Killing of deserters by CO justified?

[egbert]

The situation:

A coy in the heat of a terrible battle, already decimated to less than half of original strength holds out a vital position which is important for the survival of the whole regiment/brigade. Every rifleman counts! Suddenly the first own men panic in the bloodshed and are about to run and capitulate to the enemy – thus about to endanger the diminishing rest of own troops. Desperate moments. The commanding officer threatens his men to be shot immediately if deserting. Nevertheless some are off to the enemy; the officer kills the first soldier on the run. The other men turn back and all continue fighting, giving all they have. Later it is recognized by the brigade that the action saved the regiment from certain disaster = is this a criminal act or somehow acceptable for 1914 standards?

Opinions please

[Guest IMDB Fan]

The situation:

A coy in the heat of a terrible battle, already decimated to less than half of original strength holds out a vital position which is important for the survival of the whole regiment/brigade. Every rifleman counts! Suddenly the first own men panic in the bloodshed and are about to run and capitulate to the enemy – thus about to endanger the diminishing rest of own troops. Desperate moments. The commanding officer threatens his men to be shot immediately if deserting. Nevertheless some are off to the enemy; the officer kills the first soldier on the run. The other men turn back and all continue fighting, giving all they have. Later it is recognized by the brigade that the action saved the regiment from certain disaster = is this a criminal act or somehow acceptable for 1914?

Opinions please

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not sure if I understand the question . Are you suggesting shooting men for capitulating to the enemy is a criminal act in 1914 ?

No it wasn`t

Should it have been a criminal act ?

No

Would it be a criminal act in the British Army of 2005 ?

Probably

Should it be a criminal act in the British Army of 2005 ?

No

[egbert]

You are right on! The question for 1914 is: was it legimitate, morally acceptable, cold blooded?

[Ozzie]

It was war.

[ian turner]

Egbert,

Wasn't there a thread on the Other Fronts page about a young British Officer who aledgedly did just that, and won a medal?

Ian

[Steven Broomfield]

Egbert,

Wasn't there a thread on the Other Fronts page about a young British Officer who aledgedly did just that, and won a medal?

Ian

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

G R D Moor, of the Hampshire regt. he got a medal for it OK - a VC.

Personally, I agree with Ozzie - it was war.

[truthergw]

You are right on! The question for 1914 is: was it legimitate, morally acceptable, cold blooded?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was an extreme case of desertion in the face of the enemy. A capital offence in the British Army and, probably every other army that ever was. Summary execution was employed widely by French officers at the beginning of the war but reduced, if not abolished, later. Was it legal? Yes. Was it right? Different times, different mores.

[historydavid]

Surely, desertion when one's group is under fire and in a desperate situation is unacceptable at any time; back then, now or in the future.

The action the officer took is the only aceptable response; then, now or in the future.

Best wishes

David

[egbert]

Thanx to the 6 pals stating their point of view!

Only 6 out of 8707 members ? Come on - your opinion is very important to me

[marina]

Well, I expect no one likes to think of men being shot by their own...but there is a creeping realsation that it just might be necessary. Panic is contagious.

Marina

[Chief_Chum]

A necessary action to contain a potential rout - then, now and always.

Justifiable if unpleasant.

Cheers,

Taff

[Max]

Egbert

You pose a very difficult question that can be viewed and assessed on several levels. I suppose officers of both armies would have had to have two sets of moral imperatives (Kant would of course argue that having two sets of moral imperatives is not possible), professional and personal. The personal moral imperative would in most circumstances see that shooting a man in the back for acting in a way that is purely human (fight or flight) is morally repugnant and most normal men would veer away from this. The application of the professional moral imperative however would maybe enable the officer to see that the killing of one man may help save the lives of many and is therefore justifiable given the circumstances, however personally repulsed he may feel about the act.

Do I think its right to kill a man to save others, I don't know, probably not. Having said that thank God I have never been put in the position were I have had to judge a mans life in such terms and am never likely to be.

Unless we are put in the position that the officer found himself, with the stress of battle and the imediate risk of being over run we cannot really say if it is right or wrong or how we would feel about commiting such an act.

Andy

[Drummy]

Circumstances of battle necessitated the course of action taken, that is the CO made a quick and reasonable jugement in the face of possibly being over run to do what he did. It was deemed necessary to maintain order and hold the line. For us enthusiasts who have never been in close combat - faced with the possibility of your troops failing to obey orders, and fleeing with the obvious consequence of being captured or killed by the enemy - it is difficult to pass comment on the rights or wrongs of what occurred suffice to say it had the desired effect.

I suspect though if this situation were to happen in this day and age, that months after the act when the troops came home from whatever conflict and the facts came out, there would be some quarter with no understanding of the realities of combat or the prevailing circumstances at that key time that would call for that individual to be brought to book!!!!!

[Max]

I suspect though if this situation were to happen in this day and age, that months after the act when the troops came home from whatever conflict and the facts came out, there would be some quarter with no understanding of the realities of combat or the prevailing circumstances at that key time that would call for that individual to be brought to book!!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hello Drummy

Whilst understanding your position I do think that if an officer commits an act such as the one described by Egbert then he must be prepared at a later time to justify this to the appropriate authorities. Surely this is only right and proper and is an appropriate safe guard against rogue officers going around shooting their men for no good reason.

Andy

[Drummy]

Andy,

Sorry if I appeared to suggest that it would be wrong for the matter to be fully investigated at a later date, not at all I would expect that any such incident is fully investigated by the RMP etc and if necessary, be decided upon in open court. This is only right and proper and every soldier should be subject (and is) to full investigation if suspected of a criminal act. The point I was trying to get at is we live in very different times and shooting one of your own soldiers in whatever circumstance would be difficult to justify. Reasonable questions would be asked 'Why did you shoot that individual, when you still had others obeying your orders and holding the line, this soldier could have been arrested at a late date and dealt with by court martial'..... 'you shot a man that was clearly in need of help suffering from the effects of stress and 'shell shock' etc.' Can you see where I am coming from.

I cannot see any circumstance (other than protecting yourself) that would justify an officer doing this in this day and age.

[Sgt_Hazell_Great_Grandson]

He made a difficult call in the heat of battle which i would say was totally correct.

Roland.

[healdav]

All we can say is thank heavens there were no human rights lawyers in the trenches.

I would tend to say that if the officer had been courtmartialled, the court would have thrown out any charges. He did the only thing possible in the situation in which he found himself horrible though ti might have been. Just be thankful you didn't have to make the choice.

For what it is worth, long ago I lodged with a couple where the husband had done his national service in the army and was at Suez some time before the war of 1956. He said that one day a lot of British soldiers (him among them) were deployed to stop some sort of riot. He said that when he saw all the Egyptians charging towards them waving heaven knows what weapons he muttered to his mate beside him, 'When that lot get too near, I'm off'.

Then he heard the officer's voice from behind him, 'The first man to try and run will be shot by me'.

They stayed.

[stevew]

Personally I can't say how I would have reacted if I was the officer in the said circumstances.................but, I will go along with Taff's comments 'Justifiable if unpleasant'

Steve

[NIGEL]

I think it was perfectly acceptable and the correct thing to do then and today.

If someone was going to endanger my life and the rest of my friends by his actions then i would shoot him myself, it's his decision to run or whatever, he knew the results of his actions both ways, from the time he decided to run he became as much as enemy to me as the enemy, he deserved his reward.

[Ozzie]

It makes me wonder what memories that officer would have lived with.

No bad dreams because he was sure he did the right thing, or did he suffer for the rest of his life.

It may come down to what an officer is taught, that is right and justifiable, and if he believes in these things.

I do agree that, it is in a way, an unanswerable question, in that, no one but those who have been in that position, can ever imagine their own responses.

And, if it did happen today, then the courts would be tied up forever with lawsuits, from the Human Rights, the family, the Bleeding Hearts and any other manner of groups.

It probably has happened and kept very, very quiet. Friendly fire.

Regards

Kim

[yellow]

You will find that the reality was when a trying situation came about in many occasions NCO's and CO's would have to hold the men in the line at revolver point. As it is the case with the Lincoln Territorials at their famous redoubt attack.

Steve.

[Anthony Pigott]

Presumably, this sort of thing is covered by law and regulation. There must have been a legal justification for someone to have been decorated as a consequence. Does anyone have the details?

Anthony

[Paul Johnson]

An unfortunate but necessary act in the heat of battle that probably stayed with that officer for the rest of his life.

PAUL J

[squirrel]

Probably justified in the circumstances described.

[Gunboat]

I don't disagree with any of the comments depite being a bleeding heart liberal.

I did wonder what the motive would be in shooting someone in that situation. It is well known that in times of fear and panic that humans have two insticts fight or flight and that if one person takes flight an almost herding instinct takes over and everyone else takes flight with them. You only have to look at any crowd trouble to see this in action. I suppose by stopping that person it would stop the herding instict taking over as opposed to making the other men stay through a sense of fear of being shot.

It is a horrible scenario but it is justifiable.

It is strange though that when the process is ritualised through the process of court martial and the deserter is executed by firing squad when we have evidence of that persons shell shock, or being underage or whatever executing the man seems somehow appalling.