History News Network

Departments

The Pardoner's Tale

Finally, the pardons for the 306 soldiers accused of cowardice and desertion has been granted for soldiers executed by the British Expeditionary Force during WW1.

Why finally? This debate has run for many years, in particular after it was initially refused in 1998 by the (then) Defense Secretary, Geoff Hoon. Of course, admitting it sets not only a precedent but points a finger at the Armed Services by clearly implying that they made a series of ethical 'mistakes' during the war. The debate itself is a clear case of the nation against its rulers; where public pressure forces a descision. All of these things smack of insurrection, and beneath them lurks the inevitable question: what if none of the war was a good thing? And if that was was non bon, what if the wars the UK is engaged in now are not a good thing?

The pardons, then, are very little to do with the men involved themselves. The case we hear is always that of Private Harry Farr, mainly because of the tireless campaigning by his daughter and grand-daughter, to have the case overturned. It is however fair to say that, as the Guardian reports Defence Secretary Des Browne has argued that 'it would be invidious, indeed impossible, given the lack of evidence now, to distinguish the precise details and circumstance of each case'. Very little is known of both the cases or the men involved.

Perhaps what is known a great deal more is the representation of men shot at dawn in literature. This happens so frequently that it can appear to the casual reader that the 306 names of real men about to be pardoned is in fact only the tip of the iceberg. The young, sensitive victim is virtually always performing an act of selflessness, either sacrificing himself so that someone else may live, or has disobeyed orders to save his men, and is now facing the consequences. In the world of the war novel, senior officers are never senstive to this nuance, focussing instead on singleminded persecution - execution indeed, of their victim.

This is of course, a terribly limiting view on the men who were sentenced. The series of presuppostions that it provides simply does not do credit to the men who were sentenced. The choice to pardon these men has been an inevitable one, given the construction of the soldier shot at dawn by popularist belief, but their representation as noble victims is both limiting and an avoidance of the actual humanity of these men. It is frustrating that 'distinguishing the precise details also reduces these men to blank tableau of the old lie: pity and futility.

Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 8:50 AM | Comments (4) | Return

Home Newsletter Submissions Advertising Donations Archives Internships About Us FAQs Contact Us All Articles