shot at dawn

[Wesley]

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

Forgive me quoting myself but my (probably rather insignificant) question way back on page 2 has been lost in the mire.

Anyone know the answer?

[Rob Connolly]

"Shot at dawn , two boys two lives Private Thomas Highgate was the first to suffer such military justice. Unable to bear the carnage of 7,800 British troops at the Battle of Mons, he had fled and hidden in a barn. He was undefended at his trial because all his comrades from the Royal West Kents had been killed, injured or captured. Just 35 days into the war, Private Highgate was executed at the age of 17. "

However, Wikipedia states that he was shot on 8/9/14, aged 19 (DoB 13/5/1895). Moreover, British losses at Mons were of the order of 1,500. The British Official History has no mention of the RWK being wiped out.

[laughton]

Any chance that we could go back to what I proposed in the early pages of this thread? That being that there are TWO TOPICS associated with the issue of executions, one being the FACTUAL matters (no personal feelings allowed) and the second being PERSONAL FEELINGS (which is more or less this topic). I have an interest in the facts of the Great War, "who, why, where, when, what" and that is how the factual part of the SAD topic should be discussed. I have tried to start that with the Canadian group - who were they and why were they executed?

As for Terry's FINAL WARNING I hope that is was a final warning that proper posts will be accepted and improper posts will be deleted, and/or the poster will be banned. Is that not the intent of the new process? In the factual section, I see no way that someone could post an improper post? Others have suggested - references please.

My apologies to anyone that does not agree with having a factual topic separate from a personal topic. I only have interest in the factual topic of the SAD discussion. There may be room for both on the forum.

Cheers to all,

Richard

Grandson of G. V. Laughton, M.C. (sent home due to shell shock a month later after being buried alive for 5 days)

Grandnephew of C. V. Laughton (a deserter - caught and never sent to France, moved to the USA)

[auchonvillerssomme]

When Thomas Highgate joined the RWK on 2nd February 1913 his age is given as 17yrs 9mths. 19 when he was shot.

[auchonvillerssomme]

1

[auchonvillerssomme]

As they have all been pardoned, I wonder if they are entitlted to their medals?

Mick

[Terry Denham]

laughton

Your hope expressed above is not misplaced.

This has been an unintended trial thread - not without its problems. Thank you to those who have confined themselves to the subject. Any further post which contains any personal comment about another member will be deleted and the poster will be sanctioned without warning.

Your are all entitled to your opinions on any subject but you must remain within the Forum rules and that includes respect for fellow members.

[truthergw]

As a commissioned officer, MOs may have sat on the board of FGCMs I have no knowledge of this one way or another. An accused at a court martial would have to be fit to plead, so any man showing obvious signs of insanity would not have been arraigned. I believe MOs figured in the process to make sure men were not court martialed. This has risen before in other discussions of courts martial. Although it is a trial, the court martial is the culmination of a process. There is a strong presumption of guilt. The idea being that you would not have been sent for trial if you didn't do it. The court martial is more about what sentence to give than whether you did it or not. We may not agree with that or think it is a fair method but it is the way it was done.

[horatio2]

I consider truthergw's summary of FGCMs to be an unduly cynical assessment, also known as the "March the guily b*st*rd in, Sergeant Major" school of justice. If that was the case, why bother with calling evidence to prove or disprove the charge? The only circumstance in which a court would hear no evidence would be where a guilty verdict had been reached by a lower court but the case was passed to a higher court for a sentence that was beyond the powers of the lower court. In practice this should happen only very rarely because charges likely to result in a [heavy] punishment should automatically be passed up.

[Heid the Ba]

There is another thread on this somewhere but there really isn't much evidence required for most CM offences.

Lt A: Private Smith was posted as a sentry in a trench at 10pm on the night of 21.5.1915. At 11pm Sjt B and I found he was missing.

MP C: At 9pm on 24.5.1915 I arrested Private Smith in a bar in Arras as he had no papers and no explanation for his absence from the battalion.

[truthergw]

My reading of the trials suggests to me that evidence was called in order to let the court decide if there were any mitigating circumstances. The man would not appear in front of a court martial until his case had been decided by his commanding officer and he had recommended court martial or the accused had refused to accept his decision. The fact of being sent for a court martial was in itself a strong indication that the local commander, the man best positioned to know, thought he was guilty. If he was innocent, the case would be dismissed. Like it or not, that is the way courts martial worked in the vast majority of cases. These cases were not subject to great investigations. There was no call for Sherlock Holmes or , pace Hollywood, Perry Mason. There was no doubt as to whether a man had deserted his post, ran away, refused to go over the top. The facts of the case were almost never in question. The accused would try to present evidence to show why he should not be subject to the full rigours of the law. In the vast majority of cases, that plea would be accepted.

[horatio2]

Your reading is in error. At FGCM a case had never previously "been decided by his Commanding Officer" and the hearing of evidence for and against the charge is quite distinct and separate in law from hearing a plea in mitigation of sentence. Evidence is heard before decision on guilt or innocence and a plea in mitigation is heard after establishment of guilt and before sentencing. "I will hear mitigation after I have pronounced sentence" is a joke. The Judge Advocate at the trial would ensure that these basic matters of law were observed. A man could not be tried twice for the same offence and, therefore, could not be judged his CO and by a FGCM. The CO was required only to establish whether there was a case to be answered (based on evidence likely to be adduced) and it was then dismissed or passed up [to FGCM] for trial and sentence (in the same way that a Magistrates' Court can dismiss a case or pass it up to a higher court).

[baorbrat]

As they have all been pardoned, I wonder if they are entitlted to their medals?

Mick

The answer is no. They were "Pardoned" not exonerated. ie Still Guilty.

[stevem49]

Shot at dawn , two boys two lives

Private Thomas Highgate was the first to suffer such military justice. Unable to bear the carnage of 7,800 British troops at the Battle of Mons, he had fled and hidden in a barn. He was undefended at his trial because all his comrades from the Royal West Kents had been killed, injured or captured. Just 35 days into the war, Private Highgate was executed at the age of 17.

Many similar stories followed, among them that of 16-year-old Herbert Burden, who had lied that he was two years older so he could join the Northumberland Fusiliers. Ten months later, he was court-martialled for fleeing after seeing his friends massacred at the battlefield of Bellwarde Ridge. He faced the firing squad still officially too young to be in his regiment.

Just think these boys were no cowards , just too young to be there where they were , and probably just too anxious to show they were men in stead of what they really were , just boys ....

Buried in Delville Wood Cemetery is a 16 year old lad from the 9th bn Sherwood Foresters. He fought at Gallipoli and then on the Somme. His mother attempted to get him out of the army but he wanted to fight for his country.

Why are the two above any different from this young hero?

I would suggest that anyone who wishes to comment on the SAD men should delve into the archives and decide for themselves if various reports in books etc are true. In the case of SAD men, too many people have a view before checking on the sources available.

My point has always been that we wring our hands about 306 men when hundreds of thousands of others died fighting the enemy.

steve m

[truthergw]

Your reading is in error. ...................

The CO was required only to establish whether there was a case to be answered (based on evidence likely to be adduced) and it was then dismissed or passed up [to FGCM] for trial and sentence...................

Which is exactly what I said. The CO decided whether the man would face court martial or not. If he was sent for court martial, the CO was saying he was guilty otherwise he would have dismissed the case. It was all over bar the shouting. The court martial would decide whether there were mitigating circumstances or not. Certainly the prisoner could be found not guilty but in practise, there was a strong presumption of guilt. Incidentally " March the guilty ***** in", was not far from the facts. Very few soldiers were accused of crimes they had not committed. A prisoner was marched in to be sentenced not to decide if he was guilty or not. The CO heard the facts then passed sentence.

[irishmen1916]

I have a few questions about SAD men. Of the total number executed how many where Officers ? Is there any records ( or was it common practice) for the condemned men to be given alcohol just before being shot ?Where at the Ramparts in Ieper on 26/07/1916 ware the five men from the 3rd Worcester's shot ?Did the Mothers or wife's of SAD men, receive the war pension ?

Thanks Peter.

[Ozzie]

I have read this thread to try and get some idea of the British SAD thoughts.

As an Aussie, whose Government made a ruling? that no AIF soldier could be executed without the approval of the Australian Gov. Gen. I have found the debate on the SAD topic very interesting.

There is no doubt that some, and I repeat some, AIF soldiers should have come under the SAD discussion, but for the foresight of the Australian Government this did not happen.

I can see shades of grey with this topic, and can understand both sides of the argument.

Firstly, I would like to congratulate members on their restraint of emotion, and sticking to a mannered debate, albiet with a few references to moderators.

Secondly, the debate brings more facts to the table, more insight to those who may never have known of this topic, and the consequences of the decisions of the rulings that saw men shot at dawn.

Please, as difficult as it can be to leave emotion out of the debate, and believe me when I say, I know this can be very hard to do, please continue the discussion in the vein it has been, ie; well mannered and understanding; as it is for future generations, that your words will stand.

Thanks

Kim

[truthergw]

Hi Kim. That is an interesting facet to the discussion. The British High Command genuinely believed that the lack of the threat of capital punishment had an adverse affect on the Australians' discipline. They also thought it was unfair for the British who served alongside them. Not unfair enough for them to have a moratariium on the death sentence however. The Diggers were renowned for their easy approach to discipline and it would be interesting to see a properly conducted analysis of how this affected their fighting ability. Personally I can't see how it could have very well improved! There were mutterings from on high when Australian troops were involved in riots and disorder later in the war. Whether that would have been avoided if a death sentence had been available is debatable.

[Ozzie]

Read about the Eureka Stockade and the Shearer's fight to see where the spirit of the riots of the later years of the war came into it.

I am speaking from a personal point here, not an academic one, God forbid, me an academic!!, (no slight at all intended)

(( history of LH)), but...

The people who came to Oz, in the early parts, were of two kinds, the haves, and the have nots.

They saw Oz as the land to make their way, or to, do their time, then make their way.

Oz is not a lush country.

It is an unforgiving, hard country. Mother nature was not kind to fools.

The people who survived in Oz learnt that survival, that is, your LIFE, depended on the will of your mates to stand by you.

If your mates decided that you weren't worth it, then God help you.

But in saying that, there was always, and still is, the admiration for the underdog.

They did not suffer fools gladly. They did not kowtow to a man because he was of a better "class'.

They may have 'curried' favour, but usually for the better of their kind.

Australia has had it dark days. The Chinese and the Aboriginals spring to mind.

But, on the whole, what counted, was not a man's linage, but what a man did.

One did not let a mate down.

One did not leave behind wounded, if one could bodily help it.

What one did behind the lines had no meaning, once one was in the lines.

They took care of their own, they metered out their own rough justice, and if what their conscience told them was right, they would defend it. They had their own idea of discipline. It was that of what was best for the regiment, the battalion, their mates, and the country.

Why did they vote against conscription?

Why does France and Belgium honour them?

Why does General Ludendorff call the 8th of August the "black day of the German army",

And so, they died for King and Country.

Far from their homes across the seas, far from the ties to the Motherland.

Should they have been subjected to the Motherland's rules, when the Motherland had cast them out?

The sons of convicts and those that were second and third sons?

No.

They stepped up, as volunteers, not conscripted. They were humans, subjected to the worst that man could do to each other, and they did their best, often exceeding the expectations of the British command.

Were they all perfect? No.

Were they spit and polished? No.

But they did what was asked of them, and then they gave more.

Their bodies lie in fields far from the country that gave birth to their strong hearts, their sense of what is right, their loyalty to Australia, and the Mother Country.

As much has been said about discipline, and making an example of cowards, the majority of all the soldiers that fought in the Great War, did so with honour, -some were damaged individuals, and some were just plain rogues.

Do we condemn all, because of a few?

Or do we try and understand that different cultures, and the disciplines of those different cultures, having different values.

A 17 yr old that is SAD, because he had a romantic idea of war, and could not handle the truth of humanity's wrath against each other, and so tries to escape the horror, - can he be compared to a hard bitten, devious, scoundrel who is only looking out for himself?

Mates VS Number one.

Criminal vs physologically damaged by the sights and sounds of war?

As has been said in this thread, we should take out the veiws we hold in 2008, and try and see the thinking of the times of 1914-1918.

What would you think of a man, who found other things to do behind the lines when you were going over, or the man who hotfooted it for a safer place, when the incoming rained about you?

Would you have stopped and tried to find out, did this man have prior wounds, prior burials, or was he just looking out for number one, while his mates died out in no mans land.

Unfortunatelatly, we will never know, will we?

Only those that serve, know the calibre of their mates.

Kim

[horatio2]

Which is exactly what I said. The CO decided whether the man would face court martial or not. If he was sent for court martial, the CO was saying he was guilty otherwise he would have dismissed the case. It was all over bar the shouting. The court martial would decide whether there were mitigating circumstances or not. Certainly the prisoner could be found not guilty but in practise, there was a strong presumption of guilt. Incidentally " March the guilty ***** in", was not far from the facts. Very few soldiers were accused of crimes they had not committed. A prisoner was marched in to be sentenced not to decide if he was guilty or not. The CO heard the facts then passed sentence.

Thank you for putting me straight and revealing the truth behind military justice. I had not appreciated that the whole process was a succession of kangaroo courts.

[squirrel]

I have read this thread with interest and have found it absorbing.

However, it should be borne in mind that any offences committed by soldiers would be looked at by Company and Battalion Officers depending on the severity of the case before they were passed to a Courts Martial. There were limits to what could be dealt with within the unit and all this was laid down in King's regulations and the Manual of Military Law.

Any case would have been investigated before referral to a hearing at a Courts Martial so that is why there was a presumption of guilt.

I am in agreement with Charles Messenger's post #150 and Tom Rutherford's posts also.

Kim's posts #173/175 have been an education.

I would also add that all soldiers were made aware of the death penalty for certain crimes; sections of the relevant acts were read out during their training and also during their service, as well as the crimes punishable by death being in a short form in their pay books.

It is still an emotive subject and I appreciate that some people have strong feelings one way or another, but it should be looked at with the head and not the heart however difficult that may be.

[Pete1052]

It would seem to me that the Breaker Morant affair during the Boer War had quite an influence on Australian public opinion regarding the execution of soldiers.

[stevem49]

Thank you for putting me straight and revealing the truth behind military justice. I had not appreciated that the whole process was a succession of kangaroo courts.

I have never attended a trail of a Kangaroo but would doubt it was anything like a Courts Martial.

The CO to my knowledge did not find the man guilty or innocent. He decided that it was not within his remit to try the man and passed it further up the chain of command. Then a Courts Martial was convened. The man would then have the charges read to him and he could plead guilty or not guilty.

One point - If the people (sorry i do not know all of the names) who campaigned for a pardon felt so passionate - why did they not go for a pardon for all men executed and chose instead to put forward only the WW1 men?

I know of at least one man 'accidently shot' by his fellows because they thought he endangered their lives with his inaction during battle. One wonders how many of the SAD men's collegues actual thought it wrong to get rid of him.

I know from the studies that I have done, many Private soldiers and non-comms testified against SAD men.

Also if a c*** officer is killed - who would know from the direction the bullet came.

Peoples energies would be better used in fighting for an end to war and not a few men among millions killed.

stevem

[Black Watch]

I read somewhere (Sorry Tom), that a man could refuse to be part of a firing squad. Is this true?

Neil

[truthergw]

There have been discussions on this. The few references I have read do not suggest that it was an invitation event. I suspect that the Sergeant Major would detail men he could rely on to do the job. He would not want drama or hysterics. I read somewhere that if a Black Watch man was caught with a book, he got jankers and if he was reading it he was transferred to the Gordons.