November 11, 1918 - the final deaths of WWI (1 Viewer)

[Combat]

My understanding is the armistice was signed around 5AM but the effective time of the ceasefire was not until 11AM. I've never come across the reason for the 6 hour delay. Maybe someone else here knows, but my guess is that the delay was to ensure the word got out on both sides and allow the soldiers to stand down in an orderly fashion without incident. For example, if part of the Allied line got the word, but not the Germans across the way they might have been fired upon after they believed they were safe. The only reasonable intent of the delay was to ensure the safety of those in the front lines and not to place them at further risk. In that regard, the situation differs from other situations during the war where bad decisions led to loss of life. In addition, common sense would dictate that there is no reason to attack a position 30 minutes before the war ends and you could walk over in complete safety.

 

[theBaron]

If I am not mistaken, there was a deliberate emphasis on "the eleventh hour" as well, the image of pulling back from the ultimate disaster at the last minute. Hence, 11:11 on the 11th of November. Of course, that's not to say that if events had played out that the Germans had collapsed in the spring of 1919 instead and sued for an armistice, the Allies would have waited till 11/11 to have it go into effect.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Yes, whilst I understand the point Mitch is making about all the wasted lives in that War, this is unforgivable. On that final day, with just a few hours to go, it was murder in my view. Now as Mitch said, I don't know what they would have been charged with, but I guess we are just saying they deserved execution for such wilful waste of human life.

Rob

They could be charged with what is in American jurisprudence referred to as depraved indifference murder. When a perpetrator knows that an unjustified action he is about to undertake is likely to cause the death of one or more other people, yet proceeds with said action in depraved indifference to the risk to the lives of others, resulting in one or more deaths, under New York State you are guilty of second degree murder, punishable by 25 years to life for each count. It would seem that the ordering of attacks hours before an armistance goes into effect would meet this definition.

 

[trooper]

I think one of the problems was the lead time to the Armistice. Given the knowledge that the war would end at a specific time gave rise to a desire to have the "honour" of firing the last shot, making the last action etc. If the word had gone out to both sides for an immediate cease fire there would have been no chance of such stupidity. Trooper

 

[Mitch]

Louis...

Interesting that you raise this point. does it not require a ''imminent danger'' a ''very high risk of death to other'' and a ''wanton indifference to human life or a depravity of mind''??

I don't recal when this was introduced into US law but, retrospectively using law to try and ascertain a conviction on 1918 actions seems likely to always prove guilt and support ones stance. I would think it would be really hard to convict anyone from 1918 and in that time on such laws. Nowadays, its all very much easier to retrospectively address actions with new laws (especially in the UK from the Homicide act 1957 with recklessness and such laws) and, get what ones moral stance requires.

Hell, one could use this statute to convict all personal in such a stupid war as WWI but, I don't think its helpful or appropriate. I even said the worst case from this documentary was the US officer wanting baths for him and his men that seems really wasteful and, even actionable to those who wish. but, then Currahhee Chris said something telling, to me, a civillian, that battlefield hygeine is very important to troops in the field. so, my view of this incident and the on the face of it ''wanton disregard for life'' is changed, as I have never been in a battlefield situation so, who am I to judge the military reasoning behind such decisions.

I agree, that the deaths were avoidable as everyone could have sat out the last few hours and rode out the war. Its the emotion that its senseless as its the final day of the war that provokes response. For me, the talks new what was coming and, that the germans knew very early on they were not getting anything they wanted from the allies so, a day before even two days all those actions and deaths could also be argued as pointless.

However, sadly, that was not the case for many reasons some understandable some not so but, in a war where nothing from the reasons it started to the tactics deployed made sense I try not to make such legal and moral distinctions from the warmth of my armchair but, can see why others do. To call for executions and murderers for me, means where do we stop if, these actions are, then every action in the war could be classified as such
Mitch

 

[Currahee Chris]

for the legal beagles here-

I think you guys might be crossing Common law of your respective counties with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)- so perhaps the positions you take, in reference to common law, are moot- I dunno, I'm not a legal guy.

Also, I do believe the Geneva Convention now ironically covers ROE when ceasefires/talks what have you are interjected- again, I am not a JAG officer but I do know they exist now and there are particular protocols to follow.

Playing devil's advocate- Pershing didn't want the Allies to stop till they marched on Berlin "The Hun must be convinced to never do this again." I believe was his statement. He wanted them punished to convince them this was a terrible idea and not do it again- history sort of proved him correct. The abuse of general authority would occur, in my mind, if he was ordered, per the Armistice, to not engage enemy hostiles yet ordered his men into the fray- then perhaps we can start the neccesary proceedings.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis...

Interesting that you raise this point. does it not require a ''imminent danger'' a ''very high risk of death to other'' and a ''wanton indifference to human life or a depravity of mind''??

I don't recal when this was introduced into US law but, retrospectively using law to try and ascertain a conviction on 1918 actions seems likely to always prove guilt and support ones stance. I would think it would be really hard to convict anyone from 1918 and in that time on such laws. Nowadays, its all very much easier to retrospectively address actions with new laws (especially in the UK from the Homicide act 1957 with recklessness and such laws) and, get what ones moral stance requires.

Hell, one could use this statute to convict all personal in such a stupid war as WWI but, I don't think its helpful or appropriate. I even said the worst case from this documentary was the US officer wanting baths for him and his men that seems really wasteful and, even actionable to those who wish. but, then Currahhee Chris said something telling, to me, a civillian, that battlefield hygeine is very important to troops in the field. so, my view of this incident and the on the face of it ''wanton disregard for life'' is changed, as I have never been in a battlefield situation so, who am I to judge the military reasoning behind such decisions.

I agree, that the deaths were avoidable as everyone could have sat out the last few hours and rode out the war. Its the emotion that its senseless as its the final day of the war that provokes response. For me, the talks new what was coming and, that the germans knew very early on they were not getting anything they wanted from the allies so, a day before even two days all those actions and deaths could also be argued as pointless.

However, sadly, that was not the case for many reasons some understandable some not so but, in a war where nothing from the reasons it started to the tactics deployed made sense I try not to make such legal and moral distinctions from the warmth of my armchair but, can see why others do. To call for executions and murderers for me, means where do we stop if, these actions are, then every action in the war could be classified as such
Mitch

I wasn't seriously recommending that anyone be charged with this almost a full 100 years after the actions - first of all, they are all long dead - I was just setting forth an example of how jurisprudence addressed a similar question in civilain life: what do you do with someone who does not fit the ordinary concept of murder (i.e. intentionally killing someone), but whose actions are so obviously tainted by a disregard for human life that the penalties for manslaughter just don't seem stiff enough. It was designed to address circumstances like a man who intentially and soberly drives his car 100 mph the wrong way on a highway, and ends up killing several innocent motorists.

If there is a similar concept in military law, and a commander did what those commanders did today (and I know we have different morals today than we did 100 years ago - more on that in a minute) I imagine that is what he or she would be charged with.

I notice that when we have these discussions, there is an emphasis on the fact that in the recent past, there was not the same concern for human life that there is today. I know from studying not just military history but civilian history that this is true. For example, in New York, at the turn of the 19th to the 20th Century, it was well recognized that the poor often abandoned their children as young as 5 years old to fend for themselves in the streets of the city, and that the vast majority of these children did not live to see their teenage years.

In no uncertain terms I find this lack of concern for human life during the lifetime of my greatgrandparents and the childhood of my grandparents appalling. I think, however, there is a clear explanation for it. Back then, the infant mortality rates (i.e. the rate of children born died without reaching adulthood) due to disease, crime and accident was as high as 50%. I personally cannot even imagine dealing with the death of one of my children, much less several (my father was one of 7, only 5 of whom lived to reach adulthood, and that was in the 1930's). I can only imagine that being forced to deal with so much death, especially among your own siblings or children, lent itself towards a callousness with regard to human life.

I can only be thankful that improvements in medical science as well as civil and criminal justice and law enforcement have dramatically lowered the infant mortality rate, allowing social morals to adjust themselves to a permit for a far greater concern for human life in my lifetime. I guess a big thankyou has to go out to educators, physicians, scientists, policemen, and, dare I say, members of my own (so often maligned) profession (you know, the guys who actually try and obtain convictions of the criminals, and otherwise ensure the justice system doesn't collapse under its own weight, no matter how stupid the policians are in meddling with it).

 

[Combat]

There are a couple of unknowns for me or as Rummy might say "known unknowns." For example, what was the purpose of the six hour delay after the signing until the ceasefire became effective? Was it just symbolic to end the war on 11/11 at 11:11 (only in government service would someone think of that)? What instructions or information, if any, were the commanders given about their conduct during that time period? Who ordered the attacks - there were multiple attacks made by Americans, Brits and French - and why? Did anyone not obey orders and refuse to carry them out? Were they subject to any disciplinary action? I'm reading the book noted above but haven't gotten very far. I do know there were Congressional hearings on the issue in 1920, but nothing apparently resulted.