Blog Them Out of the Stone Age

At the time of writing it appears that all British soldiers shot for cowardice in the Great War are to receive posthumous pardons.

This is a highly contentious issue and moves to pardon have been strongly opposed both by the Army itself and by large swathes of the military historical community.

It goes without saying that this is an emotionally charged issue. Advocates of a pardon argue that military justice was inadequate, that those shot for cowardice were suffering from “shell shock” or other forms of extreme psychological pressure and that in too many cases men were sentenced to death not on the strength of their personal case but because they were unfortunate enough to be caught at a time when it was felt that something needed to be done pour encourages les autres. Implicit in much of the rhetoric of the pardons movement is an acceptance of the “Lions led by donkeys” view of Great War history.

Opponents of the ban argue that British military justice was nowhere near as inadequate as has been alleged (although there is recognition that in certain specific cases sentences that might otherwise have been waived were carried out because of a perception that the men at the front needed stiffening up). In addition they argue – persuasively – that a substantial plank of the pardons campaign involves the imposition of contemporary mores, values and worldviews onto the judgements of past generations, judgements which at the time were considered uncontroversial both among ordinary British soldiery and within society as a whole.

They also marshal a number of points of fact — most notably that only a small proportion of guilty verdicts resulted in capital sentences and that of these upwards of 90 per cent were commuted on the orders of the convict’s army commander, most of whom took very considerable care in checking the details of each case. More uncomfortable is the fact that it was extremely rare for a soldier with a clean service record (I believe that Harry Farr was an exception) to be shot for cowardice. What was most likely to result in a completed death sentence was to be convicted for desertion while holding a record that indicated one of the following – bad character, especially in the form of a criminal record, repeated desertion (I don’t have the figures at my fingertips but a not insubstantial number of those shot had been sentenced for death for desertion earlier in the war and already had their sentences commuted once by their army commander), violence carried out either against civilians or other service personnel in the act of deserting or refusing to carry out an assigned duty, or desertion before having ever made it to the front in the first place. Age was also taken into account, with older soldiers being held to a higher standard than comparitive youths (similar allowances were made in terms of higher standards being expected of regulars than of conscripts). While the popular image of a patriotic but naive and nervy young man, barely out of short trousers, finally cracking under the pressure of interminable exposure to heavy artillery bombardment, only to be dragged out and shot for failing to carry out a duty for which he was manifestly psychologically incapable is not entirely a myth, it isn’t representative either.

The lack of capital punishment for similar violations in other armies is also a bone of contention. Advocates of a pardon cite the fact that neither the Germans nor the Australians (who fought under British command but were not subject to capital punishment due to domestic political pressure) executed soldiers in this way. Opponents note that although this is true the flip side of the coin was that instances of both German and Australian officers turning their service pistols on wavering men in the field in order to press them back into line were far more common than in British and Canadian formations and thus that in purely utilitarian terms, the deterrent of capital punishment worked and minimised the use of far less discriminating and unaccountable measures in the field. They also note that in the Second World War (where desertion and cowardice were not punishable by death), rates of desertion skyrocketed, though whether there is a direct causal link may be open to debate in this instance.

The pardons campaign has not served itself well in the past by demanding a blanket pardon for all servicement executed during the Great War for whatever reason. Given that a high proportion of those executed were put down for murder, this line of argument has generally been seen as unsustainable and sometimes overtly political. Even with a somewhat more discriminating frame of reference, it seems to me unlikely that the case for a blanket pardon for those shot for cowardice will receive ready acceptance, either within the military community or among the mainstream of military history.

There are a number of books available on the topic, most of which are flawed to some degree. Probably the three most prominent are:

Shot at Dawn by Julian Putkowski and Julian Sykes – This is effectively the handbook of the Pardons Movement. Not only is it credited for bringing the issue to public notice, but at different times both authors have worked tirelessly in support of the families of those who were shot. However, it is also a deeply contentious book that has been accused of a number of failings in terms of academic rigour and has not gained widespread acceptance in the specialist community. Additionally, it is widely perceived as being overtly activist and at least to some degree a vehicle for the authors’ politics. Bluntly, it’s a polemic. Nonetheless, you can’t really deal with the issue without consulting it.

For the Sake of Example, by Anthony Babington – Babington, who died a couple of years back, also takes a sympathetic line with regard to those who were executed and brings considerable experience as a noted legal mind to the proceedings. Although the work lacks perspective made available by archival material that has come to light since its first publication, Babington is – at least in my experience – generally seen as posessing greater rigour and less of an axe to grind than the abovementioned authors.

Blindfold and Alone by John Hughes-Wilson and Cathryn Corns offers the main statement of the opposing side.