Should Harry Farr Have Been Pardoned?

jambutty · 16-08-2006, 18:03

26 years old Private Harry Farr faced the firing squad on 18th October 1916.

Up until the 2nd October 1916 he had served with the 2nd Battalion West Yorkshire Regiment in France with distinction and bravery. He had survived the Somme and had ‘gone over the top’ many times without flinching.

Harry Farr had been hospitalised with ‘shell shock’ for some five months shortly before returning to his unit. On that fateful day after being order to ‘go over the top’ once again Harry found that he just could not do so, in spite of his Sergeant Major threatening to blow his ****** brains out if he didn’t get moving. The threat never materialised and Private Farr was arrested and imprisoned to await a Court Martial for alleged cowardice. The Court Martial didn’t take into account any medical evidence or his past record, found him guilty after just 20 minutes and he suffered the ultimate sanction. His bravery was evident to the last when he faced the firing squad and declined a blindfold.

His daughter, Gertrude Harris now 93, fought to clear his name in a 15 years campaign and the High Court accepted her arguments and posthumously cleared his name.

I applaud the decision. Justice has been done at last.

Why did it take so long for a pardon? Well the military records are under a 100 years rule - that is they are classified for 100 years. Fortunately this time limit was reduced to 75 years in 1990 and this gave Gertrude Harris the chance to start her campaign when the Court Martial evidence was released for public viewing.

It has also been reported that the Defence Secretary, Des Browne, would be seeking a pardon approved by Parliament for the other 300 soldiers who were shot for alleged cowardice or desertion.

I hope that he succeeds, in particular for the handful of 16 years old kids who lied about their age to join up, got sent to the front to experience the hell of trench warfare and cracked. In spite of their age they were still shot as cowards.

The MOD should also investigate the summary execution of soldiers by officers in the trenches. The details of one such incident can be found at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2122142,00.html

SPUGGIE J · 16-08-2006, 19:12

ITS ABOUT TIME!!! Some of these that were shot were no more than kids yet to label them a coward dispite constant going over the top is sad. I maintain that the biggest cowards were those on high who never went near the front just sitting in a Chatau somewere coming up with plans that were just mass murder.

Margaret Pilkington · 16-08-2006, 19:39

I agree with everything that you have both posted and would go so far as to suggest it might be timely for his family to be compensated in some way.......This mans' widow got no pension and was too ashamed of the circumstances of his death to tell anyone of her extreme financial difficulties.
If these men had been involved in modern day conflicts they would have been cited for bravery.......I think some of their commanding officers were sadistic and lacking in compassion.

SPUGGIE J · 16-08-2006, 19:50

Sadley I cant see the govenment giving out compensation to their desendents. I may be being a cynic but why it took so long? There has been enough evidence for years as to what they were suffering from yet they waited in my view that they wanted no children still alive. On the same reasoning used based on modern standards Haig Foch Neville Joffre Petain etc would have been done for war crimes. Yet will they label these men as this or is it a diferent set of standards? The first British General (though might be wrong) who got a real dose of the horrors the Tommies endured was Gen Lancelot Kiegal who was reported as being in tears when confronted with the Ypres front.

Margaret Pilkington · 16-08-2006, 19:57

I think you are right Spuggie.......but it would be fair to say, that for the last remaining descendents of these young men will see it as some kind of a victory......but a long time in coming. Also I felt that maybe the MOD were a little blase in saying that a block pardon would be the easiest as it would be difficult to go over every case.....and to challenge the view of the Commanding Officers at the time would be hard to justify.

SPUGGIE J · 16-08-2006, 20:14

The MOD wanted an easy way out without all the agro that they believe it would bring. As for commanding officers I wouldnt have given them command (in some cases) of a scarecrow collection. Most of the senior officers were part of the landed gentry and they dont want to upset their decendents. To think after the war the gave Haig an Ealdom and £100,000. Haig became Captain at St Andrews and his golf drive was like his muderous attacks "straight but short." To think he expected men to just walk forward into machine guns and shells and then when they flipped branded them cowards. He must have thought that wee Tommy Walker was not worth as much as a patch of mud or a dozen tree stumps. To think he was a Scot as well!!!

Margaret Pilkington · 16-08-2006, 20:28

I think the MOD didn't want to do too much digging in case thay found things that were unpalatable. Yes, most commanding officers were the landed gentry and thought themselves above the enlisted men......well, most of them were just boys really...and brave boys at that. My grandfather was at the battle of Ypes and he survived, but suffered very bad health for the rest of his life and died relatively young......he suffered nightmares and would not tell my grand mother half of the things that they had to endure in the trenches.

SPUGGIE J · 16-08-2006, 20:35

Seems like the MOD have a bigger yellow streak than the men and boys that were shot.

West Ender · 16-08-2006, 20:55

Oh God yes, he should have been pardoned, along with all those men like him who went through Hell only to be treated worse than animals by their own side. I had relatives who served as private soldiers, NCOs and junior officers in WW1. Only 3 of them survived and one of those was so shell-shocked he never completely recovered his wits. It was fine for the senior officers to sit back, in safety, and decide the fate of young men who had endured unimaginable horror. If anyone deserved a firing squad it was them.

I saw a film, years ago, called "King and Country". It starred Tom Courtney as a shell-shocked young soldier who walked away from the front line and Dirk Bogarde as the M O who was appointed to be his advocate at the Court Martial. At the end of the film the soldier was shot. I cried when I saw it and I cried for many nights afterwards, I couldn't sleep. It brought home the absolute disgrace, injustice and brutality that was typical of those events.

A pardon can't bring those young men back. It can't make right the terrible wrong that was done but it can, at least, vindicate their memory for their families and give them back the dignity they deserve.

cashman · 17-08-2006, 00:03

to me it was a stain on the poor buggars that was undeserved, and nothing can ever put right the injustice meted out to these unfortunate souls.

Madhatter · 17-08-2006, 01:33

I don't see the point in trying to force people that have volunteered for something if they've changed their mind. Surely there were other things they could have done.

Debbie J · 17-08-2006, 16:31

I agree with all that's been said in favour of the pardons. I think it was disgraceful (politest word I can think of) that men & boys who enlisted to fight for their Country, most of who had already seen action, could be shot for being cowards.
Wasn't it also the case at the time that if you didn't enlist you were branded a coward? To my knowledge those who refused to go were treated badly by all, but weren't shot

jambutty · 17-08-2006, 16:52

A blanket pardon is better than no pardon at all but regardless of cost or complexity the MOD should judge each case on its merits. As someone has already pointed out to give individual pardons would expose the real truth of warfare. The men from lieutenants downwards were just numbers to the generals as they sat well out of harms way and pushed wooden blocks around a map in between sips of sherry. They, of course, got the medals whilst the real men represented by those little wooden blocks did the fighting, dying and getting maimed for life on the whim of a Colonel Blimp.

Like many young men of the day my dad volunteered to fight the Hun on the 14th August 1914 when he was just 19 years old. His service number was 1138, which indicates that when the call came he was one of the first.

He had the good fortune to join the 5th East Lancs Battery of the Royal Field Artillery, 1st East Lancs Brigade, thus was not one of the front line trench troops. After suitable training he was posted to Cairo, Egypt and took part in the Gallipoli campaign in 1915 where shrapnel wounds saw him get a break from the fighting until he recovered. His next break came courtesy of a bullet and then a longer break after being gassed. After each recovery he was sent back to the front to do his duty with distinction until the end of the Great War. In spite of all that he considered himself as one of the lucky ones – he survived. Many of his comrades in arms did not.

Not that his survival did him any real good because he got caught up in WWII and spent the next 5 years in a German concentration camp. Only to die on the 5th November 1948.