A very sad Anniversary today
Discussion
I wasn't aware of this anniversary, but (as it happens) appropriately enough I recently read "Death for Desertion", covering the case of SLt Edwin Dyett of the Royal Naval Division - he was 21 when he was shot for 'absenting himself from duty' during the Battle of the Ancre.
It seems pretty clear to me that SLt Dyett did take himself AWOL rather than go to the fight, and without any evidence of shell shock, nervous breakdown or other factors. He abandoned a party of wounded soldiers of his own division that he encountered, rather than report their position and so risk being sent into the action himself.
It was, in the baldest sense of the term, cowardice.
But he was also badly (barely) represented at his court martial, and circumstantial evidence strongly implies that he was, to an extent 'done in' by the prosecution whose main witness likely harboured existing ill-feeling towards him.
Even when found guilty, the court recommended that his sentence was commuted. But he became a pawn in wider military politics - there were growing grumbles in the Army that the Other Ranks were being treated more harshly for cases of cowardice than officers. So there needed to be an example made to 'redress the balance'. And Dyett was a naval officer serving in a division under Army control and jurisdiction, thus making him an attractive target to be that example.
Thus he was informed that the recommendation for mercy had, in fact, not been actioned just a couple of hours before the deed was done. He would be one of only three officers shot by firing squad in the war - one the other two being a 2nd Lieutenant who deserted and evaded the authorities for several months, then fatally shot the military policeman arresting him.
It seems pretty clear to me that SLt Dyett did take himself AWOL rather than go to the fight, and without any evidence of shell shock, nervous breakdown or other factors. He abandoned a party of wounded soldiers of his own division that he encountered, rather than report their position and so risk being sent into the action himself.
It was, in the baldest sense of the term, cowardice.
But he was also badly (barely) represented at his court martial, and circumstantial evidence strongly implies that he was, to an extent 'done in' by the prosecution whose main witness likely harboured existing ill-feeling towards him.
Even when found guilty, the court recommended that his sentence was commuted. But he became a pawn in wider military politics - there were growing grumbles in the Army that the Other Ranks were being treated more harshly for cases of cowardice than officers. So there needed to be an example made to 'redress the balance'. And Dyett was a naval officer serving in a division under Army control and jurisdiction, thus making him an attractive target to be that example.
Thus he was informed that the recommendation for mercy had, in fact, not been actioned just a couple of hours before the deed was done. He would be one of only three officers shot by firing squad in the war - one the other two being a 2nd Lieutenant who deserted and evaded the authorities for several months, then fatally shot the military policeman arresting him.
2xChevrons said:
I wasn't aware of this anniversary, but (as it happens) appropriately enough I recently read "Death for Desertion", covering the case of SLt Edwin Dyett of the Royal Naval Division - he was 21 when he was shot for 'absenting himself from duty' during the Battle of the Ancre.
It seems pretty clear to me that SLt Dyett did take himself AWOL rather than go to the fight, and without any evidence of shell shock, nervous breakdown or other factors. He abandoned a party of wounded soldiers of his own division that he encountered, rather than report their position and so risk being sent into the action himself.
It was, in the baldest sense of the term, cowardice.
But he was also badly (barely) represented at his court martial, and circumstantial evidence strongly implies that he was, to an extent 'done in' by the prosecution whose main witness likely harboured existing ill-feeling towards him.
Even when found guilty, the court recommended that his sentence was commuted. But he became a pawn in wider military politics - there were growing grumbles in the Army that the Other Ranks were being treated more harshly for cases of cowardice than officers. So there needed to be an example made to 'redress the balance'. And Dyett was a naval officer serving in a division under Army control and jurisdiction, thus making him an attractive target to be that example.
Thus he was informed that the recommendation for mercy had, in fact, not been actioned just a couple of hours before the deed was done. He would be one of only three officers shot by firing squad in the war - one the other two being a 2nd Lieutenant who deserted and evaded the authorities for several months, then fatally shot the military policeman arresting him.
Very informative, thank you.It seems pretty clear to me that SLt Dyett did take himself AWOL rather than go to the fight, and without any evidence of shell shock, nervous breakdown or other factors. He abandoned a party of wounded soldiers of his own division that he encountered, rather than report their position and so risk being sent into the action himself.
It was, in the baldest sense of the term, cowardice.
But he was also badly (barely) represented at his court martial, and circumstantial evidence strongly implies that he was, to an extent 'done in' by the prosecution whose main witness likely harboured existing ill-feeling towards him.
Even when found guilty, the court recommended that his sentence was commuted. But he became a pawn in wider military politics - there were growing grumbles in the Army that the Other Ranks were being treated more harshly for cases of cowardice than officers. So there needed to be an example made to 'redress the balance'. And Dyett was a naval officer serving in a division under Army control and jurisdiction, thus making him an attractive target to be that example.
Thus he was informed that the recommendation for mercy had, in fact, not been actioned just a couple of hours before the deed was done. He would be one of only three officers shot by firing squad in the war - one the other two being a 2nd Lieutenant who deserted and evaded the authorities for several months, then fatally shot the military policeman arresting him.
It's difficult to judge these cases after such a long time, without a national emergency ongoing etc.
I've read a fair few such executions where the victim had been given multiple chances but was in fact a "wrong 'un". In an army of six million it's inevitable there would be many who either broke under the pressure (who can blame them?) or didn't like authority, weren't a team player etc so abandoned their post.
Despite what 60's historians and Black Adder would have you think the Generals and others responsible for managing military discipline and law weren't idiots back then. They were doing their best with conflicting and difficult circumstances. I suspect they largely got the balance right as judged at the time, but as with any justice system, some suffered that shouldn't have.
I've read a fair few such executions where the victim had been given multiple chances but was in fact a "wrong 'un". In an army of six million it's inevitable there would be many who either broke under the pressure (who can blame them?) or didn't like authority, weren't a team player etc so abandoned their post.
Despite what 60's historians and Black Adder would have you think the Generals and others responsible for managing military discipline and law weren't idiots back then. They were doing their best with conflicting and difficult circumstances. I suspect they largely got the balance right as judged at the time, but as with any justice system, some suffered that shouldn't have.
Scarletpimpofnel said:
It's difficult to judge these cases after such a long time, without a national emergency ongoing etc.
I've read a fair few such executions where the victim had been given multiple chances but was in fact a "wrong 'un". In an army of six million it's inevitable there would be many who either broke under the pressure (who can blame them?) or didn't like authority, weren't a team player etc so abandoned their post.
Despite what 60's historians and Black Adder would have you think the Generals and others responsible for managing military discipline and law weren't idiots back then. They were doing their best with conflicting and difficult circumstances. I suspect they largely got the balance right as judged at the time, but as with any justice system, some suffered that shouldn't have.
Indeed.I've read a fair few such executions where the victim had been given multiple chances but was in fact a "wrong 'un". In an army of six million it's inevitable there would be many who either broke under the pressure (who can blame them?) or didn't like authority, weren't a team player etc so abandoned their post.
Despite what 60's historians and Black Adder would have you think the Generals and others responsible for managing military discipline and law weren't idiots back then. They were doing their best with conflicting and difficult circumstances. I suspect they largely got the balance right as judged at the time, but as with any justice system, some suffered that shouldn't have.
The lions led by donkeys is such a dated and inaccurate trope. The reality is quite fascinating, especially when you consider how we moved from a small colonial army to a vast mechanised all arms force. Put this against the Germans, who had been building their Prussian staff college model, which as the war progressed, was partly their undoing.
hidetheelephants said:
Shooting people dead because they're frightened out of their wits is not rational behaviour.
True. But that very very rarely happened so odd you mentioned it. It's almost as if you are uninformed as to how military discipline was actually implemented back then and get your knowledge of history from Blackadder??Scarletpimpofnel said:
hidetheelephants said:
Shooting people dead because they're frightened out of their wits is not rational behaviour.
True. But that very very rarely happened so odd you mentioned it. It's almost as if you are uninformed as to how military discipline was actually implemented back then and get your knowledge of history from Blackadder??I think Most of us know how military discipline was implemented. Please explain why you think that was rational, justified or in any way defensible?
I don’t see how references to Blackadder are relevant .
Edited by bad company on Monday 27th July 09:41
Gassing Station | History | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff