Lieutenant George Raymond Dallas Moor

[Jonathan Saunders]

He supposedly died of influenza, how could his supposed recklessness result in this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of the references I found to Dallas Moor said he had been KIA 3/11/1918.

[Tim Godden]

Hi Jonathan,

Yes, your points are valid, I have no quibble with sensible thought through opinion. It was the statement by another member that I oppose and thus wrote my previous posting. Death is not something to wish on anyone, and it is certainly not something to be, as another member aptly put it, belatedly gloated over.

Best regards,

Tim

[Max]

One of the references I found to Dallas Moor said he had been KIA 3/11/1918.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Hampshire Regiment note that he died of Spanish Influenza on 3/11/1918.

Andy

[Jonathan Saunders]

Hi,

And what about those men that 'ran away'?

Leaving their mates, pals that they perhaps grew up with in the same street?

What did their mothers think?

What did this officer do later to merit an MC and Bar?

Regards,

Steve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dont think running away is appropriate. The Hampshires came under very heavy attack by the Turks - all the officers in the Line had apparently been killed or were incapacitated, many ORs had also become casualties and basically the ferocity of the Turkish attack led to all the men left in the Line to retreat enmasse and with some urgency to the next defensive position. Dallas Moor rallied the men by whatever means before they had reached that next Line and led a counter-attack with the very same men. Please feel free to correct me on this if my understanding is wrong.

[7:29am]

I have read this thread through and think there maybe some generalisations.. first i think he was very quick broad thinking knowing that a hole in the line could have had disastrous effects on the overall defence of the line.. secondly i can't believe he rushed back 200 yards took aim and fired on his own men... it is likely that he tried to stop them and may have been threatened by leaders of a "hoard" and by removing the ringleaders was able to get control of a very nasty situation.. the "good riddance" and "no justification" is perhaps a little unfair..and also "ran away leaving their mates" does not describe the situation correctly.. the situation must have been awful for all involved, and Moor probably saved the day, so yes his actions due warrant his medal, and that is what his superiors thought on the day which is what counts!

[Steve Bramley]

As a sub-question, exactly how would officers have been trained to deal with something like this, in battlefield situations?

And a good one too. I doubt that officers would be trained for this situation, but am willing to be corrected. But the men would have been wouldn't they? When all officers and NCO's have been lost doesn't the chain of command pass down the line? Even as far as the longest serving private?

'Battlefield Situation' is the key word here I feel and who knows how anyone will react under the same circumstances. 'Running away' i suppose is a rather harsh description and, as Jonathan says;

'Dallas Moor rallied the men by whatever means before they had reached that next Line and led a counter-attack with the very same men',

But did these same men then not witness the subsequent results of a 'ferocious' attack?

I agree, in part, with Jim's summarisation.

Regards,

Steve.

[Dave_59]

well to be honest i dont care what you think of me for making the comment. It may be a disrespectable thing to say but if indeed he did shoot his own men, I think he deserved to suffer the same fate. Im not gloating over the fact that he died, i just dont have any sympathy.

[Tim Godden]

if indeed he did shoot his own men

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

this is the reason I find the statement unacceptable, it is not proven.

However, let's not let this wrangle on like too many threads have a habit of doing when there is a disagreement. We have different opinions, such is life.

Regards,

Tim

[Max]

well to be honest i dont care what you think of me for making the comment. It may be a disrespectable thing to say but if indeed he did shoot his own men, I think he deserved to suffer the same fate. Im not gloating over the fact that he died, i just dont have any sympathy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its still a silly comment when you don't actually know what he did or didn't do.

[rap1943]

This has been a very moving topic in many ways. When I first read the small paragraph in 'Gallipoli - untold stories' I started the topic to try and find out more about Moor (pardon the pun) and his supposed action. Through all the comments made in this thread I am now leaning towards believing that Moor indeed did what his VC citation says but not perhaps in the way it has been reported. Perhaps he did turn his gun on the troops, perhaps he even fired shots, perhaps he hit one of the troops, even killed one, but, perhaps whatever occured was used by the command and dramatised (Gen de Lisle's comment) as an example to others. Although I didn't write it I was originally leaning towards the view of Dave 59, and I have a lot of sympathy with that. But we don't know for sure if Moor did it do we.

Another thing that has occured to me is that the original quote from the book, which is what got me going, lead me to jump to the conclusion I did - that Moor was awarded the VC for his supposed action of shooting the men. Is this another example of the Aussies still carrying the grudge against us Poms (by editorial omission of facts) for what the commanders did or didn't do at Gallipoli? Mind you it appears a lot of the complaining was justified.

(The book is edited and published in Australia from Australian achival material)

Bob

[Dave_59]

Okay,

if indeed he did shoot his own men, i have no sympathy for his death. I dont think a big-headed 18 year old that is prepared to shoot his own men is an asset to the British Army, and therefore i have little sympathy for his untimely death.

dave

[charlesmessenger]

Dave

Tough decisions involving life or death are what war is about. In this case, if Moor had shot some or all of the four men (and no one has presented any convincing evidence that he did) it was surely a question of sacrificing the few for the many. If the panic had spread and the line had broken many more men would have met their deaths.

To call Moor ‘bigheaded’ is an insult to the memory of an undoubtedly very brave man who was three times decorated for his courage. Given his youth, I am personally amazed by his presence of mind in what was clearly a desperate situation. He was also clearly prepared to lay down his own life.

Charles M

[Max]

Okay,

if indeed he did shoot his own men, i have no sympathy for his death. I dont think a big-headed 18 year old that is prepared to shoot his own men is an asset to the British Army, and therefore i have little sympathy for his untimely death.

dave

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And conversely if indeed he did not shoot his men but rallied the troops in the manner in which his VC citation suggests would you consider that he was an exceptionally brave young man, an asset to the British Army with a presence of mind and courage way beyond his tender years? And would you also consider the untimely death of this young man to be a tragedy.

Andy

[PhilB]

Okay,

if indeed he did shoot his own men, i have no sympathy for his death. I dont think a big-headed 18 year old that is prepared to shoot his own men is an asset to the British Army, and therefore i have little sympathy for his untimely death.

dave

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Speaking generally, Dave, what do you consider to be the correct action for a junior officer who sees men retiring without permission, thus weakening the line?

Phil B

[shaymen]

All

Just came across this - thought I would add it to this thread.

Glyn

[rflory]

Dave 59 wrote:

Good riddance, there is no justification for shooting your own men, under any circumstance.

I find this statement totally unacceptable and demeaning to the memory of a VC recipient. As numerous members of the forum have pointed out there is little evidence that he shot the four men and, even if he did, in my opinion it would be a reasonable response for the rout that was occurring at the time of his action. Dave 59 owes an apology to both this forum and to the family of Lieutenant Moor. Dick Flory

[BMoorhouse]

There is some evidence that British Officers were taught to behave in this way:

Lieutenant McMurtrie (7th Somerset Light Infantry at Cambrai) when the Battalion started to fall back;

"I turned round to try and stop them all. Everyone wished to clear out, everyone was out for himself and his own preservation. It is extraordinary what one thinks of at such moments as these and it is marvellous what a difference one strong, brave man makes in situations such as this. I remembered a lecture that we had had at Sandhurst by a Staff Sergeant and he told us that if withdrawing the men tried to run away, then get out your revolver and threaten them and if that was not enough, shoot some of them. This was a similar situation, all the men had panicked and just commanding them was not enough. The place we had got to was quite a good place for making a stand and so I cocked my revolver and started threatening them with it. Immediately they turned around and faced the enemy and began firing away again. I saw Jenks [another Lieutenant] doing the same thing further down on the left."

In the circumstances of what was occuring I am sure that McMurtrie's actions saved many lives (quite apart from stemming the German breakthrough).

Brendon.

[michaeldr]

Brendon’s last point is well made

Moor’s VC was recommended by the officers of the 2nd Royal Fusiliers who had witnessed his desperate action and who no doubt thought that they had him to thank for their still be alive themselves.

I do hope that our Pal will reconsider his ill chosen words

Moor may have taken life, but that day he saved many more

And this is what war is all about I’m afraid

Regards

Michael D.R.

[rflory]

Michael's comments immediately above appear to be mirrored in the following citation from The Story of the 29th Division, pages 43 and 44:

"There was an anxious moment during a vigorous counter-attack by the Turks, when it looked as if they had broken through at a particulary vulnerable point on our right at the junction of two battalions each commanded by a second lieutenant. One of these officers, 2nd Lieutenant R. G. Moor of the 2nd Hants, and then in command of his battalion, seeing the disorderly retirement in the sector of the battalion on his left, which amounted to panic for want of officers to control them, and realizing the dangers of his own battalion, with great presence of mind, and regardless of the danger, rushed across the open, exposed to fire for 400 yards, and succeeded in heading the mob. He had to use severe measures to bring them to their senses, even shooting the leaders of the panic. He then collected the troops in a hollow, organized them, and led them to the counter-attack. He regained the lost trenches, driving out the Turks, organized the defences, and when reporting by telephone what had occurred he utterly collapsed from the strain.This was not surprising, when it is realized he had only left Cheltenham College the previous September. By this gallant action Lieutenant Moor gained the ninth Victoria Cross for the division. After a period at home recovering from his collapse, he became ADC to Major-General W. de. L. Williams who commanded the 30th Division in France. There Lieutenant Moor distinguished himself on many occasions. When visiting the line with his general, as ADC he used to plan trench raids and lead them himself, receiving the Military Cross with a Bar for these dangerous enterprises. It is to be regretted that this gallant and promising young officer died from pneumonia in 1918 shortly after the armistice - a great loss to the army."

Regards. Dick

[Jonathan Saunders]

Personally I think the difference between McMurtrie and Jenks and Dallas Moor is that the former did not actually shoot at their "own" men. Whereas it has not been established whether Dallas Moor shot or not the weight of evidence suggests he did.

This isnt an attempt to start the controversy debate off again - it is clear people have very strong opinions on whether Dallas Moor deserved the VC or not.

[rflory]

I can remember as a young boy, reading in the local newspaper about an army training test given to officer candidates. Even today I can recall two of the questions and the answers:

1. You are driving a truck, loaded with 30 soldiers, down a mountain road with steep slopes on each side and all of a sudden a mother with a baby carriage appears on the road in front of you. What do you do? The answer: run over the mother and the baby carriage, because in doing so you save 31 lives.

2. You are in a reserve area with a machine gun section and a large group of friendly troops are retreating in disarray due to an enemy attack. What do you do? The answer: fire warning rounds from the machine gun to stop the troops. If they continue, shoot some of them, to get the others to stop. By doing so you save the lives of many by shooting a few.

Not easy answers but in war officers, and often non-commissioned officers, are faced with hard choices that often conflict with pre-war civilian morals and ethics.

Regards. Dick

[BMoorhouse]

Personally I think the difference between McMurtrie and Jenks and Dallas Moor is that the former did not actually shoot at their "own" men. Whereas it has not been established whether Dallas Moor shot or not the weight of evidence suggests he did.

Jonathan,

I agree that there is a difference - and I do not know whether McMurtrie would have shot his own men. It would perhaps be unfair to try and guess.

What I find interesting is that there was apparently official sanction at Sandhurst to both threaten and, if necessary, to shoot soldiers who were retreating.

The fact that it must at the very least been suspected that Dallas Moor had done this and that he was awarded a VC in the circumstances must lend support to the, at least semi-official, condoningof this sort of act.

I don't know whether anyone else has come across similar 'training' being given to officers?

What I find interesting in both cases (Dallas Moor's and McMurtrie's) is that the soldiers that were threatened clearly rallied, and in neither case took the opportunity to get rid of the officer that had intimidated them at gun point. Does this suggest that they came to their senses and realised that the officers had in fact acted in their best interests? Surely if their conduct was seen to be so 'out of order' by the standards of the soldiers that were there - there would have been plenty of opportunity for the men to shoot the officers either in that action so they could run away, or later.

I agree with Dicks comments that in war, officers (and might I add - all soldiers) are faced with choices that civilian morals and ethics conflict with. I recently visited Normandy with some WW2 veterans who described how in the attack on Hill 112 a soldier was severly burned when incendiary grenades that he was carrying were hit. An officer shot the man to put him out of his misery.

I would not like to judge anyone put in any of their positions. I am also grateful to them for having bought the relative peace that I have enjoyed in my lifetime.

Brendon.

[marina]

I would not like to judge anyone put in any of their positions. I am also grateful to them for having bought the relative peace that I have enjoyed in my lifetime.

Brendon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that's fair comment - I'm very uneasy at the idea of second guessing the actions of a man all those years ago in those very particular circumstances. He was clearly much valued and highly thought of by his contemporaries. Maybe that should be enough for us too.

Marina

[Jonathan Saunders]

Jonathan,

I agree that there is a difference - and I do not know whether McMurtrie would have shot his own men. It would perhaps be unfair to try and guess.

What I find interesting is that there was apparently official sanction at Sandhurst to both threaten and, if necessary, to shoot soldiers who were retreating.

The fact that it must at the very least been suspected that Dallas Moor had done this and that he was awarded a VC in the circumstances must lend support to the, at least semi-official, condoningof this sort of act.

I don't know whether anyone else has come across similar 'training' being given to officers?

What I find interesting in both cases (Dallas Moor's and McMurtrie's) is that the soldiers that were threatened clearly rallied, and in neither case took the opportunity to get rid of the officer that had intimidated them at gun point. Does this suggest that they came to their senses and realised that the officers had in fact acted in their best interests? Surely if their conduct was seen to be so 'out of order' by the standards of the soldiers that were there - there would have been plenty of opportunity for the men to shoot the officers either in that action so they could run away, or later.

I agree with Dicks comments that in war, officers (and might I add - all soldiers) are faced with choices that civilian morals and ethics conflict with. I recently visited Normandy with some WW2 veterans who described how in the attack on Hill 112 a soldier was severly burned when incendiary grenades that he was carrying were hit. An officer shot the man to put him out of his misery.

I would not like to judge anyone put in any of their positions. I am also grateful to them for having bought the relative peace that I have enjoyed in my lifetime.

Brendon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Brendon,

I agree with some of what you say although I can't see the connection between what Dallas-Moor has been alleged to have done and the mercy killing in Normandy in 1944 to which you refer.

Without doubt evidence suggests threatening men or shooting men in this situation was condoned by the military and we have all heard of stories of the "trench police" shooting anyone that didn't go over the top in an attack. No doubt many of us have come across comments made by those that were there that elude to summary executions or the killing of young subalterns by their own men when advancing across NML. Unfortunately that is all part of war however much it conflicts with civilian morals.

However in this instance history admittedly rather than substantiated fact, has handed down a story that Dallas-Moor was awarded the VC for shooting and possibly killing between 1 and 4 Tommies. Secondary evidence suggests that there is some, possibly much, truth in this. To my mind the emphasis on his act of bravery for which he was awarded the VC has been more for the way he is alleged to have stemmed the retreat rather than for the counter-attack and retaking of the trench - although no doubt a brave action in itself not an unusual one in terms of The Great War. On that basis I surmise there was some political agenda (and not the only time) by the War Office for awarding this VC for how the retreat was stemmed and, in my opinion only, Dallas-Moor did not therefore perform a signal act of valour - the prerequisite for the Victoria Cross. I accept that this opinion possibly does Dallas-Moor a great disservice but going back to my very first comment on this thread, I still find it astonishing that the VC was awarded largely in part for shooting and possibly killing up to 4 Tommies.

Jon

[John_Hartley]

The references at posts #40 and #44 indicate that the retreating battalion was to the left of Moor's 2/Hampshire. I can't find any reference which names it, nor have I been able to work out, from deployments, which it would have been. Can anyone help, please?

John