Should we remember them?

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Owlswing]

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 . . . ?

[Walter]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

. . . 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?

[Owlswing]

 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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

. . . 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?

[jeremyp]

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.