shot at dawn

[Jonathan Saunders]

Others were serial deserters who ran away many times, and a few were sentenced to death twice, have been reprieved once, then deserted again.

Presumably you would agree that someone with shell shock may run away more than once.

[Uncle Joe]

How many of the men shot were under 18 years of age.

Uncle Joe

[truthergw]

I have made my contribution to the discussion. I hope it is useful. I do not expect it to change the minds of those who have already come to a decision. I do not think that people who disagree are wrong any more than I think I am right. It is simply my considered opinion.

As to discussing the topic of capital punishment, I think it ought to be. It is self evidently important. It is also a very sensitive subject and liable to engender highly emotional responses. Because this is so, I would ask for factual input, " I read somewhere", is not helpful. Where did you read it?

My own reading was mainly in French because I was following up some passages in a couple of French novels. Pedroncini is the classic reference as he was the first to be granted unlimited access to sealed archives. Very straightforward. Facts, dates and numbers. Very dry, no histrionics. I have also read a more recent work, " Le Fusilles de la Grande Guerre", N. Offenstadt. This deals with the subsequent history of the whole subject in France, up to and beyond 1970s. Interesting to compare the treatment by the British Government to that of the French. The subject is mentioned quite frequently in various memoirs of French soldiers. More so, and at greater length I believe than in books by their British counterparts. That is simply an impression, I have not carried out a survey. Le Feu, Ceux de 14, Le Grand Troupeau, Les Croix des Bois all mention executions. These were popular books published during and just after the war. The subject seems to have been much more openly discussed in France than in Britain.

[Gunner Bailey]

Presumably you would agree that someone with shell shock may run away more than once.

I'd say that most with shell shock never ran away at all.

Regarding Dyett, it was clear he was not a shellshock victim, but someone who was totally unsuited to the life at the front and military action. He was a 'sensitive type' and in a less rigid world than existed then should have been put in charge of base stores. However he was put into the inferno and cracked. If he was shot as an example, that was wrong, but as he was also shot as a deserter, then he was treated the same as many others.

Gunner Bailey

[Andrew Hesketh]

Mel, thanks for the reasoned post above. It's been quite a week for griping about / shooting Mods, so it's nice to have a little support!

I agree with an earlier poster that this topic will generate more heat than light, but, to reinvent an old cliche, 'if you can't stand the heat, stay out of SAD'. Members with bad memories can choose to stay well clear, but since the ban (2, 3 years ago?) several thousand people have joined us and have not had the benefits (?!) of the debate.

I firmly believe that this forum is strong enough to debate anything sensibly, so it seemed at odds to me that we continue a ban on an iconic Great War issue.

[jay dubaya]

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

Gareth, for someone like me who arrived on the forum just as the preverbial hit the fan I missed out on all discussion regarding the subject and now nearly 2 years later it has returned. I have a distant relative that was shot at dawn and was granted a pardon, I also have two local lads that were shot at dawn, one of which was pardoned, the other who was tried and shot for murder quite remarkable has his name on a local memorial. I welcome the fact that we can now openly discuss the SaD cases and hope that it can be done without the repercussions of last time,

cheers, Jon

[Chris_Baker]

this forum is strong enough to debate anything sensibly

I am afraid that this proved to be anything but the case last time, Andrew. I sincerely hope that members will avoid the vitriol and threats that led to the expulsion of the subject before. New members: don't bother searching. All threads on the subject were deleted some time ago.

[horatio2]

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

There is nothing in Dyett's RND Record Cards to indicate any health problems whatsoever. A reference, please?

[truthergw]

I took part in the debate last time but then had an accident which kept me away from the computer for a few months. I missed the unhappy ending. I hope that with all the warnings of what can happen and has happened before, we can still discuss this subject and bring forward the different opinions and why we hold them. The granting of pardons has changed the situation and there are many new pals who will wish to make their contribution. I am assuming that mods will be keeping a very wary eye on the thread and react accordingly to any post that is out of line.

[Guest KevinEndon]

here is a full list of the British shot at dawn cases and for what they were shot for

http://www.janpieterchielens.be/shotatdawn/page59.html

no ages are added.

What I remember at Alrewas was that the posts had the soldiers name, unit, date executed and age. Many has age unknown. I cannot find a website that gives the ages of all the soldiers so I have no idea as to how many were shot under the aged of 18.

Kevin

[Uncle Joe]

Thanks Kevin.

Uncle Joe

[Jonathan Saunders]

It is also a very sensitive subject and liable to engender highly emotional responses. Because this is so, I would ask for factual input, " I read somewhere", is not helpful. Where did you read it?

Again I disagree – this is an open Forum not an academic forum. Many Forum members are extremely well read and informed. Their opinions and contributions should not be excluded simply because they have not referenced their source.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[Jonathan Saunders]

I'd say that most with shell shock never ran away at all.

I wouldn’t disagree with you but that doesn’t answer the question I asked.

Regarding Dyett, it was clear he was not a shellshock victim, but someone who was totally unsuited to the life at the front and military action. He was a 'sensitive type' and in a less rigid world than existed then should have been put in charge of base stores. However he was put into the inferno and cracked. If he was shot as an example, that was wrong, but as he was also shot as a deserter, then he was treated the same as many others.

I am more than happy to discuss Dyett should you want to do so. He was a very capable Merchant Navy officer and volunteered to serve at sea and having been drafted to the RND did on several occasions make the request for sea service. His unsuitability for Front Line action was well known and considered a hindrance to other who would serve under him by his senior officers. The fact he was not transferred to sea service and that he was put in to the position he was, was not his failure but the failure of others.

Regards,

Jonathan S

There is nothing in Dyett's RND Record Cards to indicate any health problems whatsoever. A reference, please?

I will email you.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[truthergw]

Why would anyone not wish to provide a refernce to a quote? That is not an academic foible, it is simple commonsense. I read somewhere that it is illegal not to provide references.

[Gunner Bailey]

I wouldn't disagree with you but that doesn't answer the question I asked.

I am more than happy to discuss Dyett should you want to do so. He was a very capable Merchant Navy officer and volunteered to serve at sea and having been drafted to the RND did on several occasions make the request for sea service. His unsuitability for Front Line action was well known and considered a hindrance to other who would serve under him by his senior officers. The fact he was not transferred to sea service and that he was put in to the position he was, was not his failure but the failure of others.

Regards,

Jonathan S

That could apply to every service person if they plead 'It's not my fault I was transferred to the wrong place for me'. He was an officer and was expected to carry out an officer's duty. He failed to do so and paid the price. Ultimately the failure was his.

Gunner Bailey

[Jonathan Saunders]

Why would anyone not wish to provide a refernce to a quote? That is not an academic foible, it is simple commonsense. I read somewhere that it is illegal not to provide references.

I would have thought the reasons pretty obvious and the request to provide references actually against the spirit of this Forum.

Can you expand on your "illegal" comment as I dont think I understand what you are inferring.

Regards,

Jonathan S

That could apply to every service person if they plead 'It's not my fault I was transferred to the wrong place for me'. He was an officer and was expected to carry out an officer's duty. He failed to do so and paid the price. Ultimately the failure was his.

Thanks for your opinion.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[AlanCurragh]

Jon - I think Tom is suggesting that if other people can state "I read somewhere..." without providing a reference, he could just as easily state that "I read somewhere.." and add something patently ridiculous, such as the non-provision of references being illegal.

Not that I'm commenting on what he's written, just added my opinion on what I think he means...

Alan

[Andrew Hesketh]

I am afraid that this proved to be anything but the case last time, Andrew.

I did preface my boundless optimism with the words "I firmly believe...".

[Jonathan Saunders]

Jon - I think Tom is suggesting that if other people can state "I read somewhere..." without providing a reference, he could just as easily state that "I read somewhere.."

Thanks for your reply.

And if he did I wouldnt question his word. It would be of help if he could add a reference or source but I wouldnt expect it on this Forum as a matter of course.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[stevem49]

I am always amazed by the feelings stirred on this subject. Some 750,000 men were killed in the most appalling conditions ever (probably). Yet people seem polarised by this subject and a few men.

I have read some books on the subject but have only studied one case in detail. He was a waste of space who seemed to make a career out of deserting or 'being sick'. He was tried under the laws of the time and his 'friend' was a lawyer in Civvy street. He had as far as I can see - a fair trial.

At the time - June 1918 - The Battalion had problems with men returning late from leave (AWOL).

It is possible that if discipline had been better, he may well not have been shot. As it was discipline improved 100%, so his death did serve a purpose.

I feel sorry for his Mother (who had disowned him) - her husband died in 1918 and her other two sons where Killed in action within a few months of each other -

Pte S B..... - 21st March 1918

Mr H B..... - 26th May 1918

Pte A B..... - 19th July 1918

Pte F B..... - 21st September 1918

I just hope that the 'retrospective historians' do not apply todays standards etc, in their arguments.

We are here to report history and not change it to suit modern needs.

When writing the history of the battalion I made sure not to judge him or the court but to report the fact of his death and why. As with all of my men, I have visited his grave and paid my respects.

I firmly believe that they died as a result of the war, as did all the men. Whether it be KiA, 'Friendly fire' or SAD.

steve m

[Gunner Bailey]

I just hope that the 'retrospective historians' do not apply todays standards etc, in their arguments.

We are here to report history and not change it to suit modern needs.

steve m

Steve - Sadly they do apply today's standards and seemingly have no concept of a time when duty was probably the most important word in society.

Fully agree with you on the second line.

Gunner Bailey

[Jonathan Saunders]

Sadly they do apply today's standards and seemingly have no concept of a time when duty was probably the most important word in society.

It would be interesting to know who "they" are.

[Gunner Bailey]

It would be interesting to know who "they" are.

I would say Jonathan it was mostly those who sought a blanket pardon for all SAD cases (including the murderers) because they believed the soldiers were all shell shocked innocents and victims of mis-trials. All of which comes from applying today's values and standards to people who lived in another era. It also displays a huge ignorance of the facts and is an insult to the serving officers, NCO's and soldiers there at the time.

Gunner Bailey

[Jonathan Saunders]

I would say Jonathan it was mostly those who sought a blanket pardon for all SAD cases (including the murderers) because they believed the soldiers were all shell shocked innocents and victims of mis-trials. All of which comes from applying today's values and standards to people who lived in another era. It also displays a huge ignorance of the facts and is an insult to the serving officers, NCO's and soldiers there at the time.

Gunner Bailey

I am quite happy to be corrected if I am wrong but I thought the call for a blanket pardon hinged on the work of Anthony Babington and his summary that in several cases the due process of the law that existed at the time had not been followed in the prosecution of the accused men.

The reason a blanket pardon was necessary was due to the Case files having been thinned previously which made it impossible to review each case on an individual basis.

Thanks for your answer all the same.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[Gunner Bailey]

I am quite happy to be corrected if I am wrong but I thought the call for a blanket pardon hinged on the work of Anthony Babington and his summary that in several cases the due process of the law that existed at the time had not been followed in the prosecution of the accused men.

The reason a blanket pardon was necessary was due to the Case files having been thinned previously which made it impossible to review each case on an individual basis.

Thanks for your answer all the same.

Regards,

Jonathan S

Jonathan I believe the flaw in that approach is that just because a few were imperfect it does not mean at all the rest were bad verdicts or bad justice.

I also think the pardon was given by a politician who wanted to end a subject that had been on the back of previous Defence ministers for a long time. That does not mean it was the right decision. To me it was burying it. It didn't change history.

Gunner Bailey