As you will no doubt have read or heard on TV/Radio the Defence Secretary Des Browne intends to seek pardons for more than 300 men shot for military offences during World War I.
The family of one soldier shot have been campaigning for years. They argue that there relative was suffering from shell shock.
Mr Browne said that, after 90 years, "the evidence just doesn't exist inside the cases individually".
"I don't want to be in a position of second guessing the commanders in the field who were making decisions," he added.
But injustices "were clearly done".
"We can't be in a situation morally where we cannot redress injustices because we don't have paperwork in relation to an individual case.
"But we can in other cases where we have some paperwork."
Now this puzzles me why only world war I and not other wars? I believe that one of the reasons given was that there are relatives alive today who knew the soldiers shot.
Why stop at "injustices" in World War 1 ? What about the Boer War, Zulu Wars, Crimea ad infinitum.
Mr Browne's actions may appear laudable, because some soldiers shot were undoubtedly suffering from shell shock and related conditions, but he admits that he doesn't have the evidence.
What concerns me is that we are trying to judge the past. Actions need to be judged in the context of the times not by applying the standards of today. If you start doing that where do you stop? I imagine many historical figures would be judged harshly by todays standards.
If you think of the jury system we have today it refers to "peers". Peers must have the same reference point as those being prosecuted.
Mr Browne may have the best of intentions, the families of soldiers shot may feel aggrieved, but I think he is mistaken.
5 comments:
This is a very tricky area. I suspect the government has just taken the path of least resistance.
and now are the men in the firing squads going to be called murderers?
or the Generals that ordered the executions war criminals?
'pour encourage les autres' was a charge that was ofter levied at an accused soldier. we cannot rewrite History, we can try to learn from it.
anon. dave..
Agree with Roger. of course in theory you're absolutely right - in practice it's probably kinder as well as easier to choose the route they have.
Well, let's hope they DO learn from it. Execution for "cowardice" is wrong surely, I am sure it doesn't occur today as the death sentence no longer exists for other crimes.
I was going to say we still do for treason and military crimes BUT that was revoked apparently
I agree execution for cowardice is wrong but I suspect at the time it would have been perfectly acceptable.
I suspect in 100 years time perfectly "normal" views now will be frowned upon.
Post a Comment