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 :oops: ) 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.

.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2818
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:21 pm

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 :lol: ) 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".... :lol: :lol: :lol:


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)

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by northcape » Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:00 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:44 am

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

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?

Post Reply