Pardon for WW1 Soldiers.
Saturday August 19, 2006
The biggest issue in British history this week is also one of the most familiar: should soldiers shot for refusing to fight during the First World War be officially pardoned? Media coverage of the debate is often started by relatives of the deceased and ended by a government refusal, but that position has suddenly changed. After eighty years of refusals, the new Home Secretary is applying for a pardon of the 306 men executed for cowardice. The decision has drawn both praise and criticism. Relatives are, understandably, happy. This newspaper article sums up the ‘pro’ argument and there are case studies here. However, there are dissenting voices. Corelli Barnet, a leading historian of the war, has warned of applying modern morals to the past, while others have warned of the dangers of a blanket pardon, often citing cases where the men had murdered others or abandoned wounded comrades. The middle ground would seem to be a case by case examination and the pardon of all shell-shocked and mentally broken.
Comments
I would just like to say that “historians” make me feel bad sometimes.I welcome the pardon decision and am sure the Ministry of Defence will make sure that no-one will have one that does not”deserve” it,it has taken them long enough to award any,and as for “historical cases”,it is the living relatives who have had to suffer all their lives,and as all the immediate family of Lady Jane Grey have like her,been dead for centuries I do not see that they will be worried about her having a pardon,history has already absolved her.
I would like to say that with all the terrorism going on, those people’s time would be better spent stopping more attacks, instead of this nonsense.
Who really cares, and I agree with Mr. Barnet that “applying modern morals to the past” is wrong.