Stretcher-Bearers and Signing Up

[Magnumbellum]

I thought that would be the case myself, but another Internet forum for things like this told me if he had lived in England for two years, he would be legally considered "a British subject, born in Ireland, resident in England", rather than an "Irishman," so I'm hoping that will be the case. In that scenario, he would have been conscripted and sent before a tribunal like others, as he moved to Liverpool because of other circumstances (to find employment.) This means he'd hopefully end up with the RAMC, like you suggested. If that doesn't work, he can volunteer and be assigned to them that way. I know a little about the civilian ambulance services but for the purposes of the novel, my character does need to be resident in the trenches so the RAMC is probably my best bet.

There remain a minor misunderstanding and a major difficulty. The misunderstanding was about being "sent" before a tribunal. No-one was sent before a tribunal; one applied to a tribunal and was then invited ti appear before it. There was no compulsion to attend, but, of course, if one failed to appear, one was unlikely to receive sympathetic consideration.

The difficulty is that a tribunal had no power to order or arrange for a man to be allocated to the RAMC. Among a tribunal's powers was that of ordering that a man be enlisted but to perform non-combatant service only. It was then for the military authorities to decide the disposition of such a man. Theoretically such a man might have been posted to the RAMC, with personal protection for his non-combatant (in the sense of the Military Service Act, irrespective of the Geneva Conventions) status, but I am not aware of such a case ever actually happening in WW1 (it did occasionally happen in WW2, but that is a different story). Indeed, there is the case of Alfred Evans, one of the 35 formally sentenced to death, but reprieved (mentioned elsewhere on GWF). He was very willing to serve in the RAMC, and accepted non-combatant military service under the impression that he would be posted to the RAMC - only to find himself in the Non-Combatant Corps, and si the cycle of disoedience, court-martial and imprisonment began.

The only secure way for the characters in the novel to end up in the RAMC is for them to have volunteered for the RAMC, as a number of men did so do well before conscription, on the basis that they were willing to contribute, but as non-combatants. It would simplify the story, as well making it more realistic, if their volunteering was not later than the end of 1915, .and they volunteered at a recruiting office in Ireland. Forget the complications of moving to Liverpool, conscriptions, tribunals etc. There is the notional possibility of such men being forcibly transferred to the infantry, as I mentioned did happen, but as it did not happen in every case, there is no need to mention it if it does not form part of the story.

[Doc2]

Doc, did you teach the current Geneva Convention, or did you look into the past ones? I ask as I have researched the arming of medical personel from the 1906 Geneva Convention in WW1, and compared to later versions it is horrendously vague in certain areas and open to a lot of interpretation.

http://www.vlib.us/medical/geneva.htm

"CHAPTER III.--PERSONNEL.

Article 9.

The personnel engaged exclusively in the collection, transport, and treatment of the wounded and the sick, as well as in the administration of medical units and establishments, and the Chaplains attached to armies, shall be respected and protected under all circumstances. If they fall into the hands of the enemy they shall not be treated as prisoners of war.

These provisions apply to the Guard of medical units and establishments under the circumstances indicated in Article 8 (2)."

"Article 20.

The personnel protected in pursuance of Articles 9 (paragraph 1), 10, and 11 shall wear, fixed to the left arm, an armlet (brassard) with a red cross on a white ground, delivered and stamped by the competent military authority, and accompanied by a certificate of identity in the case of persons who are attached to the medical service of armies, but who have not a military uniform."

I know of the same example Centurion has mentioned, and this seems to pivot on how you define "exclusively engaged" and the protective power of the red cross armband. Does this rule out combat duties completely, or merely whilst under the protection of the armband on medical duties? It reads more like the former, but the Officer clearly interpreted it in the latter way - relinquishing his protection when engaged on combat matters, and only resuming it once these had been completed.

Yes, I have studied the earlier versions as well. I agree that the 1906 was a bit vague in places, but I do not agree that this is one of them. "exclusively engaged" has been interpreted by most countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross as I expressed it in my previous post. The "in and out" type of protection has always been abhored by the ICRC. Of most interest to me at this time, though, is the comment by Magnumbellum that "1. In a battle emergency, the Army hierarchy had, and still has (my emphasis), the right to call on RAMC personnel to take up arms and join hostilities generally, " Though he does not specifically claim that such personnel could then regain protected status, he seems to be claiming that the UK military currently has a policy allowing the "in and out" type of protection, which seems to me to be clearly a violation of the current agreements. As regards the example given by Centurion, I don't doubt that it has happened (and in fact that it may have happened many times in many militaries), but I would argue that the subsequent attempt to regain protected status was a violation of the Convention. Nothing wrong with the officer taking command and going into combat (I wonder if he actually completely divested himself of his Geneva Conventions identification, etc. before doing so), but after that time most authorities would say that he could not then regain protected status. "Today I am a medic/Tomorrow I will be an infantryman/The next day I will be a medic again" is an approach which the ICRC does not accept. That is why Special Forces Aidmen, who are combatants with medical training, do not carry any Geneva Convention protection. Doc

[centurion]

As regards the example given by Centurion, I don't doubt that it has happened (and in fact that it may have happened many times in many militaries), but I would argue that the subsequent attempt to regain protected status was a violation of the Convention. Nothing wrong with the officer taking command and going into combat (I wonder if he actually completely divested himself of his Geneva Conventions identification, etc. before doing so), but after that time most authorities would say that he could not then regain protected status. "Today I am a medic/Tomorrow I will be an infantryman/The next day I will be a medic again" is an approach which the ICRC does not accept. That is why Special Forces Aidmen, who are combatants with medical training, do not carry any Geneva Convention protection. Doc

In fact the officer in question relinquished command after the emergency although requested to remain as a fighting soldier (his performance had been superior to many professional soldiers) and returned to work as a battalion MO

[Magnumbellum]

Yes, I have studied the earlier versions as well. I agree that the 1906 was a bit vague in places, but I do not agree that this is one of them. "exclusively engaged" has been interpreted by most countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross as I expressed it in my previous post. The "in and out" type of protection has always been abhored by the ICRC. Of most interest to me at this time, though, is the comment by Magnumbellum that "1. In a battle emergency, the Army hierarchy had, and still has (my emphasis), the right to call on RAMC personnel to take up arms and join hostilities generally, " Though he does not specifically claim that such personnel could then regain protected status, he seems to be claiming that the UK military currently has a policy allowing the "in and out" type of protection, which seems to me to be clearly a violation of the current agreements. As regards the example given by Centurion, I don't doubt that it has happened (and in fact that it may have happened many times in many militaries), but I would argue that the subsequent attempt to regain protected status was a violation of the Convention. Nothing wrong with the officer taking command and going into combat (I wonder if he actually completely divested himself of his Geneva Conventions identification, etc. before doing so), but after that time most authorities would say that he could not then regain protected status. "Today I am a medic/Tomorrow I will be an infantryman/The next day I will be a medic again" is an approach which the ICRC does not accept. That is why Special Forces Aidmen, who are combatants with medical training, do not carry any Geneva Convention protection. Doc

This is an unusually complicated thread, because there are, in effect, two discussions taking place almost in parallel, arising from two separate parameters for the status of "non-combatant". There is the status of non-combatant as established and defined by the Military Service Act 1916, specifically relating to the Great War, but re-established by the Military Training Act 1939, the National Service (Armed Forces) Act 1939 and the National Service (Armed Forces) Act 1948. Those three British Acts were specifically made within the provision for conscientious objection in the face of conscription, and without reference to the Geneva Conventions, particularly in view of the fact that the great majority of conscientious objectors did not work in the medical field and had no special relationship to the Conventions. Then there are the Geneva Conventions relating to medical personnel operating within the armed forces, and the great majority of them are not and never have been conscientious objectors and most have never requested that type of non-combatant status.

I have no special knowledge of the Geneva Conventions and still less of the provisions for non-combatant status of military medical personnel under the Conventions. I do, however, have some knowledge of British legislation and procedure in relation ro conscientious objection and non-combatant status within that. As I have tried to set out, my researches have made me aware of three things:

1. A number of men who voluntarily enlisted in the RAMC in 1914/15, before conscription, on the basis that they wanted to perform a non-combatant humanitarian role, found themselves in 1918 compulsorily transferred to infantry regiments, and thise who refused were court-martialled and imprisoned. As volunteers they were told that they had no protection under military law for their non-combatant status, and, again as volunteers, they could not avail themselves of the provision for conscientious objection under conscription. The question whether this compulsory transfer to the infantry was a breach of the Conventions does not appear to have been raised by anyone at the time, although the moral breach of contract by the army was taken up in a small way by the conscientious objection movement. I would be interested to hear what comments Geneva Conventions experts may make on this matter.

2. When at the beginning of WW2 a question was asked of the War Office what units of the Army were wholly non-combatant, the answer was, only the Army Corps of Chaplains.

3. When, also in WW2, a limited number of conscientious objectors were admitted to the RAMC as non-combatants within the meaning of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, they were told that they were not eligible for promotion because an NCO or officer within the RAMC might be called upon at any time to take command in a battle situation. Later, the RAMC ceased to admit non-combatant (within the meaning of the National Service Act) soldiers, because of the claimed difficulty in ensuring the maintenance of their personal non-combatant status within a body not so protected under that Act.

My grounds for relating this to the present day are that I am not aware of any announcement or any recruiting literature which indicates any change from the status and procedures as operated in both world wars. This view is reinforced by the experience of a medical assistant in the RN who is currently attempting to claim discharge on the grounds of conscientious objection, having, amongst other things, been required to undergo rifle training preparatory to deployment to Afghanistan.

[Doc2]

MagnumBellum, you are correct that two different issues have been wound up here (non-combatant status in UK national law and non-combatant status under the Geneva Conventions)-- sorry for hijacking your thread. In response to your questions, the whole issue of "non-combatant status" in national law and that of conscientious objectors is not of any relevance to the Geneva Conventions. Under the conventions, "Non-Combatant" is clearly defined. As regards military medical or religious personnel, it is a given status which is job-based, not based on personal beliefs or on national laws. Your illustration of people who were declared "non-combatants" under British military law, and then later were forced to become combatants is simply not relevant to the Geneva Conventions. Under the Conventions, unless the personnel were civilian, medical, or religious personnel, their "non-combatant status" would give them no special protections. If they were in uniform and were captured, they would have been treated as POWs, not as "detained personnel", which is the categorisation for "protected (i.e. medical or religious) personnel" under the Conventions.

In defense of myself, I must admit that I thought you were originally discussing non-combatants in the Convention sense, as my military does not have any provisions for other "non-combatant" status other than serving as medics or medical personnel-- I was not aware of that distinction in UK law. Back when we had the draft, Conscientious Objectors normally were assigned to medical units. Doc

[Liz in Eastbourne]

Going back to Adolescent Author's original query: AA, since you're never going to be able to reconcile all the aspects of your storyline, are you keenest on stretcher-bearers or conscientious objectors?

Because if the former I've just had a brilliant idea.

They could be members of a brass band, so that they'd be able to be bandsmen in the army .

This brainwave has come to me on account of writing about the stretcher-bearers at Flers on the 21/KRRC thread just now, and then reading Grumpy's post in the 'Role of 2nd Lts' thread in 'Soldiers', mentioning that the bandsmen were always stretcher-bearers, augmented by other soldiers as required.

Maybe I'll write this one myself...or has it been done already?

Liz

[centurion]

Going back to Adolescent Author's original query: AA, since you're never going to be able to reconcile all the aspects of your storyline, are you keenest on stretcher-bearers or conscientious objectors?

Because if the former I've just had a brilliant idea.

They could be members of a brass band, so that they'd be able to be bandsmen in the army .

This brainwave has come to me on account of writing about the stretcher-bearers at Flers on the 21/KRRC thread just now, and then reading Grumpy's post in the 'Role of 2nd Lts' thread in 'Soldiers', mentioning that the bandsmen were always stretcher-bearers, augmented by other soldiers as required.

Maybe I'll write this one myself...or has it been done already?

Liz

Works (sort of) pre war but I doubt very much that during the war they'd be able to enlist as bandsmen. Many service battalions probably didn't have a band (at least not at first). Effectively you enlisted and the army decided where to slot you. Your preference for unit might well be honoured but I wouldn't count on much else.

[Liz in Eastbourne]

Works (sort of) pre war but I doubt very much that during the war they'd be able to enlist as bandsmen. Many service battalions probably didn't have a band (at least not at first). Effectively you enlisted and the army decided where to slot you. Your preference for unit might well be honoured but I wouldn't count on much else.

Well, I was more than half-joking - thought we ought to open the thread up a bit, do a bit of lateral thinking and find ways of being more likely to be a stretcher-bearer, as AA wanted them to have that role - but the novel's protagonists wouldn't have to have the plan sorted out in advance, it could just happen.

My usual source of info on life in the 21/KRRC, Dennis, says the battalion soon had its own buglers once they got to Aldershot. One was badly wounded at Flers doing his work as a stretcher-bearer along with 'other bandsmen'. They didn't enlist as buglers of course but prior experience would surely have helped. It's at least possible, unlike the original scenario, if you make it happen more by chance than intention.

I do not seriously imagine AA wants to write about this, it just struck me as interesting that you'd have a very good chance of carrying stretchers on the battlefield if you were a soldier-musician but none if you were a conscientious objector.

Liz

[centurion]

They didn't enlist as buglers of course but prior experience would surely have helped. It's at least possible, unlike the original scenario, if you make it happen more by chance than intention.

My Grand father (RDF) was an accomplished, Irish, professional musician who enlisted in 1915. He was never a bandsman in any shape or form.

[kenf48]

surprised none of the original contributors noted this discussion on stretcher bearers/bandsmen from 2007

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=87528

but then again...

Ken

[Liz in Eastbourne]

My Grand father (RDF) was an accomplished, Irish, professional musician who enlisted in 1915. He was never a bandsman in any shape or form.

Oh well then, that makes it absolutely impossible.

surprised none of the original contributors noted this discussion on stretcher bearers/bandsmen from 2007

http://1914-1918.inv...showtopic=87528

but then again...

Ken

Thanks, that's very interesting.

Liz

[centurion]

Prior to 1856 military bands were manned by civilians employed by the regiment concerned and provided with uniforms by the same. The government provided no funds. It was not uncommon for a bandmaster to be contracted by the regiment to supply a band. One should note that pipers, drummers and buglers were seperate and provided from within the ranks of the soldiers as these had an entirely different function. Bandsmen had not "taken the Queens shilling" and could not be employed as combatants. They usually wore a distinctive uniform consisting of a coat of the facing colour of the regiment with red facings. Sometimes red stripes would also be sewn on the cost. Being civilians, clearly distinguishable as such, they were better placed to bring in the wounded and it seems to have been generally understood that one did not shoot at bandsmen.

In 1856 the then Secretary of State for War decided that the government did have a responsibility to provide some resources and the following year the " Military Music Class " at Kneller Hall was founded to train army muscians. This grew into the Royal Military School of Music, established to train bandmasters who "would be more directly con­nected with their regiments than the previous civilian contractors had been, and who would in all cases remain with the band, either at home or abroad". Military bands men then became a form of soldier but still recruited under different terms from the fighting man and not subject to the same training and discipline. In peacetime many held down civilian jobs at the same time and many London concert orchestras contained some military musicians. Not having military training it still made sense to use such men to supplement the medical orderlies. Being by now a uniformed soldier there was no reason legally why they could not be combatant but they wouldn't have the necessary skills. Bandsmen (as opposed to pipers, drummers and buglers) were usually recruited directly as such and it would be unusual for men to be transferred from the fighting troops. An aptitude for a particular instrument was usually a requirement for recruitment. The heyday of the British military band was the last half of the 19th century. A typical infantry regiment's band would be between 40 to 80 strong. Some were as small as 20. The largest was the RA band at 93 (which was still the largest at the outbreak of war in 1914)

In WW1 whilst the bands survived there was no expansion to match the explosion in size of the army as a whole. As far as one can see important 'holes' in well known regimental bands might be filled by direct recruitment but new battalions would use their pipers, drummers and buglers to provide band functions.

Pipers, drummers and buglers were infantry soldiers belonging to each Battalion. Pre war they might have been recruited as boys, others might be transferred from the ordinary rank and file. Some units used them to assist the medical orderlies but this was not universal and they might be trained in and assigned other duties - Lewis gun teams was one such role.

So it would be very unlikely that a man with musical experience would be enlisted (or conscripted) and find himself in the role of a bandsman (hence my example Liz) and hence a stretcher bearer. If he could skirl a bagpipe, blow a flute or bugle or bang a drum he might be employed to do this but could still be asked to fulfil a combatant role

[truthergw]

How closely would the authorities look into it if an irishman claimed to be english and registered? It doesn't get round any of the other problems but would anyone care greatly if an inelligible man made himself eligible for conscription?

I honestly don't know. The only snag that I can see from the point of view of the authorities is that he might change his mind and ' un-volunteer'. I am thinking of under age lads fibbing about their age and the trouble that caused. It was an offence to lie under oath regardless of the intention.

Since the proposed story is fiction, does it matter if these arcane legal points are factual? A good story will rise above stuff like that. Incidentally, " The Great Push", by Patrick MacGill is a fictionalised account of an Irish soldier of the London Irish serving as a stretcher bearer at Loos. It was written by a well regarded working class poet and author who had served with the London Irish as a stretcher bearer. If you have not read this little book, it might be worth a look.

[CarylW]

The closest your man might get is if he joined the Friends Ambulance Unit (FAU) a uniformed Quaker organisation. Its members drove ambulances and helped in dressing stations.They worked in cooperation with military personel - quite a bit with the French who regarded them as eccentric but useful. However they were not stretcher bearers in the sense of collecting and moving the wounded from the battlefield and would not be used as such as they were still civilians and not under military discipline and were not employed where they might come into contact with the enemy (indeed it might have been illegal to use them in this situation). When conscription began in Britain they were exempted whereupon many left the FAU, thus making themselves subject to call up and then refused to serve. Some ended up in the Non Combatant Corps (where they supplemented Labour units) whilst others went to jail.

If you want to put your character in this role then he should originate from Lurgan which was the centre of Irish Quakerism. However as you've stated it your plot won't fly I'm afraid.

Came across a sad case in a newspaper article, about a conscientious objector who committed suicide some time after serving with the 'Quakers' Ambulance in France'. He resigned because "...he thought the work more military than civil". His personal opinion maybe. Anyone wanting details of the full article I'll send it to them

(Just adding that out of interest, not to agree or disagree with any party!)

Caryl

'

[kenf48]

(Just adding that out of interest, not to agree or disagree with any party!)

Caryl

'

but however hard you try...

Ken

[CarylW]

but however hard you try...

Ken

Shhhh..........

[Magnumbellum]

Came across a sad case in a newspaper article, about a conscientious objector who committed suicide some time after serving with the 'Quakers' Ambulance in France'. He resigned because "...he thought the work more military than civil". His personal opinion maybe. Anyone wanting details of the full article I'll send it to them

(Just adding that out of interest, not to agree or disagree with any party!)

So far as is known, no other member of the Friends Ambulalance Unit was moved to suicide, but there was some controversy amongst Quakers about the military associations of the FAU, and some wondered afterwards whether they had taken the right course.

There were also those like Corder Catchpool, mentioned on another thread, who resigned from the FAU on the introduction of conscription.

[tony paley]

Thank you for this information. It's really useful! However, for the purposes of plot my character does need to be in the trenches, so I think I'm going to go with the RAMC on this one and have him either volunteer or be sent there after tribunal (the latter being in the case that he might be legally considered a "British subject, born in Ireland and resident in England", which is apparently a possibility. I think this will definitely be helpful for other aspects of the plot, though, so really thank you very much!

Up until 1922 surely anyone born in Ireland, North or South, was British. Ireland was part of the UK although Irishmen were not conscripted. I know all of my Maternal and some Paternal relatives born prior to 1922 were British subjects.

Tony P.

[centurion]

Up until 1922 surely anyone born in Ireland, North or South, was British. Ireland was part of the UK although Irishmen were not conscripted. I know all of my Maternal and some Paternal relatives born prior to 1922 were British subjects.

Tony P.

The legislation for conscription was enabling, that is to say once the act was passed conscription could be introduced in any part of the UK when and as the government wished by administrative order. For political reasons such orders were not introduced for Ireland until nearly the end of the war and they were never actioned. An Irishman living in mainland UK was technically subject to conscription if he were deemed to be resident in that part of the UK. However a great many Irishmen were working in the UK mainland at the time and if they went home to avoid conscription there could have been serious consequences on the war effort (as well as the political effects of having large numbers of unemployed men at a loose end in Ireland). For this reason it would seem that in practice the residential rule was not applied to Irishmen. Plenty enlisted though.

[truthergw]

Further to Centurian's post. The government was in a cleft stick. It needed men but it was very reluctant to arm and train people, some of whom had already risen in armed rebellion in 1916. One of the arguments against conscription generally was the realisation that the militant shipyard workers of Clydeside would be so trained and armed.

To return to the OP's quandary. If your protagonist needs to be an Irish stretcher bearer in the trenches,he needs to have volunteered to join the army and was then made a stretcher bearer. In Highland regiments, many members of the pipes and drums were stretcher bearers. I should also point out that before a battle, men were designated as stretcher bearers regardless of their normal role. I would guess, without evidence, that the CO would be appointing cooks, storemen, men who normally worked in the rear but not specialists like signallers, pioneers and so on then numbers would be made up from riflemen.

Edited to remove age enhancement.

[Magnumbellum]

Came across a sad case in a newspaper article, about a conscientious objector who committed suicide some time after serving with the 'Quakers' Ambulance in France'. He resigned because "...he thought the work more military than civil". His personal opinion maybe. Anyone wanting details of the full article I'll send it to them

(Just adding that out of interest, not to agree or disagree with any party!).

To ensure that this man is recorded in the Peace Pledge Union CO database, could you kindly send details of the article to the PPU Archivist:

archives@ppu.org.uk

Thanks

[centurion]

Further to Centenarian's post.

Please I'm not THAT old

[Liz in Eastbourne]

<snip>

So it would be very unlikely that a man with musical experience would be enlisted (or conscripted) and find himself in the role of a bandsman (hence my example Liz) and hence a stretcher bearer. If he could skirl a bagpipe, blow a flute or bugle or bang a drum he might be employed to do this but could still be asked to fulfil a combatant role

Thanks for all the extra info, Centenaurion!

I did realise the buglers etc could still be asked to fight, hence my asking AA which aspect of the story he was most determined to retain.

Going back to Tom's point about fiction, I think if a novel purports to deal with the impact of WW1 on individual lives, it's all right if things are made to happen which were rare, but could happen in the circumstances, but not if they simply could not have happened. Otherwise you're not dealing with WW1: the framework needs to be authentic and the imagination comes in with the individual story. If I read in a novel of a man signing up as stretcher bearer because he was a conscientious objector and being able to go into the trenches with combatant soldiers when that never happened, then I lose trust in the author. But if it was rare for a musician to be able to be a bandsman, but not impossible that it could happen by luck, that's acceptable, in my book.

Liz

[truthergw]

Please I'm not THAT old

Oops! Mea culpa. Centurion as is and was.

[truthergw]

Thanks for all the extra info, Centenaurion!

I did realise the buglers etc could still be asked to fight, hence my asking AA which aspect of the story he was most determined to retain.

Going back to Tom's point about fiction, I think if a novel purports to deal with the impact of WW1 on individual lives, it's all right if things are made to happen which were rare, but could happen in the circumstances, but not if they simply could not have happened. Otherwise you're not dealing with WW1: the framework needs to be authentic and the imagination comes in with the individual story. If I read in a novel of a man signing up as stretcher bearer because he was a conscientious objector and being able to go into the trenches with combatant soldiers when that never happened, then I lose trust in the author. But if it was rare for a musician to be able to be a bandsman, but not impossible that it could happen by luck, that's acceptable, in my book.

Liz

I am a fan of science fiction and fantasy. Perhaps my credulity threshold is lower than yours, Liz. I reckon a good author or a good story will induce that required suspension of disbelief. I know what you are saying though and totally agree. To get his/her Irishman into the situation described will require a very ingenious plotline.