Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Anchorman on November 12, 2017, 12:06:46 AM
-
Today, we remember those in the forces who died in war - and society should never be allowed to foget them.
But there's a part of the war story which is neglected - the conshie.
Many were arrested and imprisoned for refusing to fight - or demonstrating against the wars in the first place, and because of the conviction they held.
Some were shot on the front line as cowards for refusing to kill.
Here's a thoughtful artical from a Scots newspaper - and, yes, I know it's old news, but it might start of a siscussion;
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13172243.Let_s_commemorate_the_WW1_objectors/
-
Today, we remember those in the forces who died in war - and society should never be allowed to foget them.
But there's a part of the war story which is neglected - the conshie.
Many were arrested and imprisoned for refusing to fight - or demonstrating against the wars in the first place, and because of the conviction they held.
Some were shot on the front line as cowards for refusing to kill.
Here's a thoughtful artical from a Scots newspaper - and, yes, I know it's old news, but it might start of a siscussion;
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13172243.Let_s_commemorate_the_WW1_objectors/
They could, of course, join the RAMC and many did! They did as their conscience required they worked to save lives rather than taking them.
Unforunately, just as with shell-shock, the attitude was criminally sadistic.
I think it was Kitchener who never refused to sign a death warrant on a charge of cowardice (for cowardice read shellshock!)
Just think, if this had been the case in WWII there would never have been a Goon Show!
-
I think it was Kitchener who never refused to sign a death warrant on a charge of cowardice (for cowardice read shellshock!)
You think all the soldiers who were found guilty of cowardice had shell shock?
-
Interesting to note that many of those shot in France were guilty of 'derertion'....but no soldier who deserted in dear old Blighty at the same time - and there were many - was shot for it.
-
Growing up in the '60's and '70's, I remember a local barber, Bert McCulloch, and was always puzzled why some passed him in the street and refused to talk to him.
I found out, later, that he had been a conshie - because he was a Plymouth Brethren.
He was sent down the mines to work - and the mining community ostracised him as well. Apparently, his fellow workers would urinate on his lunch - or replace it with faeces. He was forced to take his lunch underground in a locked cash box.
Things only improved when he saved three trapped miners from a seam which was unstable, at the risk to his own life.
However, for decades after the war, Bert was referred to, in conversation, as 'the conshie'.
It took a certain amount of guts to stand by one's convictions in the face
-
Today, we remember those in the forces who died in war - and society should never be allowed to foget them.
But there's a part of the war story which is neglected - the conshie.
Many were arrested and imprisoned for refusing to fight - or demonstrating against the wars in the first place, and because of the conviction they held.
Some were shot on the front line as cowards for refusing to kill.
Here's a thoughtful artical from a Scots newspaper - and, yes, I know it's old news, but it might start of a siscussion;
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13172243.Let_s_commemorate_the_WW1_objectors/
yes , thoughtful and disgusting
-
This makes me think of something I saw in my local town during the Iraq war, a middle aged woman with a candle and a home made cardboard sign saying ‘Peace Vigil’ being screamed at by a squaddie in uniform.
-
This makes me think of something I saw in my local town during the Iraq war, a middle aged woman with a candle and a home made cardboard sign saying ‘Peace Vigil’ being screamed at by a squaddie in uniform.
you cant have vigil without a candle; it's the law !
-
You think all the soldiers who were found guilty of cowardice had shell shock?
The vast majority were such victims. There have been several documentaries on the matter and when a soldier ran from the trenches on the front-line shell-shock was the usual culprit.
You, Jeremy, would, I have no doubt, have been of such a strong character that you would be able to watch your mates being blown to bits day after day with no more than a sardonic 'Oh bad luck Charlie/Gearge/Fred' etc!
-
you cant have vigil without a candle; it's the law !
Sarcie b*****d aren't you!
-
Interesting to note that many of those shot in France were guilty of 'derertion'....but no soldier who deserted in dear old Blighty at the same time - and there were many - was shot for it.
A couple of hundred were actually shot.
-
The vast majority were such victims. There have been several documentaries on the matter and when a soldier ran from the trenches on the front-line shell-shock was the usual culprit.
How do you know?
You, Jeremy, would, I have no doubt, have been of such a strong character that you would be able to watch your mates being blown to bits day after day with no more than a sardonic 'Oh bad luck Charlie/Gearge/Fred' etc!
It's a constant source of amazement to me that anybody stayed at the front. I presume I would not have deserted, but only because most people didn't.
-
How do you know?
It's a constant source of amazement to me that anybody stayed at the front. I presume I would not have deserted, but only because most people didn't.
This does not make your comments any more palatable.
-
Sarcie b*****d aren't you!
thank you for noticing , I try my best!
-
It's a constant source of amazement to me that anybody stayed at the front. I presume I would not have deserted, but only because most people didn't.
I'd have found somewhere to hide and crept out after the gunfire stopped and rejoined the troops.
-
Should we remember them?
I think we should and there's a need to show lots of respect to the nearest and dearest of the dead that we haven't forgotten the sacrifice their loved ones have made, well the dead of course they're gone and wont now anything about it.
ippy
-
I'd have found somewhere to hide and crept out after the gunfire stopped and rejoined the troops.
from: jeremyp on Today at 11:40:37
It's a constant source of amazement to me that anybody stayed at the front. I presume I would not have deserted, but only because most people didn't.
Which both show just how much stress it must have taken to drive those who did to run!
-
It's a constant source of amazement to me that anybody stayed at the front. I presume I would not have deserted, but only because most people didn't.
There I think it would have been a case of safety in numbers.
Deserters were well aware that if caught they would most likely be shot. Some were, of course. You can shoot one; you can shoot ten; you can shoot twenty; possibly even fifty. Once you get to five hundred or a thousand men - more - shooting them becomes a far trickier prospect, especially given that the men we're talking about were by definition armed.
Any revolt relies on taking a large number of others along with you to succeed.
-
There I think it would have been a case of safety in numbers.
Deserters were well aware that if caught they would most likely be shot. Some were, of course. You can shoot one; you can shoot ten; you can shoot twenty; possibly even fifty. Once you get to five hundred or a thousand men - more - shooting them becomes a far trickier prospect, especially given that the men we're talking about were by definition armed.
Any revolt relies on taking a large number of others along with you to succeed.
look at the horror,, I have no words !
https://youtu.be/fHuNQER_8rI
-
Look at the horror,, I have no words !
https://youtu.be/fHuNQER_8rI
And that is a santised version for the viewing public!
Imagine if even this version were in full colour!
-
And that is a santised version for the viewing public!
Imagine if even this version were in full colour!
too much as it is !!!
-
Yes, we should.
-
A couple of hundred were actually shot.
I read Anchorman as meaning that people were shot by the British for deserting in France but not deserting in the UK. That seems to be correct, as far as I can find on a quick trawl.
-
I read Anchorman as meaning that people were shot by the British for deserting in France but not deserting in the UK. That seems to be correct, as far as I can find on a quick trawl.
I seem to remember a BBC programme that dealt with this subject but for the life of me can't remember the title,
I think it was part dramatized with one of them McGann brothers in it .
-
I seem to remember a BBC programme that dealt with this subject but for the life of me can't remember the title,
I think it was part dramatized with one of them McGann brothers in it .
The Monocled Mutineer
-
This does not make your comments any more palatable.
What? The comment where I challenged your assertion for which you provided no evidence? If you find it unpalatable when people challenge you to provide evidence for your statements, you probably should find a different forum.
-
There I think it would have been a case of safety in numbers.
Deserters were well aware that if caught they would most likely be shot. Some were, of course. You can shoot one; you can shoot ten; you can shoot twenty; possibly even fifty. Once you get to five hundred or a thousand men - more - shooting them becomes a far trickier prospect, especially given that the men we're talking about were by definition armed.
Any revolt relies on taking a large number of others along with you to succeed.
Only a couple of hundred people were actually shot in the end. Several thousand were convicted and presumably punished in other ways.
Shell shock, which I think we would recognise as a form of PTSD nowadays, was a recognised illness even then, although its nature was disputed. Some people thought it involved physical damage to the brain, some thought it psychological, but surprisingly for the time, people didn't seem to think of it as a form of cowardice.
-
And that is a santised version for the viewing public!
Erich Junger's Storm of Steel is a classic text describing WW1 from the point of view of a German soldier on the Western Front. He describes a phenomenon called "drum fire". It was basically, when artillery shells exploded so frequently that it sounded like a drum roll. Can you imagine how many shells must be landing in your vicinity for that to be the case.
At one point during his description of the Somme Offensive, Junger recalls how the artillery fire "subsided to drum fire". i.e. it was even more intense even than that.
I cannot imagine how it must have felt to e there.
-
Only a couple of hundred people were actually shot in the end. Several thousand were convicted and presumably punished in other ways.
Shell shock, which I think we would recognise as a form of PTSD nowadays, was a recognised illness even then, although its nature was disputed. Some people thought it involved physical damage to the brain, some thought it psychological, but surprisingly for the time, people didn't seem to think of it as a form of cowardice.
As far again as a quick trawl it was 306 for the UK. Surely the point of Shaker's post is if you see that as a large % of those deserting in France, see Anchorman's comment, that it is a balancing of risk?
-
Erich Junger's Storm of Steel is a classic text describing WW1 from the point of view of a German soldier on the Western Front. He describes a phenomenon called "drum fire". It was basically, when artillery shells exploded so frequently that it sounded like a drum roll. Can you imagine how many shells must be landing in your vicinity for that to be the case.
At one point during his description of the Somme Offensive, Junger recalls how the artillery fire "subsided to drum fire". i.e. it was even more intense even than that.
I cannot imagine how it must have felt to e there.
. . . but you would have stood your ground as it got closer and closer, louder and louder, no matter how many times you had heard it before, no matter how many of your friends were no longer with you because of it, no matter how many you had seen mutilated or in very small bits or just a bloody smear in the mud . . . ?
-
The Monocled Mutineer
yes , I'm aware of that prograph , its actually on telly at the moment but its not the one I was thinking of .
I may be confused but you'll never catch me.
-
. . . but you would have stood your ground as it got closer and closer, louder and louder, no matter how many times you had heard it before, no matter how many of your friends were no longer with you because of it, no matter how many you had seen mutilated or in very small bits or just a bloody smear in the mud . . . ?
Is there a reason you misrepresented what jeremyp said to this extent?
-
Is there a reason you misrepresented what jeremyp said to this extent?
Yes, his comments in earlier posts about how cowardly anyone who ran was.
-
Yes, his comments in earlier posts about how cowardly anyone who ran was.
No, he didn't say that at all. He questioned whether everyone shot for "cowardice" had shell shock. Not the same thing at all.misrepresenting him.
-
. . . but you would have stood your ground as it got closer and closer, louder and louder, no matter how many times you had heard it before, no matter how many of your friends were no longer with you because of it, no matter how many you had seen mutilated or in very small bits or just a bloody smear in the mud . . . ?
I honestly don't know if I would. The people who were there mostly did, so I assume that I probably would have too, but none of us have been through what those people went through. How can we say for certain we would have stood our ground?
-
Yes, his comments in earlier posts about how cowardly anyone who ran was.
Did I say that? No I didn't. I merely disputed your assertion that they were mostly shell shocked.