137 replies to this topic

[madman]

i was just curious to know wether soldiers were shot for cowardice, or refusing to go 'over the top' when they were suffering from 'shellshock'
regards madman.

[centurion]

madman, on 24 December 2010 - 10:09 AM, said:

i was just curious to know wether soldiers were shot for cowardice, or refusing to go 'over the top' when they were suffering from 'shellshock'
regards madman.

This question is a little too broad for a simple answer. Men were certainly shot, after a duly formed and conducted court martial and confirmation of sentence, often at several levels, for refusing to advance towards the enemy (ie going the other way), but I think the formal charge was desertion. As I said in other posts from my study window I can see the cottage where a Sergeant in the Worcesters once lived. He was shot for exactly this  - but whether the cause was shellshock or not is impossible to say. If however you are asking about the stories that men were shot out of hand for refusing to leave the trench I think they are just that  - stories. The French were more likely to shoot one for 'cowardice' but again after a court martial albeit sometimes a somewhat summary one

[KevinBattle]

Yes...... is the answer to your question, but "shell shock" was not fully understood at the time.

Put yourself in the officers situation.... the order to attack has been given and there is this chap either unable or refusing to move, possibly holding up all the men behind him, and those out in front need support. What do you do? You can't easily have a polite chat, it's " For f*** sake, move!" If no response, the delay could prove disastrous, for the attack, and the rest of his men.  If he's not bundled out of the way, and starts shouting to the rest to stop, then you have little option but to act quickly... No time for niceties. If the officer doesn't act, the men behind may certainly do so, one thing you have to understand is that in a fighting unit, it's not King and Country, but your mates beside you that you fight for. You need them to protect you as you would protect them. If you can't trust the man next to you to be prepared to put himself in danger for you, then he's not a chap to stand next to!!

In the scale of things and in those situations, many mens lives are at risk, so the "lesser evil"......

I suggest you search the Forum for "Shot at Dawn" topics, and no doubt many more learned pals will come along shortly.

Ah, I see centurion already has a better answer than mine....

[Mark Hone]

Get hold of a copy of the book 'Shot at Dawn' by Sykes and Puttkowski, (Pen and Sword publishers ISBN: 9780850526134) for the full story.

[Steven Broomfield]

Bearing in mind, of course, that it's better to read more than one book for a balanced view. Sykes and Putkowski aren't necessarily the only authors on this subject.

[Kate Wills]

Blindfold and Alone has a more objective approach to the subject.

[John Hartley]

Kate Wills, on 24 December 2010 - 11:33 AM, said:

Blindfold and Alone has a more objective approach to the subject.

Not just more objective, IMO, but a fuller examination of context. In short, it's a better read, although it doesnt have mention of all those executed

[centurion]

KevinW4, on 24 December 2010 - 10:40 AM, said:

Put yourself in the officers situation.... the order to attack has been given and there is this chap either unable or refusing to move, possibly holding up all the men behind him, and those out in front need support. What do you do? You can't easily have a polite chat, it's " For f*** sake, move!" If no response, the delay could prove disastrous, for the attack, and the rest of his men.  If he's not bundled out of the way, and starts shouting to the rest to stop, then you have little option but to act quickly... No time for niceties. If the officer doesn't act, the men behind may certainly do so, one thing you have to understand is that in a fighting unit, it's not King and Country, but your mates beside you that you fight for. You need them to protect you as you would protect them. If you can't trust the man next to you to be prepared to put himself in danger for you, then he's not a chap to stand next to!!

I've not seen a documented example of a case where a soldier has been shot by an officer or NCO in such circumstances although there are cases (rare) where an officer has shot men leading a panic stricken rush back and then rallied the rest. There are some unsubstantiated accusations of battle police shooting men out of hand but no actual eye witness accounts merely circumstantial evidence that  even a mediocre barrister couldn't demolish in seconds. A man who refused to go in this case would probably be court martialed afterwards.

In the case I mentioned the sergeant had been in an attack that was repulsed and was ordered to counter attack again, instead he walked away. What was in his mind has never been clear. I suspect , given his excellent service record, that, had he not been a sergeant and expected to set an example, his sentence would very likely have been commuted (many were) but instead having failed to set an example an example was made of him.

[John Hartley]

To answer madman's original questions......18 men were executed for cowardice.

And, to the best of my knowledge, no-one was executed where the court martial received good evidence of shell shock (although it's, of course, a fact that knowledge about this condition was still developing so men may indeed have been mentally ill at the time of their offence)

[David Faulder]

centurion, on 24 December 2010 - 11:40 AM, said:

I've not seen a documented example of a case where a soldier has been shot by an officer or NCO in such circumstances although there are cases (rare) where an officer has shot men leading a panic stricken rush back and then rallied the rest. There are some unsubstantiated accusations of battle police shooting men out of hand but no actual eye witness accounts merely circumstantial evidence that  even a mediocre barrister couldn't demolish in seconds. A man who refused to go in this case would probably be court martialed afterwards.

I have not read either of the references suggested, but would be interested to know:  If an officer or NCO did shoot a man who either refused to advance or was "leading a panic stricken rush back", would he have been "held to account" for killing or wounding one of his own side - or would the killed/wounded man have been tried (if necessarily posthumously) to justify the officer's or NCO's action?

David

[John Hartley]

I suspect the most well known example of an officer shooting men who were retreating is Lt George Moor, Hampshire Regiment. He kills four - and gets the VC for it. Make of that what you will.

As for the battle police suggestion, it's something I've been trying to research. 90th Brigade's orders for 1 July 1916 make what I regard as a chilling reference that they will take "all measures to turn back stragglers". I'd hoped, without the slightest success, to find something in personal accounts about their activities on 1/7/16. Rather makes me think the orders might have been more threat than reality.

[Steven Broomfield]

I was under the impression that Lt Dallas Moore (Hampshire Regiment) 'used force' to prevent men leaving the line in Gallipoli, and received a VC for it.

[Mark Hone]

There is also a famous example from the 1940 Dunkirk Campaign, where Major Angus McCorquodale and Lieutenant Jimmy Langley supposedly shot a Border Regiment officer who was attempting to retreat from the rearguard line on the Bergues-Furnes canal. This is the quote from Walter Lord's 'Miracle of Dunkirk':
"The 2nd Coldstream Guards remained holding a line along Bergues-Furnes Canal, the 1st East Lancashire Regiment were also along the canal, but east of Bergues. Further along to the left was the 5th Borderers. On the other side of the canal was a party of the German infantry and about midday they managed to cross the canal. So desperate was the situation in relation to holding the perimeter, even officers were threatened should they disobey:
An officer from the Borderers hurried over to Major McCorquodale's command post to warn that his battalion was exhausted and about to withdraw.
"I order you to stay put and fight it out," the Major answered.
"You cannot do that. I have overriding orders from my colonel to withdraw when I think fit."
McCorquodale saw no point in arguing: "You see that big poplar tree on the road with the white milestone behind it? The moment you, or any of your men go back beyond that tree, we will shoot you."
The officer again protested, but the Major had had enough. "Get back or I will shoot you now and send one of my officers to take command."
The Borderer went off, and McCorquodale turned to Langley (Lt Jimmy Langley of the 2nd Coldstream Guards), standing nearby: " Get a rifle. Sights at 250. You will shoot to kill the moment he passes that tree. Are you clear?"
McCorquodale picked up a rifle himself, and the two Coldstreamers sat waiting, guns trained on the tree. Soon the Borderer reappeared near the tree with two of his men. They paused, then the officer moved on past McCorquodale's deadline. The two rifles cracked at the same instant. The officer fell, and Langley never knew which one of them got him."

The incident is recreated virtually word for word as per the Lord version in the BBC Docu-Drama 'Dunkirk', with the great Benedict Cumberbatch as Jimmy Langley. Some other accounts are more coy, saying that the officer was merely 'shot at and persuaded to go back' or words to that effect. McCorquodale was killed later on. Langley was badly wounded (he lost an arm) and was captured but escaped to have a very interesting career in the Mi9 escape operation. Far from facing Court Martial or similar he was awarded an MC for his part at Dunkirk.

[centurion]

None of which is an officer shooting men who refused to go over the top. All of these are cases of preventing men from retreating in an unauthorized manner and one which could trigger a general rout.

[centurion]

John Hartley, on 24 December 2010 - 11:50 AM, said:

To answer madman's original questions......18 men were executed for cowardice.

But were any of them shot for refusing to go over the top? (the original question). Or was the cowardice exhibited in some other form (such as leaving one's post)?

[John Hartley]

Indeed, centurion, but they are a response to David's actual question.

[centurion]

John Hartley, on 24 December 2010 - 03:02 PM, said:

Indeed, centurion, but they are a response to David's actual question.

So in effect the accurate answer is - we don't really know unless we analyse the detail of the court martial indictments/charges? Indeed a man could also presumably be shot for disobeying an order (to go over the top)

[centurion]

John Hartley, on 24 December 2010 - 01:14 PM, said:

As for the battle police suggestion, it's something I've been trying to research. 90th Brigade's orders for 1 July 1916 make what I regard as a chilling reference that they will take "all measures to turn back stragglers". I'd hoped, without the slightest success, to find something in personal accounts about their activities on 1/7/16. Rather makes me think the orders might have been more threat than reality.

A dangerously loose piece of wording. Does shooting a man count as turning him back? Or is there an implicit "all measures consistent with military law" here. It's the sort of wording that could result in a not too bright but gung ho soldier going way beyond what he was legally allowed to do.

[John Hartley]

centurion, on 24 December 2010 - 03:22 PM, said:

So in effect the accurate answer is - we don't really know unless we analyse the detail of the court martial indictments/charges?

I may be missing some nuance in your post, in which case, apologies.

David asked what might happen to an officer who did shoot men. I gave a reply about Moor who was given the highest military honour. His is the only case I can recall and I simply dont know if others faced courts martial for similar actions. I find it hard to think what crime an officer might be charged with for shooting his men. Manslaughter or murder, possibly?

[centurion]

John Hartley, on 24 December 2010 - 03:31 PM, said:

I may be missing some nuance in your post, in which case, apologies.

David asked what might happen to an officer who did shoot men. I gave a reply about Moor who was given the highest military honour. His is the only case I can recall and I simply dont know if others faced courts martial for similar actions. I find it hard to think what crime an officer might be charged with for shooting his men. Manslaughter or murder, possibly?

But you started by saying "To answer madman's original questions......18 men were executed for cowardice." There seems to have been a sideways segway which I missed.

[GRUMPY]

there is little doubt that some officers threatened, and may well have been prepared, to shoot men who did not meet the unit ethos.

"Buffalo Bill" [Captain CI Stockwell] of 2nd RWF is described by Frank Richards as being very near carrying out summary executions in Oct/Nov 1914 when the battalion stood on its ground in appalling conditions and endured grievous loss. Both men were fine soldiers, and both were highly decorated. Stockwell rose to T/Brigadier eventually. Not a nice man, but a brutally effective war fighter.

Sitting in the warm pecking at a keyboard is far from the realities of war, and I would be amazed if substantial numbers of soldiers of all nations in all wars were not summarily executed in a crisis. Neither should we be surprised that there is little evidence, as such actions clearly prejudice the executioner's future, and reflect badly on the executed and the unit. Not something to make a song and dance about at the time, and not now, either, in my opinion.

[John Hartley]

centurion, on 24 December 2010 - 03:01 PM, said:

Or was the cowardice exhibited in some other form (such as leaving one's post)?

A quick flick through "Blindfold & Alone" confirms, as might be expected, a variety. Certainly cases of men "disappearing" from their proper place (noting that there were also seven executions specifically for "quitting post"). But also a variety of refusals to go forward - whether to take up position in the line, to "stand to" or to go forward from the trench. I can see only one which appears to meet the precise "going over the top" refusal.

centurion, on 24 December 2010 - 03:31 PM, said:

A dangerously loose piece of wording.

I suspect very deliberate. Elsewhere in the orders are details of how men should interpret whether an enemy soldier was surrendering. I'd suggest that your average Manchester clerk or warehouseman would read it as "take no prisoners".

[centurion]

John Hartley, on 24 December 2010 - 03:40 PM, said:

I suspect very deliberate. Elsewhere in the orders are details of how men should interpret whether an enemy soldier was surrendering. I'd suggest that your average Manchester clerk or warehouseman would read it as "take no prisoners".

But it doesn't refer to enemy soldiers. Given the eagerness with which some MPs raised questions in the House regarding perceived mistreatment of their constituents by the Army I would have thought it very dangerous ground. I think one would have to be very confident that the straggler was likely to precipitate a panic and/or general retreat before shooting him would be justified. Many of those court martialed and subsequently executed were stragglers picked up later and dealt with under due process.

BTW Grumpy your argument that starts "Sitting in the warm pecking at a keyboard is far from the realities of war," and ends "Not something to make a song and dance about at the time, and not now, either, in my opinion." is very close to those used by some apologists for Charley Company and the My Lai Massacre!

[John Hartley]

centurion, on 24 December 2010 - 04:16 PM, said:

But it doesn't refer to enemy soldiers.

As I mentioned it is the main reference to enemy soldiers and how they might be regarded as surrendering. Or. more to the point, how soldiers might intrepret that they were not, in fact, surrendering.

[GRUMPY]

centurion, on 24 December 2010 - 04:16 PM, said:

But it doesn't refer to enemy soldiers. Given the eagerness with which some MPs raised questions in the House regarding perceived mistreatment of their constituents by the Army I would have thought it very dangerous ground. I think one would have to be very confident that the straggler was likely to precipitate a panic and/or general retreat before shooting him would be justified. Many of those court martialed and subsequently executed were stragglers picked up later and dealt with under due process.

BTW Grumpy your argument that starts "Sitting in the warm pecking at a keyboard is far from the realities of war," and ends "Not something to make a song and dance about at the time, and not now, either, in my opinion." is very close to those used by some apologists for Charley Company and the My Lai Massacre!

I hope my thoughts were not seen as an argument for or against summary execution, I was pointing out I believe they happen, and that we are not in any position to rush to judgement.