# Executed soldiers remembered but not pardoned



## Yard Ape (11 Dec 2001)

*Executed soldiers remembered but not pardoned* 
By JEFF GRAY
Globe and Mail Update 

The federal government announced Tuesday that it would honour 23 Canadian soldiers executed by their British commanders for desertion or cowardice in the First World War, but the move falls short of long-time demands for pardons.

Veterans Affairs Minister Ron Duhamel read the men‘s names in the House of Commons and said they would be added to Canada‘s Book of Remembrance, which lists those who died in the war and sits in the Memorial Chamber in the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill.

. . .


----------



## Gordon Angus Mackinlay (12 Dec 2001)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

They were not executed by their British commanders, but, were executed in accordance with Canadian Military Law.

If you read the background of these indivdual executions of the 23 shot, you will get a totally different story, five should not have, four are marginal, and the other 14 were bad bastards.

However politicitians know when they are on a winning streak.  In New Zealand last year they pardoned their five who were exectuted, when you read the relevent documentation there is absolutely no doubt of their guilt!

Yours,

Jock in Sydney who started researching this in 1974.


----------



## rceme_rat (12 Dec 2001)

To use the phrase "absolutely no doubt" about convictions, let alone executions, from the past century is a bit over the top.  With Marshall, Morin et al piling up, it‘s time to take a really close look at how we convict people.

The British government has recently examined scores of civilian convictions from this period and as recently as the 60s, 70s and 80s.  Suffice it to say that they came up with several where the conviction was dubious, and I understand that there were even cases where convictions leading to executions were reversed because upon re-examination the conviction would not stand.

It would not be unreasonable for each of these cases to be re-examined.  The accusations of the lack of competent defence, the poor application of rules of evidence, the disproportionate sentences, etc are enough to justify this -- particularly when we are talking about two dozen cases.  The blanket pardoning or even recognition does as much  ill as the refusal to consider the weaknesses of justice.

I‘ve considered this as an LLM thesis topic, but recent inquiry indicates that it may be too late - I understand someone published a Master‘s of War Studies thesis on this at RMC within the past five years.


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (12 Dec 2001)

Anyone remember "Paths of Glory?"


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Dec 2001)

> Originally posted by fortuncookie5084:
> [qb]Anyone remember "Paths of Glory?"[/qb]



Anyone familiar with the pitfalls of using Hollywood movies to base their knowledge of the "real world" on?

One of the Canadians executed was in the 10th Battalion; my understanding of the case, as put forth by Dancocks, was that he was a bit of a sad creature who had served well at one time, but just wasn‘t cut out for continued service.  In WW II they would have rotated him out of the line.

According to the standards of the day, however, he was guilty.

So, whose standards should we apply to the case - a pardon is inconsequential either way - for any kind of practical purposes.


----------



## Gordon Angus Mackinlay (12 Dec 2001)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The 10th Battalion, CEF, man executed was a Company Quartermaster Sergeant William Alexander.

He had served for eight years in the King‘s Royal Rifle Corps including service in the 2nd Anglo-Boer War, emigrated to Canada in 1911, enlisted into the Alberta Regiment 24 September 1914.

He served well in the 10th Bn, until September 1917 during the fighting on Hill 70 opposite Lens.  He was a acting Platoon Commander, whilst on patrol he ordered a corporal to take over command of the patrol, as he had been wounded.  The patrol took heavy casualties, its survivors made ‘complaint to higher authority‘.

Alexander continued to claim he had been wounded and had been unable to carryon, two seperate examinations showed no wounds.  There was no signs of mental distress in any form, he was alert and coherent.

At his courtmartial (represented by an officer who was legally trained and had practiced as a barrister) he refused to give anyother reason other than he was wounded.  The court stated that he was a senior NCO with the duty of care and responsibility for his soldiers.  Sentenced to death, all charges laid against him proven (not just a charge of cowardice in the face of an enemy), appealed all the way up to commander 1st Army (ie through Brigade, Division, Corps), he was executed 18 October 1917, aged 37.

Correspondence and diary entries I examined a number of years ago from men of the 10th, indicated a strong belief by them that justice had been done.

Over the last 27 years I have examined just about everything within the public domain re military executions during the Great War.  All 346 men of various armies and racial backgrounds, whilst a high percentage would have in this day and age been given psychiatric and physical medical treatment. I personally find the fact that those men who were executed repugnant, and that the system failed them.

The majority according to the law, moral values, and attitudes of the time, received a fair trial, where duly executed after rejection of appeals.  Not all were charged with cowardice or striking a superior, many for murder, rape, dealing with the enemy or mutiny.  

ORAM Gerald.  Death Sentences Passed by Military COurts of the British Army 1914-1920. 1998.   Lists all who were awarded the death.  Those actually executed only reflect a small percentage of the total.  Should be read in conjunction with PUTKOWSKI.  British Army Mutineers 1914-1922.  1999; and by both authors.  Officers Court Martialled by the British Army 1913-1924.  2001.

A substantial number of soldiers of the various armies were discharged and handed over to the civil authority for trial and subsequent execution for such as murder or rape of civilians both in France & Flanders, and Britain.  It is also well recorded that summary executions were carried out in the actual front line of offenders, this after no recourse to legal action, but, that to maintain control in battle.

In regard to Hollywood.  There is a superb British film in Joseph Losey‘s; King and Country, a quietly compassionate anti war treatise well acted by Dirk Bogarde as a captain (a civil lawyer) acting as the defending officer of Tom Courtenay‘s role of a deserter from their battalion, during the battle of Passchedale. Leo McKern (Rumpole of the Bailey) played the suitably vicious rear echolon prosecutor.  It was a training aid that I used with students.  It is available in video through Roadshow.

I must say that the badly informed comments re these executions reflect our place in time, our current values and mores.  If you wish to judge them you must understand the values and attitudes of that period of time, and the events taking place.


Having waffeled on for too long, must apologise.

Yours,
Jock in Sydney


----------



## rceme_rat (13 Dec 2001)

"I must say that the badly informed comments re these executions reflect our place in time, our current values and mores. If you wish to judge them you must understand the values and attitudes of that period of time, and the events taking place."


Clearly, historical context in examining the decisions that were made is important.  In that respect, historical decisions an be understood as being within the norm of behaviour for their social group even when they are deplorable now.

But to use this rationale as a blanket to absolve all decisions made in the past as being right for their time is dangerous -- it truly gives credence  to the concept of winners writing the history books, and all that flows from that.

People, as individuals and as societal groups, make mistakes.  Hopefully, we learn from them.  But often, we learn slowly.  I would hope fewer people are discriminating against Muslims during the "War on Terrorism" than they did against citizens of Japanese heritage during WW II.  Most people would agree that to take away their rights because they were Muslim, or even more specifically, an Iraqi, an Afhan, etc., is wrong.       

History doesn‘t make the WW II actions right.  Understandable, perhaps, but not right.  But there were people then who said it was wrong - the feeling just wasn‘t as wide-spread - and this gives sufficient context to consider whether the deicsion was hasty, reactionary, etc.  

In short, without examining each case, and this includes considering the historical context, it is unjust to offer blanket apologies for the executions, or to deny apologies because they happened so long ago.  No one wants to excuse a justly-convicted murderer, and they shouldn‘t want to allow the wrongfully-convicted to remain stigmatized.  (Obviously, the stigma remains even after death, or this discussion would not have started)

Would people of the time been offended by the idea of summary executions to maintain discipline if they were aware of the practice?  Does it matter if average citizens would have been offended, or only if soldiers did?  Were there contemporaries who were offended by military justice?  Do their concerns raise questions as to the strength of our convictions (in both senses of the word)?

I too have rambled.  But my point is that the law can be wrong, and so can its application.  The maxim is that the Supreme Court is not last because it is right, but right because it is last. 

I can‘t and won‘t attempt to comment on the specific cases because I don‘t have Jock‘s detailed knowledge of them.  Many of those cases were likely decided corectly after full opportunity for defence, etc.  Some may not have been -- and there are seem to be enough indications that an official re-examination might be worthwhile.  Such an examination should occur rather than jumping hastily to conclude who should and who should not be pardoned.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (13 Dec 2001)

Well, far be it from us mere mortals to argue with the great Gordon Angus Mackinlay.  If he says they were bad bastards who deserve to die, then he must be right.

Silly me; I thought this was a place to state our opinions, however "misinformed" they might be, or how coloured by our own existence here in the present they are.

Next time I have an opinion, I‘ll be sure it is the same as Gordon‘s before I state it.  If anyone wants to actually discuss the morality of executions, etc., (which can, believe it or not, be done in a general sense and without having lived in 1918, or having studied it "since 1974"), pop on over to the forum at www.canadiansoldiers.com and I‘ll be happy to enterain your views - no matter how misguided, or out of alignment with my own - they might be.


----------



## Gordon Angus Mackinlay (14 Dec 2001)

Mr Dorsch,

I have just had three emails from people who  pointed out your message to me.

Sir, may say this to you, I do not post here with the intention of being rude, offensive, or in any way trying to attempt to belittle others, if they have an opinion which is at opposite‘s to mine so be it, they have a right to opinion.

Sir, may I further say this to you, your remarks are patently not those of a person who is mature and well balanced.  It is not the norm for such a person to make remarks of this nature to a person of whom they have no knowledge, further to make these remarks about a subject of which it is obvious that they have no knowledge of, reinforces the first sentence of this paragraph.

Yours,
G.A.Mackinlay


----------



## Art Johnson (14 Dec 2001)

In reply to Jock. "you get a totally different story". Different than what? They are all dead are they not. Bad Bastards or not it was a barbaric practice that did not obtain its objective, that was to scare the hell out of the poor souls that were left. Think of the men who had to form the Firing Squad or the officer with his Coupe de grace, I‘m sure that was a great morale builder for them all.
We had a chap in our company who would have met the critieria that existed in WW I  for execution he was sent home. I well remember the O group with the company commander when he told us that was what was going to happen. There was a lot of moaning and groaning till the company commander said "OK Which one of you wants him", end of story.


----------



## rceme_rat (14 Dec 2001)

Re:  Bibliography

If anyone has any suggested readings in this area (in addition to those mentioned above), I would be interested in hearing about them.  It might give me a head start in doing some research.

Thanks.


----------

