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

Remembered Today:

Honoured At Last


Waffenlandser

Recommended Posts

If I may be so bold as to jump in here again!

Soldiers currently serving thankfully cannot be sentenced to death for the offences that those SAD were executed for, including desertion. We learn from history, and acknowledging past wrongs is part of that learning process. Denial serves no purpose. Unquestionably, the majority of those executed should not have been killed (murdered?). The pardons therefore serve the greater good. More extracts from the SAD campaign:

PERSPECTIVE

The British Ministry of Defence, at the forefront of opposition to the Shot at Dawn Campaign, has stoutly defended the integrity of the military system of justice and the sentences that emerged from it. Furthermore, it argues that today’s standards cannot be used to judge the past. This is fundamentally flawed because it is erroneously predicated on the assumption that public opinion about the execution of British soldiers during the First World War endorsed the decision to kill the men, or was at odds with today's criticism. This is simply incorrect - a fact confidentially acknowledged by the Army itself in 1919, as evidenced in the following extract from Public Record Office File: WO32/5479 Suspension of the Death Penalty: 1918-19: “Even during the continuance of hostilities there was very strong feeling both in the country and in the House of Commons against the infliction of the death penalty for military offences. Now that hostilities have ceased it can confidently be stated that the effect on this country of a death penalty might lead to an agitation which might be difficult to control and in all probability would jeopardise the prospects of maintaining the death penalty for military offences in time of peace when the Annual Army (Act) comes before the Houses of Parliament”. 2 March 1919 D.P.S. [i.e. Director of Personal Services, Brigadier General Sir Wyndham Childs, Department of the Adjutant-General]

It is quite clear that contemporaneous concerns about the executions generated a tenacious campaign that began in the wake of the war. Throughout the 1920’s, Ernest Thurtle, a Labour MP and war veteran, led the parliamentary campaign to abolish capital punishment for military crimes because of his experiences as a serving soldier[2]. The following quote give some sense of his passion for this cause and of the prevailing support at the time: “The movement for the abolition of the Death Penalty for military offences is growing rapidly, as the recent debate and division in the House of Commons demonstrated. There is no doubt that these shootings in cold blood of men for desertion and cowardice (so-called) are repugnant to the great majority of the people of the country. Offences of this kind are almost entirely manifestations of nerve failure in one form or another and to the average man and woman, it is an outrage of justice that for such failure men should be shot by their own comrades, in accordance with the provisions of existing Military Law”.

That he enjoyed contemporary support is evident by the fact that in 1928 Thurtle scored a major victory when the Government abolished the death penalty for eight offences, including striking superior officers, disobedience and sleeping on posts. However, the two offences that caused most of the executions during World War One retained the death penalty: desertion and cowardice.

In 1929, Thurtle’s bill to abolish military capital punishment was initially restricted to offences involving cowardice and quitting of posts, but Thurtle lobbied his colleagues to include desertion. When the bill reached the House of Lords, they rejected the proposals after speeches from several retired military figures such as Lord Allenby. The House of Commons overrode the Lord’s rejection, and Royal Assent was granted on 29 April 1930. Therefore, following 1930, British military personnel could not be sentenced to death for offences such as desertion and cowardice.

CLASS

Nor is it surprising that the perspective of this narrow social elite dominated attitudes within the army. Indeed it is the common public perception, literary response and academic consensus that the casual waste of human lives in the Great War was the product of this elite’s stubborn adherence to anachronistic tactics which had failed to adjust to the new technologies of war.

However, the extent to which this class perspective distorted the system of military justice has not featured to any great extent, largely because of the reluctance to release the files on field courts-martial and the associated punishments. The extent of the distortion, as illustrated by the table below, is startling and speaks for itself.

OFFICERS

Death 3

Life Penal Servitude 0

15 Years Penal Servitude 0

Penal Servitude: (3-12 years) 8

Imprisonment/Hard Labour: (6-24 months) 46

Imprisonment (6-24 months) 24

Detention (3 months; 6 months; 6 months+) 0

Field Punishment No.1 0

Field Punishment No.2 0

Discharged with Ignominy 0

Cashiered 377

Dismissed 1085

Forfeiture/Seniority/Rank 954

Reprimand 2638

Fines/Stoppages 34

Quashed/Not Confirmed/Remitted 86

Suspended 0

OTHER RANKS

Death 343

Life Penal Servitude 143

15 Years Penal Servitude 461

Penal Servitude: (3-12 years) 6812

Imprisonment/Hard Labour: (6-24 months) 38041

Imprisonment (6-24 months) 1873

Detention (3 months; 6 months; 6 months+) 105231

Field Punishment No.1 60210

Field Punishment No.2 20759

Discharged with Ignominy 970

Cashiered 0

Dismissed 0

Forfeiture/Seniority/Rank 27639

Reprimand 0

Fines/Stoppages 33469

Quashed/Not Confirmed/Remitted 4900

Suspended 9468

RACE

An analysis of Irish units serving in regular divisions together with other British units suggests that within those divisions death sentences were more common in the Irish units than the English, Scottish or Welsh units. There were five Regular Army divisions containing Irish and non-Irish battalions: The Guards Division, 4 Division, 7 Division, 8 Division and 29 Division. Irish units in these divisions consistently came off worse than others. The overall average for English, Scottish or Welsh units in these divisions is four death sentences per battalion. However, the overall average for the Irish units in these divisions is seven per battalion.

In most British formations, one in every 2-3,000 troops was sentenced to death. Yet one in fewer than every 600 Irishmen to enlist in the British army was sentenced to death by courts-martial. Interestingly, the number of condemnations in the ‘loyalist’ 36th (Ulster) Division is comparable to the other Irish divisions. This indicates that there was no religious basis for the disparity in Irish condemnations.

There is nothing to indicate a deliberate policy against the Irish ranks in the transcripts of the trials themselves. However, the pervading British attitude towards the Irish at the time is well documented as one of mistrust and suspicion. Literature of the time hints at the anti-Irish feeling of many in British society, especially in the upper class. Efforts to improve recruitment figures in Ireland by Redmond in the south, and Craig in the North, for differing reasons, did little to dispel this attitude.

The Southborough Committee, set up to investigate the condition known as shellshock, heard evidence in 1922 that questioned the soldiering abilities of certain races, including the Irish, and concluded that, although shellshock did not recognise an individual’s background, the Irish, among others, were more prone to it. Racial characteristics were cited as a predisposing cause together with ‘education and social conditions and environments’ in that order[5].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed it is the common public perception, literary response and academic consensus that the casual waste of human lives in the Great War was the product of this elite's stubborn adherence to anachronistic tactics which had failed to adjust to the new technologies of war.

What nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know. And I am pointing out that the paragraph I quoted is nonsense. There is a good reason for this. It is. The author has clearly not kept up with research based on primary evidence that has emerged and developed since the mid 1960s or the literary trends since then. As there was next to nothing published or research done, with good reason, between the late 1930s and the early 1960's, the comments appear to be based on the self-interested, introspective "disenchantment" school of the 1930s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and one more thing.........when you run out of rebuttals, call me a troll.

OK. I could have expressed my words better so withdraw the troll accusation and have to accept that you probably sincerely hold the views that you have expressed.

I've found a better form of words to express what I think about your contributions here. I am conscious of Forum rules about respecting other members so will choose these words with extreme care.

I find your opinions stated here to be naive, simplistic and blinkered. You make random statements without any references to the known facts of the cases you yourself raise. When facts are presented that contradict your view (or even, in one case, support your conclusion even if not your reasoning), you are unwilling or unable to engage in discussion on this discussion board. However much you might attempt to present your opinions as facts, they are not; they remain opinions. And, even here, you contradict yourself in pathetic ways - for example, your original assertion that, effectively, all those executed cannot have been guilty because they were shell-shocked, which you then later contradict by saying it is irrelevent whether an man was shell-shocked. What utter and complete nonsense!

I hope you will accept that the above words are the best I can muster by way of respect and by way of an apology for the troll accusation.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am merely quoting.

Unfortunately, Ann, one can't assume that statements made the SAD Campaign are either unbiased or accurate. They were a very successful campaigning organisation that, like all successful campaigning organisations, used innuendo, "spin" and "smoke and mirrors" to great effect. I have no criticism whatsoever of that tactic (I've been involved in "political" campaigns for most of my adult life and can "spin" with the best of them) but lets acknowledge that it is just a tactic.

The class and race red herrings were adopted quite late in the Campaign's programme when had become clear to them that they were not going to succeed on issues of law or justice. It was a masterly stroke allowing the politicians the "get out" to come up with the hollow pardon that leaves probably innocent men like Willie Stones and Harry Farr still convicted and with slurs on their characters for all time. A shameful performance by our government, IMO.

As for the others who, in many eyes, were clearly guilty of their military crimes, they are now in the same legal category as the many hundreds of others who were sentenced to death but whose sentences were commuted. Correctly found guilty, sentenced appropriately within the law of the time but with a "posthumous commutation". I suspect they would be few who would now criticise that position and, certainly, I wouldnt.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris and John

I bow to your superior knowledge, at least until I find time to read up myself!

I added my few spokes because I was dismayed at the vitriolic comments directed to Enfield Collector on this thread, and on another (which I read before becoming a member) on the first day of the Somme, more particularly, for EC, the first eight hours. EC is not alone in his thoughts and valuations on either 1 July 1916 nor on the SAD issue and I thought it worthwhile to put that in frame, in the spirit of fair debate.

The perspective allowed by the passage of time always changes (and will no doubt change again), and academics generally always disagree. In discussing contentious subjects, respect for others and courtesy are prerequisites, in my book - EC was not always accorded these, and so I felt impelled to chip in.

Re SAD: as I said, the greater good has been served - a concept evidently applied by the army itself at the time. But time moves on, and we - individuals, countries and institutions - learn our lessons.

Speaking of which, I have learned much from this site, and also from the kind responses and comments of Forum members who took the time and trouble to respond and provide me with useful information. I have a stack of material I'm now going to hunker down and read.

Congratulations, Chris, on starting this forum and also for the Long Long Trail!

Best wishes to all

Ann

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bow to your superior knowledge,

Only opinions, Ann. Only opinions. As valid or invalid as the next person's.

I think it beholden on us, particularly when discussing the contentious issues on the board, to evidence our opinions. Without that, a civilised grown-up discussion turns into a pub shouting match. Any vitriol I am directing at Enfield is because s/he falls very very short of supplying any evidence whatsoever to supprt his/her opinion. Only my opinion of course, and I'll not be inviting EC into the pub carpark to discuss it further. Unless s/he spills my pint or "looks at me funny". B)

Enjoy the reading - there's lots out there about the executions and pardons issue. Little of it unprejudiced, I'm afraid, so please read widely to get a range of views.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning John.

As usual your rebuttals are vague and clouded in personal attacks.Well camouflaged so as not to violate FTOU.

Please show me where I have been "naive, simplistic and blinkered"

Au contraire it do believe it is you who constantly throws around names and tries to lure me into the cyber pub parking lot.

Modern research has shown, without a shred of doubt that men were executed by the Brirish army in 1917 by their superior officers without medical testimony as to their mental state of mind at the time of their alleged desertion. Without this testimony how can I be more certain about the mental state of the accused and condemned.

I was reading , just last night, the new book out on the Accrington Pals by William Turner.. At their new camp at Rugely the Pals refused to parade because of some thing they did not like. Their CO Colonel A.W. Rickman informed the Pals he could have them shot for this rebellious behavior. I doubt he would have done this, but it shows the mindset of the British officer at that time.

This is only a pub shouting match because you turn it into one. I have quietly and logically and with lots of quoted evidence, argued my points. One by one. True there are a few instances I have not been able to nail down hard facts of medical evidence, simply because there are none documented. The few photos and films of shell shock are the exteme examples. The usual cases were glossed over as cowardice and shirkers or blue funk. Officers were quietly sent home to be invalided "broken in health". ORs were kept in the line and told to "pull themselves together" Ors did not have Craiglockhart to be treated in darkened rooms by sympathetic psychiatrists and orderlies.

Thank God the South Africans, Autralians and Americans were more civilised in their approach to shell shock.

When facts are presented that contradict your view (or even, in one case, support your conclusion even if not your reasoning), you are unwilling or unable to engage in discussion on this discussion board.

prove it with facts and not waffling.

you are unwilling or unable to engage in discussion on this discussion board.

Back this up with facts please and not more waffling.

"Little of it unprejudiced, I'm afraid,"

Yes indeed. Just as are many of the replies to my thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Enfield

Pleass accept that there was no intent for my attack to appear "clouded". I thought it crystal clear. Use of the more direct language that I would prefer to have used would not pass moderation.

However, you ask for facts to support my assertion that you are unwilling to engage in discussion, preferrig to trot out prejudices. OK, go read my posts at #2, #25, #27 and #35 . You will see specific and direct questions about issues which you have raised and which you have clearly declined to answer (or find yourself unable to answer). But , of course, you know that already. ;)

It's OK, though. Your failure to address any of the issues is answer enough about your intent. Perhaps when you've found the time or inclination to learn more about this issue, we may be able to have a some form of covenrsation, but I'll not be holding my breath.

By the way, I've just read the other thread of yours that Ann mentioned. Very much along the same theme, isn't it. Funny how many contributors there thought you were trolling. Must be something about your style of prose, I suppose. :D

I'll leave you and your prejudices to the thread now.

With all the sincerity I can must

best wishes

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only opinions, Ann. Only opinions. As valid or invalid as the next person's.

I think it beholden on us, particularly when discussing the contentious issues on the board, to evidence our opinions. Without that, a civilised grown-up discussion turns into a pub shouting match. Any vitriol I am directing at Enfield is because s/he falls very very short of supplying any evidence whatsoever to supprt his/her opinion. Only my opinion of course, and I'll not be inviting EC into the pub carpark to discuss it further. Unless s/he spills my pint or "looks at me funny". B)

Enjoy the reading - there's lots out there about the executions and pardons issue. Little of it unprejudiced, I'm afraid, so please read widely to get a range of views.

John

Thanks John.

Could you tell me why the 306 cases were not treated individually? Had they been - and closely scrutinised through the prism of modern knowledge re stress trauma (also in relation to cases of murder), and today's values apropos racism, and with the rule of law rigorously applied - this disagreement between forum members would not be happening. Murder is murder, and it's a pity that such cases were not publicly named as such.

Let's also bear in mind, though, the distinction between manslaughter and murder. How many instances of murder, I wonder, were actually manslaughter?

The blanket pardon, neatly side-stepping the issues raised, lets the British Govt (of the day) and the Army (of the day) off the hook, does it not?

They Should Never Be Forgotten, survivors included - and heated disagreements are a form of remembrance like any other; a form of caring; and we all, on this forum, care.

Yes I will read widely. And my reading pile encompasses so much more - includes pages of books kindly emailed to me, and printouts galore from this forum, the Long Long Trail and other websites. It'll take me months to get through it all!

Ann

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The class and race red herrings were adopted quite late in the Campaign's programme when had become clear to them that they were not going to succeed on issues of law or justice.

John

Forgot to say: the class and race 'red herrings' were based on academic research, were they not? - in that case not red herrings at all! :closedeyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Kate. I am new to this forum. Far away from the Old Sweathood. This was not meant in any way to be a debate. Just sharing information.

Didn't you join on 2007? As you have been using the forum regularly for a few months, I'm surprised that you haven't found the search function. Fortunately the helpful people of the forum have supplied you with links to the other active threads.

Why do you not want a debate? If you do not want a discussion please be accurate and informed about what you post. I don't think any of us are qualified to judge these men, nor the courts that tried them. We have not even come close to experiencing the conditions that they faced. The exceutions are a fact and so are the pardons. What new fact has been uncovered?

I'm horrified that in the Napoleonic Wars army personnel could be hung for stealing chickens, but that was the law at that time. I'm not aware of a campaign to pardon them though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you tell me why the 306 cases were not treated individually? .......The blanket pardon, neatly side-stepping the issues raised, lets the British Govt (of the day) and the Army (of the day) off the hook, does it not?

Ann

I think you answer your first question with your second.

I take the view that many of those who campaigned for pardons (and those who arranged for the "pardon" to be granted) did so on a political rather than judicial basis.

A judicial tribunal (under the auspices of the Criminal Case Review Commission) would have identified where there had been, or had probably been, miscarriages of justice and where there had not. I have little doubt in my mind that they would have concluded that there had been miscarriages in only a small number of cases. Apologies for again returning to the Durham Light Infantry case, but because it is "re-enacted" at WFA meetings, it will be known to a number of members. I have little doubt that such a tribunal would have concluded that there had probably been insufficient evidence to convict Stones of shamefully casting his arms. I'm equally confident that the convictions of Goggins and McDonald for quitting their post without orders would have stood as there was plenty of evidence of guilt and no obvious mitigating circumstances (even to my modern mind).

To return to your original question as to "why" there was no individual consideration, I can only express an opinion. And that is that it didnt suit those campainging for all to recieve pardons to have a process where only some would get one. Government also had an interest (saving money and making the issue go away) in not having such a process either. So, Government came up with "pardon" that isnt a pardon - and Stones is still a man convicted of shamefully casting away his arms and being sentenced to death for it. Perhaps, I'm just an old cynic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have researched one of the SAD men in detail - He had a fair trial and if the Army had not shot him , someone in the battalion would have.

sm

Steve, please say who - and how about a few more details?

John, still mulling over your last, but no time right now.

Ann

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't remember where, exactly, in the book it appears, but in Manning's Her Privates We, the deserter (Miller?) is dealt with. It seems no-one in the battalion had any sympathy for him (IIRC), and the general feeling was that shooting him was a good thing.

Now, I only mention that as a view to the fact that it is all fine and dandy for us, in our warm homes in 2008, safe and sound and in no imminent danger (and not expected to put our lives on the line) to judge what happened 90+ years ago under dreadful circumstances, by people with a wholly different background, upbringing and set of beliefs.

My feeling is that a pardon solves nothing, and is merely a sop by a government which wants to curry favour but has no guts. Some cases should be overturned, some deserved to be shot (given that the death penalty was the extreme punishment then in favour). That said, revisiting decisions from the past is fraught with danger and best left.

It happened. We can't bring them back. We can't decide what was 'right' and what was 'wrong'.

Move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair trail by whose standards?

lets go right to the begining. Men and boys signed up with little more than a perfunctory medical examination. It was "take off your shirt. Open your mouth. Take a deep breath and welcome to the army" There was absolutely no psychiatric evaluation. No rough estimate of IQ and no gut feeling impression of any psychiatric co morbidity. Many of the lads eventually were found to be well below the normal in basic intelligence.

The science of psychiatry was still in ii's infancy in both Britain and America. Interestingly the only real book on war and psychiatry was the epic

"War, Psychiatry and the Politics of Trauma in Germany 1890 to 1930" by Kessel.

The proper treatment of chronic stress disorder only developed AFTER 1919 when it was apparent that of the 300,000 disabled American soldiers in hospitals, 50,000 were suffering from Psychiatric disorders related to battle fatigue. For those interested in learning more about this, I would refer them to the classic tome, "FLASHBACK, POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER. SUICIDE AND THE LESSONS OF WAR" by Penny Coleman.

I will like to use the following as an example of how British psychiatrists treated men who had crossed the lines of sanity after sustaining the traumas of shells, lice,rats and death. Two British "traditional" psychiatrists, Clovis Vincent and Lewis Yealland, used a combination of electric shocks, threats of punishment and humiliation deemed by todays standards as barbaric and cruel. Interestingly this was never done to officers. Fortunately this barbarism was stopped as an American psychiatrist, Harold Myers, taught British psychiatrists there was more to treating shell shock than electric shocks and Freudian clap trap.

Myers finally convinced the British that shell shock needs to be treated away from the front as short term therapy did nothing but make matters worse and accounted for desertion and casting away arms. Men were finally evacuated away from the shelling. Myers also discouraged the use of the term Shell Shock and instead used the term NYDN or Not yet diagnosed Nervous. The United States expanded on the discipline of military psychiatry and there were numerous psychiatric facilities available when America entered the war in 1917. This explains the zero incidence of SAD by the US forces.

Interstingly Freud classified British and French military psychiatrists as "the machine guns behind the front line driving the men who fled back .

The treatment modes by US military psychiatrist resulted in the return to active duty of 70% of those affected.

Not all the accolades go to the Americans. The British psychiatrist, Dr William Rivers at Craiglockhart was also a pioneer. He was one of the first to discard the Freudian sexual hypotheses in treating battle fatigue.

It was the final enlightenment of Dr Rivers that it was not genetic or inherent behavioral issues that drove men to the brink of sanity. It was war. It was the findings later that battle fatigue caused men to become disoriented and confused. Enough to make them go in opposite directions to the front and lose their arms. It was not cowardice or "FUNK" It was a pity that the skills of Dr Rivers was almost entirely for officers. The rank and file were not privy to these opportunities.

Siegfried Sasoon's "A soldiers Declaration" was regarded by Corrigan in his recent book as the ravings of a sick mind. The sickness, methinks, is not that of Sasoon.

Like history, I am "Moving on"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the entire subject of WW1 is blossoming and it seems as if the 400,000 visitors to Flanders last year do not follow the passage of time philosophy. Almost monthly there is some article in our local newspapers about WW1. The subject, I beg to differ, is a huge issue. Perhaps not in your community, but in the community of our collective concience. It appears as though any issue over WW1 can be rediscussed except the sore points like this and others.

The US army executions of Black soldiers at Shepton Mallet prison in England in WW2 has aroused similar criticisms. Accusations of racism and biased judges are being thrown at the military. History does not sleep. History does demand accountability, no matter how long ago the incidents took place.

No History does not demand accountability. History is the pursuit of the truth - what happened, when, how and why. It also demands that historical events are evaluated according to the time in which they occurred not by some 90+ years later moral judgements. Accountability suggests blame. This is where you will hit another problem - the surviving evidence of the SAD cases is not qualitatively sufficient to be sure EXACTLY who of the just over 300 'home' Brits were shell shocked and therefore harshly condemned or repeat and serious transgressors of military law at that time and were dealt with accordingly. It is for philosophers, the religious, politicians etc to deal with accountability not historians. Raising the SAD issue is insensitive considering the reflections of recent weeks associated with the 90th anniversary of the armistice. It is time it became a mere footnote to the history of the Great War and not the focus of special pleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Siegfried Sasoon's "A soldiers Declaration" was regarded by Corrigan in his recent book as the ravings of a sick mind. The sickness, methinks, is not that of Sasoon.

Corrigan's most recent book was on the Second World War. If this was in 'Mud, Blood and Poppycock' we need an actual quote from the text or a page reference because I have not heard any serious writer describe Sassoon's actions in this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... it is all fine and dandy for us, in our warm homes in 2008, safe and sound and in no imminent danger (and not expected to put our lives on the line) to judge what happened 90+ years ago under dreadful circumstances, by people with a wholly different background, upbringing and set of beliefs.

... revisiting decisions from the past is fraught with danger and best left.

It happened. We can't bring them back. We can't decide what was 'right' and what was 'wrong'.

Move on.

I couldn't agree more, and this sentiment should apply to more than just SAD.

Regards

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then, and please correct me if I am wrong., we must forgive the perpatrators of the Holocaust as those were different times and accountability is not required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair trail by whose standards?

lets go right to the begining. Men and boys signed up with little more than a perfunctory medical examination. It was "take off your shirt. Open your mouth. Take a deep breath and welcome to the army" There was absolutely no psychiatric evaluation. No rough estimate of IQ and no gut feeling impression of any psychiatric co morbidity. Many of the lads eventually were found to be well below the normal in basic intelligence.

Enfield,

You still did not answer my question on Will Stones with a yes or no , so i'll give my opinion, He was not shell shocked there was never any suggestion that he was, before his trial ( if you can call it that ) during, or after even to the present day, to my mind he was a well clued up and experienced soldier, a quick thinker who used his rifle to block the enemys way and effect his escape, the court basically refused to believe his story. He met his death a very brave man apparently, not the quivering mess you would have everyone believe. It seems to me you are letting your sentiments dictate your opinions and your statements, the way i read your posts, most of the British Army were basket cases after a few months at the front. To my mind you and many others defending the men executed in WW1 are approaching the issue from the wrong angle. It would be absolutley impossible to re-evaluate an individuals case 90+ years on from a pshyciatric viewpoint, the evidence if not presented at their 'Trials' , and in most cases it was not, certainly could not be found today. In the quote above you state enlisting men were not given proper medical examinations, how the hell can you substantiate that !!

My Gt Grandfather, told a string of lies to get into the army in 1914, on his first enlistment in the RGA he was rejected as being unfit for service owing to a Hernia operation 5 months previously and not properly healed, 7 days after his discharge he's trying again this time into the KSLI, and rejected again, eventually he succeeded but only after it had healed presumably. Another, a brother inlaw of my Gt aunt was rejected as being physically and mentally unfit - see attached image.

post-9633-1227994580.jpg

I guess there must have been thousands and thousands like them, yes maybe some did slip through the net, i would imagine they still do to this day in all Armies.

Enfield, you keep banging on in this vein, making statements that just don't hold up, and in my opinion you do those men no credit, yes some probably were in a state of 'shell shock' a lot were not, Stone in my opinion definatly was not, my argument has always been that most if not all the courts martials of these men were proceeduraly flawed, if a man was on trial for his life someone at the top should have made damn sure that it was right. Making abject statements which are very obviously flawed if not totally without substance, does these mens memories no justice at all.

Regards to all

Ian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm horrified that in the Napoleonic Wars army personnel could be hung for stealing chickens, but that was the law at that time. I'm not aware of a campaign to pardon them though.

Was stealing chickens a source of disgrace that would live on through decades? :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have little doubt in my mind that they would have concluded that there had been miscarriages in only a small number of cases.

John

What is the basis for your belief? What is a small number? In the 30 or so accounts of cases I've read, indications of shell shock were overlooked and supporting evidence not investigated or simply ignored.

Ann

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...