shot at dawn

[grantowi]

Roxy,

Having read reports where men have been charged with "striking a superior officer" for just brushing against one, and if some one told you, you had to go back into action and grabbed your arm, the very act of you pushing them away could be classd as "violence"

From what I know about shell shock (which is very little), even the worse sufferer would know that murdering some one was wrong, but in a disorintated state it would be quite easy to push / shove / hit a person who was preventing you fro getting away from the horror you percieve

Grant

[Roxy]

Grant,

Thanks for that - I now see where you are coming from!

FYI, the men executed for striking a superior officer were:

Pte J Fox 2 HLI - he kicked 2 Lt O'Halloran twice and was disarmed by a sgt who thought that he was about to attack the officer. He had a number of offences on his conduct sheet and had been released from prison 3 months before the incident that resulted in his execution.

Drivers Thomas Hamilton and James Mullany 72 Bty 38 Bde RFA. Hamilton was found guilty of punching 2 Lt Oates on the face and body; Mullany was found guilty of attacking BSM Hughes. Bothincidents happened in the rear and the Corps Commander, Lt Gen Lord Cavan commented on the discipline of the battery when recommending that the death sentences was carried out.

Pte Hubert Clarke 2 BWI was executed in Egypt.

Furthermore, Pte Samuel Sabongidda, 3 Nigerians, was executed in Nigeria for violence.

Roxy

[Jonathan Saunders]

well as the ban is lifted, were these soldiers, cowards or examples to force military discipline?

For the non-murder cases then my opinion is that it was a lottery with the C-in-C War Theatre ultimately making decison of life or death - there are clearly cases when the evidence for the prosecution was extremely suspect yet the death sentence was corroborated all the way up the Chain of Command ie. Div General, Corps General, Army Commander, C-in-C.

The execution of Sub-Lt Dyett was, if not illegal, certainly dishonourable to the War Office - the Admiralty not being informed of the sentence until after it had been carried out.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[BIRDY]

hard topic,

who knows how you would react to being in the situation the lads were in.

good book, ia shot at dawn, julian putkowski and julian sykes

[armourersergeant]

The execution of Sub-Lt Dyett was, if not illegal, certainly dishonourable to the War Office - the Admiralty not being informed of the sentence until after it had been carried out.

I have had the pleasure (?) of listening to a recreation of the trial of this, or what records remain of it. I have to say that I was of the opinion that Dyer was quilty, HOWEVER it was my gut, I certainly would not have comdemned him on the eveidence I heard. I got the impression there was either evidence missing or they knew more than was said at the trial! (insert other theories at will!)

regards

Arm

Ps I can not believe I am here again. I swore after the last time to leave this topic alone!

[Jonathan Saunders]

I got the impression there was either evidence missing or they knew more than was said at the trial! (insert other theories at will!)

That would be his hospitalisation for epilepsy a few months earlier.

[Kevin O'Marah]

Could this be a case against a conscripted army, it seems to me that if you take a population of over 3 million as a whole, as it is today you get murderers, pacifists, etc. I do not like using the term coward as I was not there at the time, and a firm believer that we all are capable of killing if the wrong button in us is pushed. Feeling scared stiff under the kind of pressures these men were under at the time I can understand, and not wanting to die this too I can understand.

I wonder how many men during recent wars like the American Civil War (in a way an other Conscripted Army) and in WW2 would have fallen into these kind of categories? We have heard that a lot of soldiers deliberately shot to miss or to wound rather than to kill in recent wars, were these men cowards?

Are we trying to judge the morality of an early 20th century army and culture by today's standards, rightly or wrongly?History shows us that errors were made, and are still being made today, and may be seen in a different light when the event is not as fresh in future generations to come.

Kevin

[truthergw]

One of the problems with this topic is how do we approach it. From the standpoint of 2008 with the full benefit of hindsight, the vast accumulation of medical and psychiatric knowledge and the equally great changes in social attitudes and expectations, or do we try to put ourselves into the shoes of the men, officers and medical profession of the day. There is no doubt that from the former standpoint, none of the men would be executed and only a few, the murderers, would be imprisoned. From the latter, I think we would do the same again. There is plenty of evidence that the sentences were commuted wherever the powers that be thought that they ought to be. There was no policy of ruthless capital punishment. As Dave has mentioned, thr French forces at the start of the war and again, in the aftermath of the mutinies in '17 were subjected to draconian punishment, with men not only being selected by lot for failing to push attacks a outrance but also individual soldiers being shot out of hand by local commanders with no trial whatsoever. This may explain why the French authorities very quickly instigated investigation, retrials etc. and many of the men were ' rehabilitated '. The British government when the question was brought up, felt that justice had been done. Many of their comrades felt the same. Not a topic that veterans chose to discuss often, many refused to discuss it at all. The commonest reaction I heard was, " Poor ba **rds it could have been any of us". That compassion was not extended to the men who had deserted several times, which I thought illogical. If you are a coward you are going to run away every time. Ought it to have been a capital offence to be a coward? The men of the time thought so.

[laughton]

One of the problems with this topic is how do we approach it.

Good question Tom and one that needs to be given serious thought early in the process. The "Moderating Team" has been kind enough to reconsider the matter of the topic ban. In return, we all need to decide how to address the topic and keep the focus.

For myself, I would like to see the topic start with the facts, as laid out in the history. Forget that the topic has been here before, as many members may not have participated and probably don't know the facts. Along with facts comes the references. Where did this information originate and is it a primary, secondary or tertiary reference? Perhaps the topic could be split into two sections, one dealing with the facts and references and the other with personal comments.

At a later date then perhaps we can introduce the situation from the allied nations.

Just my ideas, thinking and writing,

Thanks to the Mods for the reconsideration .....

Richard of Canada

[Rob Connolly]

Could this be a case against a conscripted army, it seems to me that if you take a population of over 3 million as a whole, as it is today you get murderers, pacifists, etc. I do not like using the term coward as I was not there at the time, and a firm believer that we all are capable of killing if the wrong button in us is pushed. Feeling scared stiff under the kind of pressures these men were under at the time I can understand, and not wanting to die this too I can understand.

I wonder how many men during recent wars like the American Civil War (in a way an other Conscripted Army) and in WW2 would have fallen into these kind of categories? We have heard that a lot of soldiers deliberately shot to miss or to wound rather than to kill in recent wars, were these men cowards?

Are we trying to judge the morality of an early 20th century army and culture by today's standards, rightly or wrongly?History shows us that errors were made, and are still being made today, and may be seen in a different light when the event is not as fresh in future generations to come.

Kevin

I think you identify two critical points here. The British army went from being a small, volunteer-only peace-time force to an enormous, volunteer-and-conscription war-time force in the space of two years. Whereas the Continental powers had generations to inculcate the correct attitude into their conscript soldiery, Britain did not. As a result, you get behaviour that the army cannot condone and sets out to punish - very severely on occasion.

Secondly, we are looking back at the past with our 21st century goggles firmly in place. It's hugely impolite today to use the N-word when talking about coloured people, yet the folks of 1914-1918 wouldn't have worried about using it - viz. Captain Dunn in "The War The Infantry Knew" talking about German shell explosions being called "Jack Johnsons" after the coloured boxer. No votes for women, no limit on working hours, no minimum wage, no NHS - it truly was a different country where people behaved differently. For one thing, the death penalty was still firmly in force for criminals; not a sanction we have today.

In the 22nd century I'm sure our grandchildren will tut about their wicked ancestors who (cont. Page 94).

[Wesley]

So if Shell shock wasn't recognised,

how many of thoses suffering were branded as cowards ?

I would suggest that question is nigh on impossible to answer.

Of the FGCM records I have seen – and I will admit that doesn’t amount to many – the emphasis is on the behaviour of the soldier, not his mental state.

(As an aside, does any Pal know if medical officers were ever involved during FGCM?)

As has been noted previously by a Pal, shell-shock was not fully understood. A man exhibiting unacceptable behaviour could have been suffering from what we now term PTSD; on the other hand he could just as easily have been a ‘bad lot’. In the early 20th Century the knowledge simply wasn’t there to make that judgement

Anyone making a pronouncement on individual cases today – if indeed to facts are available to enable that - would be doing so with the benefits of 90 years of advances in psychiatry and psychological assessment techniques.

As a general comment on the subject, I think it’s very easy today for us to sit back and judge the behaviour of our forefathers with the benefit of hindsight.

[joseph]

Each case individually as they would have been at the time. Not using todays standards but the way things were during the great war and of course the rules, regulations and laws that were in place. Looking back in retrospect it is so easy to condemn both the defence and prosecution, now it seems wrong was it then?

Edit Snap?

Regards Charles

[Norrette]

For myself, I would like to see the topic start with the facts, as laid out in the history. Forget that the topic has been here before, as many members may not have participated and probably don't know the facts. Along with facts comes the references. Where did this information originate and is it a primary, secondary or tertiary reference? Perhaps the topic could be split into two sections, one dealing with the facts and references and the other with personal comments.

Good idea, Richard

[Wesley]

the topic should be considered like this, you are confronted by a man unable to speak, or control his movements, he is unable to communicate his plight to you, it is 1915, do you execute him for cowardice?

I think it fair to assume that nobody here would consider executing him...

...but then we are living in 2008 not 1915.

Like I said...Hindsight.

[Jonathan Saunders]

From the latter, I think we would do the same again.

I disagree - executing men in the full knowledge that you are executing them purely as an example and with little genuine reflection on the facts of the case, as did happen, and with the consequent punishment and hardship extended to their families, is a shame upon those responsible in any modern society.

That compassion was not extended to the men who had deserted several times, which I thought illogical. Ought it to have been a capital offence to be a coward? The men of the time thought so.

I think its important to point out that whilst some soldiers of 1914-1918 were of this opinion, there are other examples that express the opinion that there were no cowards in a War Theatre ... just men that couldnt cope with the strain, the conditions and the ceaseless workload.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[baorbrat]

'Blindfold and Alone' again,

238000 courts martial

3080 death sentences

346 executions carried out

551 courts martial for cowardice

7371 courts martial for desertion - approx 3000 resulted in a death sentence

Roxy

Gerard Oram, Death Sentences passed by By military courts of the British Army

2005 death sentences passed for Desertion, 272 executions.

213 for cowardice, 14 executions

A total of 3,362 Death sentences were passed by Military Courts of which 455 were carried out.

[auchonvillerssomme]

It might be as well to re-open for viewing the previous threads and comments on this subject so we can all have a good read, all this has been discussed before to death, otherwise there is a danger that it will turn into a boring argument again. Please no one forget why the discussion was closed before, threats, bullying, threats of legal action.

It would be fantastic to hear new, original, well balanced thoughts on this subject.

Are we allowed to discuss Haig as well?

Mick

[Peter Beckett]

Mick,

We don't intend opening old threads as you can still read them. If they are not there then they were deleted and therefore gone forever.

There has never been a ban on Haig.

Peter

[T8HANTS]

I think the Mods have made their first major mistake. These discussions are pointless, boring and benefit no one, as the victims remain shot, pardoned or not, deserved or not.

Gareth

[IanA]

I think the Mods have made their first major mistake.

Sadly, I have to agree. I suspect more heat will be generated than light. I will be happy to be proved wrong.

[Steven Broomfield]

Ps I can not believe I am here again. I swore after the last time to leave this topic alone!

And i think I will......

[MelPack]

Gareth & Ian

I do not share your views about the lifting of the ban. I disagreed when it was implemented although I fully understood and appreciated the reasons and the intention behind the decision.

I welcome the moderators' change of policy because it affords the opportunity to the many new members that have joined the forum since 2006 to exchange their views in a measured way as demonstrated in this thread thus far. In that context, it is important that longer standing members of the Board that have participated in previous discussions on this subject should exercise forbearance and avoid curt or dismissive replies of the kind that often appear as in new threads on Haig.

I congratulate the moderators on their vote of confidence in the membership of the Board and I hope that we can reciprocate by demonstrating that their confidence is well placed.

Regards

Mel

[Guest KevinEndon]

the Shot at dawn memorial at Alrewas seems to me as if it has been placed somewhat out of the way compaired to the

other major memorials. I wonder if this was intentional because some people find it too difficult a subject to have in full view of the public.

Kevin

[Guest KevinEndon]

307 posts all with a plaque on them like the one below.

[Gunner Bailey]

It is interesting to see the views expressed on shell shock. There seems to be a belief that some soldiers were immune from it therefore they would not desert. I would contend that all soldiers in the trenches were victims of shell shock but the reaction to it varied greatly. One of my grandfathers was a sapper who spent a huge amount of time in the trenches, and came home a profoundly changed person. However, he didn't crack and he didn't desert. His views about deserters were famous in our family. He absolutely hated them for abandoning their mates when everyone else stuck it. A view held by many in the trenches.

It should be remembered that many of the deserters never saw action at all. They quite simply ran away before they got to the trenches. Others were serial deserters who ran away many times, and a few were sentenced to death twice, have been reprieved once, then deserted again.

Those truely sheel shocked were treated with compassion in most cases and it was often a case of treatment and rest away from the front and then they were able to return. Shell shock is frequently spoken about in first hand accounts and these people were not branded cowards by their fellow soldiers.

It is a huge mistake to categorically label everyone executed in the WW1 as a shell shock victim. Many were not shell shocked at all. Others were, but no worse than the majority who stuck it out.

In a volunteer Army of 5 million, the level of desertion was in my opinion very low, and the fact that 90% of people found guilty of desertion were not executed shows that the military justice system at the time had a proper review system and was understanding of the problems soldiers faced.

Gunner Bailey