Eric Geddes

[Arnie]

William

I think you will find that Burden was 16 when Haig confirmed his sentence, but even if he had been 18 he should not have been in France. 19 was the age for over seas service until late in the war. Haig had stated categorically that all under age soldiers had been sent home an obvious lie.

The Law governing Desertion in 1914 was that the prosecution had to prove behond reasonable doubt that a soldier absent from his unit had no intention of returning. If a soldier kept his uniform or was caught wearing it or if he had his pay book in his possession, it was impossible to prove desertion and the man should be sentenced on the lower charge of AWOL or even ‘Failing to attend for duty’. But the Donkeys didn’t let that bother them:

On the 19th of September 1914 the C in C of the B.E.F, Sir John French issued instructions to courts-martial that while their duty was to consider the weight of evidence, they were also to consider the effect of the offence on the discipline of the Army. He went on to state "that in the interest of discipline no matter how severe the sentence, no feeling of commiseration for the individual must deter them from their duty". French's instruction was an overt interference into the judicial discretion of a courts-martial and as a consequence his requirement inter alia as the ultimate confirming authority undermined from the outset the entire military legal process during world war one.

General Routine Orders issued to the British Expeditionary Force from the 13th January 1915 - 27th January 1915 instructed courts-martial that in cases of desertion the presumption of innocence was to be removed and the burden of proof reversed. This derogation from an established principle in English law required inter alia that an accused inarticulate soldier (without legal representation or an understanding of military law) had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the assumptions of his court-martial officers were incorrect. Soldiers subject to a death sentence would not have been aware or advised that they had a legal right enshrined in the English Bill of Rights (1689) and successor Acts to petition his Majesty the King.

The abrogation of a soldier's right to a presumption of innocence and the failure to vindicate his inalienable right to petition the King was unlawful. Mr Justice Babington QC an acclaimed expert and the first to gain access to official records in the early eighties observed "that the courts hadn't the foggiest idea how to sentence and that their decisions were arbitrary, inconsistant and irregular". On the 30th November 2000 his honor publicly urged the British Government to look again at these cases.

On the 18th of July 2002 in Regina V Boyd etc [2002] UKHL 31 the eminent Lord Bingham of Cornhill referring to disciplinary rules and procedures stated "whatever the practice in former times, a modern code of military discipline cannot depend on arbitrary decision-making or the infliction of savage punishments nor can it depend on inherited habits of deference or gradations of class distinction". His Lordship's criticism of past courts-martial practice is judicious, authoritative and noteworthy.

Presumption of innocence and reverse burdens of proof

Vicount Sankey LC in Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC at p 462 stated "throughout the web of English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt". In R v Whyte (1988) 51 DLR (4th) 481, Dickson CJC observed, at p 493: "The real concern is not whether the accused must disprove an element or prove an excuse, but that an accused may be convicted while a reasonable doubt exists. When that possibility exists, there is a breach of the presumption of innocence. The exact characterisation of a factor as an essential element, a collateral factor, an excuse, or a defence should not affect the analysis of the presumption of innocence. It is the final effect of a provision of the verdict that is decisive. If an accused is required to prove some fact on the balance of probabilities to avoid conviction, the provision violates the presumption of innocence because it permits a conviction in spite of a reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact as to the guilt of the accused".

Arnie

[Arnie]

One rule for the Lions another for the Donkeys

The following oficer were all court martialed in France for offences that were punishible by SAD, none were shot

Lt-Col JF Elkington - 02/09/1914 - Shameful Conduct - Cashiered

Lt-Col AE Mainwaring - 12/09/1914 - Shameful Conduct - Cashiered

Lt GDC Tracey - 11/06/191 - Cowardice ) - Cashiered

Maj Lincoln Sandwith - 17/08/1915 - Under age sex - Cashiered

Maj Eric C Normam - 07/04/1916 - Drunk - Dismissal

Maj G Langdon - 28/01/1918 - Scandelous conduct x 5 -Dismissal

T/Lt GT Bennet - 26/11/1918 - Absence - Dismissal

T/Capt Sir DJ Wernher - 21/02/1918 - 4 x Scandalous Conduct ) - Cashiered

Bearing in mind Sgt Stones Case two were found guilty of surendering their Bn. Remembering Dysat one was found Guilty of Cowardice

All the above were quietly pardoned by the KIng and restored all rank and service etc, one was even given the DSO.

Of course unlike Dysat and the other officer shot. All the above were regular officers so one must assume that they were

members of the masonic like brotherhood.

No soldier was allowed to appealt the King

[Arnie]

Capt Liddell Hart did serve in the 10th KOYLI. He was my uncles platoon commander until wounded, then he came back he was promoted to the rank of Captain He was severely gassed and then served on the Staff for two years so in fact regarding the Great war he certainly had experience and an insight denied to all his detractors

For a failed discredited Historian and military thinker. he did well enough to be knighted and be given honouree doctorates of many universities and as previously said he has a department named in his honour

[Arnie]

Bryan

I'm sorry If i appeared to dodge some of your accusations but you have to submit that your answers have in most cases not provided anything other than what appears to be your opinion. Don’t worry after I have checked I will answer all your queries.

Can I deal with the parachute point you raised: parachutes were issued to balloonists in early 'fifteen after the famous picture was published of a balloonist jumping from a balloon under attack with out a parachute.

Regarding aircraft The Air ministry gave the same excuse as you did however (and I quote Carl Warner IWM Duxford)

It is well documented that the Air Board had vetoed the idea of

parachutes for fliers of aeroplanes because:

'It is the opinion of the Board that the present form of parachute is

not suitable for use in aeroplanes and should only be used by balloon

observers.

It is also the opinion of the Board that the presence of such an

apparatus might impair the fighting spirit of pilots and cause them to

abandon machines which might otherwise be capable of returning to base

for repair.'

On 13 January 1917, Captain C F Collet of the Royal Flying Corps became

the first British service flyer to make a parachute jump, when he used a

Calthrop 'Guardian Angel' parachute for an experimental jump from 600

feet. (he must have been able to find room for the parachute?)

The Headquarters of the newly formed RAF issued a declaration on 16

September 1916:

'All single-seaters are to be fitted with parachutes forthwith.'

Although in practical terms this could not be accomplished before the

Armistice. In fact, parachutes for aeroplane fliers were not properly

introduced into the RAF until the mid 1920s.

Arnie

[Arnie]

Bryan

Are you saying that the Curragh Mutiny never took place or that Gough and Haig had no part in it? Gough was up to his ears. Other elements of the army in England and Haig being one of them stated their support for 'mutineer' My original assertion was that the Curragh incident persuaded Lloyd George that he could not get rid of Haig. You being an a proper historian will know that George V supported the mutineers indirectly and told Asquith that he would dismiss the Government if neccessary.(Keith Jeffery, Professor of Modern History, University of Ulster at Jordanstown & Dr. Brian Barton Open University)

Arnie

[SOMMESOLDIER]

One rule for the Lions another for the Donkeys

The following oficer were all court martialed in France for offences that were punishible by SAD, none were shot

Lt-Col JF Elkington - 02/09/1914 - Shameful Conduct - Cashiered

Lt-Col AE Mainwaring - 12/09/1914 - Shameful Conduct - Cashiered

Lt GDC Tracey - 11/06/191 - Cowardice ) - Cashiered

Maj Lincoln Sandwith - 17/08/1915 - Under age sex - Cashiered

Maj Eric C Normam - 07/04/1916 - Drunk - Dismissal

Maj G Langdon - 28/01/1918 - Scandelous conduct x 5 -Dismissal

T/Lt GT Bennet - 26/11/1918 - Absence - Dismissal

T/Capt Sir DJ Wernher - 21/02/1918 - 4 x Scandalous Conduct ) - Cashiered

Bearing in mind Sgt Stones Case two were found guilty of surendering their Bn. Remembering Dysat one was found Guilty of Cowardice

All the above were quietly pardoned by the KIng and restored all rank and service etc, one was even given the DSO.

Of course unlike Dysat and the other officer shot. All the above were regular officers so one must assume that they were

members of the masonic like brotherhood.

No soldier was allowed to appealt the King

Arnie,

I have kept out of this discussion for a while, thinking all that meaningfully could be said, had been covered, and enjoyed all the points made whether I agreed with them or not. I now cannot almost control myself with rage at the point you are quoted. As I have made obvious I have a different view to you on 'The Generals' and although I dislike the tag 'Donkey' I accept that it is a term widely used, but if you are to add to that tag Majors, Captains, and Lieutenants you really do discredit yourself.

Regards

Tim.

[Charles Fair]

One rule for the Lions another for the Donkeys

The following oficer were all court martialed in France for offences that were punishible by SAD, none were shot

Lt-Col JF Elkington - 02/09/1914 - Shameful Conduct - Cashiered

Lt-Col AE Mainwaring - 12/09/1914 - Shameful Conduct - Cashiered

.... although I dislike the tag 'Donkey' I accept that it is a term widely used, but if you are to add to that tag Majors, Captains, and Lieutenants you really do discredit yourself.

Particularly so in the case of Mainwaring. Whatever he may have done at St Quentin (he was cashiered for 'shamefully delivering up a garrison') he redeemed his honour by joining the French Foreign Legion as a private. He was quickly promoted to sergeant for his leadership and courage, winning the Croix de Guerre and being badly wounded.

Mainwaring was only reinstated in his former rank by George V in the early 1930s.

[Chris_Baker]

Who says Haig's planning was so Good? His organisation of the infrastructure behind the lines for the Battle of the Somme was a disaster that led to Lloyd George stepping in

Those interested in the logistics for the Somme 1916 can read all about it on this page.

[Arnie]

Tim

Sorry that the term donkeys upset you but their conduct in WW1 upsets me and the their blundering in the early part of the war upset most of the fighting part of the army especially those who are still out their.

Both Clark and Laffin's much maligned books cover mainly the early period of the war and both have justified comments.

The term Donkey was taken from a remark made by then Col Hoffman to his chief Falkenhayn and is mentioned in his memoirs, contrary to the allegations of the 'revisionists'. All though its original term referred to the British General in the early part of the war, it was used by by many during and after WW1 to indicate the conduct of the old regular army Officer officer corps.

The term the 'Gabardine Swine' was coined by the Territorial and hostilities only officers referring to the Staff officer many pre war regulars who still visited the trenches wearing superfine Gabardine uniform and riding boots, at a time when the fighting officer had adopted soldier's khaki, boots and puttees.

I can remember My Grand dad often used both these term in the late 40s and 50s

Best wishes

Arnie

[Arnie]

Charles

'he redeemed his honour by joining the French Foreign Legion as a private'

'

Sorry but your only partly right Both Elkington and Mainwaring surrendered their battalions. But it was elkington who joined the Foreign Legion and was seriously wounded on the Chemin des Dames he was pardoned by the King and awarded the DSO in 1916. Mainwaring was pardoned in 1930 after a petition from the Army.

The point is that these officer was given what soldiers are now being denied. Elkington after acting like a 'donkey' regained is pride by fighting as a 'lion'. he never suffered the death penalty or being tied to a gun wheel. Chances not given to poor Sgt Stone. Double standards don't you agree.

By the way the pardons etc were all done in secret.

Arnie

[Arnie]

Tim

I'm sorry I missed one of your messages

Finally Haig refused the first title he was offered at the end of the war until veterans pensions were sorted out and only accepted his title on the intervention of the king. His home was paid for by public subscription and he work tirelessly for the Haig fund until his death.

Haig refused any honours until the Officers pensions were sorted out. It is alleged and to some extent supported by some of Haig's speeches at the time, that this was more of a political act rather thana sympathetic one. Some observers likend his attitude and actions to those of the German officer class who were the backbone to the 'Frie Corps' anti communist and at the illegal militia used to brutally suppress the Socialists / Communists in Germany in Germany in the 20s.

There was scandal attached to the Grant for the refurbishment of 'Bremeside' originally the money came from the recently setup British Legion this led to the replacement of the head of the British Legion and the money was replaced by a handful of rich admirers of Haig.

Arnie

[Arnie]

Bryan

Regarding the U boats - Robertson said that both he and Haig had tongue in cheek about the U-boats and the Channel, intelligence had reported that the U boats were moving back to their home ports It being difficult and dangerous for them to operate from the Belgian Ports ( They had the same problem in WW2) By the time Haig was ready to attack in Flanders the U boats were all back in Germany.

Tanks - Did Kiggle cancell the order for the 1000 tanks (Haig was fascinated by technology?)

1. I this forum one member in his message said to the affect that the cancellation was a mistake and had some evidence to support his ideas.

2. An other member stated to the effect that that the cancellation was purely an administrative measure to to slow down delivery until there were crews to man them.

3. I produced written evidence to suggest that the army had made no provision of manpower to man any increase in tank strength. Why if they were expecting 1000 new tanks.( taken from an article written in the 20s)

4. You suggest that there was no cancellation at all.

The first two options suggest there was cancellation for what ever reason.

Option 3 could suggest that the Tanks had been cancelled or the army had no intention of manning them.

Option 4 - well we have 3 to one in favour of the cancellation option.

Perhaps you could tell us what evidence you have to support your option and could you tell us categorically that it was not subjected to the weeding procedure.

The Lewis Gun The gun was adopted by a committee chaired by Lloyd George in late December 1915 after French had gone. French had canvassed the opinions of the Generals inc Haig who rejected another Machine Gun stating provision of ammunition as the reason. The Gun went into service in 1916.

Arnie

[Arnie]

Chris

Those interested in the logistics for the Somme

Very good article, but it was badly planned and poorly executed. Other wise there would not have been any need for Lloyd George to bring in Geddes.

In the official History every thing was 'tickety boo' The planning was in fact for a much smaller battle. Haig expanded the battle without expanding the infrastructure needed to suport it.

Arnie

[charlesmessenger]

Arnie

I do find many of your `statements of fact' bewildering. Three examples:

a. You state that all U-boats had returned to Germany by the time of the Ypres offensive at the end of July 1917. Yet, the Flanders U-boat Flotilla did not withdraw until October 1918. The purpose of the Zeebrugge Raid of April 1918 was to deny the Flotilla access to the North Sea.

b. To say that Elkington and Mainwaring were pardoned in secret when their reinstatements were published in the London Gazette, as well as reports in The Times about Elkington, makes no sense.

c. Your implication that no soldiers found guilty of SAD offences were given the opportunity to redeem themselves is simply not true. Many were awarded lesser punishments, often a period of Field Punishment No 1. Indeed, some 40% of those who were eventually executed had previous convictions for capital offences.

Charles M

[Arnie]

Bryan

Churchill's position at the time when tanks were first used being a case in point, for example.

Churchill could be said to be the Godfather of tanks. He was one of the first to recognise that armoured caterpillar tractors could be used to cross the battlefield. he wrote a letter in 1915 to the War Office ,to this effect.

About the same time a Colonel Swinton (Who wrote the history of the Russo Jap War) aided by two hostilities only, engineersStern and Suitor also had this vision and unlike Churchill could put technical flesh on the bones also put their ideas to GHQ and to to Kitchener both rejected their ideas.

Churchill at the Admiralty which had already had success with RN armoured cars in Belgium and using Admiralty funds took up the development of the tank, finally getting them accepted excepted. The army in France against Swinton's advice, said they would not use them unless they were tested. 80 prototypes were sent to France for this purpose.

Unfortunately the Somme battle was going badly and Haig required a success. The Government pleaded with Haig not to use them in Battle but was ignored. In tank development terms, the battle was a disaster , losing the confidence of the troops, to Haig it was a success.

The Tank never completed its trials. A 1000 of a newer model had been ordered. However, the General Staff in France reported adversely (Kiggle's letter) on the tank causing the War Office to cancel it. The order to cancell was ignored by Major Stern (one of the original designers) went to see General Roberson and with the support of Lloyd George told him the order would not be cancelled. (See the 'Real War 1914 - 1918' Liddell Hart. 'The First World War' John Keegan, and 'First World War' Martin Gilbert)

PS Both Swinton and Stern were removed from the Tank programme by a vindictive Army

[Arnie]

Dolphin

Thank you for putting me right. I’m not so well up on the Boar War although I have a lot of my Grandfathers stuff from that war some old books and penny magazines. On the whole they tend to be of a patriotic nature, but there are some that were written by Volunteer Officers who are not very complimentary of the leadership and the poor training of the regular soldier (poor shooting being one of the complaints).

Back to Haig your statement that Haig could not be blamed for what happened to his detached squadron would seem on the face of it to be fair. However, there were questions asked and Haig’s leadership was questioned.

Previously at Roodewal in 1900, whilst commanding a mobile column Haig, was accused of not being vigorous enough in his pursuit of Steenkamp. In the words of Col Woolls – Sampson the incomparable intelligence officer and fighting scout; “He’s alright (Haig), but he’s too cautious: he is so fixed on not giving the Boars a chance, he’ll never give himself one.”

The revised Official History of 1914 reveals that Haig at his first test as a Corps Commander was thrown off balance by a minor night encounter, so that he reported the situation as critical and repeatedly called for reinforcements from a neighbour who was really hard pressed. His excessive caution on the Aisne allowed an opportunity to deny the Germans the positions they were able to hold for four years.

Haig’s actions could be misconstrued as being lacking in moral fibre or just extreme caution, never the less Officer and men under his command were tried and convicted for such omissions.