shot at dawn

[Crunchy]

Crunchy - looks like you've been pulled too. For what reason?

My own Jon. But see - you have a response already which is good news. Sorry we didn't have the tinnie.

[Jonathan Saunders]

Since you mention it, I had no idea that you contribute to Forum costs, nor do I wish to know; I thankyou sincerely for doing so, but are you saying that donors should be immune from intervention when necessary.

I was making the point that we are all stakeholders and should be treated with some adult respect and not like children.

[Jonathan Saunders]

If you could pm me with the content of your post, I will do what I can to help.

I assume you have an audit for it and that it has not been deleted but is stored somewhere. Rather than try to replicate it I would like you to look at the actual content of the original post.

At least you have the courtesy to try and find out the reason why for me, which is a lot more than the Moderator that pulled it offered.

[Kate Wills]

Jon,

Your technical question is one for Peter (though I'm sure he and Chris would tell us that once a post is deleted, it's gone for good, or only retrievable by someone with a degree in computer science). If you do not have a copy, I can't help, though if you can remember the general content, perhaps I can.

However, you say that the mod who pulled it has already been in touch with you, which reverses your claim above about a lack of response.

[Jonathan Saunders]

However, you say that the mod who pulled it has already been in touch with you, which reverses your claim above about a lack of response.

No I didnt say that. But the Moderators that were on Forum at the time the post was pulled have all been around the Forum since. I assume they have seen my further comment, but have not had the decency to offer an explanation. I have no idea which Moderator took this decision but I would like to know as I would like to discuss this with them.

FYI I said something in summary along the lines ... that if that was the thought process "you" wanted to follow then go ahead but I felt that was a shallow and limited viewpoint. I added that I had not endorsed his opinion and he should not twist my words.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[Guest geoff501]

(though I'm sure he and Chris would tell us that once a post is deleted, it's gone for good, or only retrievable by someone with a degree in computer science). If you do not have a copy, I can't help, though if you can remember the general content, perhaps I can.

If you have recently viewed a webpage, a copy may be in your local machines cache. I had reason to search my cache recently and retrieved a deleted webpage.

geoff (degree but not in computer science)

[bantamforgot]

I was not involved or even a member at the time of the last spat on this subject , I have my own views which I will keep to myself.

Surely everything that could has been said on the subject even in the current thread .Time to end the matter here & now , I can see only further problems if allowed to continue, it will never be resolved to suit all sides, in fact no resolution is possible.

I am with you on this Chris 100%

I now await the "flak"

Colin

[Kate Wills]

Good old SAD - the Forum jinx!

The announcement on the re-opening of this topic says:

"From now onwards this subject may be discussed on the Forum as a valid WW1 topic.

However, there is a word of warning attached. Forum Rules regarding behaviour and respect for fellow members apply equally to this subject as to any other discussion. If any posting descends into abuse or acrimony, members breaking these rules may face suspension or a permanent ban."

It is a shame that, having seen a number of congratulatory messages on the civilised way in which debate was progressing, that a cloud has cast a shadow. Jon, if I said you had a limited and shallow view, how would you feel?

[willy]

as topic starter may i draw your attention to my post 1, problems with deleted posts or mods should not be discussed here please, lets keep to the thread.

[Terry Denham]

Final Warning

Please abide by the sentiment in willy's post above.

[Jonathan Saunders]

It is a shame that, having seen a number of congratulatory messages on the civilised way in which debate was progressing, that a cloud has cast a shadow. Jon, if I said you had a limited and shallow view, how would you feel?

I would do what I always do Kate and continue to put my point forward. But what I wouldnt have done in the first place is twist someone's words whom I had been debating with, no doubt with a view to antagonising.

Shallow = lacking intellectual or mental depth or subtlety (source: Collins). I thought "shallow" was more diplomatic.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[willy]

PLEASE SEE MY POST ABOVE JONATHAN

[Kate Wills]

DIVERSION CLOSED.

Back to Shot at dawn please!

[Jonathan Saunders]

PLEASE SEE MY POST ABOVE JONATHAN

I am afraid I started my reply to Kate before you posted, but if I had seen it I probably would still have replied to Kate.

[Jonathan Saunders]

I think you have just proved my point that many of these deserters were serial offenders. Had they been shot for one offence it would have been a very harsh regime. Many had received field punishments, imprisonment, and finally the death sentence (sometimes more than once). They knew exactly what they were doing.

Gunner Bailey

I think your stance in reply to my comment is lacking depth. Please do not twist my words.

[willy]

DIVERSION CLOSED.

Back to Shot at dawn please!

thankyou kate, may i just state to all please keep to the topic, and if you cannot control your feelings on what is a delicate subject, please don't post.

The new team were i thought most courageous in allowing us to discuss this subject, let's reward them, and those souls who are the subject of this thread with good mannered debate.

thankyou

[irishmen1916]

When I first joined the forum, I did notice the rule about the subject SAD,

I though it odd at the time, but hey a rules a rule.

Over the following months I did come across the odd mentionof the subject on the forum, and worked out from bits of information

why the rule was there, so when the ban was lifted I was glad because

I find the whole subject interesting and wanted to find out more. Some of the posts have hit on ideas which are only tips of the iceberg,

you do have to look on each SAD on its own merits and completely

separate to each other. All the SAD'S cannot be simple explained away by shell shock,

you have to take in to account so many different factors, age, back ground,

menial condition, time spent at the front, psychological trauma,

conscripts and non-conscripts, criminals and so many more.

In effect what you have to do is take 21st century science and not 21st century morality to look at this.

Peter

[1st east yorks]

Hello,

This is the first time ive been on the forum for a while(my computer has been broke).I am glad to see the ban on this topic has been lifted,ive always thought the subject of executions was an important ww1 issue.As already stated,a constructive debate can help us all understand this delicate and sensitive issue whilst respecting each others views.Its nice to be back.

Anthony.

[charlesmessenger]

It is very easy to become emotive about SAD. Indeed, the use of capital punishment in general makes one feel at least uncomfortable. We are, however, talking history here and about a world that was very different to the one we now inhabit. It is therefore perhaps worth make a number of points which I hope might help us to look at the subject with a degree of dispassion.

a. History is seldom black and white, but varying shades of grey. Genuine historians strive to avoid hindsight and to understand the mores and perceptions of the age they are examining. They can never be wholly successful if they did not live during it and the best that they can do is to weigh up the arguments on both sides and come to often hesitant conclusions.

b. During the era of WW1 capital punishment was generally accepted in both civil and military law and all soldiers were made aware of which military crimes might attract a death sentence.

c. Undoubtedly some victims of SAD were shell shock cases, but a medical understanding of this condition only grew as the war progressed. Certainly many doctors called as witnesses at courts-martial had a very imperfect knowledge of it.

d. It is clear from examining the court-martial papers held in the National Archives at Kew that a number of victims were genuine bad hats, who had been given more than one chance to make good.

e. In some cases a death sentence was upheld to deter others from following the same path.

f. We do not really know what criteria were used for the 90% who had their death sentences commuted since their case papers no longer exist.

g. We also have to take into consideration the hundreds of thousands who managed to hide or control their fear, usually because they could not bear to let down their mates.

In summary, it is right to ask questions about what happened and to accept that it is probable that there were injustices. I do not, however, agree with the blanket pardon that was given by the government. As others have said, you cannot rewrite history, only learn from it.

I hope this helps a little.

Charles M

[59165]

It's certainly helped me,Charles.

After the last page,where a gentleman posts like 10 times & not one of them are sad or even GW related,I'm happy that some facts/ideas are surfacing.

Dave.

[IanA]

Well said, Charles.

[JimSmithson]

I agree. Enough said on the matter. The moderators gave people a chance but I know I will not be reading any more threads on this subject.

Jim

[soilsister]

Shot at dawn , two boys two lives

Private Thomas Highgate was the first to suffer such military justice. Unable to bear the carnage of 7,800 British troops at the Battle of Mons, he had fled and hidden in a barn. He was undefended at his trial because all his comrades from the Royal West Kents had been killed, injured or captured. Just 35 days into the war, Private Highgate was executed at the age of 17.

Many similar stories followed, among them that of 16-year-old Herbert Burden, who had lied that he was two years older so he could join the Northumberland Fusiliers. Ten months later, he was court-martialled for fleeing after seeing his friends massacred at the battlefield of Bellwarde Ridge. He faced the firing squad still officially too young to be in his regiment.

Just think these boys were no cowards , just too young to be there where they were , and probably just too anxious to show they were men in stead of what they really were , just boys ....

[IanA]

Unable to bear the carnage of 7,800 British troops at the Battle of Mons,

Please expand.

[truthergw]

I wonder if, in the discussion of those who were shot at dawn, we give enough thought to why they were shot. A poster has mentioned one soldier who deserted at IIYpres. This battle saw the Canadians in particular stand firm in the face of not only the first poison gas attack, but the rout of the troops on their flank. British and French troops were rushed forward and a desperate struggle took place to hold the Germans. Luckily for the Allies, after great casualties, the line was redrawn and held. In the midst of that, a man broke and ran. Whether we feel compassion for him or not, I for one am not surprised that the high command would feel they had no option but to impose the severest penalty. Not to do so would have beeen thought to condone his behaviour. I would like to put in a word for all the men who did not run, who underwent the same stresses and physical hardships but held the line, climbed the ladders, went over the top and did so for 4 years or until death or disablement allowed them to stop.