Coincidentally, an otherwise unrelated WWI makes the front pages today:

All 306 British first world war soldiers executed for desertion or cowardice are to be pardoned, Des Browne, the defence secretary, will announce today.

For 90 years, families, friends and campaigners for the young soldiers have argued that their deaths were a stain on the reputation of Britain and the army.

In many cases, soldiers were clearly suffering from shellshock but officers showed no compassion for fear that their comrades would have disobeyed orders and refused to go “over the top”. (more)

No disagreement with the decision of course, but I wonder about the timing. Why now, after 90-odd years? This looks like one of those pretty balloon policy announcements that reinforce the impression that the administration is doing good things, while actually they make no practical difference to anything.

No-one changes their opinion of the unfortunate and fatally abused 306 men, one way or another, do they? Three hundred and six, despite its smallness when stood amidst the millions of lives lost in the war, is still a lot of bodies. A pardon for the victims strikes me as necessary, but without an admission that those people were the victim of war crimes perpetrated by the State, it’s impertinent. I wonder to myself whether the winning side in any conflict has admitted perpetrating war crimes, since the invention of that legal concept? If the question nags at me, I will endeavour to find out — but somehow I doubt it.