shot at dawn

[Kate Wills]

I was looking through a copy of the memorial volume of letters home from Captain Andrew Buxton of the Rifle Brigade. I do not have my note to hand, but if I remember correctly, he wrote on 3 February 1917 that he had been on the judicial panel of two FGCM. "One had been found guilty, and given a sentence of Death; but of course he will get off".

I daresay it would be easy to narrow down the possibilities and see if Buxton was proved correct in his assumptions.

[Ozzie]

I am having all sorts of probs resizing these.

If any one is interested I can send some huge files if they would like to have a go at resizing them and posting.

It is from an officer's note book, 1915-1919, on Conducting court martials and the military law.

This book is bound in thick leather, so can't scan it, have to take photos.

Kim

Think I might save up for a camera holder thingy.

[PhilB]

Can anyone outline how a modern FGCM on a very serious charge (since there is now no capital offence) would differ from its WW1 equivalent? Has the principle of trial before a jury of one`s peers, as laid down in Magna Carta, ever had any relevance in FGCMs?

[truthergw]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jun 27 2008, 10:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

............... Has the principle of trial by one`s peers, as laid down in Magna Carta, ever had any relevance in FGCMs?

Or indeed to anyone outside the aristocracy?

[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.

Can any of the pals get back to me with answers for the above post. Thanks Peter

[baorbrat]

3 Officers were shot. 3 others were sentenced to death but not executed.

Widows and or Mothers did not receive the war pension.

Alcohol was optional, but there are records and it was common practice for it to be given to condemned men the night before execution.

I have no record of 5 men from 3rd Worcester's being executed on the 26/7/1916, at Ypres or indeed any where else.

[stevem49]

I believe the five Worcester's shot on the ramparts at Ypres is yet another WW1 myth - but will be happy to be proved wrong.

At 4 am on 26 July 1915 - 4 Worcesters of 3rd Bn were shot on the ramparts. The so called fifth man was executed a few days prior to the others I believe. The ramparts evidence is also 'shaky' to say the least. The men where buried about half a mile north west of Dickebusch.

One is now buried at Perth (China wall) cemetery and the others at Aeroplane Cem.

I believe that the 4 men where executed , possibly together near Dickebusch.

I think certain guides have help spread the myth of five men being shot. Which just goes to prove that you should always do your own research and take everything with a pinch of salt

The Steve Morse

[irishmen1916]

Thanks Peter, Is there any record of five men being shot on the same day, I came across this somewhere, so I might have got the Reg. wrong, or indeed the information I had was wrong.

Peter

[baorbrat]

Possibly in North Russia, 11men from the Slavo-British Penal Battalion were executed on the same day. I strees Possibly.

3 were shot on 22/11/1917

3 on 3/7/1917

3 on 16/10/1917

3 from 19/DLI on 18/1/1917

3 on 29/10/1916

3 on 2/7/1916

3 on 30/7/1916

Found your men

5 (five) men from 3/worces shot on 26 July 1915 Corporal Frederick Ives,Private Ernest Fellows, Private John, Robinson, Private Alfred Thompson, Private Bert Hartells.

Some doubt over the date of Corporal Frederick Ives execution. Eye witnesses say five from 3rd Worces were executed at the same time

Some records say only four.

[irishmen1916]

Thanks Peter, Found the full list and went over it, four on 26/07/1915.

It says that Ives was shot on 22/07/1915.?

Will now do a grave search, and pay visit hopefully next year when I am over.

Thanks again Peter

[Roxy]

'Blindfold and Alone' has a photograph of the public execution of 21 mutineers.

Roxy

Not got access to the book at the moment but will amplify when I get home.

Edited to add:

The mutineers were Indian soldiers from 5th Native Light Infantry in Singapore, February 1915, following the deaths of 32 Europeans and 50 natives.

[Moston]

Wasn't it Foch who said....

"Military justice is to Justice what Military music is to Music"

Say's it all in my opinion.

[charlesmessenger]

Widows and or Mothers did not receive the war pension.

Peter

The policy did change towards the end of 1917 at the insistence of the War Cabinet, with widows of those shot being given the same pensions as everyone else.

Charles M

[irishmen1916]

Thanks Charles, Glad to hear that, it most have been very hard on the familys, first to deal with the lost then to find there was no pension. Peter

[sjustice]

One facet of this topic puzzles me.

Desertion in the face of the enemy; at what point is 'running away' deemed acceptable as a 'disorderly retreat'?

Is it down to the numbers involved?

Kind Regards,

SMJ

[John_Hartley]

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

Mick

I believe that they would be in the the same position as the hundreds of other men similarly convicted of the same offences (but not executed). Someone will know if they got their medals.

As mentioned earlier, the "pardon" is nothing of the sort. As very important and specific issues, no faults were found in the courts martial process, no convictions were overturned; no sentences were deemed inappropriate. All that has now been is to put these men on the same legal status as the others whose death sentences were commuted. Obviously you cannot commute a death snetence after the event but think of it as legal "posthumous commutation".

I have a criticism of the government's handling of the matter in this respect as it means that the few who, IMO, were not guilty of the offence (like Stones) remained condemned as cowards and deserters. However, the end result of saying "OK, they were guilty, but we shouldnt have actually executed them" is hard to take particular exception to and I hope that in a short space of time, this will fade to an issue of mere academic interest. I'm sure it won't take long.

John

[crawfordb]

I remember briefly speaking to my father about this. He told me about one man who was strapped to a gun carriage for punishment. I got the impression from him that nobody should have been shot for anything. No one other than the men who were there can have any idea what it was like and the horrors they faced. They were sent forward into an inferno of bullets and bombs - I for one believe each and everyone of them should be added to the Roll of Honour.

Brian

[irishmen1916]

Good point Brian, I could never imagine what they went through , so I don't really make any comments on the SAD, to me any man or women who suffered the horrors of WW1 are all heroes. The one's who stayed and the one's who came home. Peter

[Kitty VAD]

Blimey, I've had so many heated discussions with people over the years!

My own view is this, even today men (sometimes boys) go to war believing that it can be an adventure, an experience. I've met very few WW2 veterans who will admit to fear, but have spoken to many ex Bomber command who will admit to absolute blind terror, of losing control of bodily functions.

I can't call them cowards. I have never experienced fear like that (thank god) and whilst to me it is history, old photographs and medals to them it was something entirely different and very real.

Whilst I understand the military take on this, I can't feel comfortable with it.

Really glad to see a good discussion going though.

K

[Nigel Marshall]

I cannot comment on SAD debate, I don't know enough about any of the cases to make a judgement and because of that I have no opinion on rights or wrongs of military executions.

My contribution here is a reply to PhilB's question about trial by jury and FGCMs.

The decision as to verdict in a court martial is made by a board of officers headed by the president (who will have a prescribed minimum rank relative to the level of the court martial). After the hearing of evidence in the court the president and board members retire to consider the evidence and formulate their opinion as to guilt or otherwise. If the accused is found guilty, then the president weighs up the evidence to enable him to hand down a sentence. Sentencing is the sole responsibility of the president who will refer to relevant regulations and statutes for guidance.

As a rule of thumb, what the jury is responsible for in a civilian trial becomes the responsibility of the Board and President in a Court Martial, and what the Judge does in civilian trials is done by the President in a Court Martial.

I hope this helps a bit?

Cheers,

Nigel

[PhilB]

Thanks, Nigel. The point I had in mind was the statement in Magna Carta about entitlement to a trial before a jury of one`s peers. That`s clearly not the case in a FGCM, unless you happen to be an officer of some rank. I`m not arguing for such a jury though it is something worth thinking about! I suspect that the military thinking is that a jury of privates couldn`t be relied upon to consider judiciously a serious charge against another private, even of a different regiment. I don`t think the logistics would be a problem - it would be far easier to gather a jury of ORs than a panel of officers?

[MACRAE]

Blimey, I've had so many heated discussions with people over the years!

My own view is this, even today men (sometimes boys) go to war believing that it can be an adventure, an experience. I've met very few WW2 veterans who will admit to fear, but have spoken to many ex Bomber command who will admit to absolute blind terror, of losing control of bodily functions.

I can't call them cowards. I have never experienced fear like that (thank god) and whilst to me it is history, old photographs and medals to them it was something entirely different and very real.

Whilst I understand the military take on this, I can't feel comfortable with it.

Really glad to see a good discussion going though.

K

I met one ww2 vet who was at D-Day landings and like the RAF guys some was in a blind panic on the beach and more of a danger to there comrade's than anything else. Another vet i met when I was a lad was a ww1 vet and boy the things he told me I can honestly say I would have been terrified out my wits. I have no problem with the execution of those soldiers convicted of murder none whats so ever. I read some place that the last soldier to be shot at dawn was after the war had ended, he was was shot for rape any truth in this .

Dan

[Roxy]

As far as I am aware, the President of a modern Court Martial is not a Serving officer but a member of the judiciary.

I stand by to be corrected (but possibly not )

Roxy

[ralphjd]

Dan, According to Shot at Dawn by Julian Putkowski and Julian Sykes four days after the signing of the Armistice a secret letter commanded that no further executions were to be carried out, except for murder,without the sanction of the War Office.The last poor souls to die before that date were shot on the 7th November 1918 for desertion. All executions afterwards were for murder. Ralph.

[Nigel Marshall]

As far as I am aware, the President of a modern Court Martial is not a Serving officer but a member of the judiciary.

I stand by to be corrected (but possibly not )

Roxy

Roxy,

You could well be right. I certainly know of a few people who used civilian barristers in their defence at courts martial. They were supposedly more effective as they did not have to have the same deference to rank as ALC barristers and solicitors. Using civilians as presidents is only another stage up so why not?

Cheers,

Nigel