Finally, stain on nations history addressed

[Izzy]

More than 300 soldiers who were shot for military offences during World War I will receive formal pardons, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
Defence Secretary Des Browne said he would be seeking a group pardon, approved by Parliament, for the men.

It is thought 306 British soldiers were shot for cowardice, desertion or other offences in the 1914-1918 war.

Among them was Private Harry Farr, shot for cowardice in 1916 aged 25. His family said they were "overwhelmed".

They have been campaigning for years for him to be pardoned, arguing that he was suffering from shell-shock and should not have been sent back to the trenches.
Mr Browne told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that, after 90 years, "the evidence just doesn't exist inside the cases individually".

"I don't want to be in a position of second guessing the commanders in the field who were making decisions," he added.


But injustices "were clearly done".

"We can't be in a situation morally where we cannot redress injustices because we don't have paperwork in relation to an individual case.

"But we can in other cases where we have some paperwork."

'Terrible cases'

A statutory "blanket pardon" recognised that the men should not have been executed, Mr Browne said.


"But it also recognises that everybody involved in these terrible cases were as much victims of World War I as those who died in the battlefield."
But Gary Sheffield, professor of modern history at King's College London, told Today the decision raised "some very difficult issues" about how historical evidence was used.

He said that when the government had previously considered the issue in 1998 it had decided against a blanket pardon.

The reason given was because it said it could not "distinguish between those who deliberately let down their country and their comrades and those who were not guilty of desertion of cowardice", he said.

"That struck me as being true in 1998 and equally true today," Mr Sheffield added.

'Victims of war'

It is now thought that many of those shot for cowardice were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder after enduring months of artillery bombardment in the trenches.

Their relatives have been attempting to obtain pardons since 1990 when Public Record Office files outlining the cases against the men were declassified.

Pte Farr's family have previously tried and failed to secure a full, posthumous pardon for the soldier through the courts.

However, they were given hope in May 2005 when a judge said there was "room for argument" that they had been wrongly refused a conditional posthumous pardon.

After Wednesday's announcement, Pte Farr's daughter Gertrude Harris, now 93, said: "Well to be truthful, I'm overwhelmed. I prayed that it would happen in my lifetime but I never realised really that it would. It's come really as a shock today.

"We were determined for my mother' sake because she always said he was no coward, he was a very brave soldier and he fought for his country and he died fighting for his country."

About time.

After 90 odd years its about time this was finally resolved.

How many of these men were cowards and how many were genuinely affected by shell shock? We'll never know - but many simply broke under pressure that none of us can ever understand. How can we condemn even those that did show cowardice - is it really cowardice to refuse to march into a submachine gun position?

As shooting for cowardice is no longer British policy it makes no sense not to pardon these people - after 90 years i'm glad the country has learnt to forgive, and all those men shot who were genuinely ill, have their honour restored

This doesn't insult those that did sacrifice everything, there contribution is forever noted, - they all fought for justice and i'm sure they'd be proud of their nation today

[Doc Emmett Brown]

is it really cowardice to refuse to march into a submachine gun position?

I guess the answer to that lies on the flip side: if you did march in, would that be an action of valor or foolhardiness?

I suppose in times of war, we tend to frame these actions in terms of cowardice and valor to encourage (brainwash?) people into defending Good against Evil (and remember you're always on the good side).

They must be issuing the pardons to ease their own conscience because I doubt the dead care.

[Jim]

I suppose in times of war, we tend to frame these actions in terms of cowardice and valor to encourage (brainwash?) people into defending Good against Evil (and remember you're always on the good side).

Consider,

The opposite of cowardice to be courage,
Courage being the act of doing something that you do not want to do.

Consider,

A patriot wants to fight the war,
Ergo desertion would be that which he did not want to do,
And in as far as he is acting against his desire you must

Consider,

By that logic the act becomes one of courage,
And we see that it is all subjective given your perspective.


What is that, Plato?

... Well. It is Plato.

And it's flawed. But it's nice.

... I can't always articulate to the best of my articulation.

(Wait, was it Socrates?)

[Guns N RockMusic]

These men were cowards and not worthy of enjoying the citizenship they refused to defend.  The British Government has no right to pardon these men.  This act does not easy the conscience of anyone as no one responsible for the execution of these cowards is still around.  War is a terrible thing, but men who enjoy freedom and liberty but refuse to defend it when called upon are the lowest forms of life.  What really matters is that the people who knew these men will have always remembered them as cowards.  When everyone around you answers to the call of arms, but you don't, how can you not consider that cowardice?  Freedom isn't free and if not for the sacrifice of millions during World War I, many more would have suffered.  Unfortunately, many more had to answer the call 20 years later when they were called again to finish the job that was left uncomplete 20 years prior.  To pardon these men is to spit in the face and dishonor the actions of all those who took the higher road and did their service to defend the country and liberties they enjoyed.

[SLCPUNK]

I love angry white men.............they are awesome.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

These men were cowards and not worthy of enjoying the citizenship they refused to defend.  The British Government has no right to pardon these men.  This act does not easy the conscience of anyone as no one responsible for the execution of these cowards is still around.  War is a terrible thing, but men who enjoy freedom and liberty but refuse to defend it when called upon are the lowest forms of life.  What really matters is that the people who knew these men will have always remembered them as cowards.  When everyone around you answers to the call of arms, but you don't, how can you not consider that cowardice?  Freedom isn't free and if not for the sacrifice of millions during World War I, many more would have suffered.  Unfortunately, many more had to answer the call 20 years later when they were called again to finish the job that was left uncomplete 20 years prior.  To pardon these men is to spit in the face and dishonor the actions of all those who took the higher road and did their service to defend the country and liberties they enjoyed.

man you rock

[Izzy]

These men were cowards and not worthy of enjoying the citizenship they refused to defend.? The British Government has no right to pardon these men.? This act does not easy the conscience of anyone as no one responsible for the execution of these cowards is still around.? War is a terrible thing, but men who enjoy freedom and liberty but refuse to defend it when called upon are the lowest forms of life.? What really matters is that the people who knew these men will have always remembered them as cowards.? When everyone around you answers to the call of arms, but you don't, how can you not consider that cowardice?? Freedom isn't free and if not for the sacrifice of millions during World War I, many more would have suffered.? Unfortunately, many more had to answer the call 20 years later when they were called again to finish the job that was left uncomplete 20 years prior.? To pardon these men is to spit in the face and dishonor the actions of all those who took the higher road and did their service to defend the country and liberties they enjoyed.

er....most of the people they shot would be discharged on medical grounds today

They were ill and in no position to make rational decisions

[SLCPUNK]

These men were cowards and not worthy of enjoying the citizenship they refused to defend.  The British Government has no right to pardon these men.  This act does not easy the conscience of anyone as no one responsible for the execution of these cowards is still around.  War is a terrible thing, but men who enjoy freedom and liberty but refuse to defend it when called upon are the lowest forms of life.  What really matters is that the people who knew these men will have always remembered them as cowards.  When everyone around you answers to the call of arms, but you don't, how can you not consider that cowardice?  Freedom isn't free and if not for the sacrifice of millions during World War I, many more would have suffered.  Unfortunately, many more had to answer the call 20 years later when they were called again to finish the job that was left uncomplete 20 years prior.  To pardon these men is to spit in the face and dishonor the actions of all those who took the higher road and did their service to defend the country and liberties they enjoyed.

er....most of the people they shot would be discharged on medical grounds today

They were ill and in no position to make rational decisions

Cowards! All of them!

[Doc Emmett Brown]

Cowards! All of them!

remember that avatar you had for your neocon alter-ego? 

What is that, Plato?

dunno. the only Plato that lodged itself in my brain was the one about the prisoners who thought shadows were the real thing...am I making any sense?

But yes, if we assume they willingly joined the war effort, then they are to be considered patriots, and in the worst-case scenario it entails giving your life for the greater good.  It sucks of course if your commanding officer makes a bad decision, and your lose your life without having damaged the enemy.  So is it cowardice to refuse the command and live to fight another day.

[Guns N RockMusic]

These men were cowards and not worthy of enjoying the citizenship they refused to defend.? The British Government has no right to pardon these men.? This act does not easy the conscience of anyone as no one responsible for the execution of these cowards is still around.? War is a terrible thing, but men who enjoy freedom and liberty but refuse to defend it when called upon are the lowest forms of life.? What really matters is that the people who knew these men will have always remembered them as cowards.? When everyone around you answers to the call of arms, but you don't, how can you not consider that cowardice?? Freedom isn't free and if not for the sacrifice of millions during World War I, many more would have suffered.? Unfortunately, many more had to answer the call 20 years later when they were called again to finish the job that was left uncomplete 20 years prior.? To pardon these men is to spit in the face and dishonor the actions of all those who took the higher road and did their service to defend the country and liberties they enjoyed.

er....most of the people they shot would be discharged on medical grounds today

They were ill and in no position to make rational decisions

That's an assumption.  They weren't even aware of battle fatigue then.  So to state that the majority of them were vicitims of such a syndrome is not fair.  Furthermore, do you think that out of the millions who served in that battle, only 300 suffered from that?  No, but as a man with responsibilities you suck it up.  Let's not forget that many of those who were shot were deserters.  People seem to want to portary these men as all mentally ill when there is no evidence to substantiate such a claim.  Were there some people who were probably mentally ill, absolutely.  Were there a good portion who were cowards and deserters, you bet your ass.  these men should be pardoned on an individual basis and I disagree with the blanket pardon.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Cowards! All of them!

remember that avatar you had for your neocon alter-ego??

What is that, Plato?

dunno. the only Plato that lodged itself in my brain was the one about the prisoners who thought shadows were the real thing...am I making any sense?

But yes, if we assume they willingly joined the war effort, then they are to be considered patriots, and in the worst-case scenario it entails giving your life for the greater good.? It sucks of course if your commanding officer makes a bad decision, and your lose your life without having damaged the enemy.? So is it cowardice to refuse the command and live to fight another day.

A soldier doesn't have the right to evaluate the orders or mission above him.  You don't get to pick and choose.  If for no other reason then the situation you presented.  No sane person wants to die, but part of a soldier's oath is to follow the orders of the officers appointed over them, even if it means probable death or injury.  So yes, they are cowards because how many other millions of men were in the same situation and followed the orders above them?  It's ludacris that you would even suggest that a soldier be allowed to choose what battles they will participate in.

[Guns N RockMusic]

These men were cowards and not worthy of enjoying the citizenship they refused to defend.? The British Government has no right to pardon these men.? This act does not easy the conscience of anyone as no one responsible for the execution of these cowards is still around.? War is a terrible thing, but men who enjoy freedom and liberty but refuse to defend it when called upon are the lowest forms of life.? What really matters is that the people who knew these men will have always remembered them as cowards.? When everyone around you answers to the call of arms, but you don't, how can you not consider that cowardice?? Freedom isn't free and if not for the sacrifice of millions during World War I, many more would have suffered.? Unfortunately, many more had to answer the call 20 years later when they were called again to finish the job that was left uncomplete 20 years prior.? To pardon these men is to spit in the face and dishonor the actions of all those who took the higher road and did their service to defend the country and liberties they enjoyed.

er....most of the people they shot would be discharged on medical grounds today

They were ill and in no position to make rational decisions

Cowards! All of them!

Mock me all you want SLC, but you've never done anything to defend your country or the world.  Making lame websites doesn't count.  Ask your father what he thinks of this situation, he's a military man right?

[Izzy]

That's an assumption.? They weren't even aware of battle fatigue then.? So to state that the majority of them were vicitims of such a syndrome is not fair.? Furthermore, do you think that out of the millions who served in that battle, only 300 suffered from that?? No, but as a man with responsibilities you suck it up.? Let's not forget that many of those who were shot were deserters.? People seem to want to portary these men as all mentally ill when there is no evidence to substantiate such a claim.? Were there some people who were probably mentally ill, absolutely.? Were there a good portion who were cowards and deserters, you bet your ass.? these men should be pardoned on an individual basis and I disagree with the blanket pardon.

Aren't such things easy to say when you've never even held a gun let alone been shot at!

How dare you condemn people when the most extreme thing you've ever seen in the latest Hollywood horror film!

[Guns N RockMusic]

That's an assumption.? They weren't even aware of battle fatigue then.? So to state that the majority of them were vicitims of such a syndrome is not fair.? Furthermore, do you think that out of the millions who served in that battle, only 300 suffered from that?? No, but as a man with responsibilities you suck it up.? Let's not forget that many of those who were shot were deserters.? People seem to want to portary these men as all mentally ill when there is no evidence to substantiate such a claim.? Were there some people who were probably mentally ill, absolutely.? Were there a good portion who were cowards and deserters, you bet your ass.? these men should be pardoned on an individual basis and I disagree with the blanket pardon.

Aren't such things easy to say when you've never even held a gun let alone been shot at!

How dare you condemn people when the most extreme thing you've ever seen in the latest Hollywood horror film!

Haha, Izzy you're making more assumptions about me.? For the record, I'm a United States Army Officer - Second Lieutenant to be exact and yes I was a private too once upon a time.  Don't tell me that I've never held a gun and what horrors I've seen, cause you haven't a clue.

[Jim]

What is that, Plato?

dunno. the only Plato that lodged itself in my brain was the one about the prisoners who thought shadows were the real thing...am I making any sense?

In a sense. But what is sense? Err. Yes! The cave analogy. It's good. You're a philosopher king if you get outside the cave, and look at the sun. Sort of.

Anyway, the only Plato that lodged itself in my brain recently was an Oriza.

(Gunslinger... Dya gettit? Do ye ken? I said, dya gettit? Oriza... Gettit?!)

... Maybe I watch Seven Samurai now. Or maybe the other one.

'We deal in lead, friend.'


Anyway, as far as personal opinion goes I would put myself somewhere between the liberals and yourself,

No, but as a man with responsibilities you suck it up.

but dude, that was funny. What is it, a bit o' cramp during a football match?

[Izzy]

Haha, Izzy you're making more assumptions about me.? For the record, I'm a United States Army Officer - Second Lieutenant to be exact and yes I was a private too once upon a time.? Don't tell me that I've never held a gun and what horrors I've seen, cause you haven't a clue.

U honestly think anything u've done in the army compares with WW1? Honest to god u must be vain, or brainwashed. How many months have you spent in mud with a bolt action rifle and a field of 10,000 corpses?

Innocent untill proven guilty - these men were never evaluated properly, there was no vetting on conscription, many of those people should never have been called up in the first place and shell shock is an exonerating circumstance - the evidence to accuse them of cowardice does not exist. So how dare we damn them for all eternity with our assumptions and prejudices!

90 years on all that matters is what we've learnt - if we haven't learnt to forgive then these millions died for nothing.





 

[Guns N RockMusic]

What is that, Plato?

dunno. the only Plato that lodged itself in my brain was the one about the prisoners who thought shadows were the real thing...am I making any sense?

In a sense. But what is sense? Err. Yes! The cave analogy. It's good. You're a philosopher king if you get outside the cave, and look at the sun. Sort of.

Anyway, the only Plato that lodged itself in my brain recently was an Oriza.

(Gunslinger... Dya gettit? Do ye ken? I said, dya gettit? Oriza... Gettit?!)

... Maybe I watch Seven Samurai now. Or maybe the other one.

'We deal in lead, friend.'


Anyway, as far as personal opinion goes I would put myself somewhere between the liberals and yourself,

No, but as a man with responsibilities you suck it up.

but dude, that was funny. What is it, a bit o' cramp during a football match?

yes, i get it Jim. ?My point is that let's say that all 300 of those shot suffered from battle fatigue. ?They would realistically only serve as a small portion of those who suffered from it as well or were equally as terrified from what they saw. ?My point is, that the other people who suffered from battle fatigue over came their fear for teh higher cause, something quite noble. ?If someone has genuine battle fatigue, I empathize with them and would agree that they should not be shot. ?But there is no evidence to suggest how many actually suffered from battle fatigue, and furthermore how many were deserters (the worse form of cowardice)? ?Thus my point that it should be evaluated on an individual basis. ?Do ya kennit?

[Guns N RockMusic]

Haha, Izzy you're making more assumptions about me.? For the record, I'm a United States Army Officer - Second Lieutenant to be exact and yes I was a private too once upon a time.? Don't tell me that I've never held a gun and what horrors I've seen, cause you haven't a clue.

U honestly think anything u've done in the army compares with WW1? Honest to god u must be vain, or brainwashed. How many months have you spent in mud with a bolt action rifle and a field of 10,000 corpses?

Innocent untill proven guilty - these men were never evaluated properly, there was no vetting on conscription, many of those people should never have been called up in the first place and shell shock is an exonerating circumstance - the evidence to accuse them of cowardice does not exist. So how dare we damn them for all eternity with our assumptions and prejudices?

90 years on all that matters is what we've learnt - if we haven't learnt to forgive then these millions died for nothing.





 

The evidence to accuse them of cowardice does exist, thus why they were shot for cowardice.  Evidence such as desertion and refusal to fight.  What you're arguing is unique circumstances (such as shell shock).  The burden of proof is on you to prove that they possessed such a disorder.  The officials at the time believed they had sufficient evidence.  I'll take their opinion since they observed it first hand rather than people whom have never been exposed to the military, let alone war.

[Izzy]

Haha, Izzy you're making more assumptions about me.? For the record, I'm a United States Army Officer - Second Lieutenant to be exact and yes I was a private too once upon a time.? Don't tell me that I've never held a gun and what horrors I've seen, cause you haven't a clue.

U honestly think anything u've done in the army compares with WW1? Honest to god u must be vain, or brainwashed. How many months have you spent in mud with a bolt action rifle and a field of 10,000 corpses?

Innocent untill proven guilty - these men were never evaluated properly, there was no vetting on conscription, many of those people should never have been called up in the first place and shell shock is an exonerating circumstance - the evidence to accuse them of cowardice does not exist. So how dare we damn them for all eternity with our assumptions and prejudices?

90 years on all that matters is what we've learnt - if we haven't learnt to forgive then these millions died for nothing.





 

The evidence to accuse them of cowardice does exist, thus why they were shot for cowardice.? Evidence such as desertion and refusal to fight.? What you're arguing is unique circumstances (such as shell shock).? The burden of proof is on you to prove that they possessed such a disorder.? The officials at the time believed they had sufficient evidence.? I'll take their opinion since they observed it first hand rather than people whom have never been exposed to the military, let alone war.

Dude - when 15 year olds served on the front line how thoroughly do you think they paid any attention to the soldiers?

Society is full of mentally damaged individuals - we screen our armies for such people

Giving a gun to a man with deep psychological issues and then have him falling to perform isn't his fault

Do u blame disabled people for the way they are?

These 300 were mostly likely unsuitable to ever be anywhere near a firing range, let alone a battle field. Society let them down by selecting them anyway, and then shot them because we didn't pay enough attention later