WWI, was No-Man's Land

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:36 AM

Everyone could come up with something Haig could have done better.
Historians are no different, but they all conclude, including those just quoted, that he was a good general.

Steve why should I change my mind because a bunch of people, with no knowledge of what historians are saying now, refuse to change their beliefs just because of hard evidence and hard facts.

Why should anyone believe you over the actual historians?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:30 AM

Probably me being a bit thick here, but that is not the article I linked. Same message but different people and different styles. Still don't understand the relevance.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:23 AM

Lindsey German No Glory.Org Blogg

Dated 20th January 2014.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:02 AM

Apologies Raggytash forgot to add in the last post addressing your:

"GUEST,Raggytash - 14 Dec 14 - 05:47 PM

Haig should have opted for attrition in the sense of wearing the enemy down gradually - step by step, stage by stage - and devising a means of doing this without getting his own forces worn down.

That basically is precisely what he did from January 1917 onwards.

Hugely successful at Messines where Haig was allowed to plan his own attack

Calamitous at Passchendael where he was ordered to attack

Successful at Cambrai where he was allowed to plan his attack.

The process was called "Bite and Hold" and forced the Germans to concede ground and forced them to have to fight over devastated ground that slowed down their attack in the Spring of 1918 and caused it to "peter out". 21 days after it was over any loss of equipment due to enemy action in the British and Commonwealth Armies had been made good and they started the 100 days offensive that ultimately ended the war.

"devising a means of doing this without getting his own forces worn down."

Ah you mean things like:

1: Varying the time of day you started an attack to match first objectives so that the enemy would have to mount any counterattack in the dark when his artillery would be of least use?

2: Refinement of the Creeping Barrage so that the condition of each individual gun was known and allowed for in the firing plan thereby reducing the incidences of fire falling short?

3: Use of radio? To improve communications with forward units?

4: Insistence of air superiority over the attacking formations? Using air power in a close ground support role?

5: Use of tanks to get through barbed-wire belts, use of new faster light tanks to exploit any breakthrough along with cavalry? Use of tanks to bring up reinforcements, hot food, evacuate wounded?

These were all lessons learned on the Somme in 1916 and all put into practice throughout 1917 and 1918.

The 100 Days Offensive in 1918 remains to this day to be the greatest and most successful offensive campaign ever mounted by British & Commonwealth Forces in their entire history - That offensive was prepared for, planned, led and executed by HAIG.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:59 AM

Hi Teribus. The article I linked says "Posted on January 21, 2014        by Andrew". Which is why I refer to 'he'. Not sure where Lindsey German fits is. I did say the article was probably not by a historian but I thought it seemed pretty well researched. Can you explain your comment please?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:34 AM

"GUEST,Raggytash - 14 Dec 14 - 05:47 PM

That article from "your" historian goes on say:

"Haig should have believed in attrition. That is the tragedy of the British in the First World War. Haig should have opted for attrition in the sense of wearing the enemy down gradually - step by step, stage by stage - and devising a means of doing this without getting his own forces worn down"

"Your" historian names and shames Haig. No-one else.

This was basically Lloyd George's take on things and it would not have worked. 1916 saw the strategy of fighting "attritional" battles introduced by the Germans (Falkenhayn) at Verdun and "adopted" by the British and the French on the Somme to relieve the pressure on the French at Verdun. The result was that by the end of 1916 the German High Command knew that Germany could not win a victory on the "Western Front" as long as it was fighting in the East. By the end of 1916 Haig now not only knew that he would win on the Western front (Something he had always believed) he now knew how it was going to be done - and if he had been left to pick is battles instead of them being dictated to him by politicians at home and by the French then he would have won the war not necessarily quicker but with far fewer casualties.

Had the British and the French not attacked the German lines in 1915, 1916 and in 1917 then in 1918 when the best part of 1.5 million men were transferred from the Eastern Front to the Western Front then the Germans would have won the war, the Americans would have arrived too late to be the factor Lloyd George's "attrition" was based upon (i.e. American lives).

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:23 AM

👃👃💩💩

Here, can you smell bullshit?

For once, (train running late, time on my hands) I just read Terribulus's series of communiques above.

Notwithstanding the flimsy logic, contradictions and plain bollocks, it occurs to me that some of it contradicts Keith's stance.

It'll be interesting to see if Keith shouts "liar! You lose" at Terribulus though. You see, making Keith look absurd is the easy part. You don't even have to mean to. Just put your view and Keith looks daft. However, you must point out the stupidity of Keith's comments and the right wing philosophy behind it in order for him to attack you.

He doesn't seem to know when kinder people are gently laughing. You have to make it obvious. Then, and only then, he will stalk the threads looking for any subject where he can find an obscure comment on a website to try to make you look daft.

Agree with him and well.. Even Akenaton and his depraved mind gets support.



Read Terribulus's posts above and I assure you, you don't need to again because his real level of intellect combined with his prejudice is on view for all.

🙈🙉🙊

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:11 AM

" GUEST - 13 Dec 14 - 09:01 AM

Interesting analysis of Dan Snow's myth busting here. Yes, I know it is probably not by a historian and no I do not know anything about the author but his arguments are clear and reasonable.

Lindsey German - a she - not a historian - former central committee member of the Socialist Workers Party and a current activist for the Stop The War Coalition.

The following by one of the Muskets I find hilarious:

"Of course, if the men were well led, this wouldnt be necessary."

Referring here to those executed - well even if everyone who was sentenced had been shot then they would have represented a percentage of only 0.056% of those serving in the British Army - hardly an epidemic is it? So does the fact that 99.944% of that 5.3 million didn't run mean that they were well led? The French Armies mutinied, the German Army mutinied, the German Navy mutinied, the Russian Army mutinied the British Army DIDN'T So does that mean that they were well led?

"The men were under the command of officers charged with their protection, safety and welfare."

In time of WAR????? Care to tell us how they could do that? - Muppet.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 02:46 AM

"GUEST,Steve Shaw - 12 Dec 14 - 09:45 AM

I must say, I'm extremely suspicious of all these contexts and perspectives being proposed in order, it seems, to justify hundreds of executions for stuff that wouldn't even get you a suspended sentence in civilian life (Ah but Stevie they weren't in civilian life were they? They were serving in the armed forces in wartime on active service). All's fair in love and war, eh? Not entirely sure about that. And again, we have conflation here. It seems to me that an execution for falling asleep on sentry duty isn't heaps better just because it isn't "summary". (What? When the consequences of you falling asleep on duty means that your trench is overrun in a raid and your entire company gets killed and God knows what sort of intelligence is gathered up and booby-traps left to kill the Company coming up to relieve your position?)

Perhaps you should actually read the transcripts and get to know the circumstances - trouble is that you won't and you will continue to think about the events of over 100 years ago from a 2014 perspective and kid yourself into believing that that is relevant.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 02:36 AM

Raggytash - 12 Dec 14 - 09:34 AM

Only one thing wrong with that Raggy, if that ever happened in any unit on active service, I would rate the life expectancy of any officer or NCO responsible in terms of minutes and at the outside they wouldn't last the day.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 02:32 AM

"I repeat the story Liverpool docker, Tommy Kenny told us about deserters.
He described them as not attempting to desert but "just walking away from the noise" - there was nowhere for them to desert to anyway.
They were rounded up, put on trial, and more-or-less automatically sentenced to death.
If there was a big push on, they were taken out of confinement and placed in the front line.
If they survived, they were returned to prison to await execution and eventually shot"

Do not believe one word of it - WHY?

1: Stragglers were rounded up, gathered together then reunited with their units. In the confusion of battle it was fully expected that men would become disoriented.

2: Take a look at where those who were arrested and charged with desertion were caught and how long after the action they were caught.

3: The percentages of those found guilty by Military Courts Martial if they appeared before one was almost exactly the same as those who if sentenced to death had their sentences commuted - 89%

4: "If there was a big push on, they were taken out of confinement and placed in the front line."

Now that Mr. Carroll would be impossible under military law, as men under punishment cannot bear arms, was the case then - is still the case now - that little quirk, that fact actually saved my Grandfather's life.

5: "If they survived, they were returned to prison to await execution and eventually shot.

Now c'mon Jim don't tell me you just swallowed that line, tears or no tears, just give me one example of this happening, there must be a trail of records? I mean:

- Arrested there must have been a record of that;
- Court martial proceedings there must be a record of that;
- Temporary release and return to duty there must be a record of that;
- Returned to custody there must be a record of that;
- Execution there must be a record of that;
- Burial there must be a record of that.

Now what can you show me - S.F.A.

So do I believe the story? No I damned well don't.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 02:15 AM

Well " GUEST,Steve Shaw - 12 Dec 14 - 09:16 AM":

1: Perhaps you could tell us all whether or not courts and the punishments handed down at the beginning of the 20th century were generally far harsher than they are today?

2: Perhaps you can confirm (Just in your own mind) that you realise that once you join any of Great Britain's armed forces (even today) that you immediately become subject to not one but two completely separate legal codes and back in the early part of the 20th century as stated above in 1: both were harsher than they are today. Every servicemen who is tried for any "civilian" offence gets punished twice - Once by a Civilian Court and then by the Military, it is called "consequential punishment".

The numbers i.e. approximately only one-tenth of those sentenced to death actually suffering that penalty is roughly in line with established practice (Ever heard all those stories related to capital punishment for stealing loaves of bread and poaching?) of the thousands sentenced to hang only 10% were ever actually hanged - again simple matter of record - easy to check up.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 07:32 PM

You know, I corrected every flippin' one of those typos before posting but summat didn't take. Sod it, iPad.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 07:21 PM

The thing is, Raggytash, it doesn't matter what you say to Keith. He will not change his mind and he will repeat his facile nonsense ad nauseam in an attempt to grind down the opposition. It is not debate. You will notice that every one of his posts is brief. No argument is ever developed and there are constant and predictable appeals to authority. Cherrypicked sources are quoted but he never employs them as an organic part of his case. We are supposed to just read them (never fear: he hasn't) and work out for ourselves what it is he wants us to think he's thinking (which, of course, he isn't). If you make a point that demurs even slightly from his deluded conviction, he will, again predictably, immediately shift the goalposts. What you can definitely say, before you bother to get too tangled up with him, is that the conversation, if you engage in it,will go on forever and get you nowhere. But never fear. No- one here is listening to him. Yes, Teribus has given him succour, but there is norta scrap of enthusiasm behind the supposed advocacy. In fact, Keith must be a highly-embarrassing friend to have. Here we have a man without a life. Disagree with him ten times a day and he will be back at you twelve times (try it if you don't believe me), and there will be no delay. He's at his keyboard,waiting for you. The man is a charlatan and a waste of space. Fortunately he has no influence because he's a laughing stock. Even pete could teach him a lesson or two when it comes to maintaining just a shred of credibility. Enjoy his idiocy. Have a sarky dig every now and again, but don't engage. You have a life, after all, even if he hasn't.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:34 PM

Ah, play the joker. That will do it.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:32 PM

Keith and Teribus have already addressed the tactic of "doing nothing".

It would almost certainly have resulted in the loss of the war.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:20 PM

Have you not realised yet, Raggytash, if it does not fit in with Keith's view it will be dismissed. I am just intrigued to see how this one will be dealt with!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:47 PM

That article from "your" historian goes on say:

"Haig should have believed in attrition. That is the tragedy of the British in the First World War. Haig should have opted for attrition in the sense of wearing the enemy down gradually - step by step, stage by stage - and devising a means of doing this without getting his own forces worn down"

"Your" historian names and shames Haig. No-one else.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:28 PM

He was clear that Haig was a competent general, so the shit operations were someone else's.
Haig was responsible for all our operations after French was sacked.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 02:20 PM

Sorry I meant to ask, when did I mention Haig in the previous post (07.27)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 02:19 PM

So.... let me get this right........ one of "YOUR" historians suggests that a particular incident was "well planned and well conducted military operation" but then further suggests, no states, "you don't have too many of those".

Yet you still insist that the whole campaign was well led, well, planned, well organised, despite one of "YOUR" historians stating quite clearly that such an event was the exception and not the rule.

I have been very tempted to follow the path of others and question your intelligence .................. but I won't.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 01:49 PM

Raggytash, that has just been explained in very simple terms.
It refers to all Western Front operations, not specifically British ones.

The same historian said,"Haig was not the dunderhead, certainly not the intentional butcher, that he's often portrayed as being.

"There's a popular view that Haig really set out to get his troops killed, believing that he would swap one of his men for one of the Germans. There would be a bloodbath on both sides; and because he had rather more men than the Germans, he would, at the end of the day, be left victorious, and the Germans defeated.

"This view of Haig is really quite untrue. Haig, in fact, remained an imaginative commander."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 07:27 AM

Quote from one of Keiths beloved Historians: (05.50AM)

"it really is an extraordinary example of a well planned, well conducted military operation on the Western Front in world war one, you don't have too many of those".

That, to me, suggests that many other Military operations were not well planned or well conducted.

One of YOUR Historians Keith, not one we have "invented", presumably one who is still alive and "knows the truth" about what really happened.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 07:00 AM

Read what he and others say about the competence of the British leaders.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:32 AM

(Email me the password duck!)

Thats a rather extraordinary claim Keith. On what basis do you make the mental leap to say the author was making general claims on the armies of particular countries?

(You can't, I win, I confidently predict etc etc zzzzzzz)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:27 AM

In the valley of the blind, the one eyed man is King.



I doubt anybody is saying the butcher of The Somme was incompetent. Leading so many men to their deaths takes planning and a certain flair.

Unfortunately.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:19 AM

He was referring to other armies.
Read what he said about our commanders, e.g.
Haig was not the dunderhead, certainly not the intentional butcher, that he's often portrayed as being.

"There's a popular view that Haig really set out to get his troops killed, believing that he would swap one of his men for one of the Germans. There would be a bloodbath on both sides; and because he had rather more men than the Germans, he would, at the end of the day, be left victorious, and the Germans defeated.

"This view of Haig is really quite untrue. Haig, in fact, remained an imaginative commander.

http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_wilson_05_haig.html

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke from Scotland
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:12 AM

oh bugger. I thought this thread was going to die a natural death, unlike most of the soldiers who died unnatural unnecessary deaths.

Just look at the last sentence of you latest cut and paste Keith. It contradicts everything you say.

How can Teribus defend your stupidity when you go and paste something like that ?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:50 AM

Again,

"And Haig said, 'What a lot of no-hopers these guys are,' and went ahead and attacked and broke through in 24 hours. But the British have got the artillery game so well under their belts that they just devastate the Hindenburg Line. And it really is an extraordinary example of a well-planned, well-conducted military operation on the Western Front in World War One. You don't have too many of those."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:24 AM

Trevor Wilson,

Haig was not the dunderhead, certainly not the intentional butcher, that he's often portrayed as being.

"There's a popular view that Haig really set out to get his troops killed, believing that he would swap one of his men for one of the Germans. There would be a bloodbath on both sides; and because he had rather more men than the Germans, he would, at the end of the day, be left victorious, and the Germans defeated.

"This view of Haig is really quite untrue. Haig, in fact, remained an imaginative commander.
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_wilson_05_haig.html

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:19 AM

Again,

What I'm trying to point out is that the old image of the unthinking butcher and bungling generals who are not thinking about what they're doing is totally untrue.


"In the British and Commonwealth forces, I think the Command is beginning to be decentralized in the sense that Haig leaves his subordinates, for instance, to fight the battle to a much greater extent by the end of the war than he does even in 1916. That's one process that's got to be learned. The second point, in this sort of learning curve, if you like, is the people don't learn everything overnight. It's trial and error – and that above all, is what it's about. And there were lots of errors and lots of endurance needed in order to see this learning curve through.

"So it is a bleeding curve, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating in 1918, when the formula, to my mind, is much better balanced. The army is able to win."
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_simkins_07_battlefield.html

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:11 AM

Peter Simpkins,
"One of the figures in Britain that did anticipate a long war was Field Marshall Lord Kitchener.

"He was appointed, slightly against his will, Secretary of State for War at the outbreak of war. Kitchener tapped into this mixture of local civic pride, national patriotism, a sense of belonging to a community. Once Kitchener tapped into this in end of August, beginning of September 1914, the British Army suddenly expanded almost overnight."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 04:25 AM

Yes.
History is based on wide research not individual anecdotes.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 09:13 AM

According to Keith, any quotes from Harry Patch in that or any article are invalid because a) he is dead now and b) soldiers serving in the war had to wait seventy odd years to be told what they saw or experienced.

Next!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 09:01 AM

Interesting analysis of Dan Snow's myth busting here. Yes, I know it is probably not by a historian and no I do not know anything about the author but his arguments are clear and reasonable.

http://memoirsandconfessionsofunjustifiedsinners.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/the-historian-dan-snow-and-his-10-myths-of-ww1/

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 04:26 AM

Keith is cutting and pasting his own posts now.

If anyone has seen a plot anywhere, could they pm Keith as he appears to have lost his.

🐴💩

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 04:11 AM

Keith, Other historians who disagree with you have been named several times by different people. Each time they have been cited you have said basically "they don't count"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 02:54 AM

You can not deny that those highest profile historians agree with me.

Right or wrong that makes them reasonable views to hold so the ridicule and abuse are misplaced.

You say there must be other historians who disagree, but you can not name one.

That is not a strong case.
That is open to ridicule.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 02:24 PM

And HERE they go again...........!

WWI Mudcat Debate

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 02:15 PM

Just assertions that can not be supported.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 02:10 PM

There were "offences" for which you could be executed and about twenty were. Many many more had an officer "don the black cap" but the sentence wasn't carried out.

Of course, if the men were well led, this wouldnt be necessary. The military police (commonly known as red tops and red caps) had a role in finding them and bringing them to justice, as the role of any police officer. (Teribus is wrongly suggesting people on this thread reckon they stopped and shot them. This is Teribus wriggling out of being seen to be Stupid.)

Keith just said that war is diffent to other jobs. The men were under the command of officers charged with their protection, safety and welfare. This was abused by senior officers who had callous disregard for their men. Sending waves of men over the top into the fire of German guns is not good leadership. After the first wave, competent leaders would be back to the drawing board.

But no.

Most men didn't die to save their country. They died to save the face of incompetent callous offiicers. If Keith actually has read anything about the war, he is perpetuating the insult.

Teribus on the other hand is showing his real cards now. Note the personal insults? I and the other Muskets insult the insults. His is an index insult. It is also a Teribus insult in being factually inaccurate, irrelevant to the case in hand and lacking in wit.

How sad that someone can spend all their time researching making others on Mudcat look idiots and still fail...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 12:22 PM

"Fighting a war is different to other jobs."
Certainly is - you can go and look for another whenever you please and nobody shoots you if you decide to have a few days off
"Judge the British Army against other armies"
Why - barbarism is barbarism in any army?
"Was anyone executed for that anyway?"
Two according to Terrytoon
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 11:42 AM

Fighting a war is different to other jobs.
Different rules apply.
Judge the British Army against other armies, not against civilian jobs where falling asleep is unlikely to endanger the lives of large numbers of people.

Was anyone executed for that anyway?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:45 AM

I must say, I'm extremely suspicious of all these contexts and perspectives being proposed in order, it seems, to justify hundreds of executions for stuff that wouldn't even get you a suspended sentence in civilian life. All's fair in love and war, eh? Not entirely sure about that. And again, we have conflation here. It seems to me that an execution for falling asleep on sentry duty isn't heaps better just because it isn't "summary".

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:42 AM

"From a television series? "
No - from the background information to that series, from someone we recorded in 1969 and from somebody who included it as part of a soldiers glossary (given to him by his veteran grandfather)
The only reason I raised the television series was to indicate that it was common knowledge among the soldiers.
You have the statements - the only response you give is to call the veterans who are being honoured for their part in the war "liars and attention seekers".
Your list of officially carried out executions makes interesting reading in light of your argument that those who fought did so willingly
If your buddy Kitchener had had his way, it would have included conscientious objectors - that wold have sorted out some of Keith's fellow-Christians
I share Steve Shaw's incredulity that anybody could be so dispassionate at the murder of so many what turned out to be sick young men.
I repeat the story Liverpool docker, Tommy Kenny told us about deserters.
He described them as not attempting to desert but "just walking away from the noise" - there was nowhere for them to desert to anyway.
They were rounded up, put on trial, and more-or-less automatically sentenced to death.
If there was a big push on, they were taken out of confinement and placed in the front line.
If they survived, they were returned to prison to await execution and eventually shot - when Tommy told us this it was one of a couple of occasions he broke down in tears.
More lies, no doubt
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:34 AM

Just mulling over the idea of summary executions. If I were a General I would not have recorded such an order in the Regimental Archives, I may not have even given such an order, although I may have closed my eyes to it actually happening.

The Soldiers in the trenches are unlikely to have told the next of kin of such events as the person shot would be branded a coward.

Thus examples of it happening are not recorded.

I may be wrong but it is perhaps a thought worth consideration.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:25 AM

Unlawful in the British and U.S. military, summary executions for desertion or cowardice were frequent and officially sanctioned in the Soviet Army in WW2.

Merridale, "Ivan's War: Life and Death in the Soviet Army, 1941-1945": "Few [Soviet] soldiers would not have heard about or seen at least one summary execution. ...At Stalingrad, as many as 13,500 men are thought to have been shot in the space of a few weeks."

Just at Stalingrad. A little perspective never hurts.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:16 AM

I find it somewhat incredible that you can list those executions so unapologetically and dispassionately. "Only 346" is 346 too many for my taste. Even under a brutal civilian justice system, no more than 40 of those executions (for murder and "mutiny") would have happened. I am no historian but I should like to suggest that most of those were carried out to keep the others in line (yes, I know the cliche). Putting your statistic alongside the overall war casualties in an attempt to minimise its impact is both disingenuous and utterly irrelevant.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:56 AM

"The twenty or so executions, not to mention the ones not carried out after sentencing are all myths now!"

What on earth are you babbling on about fatty? Or is it one of the other two?

Over 3,000 death sentences were passed by British courts martial between 1914 and 1920 - Only 346 of those were actually carried out:

266 were for desertion,
18 for cowardice,
37 for murder,
7 for quitting post,
3 for mutiny,
2 for sleeping while a sentry,
6 for striking a superior officer,
5 for disobedience and
2 for casting away arms.

In every single case above the order to carry out the punishment was signed by the Commander in Chief of the British Forces after all trial papers had been reviewed.

None of the above was subject to a summary execution as described by you clowns and by Jim Carroll - My reason for being able to make that assertion? Every scrap of paper pertaining to the events leading up to the man being buried is in existence and can be viewed.

By the way just as an aside many of those shot were under suspended sentences of death and had re-offended. All received a blanket pardon. Now why on earth a convicted murder should be pardoned I do not know.

To put things into perspective measure the 346 against the 702,410 officers and men of the British forces killed in action.

"Assistant Provost Marshals and their men had the grim duty of supervising the executions of men sentenced to death. They themselves were not required to furnish the firing squads."

So even those duly tried and executed were not shot by your RED TOPS - Muppet.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:27 AM

Remember that what I actually said was I think the "battlefield police" as described are an unlikely force. A lot different to I did not believe they existed at all. I am sure they did exist but I do not know how they were employed. As there is only hearsay supporting Jim's opinion we cannot really rely on it as hard evidence. I am not knowledgeable enough comment on what they actually did.

Armistice now?