More then twenty five years ago, I watched a movie in which Martin Sheen portray Private Eddie Slovak who was the only US soldier shot for desertion in World War Two (I never read the book the movie was based on). It certainly played on my sympathies–why would Eddie be the only one to suffer capital punishment for desertion? Was it a bureaucratic oversight? Petty vindictiveness? Overwhelmingly justified given the times that our nation was at war? To set an example? I recalled that it was done in relative secrecy; so to argue that it was a deterrent to desertion would be pathetic. I don’t believe that the “Uniform Code of Military Justice” was codified at the time. Would that have made a difference in the outcome? I know that his widow spent years trying to clear his name or get a pension or something. When she finally died, I figured the DOD a chance breath easier, but I’m kind of still wondering whether the execution was just for the times in question (and that is where the scope of the question should remain, not with the current mores).
(I am working from memory here and welcome corrections.)
ES was certainly not the worst deserter from the US Army during World War II. Desertion is a horrible crime and (IMHO) deserving of the noose, but the American Army in its wisdom has always been shy about executing soldiers.
In any case, the Slovak case same up in December, 1944. The Battle of the Bulge was in full swing. The Army manpower pool was coming up dry. In the States many rear-echelon types were being combed out for front-line service. (The STAR program was ended and aviation cadets were being given rifles.)
So an example was needed and Slovak drew the short straw.
Probably unjust, but on the other hand in wartime soldier’s give their lives for others. Some die on battlefields and some serve as examples and are shot.
Fantastic telemovie starring Martin Sheen. It was the first time I saw him in a major role. I saw it on TV in London in 1976. It was awefully heart-rending because Eddie Slovik was willing to continue serving, he just couldn’t serve at the front
It was also the first film I spotted Gary Busey in.
Martin Sheen won an Emmy Award for his work, as did the co-writers. William Link and Richard Levinson. They also co-created “Columbo”.
He drew the short straw, and paid the ultimate price. It could not have been much of a shock. Deserters have been killed for a few thousand years…
Cartooniverse
Paul from Saudi
As I said my impression of the movie long ago was that as you said, he got the raw end of the deal, but the fact that it was performed secretly negates the deterrance aspect.
IMHO too, I think desertion is a serious crime especially in wartime, but why keep it confidential until after the war? It seems to be a grudge that someone or somegroup had who decided to “teach someone a lesson”. As I said, the mores of the time would have been far more for capital punishment, then against (in the sense of executing a deserter). Still, I suspect during WWII, a secret execution would not have gone over well with the public given that 1) ES was not a exactly the poster boy for capital punishment and 2) that no one else got it. On the other hand, had five, ten, 20 or more been executed secretly, ES would have been on a list, rather then in a book/movie. I also belive that had there been a UCMJ in force at the time, at some point the public would have been made aware of it and the military far more inclined to lock ES in prison for a few years.
Mind you, my assumptions are tedious at this point, but I wonder if the execution was “just” for those times (and again I’ll emphasize that I speaking for the mores of the time, not our time).
What’s the evidence that it was done in secrecy? It could have been well-known in the front-line units without making it to the newspapers back home.
I don’t know. Perhaps it was mentioned over in Europe (via “Stars and Strips”?), but I seem to remember that the execution was kept quiet at the time and not released until after the end of WWII with respect to execution. Why? I can only speculate it might seem that we’d be seen acting more like the enemy (a.k.a., the Nazis) with this seemingly perfunctory style of justice. I recall that the event was brought up during an interview with president Eisenhower (who personally approved of the execution) in the 50’s and responded by saying it was just and that was that; although it was clear to me that he was uncomfortable with it being brought up.
I’m not trying to pontificate here (and I’m sorry if that’s the case), I’m just trying to determine the merits of the execution with respect to the times, whether or not it would have withstood closer scrutiny, legally speaking, at the time.
Well, I read the book, but it was in the neighbourhood of 30 years ago, so my recollections are vague. What I recall, however, was along these lines:
–The desertion rate was very high, and it was becoming known that a death sentence only meant, in practice, a few years in Leavenworth. Ike wanted to make a point.
–Slovak, a petty criminal and all-around loser, was as good a candidate as any to make an example of.
–Whether or not there was an official announcement, the guys on the firing squad could be counted on to take the word back. I’m pretty sure that someone in the book claimed that the desertion rate in that theatre went down after the execution. Could be, I don’t know.
So there’s something I hadn’t heard before–1) A large desertion rate, 2) Slovak was an alledged petty criminal, and 3) the possibility that the word did spread around in the European theater.
-
You desert in Europe; where do you go then? Sneak back to America? Hang around a Parisian cafe? Marry a swiss girl? If you made it back to America, however you’d still be on the run. Wouldn’t MPs be on your tail? You got any cites? I never heard of this before. (
-
With the alledged criminality of ES, I guess the execution would seem to make it a less capricous action.
-
Seems to me it would have gotten to a reporter one way or another. I can only assume that a “self censorship” would have prevented it one way or another.
Oh rats, I broke the spell checker… 
Hmm… could explain my lack of knowledge about this
Well, no cites beyond my admittedly vague memories of the book. I’d be grateful if one of the true military scholars here would weigh in.
My guess, though, is that you didn’t desert with any great plan as to what you would do, you just ran away and hoped for the best. Keep in mind, being at the front was very scary, and the reason why desertion has been punished by death is to make running away more dangerous than fighting.
As to Slovak’s criminal record – that’s something that I’m pretty confident I remember from the book - that in fact, during peacetime he couldn’t even have served in the Army because of it.
As the OP rightly implied, in those days life was cheap. While thousands of allied soldiers were dying on the frontline the execution for desertion of a single soldier would be insignificant.
As Dax said in ‘Paths Of Glory’: (something along the lines of:) “A few executions are good for the morale of the men”.
Different times.
In “Citizen Soldiers” by Stephen Ambrose, there’s a chapter on the enormous black market in Europe run by AWOL American soldiers. The amount of goods flowing across the Atlantic was beyond the Army’s ability to track it all, and some large percent just disappeared into the European economy. Petty criminals and mobsters were apparently well represented in the Army.
The 
was supposed to be a ‘:’ followed by a ‘)’.
Bloody smilies :mad: