Soldiers shot at dawn

[jay dubaya]

Having recently discovered that two local men were shot at dawn I have found that at least one of them has his name included on the local memorial. Was it normal practice for these men to be included as I'm sure that I have read otherwise but can't be sure where. Were NoK always informed of the true circumstances behind their relatives death and if not could this be an explination for the inclusion of his name. As yet I have found no mention his death in the local papers of the time. As aways any help would be much appreciated,

cheers, Jon

[deano]

Hi John,

another example here in Sheffield.

George Ainley, shot 30/7/18. His name is on the St Marys Roll of Honour, Bramall Lane.

George lived on Randall Street, within spitting distance of the Church.

I've also yet to find a story or photo in the local papers of the day.

regards,

Dean.

[John_Hartley]

Jon

Another example of there being no single set of rules for names being included/excluded on a memorial. Everything's down to the local organising committee

John

[Tom Morgan]

A further aspect which might be of interest - the village of Fulstow near Louth, Lincolnshire, lost 17 men in the war but the villagers refused to have a war memorial when it was discovered that those in charge had decided that the name of Pte Charles Kirman, 7th Bn. Lincolnshire Regiment, would not be included. Pte Kirman was executed for desertion in 1917.

The villagers were adamant that the memorial should contain all 17 names.

The villagers finally got their way in 2005 when a new memorial was built, containing all the names. Until then, the matter had caused such strong feelings that the local church had never had a Remembrance Sunday service.

Tom

[HERITAGE PLUS]

Jon

L/Cpl Joseph Fox of 1/Wiltshires attached to 3 Division Cyclists executed for desertion 20 April 1915 from Chippenham, Wiltshire is named on both the Parish Memorial in St.Andrew's Church and on the Town Memorial.

Dave

[Neil Clark]

Oh no not this old chesnut again

I agree they were ALL casualties of the war but these names should NOT (in my opinion) appear in the same place as men who did their duty and endured the full hardships of war.

I believe we need to be very careful with this discussion...

[Greyhound]

Surely it was just a question as to whether they are or are not included? No one else has said anything about whether they should be.

[John_Hartley]

L/Cpl William A Moon, 11th Cheshires, is commemorated on the Chester War Memorial at the city's Town Hall.

[PhilB]

Surely it was just a question as to whether they are or are not included? No one else has said anything about whether they should be.

I think if a body decides that a SAD name is to be put on a memorial, they are implying that it should be there. I wonder whether they knew he was a SAD or, if they did, whether they were aware of the circumstances of his FGCM when they decide to commemorate him.

[Tom Morgan]

The men named on the war memorial at Wordsley, West Midlands, did not originally include Pte. Joseph Bateman, executed for Desertion in December 1917. Pte. Bateman's name was added in 2007.

[JohnBelcher]

As Dave (Heritage Plus) has said, L/Cpl Fox was named on the memorials when they were originally built in 1921. There was a newspaper report about the death of Fox at the time but does not say how he died.

REPORT OF SON Killed in action LEADS FATHER TO ENLIST.

On Thursday morning (22nd April) Mr and Mrs C Fox of the Causeway received information that their son, Victor, of the Wiltshire regiment had been Killed in action at the front. The news has not been confirmed by the War Office but was, the parents state, conveyed to them by a comrade, and the father in order, as he puts it, to avenge his sons death went at once joined Kitchener’s Army.

L/Cpl Fox had proved himself a plucky lad. He was formerly with his father in the bill posting business and enlisted in the Gloucester Regiment and also the Somerset’s, but was bought out. When war broke out he again joined the Army and has been in France for some time.

Mr and Mrs Fox have another son who is a prisoner in Germany and this morning’s post brought a letters from him in which he appeals to his parents to send food, in particular white bread.

Wilts Times 23 April 1915

According to Putowski in "Shot at Dawn"

His grave carries the inscription "In loving memory of our dearly beloved Son. Gone but not forgotten". Fox is also commemorated in Chippenham on the Parish Church Roll of Honour and on the town War Memorial, suggesting that his parents were not told the true circumstances surrounding their son’s death. At the time however, the official army policy was to inform relatives of the true cause of death, and also to specify the offence.

I disagree with his comment that the parents were not told the true circumstances. As he says it was official policy to tell the relatives the true cause so why would an exception be made in this case? The parents were easily traced and it is not as if they could not be told. Furthermore accordign to the newspaper, Fox senior then volunteered to "avenge his death" or more likely. in my opinion, to expunge the shame of the execution.

[jay dubaya]

Many thanks for the replies all, it's clarified a few points for me.

The two men in question are James Skone and J Thomas both 2nd Welsh. My question regards Skone who was shot on the 10th May 1918 for the murder of L/Sgt Edwin Williams.

I personally find it unusual that had Skone's NoK and the local committee known the true circumstances of his death he would have been included on the memorial, he was afterall a murderer. It's this fact which makes me doubt the official correspondence sent to NoK and even more so in this case. How would this case have been handled had the offence taken place in the UK? I'm sure Skone would have faced the gallows but would the crime be public knowledge, which I'm sure would create a very uneasy stigma for the NoK. Perhaps the local committee were forgiving and saw that he served his country and suffered the hardships with his comrades but circumstances got the better of him.

Jon

[PhilB]

In general, and not particularly this case, if the murder was war related, it might be termed a war death. Were the stresses of war service a material contribution to his committing the act? If so, even though technically a murderer, he could still be described as a victim of the war? On the other hand, say an NCO was bullying an unstable soldier who felt driven to the end of his tether & shot him. The NCO brought the action upon himself - should he be on the war memorial? It`s not all black & white!

[jay dubaya]

Thanks for that Phil. I only have brief details surrounding the case of Skone who was a 39 year old who had previously served with the SWB. I'm not sure of the length of his service at the front but I'm sure he had witnessed the full horrors of war. He was put under arrest after a brief absence from the trenches the result being that he shot L/Sgt Williams, Skone claimed to have been drunk at the time the offence took place. His previous character had been good and no other motive is given for the crime other than it was out of character and irrational behaviour played their part. There is no mention of this being an accident as is apparent with similar cases and I'm sure that stress played a very big part. Without knowing the full available details of WO 71/641 I cannot say if Williams instumented Skones act which I somewhat doubt so no blame can be passed there. I think regardless of the crime Skone was a victim of the war but none the less he was convicted of murder and appears on a memorial. I'm trying to relate this fact with what public opinion would have been in the 1920s when the memorial appeared had they known that Skone was a convicted and condemed murderer.

If anyone has a copy of WO 71/641 I would very much appreciate a look as so far local papers have have turned up nothing relating to James Skone.

Jon

[PhilB]

I don`t think it would be healthy to discuss any particular case, Jay - it tends to make for a short thread! I was generalizing about the propriety of names on memorials. I was putting the point that, in an extreme case, there could be a murderer who deserved to be on and a murder victim who didn`t.

[John_Hartley]

I'm trying to relate this fact with what public opinion would have been in the 1920s when the memorial appeared had they known that Skone was a convicted and condemed murderer.

Jon

I suspect public opinion then would have pretty much been what it is today. We havnt executed murderers for almost all of my lifetime but I don't think attitudes to the crime have changed any and I would have thought that the "local worthies" would have baulked about adding a murderer to their memorial (bearing in mind, say, that people executed for "civilian murders" were not even buried in consecrated ground).

As an aside, I have it mind that most defences presented by executed soldiers in murder cases (and, I think, assaults on senior officer) was being drunk.

[jay dubaya]

Phil, I realise that you were generalizing and see your point, however I don't wish this thread to digress into claggy mire just because I chose to use Skone as an example of what information was recieved at home. I'm not questioning the case as such or whether or not Skone should have faced the firing squad or if he should be on the memorial or not, I am trying to establish what kind of official correspondance was passed on to NoK and the reasons for this and in the same light what information was passed onto the victims NoK. The victims are mostly listed as 'died' which I also find questionable.

From the response to this thread so far it would suggest to me that in some cases information was withheld from NoK and it is the reasons for this that interest me, quite clearly in some cases NoK were informed of the true nature of their relatives demise, so why wasn't it the same across the board? How much public awarness in the UK was there regarding SaD cases and did they ever reach the newspapers?

Jon

[Gunner Bailey]

Oh no not this old chesnut again

I agree they were ALL casualties of the war but these names should NOT (in my opinion) appear in the same place as men who did their duty and endured the full hardships of war.

I believe we need to be very careful with this discussion...

I agree with Neil on this one. To me the memorials are to honour the fallen. Those who died as a result of a military execution by means of being charged with desertion, cowardice, casting away of arms or murder, should not be so honoured.

Gunner Bailey

[jay dubaya]

I respect your opinion GB, but what of the 89% of death penalties that were commuted? do they deserve to be on memorials? I personally feel Skone's name shouldn't be on the memorial and I believe that had the 'local worthies' known the true circumstances his name wouldn't be there, but I don't want this thread to digress into whether or not SaD cases should be honoured.

My question relates to the official correspondance that was given to NoK of the perpertraitors and in some cases the victims NoK. Do you have an opinion on that?

Jon

[John_Hartley]

Jon

In "Blindfold & Alone" there's a note of a statement made in the House of Commons in November 1917 to the effect that, from then, families would only be told that the man had "died on service". The inference is that, prior to this, they would have been told of the execution.

The book goes on to mention that names continued to be published in Routine Orders so I would have thought that this might still allow families to become aware of what had happened. Knowledge of an execution must have been widely known within a man's unit and it seems inconceivable that comrades would not write home about it. Or, even if their letters were censored, that they did not talk about it when they returned home on leave or after being demobbed.

Of course, it may well be that, whilst families knew what had happened they did not mention this to a memorial's organising committee when they submitted the name for inclusion. Well, you wouldn't , would you?

John

[jay dubaya]

These are all points that I have considered John and your last statement I believe holds a lot of truth.

The 1917 statement would suggest that some cases had a portion of the truth witheld, was this a military or governmental decision and for what purpose was information not passed on? So with that in mind it looks likely that the NoK of James Skone were not told the true circumstances, even though he died as a murderer with the likelyhood that his name would be included on a memorial,

Jon

[Gunner Bailey]

I respect your opinion GB, but what of the 89% of death penalties that were commuted? do they deserve to be on memorials? I personally feel Skone's name shouldn't be on the memorial and I believe that had the 'local worthies' known the true circumstances his name wouldn't be there, but I don't want this thread to digress into whether or not SaD cases should be honoured.

My question relates to the official correspondance that was given to NoK of the perpertraitors and in some cases the victims NoK. Do you have an opinion on that?

Jon

Jon

As you correctly state the majority were not shot for these offences and if they survived the war they would not be on a memorial anyway. If they went back to the line and served with their pals and then died in the line of duty to me yes, despite a previous blot on their character, they should be commemorated.

GB

[jay dubaya]

Thanks GB, do you think that Skone's NoK and all the other NoK of SaD cases that were executed for murder should have been told the truth in it's entirety to avoid in the case of Skone's at least, their names appearing on memorials.

Jon

[Gunner Bailey]

Thanks GB, do you think that Skone's NoK and all the other NoK of SaD cases that were executed for murder should have been told the truth in it's entirety to avoid in the case of Skone's at least, their names appearing on memorials.

Jon

Jon

Yes I do. Skone's case is another of those instances where there was a clear cut case of murder, with no motive but seemingly fuelled by drink. Had this happened to Skone in civilian life he would have been hung (almost without doubt) and buried in a prison yard. His family would have known about that. There would have been no respect awarded in civilian life for such a murderer. Skone has been buried with other soldiers and to this extent received more respect than a civilian murderer would have in the same circumstances and timeframe.

Inevitably there will be variations as to how people are informed of these deaths. I think that is typical of the time and we can't change history. I think it must have been terrible to learn immediately that your son / brother / father had been shot like this but far worse to have belived they died in battle and then subsequently find that their death was by execution.

GB

[truthergw]

There would have been little point in keeping the fact of an execution a secret. The men had friends and acquaintances serving beside them who would return on leave or as wounded and sick. There would be no way to keep the facts hidden. In any case, the army would not be ashamed of what had happened. No one was executed without a trial. They would not have been proud of what had happened but there would be no more reason for keeping it secret than any other execution, civil or military.