What Happened To Men Who Refused

[PBI]

I thought peronal attacks and insulting comments are verboden on this Forum ?

[PhilB]

Yes, less of that, gents. The quote below reminds of another current thread which concludes that Gestapo men were executed by the British for doing just that. I suspect that 26 years modern service teaches one that there are times when you don`t do as you`re told?

26 years should have taught you that you do as you are told. EVERY time. Not just when you think that it is right and proper.

[truthergw]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Nov 5 2009, 07:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, less of that, gents. The quote below reminds of another current thread which concludes that Gestapo men were executed by the British for doing just that. I suspect that 26 years modern service teaches one that there are times when you don`t do as you`re told?

No soldier would ever be executed for obeying a lawful order from a superior. I would like to hear an example of when it was correct to refuse such a command.

[Bombadier]

I thought peronal attacks and insulting comments are verboden on this Forum ?

It doesn't stop it happening on a lot of threads though. Ignore the topic and snipe at the posters.

I am sure I read somewhere (sorry, I don't have a reference) that one could refuse to serve in a firing squad and that was the end of the matter.

A book I read recently has a quote from a soldier who did just that. I will try to find it and post details.

Nigel

[Beau Geste]

I thought peronal attacks and insulting comments are verboden on this Forum ?

Thanks Russ, all I was trying to do was to suggest that the shared horror of the trenches and the reliance of one person on another was almost certain to create a level of esprit d'corps that would transcend even that of the regiment one belonged to. The members of any military unit are taught and trained to respect and support each other. It's that way today, it was that way when I served and I have no doubt at all that it was the same during the Great War.

All I'm saying is that a lot of people who were SAD during that war were soldiers who had genuinely given their best and should never have been despatched in that way. In such circumstances, I'm convinced that it would have been no easy task getting people to become a member of a firing squad. I'm also convinced that the officer and/senior NCO charged with the responsibility of finding people to carry out this onerous task, would have been reluctant to force soldiers to take part except in the most extreme circumstances. Attitudes like that are surely what makes us HUMAN beings.

Harry

[Beau Geste]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Nov 5 2009, 07:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suspect that 26 years modern service teaches one that there are times when you don`t do as you`re told?

Perhaps so Phil but that really wasn't my point. People who took part in a firing squad were rarely eager volunteers. OK there will have been occasions when an individual who had shown himself to be an out and out scoundrel was SAD and few if any felt sad about it. There were though lots of poor souls who don't fit into this category and my point is that in these circumstances assembling a firing squad might have been extremely difficult.

Harry

[truthergw]

I am not attacking any contributer. I am however very much against unsupported statements being presented as fact and also I deplore the attempt to apply our modern mores and ethics to the men who served in the Great War. I make no apology for presenting my case as vigorously as I can.

There is an aspect of discipline here. Once an NCO allows a man to refuse a duty because he finds it immoral, where does that end? If his corporal tells him to throw a tin of petrol with a couple of mills bombs wired around it into a dugout can he refuse on the grounds that it is immoral to burn people to death? If a recalcitrant prisoner on a raid is jeopardising the success of the mission can his captor refuse to beat him to death with a rifle butt or stab him with a knife?

Discipline is instilled and obedience demanded for a reason. 'Theirs not to reason why' is not just a line in a poem. War is a horrible, cruel business and no sane man would indulge in it for more than an hour if he was a free agent. The insistence on immediate and unthinking obedience absolves the soldier from the need to judge. There was a reference to another thread where it was said that there was a duty on a soldier to disobey an illegal order. In any court of law it would be very difficult to convict. Apart from a few sadistic killers who went far beyond their duty, we hang important losers not war criminals.

[PBI]

Regarding the selection for firing Squad Duty,the Senior Nom Com delegated with the task i feel sure would have had his own list of readily available candidates,possibly Battalion troublemakers,bad boys,Shirkers,and those that he deemed might benefit in helping to carry out the grisly task.According to Military Law if a Soldier refuses to obey a direct order from his superior then it is classed as insubordination..albeit wether he thinks that order is right or wrong..the luxury of the common soldier in WW1 questioning the legality of an order or its morality was i should think unheard of..the Refusal to obey on the other hand could and did lead to a Court Martial.

[David B]

What was ratio of guns loaded with blanks to live rounds ? Theoretically a soldier in a firing squad would not have known whether he fired the fatal

shot or not.

I believe the attitude to judicial murder is far, far different to what it is now. These days most people look upon it with revulsion but when I was a kid

it was just part of life. It happened, so what - he deserved it. I think the last execution in Australia was in 1968 and there is still debate about whether

the guy concerned fired the fatal shot. Trouble is if the jury gets it wrong there is not much use giving the deceased a pardon later. Much good it does them.

David

[Paul Reed]

Bringing it back to the facts for a minute, from memory after ?1917 personnel from the Military Provost Staff Corps were detailed to carry out executions, with personnel from the man's own battalion being used on only rare occasions. It is difficult to ascertain exactly why, but a high percentage of executions did not result in instantaneous death - the files at TNA indicate this for each man. This could be because men deliberately missed, or could be an indication of how poor the level of musketry was in the British Army by 1917. I suspect we will never know which.

[Steven Broomfield]

or could be an indication of how poor the level of musketry was in the British Army by 1917.

Maybe they should have used a Mills Bomb or a Lewis Gun.

Coming back to the subject of men of the same regiment, but a different battalion: is that the case? What would happen if there wasn't anothe battalion of the regiment handy? Using the services of "police" of whatever shade would make sense.

And I still think there is a risk of us looking at this sad affair through modern eyes.

I thought peronal attacks and insulting comments are verboden on this Forum ?

So did I.

[Beau Geste]

Personnel from the man's own battalion being used on only rare occasions. It is difficult to ascertain exactly why, but a high percentage of executions did not result in instantaneous death - the files at TNA indicate this for each man. This could be because men deliberately missed, or could be an indication of how poor the level of musketry was in the British Army by 1917. I suspect we will never know which.

Hello Paul,

Yes, I suppose it could have been either of the two reasons you mention but I'd bet my army pension on the fact that killing someone in cold blood, someone who you know and have served alongside is far more likely to have been the reason for the change you mention.

However, Truthergw has a valid point when he writes about "unsupported statements." All I'm saying is that there are sometimes valid issues that deserve to be discussed even when that sort of statistical or anecdotal proof is missing.

The only "concrete example" of a soldier's refusal to knowingly kill another human being that I can think of at the moment was that of Harry Patch. Was he unique? In an interview shown on TV he admitted that he couldn't even kill the enemy when his own life was being threatened. Rather than do this he chose to fire at a more difficult target: the man's legs. I'm suggesting that if some soldiers found it difficult to kill the enemy, then surely it would be even more difficult to kill someone who, until recently, had been a colleague and perhaps a friend.

Yes Paul "the level of musketry" in the British Army in 1917 must have been really bad if they couldn't hit a pretty large target from a few yards distance.

Harry

[Beau Geste]

Maybe they should have used a Mills Bomb or a Lewis Gun.

I assume this is a joke Steven?

Harry

[Steven Broomfield]

Yes

[auchonvillerssomme]

The only "concrete example" of a soldier's refusal to knowingly kill another human being that I can think of at the moment was that of Harry Patch. Was he unique?

Why is it a concrete example? I know honest men who have their own version of events of 20 years ago that are unrecognisable to anyone else there let alone 50,60...90 years.

Mick

[Heid the Ba]

All I'm saying is that a lot of people who were SAD during that war were soldiers who had genuinely given their best and should never have been despatched in that way.

I thought virtually all of those shot were repeat offenders.

I'd also be wary of anything Harry Patch said at the end of his life. He was a very old man telling interviewers what they wanted to hear. All the interviews I have seen are full of leading questions which he answers exactly as the reporter wants.

ETA: I had missed Mick's post on Harry Patch when I made mine. I wasn't trying to pile on.

[auchonvillerssomme]

Tin hats on now.

Mick

[michaeldr]

Len Sellers, in his book on the Dyett case [For God's Sake Shoot Straight!, Leo Cooper, 1995, ISBN 0 85052 470 9] quotes J. Blacklock who stated

"I got off it, got out of being on the firing squad. I said to the Petty Officer, 'I will never sleep well if I shot one of our own.'"

There is no evidence that this was later held against Blacklock

The same cannot be said for the officer who acted for Dyett's defence. Len quotes Thomas MacMillan (Clerk, 189th Brigade)

"The Battalion(s) had been instructed to render a statement giving names of the officers who would participate in the next fight (Gavrelle) and, as the lists arrived, I took them to the Major. His eagle eye observed that the officer who had acted as 'Prisoner's Friend' to the young man who was 'Shot at Dawn' was on the reserve list. At this his monkey rose, and in his most unbearing manner he told me to instruct the Battalion Commander concerned to send the 'hard-faced ******* forward.'"

[The officer in question developed a raging temperature and was evacuated back to England before the battle]

regards

Michael

ps: hard-faced ******* - I see that the GWF still automatically censors posts. For some reason I thought that we had stopped that

Edited 6 November , 2009 by michaeldr

[Beau Geste]

Tin hats on now.

Mick

Not at all Mick. Perhaps I was naive to believe what he said. Having said that is there any "supported proof" that he was telling porkies ?

Harry

[PhilB]

Regarding the selection for firing Squad Duty,the Senior Nom Com delegated with the task i feel sure would have had his own list of readily available candidates,possibly Battalion troublemakers,bad boys,Shirkers,and those that he deemed might benefit in helping to carry out the grisly task.

It`s a sad thought that men were shot by a combed out collection of troublemakers, bad boys, shirkers etc.

[Steven Broomfield]

There seem to be two possible routes for selecting mn: Tom (IIRC) suggested the sergeant major would select reliable blokes; PBI suggests he'd select the bad boys.

Although personally I'd incline to Tom's suggestion (were I organising this sort of thing, I'd rather have blokes I could rely on - kinder to the victim, too, possibly), is there any evidence either way?

[auchonvillerssomme]

Absolutly no evidence he was telling porkies and I doubt that there is any evidence, but I am a natural cynic.

As regards picking men for nasty or dangerous tasks, I would choose the best and most reliable for the job any decent NCO has a core group he or she can trust completely, and if not to follow unquestioning, to at least follow.

Mick

[dfaulder]

If we are going to start discussing evidence (and why not?): Does anyone know of any specific person court-martial ed for refusing to obey a lawful order "namely, to take part in a firing squad"? If there were such cases, I would expect there to be at least some records to show it.

With my 21st century eyes and possibly managerial outlook, I would have thought that any leadership organisation would try and stop something that might cascade out of control.

W is condemned to be shot, X refuses to serve on the firing squad and goes to court-martial

X is condemned to be shot, Y refuses to serve etc. (Y was not too happy about W, so has sympathy for X)

Y is condemned to be shot, Z refuses to serve (how many steps until you have a near mutiny?)

Even if the authorities were careful to select people from a wide range of units, and those on the squad were not told in detail why an individual had been condemned, I would have thought that word would still get round. You only need one person to refuse to serve on a firing squad to potentially create another cycle which would take up more court-martial time and potentially undermine morale.

Far better for an NCO or officer to select people that he knew would lose no sleep over doing the job.

David

[truthergw]

I get your point David but I doubt if a man would be shot for refusing. It is exactly because the army would not want such a legal escalation that it would never be allowed to happen. There are King's Regulations which govern every aspect of a soldier's life and there is a corps of Officers and NCOs which make sure they are hardly ever needed. Anyone who has served, knows that. If I was told by a sergeant to do a sh**ty job and I didn't want to do it, I have a dozen different ways of getting out of it. If the sergeant approaches me and asks me as a favour to do this job for him, I'm one of the few he can rely on, blah blah, I will almost certainly do the job. To refuse is much more serious than going sick to skive a duty. That is how stuff gets done and I'll bet my state pension that in most cases, it was how it was done. I can also see PBI's point of view and it is a tempting thought. I don't believe that it would be done though because it would be very tempting for a squad of bad lads to make the execution a true shambles and that would reflect badly on the officers and NCOs entrusted with arranging it. I bet that the typical firing squad before the Provost took over was comprised of the same men who would form an honour guard at the CO's funeral. The men who always got picked when something needed done and needed to be done properly.

[PhilB]

Does anyone know of any relevant information on French or German methods?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...02125351AAZb3Us

According to most records that I've found , in WW1 both the British and the French executed far more of their soldiers than did the Germans for cowardice or desertion. Here are the numbers: -

British (including Commonwealth) = 306 executions.

France = approximately 600 executions.

Germany = 18 executions.