Humanities desk
< December 7	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 8[edit]

Royal Navy court-martials[edit]

I seem to recall that a Royal Navy captain was automatically subject to a court-martial upon the loss of their ship no matter what. Is/was this correct, or was it just something I read in a novel? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It is true that up to 1914 it was not the invariable rule but a very general direction to have courts-martial, mostly in peace-time, with regard to the loss of ships, but during the first two years of the Great War it became necessary not to follow that practice, and even in the last two years of the Great War courts-martial were not excessive in number having regard to the heavy losses of ships".

A. V. Alexander, the First Lord of the Admiralty, to the House of Commons on 31 July 1940, [1] about the loss of HMS Glorious whose captain would certainly have deserved a court martial had he not been killed when the ship sank. Alexander goes on to say that an Admiralty Board of Inquiry was held, but did not recommend any courts martial, perhaps because the context would have to have been made public. We don't seem to have an article on these inquiries, only the US equivalent Naval Board of Inquiry. Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But see also HMS Nottingham: Courts Martial Verdict. The destroyer HMS Nottingham (D91) had run aground off Australia in 2002. Alansplodge (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that courts martial are inquiries, or trials; the accused is not automatically found guilty. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are trials per se and the accused people are entitled legal representation. Alansplodge (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished Master and Commander for the nth time; the end of that book is exactly such a court-martial. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 06:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the use of swords in courts-martial was discontinued in 2004. Alansplodge (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General Secretary in Soviet constitution[edit]

From what I see, the office of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is not even mentioned in the 1977 Soviet Constitution which highlights the Supreme Soviet of the USSR instead. List of heads of state of the Soviet Union says that "In practice, the Chairman of the Presidium (of the Supreme Soviet) held little influence over policy ever since the delegation of the office's power to the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) during Joseph Stalin's rule". If so, why the office of General Secretary wasn't included into Stalin's and Brezhnev's 1977 Constitution? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the General Secretary is a party position, not a state position. In the UK, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is invariably also the leader of the majority party in Parliament (or the largest party in a majority coalition). Boris Johnson is the Leader of the Conservative Party (UK), but that's not what makes him the UK's head-of-government. His constitutional role is that of Prime Minister. Similarly, insofar as they were generally the same person from Stalin forward, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was usually also the leader of the Soviet Union, but those are two distinct roles. The USSRs written constitution would not mention that office, instead defining the various leadership positions; the General Secretary ran the show de facto, but de jure, other job titles were used to denote state leaders. --Jayron 32 19:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin became Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars (or "Premier") on May 6 1941, in part because the position of Communist Party General Secretary didn't carry any weight in formal international diplomacy. (Partly similar to how the Nazis changed the swastika flag to be the sole official national flag of Germany in response to the 1935 Bremen incident in New York Harbor.) AnonMoos (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The General Secretary generally held some other official position, but it varied. Stalin and Kruschev used the Premier of the Soviet Union as their government office. Brezhnev and following leaders used Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet as their government office. --Jayron 32 20:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but in Soviet context, the distinction between party and state doesn't make much sense - as we know, it was a single-party state and the 1977 Constitution states that "The leading and guiding force of the Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system, of all state organisations and public organisations, is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union". This logically makes CPSU's head, the General Secretary, a state office. Perhaps Soviet bureaucracy entangled itself badly. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The constitution wasn't a constitution, it was a fig leaf, a means to fool useful idiots. "Look, we've got a constitution that guarantees rights and in which all power belongs to the people" to cover the reality. DuncanHill (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

212.180.235.46 -- The Communist party had a special role in the Soviet system, but it was not identical to the government. There were separate government hierarchies and party hierarchies. As far as I can tell, Stalin didn't have an official government position after 1923 and before 1941. By the way, when the General Secretary position was first established, many thought it was kind of a boring administrative role... AnonMoos (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]