NationStates Jolt Archive

The stories are quite legendary now. 306 British and Commonwealth troopers were put to death for cowardice in the trenches. But there have been recent calls for the Government to apologise and pardon these 'cowards'. Should they?

I personally think that they should not. Harsh times required harsh measures. If the death sentence had not been the penalty then there would have been no deterrant. Troops would have fled en masse because there would be few fears of reprisal. A prison sentence wouldn't work - what would be better life in the trenches or life in imprison for a few years? Most would have taken the risk and ran. We would have been left with a situation like the French army where the troops had such a low morale they revolted. Had our troops revolted then we would have lost the war and we would have suffered under the harsh boot of Germany. It dont think its fair to those who had the nerve to stand and die either.

So your opinions please

Cowards have no place in the British Empire, those that were shot, were executed with swift Imperial justice. The laws were solid back then, if you broke them, you deserve to die.

The Empire has never tolerated cowardice, any man who refuses to fight for his country, his family, his people is a coward and not worthy of the title British citizen.

http://www.originofnations.org/British_Empire/image002.jpg

If all them "good" fighters would run, we'd have no wars. Of course, that is totally unacceptable :rolleyes: . The "good" guys goes for both sides equally, since "good" is in the eye of the beholder.

As an American, I would say no. I think the punishment for deserting in battle is pretty much the same regardless of the nation's military. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most militaries shoot deserters, especially in combat situations?

We would have been left with a situation like the French army where the troops had such a low morale they revolted.

Theres an obvious joke here about the french's tendencies to surrender, but i won't make it.

I pretty much agree with you, i don't think the government should apologise for the cowards. Although i think you have to agree that shooting someone who runs from a battlefield like the ones in World War I is very harsh on the deserters. They didn't deserve to die, but for the sake of keeping the troops in check they had to.

Its a tricky one, but i think youre right

As an American, I would say no. I think the punishment for deserting in battle is pretty much the same regardless of the nation's military. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most militaries shoot deserters, especially in combat situations?
And it's a totally silly concept. Why would soldiers be forced to fight or else they face death by their own country? It makes no sense to me. Wasting manpower like that... bah.

As an American, I would say no. I think the punishment for deserting in battle is pretty much the same regardless of the nation's military. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most militaries shoot deserters, especially in combat situations?

That it is, at least the last time I checked!

As for this, though I am not a British Citizen, these cowards deserved what they got. NO pardon or apology should be issued.

Ein Deutscher']And it's a totally silly concept. Why would soldiers be forced to fight or else they face death by their own country? It makes no sense to me. Wasting manpower like that... bah.

You sign up to serve your country, you do as your told unless the order given was an illegal order. If you desert your post in a time of war, you will be shot. By deserting, you put your nation, your friends, family, operation, and unit in jeprody.

Why not? During WWI, few people knew anything about mental interworkings, or how to treat them.
There's actually a story about this from WWII, not long after. Gen Patton visited a military hospital, and saw a man who lost his nerve on the battlefield. Patton slapped him. His superior, Gen. Eisenhower, ordered an imediate apology, or else he'd fire him. He did. So I think that there are some people who must realize something: in a draft, there is no way that sissies can't be filtered out.

Why not? During WWI, few people knew anything about mental interworkings, or how to treat them.
There's actually a story about this from WWII, not long after. Gen Patton visited a military hospital, and saw a man who lost his nerve on the battlefield. Patton slapped him. His superior, Gen. Eisenhower, ordered an imediate apology, or else he'd fire him. He did. So I think that there are some people who must realize something: in a draft, there is no way that sissies can't be filtered out.

And that private fought harder than any other private thanks to the slap. The bastard deserved it. We need more generals like George Patton.

By deserting, you put your nation, your friends, family, operation, and unit in jeprody.
Nonsense. Those who order the poor people who (at least at that time) had no choice, to their deaths, are in jeopardy. Soldiers who run away can't kill. I wish all soldiers would do it.

Ein Deutscher']Nonsense. Those who order the poor people who (at least at that time) had no choice, to their deaths, are in jeopardy. Soldiers who run away can't kill. I wish all soldiers would do it.

You run from battle, you deserved to be shot for failure to do your duty as a soldier.

You sir, need to get a life and to understand that sometimes you have to fight to maintain peace.

You run from battle, you deserved to be shot for failure to do your duty as a soldier.

You sir, need to get a life and to understand that sometimes you have to fight to maintain peace.
Nah. People need to fight so that rich fat bastards sitting far away can get rich. You, girl, need to get a brain.

And that private fought harder than any other private thanks to the slap. The bastard deserved it. We need more generals like George Patton.
Whatever. But the poor guy was drafted, and so were all of these British soldiers. It's especially unfortunnate as it probably wasn't needed.

Considering the "brilliant" strategies of the English commanders, I say the officers should've been shot.

I have no qualms about giving my life in order to defend my country. I do have an issue with the thought of dying in some pointless and clearly futile attempt to take an enemy trench by sauntering across a muddy field filled with barbed wire and unexploded ordinance while enemy pours several machine guns into our ranks.

Under those circumstances, that wasn't cowardice that was just intelligence.

http://www.bullyonline.org/stress/ww1.htm

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/shot-n16.shtml

http://www.aftermathww1.com/desmemorial.asp

I would sincerely love to take any of the people that express the opinion that those people deserved to be shot for cowardice back into those trenches and see how long they last before crying... my guess is about 15 minutes.

For those that can't be bothered reading the facts, I'll summise them here:

1) In modern terms, most of those shot for 'cowardice' would have been diagnosed as suffering PTSD. An affliction well documented in the modern military and steps are taken to prevent it, back then it was unknown.
2) A number of those shot were not really much more than kids (some as young as 14), I'm not really sure how you justify that.
3) Some weren't even cowards... they were just picked out of the mob by officers looking to make a point and summarily executed.

So... actually try to get some knowledge of the situation before spouting off.

Hah... who am I kidding? Facts come a very poor second to self-important opinions around here.

Whatever. But the poor guy was drafted, and so were all of these British soldiers. It's especially unfortunnate as it probably wasn't needed.

Are you 100% certain he was drafted? After all there was a massive sign up to fight against Japan and the Nazis and the Italians.

Ein Deutscher']Nah. People need to fight so that rich fat bastards sitting far away can get rich. You, girl, need to get a brain.

I'm male :rollseyes:

And then explain why we fought to keep Germany from taking over the planet and Japan from doing the same?

I would sincerely love to take any of the people that express the opinion that those people deserved to be shot for cowardice back into those trenches and see how long they last before crying... my guess is about 15 minutes.

I'd agree with that too.

But you have to agree that without the strictness about deserters, the army would be weakened by the people thinking 'fuck it' and running away to switzerland.

The stories are quite legendary now. 306 British and Commonwealth troopers were put to death for cowardice in the trenches. But there have been recent calls for the Government to apologise and pardon these 'cowards'. Should they?

I personally think that they should not. Harsh times required harsh measures. If the death sentence had not been the penalty then there would have been no deterrant. Troops would have fled en masse because there would be few fears of reprisal. A prison sentence wouldn't work - what would be better life in the trenches or life in imprison for a few years? Most would have taken the risk and ran. We would have been left with a situation like the French army where the troops had such a low morale they revolted. Had our troops revolted then we would have lost the war and we would have suffered under the harsh boot of Germany. It dont think its fair to those who had the nerve to stand and die either.

So your opinions please

There is a distinction to be made between cowards and deserters. It is not being suggested that those shot for desertion be pardoned, but that those shot for cowardice be paardoned. with the benefit of heinsight and a better understanding of the effect of war on individuals, it is clear that those accused of cowardice were most likely suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

I'm male :rollseyes:

And then explain why we fought to keep Germany from taking over the planet and Japan from doing the same?
Because in Germany there were also rich fat bastards who wanted to become richer. To me, you are a girly man. :rolleyes:

Considering the "brilliant" strategies of the English commanders, I say the officers should've been shot.

I have no qualms about giving my life in order to defend my country. I do have an issue with the thought of dying in some pointless and clearly futile attempt to take an enemy trench by sauntering across a muddy field filled with barbed wire and unexploded ordinance while enemy pours several machine guns into our ranks.

Under those circumstances, that wasn't cowardice that was just intelligence.

http://www.bullyonline.org/stress/ww1.htm

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/shot-n16.shtml

http://www.aftermathww1.com/desmemorial.asp

I would sincerely love to take any of the people that express the opinion that those people deserved to be shot for cowardice back into those trenches and see how long they last before crying... my guess is about 15 minutes.

We have the gift of hindsight - the generals then trully did think their stragem was the best way to win. You have to remember also this was an entirely new form of warfare unseen in Europe - the technological war. Generals didn't knowhow to use it properly and so reverted to the tactics of the last big war - the Napoloenic Wars where men advanced in line slowly.

I'd agree with that too.

But you have to agree that without the strictness about deserters, the army would be weakened by the people thinking 'fuck it' and running away to switzerland.
Certainly if people don't want to fight, they should have the option to desert. Otherwise it's just like any other dictatorship.

Ein Deutscher']Because in Germany there were also rich fat bastards who wanted to become richer. To me, you are a girly man. :rolleyes:

*punches [NS]Ein Deutscher*

Are you 100% certain he was drafted? After all there was a massive sign up to fight against Japan and the Nazis and the Italians.
Well if he signed up, do whatever the heck is necessary. I personally think that court marshalls take too long for volunteers, and that they should shoot them on the spot. Nevertheless, as a draft was in place at the time, I will presume that he was a draftee, and thus deserving of fairer treatment.

Well if he signed up, do whatever the heck is necessary. I personally think that court marshalls take too long for volunteers, and that they should shoot them on the spot. Nevertheless, as a draft was in place at the time, I will presume that he was a draftee, and thus deserving of fairer treatment.

We'll never know if he was drafted or not so I think the point is moot! Frankly, you desert, you deserved to be shot.

*punches [NS]Ein Deutscher*
Over the internet, you are quite impotent. You are however adept at parroting what your rolemodels spout as propaganda in your country.

you kind of people are one of the few reasons why i hate my country (USA) so much (and i would leave if i could.) It is a normal reaction to run from war, especially in one as brutal as WWI. To attack certain positions, the first wave of men were ordered to run and jump on to barbed wire so their fellow soldiers could run across them and shoot. Hell I would run away as fast as I could. Now I am not saying that war isn't always the worst option, i think fighting in WWII and dropping the atomic bomb and hiroshima and nagasaki were the right decisions.

Ein Deutscher']Over the internet, you are quite impotent. You are however adept at parroting what your rolemodels spout as propaganda in your country.

My rolemodels are my parents. My mother had a bigger influence on me than my dad because my father was off to make my country a better place to live.

you kind of people are one of the few reasons why i hate my country (USA) so much (and i would leave if i could.) It is a normal reaction to run from war, especially in one as brutal as WWI. To attack certain positions, the first wave of men were ordered to run and jump on to barbed wire so their fellow soldiers could run across them and shoot. Hell I would run away as fast as I could. Now I am not saying that war isn't always the worst option, i think fighting in WWII and dropping the atomic bomb and hiroshima and nagasaki were the right decisions.

Not American, mate, I am British. And proud of it.

We'll never know if he was drafted or not so I think the point is moot! Frankly, you desert, you deserved to be shot.
Depends. That's why I hope that, one day, robots can fight wars: they aren't as bossy or unpredictable as humans are. We really are so weak.

Depends. That's why I hope that, one day, robots can fight wars: they aren't as bossy or unpredictable as humans are. We really are so weak.

I would rather have human control over robots. Having robots control themselves, scares me.

We have the gift of hindsight - the generals then trully did think their stragem was the best way to win. You have to remember also this was an entirely new form of warfare unseen in Europe - the technological war. Generals didn't knowhow to use it properly and so reverted to the tactics of the last big war - the Napoloenic Wars where men advanced in line slowly.

And with the gift of hindsight we can pardon those poor bastards who got unfairly stuck with the charge of cowardice and shot.

Simple?

I would rather have human control over robots. Having robots control themselves, scares me.
Whatever. You military guys are better at handling this than I am.

Whatever. You military guys are better at handling this than I am.

I'm not military though I am a son of a military officer.

I would rather have human control over robots. Having robots control themselves, scares me.

Sorry? That scares you?

COWARD!

*executes on the spot*

Sorry? That scares you?

COWARD!

*executes on the spot*

Sorry, being scared is natural. He who isn't scared is either dead or stupid. However, being scared but still doing your duty is different than being scared and deserting one's post.

I'm not military though I am a son of a military officer.
You talk like one.

I was mainly talking to corneliu, but i believe that the "cowards" who were drafted were smarter than the others for fighting for a country that you just happened to be born into. I will say you are correct in the fact that the old world tactics used by the generals led to the death of thousands.

P.S. I only wish i was lucky enough to be born in the U.K.

You talk like one.

There's a Swedish saying that goes "stor i orden, men liten på Jorden", which means "big in words, small in the world".

There's a Swedish saying that goes "stor i orden, men liten på Jorden", which means "big in words, small in the world".
Sounds like me, too :).

There aren't just two options here. Making you pick between just 2 options is how we maintain a two-party system in the U.S. Sucks, doesn't it? :headbang:

Anyway, in the American Civil War, Union troops were punished for cowardice in painful, but not deadly, ways.
1. String him up by his thumbs
2. Make him stand straddling the edges of a barrel.
3. Have him ride a wooden horse.

I'm not sure how these worked (especially the horse), but over the course of hours, reports are that the guy would beg to get off. It often worked, and no one wanded to recieve those mulitple-hour punishments. It was like torture, but it kept men in line without killing them. Unfortunately, trench warfare doesn't have the space (or the time) to do this. But I'm sure the Brits could have improvised.

You talk like one.

I've spent my whole life around it. THat's probably why.

I was mainly talking to corneliu, but i believe that the "cowards" who were drafted were smarter than the others for fighting for a country that you just happened to be born into. I will say you are correct in the fact that the old world tactics used by the generals led to the death of thousands.

P.S. I only wish i was lucky enough to be born in the U.K.

You sir, just proved that you never have been in the service.

Sorry, being scared is natural. He who isn't scared is either dead or stupid. However, being scared but still doing your duty is different than being scared and deserting one's post.

Go read the articles, would you?

A bulk of those shot for cowardice did NOT desert their posts. Most it would seem simply suffered from PTSD - would you advocate shooting modern military personnel for being mentally distressed as a result of war?

Others actually did nothing wrong, they were made into "examples" by officers. I guess an officer killing the odd innocent here or there to prove a point is justified?

Go read the articles, would you?

A bulk of those shot for cowardice did NOT desert their posts. Most it would seem simply suffered from PTSD - would you advocate shooting modern military personnel for being mentally distressed as a result of war?

Others actually did nothing wrong, they were made into "examples" by officers. I guess an officer killing the odd innocent here or there to prove a point is justified?

You run from battle, you deserve to die. Desertion in a time of war is punishable by death.

As...
A.)They were soldiers
B.)At wartime
C.)In a time of desperation

This is called disobeying orders. As they were in the army, it was their job, and they probably knew the punishments for their behaviors, then they deserved everything they got.

You run from battle, you deserve to die. Desertion in a time of war is punishable by death.

Well, you completely failed to address either question I raised. Thanks for demonstrating that you'll hold on to your opinion regardless of whether that opinion is appropriate to the topic or the questions raised.

I'll assume you are in favour of executing soldiers suffering PTSD and killing your own (innocent) troops every now and then to make sure the rest stay in line. Right?

For the record, if a perfectly healthy soldier abandons his post in a time of war for no reason other than the desire to not be in war (particularly now that there is no draft in Australia or the USA) then they should be subjected to whatever punishment is prescribed.

Again, just to re-iterate this for the 4th or 5th time - go read the articles I posted.

READ THEM

Well, you completely failed to address either question I raised. Thanks for demonstrating that you'll hold on to your opinion regardless of whether that opinion is appropriate to the topic or the questions raised.

Sorry for upholding Military Regulations.

I'll assume you are in favour of executing soldiers suffering PTSD and killing your own (innocent) troops every now and then to make sure the rest stay in line. Right?

PTSD can only be done AFTER a conflict is over. If they are diagnosed with it, then they wouldn't return to battle anyway. You sir, need to understand the term, medical discharge.

Sorry for upholding Military Regulations.




Which obviously suck more often than not. Military regulations my ass. :rolleyes:

Sorry for upholding Military Regulations.



PTSD can only be done AFTER a conflict is over. If they are diagnosed with it, then they wouldn't return to battle anyway. You sir, need to understand the term, medical discharge.

You sir, need to grasp the concept that PTSD was not understood during WW1. Soldiers that, in hindsight, were clearly suffering from PTSD and had probably been suffering from it for some time were sent back to the trenches again and again.

The apology is not sought for those that simply ran away, it is sought for those that we now know should never have been returned to battle. Soldiers that under current circumstances would never have been returned to battle.

Ein Deutscher']Which obviously suck more often than not. Military regulations my ass. :rolleyes:

You break regulations, you deserve whatever punishment is coming.

You break regulations, you deserve whatever punishment is coming.
Negative. Punishments are regulated strictly. Death penalty for desertion is way over the top, that's why it's not used anymore today in the civilized world.

You sir, need to grasp the concept that PTSD was not understood during WW1. Soldiers that, in hindsight, were clearly suffering from PTSD and had probably been suffering from it for some time were sent back to the trenches again and again.

And they needed every single soldier that they could get. If they were suffering from PTSD, then it should've came to the attention of the officers in charge, if it wasn't then its a break down between the field doctors, medical doctors, and COs.

Now we also have the flipside, they may have been diagnosed but the soldiers themselves wanted to go back but then chickened out and ran. In that case, the soldiers still had what was coming to them.

The apology is not sought for those that simply ran away, it is sought for those that we now know should never have been returned to battle. Soldiers that under current circumstances would never have been returned to battle.

They were returned to battle, they ran from battle, therefore, they got punished for running from battle. If anyone is at fault here, its the medics.

Ein Deutscher']Negative. Punishments are regulated strictly. Death penalty for desertion is way over the top, that's why it's not used anymore today in the civilized world.

You never served in the armed forces have you?

Ein Deutscher']Negative. Punishments are regulated strictly. Death penalty for desertion is way over the top, that's why it's not used anymore today in the civilized world.

Yeah but don't you see that clearly the military is ALWAYS right in every action it takes?

Corneliu's dad was in the military, Corneliu's dad was obviously perfect. To suggest that maybe the military got things wrong at some point might mean that daddy is not perfect. Now that can't possibly be true, can it?

Sorry for the ad hom, my frustration over Corneliu's refusal to take circumstances into consideration is getting exasperating. Particularly when it keeps being pointed out that many of those shot weren't deserters and the only reply he has got is "Well, it is military regulations!" like that suddenly makes it okay to do whatever you please.

You never served in the armed forces have you?
I have. You however...

Yeah but don't you see that clearly the military is ALWAYS right in every action it takes?

Corneliu's dad was in the military, Corneliu's dad was obviously perfect. To suggest that maybe the military got things wrong at some point might mean that daddy is not perfect. Now that can't possibly be true, can it?

Sorry for the ad hom, my frustration over Corneliu's refusal to take circumstances into consideration is getting exasperating. Particularly when it keeps being pointed out that many of those shot weren't deserters and the only reply he has got is "Well, it is military regulations!" like that suddenly makes it okay to do whatever you please.
It was official policy to gas jews and other minorities during the Nazi dictatorship. Did that make it right and appropriate? I think not. The same goes for some military policies, especially in the first 2 world wars. Nowadays, military regulations are more relaxed. In some countries you can still be locked up in jail for the rest of your life if you desert while on duty. But in most western countries it is no longer a capital offense. Especially in wars that were fought like WW1, I have sympathies for soldiers who ran away. People died in the tens of millions during the 1st and 2nd world war. I don't wish anyone the same fate.

You never served in the armed forces have you?

I'm not military though I am a son of a military officer.

Neither have you buckwheat, what is your point?

If you want to start swinging the "My family is more military than yours" dick around...

My great grandfather and great grand uncle served in WW1 - 10th Light Horse, both my grandfathers served in WW2 (one in PNG in artillery, I'm not too sure about the other as he was somewhat estranged from the rest of the family by the time I was born and died while I was still a kid). My uncles served during the Vietnam war (I know one served in the airforce, I don't know what the other did as he refuses to talk about it).

My father did not serve, apart from having a pacificist belief he was not physically capable of serving due to a number of neck & back problems.

Ein Deutscher']I have. You however...

oh? WHat branch? If you did serve in a military then you must know that if you break regulations, you get punished.

I may not have served in the actual US military but I have served in the USAF Auxiliary. I had to follow regulations to the letter or I will get punished. Even more so when I became an officer and then eventually commander. I nearly tossed one person right out of the program because of his failure to follow regulations.

However, I have spent 22 years around the military. My parents have served a combined total of 38 years with my father still in. He knows that if you don't follow regulations, you get punished. My mom served 6 years in the service and she knew the samething. Break regs, pay the price.

Neither have you buckwheat, what is your point?

If you want to start swinging the "My family is more military than yours" dick around...

My great grandfather and great grand uncle served in WW1 - 10th Light Horse, both my grandfathers served in WW2 (one in PNG in artillery, I'm not too sure about the other as he was somewhat estranged from the rest of the family by the time I was born and died while I was still a kid). My uncles served during the Vietnam war (I know one served in the airforce, I don't know what the other did as he refuses to talk about it).

My father did not serve, apart from having a pacificist belief he was not physically capable of serving due to a number of neck & back problems.

And I thank them for their service to the British Military. Anyone that serves in the military is a hero but if you run from your duties, then your a coward and deserve whatever punishment is required.

My dad has done the 1st Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other battle grounds, I had a cousin that was in Iraq, and another that was in Afghanistan AND in Iraq. I don't want this to turn into this type of thread. I respect everyone that has served in the military and did his duty.

And I thank them for their service to the British Military. Anyone that serves in the military is a hero but if you run from your duties, then your a coward and deserve whatever punishment is required.

And during the entire thread, I don't recall that specifically being challenged. What is in contention is the fact that a bulk of the people shot for 'cowardice' were not, in fact, cowards. They had not, in fact, deserted.

My dad has done the 1st Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other battle grounds, I had a cousin that was in Iraq, and another that was in Afghanistan AND in Iraq. I don't want this to turn into this type of thread. I respect everyone that has served in the military and did his duty.

As I respect anyone dedicated enough to put their life at risk in service to their country.

However, I am not a military idealist. Military regulations change... want to take guesses as to why?

Because some of those regulations are deemed draconian or outdated or in clear contradiction of what we now understand of stress disorders under combat situations.

I fail to grasp why an apology should not be issued to those soldiers that, in hindsight, had done nothing that warranted execution - even by the standards of the time, let alone modern standards.

oh? WHat branch?
Since I'm German, I was in the German "Heer" of the Bundeswehr. Following regulations is only required (such as the duty to obey orders) as long as you do not come into a moral conflict or if the order is illegal.

Death may have been the penalty for deserters back in WW1 and WW2, this however does not mean that I have to agree with it. And your family's military relevance means absolutely nothing to me. I'll not engage in a virtual dick fight with you over whose opinion has more significance.

Ein Deutscher']Since I'm German, I was in the German "Heer" of the Bundeswehr. Following regulations is only required (such as the duty to obey orders) as long as you do not come into a moral conflict or if the order is illegal.

Death may have been the penalty for deserters back in WW1 and WW2, this however does not mean that I have to agree with it. And your family's military relevance means absolutely nothing to me. I'll not engage in a virtual dick fight with you over whose opinion has more significance.

At least the Germans had the balls to admit that the paltry number they executed (25? 26?) for desertion during WW1 did not deserve to die and apologised.

Unlike the Brits who still seem to think it was perfectly dapper to shoot over 300 of their own men for the same reasons - or often no reason at all.

Well shooting deserters en masse didn't do the Imperial Russian army much good! Due to the terrible conditions they were forced to fight in, tens of thousands walked away from the trenches-shooting for desertion didn't deter them and in fact only served to embittered them against their generals and rulers.

Military law regarding cowardice is different from simply running away from battle. Disobeying an order (legal or insanly illegal didn't matter in WW1 particularly in the British Army) would result in summary execution-is that really fair if you're told to walk across no-man's-land into enemy trenches through a barrage of enemy fire?!??!

F**K that! :mad:

Well shooting deserters en masse didn't do the Imperial Russian army much good! Due to the terrible conditions they were forced to fight in, tens of thousands walked away from the trenches-shooting for desertion didn't deter them and in fact only served to embittered them against their generals and rulers.

Military law regarding cowardice is different from simply running away from battle. Disobeying an order (legal or insanly illegal didn't matter in WW1 particularly in the British Army) would result in summary execution-is that really fair if you're told to walk across no-man's-land into enemy trenches through a barrage of enemy fire?!??!

F**K that! :mad:

Military regulations you know. Can't ever possibly disagree with those or find that they were unjust.

Good show eh what? Pip pip. Now there's a good lad, yes I know you're only 14 and that you can't sleep because when you do you're immediately subjected to nightmares of the attrocities you've witnessed first hand but rules are rules eh?

Now do come along and stop blubbering, it is hardly a good show to the other troops if you won't stop crying. Be a man, yes I know you're only 14 but be a man anyway and take this bullet with a bit a courage!

Don't worry, I've been told it only stings a little. Hah hah hah, little bit of humour there - got to look on the bright side eh what?

Military regulations you know. Can't ever possibly disagree with those or find that they were unjust.

Good show eh what? Pip pip. Now there's a good lad, yes I know you're only 14 and that you can't sleep because when you do you're immediately subjected to nightmares of the attrocities you've witnessed first hand but rules are rules eh?

Now do come along and stop blubbering, it is hardly a good show to the other troops if you won't stop crying. Be a man, yes I know you're only 14 but be a man anyway and take this bullet with a bit a courage!

Don't worry, I've been told it only stings a little. Hah hah hah, little bit of humour there - got to look on the bright side eh what?
Reminds me of The life of Brian :D

Ein Deutscher']Reminds me of The life of Brian :D

Heh... "He's not the messiah, he's just a naughty boy!"


My favourite is still the "Romans Go Home (http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-08.htm)" scene.

[bump]

Interested to see if anyone else has opinions on this one...

You're all talking about cowards, strangely it brings a qoute to mind:

9 times out of 10 only the cowardly survive war.

This goes under the assumption that the brave, goto the front and die most likely, so who are you left with...? :)

At least the Germans had the balls to admit that the paltry number they executed (25? 26?) for desertion during WW1 did not deserve to die and apologised.

Unlike the Brits who still seem to think it was perfectly dapper to shoot over 300 of their own men for the same reasons - or often no reason at all.

I agree that shooting deserters was wrong but how can you judge the past on todays morales and ideas?

Cowards have no place in the British Empire, those that were shot, were executed with swift Imperial justice. The laws were solid back then, if you broke them, you deserve to die.

The Empire has never tolerated cowardice, any man who refuses to fight for his country, his family, his people is a coward and not worthy of the title British citizen.


I slightly surprised you didn't refer to us as subjects.

Meh, strip me of my British citizenship. I would rather die then fight for for an empire, any empire.

To the subject at hand, Tony Blair really does seem like apologising for things that he wasn't responsible for does he? I wonder he'll start apologising for the mistakes he has made.

I slightly surprised you didn't refer to us as subjects.

Meh, strip me of my British citizenship. I would rather die then fight for for an empire, any empire.

To the subject at hand, Tony Blair really does seem like apologising for things that he wasn't responsible for does he? I wonder he'll start apologising for the mistakes he has made.

Sir, you disgust me. Better to die for ones country, ones Queen and ones friends than suffer the shame of defeat and seeing Britain stooped.

Sir, you disgust me. Better to die for ones country, ones Queen and ones friends than suffer the shame of defeat and seeing Britain stooped.

I'll die for my friends, I'll die for my loved ones.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWexecutions.htm

An interesting link with a few 1st hand witness statements. Especially the first one going on about the Doctors.

Also this link shows the double standard...

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=463972004

Imperial Brits and New British Glory, go read before condeming others. And the fact they were fighting in a war that was essentially an over the top dick waving contest about who had the biggest empire made it all the more moronically stupid that the conflict took place at all.

As for Corneliu: You SIR, are a heartless, thoughtless, souless tyrant. Your simple incapacity to accept that a great many of those shot were suffering from both mental disorders and the fact that day after day they were being ordered to walk into a wall of bullets by generals who REFUSED to modernise, despite methods available at the time, is simple arrogance.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dccfarr/sad.htm

You telling me these me deserved to be shot?

Sir, you disgust me. Better to die for ones country, ones Queen and ones friends than suffer the shame of defeat and seeing Britain stooped.
And why, pray tell, should we feel such loyalty to a country?

The war killed many more people than was necessary, the command structure was a complete shambles. Young men, some of them less than 16 were forced into the most abject conditions possible, no adequate diet, little sleep, dreadful health conditions. Being forced into mad suicide dashes against the enemy, by their commanding officers.

This was a war between imperialist powers, who had no respect or consideration for the predominantly working class young men they were forcing to die in droves.

I'm just surprised there were so few "cowards" shot. It took four years of misery before this horrendous experience ended. For any of you who think it was justified to shoot those men, ask yourself how long you could have withstood it, before you became so traumitised by the experience that you would rather be court martialled (and shot) than face any furthertorture in the trenches.

I have nothing but respect and sympathy for those men, they were every much the hero that any decorated soldier was.

"Dulce et decorum est, pro Patria mori"......yeh, right!

You run from battle, you deserved to be shot for failure to do your duty as a soldier.

You sir, need to get a life and to understand that sometimes you have to fight to maintain peace.

I remember a quote that said "fighting for peace is like ---ing for virginity."

And that is all I have to say about this subject.

I remember a quote that said "fighting for peace is like ---ing for virginity."

And that is all I have to say about this subject.

What were the alternatves in, say, WW2?

What were the alternatves in, say, WW2?
The main alternative is that the war need never have happened. Germany was very week miliarily up to the mid 30's. The rest of Europe had ample time to react to Hitlers military build up. He re-took the Rhineland with about 20,000 troops, long before he had sufficient miltary strength to defend it. France could have swatted him back into Germany but instead allowed him to reclaim the most industrialised area of Germany.

For years, Churchill and others warned of the inherent danger in Hitlers military growth, yet nothing was done till Poland was invaded.

When Germany lost WW1 they had to sign the armistice agreement, yet the western powers, allowed Hitler to renage on most aspects of it.

As I say, the 2nd world war need never have happened if steps were taken in time. As a result, millions had to die needlessly, so I think that the other powers are just as much to blame for WW2 as Hitler was.

The main alternative is that the war need never have happened. Germany was very week miliarily up to the mid 30's. The rest of Europe had ample time to react to Hitlers military build up. He re-took the Rhineland with about 20,000 troops, long before he had sufficient miltary strength to defend it. France could have swatted him back into Germany but instead allowed him to reclaim the most industrialised area of Germany.

For years, Churchill and others warned of the inherent danger in Hitlers military growth, yet nothing was done till Poland was invaded.

When Germany lost WW1 they had to sign the armistice agreement, yet the western powers, allowed Hitler to renage on most aspects of it.

As I say, the 2nd world war need never have happened if steps were taken in time. As a result, millions had to die needlessly, so I think that the other powers are just as much to blame for WW2 as Hitler was.
In fact, the treaty of Versailles was so draconic to Germany, blaming the war entirely on Germany (which was wrong) and demanding very harsh reparation payments and territorial losses. This in itself caused a surge in nationalism in Germany, which eventually lead to the 2nd strongest party being the NSDAP,with Hitler as it's chairman.

The main alternative is that the war need never have happened. Germany was very week miliarily up to the mid 30's. The rest of Europe had ample time to react to Hitlers military build up. He re-took the Rhineland with about 20,000 troops, long before he had sufficient miltary strength to defend it. France could have swatted him back into Germany but instead allowed him to reclaim the most industrialised area of Germany.

For years, Churchill and others warned of the inherent danger in Hitlers military growth, yet nothing was done till Poland was invaded.

When Germany lost WW1 they had to sign the armistice agreement, yet the western powers, allowed Hitler to renage on most aspects of it.

As I say, the 2nd world war need never have happened if steps were taken in time. As a result, millions had to die needlessly, so I think that the other powers are just as much to blame for WW2 as Hitler was.

So are you saying you don't think war was the wrong decision in 1939, but that there should have been more done beforehand to prevent it getting to that?

Apology and pardon. Since it is going to be generally impossible to know about each case on an indivual basis a blanket apology and pardon would be fine with me. The penalty far outweighed the crime in most cases, getting shot for being traumatised is wrong and I don't want that stain on our country.

And as for Corneliu you need to understand that most of these cases were not for running away. Here is an example for you:

Suppose your dad was with a unit but during fighting got seperated from them and ended up lost. Later he was found and returned to base and charged with deserting his unit and shot as a coward. Would you still think it was a right decision? Or would it be ok since it's "regulations" and no circumstances can be taken into account.

I think that the death penalty is immoral, so I don't think that shooting cowards on the front is legitimate. However, it was a common practice well after WW2 even (Soviets had special units with MGs just to shoot anyone that came back) so I don't think the British were behaving extraordinarily evil. The best way to appologize for what was done in the past is by not repeating it.

We should apologise to those executed. Why? Because as has been mentioned so often here, though some seem happy to ignore it, many of those executed (if not the vast majority) were not running away as cowards, most were suffering from what became known as Shell Shock. Perhaps this, rather than its modern equivalent of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (takes all the shock out of it, 6 syllables!), gives an impression of what was happening to the troops.
They were trapped in barrages that, though at first lasted only about 20-40mins, could stretch up to weeks at a time. Lets see how you would cope?
As also mentioned, many of thos that were shot were completely innocent, what better way to keep the troops in line, eh?
"What are you doing there Private?"
"Sentry duty, Sir"
"But your uniform is dirty, why?"
"Sir, it got splashed when the last shell went off, Sir"
"Not good enough, need to keep up standards, what. Sergeant, execute this man for deriliction of duty!"
Exaggerated, perhaps, but worthy of execution? I think not.

We should apologise to those executed. Why? Because as has been mentioned so often here, though some seem happy to ignore it, many of those executed (if not the vast majority) were not running away as cowards, most were suffering from what became known as Shell Shock. Perhaps this, rather than its modern equivalent of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (takes all the shock out of it, 6 syllables!), gives an impression of what was happening to the troops.
They were trapped in barrages that, though at first lasted only about 20-40mins, could stretch up to weeks at a time. Lets see how you would cope?
As also mentioned, many of thos that were shot were completely innocent, what better way to keep the troops in line, eh?
"What are you doing there Private?"
"Sentry duty, Sir"
"But your uniform is dirty, why?"
"Sir, it got splashed when the last shell went off, Sir"
"Not good enough, need to keep up standards, what. Sergeant, execute this man for deriliction of duty!"
Exaggerated, perhaps, but worthy of execution? I think not.
Yay!

I'm so glad to see there are people who understand the nature of what happened. Was it just me or was Corneliu being rather stubborn in his attempt to firmly not grasp what the subject was on about?

Interestingly enough, if you do a search on the keywords (306, execution, world war 1) every article you come across basically states the nature of this atrocity. I've not encountered a website yet stating that these people got what they deserved.

On a side note, reading some of the stories I don't think your example is actually all that exaggerated.

You run from battle, you deserve to die. Desertion in a time of war is punishable by death.

This may well be your opinion, but it isn't the topic under discussion. The 300 or so people in question didn't desert.

Retrospectively, it is easy for us to say "Yes, these people were victims of terrible atrocities." Which is true, from a modern viewpoint. But like any historical event, one has to look at it according to the standards of the time. The men who fled the trenches were well aware of the harsh penalty if they were caught. A law may be unjust but it is still the law. Therefore I do not think that the army can or should apologise.

The bigger tragedy is those men executed for cowardice when what they were suffering was "shell shock" a condition we are aware of now, but were not then. These people should of course be given a full pardon.

Ein Deutscher']In fact, the treaty of Versailles was so draconic to Germany, blaming the war entirely on Germany (which was wrong) and demanding very harsh reparation payments and territorial losses. This in itself caused a surge in nationalism in Germany, which eventually lead to the 2nd strongest party being the NSDAP,with Hitler as it's chairman.While that's true, i think you also have to accept that germany's conditions for cease fire after the 1st World War reparations from Russia were equally degrading and unteneable.

Yay!

I'm so glad to see there are people who understand the nature of what happened. Was it just me or was Corneliu being rather stubborn in his attempt to firmly not grasp what the subject was on about?

Interestingly enough, if you do a search on the keywords (306, execution, world war 1) every article you come across basically states the nature of this atrocity. I've not encountered a website yet stating that these people got what they deserved.

On a side note, reading some of the stories I don't think your example is actually all that exaggerated.
Stubborn...I was thinking closer to plain rude, but that just my opinion.

The example was exaggerated, but as you said, not that much. I studied WW1 history at Uni (did alot of wars...hmmm) and it was based around a report I read, will try and find the exact source later, but since then I've been under the impression that we should apologise to most of those executed because it did, contrary to popular belief, have a negative impact on morale, the troops just knew not to say anything incase the same happened to them!

So are you saying you don't think war was the wrong decision in 1939, but that there should have been more done beforehand to prevent it getting to that?Personally, I would still not have fought in the 2nd world war because as far as I'm concerned I would have to be killing other working class men who I would have more in common with than their leaders. I would however have been prepared to engage in other activities to help the overthrow of the nazis.

And why, pray tell, should we feel such loyalty to a country?

Because its ours. I am glad that the world isn't filled with cold, clinical people like you who have no faith in anything.

And I believe in Dulce Decorum Est Pro Patri Mori - the noblest sentiment of them all

Because its ours. I am glad that the world isn't filled with cold, clinical people like you who have no faith in anything.

And I believe in Dulce Decorum Est Pro Patri Mori - the noblest sentiment of them all
As opposed to the cold, clinical people who seem to find nothing wrong with killing your own people under false pretenses?

Because its ours. I am glad that the world isn't filled with cold, clinical people like you who have no faith in anything.

And I believe in Dulce Decorum Est Pro Patri Mori - the noblest sentiment of them all

As I honestly don't know what it means, what does Dulce Decorum Est Pro Patri Mori mean?

Personally, I would still not have fought in the 2nd world war because as far as I'm concerned I would have to be killing other working class men who I would have more in common with than their leaders. I would however have been prepared to engage in other activities to help the overthrow of the nazis.
I've always been of the opinion that if country A wants to invade country B then the warmongers of country A should be rounded up and given weapons and told to go for it... leave the common people of country A alone.

Honestly, how much war do you think there would have been if the politicians behind them realised they'd be shipped off to the front line the moment war broke out?

As I honestly don't know what it means, what does Dulce Decorum Est Pro Patri Mori mean?

It is glorious to die for ones country

As I honestly don't know what it means, what does Dulce Decorum Est Pro Patri Mori mean?
Dulce et Decorum est Pro patri mori is latin and means "it is a sweet and
right thing to die for your country".

I think it was Patton(?) who summed up my feelings on that particular phrase the best.

Dulce et Decorum est Pro patri mori is latin and means "it is a sweet and
right thing to die for your country".

I think it was Patton(?) who summed up my feelings on that particular phrase the best.

You mean the "No fool ever won a war by dieing for his country, he won it by making some other poor bastard die for his"?

You mean the "No fool ever won a war by dieing for his country, he won it by making some other poor bastard die for his"?
Yup.

If anyone seriously believes that it is better to go and die for their country rather than being a productive member of society... well... they can go kill themselves if they're that keen on dying.

I see. You seem to be all for killing to defend your country (or its interests), but you're not willing to kill in self-defense.

If you were willing to kill in self-defense, your laws would be more like those in the US, and the teacher at Dunblane would have shot the nutjob herself, and saved the children.

Here's a shooting that took place at a school here - where the shooter was subdued by armed students.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A13871-2004Feb27&notFound=true

Personally I would only ever fight if someone invaded and threatened my livelyhood and that of my family and friends. Fight for my country however...no

I am willing to kill in self defence, if somebody tries to kill me then i'll be damned if i can't strike the bastard down, but I do object to people killing burglars who don't want them, but their TV's...

As opposed to the cold, clinical people who seem to find nothing wrong with killing your own people under false pretenses?

Are you saying that you would have handle those who deserted any differently? You look back on it with the gift of hindsight. Consider their point of view:

The men in charge had little knowledge of the reality of the war and its horrors and so could not sympathise with the men who ran.

There was very little knowledge of PTSD or its effects on people.

They didn't know who was going to win. Throughout most of the war the Germans had the advantage. The slightest quiver in morale could have set off rioting or mass desertion. That meant that penalty for desertion had to be so great that only the most desperate would contemplate it and so no one would want to follow their example.

I don't think an apology should be issued because I don't think that anyone in here could claim that they would have handled it differently GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE TIME. As I said harsh times require harsh measures and these were certainly harsh times if not the harshest ever faced.

I see. You seem to be all for killing to defend your country (or its interests), but you're not willing to kill in self-defense.

If you were willing to kill in self-defense, your laws would be more like those in the US, and the teacher at Dunblane would have shot the nutjob herself, and saved the children.

Here's a shooting that took place at a school here - where the shooter was subdued by armed students.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A13871-2004Feb27&notFound=true
Errr... who are you directing this at?

Personally I would only ever fight if someone invaded and threatened my livelyhood and that of my family and friends. Fight for my country however...no

I suppose that would depend on whether or not the enemy was taking over your country. Then it's a matter of family and friends.

I suppose that would depend on whether or not the enemy was taking over your country. Then it's a matter of family and friends.

True, my meaning was, I am not going to go and die in some field for the purposes of my country business when I could be doing something far more worth while for my country than dieing in a hail of gunfire in the name of a God i do not believe in and a monarchy who I see as little more than a very classy money making machine.

Are you saying that you would have handle those who deserted any differently? You look back on it with the gift of hindsight. Consider their point of view:

The men in charge had little knowledge of the reality of the war and its horrors and so could not sympathise with the men who ran.

There was very little knowledge of PTSD or its effects on people.

They didn't know who was going to win. Throughout most of the war the Germans had the advantage. The slightest quiver in morale could have set off rioting or mass desertion. That meant that penalty for desertion had to be so great that only the most desperate would contemplate it and so no one would want to follow their example.

I don't think an apology should be issued because I don't think that anyone in here could claim that they would have handled it differently GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE TIME. As I said harsh times require harsh measures and these were certainly harsh times if not the harshest ever faced.
Oh come on.

Go study some of the incidents that we're talking about here. Some of these people were executed for a crime that no sane person would ever find justifiable. Some of their trials were the very definition of a judicial mockery and their execution all too swift.

Why should we apologise now? Because you trying living with the stigma that your father or grandfather or whatever was executed during the war for 'cowardice' when clearly there is insurmountable evidence that this was not the case at all. To say that we do not owe them an apology and a pardon is, as far as I'm concerned, clearly stating that you/we implicity agree with the way they were treated.

My attitude to war and military service is that unless my country was under direct threat, and thus the livelehood of my family and friends were at stake, I would say "Fuck you" to any attempt at conscription.

The whole concept of war is a tragic and disgusting one, but it's also sadly a neccesity sometimes, because as much as YOU might despise it, some other person might not. Try stopping an invasion force with peace and love.

Love vs Bullet: Who wins?

Oh come on.

Go study some of the incidents that we're talking about here. Some of these people were executed for a crime that no sane person would ever find justifiable. Some of their trials were the very definition of a judicial mockery and their execution all too swift.

Why should we apologise now? Because you trying living with the stigma that your father or grandfather or whatever was executed during the war for 'cowardice' when clearly there is insurmountable evidence that this was not the case at all. To say that we do not owe them an apology and a pardon is, as far as I'm concerned, clearly stating that you/we implicity agree with the way they were treated.

Perhaps that is because I do agree. For the time and the place, it was the neccessary action. It was the lesser of two evils - 308 dead in order to maintain morale or the thousands (if not millions) who would have been lost as the army deserted and the Germans stormed through France, reaping vengeance wherever they went.

Perhaps that is because I do agree. For the time and the place, it was the neccessary action. It was the lesser of two evils - 308 dead in order to maintain morale or the thousands (if not millions) who would have been lost as the army deserted and the Germans stormed through France, reaping vengeance wherever they went.
I guess I fail to see how shooting innocent people "improves" morale.

Seriously.

If I found myself in a situation where I risked being shot by my own superiors for having done nothing wrong I'd pretty much say "Fuck it" and either do a runner or try to kill them before they killed me.

What possible incentive does randomly killing people without cause give people to stick around?

It seems to me to be akin to walking up to someone attempting to defuse a bomb and sticking a gun in the back of their head to help them "concentrate".

You run from battle, you deserved to be shot for failure to do your duty as a soldier.

You sir, need to get a life and to understand that sometimes you have to fight to maintain peace.

The problem in WW I was that the British Command was composed of complete morons like Gen. Haig.

There's nothing like telling men to march into artillery bursts and machinegun fire in orderly ranks to show
a) how stupid your commanders are, and
b) how many people you can get killed on your own side in a day

Someone should have been held to account for continuing to use idiot strategy and moron tactics - in essence, they should have hung about 20 British officers starting with Haig for wasting the British Army.

Someone should have been held to account for continuing to use idiot strategy and moron tactics - in essence, they should have hung about 20 British officers starting with Haig for wasting the British Army.

Yeah, I'm all in favour of tearing down his damned statue to begin with...for a man who's strategic mind couldn't move over from "lets see if we get through that barbed wire again eh?" he was a moron and incompetent and is not a hero of the British empire as it was then.

The problem in WW I was that the British Command was composed of complete morons like Gen. Haig.

There's nothing like telling men to march into artillery bursts and machinegun fire in orderly ranks to show
a) how stupid your commanders are, and
b) how many people you can get killed on your own side in a day

Someone should have been held to account for continuing to use idiot strategy and moron tactics - in essence, they should have hung about 20 British officers starting with Haig for wasting the British Army.
But it seems obvious to some that rather than hold the officers accountable and replacing them, it's better to pick on some poor bastard because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Much better for morale, correct?

But it seems obvious to some that rather than hold the officers accountable and replacing them, it's better to pick on some poor bastard because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Much better for morale, correct?

Oh of course, can't put your old school mate from Eaton up to be shot by some bloke picked from a hat, but one of the ranks? Nah, no problem...

While people often criticise the Generals for failing to produce a less bloody victory, I have never heard any credible alternative tactics to those used ever put forward. Tactics did vary, and innovations were introduced, but there is little that can be done against positions like that without armour, which didn't arrive until later in the war. The Generals couldn't just say, 'well, this is just too awful, let's go home.' They had to fight it somehow. People also forget (or probably don't know) that hundreds of Generals died in WWI, 78 of them British. Blackadder is extremely funny, but it's not historical.

As for the Eton jibe, while the old boys club may well have saved some from esxecution, it is also fair to point out that officers suffered higher casualty rates than privates did, because they mostly did lead from the front.


As for the executions, I would say that it would have to depend on each case. People shouldn't be allowed to run simply out if fear, and if that was the sanction at the time then it would be inappropriate to return and impose our values on it. If people were suffering from mental illnesses that were unrecognised then that is a case of improved knowledge rather than changed values, and they ought to be pardoned.

Ein Deutscher']Since I'm German, I was in the German "Heer" of the Bundeswehr. Following regulations is only required (such as the duty to obey orders) as long as you do not come into a moral conflict or if the order is illegal.

In otherwords, the German Army? And you are correct, follow orders unless they are illegal. Follow an illegal order and pay the price.

Death may have been the penalty for deserters back in WW1 and WW2, this however does not mean that I have to agree with it. And your family's military relevance means absolutely nothing to me. I'll not engage in a virtual dick fight with you over whose opinion has more significance.

I don't want a fight like that either. As I stated before, I respect anyone that is willing to lay down their lives for their country.

Dulce et Decorum est Pro patri mori is latin and means "it is a sweet and
right thing to die for your country".

I think it was Patton(?) who summed up my feelings on that particular phrase the best.

Read My signature

The problem in WW I was that the British Command was composed of complete morons like Gen. Haig.

Ok, I'll give you that point. No one said that the Brits General Staff was smart.

There's nothing like telling men to march into artillery bursts and machinegun fire in orderly ranks to show
a) how stupid your commanders are, and
b) how many people you can get killed on your own side in a day

That was rather stupid but then, everyone was fighting that way. That was why the casualties were so high on both sides of the fight.

Someone should have been held to account for continuing to use idiot strategy and moron tactics - in essence, they should have hung about 20 British officers starting with Haig for wasting the British Army.

I'll grant ya that point too.

Because its ours. I am glad that the world isn't filled with cold, clinical people like you who have no faith in anything.


How does not being patriotic equate to not having faith in anything?

Someone should have been held to account for continuing to use idiot strategy and moron tactics - in essence, they should have hung about 20 British officers starting with Haig for wasting the British Army.

Instead he set up the Poppy appeal thing AFAIK, while I appreciate the sentiment is noble it is a bit like Philip Morris creating a Lung Cancer Memorial Charity.


If you were willing to kill in self-defense, your laws would be more like those in the US, and the teacher at Dunblane would have shot the nutjob herself, and saved the children.

This view does of course presuppose two things:
1) The teacher in question owns a gun and knows how to use it adequetly.
2) That she brings in into school on the off change a nutter attacks the children.

And potential a third:
3) She could afford it. Teacher salaries aren't that high, and knowing our government would probably be taxed heavily. But I think this is moot.

I don't recall gun ownership in the US preventing the Columbine massacre.

While the benefits of hindsight are no doubt incredible, no army at the time understood PTSD and therefore should not have to apologise for not understanding that some people could just snap.

Any soldier who was rational and still deserted or retreated (as many on here have demonstrated a desire to do so) should be shot in the ankles and then handed to his squadmates along with a good 10 metres of hemp. I'm sure they would come up with some fair and equitable treatment for such individuals.

Shooting was, if anything, too good for them.

While the benefits of hindsight are no doubt incredible, no army at the time understood PTSD and therefore should not have to apologise for not understanding that some people could just snap.

Any soldier who was rational and still deserted or retreated (as many on here have demonstrated a desire to do so) should be shot in the ankles and then handed to his squadmates along with a good 10 metres of hemp. I'm sure they would come up with some fair and equitable treatment for such individuals.

Shooting was, if anything, too good for them.
And what of those that were not suffering PTSD, did not desert but were shot on utterly stupid pretenses?