"Iains"

The section in the book is interesting. I'd rather discuss this than get involved in conjecture if I can. Pages 60 to 83 cover it.

However:

1 I think that describing him as a 'deserter' is factually accurate.

2 There definitely were intelligent communists who did join up and serve. Being an intelligent communist or CP member (or a dim-witted one, presumably) was no bar. How far MI5 kept tabs on the whole party I do not know. I think some of them may have joined after Hitler invaded Russia, prior to that some of them were defending the Nazi/Soviet pact.

3 I do not know enough about what you have to be able to claim to be a 'conscientious objector'. I met one who was a socialist, and he was put somewhere on stretcher duty, which was by no means an easy thing to do. I do not know why MacColl did not take this route: I do not think he could claim, like Friends ("Quakers") could to object to war, per se, if that would be what was required. So, to sum up, I don't know why MacColl chose to behave as he did, or whether in fact he had any real choice here.

To hint at some of what the book says (I think it is well worth reading, and I learned a lot from it):

Harker cites Joan Littlewood as one source of information; she referred to letters sent home by MacColl, which sounded depressed almost from the outset. He also had access to MacColl's army records, and, I think, the MI5 material too.

Harker suggests that MacColl found the culture shock when moving from his own circle into 'the foul mouthed brutishness of army life'. The early morning drill sessions were, Harker says, 'torture' to him. So there were a range of factors involved in his desertion, in addition to his own political beliefs. I was not left with the idea that they regarded him as a dangerous subversive capable of motivating the troops to rebel: far from it. Nor was I left with the idea that he was capable of motivating the troops to rebel, to be honest.

There seems to have been a period of sick leave (his health was never especially good) after which he was declared a deserter. It took him about 5 months to get to this point.

I can't quite think where, but I think I have read this assertion that he was 'never charged' before. I think this may be a little misleading, if what it says in the book is correct. He was due to be court-martialled, which suggests that he had in some sense been 'charged'. I got the sense that he was charged or whatever the military terminology is, but that it never went to 'trial'. Checking with the book, it says he was arrested in 1946 and charged. He spent some time in prison. He got compassionate leave to attend his father's funeral. On his return he was told he faced time in the glasshouse followed by a tour of active duty. Joan Littlewood organised a campaign to support him using psychiatric evidence.

He was eventually discharged as permanently unfit, though Hacker sas the precise reasons are not clear from the records.

I won't spoil it entirely for those who have not read the book, but I think I have laid at least one commonly stated incorrect point to rest ie the 'he was never charged' one.

Sorry if this comes across as a bit rushed or unclear.













"postwar he was never ch