Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

British Soldiers of Irish ethnicity Shot at Dawn were:-

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Correlli Barnett, a military historian, said last night that the mass posthumous pardon was "pointless" after all these years. "These were decisions taken in the heat of a war when the commanders' primary duty was to keep the Army together and to keep it fighting. They were therefore decisions taken from a different moral perspective," he said.

    "For the people of this generation to come along and second-guess decisions taken then is wrong.

    "It was done in a particular historical setting and in a particular moral and social climate. It's pointless to give these pardons. What's the use of a posthumous pardon?"

    Those who were shot for cowardice or desertion were by and large treated fairly, according to the standards of the time, he added.
    This is a classic example of what kept the pardons from being made pre 2006

    For starters their names can now be added to the relevant War Memorial whereas pre-pardon they were denied that right.

    Connaught Stranger.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by apc View Post
      Firing squads in 1922/23 were not dealing with disciplinary issues.


      These men were shot by the British Army as examples for often minor or trumped up charges. These men deserve to have their Names cleared and apologies made to their rewlatives.

      I am sure if any of you had a member of your family shot at dawn you would be seeking to have the record set straight.

      Some of those shot in 1922/23 were as reprisals and others for looting/theft which would not normally carry death pen.
      Equally the French in 1917 after their army was exhausted shot a significant amount of soldiers on what could be considered a quota system amongst units that had fought to a standstill.
      The point I was making is that losing/defeated Generals were able to lay off their defective leadership/tactics onto the ranks and ultimately numerous soldiers paid for this with their lives as examples.
      The families of those victims are perfectively entitled to have the record set straight.

      Comment


      • #18
        a
        lot of them poor guys were probably suffering from shell shock...
        Between this and PTSD I reckon me were penalised for years, Problem is while there were attempts to bring the subject to light over the years , the war was best forgotten as were its victims.

        Read Forgotten Soldiers by Stephen Walker, does the subject some justice.

        WW1 was no more unique that the Crimera War or the Wars in Africa Irish men died in their thousands. The British army wasn't in any condition to fight a major continental war and knew this going in the 1914.

        They had in the past fought campaigns as opposed to wars that were fought well out of site, not sinve napoleonic times had the British been involved ina war of their own on main land Europe as where the French and Germans had been battling on and off for years before hand. For the french and germans the conditions were very similar to earlier wars fought as in 1870 while they had been more fluid the weapons had'nt changed that much not had the tactics or movement of men.

        But again the were fleeting affairs often sorted over a few pints and everyone went home,The British were a conquering army fighting native soldiers...they went to war against Europeans who new how to fight back.

        The Guys at the top were out of their depth for the most and while throwing a few companies at the fuzzies and overcoming by weight of numbers was fine out on the veldt...when the Fuzzies turned into Germans and the whole thing was about territory and military standing , different ball game.

        Desertion in the face of the enemy was so scarce in the colonial wars it was easy to write in the death penalty as the chances of having to use it were slim

        Now present a case where you have no other option...and things are rapidly falling apart all round you as it wasn't until 1981 that the British were credibly on the side of the winners and you've got to be force ful.

        If someone did a study of the french you'll find they were no less brutal especially against their colonial troops.

        We as Irish people do possibly feel a bit aggrieved, given the circumstances under which we found ourselves out there and being a minority in that army was the amount of executions proportional to the amount who served.

        The analysis is biased as it cannot even be proved conclusively how many Irish actually served taking into account those who enlisted from adresses in the UK.
        Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

        Comment


        • #19
          @hptmurphy

          Until trench warfare came into being in 1914 there was no similar style of Attritional fighting anywhere in Europe endured by any nation.

          You state:

          not sinve napoleonic times had the British been involved ina war of their own on main land Europe as where the French and Germans had been battling on and off for years before hand. For the french and germans the conditions were very similar to earlier wars fought as in 1870 while they had been more fluid the weapons had'nt changed that much not had the tactics or movement of men.
          In reality, as opposed to "battling on and off for years" the time line was:

          1813 Napoleonic Engagements between France & Prussia, defeat for the French.

          1870-71 Franco-Prussian War, defeat for the French, Prussian military, defeated French military and occupied Paris. Withdrew under their own steam, mainly because of civil unrest at home in Prussia and Associated German States.

          1914- 1918 Prussians invade France as part of being an Austrian ally get bogged down in France & Flanders fail to emulate the success of 1870 / 1871.

          Between the above dates Britain and France had been Allied in the Crimean War against the Russians. Here the British suffered adverse casualties and hardship because the War Office failed to organize any warm winter clothing or large cooking facilities such as platoon ovens and large cooking pots, believing it would be over before the winter set in.
          It degenerated into Siege warfare particularly around Sevastopol.

          At the start of WW1 Prussia and the associated German states had a decided advantage in men, training, and more modern military weapons, particularly the Maxim Machine Guns and Artillery.

          German was then and as was shown in the later WW2 hog-tied due to the lack of raw-supplies with which feed the mass manufacture to continue a prolonged war, particularly to the very effective Royal Navy blockade of Germany.

          Prussia's only chance to have won, would have been a quick advance into the heart of France, & Belgium, however that was denied them, both by the actions of the Belgian military and the British Expeditionary Force and the French Military, which eventually gave way to the cruel stalemate of trench warfare.

          While the French executed a few hundred men for failing to carry out their duties, cowardice, or just as examples, the Prussian and associated Armies executed less than 100 on similar ground (Interestingly enough in WW2 Nazi Germany turned to the firing squad more frequently during it campaigns in the West and East.?

          The Italian's too in WW1 executed many hundreds of their own soldiers,

          Figures for the Imperial Russians are a lot harder to come by but its believed to run into the many thousands being executed for various charges in WW1 before the Communist uprising finally took control.

          Connaught Stranger.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by danno View Post
            The point I was making is that losing/defeated Generals were able to lay off their defective leadership/tactics onto the ranks and ultimately numerous soldiers paid for this with their lives as examples.
            What defective tactics and generals are you talking about?

            It is a myth that the british were poorly led or that they were backward looking in the first world war, Under Haigs watch the british military modernised hugely, in terms of operation, tactics, equiptment (it became largely mechanised and expanded in many areas, such as using armour, aircraft etc).

            The reason that the war wasnt quick or easy is that the germans didnt just lie down and take it in the chaps, they evolved the way in which they defended positions that made them "elastic" thus difficult to take(conversely the allies changed how they attacked- Vimy ridge is a good example) .
            Adding to this there was the fact that both armies were condensed with a large force to space ratio into a front that on either end was bordered by english channel and the Swiss alps, thus taking a flank was not really an option without imposing huge logs difficulties which would be the undoing of any such expedition.

            I agree that shooting your own is wrong for everything excluding murder/rape. But we cannot look back and suggest that things should have been conducted to twenty first century conventions or mores.....
            It was a different time and people had different values.

            As for clearing names. It is an admirable undertaking but I often feel it can be a selfish motivation on behalf of the descendents. As it does not make a blind bit of difference to those that are dead whether or not they are on the wall in Tyne Cot or the Menin gate.

            I can understand it in the case of a some clearing the names of a parent. Or doing it on behalf of a parent/relative who was killed at dawn etc, but when you have a great grand son or some distant relative getting upset about somebody who died long before they were born I find it a little disengenous.


            It is reflective of the overwhelming burden of grief that people have in relation to the first world war. This seems to emanate from Sasson and Owen's poetry, I personally dont buy into it as I see all wars as equally sad and terrible.
            Last edited by turbocalves; 6 March 2011, 21:32.
            But there's no danger
            It's a professional career
            Though it could be arranged
            With just a word in Mr. Churchill's ear
            If you're out of luck you're out of work
            We could send you to johannesburg.

            (Elvis Costello, Olivers Army)

            Comment


            • #21
              Betwee
              n the above dates Britain and France had been Allied in the Crimean War against the Russians. Here the British suffered adverse casualties and hardship because the War Office failed to organize any warm winter clothing or large cooking facilities such as platoon ovens and large cooking pots, believing it would be over before the winter set in.
              It degenerated into Siege warfare particularly around Sevastopol.
              Britians army was latgely ineffecuctual in the Crimea and Is only under the French that had real success. They knew from this point on they had no place in Continental european wars.

              1870-71 Franco-Prussian War, defeat for the French, Prussian military, defeated French military and occupied Paris. Withdrew under their own steam, mainly because of civil unrest at home in Prussia and Associated German States
              Prussia's only chance to have won, would have been a quick advance into the heart of France, & Belgium, however that was denied them, both by the actions of the Belgian military and the British Expeditionary Force and the French Military, which eventually gave way to the cruel stalemate of trench warfare.

              The German and French armies had outings in modern warfare as opposed to the british who had not fought an equal European army since Napoleon.

              the Scheillen Plan had been developed to just this end but because the Germans truncated the plan and failed to capture Parsi the whole thing degenerated into the slogging match it became.

              Up to the Battle of the Marne the war was quite fluid but it was only Germanys inability to capture Paris in the main thrust that had the sides digging in.
              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

              Comment


              • #22
                The french arrived in the trenches in 1914 dressed the very same as they were during the franco-prussian war. Their armament had only slightly changed, but tactics had not differred.

                I agree about the myth of "Lions led by Donkeys". The tactics used by all sides was acceptable doctrine at the time. Blaming the slaughter at the foot of the generals came from a greater effort to malign the upper classes, who for the most part held positions of leadership, by the socialist revolution that was sweeping accross europe around the same time. However as the war wore on, and many middle class enlisted men were promoted to officer rank, this belief changed. At the same time, those in power learnt new tactics from experience, leading to the culmination of the "all arms" concept stil used today, at the battle of Hamel in July 1918.

                One wonders though of the wisdom in applying 21st century rules of morality against acts carried out almost a hundred years ago.


                Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                  Betwee

                  Britians army was latgely ineffecuctual in the Crimea and Is only under the French that had real success. They knew from this point on they had no place in Continental european wars.


                  Please supply a source for the under-lined above.

                  British Forces in Crimea in the mid 1850's, actually considering the conditions they faced, particularly the winter weather, performed very well, capturing quite a few heavily defended Russian redoubts. The battle of Alma as well as the Siege of Sevastopol.

                  And lets not forget the Boer war in Africa, which does not fall into the more familiar "Fuzzy-Wuzzie" / Zulu War type conflicts.


                  The German and French armies had outings in modern warfare as opposed to the british who had not fought an equal European army since Napoleon.

                  Where were these outings? 1870-71 was not a trench war type scenario. Before this the Prussians had engaged in a short war against the Austrians in 1866, this being fought on diverse ground in what is today part of Poland, the main part of the main campaign of the war occurred in Bohemia, and the main battles being:-
                  * 24 June, Battle of Custoza: Austrian army defeats Italian army;
                  * 27 June, Battle of Trutnov: Austrians check Prussian advance but with heavy losses
                  * 27 June, Battle of Langensalza: Hanover's army defeats Prussia's;
                  * 29 June, Battle of Jicin: Prussians defeat Austrians
                  * 3 July, Battle of Königgrätz: decisive Prussian victory against Austrians;
                  * 20 July, Battle of Lissa: the Austrian fleet defeats the Italian one;
                  * 21 July, Battle of Bezzecca: Giuseppe Garibaldi's "Hunters of the Alps" defeat an Austrian army.
                  * 22 July, (in last day of war), Battle of Lamac near the Bratislava: Austrians defend Bratislava against Prussian army.

                  It was this war which brought about the perfection (for the want of a better word in the minds of the Prussian Generals) with regards training and equipment.

                  As for the British:-

                  The effectiveness of the British Expeditionary Force: The British Expeditionary Force (B.E.F.) was small, numbering only 75,000 at the start of the war.

                  The French mobilized millions of recruits, and their goal was to use this number to defeat the Germans quickly in Alsace.

                  To this end, the French commander-in-chief Joseph Joffre placed the small but highly trained BEF on the left flank, where he believed there would not be any fighting.

                  Due to the rapid German advance through Belgium, the British were almost annihilated several times, but they managed to delay the Germans long enough for French and British reinforcements to arrive.

                  While the B.E.F. was forced into retreat throughout the month of August, it provided enough resistance against the German First Army under Alexander von Kluck to help induce the German general to break off the Plan.

                  Instead, von Kluck turned south-east towards Compiègne, showing his flank to the Garrison of Paris under Gallieni, making possible the "Miracle of the Marne".


                  the Scheillen Plan had been developed to just this end but because the Germans truncated the plan and failed to capture Parsi the whole thing degenerated into the slogging match it became.

                  Actually it was more correctly called The Schlieffen Plan and any plan including the this is the first casualty at the moment of actual contact, thisplan was first devised in 1905 if I recall correctly?

                  Politically, one of the major drawbacks of the Schlieffen Plan was that it called for the invasion of neutral states in order to pass through the German troops into France. As it turned out, at least formally, it was the decision to invade Belgium which led to war with Great Britain.


                  Up to the Battle of the Marne the war was quite fluid but it was only Germany's inability to capture Paris in the main thrust that had the sides digging in.

                  The original plan called for Paris not to be taken as in the 1870-71 (mainly because the Siege of Paris had lasted for months) but, it was to be passed by the right wing to the west of the city. The intent of the plan was not to conquer cities or industry in order to weaken the French war efforts, but to capture most of the French Army and to force France to surrender, in essence a repeat of the strategy used to defeat France during the Franco-Prussian War. The plan was that the French Army would be hemmed in around Paris and forced to fight a decisive envelopment battle.

                  Helmuth von Moltke Jr., decided that it would be better to link up in a double envelopment of the entire French Army by the Prussian right wing coming from the north and west of France and the Prussian left wing coming from the east.

                  I am afraid you comparisons are not quite correct, the British Military was well trained to fight in a style that was compatible for the trends of the period in regards that all European military were using the idea of quickly advancing against the enemy, closing in /surrounding them, and subduing them. By 1914 there main infantryman's weapon, the .303 rifle was more than a match for the German counterpart, the British were playing catch-up with regards the implementation of heavy machine-guns, and both sides were utilizing Cavalry including Lancers at this stage in time.

                  As for the British Army, regardless of if it was colonial rebels in Africa, India, Egypt, or expected risings closer to home, they trained and maintained regular forces for such events, the fact that the Prussians decided to implement an invasion of France no doubt caught them off guard, but the B.E.F. was dispatched quickly to help the French from the United Kingdom (remember too that the larger part of the British military were spread over a large part of the Commonwealth & Dominions and had been for quite some time historically.)

                  Also they (the British) had expanded the Royal Navy, as it was common policy of the time to follow the principle of having very strong naval forces to rule the waves (here the Prussians, came up short, never having enough Naval sea power to take the Royal Navy on head to head, admittedly the U-boats were a success at the start, but, had very limited range, and once the British tactic of blockade and convoy had been implemented the Prussian u-boat fleets early wins were diminished.

                  Connaught Ranger

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    [QUOTE=turbocalves;328528]What defective tactics and generals are you talking about?

                    Two who readily come to mind are Gen Townshend and Admiral Troubridge.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      [QUOTE=danno;328654]
                      Originally posted by turbocalves View Post
                      What defective tactics and generals are you talking about?

                      Two who readily come to mind are Gen Townshend and Admiral Troubridge.
                      I dont mean to be pedantic, or dismissive of you but two or three generals below par hardly give reason to tar the rest likewise- Especially seeing as the British army went from about three quarter of a million in 1914 to having over 9 million men and women serving in(including the dead and the wounded) by the time the war ended. So with such expansion you can imagine there were many many generals, and no doubt there were a few ropey ones.
                      But there's no danger
                      It's a professional career
                      Though it could be arranged
                      With just a word in Mr. Churchill's ear
                      If you're out of luck you're out of work
                      We could send you to johannesburg.

                      (Elvis Costello, Olivers Army)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Shot at Dawn Campaign (Irl)

                        Shot at Dawn Campaign (Irl)

                        It is regrettable that the efforts of the Shot at Dawn Campaigns continue to be misunderstood and in some cases misrepresented by some contributors both on discussion boards and in some media outlets. In 1998, the British Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign was effectively dead in the water as a result of John Reid's refusal to countenance any pardons. Following a telephone call in June 2001 from the Coordinator of the Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign in the UK which confirmed that his campaign effort was effectively going backwards one decided to set up a separate Irish Shot at Dawn Campaign and it was agreed and understood by those in the UK that to be effective the Irish group would have to be totally separate from the British campaign and organised and managed from within the Republic of Ireland to include the whole Island of Ireland. It was the Irish SAD Campaign effort that made the difference and but for the Irish input the Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign efforts in the UK would still be languishing in the cul-de-sac of the British political and legal system ad infinitum.

                        The Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl co-ordinated though the Irish Seamen's Relatives Association (1939-46) was an independent Irish based group and was never a part or an adjunct of the British Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign. The Shot at Dawn Campaign Ireland and the Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign in the UK were always two separate and distinct groups; ie one Irish Campaign and one British Campaign independent of each other albeit in pursuit of the same objective. Our unique Irish identity was a major contributing factor and was one of the main reasons why the Irish SAD Campaign was so successful in attracting support. As some pundits continue to ignore or minimise the Irish Governments role towards the successful resolution of the pardons issue in 2006, the following inter-alia might be taken into account whenever discussions arise as to who did what and when :

                        1. All the names of the Irish Shot at Dawn were included in the Commonwealth War Graves Register for many years. However, the 26 Irish Shot at Dawn were not included in the separate Irish War Memorial Register and until recently had been totally excluded from Irish war memorial records.
                        2. On the 28th October 2004, a highly sensitive confidential report into the execution of the 26 Irish Shot at Dawn during world war one, was submitted to the British Government by the Irish Government. Despite a freedom of information request from a British Newspaper in 2005 and continued requests to have the Irish report released the British Government steadfastly refused to release its contents.
                        3. On Tuesday 28th March 2006 the Irish Government, against British objections, and pursuant to an Irish Seanad Debate, unilaterally released their report into the executions of our 26 Irish Shot at Dawn in order to facilitate and inform debate in the UK and in particular, to support the Irish Shot at Dawn Campaign effort to achieve Pardons for our 26 Irish executed.
                        4. On the 15th August 2006 the Irish Government was contacted through diplomatic channels to advise that the British intended to initiate legislation to grant pardons to all the 306, in particular the 26 Irish Shot at Dawn. It was conveyed to the Irish Government that this British Pardons legislation was the official British Government response to the Irish Government report submitted to the Ministry of Defence via the Foreign and Commonwealth office in late 2004.
                        5. Through diplomatic channels, the Irish Government persuaded the British Government to expand the effects of their pardons legislation by inter alia having the pardons inscribed on all the individual courts martial files, to acknowledge the effects of the Pardons legislation.
                        6. The pardons granted were effective when her Majesty signed the legislation into law on Wednesday 8th November 2006, following its passage through the House of Commons.
                        7. All 306 executed for military offences during world war one were pardoned together and alphabetical order pursuant to this legislation,

                        It is unacceptable that the Irish Government's key role and the Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl efforts towards this unique change of British policy is continually being ignored and minimised by others. Consequently, as one was closely involved in the formulation of the Irish Government Report and the confidential discussions which followed that led to the widening of the scope of the British Pardons amendment one will as the former coordinator of the SAD Campaign Irl and when necessary vigorously rebut any erroneous statement or spin placed on the public record about the separate Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl effort irrespective of source. It should be noted that previous attempts by those involved in the British Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign had failed to convince the Irish Government to support the pardons issue prior to June 2001. A separate all Ireland 'Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl' unconnected with the British Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign set up and based in Dublin, was ultimately successful in persuading the Irish authorities to support the issue on behalf of the 26 Irish Shot at Dawn. Apparently, there are some individuals, authors and other groups only too willing to claim and apportion the credit to others ignoring the Irish Campaign effort entirely, indeed there are still those who credit the success of the Irish SAD Campaign effort directly to the existence of the British Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign which is grossly unfair to our Irish support base. Consequently in the interests of the historical record one will continue to rebut misunderstandings or misrepresentations etc that may arise from time to time about our previous campaign effort.
                        In conclusion, but for the input of Anglo-Irish division department of foreign affairs and the Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl effort along with the essential support of the various military connections here in Ireland and the fact that the British and Irish government’s priorities were focused at the time on progressing the Northern Ireland peace process to a successful conclusion there would have been no pardons granted in November 2006.
                        Is Mise
                        SAD Irl

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X