Honoured At Last

[George Armstrong Custer]

Remember rule no 1 in debating. Just because you oppose me, does not make you credible or in the winner's circle. In fact, the more you insult me and the more names you call me, the more lkely are you to be in the wrong. You are actually destroying your own credibility. Both you and a member of Forum Admin should heed this.

You haven't been insulted by me. Are you suggesting that anyone who "opposes" your views is not "credible"? Another feature of some of the more fanatical SAD members we had problems with here a few years back was dictatorial tendencies - warning and threatening others whilst at the same time claiming unjustifiably that it was they themselves who were being threatened or "insulted". And talking of dictators, I don't think most "off the wall, cross eyed hippies" would have Hitler giving a speech as one of their two youtube favourites.

[Waffenlandser]

For some obscure reason you insist on trying to link me up with the SAD lobby. Once again, and I am tiring of this constantly having to justify myself, I am affiliated with no group or inner circle. Its me here and thats all you get.

History, as is the usual case, will make the final judgements. Not you or I. We are the small cogs in the wheel. All we are really doing is to keep the past alive and not leave a yawing empty silence regarding the Great War.

BTW that avatar of your. Haig in both academic and military garb??? I never knew he had a university degree.

Haig attended Clifton College and unusually for a British officer at that time attended university, studying at Brasenose College, Oxford 1880-1883. He left without a degree, partially due to sickness, and perhaps also as he would otherwise have been too old to enrol for officer training in the Royal Military College in Sandhurst in 1883, from which he graduated the following year.

[keithmroberts]

Barry

You define military execution as murder. or that's how it seems to me.

I don't like the death penalty, which has now been abolished in British law, and I am reasonably clear that some at least of those executed in the war were either traumatised, or badly defended or both. Others appear to have been so far as can be judged, in full possession of their faculties and were executed in accordance with the spirit and letter of the law at that time in force on the basis if the evidence brought before a court martial. The view that this was not done lightly in most cases is surely also supported by the large number of death dentences that were commuted.

Is it your contention that the law as it was then was inhumane and that capital punishment in itself amounts to murder? Or are you just saying that these specific executions were acts of murder, in itself a crime, because in every case in your view, the laws then in force were abused, and that other judicial executions in the last century or this, can be accepted as fair?

I must put it to you that if you accept that in some even of the cases the law was applied correctly, then your emotive use of the term murder is not appropriate. In the UK judicial executions continued well into my lifetime with the last execution in 1964, and the penalty remaining in statute law for some offences until 1998.

Keith

I really do find it difficult to come to an understanding of your position.

[George Armstrong Custer]

For some obscure reason you insist on trying to link me up with the SAD lobby. Once again, and I am tiring of this constantly having to justify myself, I am affiliated with no group or inner circle. Its me here and thats all you get.

No, I don't think you at least are directly linked to them, I just think you've picked up on some of their propaganda and swallowed it hook, line and sinker. You don't need to justify that to me any more than I need to justify my alternate view of the SAD issue. We each state our position and that's it - as Steve noted earlier on this thread, this is a topic where personal views are rarely swayed by those of others. One can only point out the flaws in something that has been posted as fact - whether the poster chooses to accept correction is another matter. You do tend - not just on this thread - to be rather dogmatic in your opinions on the British Army in the Great War whilst making some very basic errors of fact in what you say.

BTW that avatar of your. Haig in both academic and military garb??? I never knew he had a university degree.

The picture shows Haig in 1919 as Rector of the University of St Andrews - a position to which the student body nominated and elected him in 1916. He went on to become the University's Chancellor until the time of his death in 1928.

Haig passed all the exams for his university degree at Oxford, but did not formally graduate due to residency requirements. He had missed part of the time an undergraduate was required to be in actual residence at the University due to illness. He could have made this up and graduated by spending a semester in residence following his passing his exams - but doing so would have made him too old for Sandhurst's admission requirements. As he had decided upon a military career the choice was a simple one - he went to Sandhurst.

[John_Hartley]

You define military execution as murder. or that's how it seems to me.

Except those instancess where Barry thinks it an appropriate sentence - like courts martial for murder cases.

And, no, I can't see the logic or rational thoought behind that position. But I'm getting used to the ebb and flow of what I think Barry would possibly call his debating style. Or, as I might put, the First Law of debating is to have a style.

[Dragon]

. As we see today in the US, the death penalty is not applicable in cases of psychiatric ilness.

I think you are misinformed here, Barry, at least on how it works in practice. As a member of Amnesty International who does Urgent Actions, I have written numerous UA appeals for American citizens who have been sentenced to death despite diagnoses of psychiatric illness or low learning age. Almost all of those have been executed, unfortunately. My most recent was this July.

Gwyn

[59165]

Dave

Bear in mind when you read the following extract from "Shot at Dawn" that the author was a leading light in the pardons campaign so might be expected to put the most sympathetic spin on the event. Lance Corporal Holland had taken a party of four men to occupy an advanced sap. They had been told that they were likely to be there for 24 hours but must not leave the posiiton until ordered to do so or were rleived. The incident took palce some 12 hours later.

".......the sentry on watch had seen two men, whom he believed to be French soldiers, approaching the post. He challenged them but received no response. As the pair entered the trench system the sentry realised the intruders were in fact German. Lance-Corporal Holland and the three other privates in his party then left their positions and ran back to the main trench system. In the comparitive safety of the British front line, Holland rushed into his company headquarters, reporting that the Germans had atatcked and overrun their outpost.

It rapidly transpired that the sentry on watch had remained at his post and the intruding Germans had hurriedly retreated. When the facts of the incident became apparent, Holland was arrested. On 18 May, he was tried for cowardice and quitting his post".

And if that's the best spin that can put on it...........

John

Ta,John but I need a wee bit more info.

I understand the gist of the passages you've quoted from the excuse of a book that I will never buy but please,clear up for me the no.of troops in the party.

He left with a party of 4(making it 5 in total?)

It rapidly transpired that the sentry on watch had remained at his post

Was he one of the 4 or 5? Or already there and just a bystander?Was he of the 4 or 5 & the one left behind?

What(I dont wanna drag this out but you really have got me hooked with this story)happened to the others?Was it just Holland that suffered as he was nco on the bad night?

Just very interested.No bad vibes from this rear echelon meant

Dave.

[dutchbarge]

The difference is that Bazza comes on here spouting pacifist sentiments regarding the Great War, and now has revealed himself to be a committed supporter of the aims of the SAD campaign (although he says he's not actually a direct supporter of that organisation). Given all that I say it's a bit incongrous that he gets a kick out of collecting the tools of death of the Great War.

I take your point about the rifles. However, what I take away from EC's postings on this and his last thread (Somme 1916) is not pacifism, but a deep sense of outrage that those in charge of the British Army seem to have literally gotten away with murder. By definition this argument fails if only for the reason that murder, as it is broadly construed, is the unlawful taking of a human life. That there is controversy about the conduct of the courts martials is evident. But even if the proceedings were flawed they were nonetheless legal proceedings. About the worst charge EC could legitimately level is miscarriage of justice, not murder. Regarding EC's charging Haig with murder for his leadership on the Somme in 1916 I would argue that all generals spend the lives of their soldiers. To send soldiers to die fighting the enemy is not the unlawful taking of life; it is the business of war. While we can ( and do) argue that Haig might have done things differently IMHO no one can take seriously the charge of murder. And I don't think it is simply a matter of semantics. Murder implies not only that the taking of life is 'outside the law' but that it is done with malice. I don't believe that maliciousness was a factor in SAD or Somme 1916. I believe that those in charge did what they thought best to defend their way of life. That our attitudes have changed dramatically, and our current circumstances are much happier, makes it difficult to fairly judge those soldiers who were merely trying to do what they believed necessary under very difficult circumstances. One of the great ironies of war is that free societies must become rather less free when defending themselves against bullies. Cheers BIll

[zigzag]

Have to say I am surprised and a bit disappointed how everybody rises to this thread, because the questions raised seemed to me valid and interesting, and worthy of discussion. Some of us, and obviously myself, are not enthusiasts of militarism and warfare. I am not exactly a pacifist in every sense, but I definitely oppose warfare as anything but a last resort, and part of my reasoning for that is the experience (and death) of relatives in the last two world wars - wars which cost, between them, over fifty million lives. War is kids fighting in the playground raised to an art form. It is not something to be praised. (which seems to set me, and my relatives, out of kilter with the majority on here, at least on this thread).

But I only came here, as most people do, on a small mission to find out about my grandfather's war. In that context, the first world war is not something good, but infinitely interesting in terms of human experience, because it was the most terrible war of all, and one in which most of the participants became involved without understanding the consequences or the implications of what they were doing. As the poets and the painters on both sides of that war understood it raised a thousand questions and produced very few answers. My grandfather definitely didn't think it was good or beneficial to anyone, and why should he? He spent most of it in France, watching his friends die.

"Would you like to go abroad, grandad?"

"No. Went to France once. Didn't like it."

I had never heard of the SAD campaign before I came on here, although I knew of the pardon and had seen the occasional news item. In truth, at a personal level, I couldn't give a toss about it. I don't know the details, but surely they can be discussed just as amicably as everything else. The families whose lives were scarred seem to me worth redeeming, and why shouldn't they be?

But I would say that, wouldn't I?, because I also think that capital punishment is barbaric, whatever the crime. I also doubt that it had any morale boosting effect on the troops, if that was the purpose. Set them against the generals, maybe.

I've spent quite a bit of time on here, researching, and have found the people extraordinarily helpful, and most of the threads and my oddball searches very interesting and rewarding. The rich variety of human experience, and hope I can continue to visit it.

But am a bit worried about the assumption that everybody has to share the same opinions.

What follows is from the Wipers Times. Not relevant perhaps, but made me laugh, and more importantly illustrates the fact that those who were there didn't necessarily buy into either the militarism or the propaganda that we (in our variety of opinions) sometimes impose on them.

Proof That We Are Winning The War, by Belary Helloc

In this article I wish to show plainly that under existing conditions, everything points to a speedy disintegration of the enemy. We will take first of all the effect of war on the male population of Germany. Firstly, let us take as our figures, 12,000,000 as the total fighting population of Germany. Of these 8,000,000 are killed or being killed, hence we have 4,000,000 remaining. Of these 1,000,000 are non-combatants, being in the navy.

Of the 3,000,000 remaining, we can write off 2,500,000 as temperamentally unsuitable for fighting, owing to obesity and other ailments engendered by a gross mode of living. This leaves us 500,000 as the full strength. Of these 497,250 are known to be suffering from incurable diseases. This leaves us 2,750. Of these 2,150 are on the eastern front, and of the remaining 600, 584 are generals and staff.

Thus we find that there are 16 men on the western front. This number, I maintain, is not enough to give them even a fair chance of resisting four more big pushes, and hence the collapse of the western campaign.

[susanhemmings]

What follows is from the Wipers Times. Not relevant perhaps, but made me laugh, and more importantly illustrates the fact that those who were there didn't necessarily buy into either the militarism or the propaganda that we (in our variety of opinions) sometimes impose on them.

Proof That We Are Winning The War, by Belary Helloc

In this article I wish to show plainly that under existing conditions, everything points to a speedy disintegration of the enemy. We will take first of all the effect of war on the male population of Germany. Firstly, let us take as our figures, 12,000,000 as the total fighting population of Germany. Of these 8,000,000 are killed or being killed, hence we have 4,000,000 remaining. Of these 1,000,000 are non-combatants, being in the navy.

Of the 3,000,000 remaining, we can write off 2,500,000 as temperamentally unsuitable for fighting, owing to obesity and other ailments engendered by a gross mode of living. This leaves us 500,000 as the full strength. Of these 497,250 are known to be suffering from incurable diseases. This leaves us 2,750. Of these 2,150 are on the eastern front, and of the remaining 600, 584 are generals and staff.

Thus we find that there are 16 men on the western front. This number, I maintain, is not enough to give them even a fair chance of resisting four more big pushes, and hence the collapse of the western campaign.

Oh thank Zigzag for a bit of humour

[59165]

Have to say I am surprised and a bit disappointed how everybody rises to this thread.

Don't worry about that.It disapoints me a bit too.It's not always like that

"Would you like to go abroad, grandad?"

"No. Went to France once. Didn't like it."

Thats a classic & reminds me of an English or Canadien comment made after Dieppe,some years after.

Telegram to parents after Dieppe.

All ok stop

Had a day out at the beach today stop

Very hot stop

Didn't enjoy myself stop

David

[Kate Wills]

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

Mike,

Please do.

The best way to do this is to start a new topic in the usual way, then devise two or more questions for the poll. It wouldn't be fair to insert it into someone else's thread.

[Kate Wills]

Barry,

Simple question:

In your view, was Haig invariably wrong in his decision-making in matters relating to FGCMs?

[Waffenlandser]

Let me be specific on my views on the death penalty. I come from a country where the death penalty was applied with vigour. Death by hanging for murder, attempted murder, robbery and rape. Unfortunately it was carried out on a racially biased manner. There was imprisonment for one race and the gallows for the other. I live in a state where the death penalty is as energetically carried out. I live in the American South where more per capita are executed than anywhere else in the US. I still struggle with the death penalty, not for its inhumanity, but in that it has been clearly shown that the lethal injection is not a deterrent and sets no example.

That said lets look at 1917. The death penalty was legal in Britain. For murder only. I can accept this as being in line with the times. If murder was commited in the army, then, theoretically, I have no gripe with this. If a soldier's desertion was to the enemy and treason was commited, I have no argument with the firing squad, as long as this also applied to officers. This act could result in the deaths of other soldiers and the offender should be appropriately punished. If a British soldier rapes a French woman, he causes severe ill feeling and loss of morale and could impact on the cohesiveness between allies , resulting in loss of life. This IMHO in line with the times, be appropriate for capital punishment. This is why so many US soldiers were executed in Britain during WW2.

I have absolutely no issues with the exections of soldiers who commited murder in 1914-1918.

When it comes to a single soldier singled out for the firing squad because of cowardice/desertion, I do have an issue. These acts caused little in the way of morale lowering and unlikely to have caused huge loss of life. The generals caused massive loss of life through bungling and short sightedness and were never held accountable. Why then, does a 16 year old frightened boy have to die? If, as I am today and if I were an officer in a FGCM, I would never have sided with the majority. I would have probably approved the death penalty for murder, but not for rape, unless it was commited agaist a child.

As far a statements made about the death sentence carried out on psychotic accused here in the US, I would agree AI has a point there. In the South, particularly and particularly against African Americans many are executed who have severe mental disease. The accused do however, have access to expert psychiatric testimony and criminal defence. More than the condemned had in 1917. Unfortunately the American jury system is prone to the histrionics of prosecutors. In any case, the accused here have years to appeal and again appeal. The condemned in 1917 had no appeal. They were not heard by the Privy Council. They were shot within 2 to 3 days. Bevistein never even had a Rabbi to give him last rites, or the Jewish version thereof.

For those who have issue with me collecting so called "weapons of death" all I can say is that I am merely a curator who hands these arms down history. Same as the Imperial War Museum and all the other military museums in Britain. I have never fired a weapon at anything living in the 30 years I have been a gun collector. I communicate with many Enfield and Mauser collectors in the UK who share my amusement at these accusations.

ZigZag, the reason so many here rise up in anger against this thread is that they still live in 1918. They have not matured into the 21st century when researchers are finding more and more that was wrong in 1914-1918. Same as for 1939-1945, but thats beyond the scope of this debate.

Others appear to have been so far as can be judged, in full possession of their faculties

Appear to who may I respectfully ask??

Who judged the faculties of these men??

I see no records of expert opinion in most of the cases tried for cowardice. I have wriiten at length about British army psychiatry in 1917 and wont repeat myself.

A mans appearance in court days or weeks after the alleged incident means diddly squat. Its how his mental state was at the time of his alleged offence.

I sometimes ponder over if women fought alongside the men as they do now, would a woman soldier, accused of desertion etc, be shot at dawn?? Just a flight of my imagination. Would there have been any protest? The killing of boy soldiers was approved, so not that of a female soldier. What say you Kate??

[Kate Wills]

That said lets look at 1917. The death penalty was legal in Britain. For murder only.

Wrong Barry. The statutes carried several capital offences, including mutiny. The German spy Hans Lody did not murder anyone as as far as I know, but that didn't prevent his excetion in the Tower of London for espionage.

[Waffenlandser]

Barry,

Simple question:

In your view, was Haig invariably wrong in his decision-making in matters relating to FGCMs?

OIf course not Kate. 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.

There is one further charge against the Field Marshal: He did not share the sufferings and depravations of his troops.

British soldiers endured a miserable existence in the rat-infested trenches while Field Marshal Haig and his staff lived a life of luxury in a chateau far behind the lines.

Compare his insensitivity to the action of a truly great general, the Duke of Wellington. On the night of Waterloo, he slept on the floor so that a dying member of his staff could have his bed.

[Waffenlandser]

Wrong Barry. The statutes carried several capital offences, including mutiny

OK Kate you got me on that one. How does a civilian population "mutiny"? Like on a cruise ship or on a BOAC flight to New York?

[zigzag]

Let me be specific on my views on the death penalty. I come from a country where the death penalty was applied with vigour. Death by hanging for murder, attempted murder, robbery and rape. Unfortunately it was carried out on a racially biased manner. There was imprisonment for one race and the gallows for the other. I live in a state where the death penalty is as energetically carried out. I live in the American South where more per capita are executed than anywhere else in the US. I still struggle with the death penalty, not for its inhumanity, but in that it has been clearly shown that the lethal injection is not a deterrent and sets no example.

Oddly enough, I have lived in Texas, and you're right, the death penalty in Texas, and many other southern states, is still administered racially. If you're black, forget it. And you're right, it's not a deterrent. It's barbaric.

It was barbaric in 1917, and it's barbaric now.

[Kate Wills]

Barry,

You are doubtless wondering why the two images you placed into your post #166 have been removed.

They have been lifted from a website run by one of the people who threatened Chris Baker with legal action during previous debates on SAD.

We don't want to upset him, do we? After all, he might do a General Haig and try closing us down.

[dutchbarge]

ZigZag, the reason so many here rise up in anger against this thread is that they still live in 1918. They have not matured into the 21st century when researchers are finding more and more that was wrong in 1914-1918.

Hello EC,

IMHO you've got it the wrong way 'round. The reason there is so much discord on this issue is because of the insistence of some to project current sensibilities back upon 1918. Cheers, BIll

[Waffenlandser]

Barry,

You are doubtless wondering why the two images you placed into your post #166 have been removed.

They have been lifted from a website run by one of the people who threatened Chris Baker with legal action during previous debates on SAD.

We don't want to upset him, do we? After all, he might do a General Haig and try closing us down.

Whatever Kate. I come from a country where censorship was practiced. I can still live with it.

[Kate Wills]

Really? So you are happy that views contrary to your own are not permitted elsewhere?

As I said before, we welcome everyone, apart from those who seek to stifle debate by threats and bullying.

[Waffenlandser]

Really? No wonder you enjoy life here so much then. As I said before, we welcome everyone, apart from those who seek to stifle debate by threats and bullying.

Kate please, if you are not too sleepy,please read the addendum to post at 820 pm.

post #164

cheers

Barry

[Black Watch]

When it comes to a single soldier singled out for the firing squad because of cowardice/desertion, I do have an issue. These acts caused little in the way of morale lowering and unlikely to have caused huge loss of life. The generals caused massive loss of life through bungling and short sightedness and were never held accountable. Why then, does a 16 year old frightened boy have to die?

Quite simple really, falling asleep at ones post, running away when scared out of your wits etc was punishable by death; callous disregard for the lives and wellbeing of men under your command wasn't.

Neil

[keithmroberts]

Barry

You have come some way to respond to my post 153. Its been pointed out that the law as it then stood included a number of offences for which the death penalty was the penalty, of which murder was only one. Some were military offences only, some were applicable to the whole population of the UK as in the case of murder or impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner.

The degree of medical involvement in sentencing was limited in both civil and military courts at the time. We still come back to the emotive terms that you have used and the blanket assertions. Its also the case that some, possibly most, of those who differ from your opinion have no sympathy for the death penalty in any judicial situation. What we are discussing however is surely decisions taken over 90 years ago, when society, the law, (in the UK at least), was very different. Its the conduct of courts martial and eventual sentencing at that time that we discuss.

In that context, there is clearly some evidence that many of those executed would never have faced any trial today, and that some trials did not always meet the judicial standards required by law at the time.

Equally it seems very likely that a number men were prosecuted, sentenced and executed with full and due process under the laws then available.

Unless you can refute that last point, and also address your comments to the context of the time, then it is unreasonable to accuse Haig or any other commander or politician of murder. Unlike those who authorise capital punishment today in the US, and a former governor of Texas comes to mind who apparently never spared anyone, Haig was surely acting in accordance not just with the established law, but also within the context of a society which regularly executed people for some offences.

Miscarriages of justice - clearly from a modern viewpoint there were many, which is why I welcomed the retrospective pardons, but murders, no.

Thats it, work calls

Keith