Honoured At Last

[Waffenlandser]

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.

Hear hear. I'll second that. You only appreciate democracy when you have personally experienced dictatorship and totalitarianism.

I'm afraid that the connection between PTSD and serial offending isn't clear to me,

I would prefer to leave out the word "offending" until an offense has been proven, including the appeals process found in most civilised societies today.

PTSD is a chronic condition where the PATIENT has been exposed to a particularly traumatic experience. This experience may not appear to be traumatic to a third party, but it is to the sufferer. After the intial and possibly repeated traumas, the patient develops PTSD and the acute episode or flashback is re experienced after usually much less trauma, like the backfiring of an exhaust. The result of the flashback can be far more serious than the initial reaction.

As far as the DNA is concerned, modern technology has shed a lot of light on the past. Whoever intimated DNA and PTSD are related is being blinded by their own dust. DNA has brought closure to many unsolved crimes. Modern behavioral medicine has shed as much light on the past and brought closure in its own unique way. SAD is an example.

[59165]

Ah,******.

Another good post ,Bill.You must stop!

I'll tell you,& Ger will too.That post wasn't a total anti American rant,he was just trying to tie it into a post that Barry wrote about a particular subject.

"The custom sort of stuck even after the change in management."

Thats a killer comment & I'm still peeing meself at it.We (& I don't speak for all of us but as a 'reborn' humanitarian,I'm still learning )kinda look on the Yanks as rich,uncouth cousins that we would avoid having round for Xmas,if at all possible.We do have a chip on the ol' shoulder when it comes to the old 'colonies' but,now,when all has once again hit the fan,I'm kinda hoping that the new Prez will perhaps help out the world rather than hinder it.It wont happen in France,the UK...hmmm...doubtful but theres always hope that the gamble will work.

& your not all obese.I lost a certain type of fruit to a Merkin at age 15.This one wasn't at all lardy

The point of all this twaddle is,all I did for nigh on 2 years here was rag on medal collectors/collectors of any sort & Americans.

Merkins & medal folk have been off my hit list for quite a while(ask Pete.I aint had a pop at him in some time & I dont think I ever will again.He too has calmed & has become a better poster than I)because I have learnt from this forum.I dont change my mind easily but,now,thanks to here,I can see most posters stuff for who they are & not what I preconceived them to be.

Jeez.The tripe I write after hours........

[jay dubaya]

I'd like to say it's been enlightening to read this thread, it has been, but not for the intended reasons me thinks.

My first experience of SaD was seeing Gertrude Farr on TV during the 90s and learning of the penance that the family at home paid. At the time I felt outrage that we shot our own. Over the years I have read various books and reports on the subject and my views have changed as it became very apparent that each case must be judged individually. As one of my many projects I'm slowly researching a couple of local SaD cases, one of whome was shot for murder and had his name carved on the local memorial in 1920, which does suprise me and asks the question, 'what was the family told?'

I personally think that they should not have been pardoned in the way in which they were, it's pretty hollow to me. If pardons are to granted then each case must be judged on it's own merits. Believe me, I do have the greatest of sympathy for some of those that were shot and the families that were left to live with the stigma. We can't change the past, but we can learn to understand it. IMHO most of the men shouldn't have been shot, but that's a modern day opinion from someone that wasn't there and lives in a different society.

Just out of interest, were any AIF or SA troops convicted for murder?

cheers, Jon

[Kate Wills]

There is nothing "invariable" in wartime. Understanding and agreement is appropriate where it is due.

My issue with Haig is that he approved the killing of the deserters and "cowards". It showed more than ever how out of touch he was with the suffering and privations of his men. He should have personaly interviewed the condemned. Hell it was a man's life. Haig, alas, was not overly concerned with human life and cheerfully signed the death warrants with no comment in writing. His decisions in signing the death warrants for the 302 were, IMHO, invariably wrong as were all his decisions on July1, 1916.

Why I am not surprised that Barry does not care to elaborate on the case of Pte Dennis?

In short, Dennis was a pre-war regular with over 12 years service. He was recalled to the Colours, and joined the Northamptons at Ypres in December 1914 (the battalion having been in continuous action since August). Shortly afterwards, on 28 December 1914 he was sentenced to two years imprisonment with hard labour for desertion. In the meantime, the new military Suspension of Sentences Act was implemented, and Dennis was returned to his unit under escort, shortly before Haig signed the paperwork that effectively wiped Dennis's slate clean.

Dennis legged-it again a few days before the Battle of Loos. He was found and arrested two months later. His CO wrote in January 1916 that he had deserted within a few days of joining in December 1914, and he had actually only served about three months, "having continually absented himself from the trenches on various excuses" after being returned to his unit in May 1915.

Dennis's death sentence was sanctioned by the same Gen. Haig who had ordered his release.

I don't expect you to agree with me Barry, but I can understand Haig feeling a bit peeved with Pte Dennis, who was not shell-shocked and was aware of the possible outcome of his actions.

Where is the suffering and privation in Dennis's case?

[dutchbarge]

.

And just out of interest, how many men from your city of San Antonio were killed in action or died of wounds between 1 October and 11 November 1918? It'll be interesting to compare the figures with my home town. Stockport is a town with a population about 25% of San Antonio's. My figure is 90 men commemorated on our war memorials, so the actual figure will be greater. I've been very careful to exclude those who died of the flu or other natural causes, y'all make very sure you do the same so members can see that we have a proper comparison.

Why do I get the impression that you're waiting for an apology from us Yanks for not having spilled more blood? It wasn't really our fight you know. At the beginning most Americans didn't give a hoot one way or another who won the European War. We viewed it as the death rattle of inbred dynasties from whom many of us had just immigrated seeking a better life. That we got involved at all was due to the US gov't having turned a blind eye while private US banking/industry bet the ranch on the Allied cause. A cause that in 1917 seemed to be a losing one. But we are a practical people and while we realized that we'd been had by our gov't and their business cronies we also knew that crying about the injustice of it all wouldn't pull our bacon out of the fire. We knew that we'd have to get involved or suffer the economic consequences. Initially we thought that abandoning our sham neutrality and cranking up our financial and material support would be enough. It wasn't. And while we can debate the US military contribution, which I feel was a great deal more than you'll allow, I don't think anyone will argue that without US financial/material support the Allies ability to prosecute the war would have ground to a halt. Possibly as early as late 1915. That we got in and out of the war quickly and with fewer casualities that you is not something that we regret.

Cheers, Bill

[Waffenlandser]

And just out of interest, how many men from your city of San Antonio were killed in action or died of wounds between 1 October and 11 November 1918?

San Antonio, Texas is home one of the US's largest military complexes. Apart from its army and airforce facilities it was home to the largest military medical facilities in the world. Fort Sam Houston army hospital (Brook Army Hospital), Wilford Hall airforce Medical Centre and the Audie Murphy Veterans Hospital. It was to these facilities that came the mst severely wounded soldiers of WW2, Korea, Viet Nam and Desert Storm. Hundreds died of their wounds here. They died after the best medical care in the nation was unable to save them. Burn casualties from all over the world and from every ally in those conflicts were treated at the Fort Sam burn unit. The army psychiatric unit at Audie Murphy and Fort Sam is a model unit that attracts visitors from all over the world.

The army's medics were trained at Brook. They saved thousands of lives of soldiers of all nations. Medevac of wounded soldiers was pioneered here as early as 1917. These practices were put to test in 1918 when America entered the war. Again countless lives were saved.

San Antonio and her medical facilities more than made up for it's relative inactivity in 1914-1918. It still does as we speak.

Those of us who served will bear testimony to this.

[59165]

That we got in and out of the war quickly and with fewer casualities that you is not something that we regret.

Cheers, Bill

Us neither but,if you do a head count of the American dead in those last few months & multiply it to a level similar to the 4 years the Commonwealth were fighting,then it would really make your Pershings seem very Haigish.

There wasn't any need for the millions of Yanks to go to France,the war was won by stalemate & it sickens me that so many of your countrymen died in needless assaults to further the career of career Generals.

There were no winners in the 1st world war.

Dave,doing a Barry

[dutchbarge]

Us neither but,if you do a head count of the American dead in those last few months & multiply it to a level similar to the 4 years the Commonwealth were fighting,then it would really make your Pershings seem very Haigish.

There wasn't any need for the millions of Yanks to go to France,the war was won by stalemate & it sickens me that so many of your countrymen died in needless assaults to further the career of career Generals.

There were no winners in the 1st world war.

Dave,doing a Barry

Hello Dave,

You're spot on. Old 'Black Jack' hasn't been raked over the coals like Haig. Perhaps we should start a thread.....Pershing, US butcherboy? That would really bring out the Yank bashers! Lots of excuses made for him (difficulty of forming an army from scratch, inexperienced staff/troops, overbearing allies, long lines of communication, unclear mission, etc.) but cutting to the chase he spent lives as liberally as anyone else. Wilson seemed to think that the only way the US could get a place at the peace talks was to spill US blood. Perhaps another thread.........? Cheers, Butchlarge

[dutchbarge]

Ah,******.

Merkins & medal folk have been off my hit list for quite a while(ask Pete.I aint had a pop at him in some time & I dont think I ever will again.He too has calmed & has become a better poster than I)because I have learnt from this forum.

Dave,

The weight of knowledge one faces on the Forum is pretty intimidating. I think most new members either don't participate to the degree they could (for fear of being ripped to shreds) or jump into it like Rambo without a jockstrap (and get ripped to shreds anyway). But if either type sticks it they go thru a metamorphasis and really do get in the hang of things. I know when I first got going I felt the only way to proceed was head down and dukes up. Going thru the gauntlet has hopefully knocked some sense into me. It certainly has humbled me. I am most pleased to observe that many of the views I long held have been changed through exposure to the Forum.

Cheers, Butchlarge Merkin

[dutchbarge]

Cheers and no hard feelings here.

Barry.

Hello Barry,

I forgot to welcome you to the snakepit. Seems some of our British cousins don't know what to make of you. They don't run into too many Tejanos! As your New Mexico neighbor I could quote them the old Spanish ditcho, 'Poor New Mexico, so far from Heaven, so close to Texas!' but they probably wouldn't get it, que no? They've gone pretty easy on you so far but be warned, prolonged exposure to the Forum can make you reconsider lots of what you believed was carved in stone. Cheers, Bill

[Dragon]

I would prefer to leave out the word "offending" until an offense has been proven, including the appeals process found in most civilised societies today.

PTSD is a chronic condition where the PATIENT has been exposed to a particularly traumatic experience. This experience may not appear to be traumatic to a third party, but it is to the sufferer. After the intial and possibly repeated traumas, the patient develops PTSD and the acute episode or flashback is re experienced after usually much less trauma, like the backfiring of an exhaust. The result of the flashback can be far more serious than the initial reaction.

As far as the DNA is concerned, modern technology has shed a lot of light on the past. Whoever intimated DNA and PTSD are related is being blinded by their own dust. DNA has brought closure to many unsolved crimes. Modern behavioral medicine has shed as much light on the past and brought closure in its own unique way. SAD is an example.

Barry, thank you for replying.

It was you who conflated serial offending and PTSD, in this post (#205). Kate used the phrase "serial offending"; you quoted her and followed the quotation with, "in line with PTSD. A severe psychiatric illness."

I'm sorry, but I still don't get the "in line with" bit.

You appeared to link PTSD and DNA in your post here (#228).Someone mentioned that awareness of trauma psychiatry (my phrase not theirs) was in its infancy, you quoted this and then commented that, "DNA analysis was not available in 1970." Gunboat has since explained what he thought you meant (thanks, GB).

My problem is that you quote then immediately comment, which in usual practice means that the comment is about the quotation. It looks as if you're making a connection. I've no doubt that the logical development is there in your mind, but I'm afraid I don't make those metal leaps. This isn't a criticism of you, but a comment on my own intellectual inadequacy.

I know quite a lot about PTSD and I'm always pleased when I see that its existence as a chronic and debilitating condition is accepted, indeed mentioned with empathy. I have expressed my thoughts elsewhere on the forum, and they can be found in a search on my name and PTSD, so I won't repeat them. I'm well aware that the trigger starts, as I've put it in the past, a video playing and there isn't an off-button. You might enjoy reading this book, if you haven't already done so.

Gwyn

[Northern Soul]

I am not a pacifist. Shooting young boys tied to a post is murder.

Nothing to do with the SAD debate, Barry - just thought I'd point out that you have the flag upside down. Unofficially, that orientation is regarded as a sign of distress.............

Andy.

[Jim Strawbridge]

It's not upside down if the flag post is on the right.

[geraint]

Just a point of interest - but if I had a display like that at home - I'd be in prison immediately! I thought weapons had to be locked up, and ammo kept in a seperate secure cabinet.

[Northern Soul]

It's not upside down if the flag post is on the right.

True Jim, but the seam and eyelet for attaching the flag to the lanyard is on the left.

[Gunner Bailey]

I'm not sure whether this post is worth adding as the thread dies out however, having read through it there are the usual glaring omissions by Barry and the other anti SAD people.

Having read both books - Blindfold and Alone and Shot at Dawn, the glaring thing that stands out in the individual accounts is that many of these deserters never got near the front line (or if they did they were not in combat) at all. Most were not shell shocked in any visible way, nor had complained of shell shock. Many were serial deserters who clearly wanted to be anywhere but the front line.

Has anyone ever done a clear statistical anlaysis of :

1. Deserters who may have been shell shocked = x as % of whole

2. Deserters who were nowhere near the front = x as % of whole

The blanket pardon presumed that all SAD case were shellshocked victims of war and by todays standards would not have been found guilty. However it's clear that this was totaly wrong in many of these cases. There seems to be a total lack of objectivity about this and emotions seem to rule.

Gunner Bailey

[PhilB]

Has anyone ever done a clear statistical anlaysis of :

1. Deserters who may have been shell shocked = x as % of whole

2. Deserters who were nowhere near the front = x as % of whole

The blanket pardon presumed that all SAD case were shellshocked victims of war and by todays standards would not have been found guilty. However it's clear that this was totaly wrong in many of these cases. There seems to be a total lack of objectivity about this and emotions seem to rule.

Gunner Bailey

As shell shock is such a loose term and unquantifiable, objectivity seems out of the question. I do wonder about "deserters who were nowhere near the front". Many could and should have faced up to the ordeal of front line service but is it possible that a man might be physically and mentally incapable of even going to the front, having served in the rear and seen war`s effects? I don`t know - I`m asking. Certain ly some men committed suicide rather than go to the front, so it must have been a powerful deterrent for some men.

[George Armstrong Custer]

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.

I think that your last couple of threads have garnered relatively high view counts for similar reasons to why car crash TV always gets high viewing figures.

[stevem49]

One final point before I wend my weary way back to the real world.

In war a man fights for his mates and no other reason. He has to have 100% confidence that his mates will back him up under all circumstances. If you get someone who cannot be trusted and who may possibly put your life at risk - you remove him. This can be done in a number of ways and SAD is just one of them.

sm

[Gunner Bailey]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Dec 2 2008, 10:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As shell shock is such a loose term and unquantifiable, objectivity seems out of the question. I do wonder about "deserters who were nowhere near the front". Many could and should have faced up to the ordeal of front line service but is it possible that a man might be physically and mentally incapable of even going to the front, having served in the rear and seen war`s effects? I don`t know - I`m asking. Certain ly some men committed suicide rather than go to the front, so it must have been a powerful deterrent for some men.

Phil

Quite a few deserted on route or whilst in holding areas before going to the front. This applied to some of the serial deserters.

My grandfather, who was there from 1915 to 1919 had a complete loathing of deserters. His values of loyalty to the King, the regiment and his pals made him hate them. Reading 'Her Privates We' seems to confirm this was the shared view of many soldiers. He may have had first hand knowledge of executions as well as his RE Coy was based at Marzingarbe and Armentiers for quite a time, where many executions took place.

Gunner Bailey

[PhilB]

My grandfather, who was there from 1915 to 1919 had a complete loathing of deserters.

As, understandably, would most men. And probably most deserters could have soldiered on with a bit more bottle. But was there a small number who literally couldn`t face it? Some people literally couldn`t force themselves to pick up a spider or snake, so it seems possible? Of course, if there were such soldiers, it would have been virtually impossible to sort them from the malingerers anyway. The point I`m making is that desertion might just not always have been a matter of personal choice.

[Gunner Bailey]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Dec 2 2008, 11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As, understandably, would most men. And probably most deserters could have soldiered on with a bit more bottle. But was there a small number who literally couldn`t face it?

Phil

I'd rather think about the millions who had the guts to stick it out, shell shock and all, than those who ran away.

GB

[Gunboat]

I am going to tel you a very personal story. I am not trying to suggest the experience is anything like that endured by those that have seen active service but it is just a story that has often made me think about courage.

In 1986 2 friends and had enjoyed a couple of pints in a local pub, I was about 18 at the time. We left the pub to go to the local chip shop. As we did so a gang of about 10 youths about the same age as us approached us. The one punched my friend without any provocation whatsoever. I leaped to his defence and there ensued a fist fight. I was pulled to the floor and the assailant and his friend gave me a kicking.

They let us go and we walked away licking our wounds towards my friends house. Halfway there the same gang ambushed us three of them grabbed me but I broke away from them and ran.....that was my first instinct to run. I didnt look back to may freinds I just ran. As I was running I saw a couple leave their house. I shouted at them to phone the police they ignored me...I ran to a phone box to phone the police...I saw a police car approaching so I ran to flag it down...they ignored me. I went back to the scene of the incident. My friends had gone.

I went back to my house and got my father to drive around the area until we found my freinds. They were in a bad state one had a badly broken nose, the other had lost a tooth. I hadnt escaped unscathed I had a hairline fracture to the jaw.

When my friends asked me why I had ran away I said that I ran to get help. The truth is that it was a secondary thought it occurred only as I was fleeing the scene.

Many looking at this could say "yeah well GB you had proven your courage earlier defending your friend, you had taken a kicking for it , you were probably in a state of shock, they were after you you could have been killed if you didnt run"

That may all be true, but all I know is that I was terrified and my flight instict overcame my fight instinct, I was quite simply scared and self preservation took over.

Had this incident occurred 70 years earlier in the trenches I would possibly have been tied to a post and shot....some people reading this would think that was the right outcome I had shown I was a coward I had ran away from danger and left my friends to fend for themselves. Others may say I was clearly shaken from my earlier beating and should not be held accountable for my actions.

The simple truth is that both are probably correct and that is why this kind of debate will run on forever.

What I will say is that I have never recovered from that day...oh my jaw healed...it cracks when I yawn much acting as a constant reminder, my friends nose has healed and the dentist somehow repaired my mates tooth...but I have never ever gottten over the guilt of leaving my friends.

[Gunner Bailey]

Gunboat

I would not consider this case as being anything like a WW1 desertion or cowardice case. As a young lad you had not been trained to deal with this situation, you were not trained to defend yourself and there was no framework of discipline to govern your behaviour. You did your best and going for help was an understandable action. I would not criticise it in any way.

A WW1 soldier was trained, equipped, armed, under orders and had regular briefings about what behaviour was expected of him, and the consequenses for not doing so.

Gunner Bailey

[Ann Sinnott]

Gunboat

You have my admiration for posting this. It illustrates very well the difference between a raw boy and a seasoned man. For one to be judged by the standards of the other is unjust. We all know how skin thickens with age - seems to me, some forget that.

We all have shames, justified or otherwise, we carry to the grave. We are all, every single one of us flawed.

Best wishes

Ann