Executed British WW1 soldiers to be given pardons

At long last the UK government is to issue pardons to the families of 90 men who were shot for cowardice because they were suffering from shellshock. Story here

Geoff Hoon last year sai there was no case in law for a posthumous pardon but now that Des Browne has taken over as Defence Secretary the government has taken a different view.

About time!

Hope they'd posthumously strip the honours from c***ts like Haig that led a whole generation of young men into a bloody war for the benefit of the ruling class's imperialsm.

So sad!

I remember watching a horrible movie once about soldiers that were court martialled after the war had ended. I think they were Canadian and they were waiting to go home in camps, things didn't happen quickly enough, there was a mini-uprising and then they shot a load of them! Anyone remember this movie?

I make it another 22 days in which to question those terrorist suspects. Watch out for more cynical media drips.

and apologise to the families of Quaker attenders who were not allowed to avoid military service (unlike Quaker members). Because some of them refused to bear arms as absolutist pacifists they were tied to posts on the front line as target practice for the Germans. This is acknowledged by historians to have happened and I know at least one of the families concernecd but no apology or acknowledgement has been issued from the government.

WTF! I've never heard of this, how bloody awful.

although i agree that many soldiers shot for cowardice were done an injustice, I am not sure a blanket pardon is the way to do it. This would put such soldiers on a par with other soldiers who did indeed show real cowardice . I think a blanket apology for all executions (because i believe executing was wrong in all cases) and pardons for those with just cause should be the step forward.

@ OG
think that's a bit shit - some folks are just not built mentally for that kind of thing - I used to play rugby with one guy - big fucker - but didnt have the stomach for heavy contact - nice guy and all but just not suited and all the threatening and shouting at him wasn't goin to change him - in war time (especially the Great War) I'm sure a lot of those guys were out there and just lost their marbles... walk a mile in another's shoes and all that.

Agree with Parnell. The whole concept of cowardice is ridiculous and to receive punishment for it is absolute bullshit.

In Quaker meetings, if you are not birthright but a Quaker by convincement (that is you were not born into a Quaker family but have converted to Quakerism) the way to become a member is to attend meetings for a year or two before applying for membership. There is no fixed time but immediate applications for membership are discouraged. Someone who is waiting to apply but attending meetings is called an 'attender'.

Some people also stay attenders all their lives because they do not really see an advantage in joining. This would be particularly true for many absolutist pacifists who were not particularly religious.

When compulsory callup happened in 1916, there was a rush of young men who did not want to fight signing up as Unitarians, Mennonites and Quakers as all these groups were recognised pacifists and therefore exempt. But the authorities were wise to this and decided bthat in the case of Quakers attenders and anyone who had very recently become a member would not be exempt and would be forcibly drafted. Conscientious Objectors had to prove their exemptions in Tribunals and around half of the 9000 who faced a tribunal failed to avoid military service.

This presented a considerable problem for the military authorities as many of these youndg men would not bear arms. When a gun or bayonet was put in their hands the let it drop to the ground. They were uterly useless in a fighting force and some officers took their behaviour as 'mutiny'. Some were executed after court martial but others, in the thick of fighting, were as I described lifted on poles as shooting practice for the Germans.

This practice did not last long beyond 1916 as it presented a public relations disaster for other troops and because some officers had a mote of compassion for these young men and shortly afterwards these men were allowed to go instead into the Friends Ambulance Unit as an alternative to service.

It was a compusory callup. Whether an individual is a coward or not in that circumstance - they do not deserve to be shot for it.

Common misconception of Haig there I'd say - it was the only way to fight that war. Shan't bore you with the 'details', but quite a few people, these days, take the point of view that Haig did what he could under the circumstances.


Sadly the evidence doesn't exist almost 100 years on - either you pardon all of them, or none of them. Best to pardon the whole lot en masse and then move on if you ask me - shitty aspect of British military history, and would be good to put a lid on it once and for all.

Jimbo mate; that might have been the only "way" to fight the war.
But the war in itself was a disgusting waste of life and resources.

Too true, but hardly Haig's fault that it broke out.

isn't it about 90 years too late for most of them?

I can only assume it is the descendants who want to somehow 'show off' that their (great) (grand)fathers did something in the war that are pushing for this - which seems somehow a bit 'wrong' (ie trying to take some glory for what someone else has done). It isn't going to help the poor guys themselves very much

It happened 90 years ago and pardons don't change the fact that those poor young men are nothing but worm food.
What an incredible waste of time, effort and, for those right wingers out there, "tax payer's money"

which is why i also said they should apologise for the executions. I also believe that the executions were wrong.

However, an army, especially at a time of national crisis like the first world war, even a conscript army, cannot survive if it condones dersertion and cowardice in the face of the enemy. It is not a pleasant thought, and i agree with Parnell, that some people are more suited than others but under exceptional circumstances exceptional efforts are required by all people. In the words of Winston Churchill "England expects that every man will do his duty".

I just think it demeans people who were court martialled because they objected in advance on religious and/or ethical grounds but are put on a par with others whose actions led to the deaths of fellow soldiers due to their inability to do their duty and others . I see a distinction here.

Consciencous objectors were given a chance to not serve in a fighting role during the first world war, although it was mightily difficult to achieve a positive decision from the court.

ah ok. Good point.

So you would have prefered a German Empire over a British one?


Wasn't that Nelson. [img]http://www.keithball.net/img/smileys/emot-eng101.gif[/img]

Indeed:

Damn Jimbo. You're a faster google image search / wikipede than I am...

It was certainly Nelson rather than Churchill, battle of Trafalgar.

Churchill gave us 'Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.'

No. I would have preferred the working class in both the British and German Armies to take a step back and shoot their officers - and an international revolution putting an end to the capitalist imperialsm that led to WW1.

That's what they did in Russia and everything worked out great, didn't it?

JW. the lack of revolution in other countries was one of the major causes foe reversal of the Russian Revolution and the barbarity that was Stalinism. Compare the contrasting theories of Tortsky's "Permentnant Revolution" and Stalin's "Socialism in one country".

But I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent. Sorry.

In Nazi Germany, everyone listened to their Generals and that worked out well too, didn't it?

So what's your point?

Blimey MT - even for you your posts are looking pretty Communist this morning. Nevertheless I'd be interested to hear your view of how/why WWI started - been reading a bit on that myself lately, and personally I blame the Austrians. For everything.

Communism doesnt work.

Go on mate... bit of Black Hand ?

in the one Quaker family I know the pain and hurt survived to the third and fourth generations. It was real, though they never met their ancestor. This is partly because the campaign for pardons has been going continuously for 90 years which I guess does not allow them to forget what happened.

For Jimbo

Although it was the German invasion of Belgium that triggered Britain’s entry into WW1 the root causes of the war didn’t lie in western Europe but rather in SE Europe, the Middle East and the empires overseas.

Britain and France had over the previous century established large empires covering much of the world. Countries like Portugal, the Netherlands and Belgium also had imperial interests outside of Europe. As Germany came into existence as a unified country at the end of the 19th Century, the German ruling class thought that they needed an empire too. Not just for the prestige it would bring but for the economic benefits of a raw materials and a ready market for manufactured goods.

Germany had some small imperial interests but wanted more and more. It came for example close to war around 1905 (?) over influence in Morocco. Germany had its eye on Britain’s processions in the Middle East as well. And while Germany was in an expansionist mode France and Britain naturally didn’t want the competition.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire, tsarist Russian Empire and Ottoman Empires were teetering on and where their influences met was a powder keg. Some sections of the local middle classes were objecting to being part of foreign empires and wanted national self-determination with themselves in positions of political and economic power.

There European empires had treaties and alliances with the major powers and once Prince Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo it set off a chain of events that no one person was perhaps able to stop.

There was a group that didn’t manage to stop the war to a partial extent. With the slogan “bread, peace and land� the Russian Revolution ended Russia’s involvement in what was rightly seen by them as a war for capitalist imperialist interests. Why that revolution failed to take off in Germany, France and indeed Britain is another thread.

PS:

The reason Germany got overly blamed for the war was that Austro-Hunagry wasn't around to blame.

If you want a bit of "light" reading on the whole cultural / imperial stuff in Europe and the conflicts between the nationalities I THOROUGHLY reccomend the Good Soldier Svejk by Jaroslav Hasek.

It certainly does work, but relies heavily on removing a large part of the brain to reduce everyone to a very base level of IQ.

the first world war was fought for imperial reasons between the aristocracy and monarchies of Europe driving countless ordinary working men to their deaths in the trenches.

And the outcome? Was it peace? No, it was the steady decline of Western Europe and the creation of a monster in Germany that led to a second run of the war more bloody than the last.

War breeds war and can never be justified.

The only time I ever supported a war was over Iraq, for a period of ten days. I have regretted it ever since as a civil war decimates the Iraqi population in an unstable powderkeg of a country we have created through war.

The Serbian situation was only a trigger. France, Britain and Germany were just itching for a war to explode to further their dominance as imperial powers. The 20 years before 1914 saw an arms race arming the three countries to the teeth. In 1913 if was not 'if' a war starts - it was 'when'. Serbia just lit the fuse.

Can blatantly be justified if its a war involving a rag tag fleet of ships against an army of machines hell bent on the destruction of the human race. You need to watch more TV dude.

I'll go with most of that.
EDIT: Including DR's post, though I meant the ones before.

I watch TV and nothing has been presented to me that would dissuade me from the view that 1914-18 and the aftermath was the cause of WW2. Some historians talk of it all as one great war with a 20 year hiatus in the middle. Had we sought peace and cooperation, even an EU, in 1914 there would have been no Hitler and no WW2.

I guess, although presumably only (or mainly) because the families themselves have perpetuated it. I come from a pretty well functioning family (ie the family has split and disappeared over the years) but I know absolutely nothing about any of my great grandparents (which would have been the generation involved in WW1). For all I know one or more of them is one of these 90 people - I have no idea if they were involved in the war and what they did. So I can only assume it is the families themselves that are passing this thing down through the generations.

@Jimbo
Haven't really pointed the finger at Austria yet tho - from what I've read above it's like this:

"Challenger gets mifty with incumbents , incumbents not comfortable with new sleeping arrangement , war breaks out , loser gets blamed , the end."

Back to killing cowards, and also TV, if Jar Jar Binks had been executed for being a twat, he could not have raised a motion to grant Palpatine extra powers in the Senate, and an age of darkness where the galaxy was under control of the sith could have been avoided.

Not sure I agree with those here who are quick to dismiss or nail down the causes of wars and other historic events.

I'll throw an idea in to the pot... Wars have been a means for older leaders to deal with the surplus of young men vying with them for society's resources.

As Leo Tolstoy wrote in War and Peace:

I wouldn't agree 100% Pike.

The ruling class do view workers as resources to be used. Usually to work.

But in the case of WW1, indeed almost all wars, the ruling class used that resource to be consumed by war in the hope that by winning they could be in a better position to further exploit other workers and the coming generations.

Careful though - I think, though I'm not sure, that officer casualties in WWI were, relatively speaking, higher than for the soldiers. WWI officers were nearly exclusively upper middle class, public school boys.

MT, i think you'll find that all social classes were ravaged by WWI. Unlike the German army British officers led from the front and were usually the first to be picked off by enemy fire. There might even be a case that since the officer class during WW1 was almost entirely made up of the Upper Classes, that they in fact were exploited disproportionatly more than the working classes.

edit: Jimbo was quicker with the same thoughts.

@MT - My point was to illustrate that, imo, it is easy to be blasé about the causes of historic events.

In response to your point. Even up to WWII, I honestly believe that this insecurity amongst the ruling class, was simply non-existent, with the belief persistent that the ruling class was just that. In other words, I do not believe that they were driven by any fear of being usurped, or of even being questioned, by the masses. I even believe the October Revolution (and subsequent Stalinism), and subsequent western propaganda, ironically actually served to strengthen the hand of the ruling classes as the 'unquestionable' leaders of the nation. You could even question whether this insecurity exists amongst the ruling class even today (just look at the degree to which the masses are now being manipulated).

@Jimbo - even in WWII, officer casualties proportionately outnumbered those for their subordinates. At the bloodiest battle of them all, Stalingrad, for example, german officers were viewed as better prizes by the Russian snipers and, as a result, suffered disproportionate casualties.

Which is why the other ranks should have stepped back and shot them!

Becasue the ones that survived were the same people smashing the 1926 General Strike or oppressing the working class right through the 1930s.

Anyway, work to do and I didn't mean to come on TT today but.

You're quite right, and I suppose I should have pointed that out as I know that to be the case. I don't know how figures for more modern conflicts look, but officers always get shot first - as you rightly state they were/are considered a better person to shoot...and of course in the RAF the pilot, always an officer, was always last to leave a stricken plane, and survival rates for the people first out the door weren't exactly great...

Why do I have this mental picture of some foreign field in the rain. A small group of soldiers standing in the mud around a hole in the ground. A rotting casket is heaved up to ground level by four bearers, and the senior officer looks down and says, "Erm... sorry. Official. OK, put him back now."?

surely every death, whether an officer , a foot soldier or a civilian - is a tragedy? Every one of these people will have had families devastated by their deaths.

I no more support a workers revolution that involves the killing of supposed oppressors than I would an aggressive war shot for imperial purposes.