Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Lieutenant George Raymond Dallas Moor


rap1943

Recommended Posts

I'm currently reading a new publication 'Gallipoli - untold stories from Charles Bean'. I came across an interesting paragraph under the heading 'June 6: British shoot deserters' which alludes to an incident at Cape Hellas when some units of the 29th Division were forced to retreat from Krithia. I quote in part:

........."Before the order to retreat came, however, a British lieutenant was said to have shot four of his own men who had bolted. Dallas Moor, only 18, claimed he had killed them to stop a mob desertion. It was subsequently reported he was awarded the Victoria Cross for his disciplinary measures."

This sounded a bit strange to me so I ventured on to Google and found the following:

Moor's citation in the London Gazette, 24 July 1915 reads:

"On 5 June 1915 south of Krithia, Gallipoli, Turkey, when a detachment of the battalion which had lost all its officers was rapidly retiring before a heavy Turkish attack, Second Lieutenant Moor, realising the danger to the rest of the line, dashed back some 200 yards, stemmed the retirement, led back the men and recaptured the lost trench. This brave act saved a dangerous situation."

The action actually took place early on 6 June during the Turkish counter-attack following the Third Battle of Krithia. Moor "stemmed the retirement" by shooting four of his own men. In the words of the 29th Division's commander General Henry de Lisle, Moor shot "the leading four men and the remainder came to their senses."

My question, was it normal to shoot your own men?, and was it also normal to be rewarded, in part, with a VC?

I know it was war and I know that strange attitudes existed (and maybe still do) but I find it very disturbing.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always found it astonishing that the VC was awarded largely in part to Dallas Moor for shooting 4 men retiring from this action.

What became of him post-war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No mention of him shooting 4 of is own in the " Gazzette" :ph34r:

An extract from "The London Gazette," No. 29240, dated 23rd July, 1915, records the following:- "For most conspicuous bravery and resource on 5th June, 1915, during operations south of Krithia, Dardanelles. When a detachment of a battalion on his left, which had lost all its officers, was rapidly retiring before a heavy Turkish attack, Second Lieutenant Moor, immediately grasping the danger to the remainder of the line, dashed back some 200 yards, stemmed the retirement, led back the men, and recaptured the lost trench. This young officer, who only joined the Army in October, 1914, by his personal bravery and presence of mind, saved a dangerous situation.

Wonder why :rolleyes:

Mick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was K.I.A Mouveaux, France, on 3 November 1918.

George Raymond Dallas Moor (VC, MC and bar) actually died of influenza at Mouveaux.

Having read a number of the first hand accounts made at the time about the attack on June 4th and the subsequent enemy counter-attack two days later, it has helped in my understanding of the events surrounding this action and why, in my view, the award of a V.C. to 2nd Lieutenant G.R.D. Moor was very much justified.

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lt Moor was in the Hampshire Regt but appears to have shot men from another regiment. Which regiment would that be? It doesn`t actually say he killed the men, so perhaps he winged them, which is what one would expect? Phil B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have we already discussed this some time ago?

I seem to remember that we came to the conclusion that no definitive evidence exists that proves that Moor shot anyone, but may have been a story put out to smarten the ideas of the rankers. Even the quote that Bob takes from the book does not state unequivocally that he did it, rather "a British lieutenant was said to have shot four of his own men who had bolted"

Or maybe I am going slowly mad in my "old" age.

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the four men were just 'winged' or 'shot at' is not really at issue I think. What is at issue is that his action was part of the reason he got the VC. I also worry that an 18yo gung ho kid would even do what he most likely did and be a good enough shot. It begs the question, would he have shot at retreating officers or do only 'other ranks' break ranks?.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The action in this case is very complicated, involving three regiments plus the Hampshires and a trench line with a definite salient or projecting portion. These two factors created a weak point which the Turks took advantage of.

Without going into all of the details, I think that the significant point about the award of the VC in this case is that the recommendation was put forward (not by some General positioned safely at the rear, but) by the officers of the regiment whose position would have been wiped out if Moor had not stemmed the retreat – they certainly felt that his drastic action was fully justified.

Snelling [VCs of the First World War – Gallipoli] puts this into perspective thus

‘…balanced against the desperate measures taken by Moor is the certainty that a disorderly rout of the kind which threatened to overtake the British line would unquestionably have resulted in far higher casualties among the retreating troops.’

Regards

Michael D.R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Raymond Dallas Moor (VC, MC and bar) actually died of influenza at Mouveaux.

I stand suitably corrected ;) .

Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Raymond Dallas Moor (VC, MC and bar) actually died of influenza at Mouveaux.

Good riddance, there is no justification for shooting your own men, under any circumstance.

dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good riddance, there is no justification for shooting your own men, under any circumstance.

Dave

This posted by MichaelDR in a much earlier thread along the same lines as this one.

"There is a good chapter on Moor in "VCs of the First World War: Gallipoli" by Stephen Snelling and a couple of his comments are worth repeating.

"Details of this action, and in particular, the ruthless methods employed by the young officer to turn back the fleeing troops, are sketchy. Dallas Moor appears to have left no record of the most dramatic event of his young life."

and he continues a little later

"With so little evidence to hand, any judgement, even with the benefit of hindsight, appears worthless. But balanced against the desperate measures taken by Moor is the certainty that a disorderly rout of the kind which threatened to overtake the British line would unquestionably have resulted in higher casualties among the retreating troops."

As I said earlier, there appears to be no definitive evidence to the supposed killings by Moor and to disrespect a VC winner on the basis of hearsay or mess chatter seems to be less than charitable.

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said earlier, there appears to be no definitive evidence to the supposed killings by Moor and to disrespect a VC winner on the basis of hearsay or mess chatter seems to be less than charitable.

Andy

Agreed, Max. But it leaves the general question of whether a soldier, of whatever rank, is morally justified in shooting fleeing troops to meet a military objective, though it may be his clear military duty. Phil B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question, was it normal to shoot your own men?, and was it also normal to be rewarded, in part, with a VC?

Bob

The answer to these questions is manifestly no and no. Nevertheless, men were shot for desertion/cowardice. Summary executions almost certainly took place although cast iron evidence is very hard to come by. The VC is awarded for valour. Shooting men for desertion in the face of the enemy would only be considered a valorous action in very special circumstances. The action for which the VC is recommended, has to be witnessed by an officer, so some officer recommended this 18 year-old for a medal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(rap1943 @ May 18 2005, 10:00 AM)

My question, was it normal to shoot your own men?, and was it also normal to be rewarded, in part, with a VC?

Bob

Consider it the other way around. This shooting - if it happened - was only one part of a larger series of actions that won More the VC. From the accounts referred to in this thread, it seems that those actions merited the award.

Do you think he should have been prevented from getting the VC because he allegedly shot some of his own men, regardless of the other acts?

Cheers,

Ste

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good riddance, there is no justification for shooting your own men, under any circumstance.

I find this a very sad comment. :angry:

Fine to discuss the issue of GRD Moor's VC action in a open manner, but please don't gloat that he later died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good riddance, there is no justification for shooting your own men, under any circumstance.

dave

I presume you would say this to his mother too? :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I presume you would say this to his mother too? :angry:

Assuming that one of Moor's shots at the leading four men resulted in at least one fatality I wonder what that man's mother, father, siblings, wife or children would have thought of Moor's actions and his "gallantry" award.

Apparently Moor proved himself to be a very brave man both before and after this event and that cant be taken away from him but from what I can make out several of his contemporaries believed he had shot at the ORs - which probably says a lot about his character and personal qualities whether he did shoot or not. He does seem a reckless individual and that probably contributed to his own eventual death.

Also reminds me of another incident when L/Cpl Parker of the RM Medical Unit went to the aid of wounded men up near Gaba Tepe/Quinn's Post area I think, for which he was awarded a VC for his undoubted bravery and unselfish action, putting the welfare of others before his own saftey. Just before he jumped over the parapet to dodge the Turkish snipers on his way to the wounded, an AIF officer, according to Parker, said he would shoot him if he tried to get to the wounded men. Very strange behaviour if true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He does seem a reckless individual and that probably contributed to his own eventual death.

He supposedly died of influenza, how could his supposed recklessness result in this?

I am quite interested in Lt. Moor and would be grateful if you could let me know your source for "from what I can make out several of his contemporaries believed he had shot at the ORs" . Were these beliefs based on first hand experience of the action i.e. did they see him do it?, more to the point, did anyone see him do it?

This whole situation reminds me of the character in "Band of Brothers" who everyone assumed had shot German prisoners after handing out cigerettes. No one saw him do it, the story changed from telling to telling, but everyone who heard the story believed it.

Thanks

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming that one of Moor's shots at the leading four men resulted in at least one fatality...

That is just it. This is all assumption, educated it may well be, but still assumption. To openly state any sort of happiness that this man died, still serving for his country too, is unacceptable and highly disrespectful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

And what about those men that 'ran away'?

Leaving their mates, pals that they perhaps grew up with in the same street?

What did their mothers think?

What did this officer do later to merit an MC and Bar?

Regards,

Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that an important point is being overlooked here. There was more to this action then simply Moor getting the VC for shooting at retreating men

To quote the citation he

‘dashed back some 200 yards, stemmed the retirement, led back the men and recaptured the lost trench.’

[my emphasis]

I prefer to accept the view of the men on the ground at the time, who thought that Moor had saved their bacon.

I also think that one has to be very careful in making judgements about the sacrifice by some, of others, for the greater good. In a wider argument it could well be suggested that in war time, politicians and the General Staff make such decisions all day and every day.

To return to Moor

His was not a case of a slow, deliberate, ‘judicial’ process carried out by chateau billeted officers on poor frightened men who had been conscripted for the duration from the peaceful farm, the factory floor or the quiet office desk.

On the contrary, he was there in the front line together with the men for whom he was responsible, and he had, in the briefest of instances, to make a snap judgement, the effects of which could mean life or death for hundreds of his comrades. When the dust eventually settled, his comrades thought that he had made the right decision and that they were alive only because of what he had done.

Regards

Michael D.R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about those men that 'ran away'?

Leaving their mates, pals that they perhaps grew up with in the same street?

What did their mothers think?

What did this officer do later to merit an MC and Bar?

Whilst these are all interesting questions, it does not make the comment in question acceptable. I openly admit that my knowledge of the situation is limited, nevertheless, I know an uncouth statement when I see one. As far as I am aware, from this thread and the small bit of reading I have manged to find in the last few hours, there is no evidence of these shots resulting in death.

As a sub-question, exactly how would officers have been trained to deal with something like this, in battlefield situations?

Regards,

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is just it. This is all assumption, educated it may well be, but still assumption. To openly state any sort of happiness that this man died, still serving for his country too, is unacceptable and highly disrespectful.

Agree it was an assumption which is why I used the word but I thought my point was reasonable.

As you rightly say there are many assumptions that have also been handed down in history concerning this event and we are now unlikely to know the truth. There are no specific references to eye-witness testimony that I have been able to find in the past 24 hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...