A 92 year old lady is fighting to clear the name of her father Pte Farr who was shot for cowardice in 1917. Our caring government is attempting to distance themselves from this as is their way.

The Queen's grandfather George V is very well documented as being in favour of these executions on the basis of keeping the enlisted men in line.

My Grandfather was about to take the Kings shilling at Edmund Road Barracks in 1914 at the age of 15. Luckily his aunt had heard of his intentions and marched into the barracks, told the recruiting sergeant where to stick his shilling and gave my grandad a good hiding. He lost nearly all of his mates in the first battle of the Somme, he said that it was the best good hiding that he had ever had. He could quite easily have been in the same position as Pte Farr and they would most probably have ignored the fact that he was under the recruitment age.

Is any young lad guilty of cowardice for showing fear in those conditions? Should the Queen now pardon all the three hundred and odd who were murdered in the name of the King, her grandfather?

Yes, and as that reply was too short I'll just repeat, yes

The relative of the man in question is trying to get him a pardon because he was suffering from shell shock which was a mitigating factor.

There's that old joke about the soldier running from the front line when he is stopped by one of his superiors. "C'mon sonny, I know it's bad up there, but your country's relying on you". "Sorry sergeant", says the lad. "It's not sergeant, it's colonel actually", replies the officer. "Bleedin' ell! I didn't think I'd run that far!" says tommy!

I believe this particular man was fighting for 2 years prior to being shot for cowardice. They weren't cowards. The army used it as a way of making men go over the top to almost certain deaths. They had the choice to either die in battle or be executed and then disgraced by the army. Not much of a choice now is it?

I believe a soldier could also be shot for losing his weapon as they would then accuse the soldier of wishing to surrender to the enemy.

Nowadays Post traumatic shock is reeled out after every event to explain peoples behaviour (or scam time off work) but if you were in a trench as the arms and legs of your colleagues were being blown about then I think that would be a legitimate complaint. The Ars*holes back behind the lines at HQ pushing their little figures across maps wouldn't have known anything about this of course.

YES, of course - the only question is why they weren't 'pardoned' a long, long time ago. Although I take issue with the word 'pardoned' - that suggests they did something wrong in the first place and have 'generously' been forgiven for their bad behaviour.

It's the Establishment who should be apologising to these poor men's relatives - although the chance to have descendants was taken away from probably the vast majority of them.

The appalling policy of shooting men who were clearly too traumatised by their experiences to go on fighting is beyond a disgrace.

StarSparkle

In those days the establishment was the monorchy, I understand that there was pressure to stop these executions but the king used his position to keep this practice in force. It was the Queen's grandad who they were shot in the name of so for my money she should apologise on behalf of the murdering old sod.

Should the sons apologise for the sins of the fathers?

YES, of course - the only question is why they weren't 'pardoned' a long, long time ago. Although I take issue with the word 'pardoned' - that suggests they did something wrong in the first place and have 'generously' been forgiven for their bad behaviour.

It's the Establishment who should be apologising to these poor men's relatives - although the chance to have descendants was taken away from probably the vast majority of them.

The appalling policy of shooting men who were clearly too traumatised by their experiences to go on fighting is beyond a disgrace.

StarSparkle

Couldn't have put it better myself. Spot on!!

Well said StarSparkle.

Should the sons apologise for the sins of the fathers?

It wouldn't do any harm but she would actually be apologising on behalf of a monorchy that has long since past it's sell by date. I doubt if she would mean it anyway, over 100 of our troops have been killed in Iraq in her name, does she care, who knows?

I know that she would be speaking on the behalf of her government but Phil the Greek and Charlie boy constantly make none approved statements on trivia, she could make one on something important.

I wonder if there are any ex soldiers who did return to the front line who would agree with the shooting at dawn policy. Be interested in seeing the contrary viewpoint

I wonder if there are any ex soldiers who did return to the front line who would agree with the shooting at dawn policy. Be interested in seeing the contrary viewpoint

Better ask them soon taxman there are only about half a dozen left. Good point though but we have more chance of getting a second hand comment from a members grandad. Mine never went over, the good hiding he got from his aunt put him off violence for good.

In those days the establishment was the monorchy, I understand that there was pressure to stop these executions but the king used his position to keep this practice in force. It was the Queen's grandad who they were shot in the name of so for my money she should apologise on behalf of the murdering old sod.

Now THAT I didn't know. So essentially that digusting, disgraceful, uncivilised practice of being shot at dawn for 'cowardice' was down to the will of one man? What a ****

A man whose own wife was so terrified of him she could barely speak to him? They had to communicate with each other through letters!! All his children were equally terrified of him - all his sons grew up with varying degrees of damage to their personalities.

A man who was probably minding his own back as much as anything, being a German after all, when the enemy was his cousin Willy's Germany.

I am really sickened by that if it's true - and I owe some degree of apology to the Establishment/Government of the day if they tried to end the barbarous practice, but were prevented from doing so by the monarch.

StarSparkle

Now THAT I didn't know. So essentially that digusting, disgraceful, uncivilised practice of being shot at dawn for 'cowardice' was down to the will of one man? What a ****

A man whose own wife was so terrified of him she could barely speak to him? They had to communicate with each other through letters!! All his children were equally terrified of him - all his sons grew up with varying degrees of damage to their personalities.

A man who was probably minding his own back as much as anything, being a German after all, when the enemy was his cousin Willy's Germany.

I am really sickened by that if it's true - and I owe some degree of apology to the Establishment/Government of the day if they tried to end the barbarous practice, but were prevented from doing so by the monarch.

StarSparkle

And we wonder why the current Royal family is so screwed up and out of touch!

And we wonder why the current Royal family is so screwed up and out of touch!

You should try reading some unexpurgated histories/biographies of members of the Royal Family going back into history - makes some quite scary reading. I don't know whether or not it's apocryphal (but I suspect it's probably true), but there is a story that one British queen consort, Caroline I think, on hearing the news of her eldest son's death, declared herself glad of it, she had hated him so much!!

Bad blood.

StarSparkle

And we wonder why the current Royal family is so screwed up and out of touch!

Another one for you, when the Royal Navy abolished flogging Queen Victoria was so upset that she confined herself to her private apartments for many days. As you can see I am quite a fan of the royals.

i think they should be pardoned,a lot of them were in the trenches for a long time, they were not all cowards

the irony of it all was that the butcher,general hague was later put in charge of the poppy fund. whether this was to permenantly remind him of the vast numbers he ordered to go to their deaths i do not know,perhaps it was an acolade from his fellow officers,jobs for the boys as it were.

Should the sons apologise for the sins of the fathers?

This is sort of what I think. They were executed under the Law of the time. It seems bizarre that they can be given a pardon under the quite different Law of today.

Recognition that we have moved on is one thing - but a pardon? :confused:

The Poppy Fund was, as rightly said, under the auspices of Earl Hague. This is the only reason I have for NEVER buying a Poppy. If we all banned the Poppy for a year or so I’m sure the British Legion would have enough clout to make the ‘Pardon’ applicable to all so-called cowards.

The Poppy Fund was, as rightly said, under the auspices of Earl Hague. This is the only reason I have for NEVER buying a Poppy. If we all banned the Poppy for a year or so I’m sure the British Legion would have enough clout to make the ‘Pardon’ applicable to all so-called cowards.but we need to but the poppies,they dont receive any other funding, not like some who get loads off the lottery fund, i have always bought a poppy usualy two or three as i misplace them each year

These were young men who went through unimaginable horror seeing their friends dying at the side of them wondering when it would be their turn ,or if they would ever see their loved ones again .This 92 year old lady who has fought to see the word "coward " taken from her fathers name gets my total respect and I sincerely hope she doesnt reach the end of her days disappointed .I know I certainly wouldnt have lasted a day in those trenches Pte Hennry Farr lasted two years !!

This is sort of what I think. They were executed under the Law of the time. It seems bizarre that they can be given a pardon under the quite different Law of today.

Recognition that we have moved on is one thing - but a pardon? :confused:

I don't think anyone has mentioned the men who DID carry on, and didn't 'desert'.

I have no doubt that over the years military commanders have learnt that the only way to stop your troops turning tail at times is to offer to shoot any who do - irrespective of the reason. Desperate times calling for desperate measures etc, or they'd be hard pushed to keep a fighting force together when the chips were down.

I agree with Tony - the prevailing law should stand, even if subsequent 'more enlightened' thinking would do things differently now.

It's a bit far fetched to lay this situation at the feet of the monarchy. The idea of the King issuing some sort of directive to 'Shoot the Cowards!' is ridiculous. The army's response to desertion would have been the same whether the country’s constitution had a king, a president or an anarcho-syndicalist collective. From the army's perspective their only response to desertion in such horrific conditions could have been the death penalty – otherwise most soldiers would have been tempted to opt for a cushy number in jail. Harsh but understandable - they had a war to fight whatever the rights and wrongs of it.

Of course many of those convicted were sick and should have been offered medical or psychiatric help (if they’d known of such things as Post Traumatic Stress) but we only know that with the luxury of hindsight.

Rather than a blanket decision each of these cases should be reviewed on an individual basis (if the evidence still exists) and individuals offered pardons if psychiatric issues were the cause. But it’s unlikely we will ever know the facts in all these cases. We can’t change the past and there is little point in trying to judge the harsh laws by our standards. Should we campaign for every poor wretch ever hanged for stealing a sheep or a handkerchief to be pardoned?

This is sort of what I think. They were executed under the Law of the time. It seems bizarre that they can be given a pardon under the quite different Law of today.

Recognition that we have moved on is one thing - but a pardon? :confused:

The State deliberately took their lives when they had done nothing wrong.

I'd say that requires an apology from the State - in the person of whoever is the representative of that State at that point in time. ie either the Queen or Prime Minister as we unfortunately don't have a President, being a Monarchy.

StarSparkle

nobody should have bin shot for not being willing to kill other peopl, all those giving out stupid orders should have bin sent to the front line.

It's a bit far fetched to lay this situation at the feet of the monarchy. The idea of the King issuing some sort of directive to 'Shoot the Cowards!' is ridiculous. The army's response to desertion would have been the same whether the country’s constitution had a king, a president or an anarcho-syndicalist collective. From the army's perspective their only response to desertion in such horrific conditions could have been the death penalty – otherwise most soldiers would have been tempted to opt for a cushy number in jail. Harsh but understandable - they had a war to fight whatever the rights and wrongs of it.

Of course many of those convicted were sick and should have been offered medical or psychiatric help (if they’d known of such things as Post Traumatic Stress) but we only know that with the luxury of hindsight.

Rather than a blanket decision each of these cases should be reviewed on an individual basis (if the evidence still exists) and individuals offered pardons if psychiatric issues were the cause. But it’s unlikely we will ever know the facts in all these cases. We can’t change the past and there is little point in trying to judge the harsh laws by our standards. Should we campaign for every poor wretch ever hanged for stealing a sheep or a handkerchief to be pardoned?

I sort of agree, i can see the necessity for harsher measures under those circumstances BUT was posthumously disgracing them (and their family name) really necessary?? That's like punishing the family too and more than a little uncalled for in my opinion.....and i think that's the real issue here

I sort of agree, i can see the necessity for harsher measures under those circumstances BUT was posthumously disgracing them (and their family name) really necessary?? That's like punishing the family too and more than a little uncalled for in my opinion.....and i think that's the real issue here

The Establishment was VERY afraid of Revolution breaking out in the country towards the end of the 1st World War and in the immediate years after it. Many soldiers took their weaponry home with them, and the powers-that-be were very scared that these men might be disaffected and turn their guns on the authorities, especially following the example of the Russian Revolution.

The Establishment clamped down very hard after the Great War to try to maintain its position of power. Posthumously disgracing these men and their families was a part of this. It was like saying to people - disobey what you're told to do, and the full weight of the State will descend on you and yours. Obey, or else we will destroy you.

It was all about social control and clinging on to power.

StarSparkle

indeed. And I don't agree with that. But i think it's difficult for us in our life of relative peace and comfort to comment on a situation that occurred so long ago, when technology, society and general overall conditions were so vastly different. war was a very different animal then.

I do agree that the men in question should be pardoned, if not to show that society has moved on esince then and that draconian measures are no longer necessary then just to put the families at ease. i think rather than lose face, the military would benefit from this in terms of image. I don't quite understand why the state won't grant the pardon.....:huh:

indeed. And I don't agree with that. But i think it's difficult for us in our life of relative peace and comfort to comment on a situation that occurred so long ago, when technology, society and general overall conditions were so vastly different. war was a very different animal then.

I do agree that the men in question should be pardoned, if not to show that society has moved on esince then and that draconian measures are no longer necessary then just to put the families at ease. i think rather than lose face, the military would benefit from this in terms of image. I don't quite understand why the state won't grant the pardon.....:huh:

No State will willingly admit to having been in the wrong about anything. It's a question of losing face.

Whereas in reality, at least in these more-educated and more politically-aware times, I'm sure the opposite would actually be true. People would have much more respect for their governments and politicians if they weren't expecting to be lied to all the time. A little humility would go a long way - but it takes wisdom to see it.

StarSparkle

No State will willingly admit to having been in the wrong about anything. It's a question of losing face.

Whereas in reality, at least in these more-educated and more politically-aware times, I'm sure the opposite would actually be true. People would have much more respect for their governments and politicians if they weren't expecting to be lied to all the time. A little humility would go a long way - but it takes wisdom to see it.

StarSparkle

Amen to that!

It's a bit far fetched to lay this situation at the feet of the monarchy. The idea of the King issuing some sort of directive to 'Shoot the Cowards!' is ridiculous. The army's response to desertion would have been the same whether the country’s constitution had a king, a president or an anarcho-syndicalist collective. From the army's perspective their only response to desertion in such horrific conditions could have been the death penalty – otherwise most soldiers would have been tempted to opt for a cushy number in jail. Harsh but understandable - they had a war to fight whatever the rights and wrongs of it.

Of course many of those convicted were sick and should have been offered medical or psychiatric help (if they’d known of such things as Post Traumatic Stress) but we only know that with the luxury of hindsight.

Rather than a blanket decision each of these cases should be reviewed on an individual basis (if the evidence still exists) and individuals offered pardons if psychiatric issues were the cause. But it’s unlikely we will ever know the facts in all these cases. We can’t change the past and there is little point in trying to judge the harsh laws by our standards. Should we campaign for every poor wretch ever hanged for stealing a sheep or a handkerchief to be pardoned?

It might sound ridiculous to you but remember it was 90 years ago when the King carried a lot of clout. It would be very easy via a little selective reading to clarify the issue that you have on the subject.

I have no idea how old you are but when I started work many of the guys who were about to retire had served in the first war. So to me it's not the ancient history that it is to some younger folk.

I presume that your logic would inply that that a murder committed in say the 40's should not be investigared further if D&A evidence could now name the killer. And also you show no sympathy for a 92 year old lady who wants justice for her father. Also vital medical evidence that could have been brought before the court was simply and conveniently forgotton.

Your in depth knowledge of the inner workings of the minds of young lads thrown into the most bloody conflict that the world had ever known is a revelation. Please tell us why the troops in Iraq are not deserting in droves due to there being no death penalty in place.

Can I suggest "The Monocled Mutineer" as interesting reading material about this subject? It's the story of Percy Topliss, a young man from Nottinghamshire who had a leading role in the most famous attempted rebellion on the Western front.

How the mutiny (and Topliss) was dealt with, at the time and in the aftermath, illustrates the politics of it all.

There was tv adaptation in the mid 80s by Alan Bleasdale of the book, starring Paul McGann, which is apparently now out on video.

StarSparkle

Can I suggest "The Monocled Mutineer" as interesting reading material about this subject? It's the story of Percy Topliss, a young man from Nottinghamshire who had a leading role in the most famous attempted rebellion on the Western front.

How the mutiny (and Topliss) was dealt with, at the time and in the aftermath, illustrates the politics of it all.

There was tv adaptation in the mid 80s by Alan Bleasdale of the book, starring Paul McGann, which is apparently now out on video.

StarSparkle

Yes I remember it, very good TV, unlike the present day.

you may find this interesting,and there are also links to 14 year old boy soldiers.

http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-shotatdawn.html

they also shot a young lad for striking an officer. there is a book out called shot at dawn. and yes they should be pardoned

Ofcourse they should be pardoned!
Cant even begin to imagine the horrors they went through, and then to be shot because you're not well makes it even worse.

Z

It took the establishment 150 years to admit the culpability of their forebears in causing the Irish famine ( estimated death tolls range between one and three million ) so I wouldn't hold my breath. Maybe in another 60 years or so, when everyone it matters to is dead, they will say ''Oh yes, bad show, but remember Waterloo.''

I don't believe there are many people around now who would believe it would be right to shoot someone for desertion who volunteered to fight and was suffering from shell-shock, but how much good does it do giving someone a pardon?

If the descendents of the man want it then fair enough go ahead, but I can't imagine it would make a lot of difference to me.

My Grandfather was imprisoned for refusing to fight in the second world war. I don't personally think it was right that he should have been locked up, but it would make no difference to me if I were to receive an apology from the government.

I don't believe there are many people around now who would believe it would be right to shoot someone for desertion who volunteered to fight and was suffering from shell-shock, but how much good does it do giving someone a pardon?

If the descendents of the man want it then fair enough go ahead, but I can't imagine it would make a lot of difference to me.

My Grandfather was imprisoned for refusing to fight in the second world war. I don't personally think it was right that he should have been locked up, but it would make no difference to me if I were to receive an apology from the government.

It's the Principle of the thing - the Establishment of the day did those men and their families wrong, and its representatives today should admit that and apologise for it.

StarSparkle

It's the Principle of the thing - the Establishment of the day did those men and their families wrong, and its representatives today should admit that and apologise for it.

StarSparkle

As I said it would make no difference .... to me

Obviously my view of the principle is not the same as yours.

I feel very strongly that this man should be pardond.He was suffering from "Shell Shock" when he refused to go back and fight.My mum nursed "Shell Shocked" soldiers from the second world war at Middlewood Hospital,and she said they were mentally ill,poor frightened creatures.And wouldnt anyone after being in a war ?

Yes most of them should be pardoned....
......I was doing research for a script a couple of years back and found a book by William Moore...."The Thin Yellow Line".....
.......this whole story is worse than you can imagine........men being shot after spending months recovering from shell shock..........loosing a rifle....etc.
One of the worst accounts...... .a group of "Pals" (it was common for a bunch of lads from one street to join up and fight together)...
......a firing squad had to shoot one of their life long friends....some broke out in tears ...but were forced to continue at gun point.

A few people tried to take action at the time.......but fears of revolution...the war effort etc....they were silenced.
One question I'd like answered........why were all files and documents involved with these cases deemed top secret and sealed for 100years...
.....usually 50 years ..no?

The australians ( and the Canadians..I believe)....told the British Command in strong language that they would have nothing to do with these executions.

As I write this....I have My Grandfathers spurs from the First World War Hanging above the desk (badly shelled manning an 18 ponder).....and when I went to Hucklow Road Junior Shool.....the headmaster had lost both his legs in that War......
...bad enough without shooting our own people.

PS Don't knock the Royal family too much...........over 25 years I sold over 3000 Rolls...Land Rover etc.....they sell British Product and Tourism........just skip a generation and keep them under control

Crookesy
Your quetion as to why the troops in Iraq are not deserting is prity stupid. I don't recall reading or hearing of them being stuck in a flooded stinking trench for weeksand be shelled day and night.

I think we can now pardon these men but at the same time we must remember that these were actions done at a time when things were very much different.
We live in a world where peace is taken for granted and under a legal code that makes the death penalty a thing of the past. We also have a far better understanding of the stress that can lead to mental problems.
I consider that the officers responsable at the time did make major errors but I can understand the logic of trying to keep order in the ranks at a time when the conditions were terrible and the communists were gaining power in russia.
There was a genuine fear of a revolution in the UK.
Yes, we know now that the shootings were, for the most part, wrong but we have to remember that times and the way we understand things have changed.

I think we can now pardon these men but at the same time we must remember that these were actions done at a time when things were very much different.
We live in a world where peace is taken for granted and under a legal code that makes the death penalty a thing of the past. We also have a far better understanding of the stress that can lead to mental problems.
I consider that the officers responsable at the time did make major errors but I can understand the logic of trying to keep order in the ranks at a time when the conditions were terrible and the communists were gaining power in russia.
There was a genuine fear of a revolution in the UK.
Yes, we know now that the shootings were, for the most part, wrong but we have to remember that times and the way we understand things have changed.

The executions had nothing to do with either fear of revolution or of communism. They were inspired and legitimised by the autocratic and class-ridden nature of the British army at the time, when ordinary soldiers were required to do exactly as they were told or else - on pain of death. There was not a single case of an officer being shot for cowardice or desertion, which speaks volumes for the unprepossessing role of class prejudice in these cases. Moreover, there is also evidence that the military elites were looking for scapegoats after the military disasters they were largely responsible for on the Western front. Thus Field Marshall Douglas Haig confirmed a number of death sentences after the battle of the Somme - when the level of incompetence of the British general staff had reached new depths of incompetence and of crass stupidity. Lions led by donkeys indeed. Moreover, there is still considerable evidence that the British army is still riddled with class prejudice in its upper echelons, as evidenced by the high proportion of plummy voiced public schoolboys in its ranks.

The executions had nothing to do with either fear of revolution or of communism. They were inspired and legitimised by the autocratic and class-ridden nature of the British army at the time, when ordinary soldiers were required to do exactly as they were told or else - on pain of death. There was not a single case of an officer being shot for cowardice or desertion, which speaks volumes for the unprepossessing role of class prejudice in these cases. Moreover, there is also evidence that the military elites were looking for scapegoats after the military disasters they were largely responsible for on the Western front. Thus Field Marshall Douglas Haig confirmed a number of death sentences after the battle of the Somme - when the level of incompetence of the British general staff had reached new depths of incompetence and of crass stupidity. Lions led by donkeys indeed. Moreover, there is still considerable evidence that the British army is still riddled with class prejudice in its upper echelons, as evidenced by the high proportion of plummy voiced public schoolboys in its ranks.

Unfortunately, you are so right, Lord Chaverly.

As I said before, the Establishment will never willingly apologise to the 'plebs', as they see us, for anything, however guilty or to blame its members obviously are/were.

Earlier in this thread, someone pointed out how long it had taken to get an apology out of the British Establishment for its economic policies bearing the responsibility for the Irish Potato Famine, and millions died or were forced to emigrate as a direct result of that.

For the Establishment, having to apologise is to show weakness, and they fear that having to answer to the populace for any of their actions is to undermine their, as they see it, 'God-given right to rule'.

StarSparkle

The executions had nothing to do with either fear of revolution or of communism. They were inspired and legitimised by the autocratic and class-ridden nature of the British army at the time, when ordinary soldiers were required to do exactly as they were told or else - on pain of death.

About right except for the revolution bit.
The upper classes were very aware of the situation in russia and were afraid of the same thing here.
I can't fault the rest of your post.

About right except for the revolution bit.
The upper classes were very aware of the situation in russia and were afraid of the same thing here.
I can't fault the rest of your post.

But the revolution in Russia did not happen until 1917, by which time there had already been a large number of British military executions. Indeed, the first of these took place in 1914 and by the end of 1916 154 British soldiers had been executed, compared with 150 in 1917 and 1918. Moreover, during the whole of the war, only 3 were executed for mutiny (which suggests that the fear of revolution was not that great) compared with a huge number executed for desertion.

Granted but it didn't happen overnight.
The British establishment was aware of this.
I'm not saying this was the only reason, just one reason.
As i said, I agree with the rest of what you say.

Granted but it didn't happen overnight.
The British establishment was aware of this.
I'm not saying this was the only reason, just one reason.
As i said, I agree with the rest of what you say.

How could shooting people for cowardice possibly have anything to do with preventing the rise of communism. If anything it would - and probably did - have the reverse effect. I never thought I'd say this, but Lord Chaverly's right. So please stop making bizarre excuses for the those top brass, who's only real qualifications were their class and connections. Their only motivation in the executions was to ensure a guarenteed supply of cannon fodder for their ill conceived battle plans.

How could shooting people for cowardice possibly have anything to do with preventing the rise of communism. If anything it would - and probably did - have the reverse effect. I never thought I'd say this, but Lord Chaverly's right. So please stop making bizarre excuses for the those top brass, who's only real qualifications were their class and connections. Their only motivation in the executions was to ensure a guarenteed supply of cannon fodder for their ill conceived battle plans.

Don't get me wrong. It's a reason and not an excuse. that is not to say that the reason is a good one. I suspect in the minds of the people who gave the orders the idea was that the harsher the measures taken the less chance of an uprising and the greater the chance of keeping people of lower orders in line. They wanted both at the time.
I don't think they had any care about the people but did care about keeping order at whatever cost.
I don't agree with it but I think there may be some truth in it.

As for the battle plans - did they have any ? I have read a little of what they did and see no plan in it. Just pile a bunch of men into a line of machine guns and see if any get past. Not that good a plan.

Crookesy
Your quetion as to why the troops in Iraq are not deserting is prity stupid. I don't recall reading or hearing of them being stuck in a flooded stinking trench for weeksand be shelled day and night.

Well done prioryx, you very nearly said something there. Suicide bombers, roadside bombs, snipers, the enemy not being in uniform, 6 MP's being beaten to death seems pretty bad to me.

Prior to calling someone stupid please examine the content of further intended posts and ask yourself if they are worth posting.

Their only motivation in the executions was to ensure a guarenteed supply of cannon fodder for their ill conceived battle plans.

When you read about men like Montgomery and how he actually cared in a great degree for the men under his command, and then compare this to the idiots in charge in WW1, you realise what a massive impact it had upon the English way of thinking.
The men executed in WW1 were judicially murdered. AsI understand it there was no relief from the continual terror at the front line, can you imagine being terrified for your life, not for a few seconds or minutes, but all the time, day in day out.
It is amazing there was not wholescale mutiny, not just a few blokes cracking under the stress.