Significance of Demobilisation Dates

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Does anyone know whether there was a system in place concerning the date at which soldiers were demobilised? I stress demobilised and not disembodied as I am not concerned with territorials at the present time.

Specifically:

Was it a case of first in, first out?

Were returned POWs demobilised earlier?

Were returned POWs of the same battalion and approximately the same service demobbed at the same time?

I have in my own researches seen the punishment of being dropped to the bottom of the list for demobilisation used for offenders who overstayed UK leave post 11 November 1918.

Any thoughts and advice welcome.

Ian

[Ski]

Ian,

This is one that has never seemed clear cut to me either.

From my research i think it was simply the case of luck as to weather a man's discharge came before a man of longer service. However, there were obviously cases where men had to be released early or kept longer for specific reasons.

I suppose when it came to breaking up the Service Battlions, which seem's to have been done bit by bit rather than one mass discharge of a Battalion at once, then a certain number of NCO's would be needed right until the end to keep discipline. So effectivly longer serving men remaining while those with less service and in turn not nco's were discharged.

Also, I've noticed in my research that it is not always the case that POW's have an earlier discharge than a non POW of the same Battalion.

I think that alot of it comes down to the age old problem of Army Organisation and paperwork. I suspect there is a system in there somewhere, but i'll be B******d if i can find it!

Ski

[DirtyDick]

I did read (Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War (?)) that skilled tradesmen and miners, needed to rebuild industry, were also given priority for release from the Army etc., although how effective was its actual implementation I cannot say.

Richard

[jhill]

Does anyone know whether there was a system in place concerning the date at which soldiers were demobilised?  I stress demobilised and not disembodied as I am not concerned with territorials at the present time.

Specifically:

Was it a case of first in, first out?

Although I cannot answer this, I can point out that the Canadian case is addressed in Nicholson's official history, and I am sure many of the social and political pressures were similar among the various services.

1. The government initially insisted that demobilization be on a strict "first in, first out" basis. This was undoubtably due to the incredible pressure in this sense on the government by the public. The generals at the front, however, objected. The Canadian Corps was part of the Army of Occupation, and could not function effectively if its units were broken up in this way. In particular, supporting units often had long serving men while infantry units, exposed to high casualties, did not. The compromise reached was that the Canadian Corps would demobilize by units; everyone else was "first in, first out".

2. The Canadian (and other Dominion) situation was a bit different in that the process was dependent on shipping. This tended to space things out a bit.

3. Outside the Corps (which included most men) men were grouped into 34 categories. The term of the war was divided into 17 three month periods, representing the time of enlistment, and for each period men were grouped as being married or single. Thus married had precidence over single, and early enlistments over later.

4. Most men (and units in the Canadian Corps) were regrouped before embarkation according to their final destination in Canada. The theory was that when a ship was available, it embarked the next group of men in line. There was also a considerable organization for demobilization once they arrived at the other side (capacity was about 45,000 - 50,000 per month).

5. All said and done, the system performed adequately, but there were problems. Many infantry units, having had continual casualties, contained many new men. When these units returned to Canada, there was resentment from men in less dangerous situations who had been out longer. There were also a small number of exceptions to the "first in, first out" rule. The authorities seem not to have done a good job explaining these to the troops. The disturbances at places like Kinmel may have been exacerbated by this.

6. The bad feelings between conscripts and volunteers may also have affected things.

I suspect some of these issues were also at play in the UK case.

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Guys - Thanks for the comments. My reason for asking this question is that my great uncle was discharged on the same day as several others from his battalion who were all returned POWs - these guys were all captured on 21 March 1918 and strangely demobbed on 21 March 1919!

The only thing he has in common with one of them is that they enlisted on the same day 5 September 1914 (they have successive regt'l numbers.)

Ian

[Cliff. Hobson]

Quote from the War History 1st/8th, Bn. Sherwood Foresters ( whose men were evidently disembodied, being a Territorial Bn. although not all the the men were Territorial Soldiers), " On November the 29th the first batch of Miners left for demobilisation, an urgent call having been made for these men owing to the coal shortage. The batch included several " old hands" who had crossed to France with the Bn., in 1915. The remainder were sent off in December, during which month we lost no fewer than 230"

[chrislotr]

Hello Ian,

just read this topic and a question I would like to ask is, was your great uncle in the MGC. Also how do you know about all the POW's being demobbed on the same day. The reason I am asking this is because my grandfather was taken prisoner on the 21st of March 1918. The bit I cannot work out is that I have a certificate that was awarded to him from the MGTC signed by a Major General R.O.Kellet. This I believe was given to all soldiers demobbed at the MGTC, yet on his medal roll it states he was dicharged for misconduct, medals forfeited.

Regards Chris

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Chris,

No he was not in the MGC - he was in the 9/East Surreys and I believe he was captured on 21 March 1918. I have a list of all the casualties for the Battalion during the month of March 1918, killed, wounded and missing. About a sixth of the missing men turned out to be POWs, the rest lost. And of the POWs most that I have traced were demobbed on 21 March 1919.

Ian