Pardon expected to be sought for Canadian WWI soldiers

[big bad john]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/08/15/pardon-ww-soldiers.html

Pardon expected to be sought for Canadian WWI soldiers
Last Updated Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:11:13 EDT
CBC News
The British government is expected to announce Wednesday that it will seek a group pardon for over 300 First World War soldiers executed for offences such as cowardice and desertion, a list that includes 23 Canadian soldiers.

Defence secretary Des Browne is expected to announce the posthumous pardon of 306 soldiers on moral grounds, the Guardian reported.

The soldiers were shot for cowardice or desertion, many after court martial hearings that lasted just minutes.

Descendants of the soldiers and advocates for the pardon have long argued that many were clearly suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

The families of the executed soldiers received no military pensions, in addition to the stigma they suffered.

The pardons will need approval from Britain's parliament.

CBC has obtained documents related to the pardon, including a list of the Canadian soldiers. Canada has already added the 23 names to the Book of Remembrance in Ottawa:

Sgt. W. Alexander
Pte. C. Laliberte
L/Bdr. F.S. Arnold
Pte. W.N. Ling
Pte. F. Auger
Pte. H.E.J. Lodge
Pte. H.G. Carter
Pte. T.L. Moles
Pte. G. Comte
Pte. E. Perry
Pte. A.C. Dagesse
Pte. E.J. Reynolds
Pte. L. Delisle
Pte. C. Welsh
Pte. E. Fairburn
Pte. J.H. Wilson
Pte. S. McD. Fowles
Pte. E. Young
Pte. J.M. Higgins
Pte. J.W. Roberts
Pte. H.H. Kerr
Pte. D. Sinizki
Pte. J. Lalancette

 

[Trinity]

Is pardoning the dead... just a kick in the teeth?

I mean it happened... it's over. 
That was the way we did things then.  Yes, it may have been
cruel and wrong.. but the government/society does its best at
the time.

I hate to think 200 years from now our children (if the world exists) having
to pardon or apologize for things that we did.

I think anytime we dig up the past... we rip open festering wounds and it
usually isn't healthy (not to say there might be exceptions)


(yes, he has less than 10 posts... but I'm not in attack mode Para)

 

[AJFitzpatrick]

The stories of each man here are sketched out in "For Freedom and Honour"  A. B. Godefroy, CEF BOOKS ISBN 1-896979-22-X

 

[tonykeene]

The stories of each man here are sketched out in "For Freedom and Honour"  A. B. Godefroy, CEF BOOKS ISBN 1-896979-22-X

This is an amazing story.  Many of these men were good solid soldiers right up to the moment they broke.  The most awful case occurred in the French Army, where one unit, which had consistently failed to reach an objective due to heavy enemy fire, was accused en masse of cowardice.  They were ordered to draw lots to see who would be shot, "pour encourager les autres."  One poor guy was so badly wounded from the last attack, he was strapped to a stretcher and propped up to be shot.

It remained buried for decades, only surfacing after The Second World War.  There was an incredible movie made, "Paths of Glory" starring Kirk Douglas.  I highly recommend it.

The execution of Private Eddie Slovik by the Americans during the Second World War is another awful case.  Today there is no way the guy would ever have made it into uniform, let alone into the front line.  He was a good guy who wanted to serve his country; he just couldn't take it under fire.  The problem was that he had to be shot, because if he had been given anything less than that, the fear was that thousands of other soldiers would then have quit fighting because of nerves.

It was probably groundless, in light of what we know today, but...

 

[GAP]

The trouble with this coming out now, is it is going through today's' PC filter. Different times, different mindset, different rules. Was some of it wrong, by today's standards and knowledge, definitely.

 

[paracowboy]

what GAP said. We can't apply the same thinking to the soldiers and armies of WW I, as we do to today's. Many of the events that took place in The War To End All Wars are tragic beyond belief, but one can't blame the leaders too much, since it was a different mentality, little different from 100, 200, 500 years before.

 

[AJFitzpatrick]

What GAP and paracowboy are saying is valid, but in many cases the questionable nature of the sentences were evident at the time to the Captains and Lieutenants who witnessed the events. Their concerns were forwarded to the higher authorities to little effect.

I don't have the book I mentioned before in front of me so I can not give an example right now.

 

[paracowboy]

Their concerns were forwarded to the higher authorities to little effect.

because those higher authorities were steeped in the culture of centuries of traditional warfare - Royal families and nobility leading serfs and peasants into glorious combat. WW I was (for all intents and purposes) the last kick at the cat for that sort of thinking. Thankfully.

 

[DBA]

Governments cloaked the executions and their circumstances both during the war and for decades after in secrecy. To me that speaks volumes as to if it was acceptable to the public back then.

 

[rifleman]

What the heck, if they were deemed to be wrong then it needs to be corrected.

'perhaps in 50 years, I'll get a pardon on the parades held in my honour'

 

[Kalatzi]

WW I was (for all intents and purposes) the last kick at the cat for that sort of thinking. Thankfully.

I'm somewhat off topic but but bombing lebanon back to the stone age, and Irag to the sand age seem to be pretty good manifestations of that kind of thinking

 

[paracowboy]

I hardly think so. Our officers today (and by "our" I mean, of course, those of the Anglosphere) go out of their way to prevent loss of life amongst their troops. The mentality to which I was referring was the prevalent one at the time of "Expendable Enlisted Swine".

In that regard, we could argue that massive bombing of terrorists and dictatorships prior to inserting foot soldiers is the direct opposite of the "pukka sahib" mentality exhibited by the senior leadership of the early part of the last century.

 

[Centurian1985]

Governments cloaked the executions and their circumstances both during the war and for decades after in secrecy. To me that speaks volumes as to if it was acceptable to the public back then.

Cloaking the executions is a big indicator that the higher officers conducting the 'fair proceedings' knew the general public would object to summary executions. 

 

[paracowboy]

Cloaking the executions is a big indicator that the higher officers conducting the 'fair proceedings' knew the general public would object to summary executions.   

indeed. We could extrapolate that this indicates their "last gasp" as it were. In preceeding conflicts, with the Officer corps being drawn almost exclusively from the nobility, such punishments would never have been questioned. Now, though, they realized that their behaviour was not only being held to account, but that they WERE accountable.
In WW I, with the enormous changes being felt around the Empire, unjust treatment like this would not have been tolerated by the public. So, they hid it. Undoubtedly while piously mumbling something about "for the good of the Army", and "it would only upset the folks back home". Kind of the same thing that the Nazi High Command said about the Death Camps, no doubt.

Let's hear it for Democracy, folks!

 

[Centurian1985]

Sadly, this is why we laugh when Blackadder Goes Forth makes fun of the British Army High Command, Haig in particular...

 

[AJFitzpatrick]

Three things to add.

1.) There were actually 25 Canadian soldiers shot by firing squad during WWI not the 23 mentioned. However, the two additional soldiers were executed for murder. Hopefully in the rush to pardon, these soldiers are not pardoned. I will not give their names here.  A total of 19  British and Commonwealth soldiers were executed for murder.

2.) According to Godefroy, much of the documentation concerning the court-martials has been lost thus it is not strictly possible to assess sentences on a case by case basis and the options are reduced to pardon all or pardon none. I note that this problem has been mentioned in some of the news reports (I saw it on the CNN report)

3.) 22 cases were desertion, 1 was cowardice in the face of the enemy.

 

[big bad john]

http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/060817/cit/060817ak.htm

Military historian pans 'self-indulgent' revisionism: Stephen Harper has a political conundrum approaching on whether to support the move by Britain, writes Randy Boswell.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Britain's planned pardon of 306 executed Commonwealth soldiers from the First World War -- including 23 Canadians -- poses a political conundrum for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose government will face pressure to support a gesture that one of the country's leading military historians has warned is "self-indulgent" revisionism.

It could also shift blame for the war-time deaths from men found guilty of desertion or cowardice to the officers who commanded their firing squads -- including a future Canadian governor general, Georges Vanier.

Pardoning the executed men could prove legally challenging, too. In 2001, when the former Liberal government -- fully backed by opposition parties -- issued an apology expressing "regret" for the executions, then-veterans affairs minister Ron Duhamel pointedly rejected an official pardon for the 23 men because "they were lawfully executed for military offences" and no evidence could be found to indicate they were innocent of their alleged crimes.

Richard Roik, spokesman for Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson, told CanWest News Service yesterday that Canada is considering the proposal for a blanket pardon and that British officials are "planning to consult with us and the other countries' governments, and we will all work together on this file."

The British government announced it would formally pardon all of the executed Commonwealth soldiers after a campaign focused on the case of one British army private -- Henry Farr, who faced a firing squad because of alleged cowardice in a 1916 battle near the Somme -- aroused widespread public interest. Those petitioning for pardons have argued that First World War soldiers condemned for desertion or cowardice were typically suffering what today is recognized as post-traumatic stress and deserved medical help.

British Defence Secretary Des Browne said in a statement on Tuesday that a blanket pardon was the only reasonable option because although some of the dead were believed innocent of military offences, there was insufficient evidence to revisit each case.

The pardon would affect soldiers from other countries that fought as part of the British Empire forces in the 1914-1918 war, including Canada, New Zealand, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Jamaica, Nigeria, Egypt, Ireland, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar (Burma) and Afghanistan.

In making his 2001 announcement, Mr. Duhamel said: "Those who go to war at the request of their nation do not know the fate that lies in store for them. This was a war of such overwhelming sound, fury and unrelenting horror that few combatants could remain unaffected. While we cannot relive those awful years of a nation at peril in total war, and although the culture of that time is subsequently too distant for us to comprehend fully, we can give these 23 soldiers a dignity that is their due, and provide closure to their families."

The decision allowed the names of the executed men to be entered in a special remembrance book at the House of Commons that honours Canada's war dead.

But the Liberal government of the day stopped short of pardoning the 23 Canadians, prompting complaints from the Winnipeg family of one of the executed soldiers that a formal apology was insufficient.

Linda Ballard, the great-niece of Pte. Stephen Fowles -- executed at age 21 in 1918 for desertion -- said at the time: "At least they're being recognized, but we thought there should have been a pardon."

Cliff Chadderton, chairman of National Council of Veterans Associations, denounced the decision as one that would cheapen the exploits of Canada's fallen heroes.

And McGill University professor Desmond Morton, one of the leading chroniclers of Canada's military history, said the official statement of regret turned "fact into fiction" and unfairly tainted the actions of commanders who legitimately ordered executions.

"They did it for a reason," Mr. Morton said at the time. "They did it to encourage other people to behave. If everybody who decided to flee fled, where would the army be?"

 

[George Wallace]

Three things to add.

1.) There were actually 25 Canadian soldiers shot by firing squad during WWI not the 23 mentioned. However, the two additional soldiers were executed for murder. Hopefully in the rush to pardon, these soldiers are not pardoned. I will not give their names here.  A total of 19  British and Commonwealth soldiers were executed for murder.

Actually, I know of one of those cases, and it is debatable as to whether it was a just sentence or not.  It could have been a case of PTSD or injuries suffered on the Front.  In any case it appears not to have been a case of premeditated murder.  Rather unusual circumstances, and the court found him guilty and sentenced him to death—the only punishment for the capital crime of murder—but recommended mercy.

 

[AJFitzpatrick]

Since the case of Stephen Fowles was mentioned in the 2nd article provided by Big Bad John, I will point out that this particular solider previously had two sentences of death for desertion commuted to penal servitude.  Sourced from Godefroy.

Some were more guilty then others.

 

[Centurian1985]

And McGill University professor Desmond Morton, one of the leading chroniclers of Canada's military history, said the official statement of regret turned "fact into fiction" and unfairly tainted the actions of commanders who legitimately ordered executions.
"They did it for a reason," Mr. Morton said at the time. "They did it to encourage other people to behave. If everybody who decided to flee fled, where would the army be?"

In other words, every single soldier shot deserved it? Everyone one of them was a coward and a deserter? Wasnt that was the point of the whole review of the proceedings from then, the realization that not every soldier was guilty of cowardice and desertion? 

And how does 'execution' equate to 'encouragement'?  This implies that regardless of the reason for fleeing, their death was of benefit to the fighting forces as a whole.  This was not 'motivation', this was 'intimidation'.  And BTW, if 'everybody' did decide to 'flee' it would be called a 'retreat' (aka 'advancing to the rear').   

If every case was looked into and the sentence justified then I could understand Morton's comments.  Instead, he appears to be more concerned with preserving the reputations of the officers involved rather than restoring the reputations of the soldiers wrongly accused.  If the decisions were based on the fact that the officers involed dealt with the facts as they knew them, and did not know or understand what PTSD was, then this does not affect the reputation of the officers involved.  It would be the same as accusing a doctor in 1914 of malpractice for not recognizing how to cure bacterial infections (not developed until the 1930's) or not knowing how to treat cancer.  It is also equivalent to saying that a civil court case should not be reviewed because it would be harmful to the reputation of the judge involved. These incidents only reflects a lack of knowledge on the part of society as a whole, not just the officers involved.