Talk:Invergordon Mutiny

Mutiny?
This incident is usually (or universally?) referred to as a mutiny, but is that wholly fair? True, the lower ranks disobeyed orders for a while, but only for a day or so while the sailors were making their point about the pay cuts. They kept the ships functioning and secure and only refused to do anything which would allow the ships to move.

The officers were not threatened.

Compare that with the experience of Captain Bligh on the Bounty.

I have a particular interest in this event, because in 1970 I actually met Len Wincott, who was an Able Seaman aboard HMS Norfolk. In the books about the event, he is described as a ringleader, but perhaps "spokesman" would be fairer.


 * It was a mutiny as sailors openly opposed their direct authority, whatever they carried the usual routine, they refused orders to put ships at sea.90.9.158.131 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Gold Standard
The article sayeth: "The Invergordon Mutiny was a key event in forcing Britain off the Gold Standard the following month."

Britain left the Gold Standard due to economic pressure. I find it extremely hard to credit that the actions of a set of navel set over their pay cut induced such a large macroeconomic response. Any comments? otherwise I intend to remove it.

Toby Douglass 11:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The spectre of insurrection in the armed forces sent the stock market into (another) panic. It had been brewing for some time, but Invergordon was the last straw that forced the UK off the Gold Standard. - Gregg (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

HMS Hood
Hood is traditionally known as a battlecruiser, not a battleship. Some modern naval historians might argue that Hood was a fast battleship, but that does not represent a consensus in the field, nor is it what the ship was considered at the time of her existence. For these reasons, I've altered the relevant sentence in this article. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've retained the description of Hood as a battlecruiser, but you're edit removed her from the ships whose crews were planning to strike, so I've changed that. - Gregg (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Tears
In later years as the mutiny was investigated in depth by various authors, there were several mutineers who reported that they had seen a senior officer "in tears" over the situation that had developed.

Others said that several officers were "sympathetic" and only requested that their crews carry out normal daily routine duties. It also seems that no official Admiralty records were ever kept of the mutiny

The reference to Capt Bligh should be deleted. Despite the Hollywood image, Capt Bligh was relatively humane for the time. He allowed his crews to stand one watch in three rather than the usual one in two.

When the mutiny erupted why not simply cut Blighs throat and heave the body overboard? Why give him a slender chance in an open boat? According to the History Channel, more people wanted to join Bligh than join the mutiny. It all seems to lead to Blighs humane treatment of his crew and not an act of mutinous revenge.AT Kunene (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you mean no official records were kept of the mutiny? Roskill references numerous Admiralty papers on the mutiny in Naval Policy between the Wars Volume II.  I myself have gone through and photographed the docket at The National Archives which discusses the fate of senior officers ranging from Tomkinson up to Fuller, the Second Sea Lord immediately following the mutiny.  For example.  When Kenneth Edwards wrote his book there were no Admiralty records available.  Divine didn't identify which files he quoted papers from.  Len Wincott's accounts are, to quote Roskill, "unreliable." &mdash;Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)