Honoured At Last

[George Armstrong Custer]

Like almost all here I have a nick. Its not fancy. Its my hobby.

Have you ever wondered, Bazza, whether any of those cherished Enfields in your collection were used by a SAD firing party?

[Waffenlandser]

Have you ever wondered, Bazza, whether any of those cherished Enfields in your collection were used by a SAD firing party?

I have a number of SMLEs from 1917. They indeed could have been used by an execution squad. Most, however , were arsenal refurbs and used again in WW2.

[Kate Wills]

Apologies Kate. I am accustomed to calling admin Mod.

It seems that whatever I say is dissected like a high school frog. Its not the Holocaust Its not Coventry. Fine. Like almost all here I have a nick. Its not fancy. Its my hobby.

Thankyou. I am an Admin called Kate, who mods.

If we are seeking a comparison, why not choose the floggings that were commonplace in the pre-Victorian armies and navies, in the latter case against pressed men.

I feel their pain and sense the injustice, as would the participants of WW1. The world moves on.

Punishments are often more severe for the military because the security of the nation depends upon trust and reliability amongst those who bear the task of its defence.

[George Armstrong Custer]

I have a number of SMLEs from 1917. They indeed could have been used by an execution squad.

So you don't think having those things about the house is incompatible with your apparently very strong outrage about the 'murder' of those whom your rifles might well have terminated at the stake? It's a bit like a committed Christian, despite his principles, avidly collecting and displaying Roman hammers and nails I should have thought.

[Kate Wills]

Since I've been a member of this Forum, the SAD matter has been visited, revisited, re-revisited and even re-re-revisited to the nth degree.

No argument put forward has ever changed anyone's opinion, as far as I can see. Certainly no argument is going to change my mind, or ( suspect) Enfield's.

I'm sorry to say that I actually feel this is one that the Mods should leave on the barred list, simply because it always sheds much more heat than light and always ends up with the two 'sides' even more entrenched than they were to begin.

Sorry Steve, I disagree, and I disagree because, unlike the SAD Campaign, the GWF welcomes all points of view.

I may not agree with Enfield Collector, but he has as much right to broach his beliefs here as you, I and 25,800 other members of this Forum

Earlier on this thread I remarked that Enfield should not be disappointed to have his views challenged. Without challenge debate is non-existent, views cannot be tested and knowledge cannot be extended - which is why the SAD Campaign do not have a Forum on their own sites. They do not allow counter aguments, and those who try are threatened with legal action, though on what trumped-up charge Goodness only knows.

And those of us who dare question the party line are found guilty of ignorance and bullying!

[Ian grant]

"mentally deficient" is not a psychiatric diagnosis. Its an observation. A savant is mentally impaired ands can be a brilliant mathematician. The medical examinations in WW1 were done by older country GPs attached to the army. They had little, if any psychiatric training. Most medical students recieve three months basic education in behavioral medicine even today. In 1914 it was negligible.

Barry, - Nice to meet you ( so to speak ) finally.

Don't split hairs with me ! this man Joseph Morgan was his name, was obviously sufficiently mentally and physically impaired enough to have caused the examining medical officer to recomend his discharge from the Army. He had already passed his army pyhsical examinations which were likley brief, and probably were conducted by doctors of GP standard.

However he had spent 68 days in the army before being discharged, most likley his NCO's reported that he was slow to understand basic orders, prompting further examinations, or likley as not more stringent medicals including psyhcological examinations were manditory for all recruits as they passed through the stages of their training, which of or if both are true i know not i'm no expert on Psyhciatric or pshycological examinations.

I do know this which is plain for all to see the net caught him, as i'm sure it did for many thousands of other recruits.

That some slipped through the net is not suprising, but these men were not being trained to handle supersonic jet fighters.

I would think it nigh on impossible and would be true today to weed out every man who was likley to have a lower than normal threshold of tolerance to warfare, and sadly of the many millions who saw action during WW1, there were many thousands who suffered " shell shock " to some degree. A friend of mine who had just completed a tour of northern Ireland in the early 80's threw his girlfriend into a shop doorway grazing her knee, the reason ? a car backfired close by, was he twitchy, nervous, or unstable ? not at all, - shell shocked ? possibly.

On the other hand i remember as a young boy a chap who would be in his late 70's probably, regularly coming into our shop, my mother would have to take his leather purse, take the money out, and count his change out and put it back in the purse for him, because he shook so badly, when i first saw him i asked her why he shook so much she said he was shell shocked, and of course i had no idea what she meant, my point here is there are degrees, there is no way my mate would have been picked up by Pshycological examination as being prone to combat stress as they now call it i believe, but if he were subjected to months of living in WW1 battle conditions, ? who knows he may have ended up like the old chap.

I think only in the most obvious cases were men who were unstable likley to be picked up. As i have said before there were men who were executed who very obviously were suffering from the various forms of shell shock, and i would guess that any man who spent any amount of time at the front would not have remained unaffected by it, but shell shocked the majority were not IMO, and neither were many of those executed.

It doesn't take rocket science to realise that it is quite impossible today to evaluate a mans guilt or innocence of the charges brought against him back then, on the basis of his mental stability, for the reasons i stated in my other post.

I've said it already but i'll make my standpoint as clear as i can so you can see my viewpoint on the subject, i will try to supress my emotions, which i suppose i did not do very well in the previous debates of the past.

In my opinion - and it is only my opinion. the men who were executed in WW1 regardless of the charges brought against them, in most cases were not given a fair and impartial hearing at their trials, i say most because i have not examined every case, and those i have are from a laymans viewpoint. But even to my uneducated eye there were very serious ommitions from the Judicial ( military ) process, which denied these men the most basic of rights during their trials.

I won't go into them all here i'd be all night writing this ( it's 3am in the morning here !! ) I don't believe the General Staff, and i mean Haig, Smith-Dorrien and others were not aware of what was taking place, and in fact by their own hand condoned it and even encouraged it.

I believe the reason was that at the times these men were tried it was percieved that it had come to the point where examples needed to be made ( The reason why any crimminal pushisment is handed out is it not ? ) that something in the order of 3000 death sentences were commuted by them i believe confirms that hypothisis.

I honestly believe they or at least some of them thought it regretable that executions had to take place, fair enough i say - but if you are going to put a man on trial for his life, then you must accord him every opportunity under the law ( The military law of the time ) to present an adequate defence, this was most definatly not provided to many of these men ( i'll refrain from saying all ).

My emotions are at boiling point now so i'll end it there before i get moderated !!! But essentially this is my viewpoint, which i've stated within the megre Perameters of my knowledge, i am not a defence lawyer, or any kind of legal expert especially with regard to military law, but throwing unfounded statements such as you've made into this thread Barry, only serves to seriously cloud the issues in my opinion, using comparrisons to prior or subsequent attrocities, that have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand just makes serious debate impossible, as i've said before i do believe your sentiments are heartfelt, it's your reasoning that i can't grasp, and turns the debate into a brawl which does the memory of these men no justice, of which they had little of then, lets do them some here and stick to the facts.

Regards

Ian.

P.S I'm going to bed !!!

[Waffenlandser]

Punishments are often more severe for the military because the security of the nation depends upon trust and reliability amongst those who bear the task of its defence.

What about dishonest and crooked politicians and business people. The nation depends as much on their integrity.

Why are they not punished as harshly as a simple soldier aged 16 years old.

[Waffenlandser]

but throwing unfounded statements such as you've made

I am having a hard time, Ian deciphering your post. Its still early here, so my mind, even with turkey excess, is still functioning pretty well.

In all my reading of WW1 medical examinations, I have come across little to no reference of in depth psychological evaluations of soldiers. I have quoted one of the leading books on battle fatigue and wont go into the subject of British army psychiatry again I have hashed through this already. You deem these facts as unfounded statements.

There are absolutely no psychological tests, with the exception of the MMPI or Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, that can pick up a soldiier's susceptability to battle fatgue. In my opinion there are no tests that can predict BF. How a country GP in 1914 could do this is beyond my wildest imagination.

My late grandpa was not shell shocked, but he was ,according to my dad, a changed man when he returned from the trenches. He too had a tremor and could not stand any noise. A car would backfire and he almost cringed on the sidewalk. Imagine his reaction if a Howitzer shell landed near to him. I can assure you he would have bolted. Interestingly he was discharged with no diagnosis of shell shock. In my retrospective opinion he had severe battle fatigue.

If examples have to made, Ian, why are we no longer hanging murderers in Britain or South Africa?

Please enumerate my unfound hypotheses so I can reply to each one and thus uncloud some of the confusion that seems to be affecting you so deeply.

I am off to bed now . Hope you had a good nights rest.

cheers

Barry

[Waffenlandser]

despite his principles, avidly collecting and displaying Roman hammers and nails I should have thought.

I cant believe you are serious about this. I collect German Mausers as well. Some of them may have killed British soldiers. Its not the weapon George, its the man who pulls the trigger.

[keithmroberts]

Morning all.

Barry

I am no expert. However I have spent significant parts of my life studying various elements of the history of the last thousand or so years, I now know that I will never have all the answers, even though I have maybe developed some of the questions enough to draw some conclusions.

One is that when we consider historical events or actions it in essential to try to understand the context of those events, politically, economically and socially. It is not enough just to apply a 21st century judgement, nor is it fair in absolute terms.

I would like to put forward the proposition that for the majority of the community living in the United Kingdom a century ago, or even the western world, justice was pretty rough.

My ancestors of the period lived in rented rooms, or, if they were lucky a modest back-to-back terraced house in what by any modern standards would be condemned as insanitary slums. That was not unusual, it was the lot of most ordinary people in the industrial north of England. If they had been unfortunate enough to find themselves before a court, they would have had no money to pay for for defence lawyers, and no legal aid from the state to ensure that they were properly represented.

The effect of these conditions meant that in many cases accused people, other than the rich were on pretty poor ground in seeking to disprove their guilt once accused.

We have now moved on, but that doesn't make the civilian prosecutors of late Victorian England into criminals - just into members of the relatively better off classes seeking to apply the laws of the land. The office of Home Secretary was a political one, and any reprieve from the death sentence for domestic crimes was in the hands of the office holder. Just as today, that person was a politician, ansd subject to the influence of the then media in considering decisions.

Is any of that so different to what happened in the great war? There was a military law, and it was applied at a time when thousands were dying in a cataclysm greater than the world had ever seen. In some cases it now seems clear that there were significant breaches of the legal procedures of the time, in others the correctly applied procedures of the day led to judicial outcomes that would not happen today, 90 years on.

What I find difficult to accept is that you appear to take the evidence that does exist that some cases were not handled correctly and apply that to all indiscriminately. Nor do you appear to put the military trials, or the medical examinations in the context of their time.

Today we have much more debate and communication, and it should be more difficult for today's politicians and legal administrators to actor legislate unfairly without a due regard for people's background, circumstances in a manner that will stand the test of time. Our societies, have evolved, legally, socially, and in terms of medical understanding.

However I am far from sure that all the actions of my government or yours will be regarded as fair, or even decent in 90 years. For the most part I attribute present day policies which I consider to be inhuman, or uncivilised to honest men or women, seeking to do what they believe to be right. Some however reflect a "pandering to prejudice", that will almost certainly not be looked on kindly by history. Most of such policies or actions, some leading to considerable loss of life or liberty, (note to Mods - I am carefully avoiding specifics to avoid modern political debate), are however unlikely to be viewed as criminal. Criminally stupid perhaps, or craven when leaders have known better but played to the gallery; but that is today's context.

We surely need to be able to debate, with passion on occasion, but also with clear heads, recognising that few things are simple, and that the context is very important indeed.

Keith

[George Armstrong Custer]

I cant believe you are serious about this. I collect German Mausers as well. Some of them may have killed British soldiers. Its not the weapon George, its the man who pulls the trigger.

So. A man who pulls the trigger on a firing party is what, then? Guilty? Of what?

Being aware that the weapons you have in your house have almost certainly been used to kill men - some, perhaps, in executions - seems an incongruous hobby to enjoy given your diatribes here against the futile butchery of men in combat in the Great War and, more particularly it seems, by firing squad. After all, if you so passionately detest what the men wielding these weapons did I'm surprised you're so keen to have the tools they used to do it about your home.

Anne and I have both posted individual soldier's stories in the hope it will bring comfort to the still living families who still mourn and feel the sting of shame and scorn of those who still regard their ancestors as shirkers and rogues. We are their vioce. We speak for them.

Are you both members of the same organisation, then?

[Ann Sinnott]

Good morning all - should say 'good noon'! Stayed up late last night to make that last post (thanks John, I wondered if, hoped, you would comment), so up late today and what do I find? - some amazing additions to this thread!

I don't have time to engage right now (my life this last week has been seriously put on Great War Forum hold!) but I must say a thing or two.

First, I have no association with Enfield Collector/Barry or the SAD campaign. I am not any kind of undercover person! Briefly my story is: I acquired my father's war medals 12/13 yrs ago (Pte Edward Sinnott 5900 Royal Irish Regiment - any info?) but as the mother of a very young child I had no time for research, other than to write to the Public Records Office who told me that many service records had not survived.

A couple of years ago, an online search at NA produced a MIC (had no idea they existed!). Life still very busy (moved home), still no time to research. A longing unappeased. Nov 08, child now 16 yr old teenager, the 90th anniversary = galvanised! - though still little time. Found my uncle's MIC, found many websites, including Long Long Trail and this Forum - from which I, like so many others, have learned so much and received valuable help from members.

So, no skullduggery! - just a compassion for the fate of these SAD boys that brings me to the brink of tears.

Q: Anyone know the breakdown in ages of the 306?

Kate and other mods, thanks! To engage in debate with others of different opinion in a considered, reasoned manner is, I believe, of benefit to all concerned, and not only to seasoned participants. I have learned a good deal from reading members' entries; so too perhaps have many of the others that the 1000+ viewings of this thread indicate exists.

Ian, you present a cogent lawyerly argument (ie, don't muddy the water by trying to bring in everything, focus on what is winnable and don't make statements that draw attention away from the winnable issue) but it was So Hard to read your post! Please leave gaps between paragraphs, or just every few lines, it avoids visual confusion and makes reading so much easier.

Barry, perhaps you could address those two (?) cases John mentioned? Saying you don't know, or conceding defeat in these instances, doesn't undermine your argument - on the contrary, it would strengthen. On the other hand, if you feel stress disorder is also applicable in these cases, it would be helpful if you would state that specifically. When you return to a comment about a specific case with a general argument, in the belief (I surmise) that it answers that specific case - it doesn't always do so for others (hence, perhaps, comments of side-stepping, etc). It helps to be specific sometimes. Revealing your profession in mental health [psychiatrist?] is good (were you too modest to say so before?) - it helps others understand the passion you bring to bear.

Anyway, I've now been on here far longer than I intended and really must go and deal with my responsibilities - this Forum is too beguiling!

Later.

Ann

[stevem49]

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

Ann

I have mentioned him before on the forum and in the Battalions history. I do not really want to get into another pointless argument on the SAD men.

My compassion is for all the deaths in war and not just a minority. In my humble opinion, they were as much casualties of war as any other man and after death were treated as such. I have visited every grave/memorial to the men in my Battalion including his.

The Mother of my man lost her husband and two other brothers within a few months. The two brothers died in action. She had already disowned him before his last escapade.

If people put as much energy into trying to right the injustices of today instead of trying to change the laws od the land 90 years ago, then maybe the world would be a better place.

steve m

A brief description can be found in 'Blindfold and Alone ' pages 234-36. Note though that the comments by an NCO that 'He was a coward' was not allowed to be admitted in the evidence. He also pleaded guilty to one charge which at that time was punishable by death.

sm

[Richard Jones]

Morning All,

I have always avoided this subject as (Like many others) I get too angry about it. I know how REAL soldiers think. My grandfather was there August 1914, my Father was there 6th June 1944. I only did four years and never fought a war. My son is in his 22nd year of service, been in many conflicts. I know how soldiers feel about being left in the hot seat, for whatever reason. I have NEVER tried to change anyones view on this subject. So I object to being told these men are now honoured. My main point for coming on, is a request to the Mods, please. Can we have a poll to see where sympathies lie? I would like to know if my views are in a minority. Views, which I would not wish to voist on anyone.

Regards Mike Jones

[John_Hartley]

Q: Anyone know the breakdown in ages of the 306?

Afternoon, Ann

Like you I am off to be about my family business. I've not paid too close attention to ages but think I recall a breakdown somewhere. I imagine it will be incomplete as age may not be available in records that survive.

That said, I have it mind reading somewhere that it was in broad proportion to the general breakdown of age in the army at the time. That might suggest older men early in the war (when there were a higher percentage of longstanding regular troops) with the average generally getting younger as the war progressed and a higher ratio of younger men were recruited. But I wouldnt know for sure and it may be unhelpful to speculate too much.

John

(PS: I'm disappointed to hear that you are not an "undercover agent" of the SAD Campaign. That could have been great fun. )

[Waffenlandser]

perhaps you could address those two (?) cases John mentioned? Saying you don't know, or conceding defeat in these instances, doesn't undermine your argument -

Not being in the courtroom in 1917, I cant be dogmatic about wether or not these men had battle fatigue or not. I cant make diagnoses on patients without personally interviewing them. Its my general impression, reading the vast number of personal interviews of WW1 veterans, that most had some form of Battle Fatigue. My own family and teachers just about all had clinical signs of behavioral aberrations. I can only surmise. I have no proof and neither did the judging officers, none of who were medical men. If I were an officer on the bench, I would have not voted for the death penalty. The man who actually signed the death warrants, our old friend Earl Haig, was certainly no expert in mental health nor did he ever seek advice from a psychiatrist in those cases.

I am no undercover agent for SAD or other group. I am just a student of history.

Its a gorgeous day here and I am off to the local gun show to look at a 1913 SMLE with original bayonet and oiler.

cheers

Barry

No 1……2 Private A B; the Battalion (Pioneers) South Staffordshire Regiment was tried by FGCM on the following charges: “Misbehaving in such a manner as to show cowardice”. The accused, when proceeding with a party for work in the trenches, ran away owing to the bursting of a shell and did not rejoin the party. The sentence of the court was to suffer death by being shot."

[John_Hartley]

Not being in the courtroom in 1917, I cant be dogmatic about wether or not these men had battle fatigue or not.

No, indeed. Perish the thought that you might make assumptions in this matter.

Please keep on posting with the same lack of interest in facts as you have so far. It really is most enjoyable for us to read.

I see that your opinion is that you would not have voted for the death penalty had you been on a court martial panel. Would you have voted to convict in any of the 306 cases where men were shot? Or the approx 4,000 where death was imposed as a sentence but not carried out? What do you consider the appropriate sentence for desertion, seeing as captial punishment was only one of a range of options available to the FGCM?

Would it have made a difference to your views if the crime being tried was desertion or cowardice or striking a senior officer, sleeping at post, mutiny, murder, quitting post, casting away arms or disobeying a lawful order - all crimes which I'm sure you'll know resulted in a death sentence being imposed and carried out?

John

[Waffenlandser]

I am glad to see you find amusement in these matters. Somewhat callous, but understandable.

If I were on a panel and with my present knowlege of battle fatigue, I would not have been in favor of the death penalty. I would probably have requested admission to a mental care facility and not the usual electric shocks reserved for ORs. For murder I would have been in favor of capital punishment.

Striking an officer and casting away arms would not have gotten my vote. If there were no extenuating circumstances, I would have been in favor of 20 years in the stockade with hard labour for desertion that would apply to officers as well as ORs.. I wonder how many officers recieved the death penalty for striking a pvt???

[Jim Clay]

Abe Bevistein shot for desertion at age 16.

QUOTE

"We were in the trenches. I was so cold I went out (and took shelter in a farm house). They took me to prison so I will have to go in front of the court. I will try my best to get out of it, so don't worry."

QUOTE

show me the Holocaust victim who enlisted and earned an wage from the Nazi regime.

Both died horrible deahts. Both were victims of war.

I'm sorry, this is not right. Bevistein was a victim of war. The holocaust victims were not. As you well know, they were victims of a decision of the Nazi German state.

[Ian grant]

Hello Barry, I had intended my reply to be in one post but apparently i've exceeded the amount of quote block texts so i'll have to continue in another post

In answer to your statement below,

In all my reading of WW1 medical examinations, I have come across little to no reference of in depth psychological evaluations of soldiers. I have quoted one of the leading books on battle fatigue and wont go into the subject of British army psychiatry again I have hashed through this already. You deem these facts as unfounded statements.

If examples have to made, Ian, why are we no longer hanging murderers in Britain or South Africa?

Please enumerate my unfound hypotheses so I can reply to each one and thus uncloud some of the confusion that seems to be affecting you so deeply.

1) I had stated as in my quote below that i thought it likley that a recruit underwent further and more stringent Medical examinations including Psyhcological examinations, i also said that i did not know that this was fact ( more with regard to psyhcological examinations ) you stated that ( in the above quote ) that you had found little or no reference to in depth psyhcological Examinations - fair enough, but with regard to the recruit i used for example Joseph Morgan, somebody surely made some kind of assesment of his Mental condition, whether they laid him on a couch, and asked him to recount his childhood history, or whether an NCO reported to the MO that ' this man is not right in the head ' or something in between those extremes, who knows ? So as i said before the net caught him.

Barry your splitting hairs, you know full well what i was saying in my statement quoted below.

However he had spent 68 days in the army before being discharged, most likley his NCO's reported that he was slow to understand basic orders, prompting further examinations, or likley as not more stringent medicals including psyhcological examinations were manditory for all recruits as they passed through the stages of their training, which of or if both are true i know not i'm no expert on Psyhciatric or pshycological examinations.

2) "if examples have to be made .... " That was not my opinion, if you read my statement properly you will see that i considered that at that time the general staff thought the situation had reached a point where examples had to be made.

I was inferring that any soldier charged with a capital offence at that time would likley recieve the death penalty no matter what. I further stated that the fact something like 3000 death sentences were commuted, supported my hypothisis.

3) You ask me to enumerate your unfound hypothisis - i never used that word it is some of your statements and remarks i think are undfounded, your general hypothisis, and also many of your other statements i would not entirley disagree with,

plainly speaking that in your opinion these men were not dealt with fairly and were improperly tried and executed, i am at one with you.

However i'll endeavor to comply with your request in the next post.

Regards

Ian.

[Waffenlandser]

I'm sorry, this is not right. Bevistein was a victim of war. The holocaust victims were not. As you well know, they were victims of a decision of the Nazi German state.

What nonsense. I never, ever compared Bevistein's death to the Holocaust. His religion has never entered my discussions.

You and not I have the problem with this issue Jim.

[Ian grant]

1) below you IMO infer that Will Stones was a " badly mentally wounded " and by the way you never answered my question on that. IMO it's a completly unfounded statement, it seems to me you are saying Stones was not capable of making a rational decision, and because of his mental state became parted from his Rifle, Nothing could be further from the truth, and your comments do Stones no justice at all. I assume you will wish to revise your comments.

Stone's act of "casting away arms", IMHO was never proven. If a physically wounded soldier casts away arms it's ok. If a just as badly mentally wounded soldier casts away arms, its a crime punishable by death.

2) The way i interpret your comment below is that you regard each and every one of the deaths of WW1 as being tantamount to an execution ordered by Haig. My opinions of THE MAN are just about as low as you can get, but i find the comments below as just about as studid as a comment ever could get in this debate.

I see the death penalty was confirmed by Haig.

Well its one of several hundred thousand he signed.

Continued in next post

[Ian grant]

Continued from last post

3) Not unfounded statements but certainly contraditory, your first line i've already commented on - You knew exactly where this subject would go, and i think there would be no shame in admitting it .

Your next line regarding the death penalty puzzles me. Certainly on the face of it you contradict yourself, as shown in the quote below where you state that you have no problem with the death penalty, can you clarify your comments please.

Mod, the real purpose of this thread was merely to draw attention to the latest newspaper article on the SAD boys. I never thought, with thinking like it is in the 21st century, that there are some who agree with the death sentence.

I have no problem with the death penalty for murder. I live in Texas and here its nothing unusual.

Continued in next post

[Jim Clay]

What nonsense. I never, ever compared Bevistein's death to the Holocaust. His religion has never entered my discussions.

You and not I have the problem with this issue Jim.

Barry, I have no problem with this issue. My post which you are saying is nonsense quoted directly your statement in post#96 that Bevistein AND the holocaust victims were 'victims of war'. That was the point I was taking issue with. Nothing in my post - read it again - suggests anything about anyone's religion.

Jim

[Ian grant]

Continued from last post

4) The Statement below shows one example of how you broadly generalise, without a shred of evidence to suport your comments. I would guess that Doctors performing medical examinations on recruits, were of a broad spectrum of ages and experience being drawn from all parts of the country, particularly those from inner cities would have been familiar with the very worst examples of the results of poverty, not all i will grant you, but they certainly were not all done by older country GPs, but i would think that even they were more than capable of performing the duties expected of them.

The medical examinations in WW1 were done by older country GPs attached to the army.

5) Again not unfounded statements, more an observation of your inconsistancies.

Your first line seems an admission to me that no conclusions can be drawn with regard to a mans mental state 90+ years on

with no evidence available, other than the references with regard to certain individuals, i.e. Harry Farr.

your second line "No I am not the SG of the US. Just an ordinary practitioner trying to do his best." leaves me gobsmacked

As dealt with in 4) above you infer that older country GPs were not capable of diagnosing symptoms of mental illness.

Well with regard to your last line below, "No I am not the SG of the US. Just an ordinary practitioner trying to do his best". and considering your comment just above that above "All I can do is make my own assessments and come to a likely diagnosis" What makes you believe that you are any better qualified than those older country GPs 90 years later, to make any kind of a diagnosis.

The whole offense against me is tht I am not proving the men SAD were suffering from Battle Fatigue. I cant because none of the deeper clinical issues were ever published. All I can do is make my own assessments and come to a likely diagnosis.

No I am not the SG of the US. Just an ordinary practitioner trying to do his best.

Barry i'm of the opinion that we will never agree on the points above, and this argument will carry on and on with no real purpose. You and i agree on some points and in the general subject matter of the issue of SAD, but our approaches to the issue differ greatly, and i think will never be reconciled. So i think i'll retire graciously from the thread now, as quite honestly i don't believe there is anything more i can add of a constructive nature.

I wish you well my friend, and i'll see you back on the forum, where i'll happily discuss other subjects with you.

Regards

Ian.