Tom Tulloch-Marshall Posted 18 November , 2013 Author Share Posted 18 November , 2013 I've been wondering about this, and I think it's possible to read the sequence of events this way: .... Thoughts? Andrew - in a word - no. The report in post #4 reads quite clearly; Trigg wasn't shot by the two British sentries because they both thought that he had left the line from the other's post. The inference is very clear- if they hadn't thought that they would have shot at him with the intention of killing him. ... I don't think these events are that unusual, ... Not "that unusual" is maybe over-egging the pudding a bit, but I suspect that British soldiers doing what Trigg did was probably a lot more common than we'd ever be given a clue about by British war diaries (etc). A bit of "hidden history" which may one day be pulled from the German archives ? The Feb 1916 incident does seem to indicate that there were standing orders (at least at brigade level) to the effect that a man or men seen to be "going over" to the enemy were to be killed. Has anybody seen such orders ? Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts