Killing of deserters by CO justified?

[egbert]

I'd like to thank each of you personally for your response!!!

I hesitated quite some time to make it known to the public; your inputs made me sure to do so!

It makes me wonder what memories that officer would have lived with.

No bad dreams because he was sure he did the right thing, or did he suffer for the rest of his life.

Kim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We don't know, he was kia 1 May 1918

Then he heard the officer's voice from behind him, 'The first man to try and run will be shot by me'.

They stayed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was my Granddad

[Desmond7]

Great piece of research and HEAVY question to ask on that basis.

I'd say he reacted as most officers of his generation in any army of that time would have done.

You may be interested to know that a much more 'clinical example' of this was portrayed in a recent BBC film of 'Dunkirk' ... a Major of the Coldstream Guards gives expression instructions to an officer not to retreat from a given position.

The officer argues.

The Coldstream officer warns him he will shoot him if he goes beyond that point.

The other officer ignores this warning so the Coldstreamer shoots him dead.

des

[Gunboat]

Egbert

As you know I have been following your other thread avidly and because of what you have shared with us many of us feel a close affinity to your grandfather.

He was a brave man who clearly would do whatever was necessary to protect his men and his position. The fact that he had to make such a decision and carried it through doesn't diminish or tarnish his reputation in any way and nor is the reputation or image of the man who was shot tarnished we are all at times scared and all want to run away. It is a shame that such was the situation that there was no alternative for your grandfather.

Thanks again for sharing yet another peice of your grandfathers story.

Gunboat

[KateJ]

Egbert

I too have been avidly following your other thread (as has the rest of the forum shown by your "viewing" figures!).

I agree with Gunboat's comments - granddad was a brave man.

The additional information that you have presented to the forum on the other thread, combined with your postings on this thread, has shown your grandfather to be a "real" person - warts and all.

Thank you for sharing your grandfather's story with us.

Kate

[Hector]

To get up and run away is a desertion of your Friends , Country way of life and everything you and yours hold sacred . To enlist in any form is voluteering your life no matter what .You are not allowed to run off, you have a contract . to break it is very dear indeed . The officer was right to shoot. I would bet he regreted it though, it is the job.

[Soren]

Well, if I was the soldier disserting, I'd expect to get shot. He would have done the right thing.

[squirrel]

Egbert, your Grandfather was a professional soldier and a brave man. He did what he had to do.

[Rob B]

What a horrible decision, to have to make but he did what was required in the heat of battle. There are cases where troops were held in the line with the fear that if they ran they would be shot with no questions asked, certainly Carton de Wiart had a case to threaten some one with his pistol who refused to go over the top.

In this situation this action saved the day had he let them go the position would have fallen, leading to larger scales of casualties.

They could be no hesitation and his decision was spot on.

Rob

[spike10764]

Your Grandfather would have been held reponsible for the failure of the men under him, surely. This pressure he was under makes his actions perfectly proper, especially in terms of the morality of the time, when personal honour and loyalty to your fellow soldiers was inbred into nations, not just soldiers.

It just makes me feel he was an even braver man than I first suspected. I mean, the immediate danger of his men turning on him(if they all supported the decision to run away), or the prospect of a bullet in the back. It takes guts and determination and leadership of the highest order not to "fold" in those situations, human beings are pack animals, in a sense and the leader has at times to be strong and risk all.

[Gunboat]

Your Grandfather would have been held reponsible for the failure of the men under him, surely. This pressure he was under makes his actions perfectly proper, especially in terms of the morality of the time, when personal honour and loyalty to your fellow soldiers was inbred into nations, not just soldiers.

It just makes me feel he was an even braver man than I first suspected. I mean, the immediate danger of his men turning on him(if they all supported the decision to run away), or the prospect of a bullet in the back. It takes guts and determination and leadership of the highest order not to "fold" in those situations, human beings are pack animals, in a sense and the leader has at times to be strong and risk all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HERE, HERE

[Soren]

G R D Moor, of the Hampshire regt.  he got a medal for it OK - a VC.

Personally, I agree with Ozzie - it was war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've just read up on GRDM shot four men and halted a retreat, re-took the objective, needs must!

[Bruce Dennis]

Oh what a horrible decision to face, with so much at stake. The answer is already given: they held and he, and some of the men, lived to fight another day. That would not have been the case if the position they were holding had fallen.

But the question was framed in time: was it right in 1914? In 1914 the leaders of most armies had been around during the Crimean War. Those men surely would have seen hesitation on the part of an officer to act as your grandfather did as weakness. Maybe privately, not supported by regulations, but it had been within an officers power to order such actions in the 19th century and for good reason: results were measured by victory or defeat, and anything else was dealt with in that context. Your grandfathers troops held their position, so I am sure his peers and superiors were better served by that result than anything else.

I have said elsewhere, men in their time must not be judged by us in ours.

But that is just my opinion.

All the best,

Bruce

[Guest IMDB Fan]

 

But the question was framed in time: was it right in 1914? 

It was the right thing in 1914 , and it`d still be the right thing in 2014 , 2114 or 2214. Armies are not democracies and the greater good always comes first

[truthergw]

I'd like to thank each of you personally for your response!!!

I hesitated quite some time to make it known to the public; your inputs made me sure to do so!

We don't know, he was kia 1 May 1918

It was my Granddad

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure if we are allowed second dibs at this thread But here goes anyway. Your Grandfather did his duty. When all is said and done, we can ask no more of any soldier.

[egbert]

I can tell you that it was a difficult step for grandson egbert to post this terrible fate today. This is an important day for Granddad!

First of all let me thank you once again, for all your comments - I come to the conclusion that I made the right step to publicize -and your commentary is prove enough.

Everybody knows that in the Imperial Army deserting was to be sentenced with the death penalty – but usually imposed by a military court of justice. For me it never was a legal question, but a moral question. But in the heat of a battle things have to be decided in seconds. I asked today our military lawyer here and he spooled the whole range of jurisdiction language. The summary: even today it might be acceptable under certain conditions!

The regimental history of IR49 explains what was going on in this particular battle on 5 or so pages. If somebody volunteers to translate it for us -I’d scan and email the relevant pages. I will also post in the "secrets of the trunk"- thread the field letter sent home with Granddads first reaction after receiving the Iron Cross -but don't expect too much.

Another word on how he lived with that: nobody knows today anything about it, but considering I have a couple of genes from Grandfather - I think I can imagine how he felt:

He must have had an emotional scar until he died and I bet he battled his battle and his deeds each night until he was kia. I can feel his inner fights and also something tells me now "Grandson, I stand to what happened, and its ok that you tell your pals about it. Tell your guys in that forum that the war was total bullshit and that we have total peace up here now in the Great Army."

[Stephen White]

egbert

I admire you for starting this thread and your reasons for doing so. I'm not so sure if faced with the same circumstances, that I could have done so. Even with the benefit of hindsight after seeing the positive reaction you got.

Stephen

[Guest Jimmy Knacky]

I think it was perfectly acceptable and the correct thing to do then and today.

If someone was going to endanger my life and the rest of my friends by his actions then i would shoot him myself, it's his decision to run or whatever, he knew the results of his actions both ways, from the time he decided to run he became as much as enemy to me as the enemy, he deserved his reward.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Talks cheap innit.

Edited 19 November , 2005 by Kate Wills

[marina]

Prat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Precisely.

Marina

[Borderman]

Question.

Why do British Officers carry side arms?

Combat refusals.

[NIGEL]

Question.

Why do British Officers carry side arms?

Combat refusals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That may make some sense but given my choice of gun it wouldnt be a pistol over a rifle

[Max]

Question.

Why do British Officers carry side arms?

Combat refusals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would be very surprised if this was true. I have always assumed that carrying a pistol instaed of a rifle allows the officer to also carry a sword for directing purposes.

Andy

[Borderman]

Officers dress, equip, arm as same as the other platoon or coy members. (Avoids the whole nasty business of offering yourself up as a tasty sniper’s target and allows you to be an effective fighting member of the unit). But, you carry a side arm; in my day a 9mm Browning. You don’t need to wear pips to demonstrate your authority, in extremis you have other means.

[Max]

Officers dress, equip, arm as same as the other platoon or coy members.  (Avoids the whole nasty business of offering yourself up as a tasty sniper’s target and allows you to be an effective fighting member of the unit).  But, you carry a side arm; in my day a 9mm Browning.  You don’t need to wear pips to demonstrate your authority, in extremis you have other means.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was speaking from a historical perspective.

[De Petrowski Alexander]

Egbert, Your grandfather did the right thing, It is just to kill one man in order to save many others.

I suspect these things happened more but mostly they were covered up as being battle casualties, friendly fire or otherwise, if only to spare the man's family and avoid possibly legal and administrative consequences, such as the refusal to give a widow's pension because of the way her husband died.

[Borderman]

Sorry Max. My reply missed yours. (Opening a beer, letting cat out - dull stuff). Only just started getting into this Great War stuff, so happy to stand corrected. To my knowledge (woefully poor) many officers at the start of the Great War often carried no weapon at all. The killing was to be done by ‘others’. Eventually this practice changed, from pistol to SMLE with bayonet. Their dress also changed, due to no small influence of the mauser. Once you carry a personal weapon a side arm becomes rather redundant, unless operating something like a vickers etc. for personal protection. For an officer the side arm denotes far more.