Honoured At Last

[John_Hartley]

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?

Dave

Can't help with any more, mate. That's about all the book has to say on the actual incident.

I assume that Holland decided to leg it and said something to the others about following. There's no indication that they were charged with anything so I assume the authorities felt they had done nothing wrong.

There's similarities with the DLI cases that I've previously mentioned. Goggins and the others legged it from their posts and hid in a dug-out. The six of them told a pretty consistent story at their courts martial saying that they'd heard an unknown voice shouting "Run for your lives". To the possible credit of the four privates, they did not seek to point the finger at the two NCOs by saying they had ordered them to retreat (which would have then been withdrawing under a lawful order). All six were convicted and sentenced to death, but only the two NCOs were actually executed.

In this, it's imprtant to remember that there is a long-standing and still very current part of British common law that says that if you are in position of authority or responsibility, you are likely to face a more severe sentence for the same crime than someone who isnt. It's similar to, say, a shop employee being convicted of nicking stuff is likely to get a stiffer sentence than an ordinary shoplifter.

John

[George Armstrong Custer]

callous disregard for the lives and wellbeing of men under your command wasn't.

Where did you get that one Neil - Denis Winter?

George

[geraint]

Chucking in my twopence worth here, having been a silent watcher of this and other similar threads, I find the topic extremely painful and complex. It's not a straightforward black and white issue. Opinions seem to come from two distinct and irreconcilable poles. Those who take a top down view - ie who look at the strategic and military history as an academic study from the military college point of view. This is where the study of Haig, the General Staff and battlefield strategy and tactics are regarded objectively and coldly - detached from emotion and human compassion. The revisionist school reflects this.

The second view is bottom up. Those who entered the subject researching a family member, and are struck by the sheer scale and horror of the ensuing warfare, the apparent massive disregard to human life and the disregard to what we today would call basic human rights. This would be the lions and donkeys school of thought.

In this matter; thesis and antithesis will not create a synthesis, and all one can hope is that both sides will acknowledge the basis of each other's argument.

Simply put, the revisionist argument is based on the values and attitudes of the Great War as they were in 1914. The l and d argument is based on the imposition of today's values and attitudes.

My own thoughts tend towards the humanistic approach. I did, as a boy, listen to horror stories regarding my own family's involvement and deaths; and have spoken to veterans and immediate families, delved for letters and newspapers in archive offices, read memoires, and books on all aspects of the war.

There is one aspect, however, which I believed has been ignored, and which contributes to the argument.

The purpose of an army is to be the last resort of failed politics and diplomacy. It operates under a different and far more primitive set of laws - Martial Law. With the imposition of martial law, the ordinary everyday practice of civil and criminal laws are suspended, and a different set of values kick in. These are laws, discussed and passed by Parliament, and operating under a formal method. Human rights are suspended. Rigid and fast discipline takes place according to the regulations of martial law. Martial law is legally passed to the Army Command, and, in 1914-18, therefore, to French and Haig. All the SAD courts martial complied with those regulations, they were not drumheads; although there is plenty of evidence that drumhead cms did occur, as well as summary executions. Those are not only Great War values; martial law could easily be imposed again in the 21 century should the circumstances arise.

[Jim Clay]

...Haig, alas, was not overly concerned with human life and cheerfully signed the death warrants with no comment in writing. ...

Cheerfully? How can you know this?

...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. ...

I would suggest that, rather than 'living in 1918', people who don't share your view (what you call 'rising up in anger') are refusing to attempt to rewrite early 20th century history from a 21st century viewpoint. Very different thing, I suggest..

...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.

Sorry, Barry, this statement I just don't understand. Can you explain, please?

Jim

[Black Watch]

Where did you get that one Neil - Denis Winter?

George

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

Neil

NVM I Googled him.

[zigzag]

Geraint,

Thanks for that.

It did occur to me that another aspect that probably colours the argument from both points of view is that this was primarily a citizen's war, unlike any other war.

Through force of circumstance, the great majority of those in the front line were not professional soldiers, and through force of circumstance, many of those that arrived on the front line had little more than rudimentary training. Some rose to it. Some perhaps didn't. And some never had the chance.

In that light it is hard not to see what followed as a slaughter of the innocents. And it is easy to see why many can empathise with the poor sods whose minds were blown, and whose instinct was to run in the opposite direction, and had their lives ended anyway. If I'm honest, I can't be sure that I wouldn't have been one of them myself.

For a large number it must just have been a case, of well I'm here, just get on with it. And if you were lucky, you came through it. It's not surprising there was a lot of black humour.

The death penalty was part of the British Army's legacy in 1914, but it is significant that the Australians refused it, and it had no apparent impact, so far as I know, on their fighting ability. You can't change history, but you can look back and hope to learn from it.

[stevem49]

Is debating an art or a skill - discuss.

stevem

[Chris_Baker]

researchers are finding more and more that was wrong in 1914-1918.

Please name a researcher who has published anything in the 21st Century along the lines you suggest and quote their definition of "wrong".

[stiletto_33853]

The death penalty was part of the British Army's legacy in 1914, but it is significant that the Australians refused it, and it had no apparent impact, so far as I know, on their fighting ability. You can't change history, but you can look back and hope to learn from it.

A slight diversion here. At the 'Dead Reckoning' conference on Passchendaele late last year at the Cloth Hall, Ashley Eakins, Head of Military History at the Australian War Memorial, Canberra, stated that Desertions at the end of 1917 were running at 8 times the rate in the BEF, and that morale was at an all time low.

Andy

[PhilB]

A slight diversion here. At the 'Dead Reckoning' conference on Passchendaele late last year at the Cloth Hall, Ashley Eakins, Head of Military History at the Australian War Memorial, Canberra, stated that Desertions at the end of 1917 were running at 8 times the rate in the BEF, and that morale was at an all time low.

Andy

I`d be surprised if morale was anything but low at the end of 1917. Any comparable figure for desertion rates in the other colonial forces? Did Mr Eakins suggest that absence of death penalty was largely responsible for the high desertion rate?

[Steven Broomfield]

As an aside, I also recall reading a book, And we shall shock them, about the British Army in WW2, in which it was mentioned that the lack of a death penalty was felt to be a bad thing, as desertion rates in (I believe) Italy in the 1944/45 period were amazingly high, and there really was no deterrent.

I know this sounds shocking, but given that men who didn't run away (for whatever reason) stood a jolly good chance of dying, I suspect that guaranteed survival if you legged it must have made desertion a not unattarctive option.

I suspect it's been mentioned, but no-one seems to worry about the mental state of the millions of men who didn't desert. Can I be really unkind and say that some of us seem to get frightfully upset about 300 or so men who were executed, without asking the millions who stood to their posts what they thought about it.

[staffsreg]

Well said Steven.

Iv.

[stiletto_33853]

Hi Phil,

I will use some of the handout that was given out with Ashley Eakins lecture.

"The battle of Passchendaele marked the dismal culmination of that year. All five infantry divisions were engaged in the battle and they were repeatedly used as shock troops leading five of the eleven major attacks during the Third Ypres Offenive. The cost was terrible - 6000 Australian soldiers died in October 1917, their greatest loss in a single month of the war.

As the armies of both sides endured an ordeal of suffering in conditions of utter misery, commanders struggled to maintain the morale of despondent troops and to motivate their will to fight. In desperation they blurred the boundaries between crime, malingering, shell shock and mental disorders.

Increasing numbers of soldiers deserted. Executions in the British Army reached a peak of twenty men shot fo military offences in October 1917. Increasing numbers of Australian soldiers also incurred the death penalty, mostly for desertion: 85 death sentences were passed on Australian soldiers in 1917, although senior commanders were frustrated that these sentences could not be carried out under Australian law. The numbers of Australians in military prisons rose to over six times that of all other dominion troops combined and eight times the rate in the British Army.

Concerns grew that the exhausted Australians might have passed the zenith of their effectiveness as a fighting force. Worn down by the relentless human grindstone of attrition warfare, many men strived merely to survive and maintain a shred of hope and sanity. The experience of Australian soldiers was unique but also typical of soldiers experience in extremis in all wars.

Andy

[Waffenlandser]

Geraint,

The death penalty was part of the British Army's legacy in 1914, but it is significant that the Australians refused it, and it had no apparent impact, so far as I know, on their fighting ability. You can't change history, but you can look back and hope to learn from it.

yes indeed It were the Australians, Americans and Canadians who dealt the ultimate coup de grace to the German army in 1918. Britain was just about bled white.Interestingly the death penalty was only enforced by the Canadians.

[PhilB]

Thanks, Andy. What do you think he meant by "blurred the boundaries etc" and "their experience was unique"?

As the armies of both sides enured an ordeal of suffring in conditions of utter misery, commanders struggled to maintain the morale of despondent troops and to motivate their will to fight. In desperation they blurred the boundaries between crime, malingering, shell shock and mental disorders.

. The experience of Australian soldiers was unique but also typical of soldiers experience in extremis in all wars.

[Steven Broomfield]

yes indeed It were the Australians, Americans and Canadians who dealt the ultimate coup de grace to the German army in 1918. Britain was just about bled white.

Not again.

I think we've discussed this before.

If you're going to make sweeping statements, at least try and get your facts remotely straight.

I suggested, I believe, before that you read - for example - Peter hart's latest book on 1918. And if you do read it, try and do so with an open mind.

Your statement is just plain wrong.

[stevem49]

yes indeed It were the Australians, Americans and Canadians who dealt the ultimate coup de grace to the German army in 1918. Britain was just about bled white.Interestingly the death penalty was only enforced by the Canadians.

The Americans

I suggest you check the casualty reports for the last 100 days. Also your history, as it was more likely the german people who dealt the ultimate coup de grace to its own army.

sm

[Kate Wills]

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

post #164

cheers

Barry

Barry,

This is a serious subject. I think I have wasted enough time on your flights of imagination already, the pinnacle of which is expressed in your post #189

However, since you ask, I assume he would have treated women (i.e. half the global population) with the same even-handedness that he applied to Pte John Dennis, of the 1st Northamptonshires.

What say you Barry?

[stiletto_33853]

Interesting post for #189, isn't there a school of thought that the Germans were effectively beaten before the US got heavily involved.

Just had a look at the 4th Army's order of battle for 1918 and the last 100 days, 2 US Divisions (27th & 30th), you know the 4th Army don't you, the one commanded by Rawlinson. Wasn't he the man you said was sacked???

Andy

[Chris_Baker]

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

[Ann Sinnott]

Dear All

Glad to see the tone of debate has improved - somewhat - since I last posted!

Still stuck for time, so will confine myself to the following, and only in reference to the SAD issue (the Haig issue is not something to jump into in an uninformed way – I was aware of the two camps but, as yet, have read nothing beyond comments on this Forum):

NB. The length of this thread is bewildering. Have printed everything out to make it easier but the task of reading so much is not only daunting but needs that scarce commodity: time! Therefore general comments only, and a response or two to un-named posters.

Comments re perspective (ie, judging past events from today’s standpoint) aren’t valid in relation to SAD. There was debate about SAD deaths at government level in 1919, in exactly the same terms as today. Therefore the current debate is not a matter of applying today’s values to past events. This controversy has raged non-stop for 89 years. Like another poster said: it’s worthy of debate. The issuing of pardons, rather than settling it, has inflamed the issue. I suspect it will run and run.

Underage boys were shot. They were there illegally so ipso facto they were shot illegally. Whatever their ‘crimes’ and irrespective of whether or not they were shell shocked, or whether or not their trials were fair, they should have been sent straight home. The necessities and expediences of war, in relation to these boys, are irrelevant. They should have been sent home.

In relation to others and re the casting away of arms: seems to me that, in a war situation, casting away the weapon that could save your life is an utterly irrational act - a gesture of disgust or despair? - and may itself be indicative of an unsound mind.

One poster commented on REAL soldiers. Have to say I found that rather offensive. Not sure whether you meant regular as opposed to volunteers, or whether you meant the REAL soldiers stayed and the others - the fraudulent? the cowards? - bolted. To my mind, anyone who endured any amount of time in that nightmare was a Real Soldier.

I can imagine (though who can really?), how it must feel if, in the thick of battle, a fellow soldier bolts and thereby puts your life at risk, or it’s felt puts your life at risk. Anger must come quick and hot and it must be hard to find compassion. But compassion was what was needed. Most men stayed or died in battle, we all have relatives who did. Only a minority ran for it. Some suffering from stress disorder and some simply not up to it. Where was the sense in trying to keep them? No sense, except the expediency of war – to prevent others doing the same, or because they were judged of no use militarily. But why kill them? Am with EC/Barry here, why not put them to hard labour instead (and as I understand it hard labour in the army was [is] just that!)? Ok, the death penalty was military law at the time, but they were entitled to a fair trial - too many [and just one would be too many] of these men weren’t always given a fair trial.

I would dearly like to know facts and numbers.

Q: Have the original documents (not paraphrased by someone else) of all 306 cases ever been compiled into a single book?

Re multiple desertions, which some posters see as a sign of real culpability. These men must have known they risked the death penalty; and with each subsequent bolting must have known that such a fate became more certain. It seems irrational. Was possible death by comrades indeed preferable to the horrors of war? Could serial desertion be indicative of a stress disorder?

By the way, apologies to senior members for posting such long extracts from the SAD campaign – now realise many of you already knew, word for word…

Re snide comments directed at EC/Barry. Has anyone stopped to think what it must be like to be on the receiving end of a barrage of jeers, sneers and insults coming from almost every direction? You may disagree but, good grief, keep it civilized! Can we have some ground rules, please. No snide remarks, no jeers, sneers, insults and no sarcasm. It’s horrible to read. And, Barry, please don’t retaliate in like manner – take the high ground.

Also Barry I must take issue with you – the rape of any woman, French, German, or any other nationality, is a heinous crime (Yes. It. Is. - to any Neanderthals out there who might take the Confucian line). Having said that, Barry, I rather suspect it was an oversight – haven’t detected anything nasty in you so far.

On a happier note (sort of...) member Lebecque has given me some info on my Uncle Peter! Some detail of one skirmish that took place at St Eloi the night of 14/15 Feb 1915, in which my uncle was wounded. I have questions about this but will post separately.

All good wishes to Everyone.

Ann

[Alan Tucker]

To Enfield...and anyone else who thinks 'we murdered' the SAD...

Gravestone inscription Lance Corporal J.A.Johnson, 1/5th Royal Warwickshire Regiment, killed October 4th 1917, age 34. Buried Dochy Farm Cemetery, near Zonnebeke.

'Better death than dishonour

He fell obeying duty's call'

[Ann Sinnott]

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

Chris

Have you forgotten about the time difference between UK and USA?

Sorry, but your comment seemed unnecessary.

Ann

[Kate Wills]

Ann,

Others will I'm sure give you chapter and verse on this, but having witnessed the cheeryness of absconders on a military prison work party, it was suggested that a compromise be institued whereby the death penalty could be suspended and /or replaced with a prison sentence, to be served at the conclusion of hostilities, for those found guilty of desertion and other offences which theoretically carried the death penalty.

[Ann Sinnott]

Also, can I suggest this thread stays as it started - SAD. Haig admitted only as it pertains to SAD, and all other discussions be attached to existing threads or new threads started.