Honoured At Last

[Jim Clay]

Hello Geraint

All that is sadly so - all that we have curb the worst is the rule of law - military law, civilian law - correctly applied. However, don't believe all men behaved despicably.

Ann

Ann

I don't believe that all, or even most, men behaved despicably. I believe, rather, that most men behaved correctly and properly within the rules as they existed (which for the men under arms was military law) at the time. And that, for my part, includes the general staff who conducted Britain's effort to win the war. I don't find that conflicting with my belief that the law which allowed men to be executed for desertion or casting away their weapons was a bad and inhumane one - but it was the law. And because it was the law, I can't accept the assertion as fact that the Army 'murdered' these men. It patently did not. And the suggestion that Haig 'cheerfully' signed their death warrants is nonsensical; no one can know Haig's demeanour as he signed.

Jim

[Ann Sinnott]

Why are the 306 so different from any other SAD man?, or for that matter anyone who has been put to death by the system. I cannot understand why these men and only these men seem to get so much press, when millions died.

Debate on this matter is pointless as there is no debate. One side thinks they are right and the other side thinks they are wrong. So how would a 'debate' of this kind change the opinion of anyone.

I am sure many soldiers who fought in battle would have happily shot anyone who put their own lives at risk. In fact I would be amazed if this did not happen.

sm

Hi Steve (and thanks for extra info re your other post)

Speaking personally, I grieve for all the men that fell on those grim battlefields; and am fervently grateful that my father and uncles came home alive.

In relation to SAD: for me, there is the principle of Justice at play here, and I care very much about principles. Yes, war is war, but there is also the rule of law, military or civilian. And then there is Humanity. I believe it important, for our own humanity now, collectively and individually, to acknowledge when humanity was set aside, in relation to SAD (also in other non-war issues). In that situation, that awful war, humanity demands that the rule of law be applied. We know that wasn't always done. When we don't acknowledge, we forget. Lest we forget...

Knowing the depth of my father's humanity, I don't believe he would have agreed with boys being shot - he was one himself, and god only knows what kept him from bolting - and I suspect he might not have agreed in other cases, except when the man in question was a cold-blooded murderer, a rapist, or deserted to the other side, or was in some other way traitorous.

Ann

[Waffenlandser]

Given that psychiatry was in its infancy, given that many of the Drs involved would have been GP's with little or no knowledge of what the psychitric/psyscological fallout would be from a war of unprecedented scale.

DNA analysis was not available in 1970. Today accused wether innocent or guilty are re tried on the basis of modern technology. Men imprisoned for life are being pardoned on the basis of newer advances. If we go by your argument, there should be no changes as they were tried and convicted by the standards available at that time. The same goes for the306 of 1917. If you consider this rambling, then let me know how I can state this more simply.

Today is a working day. Thanksgiving is over and there are no football matches.

[Guest]

" no one can know Haig's demeanour as he signed."

From one who hasn't read as much as one should have ,(yet) Is there no record of Haig's thought's as he signed?,there must be some mention,in a diary,or any quotes during or after ww1.

Cheers Mike

[John_Hartley]

I have reread my posts and find no evdence of ramblings.

Ah, well. At least I tried to be helpful. No need to to bother replying to any of my queries, Barry. It'd be a bit pointless I think we'd both agree.

No more from me here, I think.

John

[Ann Sinnott]

Ann

I don't believe that all, or even most, men behaved despicably. I believe, rather, that most men behaved correctly and properly within the rules as they existed (which for the men under arms was military law) at the time. And that, for my part, includes the general staff who conducted Britain's effort to win the war. I don't find that conflicting with my belief that the law which allowed men to be executed for desertion or casting away their weapons was a bad and inhumane one - but it was the law. And because it was the law, I can't accept the assertion as fact that the Army 'murdered' these men. It patently did not. And the suggestion that Haig 'cheerfully' signed their death warrants is nonsensical; no one can know Haig's demeanour as he signed.

Jim

Jim

My knowledge is limited but I believe, in some cases, Haig sanctioned executions so that they would act as a deterrent and crucial supporting evidence in favour was set aside or ignored, that men were not always properly represented and that a man's military usefulness, or otherwise, was a determining factor. This is not the

military law of the time being correctly applied. No doubt there were instances when it was, but these cases of when it wasn't are troubling.

At this point I can neither agree nor disagree with Haig's demeanour. In my reading pile is a primary document: the text of Haig's despatch (Cambria Operations) 20 Feb 1918 - perhaps that will provide a clue. Though perhaps earlier docs would be more to the point - now see that the page has links for earlier ones. If you haven't seen these and would like the link let me know.

Ann

[Anthony Gorst]

Hello Barry

I think you're going to have a busy evening ahead of you. The thread has many posts asking you to respond with clarification or evidence. To help you out, mine are at posts #25, 27, 35, 117 and 208.

If I may offer some friendly and, hopefully, helpful advice. You have got yourself into a terrible tautological and contradictory mess that I'm sure you didnt intend when you started.

Just to take one point, in your various posts about the relevance or otherwise of shellshock, you have first stated one position, then contradicted it, then contradicted that with third and even fourth nuances. It's been sufficient to have many members scratching their heads to wonder what you are on about and, in truth, it's reduced me to not taking you seriously. You've made your own position look more silly by declining to address the specific points raised with you and just retaliating with daft soundbites.

The posts now read just as unconnected ramblings without any apparent coherent direction to the debate. It's one of the difficulties of coming to a contraversial discussion subject completely unprepared for the rebuttals from folk who have been here before. It's meant that even folk who I know would agree with you about the principle of pardons have been left unsure about what you are saying.

My advice would be that you consider re-reading the whole thread; reflect on exactly what your views are on the subject and how you ant to portray them here; address the issues raised with you (doing some further research and reading if necessary to widen your knowledge); take note of some of the well argued cases that have made for pardons in the past (I used to be a supporter but, oddly, changed my mind the more I read them) and then post a coherent response (in which, if I was you, I would try to focus on the executions issue rather than diluting the matter with sidelines).

John et al

Fully concur: I have been lurking on what is an interesting, albeit confused and confusing thread (partly becuase it is unclear at times who or what certain posters are responding to), and

feel that what is needed is a pause (an armistice???? ) pending a systematic response by Barry.

Just my two penn'orth (rather than cents)

[Ann Sinnott]

General note to all who say discussion is useless because agreement will never be reached. The object of debate isn't agreement. The object of debate is, for all who have a point, to air their view. I think it's one of the fundamentals of democracy. With this issue, there are strong feelings on either side, it's as well they are vented - and kept in check by the parameters of respect for the individual and courtesy.

Ann

[George Armstrong Custer]

Made it up myself George. Who's Denis WInter?

Neil

NVM I Googled him.

You googled him? You told me you'd read his book last time we were in the Ferry and you were having a go at Haig. I told you it was a piece of worthless tosh.

George

[Ann Sinnott]

" no one can know Haig's demeanour as he signed."

From one who hasn't read as much as one should have ,(yet) Is there no record of Haig's thought's as he signed?,there must be some mention,in a diary,or any quotes during or after ww1.

Cheers Mike

Hi Mike

In my searches I came across this site for WW1 primary docs from pre 1914 to post 1919:

www.firstworldwar.com/source/haigcambraidespatch.htm

Ann

[Kate Wills]

The same goes for the306 of 1917. If you consider this rambling...

No, but I hope it is typographical error, and you meant to write '1919'.

Now, as the man in the know, can you please enlighten us as to the circumstances of Pte Dennis's condemnation please?

[geraint]

General note to all who say discussion is useless because agreement will never be reached. The object of debate isn't agreement. The object of debate is, for all who have a point, to air their view. I think it's one of the fundamentals of democracy. With this issue, there are strong feelings on either side, it's as well they are vented - and kept in check by the parameters of respect for the individual and courtesy.

Ann

I disagree. This subject has been discussed so many times, and posters don't seem to have learnt much.

On the gravestone of a Canadian mutineer, killed at Kinmel Camp, North Wales 1919 are the words

"Someday, sometime, we'll understand"

Sadly, this thread is neither 'day' nor 'time'. I'm off. Au revoir.

[Ann Sinnott]

Ann, the answer to your question about the case files is no. Part of the "problem" is that not all of the paperwork exists in each case. There have been a number of books that have discussed specific cases or even listed them all, but the nearest you have to the complete paperwork sits in the National Archives.

Thanks Chris

Re National Archives - just to clarify: as separate case files, I take it?

If so, looks like a book for someone who has the time (and funds!) to compile... Would be hugely useful and valuable.

Ann

Looks like people are falling like skittles here!

Am going about my business - but will keep an eye...

Ann

[Black Watch]

You googled him? You told me you'd read his book last time we were in the Ferry and you were having a go at Haig. I told you it was a piece of worthless tosh.

George

Yeah I remembered as soon as I saw whch book he written.

Neil

[keithmroberts]

Can anyone remember the Monty Python sketch?

That's not an argument, that's just contradiction.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Finis.

[Dragon]

DNA analysis was not available in 1970.

Hello Barry

Please would you explain the link between DNA analysis and the diagnosis of PTSD? My copy of DSM-IV (309.81) doesn't suggest that it's a requirement of diagnosis.

Are you suggesting that DNA analysis prior to service would have helped to identify individuals who were at risk of developing a disorder? Is that current practice?

I would also like to hear your explanation of the implied link between PTSD and serial offending, please, as requested in my earlier post (209).

I'm not trying to trap you; I'm anxious to understand better. As some people on here will know, I was overtly sympathetic to the SaD campaign.

Gwyn

[Steven Broomfield]

I've had enough too.

[Waffenlandser]

I've had enough too.

me too.

[IanA]

Two hours in, and still no reply to my question. Oh well. I'm still waiting to be told how the French knew about the forthcoming attack at Verdun three weeks before the Kaiser or any German General. I have plenty of time.

Lucky old you. I'm still waiting to find out when Rawlinson was sacked or (2nd try) 're-assigned'.

[Ann Sinnott]

Hello Barry

Please would you explain the link between DNA analysis and the diagnosis of PTSD? My copy of DSM-IV (309.81) doesn't suggest that it's a requirement of diagnosis.

Are you suggesting that DNA analysis prior to service would have helped to identify individuals who were at risk of developing a disorder? Is that current practice?

I would also like to hear your explanation of the implied link between PTSD and serial offending, please, as requested in my earlier post (209).

I'm not trying to trap you; I'm anxious to understand better. As some people on here will know, I was overtly sympathetic to the SaD campaign.

Gwyn

Hi Barry

Am assuming your query was genuine (and not another form of baiting), and it doesn't look as if you'll be getting a reply...

The point I took EC/Barry to be making was that just as cold crime units go over old ground today, pore over old crimes (DNA science enables them to do so), the SAD cases can also be gone over to positive effect 90+ years later, ie DNA only relates to cold crime investigations, not to SAD cases.

For EC's argument re PTSD and serial offending, look back through earlier posts - I think he made it clear. Maybe I'm mistaken about that, like several people who've been on this thread from the beginning or near the beginning, I'm wiped out! (NB, you could also look at comments of mine in an earlier fairly recent post re serial absconding - I largely agree with EC, though with more reservation and less certitude as to numbers.

General Comment to any eyes still out there

Sadly, by the time I've done reading the last three/four pages of posts and all the other stuff I have, this thread will be no more - and I doubt that I'll have the courage to start another...

Anyway, thanks to all. It was interesting, informative - and even, surprisingly, sometimes amusing!

Ann

[Waffenlandser]

Lucky old you. I'm still waiting to find out when Rawlinson was sacked or (2nd try) 're-assigned'.

Off topic.

Fellow Pals, may I dare apply this to myself??

No matter wha, this thread, as evidenced by the over 4000 hits , has brought attention to this matter, and thats what counts in the long run.

Again, I have learned a lot more than I have taught. The name calling is part of the spirit of the discussion. I can live with it.

Cheers and no hard feelings here.

Barry.

[Dragon]

Am assuming your query was genuine (and not another form of baiting), and it doesn't look as if you'll be getting a reply...

I don't do baiting.

I'm afraid that the connection between PTSD and serial offending isn't clear to me, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. I feel as if I'm wading through intellectual mud and I would welcome some clarity and rigour on a subject that is of great interest to me. The question about DNA was genuine, because there is some study into the neuroscience of PTSD and other disorders.

Anyway, leave it. I'll Google.

Gwyn

[Gunboat]

Hello Barry

Please would you explain the link between DNA analysis and the diagnosis of PTSD? My copy of DSM-IV (309.81) doesn't suggest that it's a requirement of diagnosis.

Are you suggesting that DNA analysis prior to service would have helped to identify individuals who were at risk of developing a disorder? Is that current practice?

I would also like to hear your explanation of the implied link between PTSD and serial offending, please, as requested in my earlier post (209).

I'm not trying to trap you; I'm anxious to understand better. As some people on here will know, I was overtly sympathetic to the SaD campaign.

Gwyn

Gwyn

I think Barry was suggesting that DNA evidence since it has been introduced has been used to overturn convictions for crimes that occurred in the past, before DNA was widely used, convictions that were secured by the inferior medical evidence available at the time. He is I believe suggesting that the advances in pyschiatry and pyshcology since the war allows us to review the evidence we have about those courts martial and apply the knowledge we have now and say..." some of thesde men were suffering with shell shock/battle fatigue/PTSD and therefore should not have been executed.

As I said earlier mistakes probably were made....it is the judgements he makes about those who made those decisions that I find uncomfortable. If they acted in good faith based on the knowledge available at the time we should not be so ready to condemn them so forthrightly.

There is another thing which reviewing the transcripts of the cases cannot tell you and anyone who has been in the Criminal Justice System and has been in as many courts as I have, will tell you.

A person can give evidence and his evidence(or that of a witness) can be recorded and the story may be compelling on paper. However it is clear to those in the court, to the jury, judges, magistrates whoever it maybe trying the case that the accused (or witness) is lying through his teeth that his demeanour, his tone, his body language tells you his evidence is unreliable and those people hearing that evidence are enititled in those circumstances not to believe it.

In some cases it is possible (and I am only suggesting possible) that the accused may have presented himself as suffering from shell shock and the court simply did not believe it and they may have been right to disregard it and they may have been wrong, however if they acted in good faith then it is probably wrong to condemn them.

[Pete1052]

...US forces were not significantly in the field until the end of September by which time the war was all but won and that US forces never dealt a killer strategic blow to the enemy.

I don't think it's fair to minimize the role of the BEF during the Hundred Days in the defeat of Germany or to claim that it was the Australian, Canadian, and American armies but not the British who gave the coup de grace to the Germans.

As for American participation in ground fighting, however, I'd like to point out that significant American involvement in action began at the end of May 1918 and steadily increased until the time of the Armistice. Battles included Chateau Thierry in May-June; Belleau Wood in June; and the defense of the line of the Marne in July. This was followed by the Aisne-Marne offensive in July-August and the reduction of the St. Mihiel salient in September. The final chapter was the Meuse-Argonne offensive in September-November, when fighting as an independent command the AEF pushed the Germans back 30 miles. In October 1918 American units held 23 percent of the line on the Western Front.

I wouldn't claim that the American contribution to victory was nearly as great as that of Britain, her Empire troops, or the French, but I submit that the steadily increasing weight and skill of American arms during the last five months was hardly an insignificant factor in the outcome of the war.

[dutchbarge]

Just side-tracking here... what are you so greatful for? Why the annual giving of thanks? To whom; for what; and for why?

The American Thanksgiving Day Celebration is actually a holdover from British occupation of North America. British colonial subjects originally gave thanks to God and King for a decent harvest, friendly relations with neighboring American Indians and another year of survival. The custom sort of stuck even after the change in management.

Much has changed since then. No King to thank. Much of our food is imported. Most the Indians have either been killed or placed on reservations. And we're on the brink of doom. Is this the answer you wanted?

Actually while the above is, more or less, factual, it misses the point. For most Americans Thanksgiving Day is a couple of days off from work in which to spend time with friends and family. We Americans have our share of faults, but ingratitude for what we've got is not one of them. We are and always have been extremely grateful for the food on our table, the roof over our head and the fact that we have enjoyed relative peace and security for many years. Most of us are only a generation or less away from life in some third world or communist s**t hole and don't need to have it explained to us how much better life is here. Just being allowed to enjoy basic human freedoms is something we are most grateful for. That we sometimes enjoy all of this at the expense of others is an irony which many of us do infact appreciate. And regret. One of the things we seldom give thanks for is our government. Hopefully the new lot will be an improvement. Not holding my breath.

And why not celebrate it annually? Everyone likes a few days off and Thanksgiving is a holiday that everyone, especially those just off the boat, can relate to. Giving thanks. A basic human instinct. To God, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha or Darwin. Take your pick, it's a free country. Or sit home and pout. That's OK too.

I anticipate your objections. You're all obese and don't need the extra calories. What about all those poor innocent turkeys? As poorly educated as you all are why not a national holiday given over to 'world view' education? I object to Americans having a good time on general principals. They were beastly to us in WW2, stole our Empire and insist on calling football soccer. And their beer is ghastly. Again, valid points. But still, we'll go on with Thanksgiving.

Infact I'd suggest you might be better off trading one of your bank holidays for a Day of Thanksgiving. You guys also have a lot to be thankful for too.

Cheers, Bill