Shot at dawn - British WW1 Military Executions.

[Alan Tucker]

What I do not understand is why 'research' something that is already well researched rather than read about it? The list in post 39 says it all. Or are we back to the hundreds and hundreds claim rather than the 306 - all of whom have National Archives files in WO71? If I could be bothered I would scan and post pages 484-503 of Corns & Hughes-Wilson - the list of 306 with the key details - but then most people really interested in the subject would have their book on their shelves anyway.

[auchonvillerssomme]

It is a frustrating problem because as I have said before, emotions cloud the facts and if you do ask a question, for example how did they decide on the names on the NMA because there is at least one on the list executed for extreme violence+, you are immediately seen as an awful denier of the evil of the British Army officer class.

As an aside to give my credentials as being neutral I will draw attention to the proportion (disproportion) of Courts Martial (FGCM & GCM) for indecency 1914-1920. Officers 23, O/R's 270.

edit: Officers 32, O/R's 426.

[roughdiamond]

Not long after I joined the Forum in 2009 I started this thread http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=134189&st=0&p=1276324&fromsearch=1entry1276324 titled "WW1 Servicemen Shot At Dawn I have a list".

I'd read "Blindfold and Alone" and "Shot at Dawn" and noticed some discrepencies between both, so I sat on my long night shifts (no trains so lots of time) compared the names, cross checked them with the CWGC site and compiled a list in "Word" format which I then offered to anyone who wanted it in the thread describing it thus:

"I compiled a list of all those executed showing Name, Age, Rank, No, Unit, Offence, Execution Date, Burial location and Public Record Office Reference (but not for Canadian or NZ soldiers as theirs were not held in the NA's at Kew, I have listed all the other info though), I also cross checked them with CWGC Debt of Honour, they are listed by Offence and in Date order."

1hr 35mins lated Forum member Croonaert (Dave) posted this:

"well, when you mentioned the "two main books on WW1 executions", you didn't mention THE main book on the subject (and the one i used to get the information I posted above)...the one that lists most (all?) of those who were sentenced to death whether they were executed or not. This is "Death Sentences Passed by Military Courts of the British Army 1914 - 1924" by Gerard Oram (ISBN 0 9532388 0 6). It lists them in both chronological and alphabetic order and gives Name, Unit, Rank, Date of sentence, offence, final sentence (and date if sentence carried out), location and WO reference.

An almost indispensable tool if studying this particular subject."

I realised I'd metaphorically tried to reinvent the wheel and replied:

"Cheers Dave the hunt is now on."

I then went and bought the book, I didn't feel the need to post on the thread again and it had it's last post that day.

Sam

[auchonvillerssomme]

In my list I did of course forget the excellent 'The Men I Killed' by Brigadier-General F.P Crozier.

Tommy, don't say a word!

Mick

[Steven Broomfield]

As an aside to give my credentials as being neutral I will draw attention to the proportion (disproportion) of Courts Martial (FGCM & GCM) for indecency 1914-1920. Officers 23, O/R's 270.

Interesting: what proportion was there of men to officers? I ask because I don't know, off-hand, but it might be interesting.

[auchonvillerssomme]

I believe in November 1918 it was 22 to 1. The figures above are just under 12 to 1.

Mick

[Stoppage Drill]

As an aside to give my credentials as being neutral I will draw attention to the proportion (disproportion) of Courts Martial (FGCM & GCM) for indecency 1914-1920. Officers 23, O/R's 270.

Do you mean to infer that criminally indecent behaviour (as then defined) was more prevalent amongst commissioned officers than in the ranks ?

Gosh.

[auchonvillerssomme]

I infer nothing, I state the facts and move away

[Steven Broomfield]

Do you mean to infer that criminally indecent behaviour (as then defined) was more prevalent amongst commissioned officers than in the ranks ?

Gosh.

I suspect he's implying. You're inferring.

Interesting though: one of two options, I suppose:

1. Officers were more likely to be "at it" than the men

2. The authorities didn't worry as much about the men doing is as they did about the officers.

Hmmm ... I see why that bloke in Birdsong had such baggy trousers.

[truthergw]

Assuming the offences were confined to in house, so to speak, that implies each officer having his wicked way with about a dozen men. All that orgy-ing going on, one wonders when they found the time to do a bit of fighting.

[GRANVILLE]

Assuming the offences were confined to in house, so to speak, that implies each officer having his wicked way with about a dozen men. All that orgy-ing going on, one wonders when they found the time to do a bit of fighting.

I'm sorry but I think this is unnecessary speculation which only serves to divert from the original and quite interesting line of enquiry as to why the NMA has a memorial to a given number of SAD's, when its quite clear there were considerably more of them.

Dave Upton

[truthergw]

I'm sorry but I think this is unnecessary speculation which only serves to divert from the original and quite interesting line of enquiry as to why the NMA has a memorial to a given number of SAD's, when its quite clear there were considerably more of them.

Dave Upton

You are absolutely entitled to your thoughts, Dave. I feel I was entitled to comment on a post.

[truthergw]

I felt that the possibility of orgies involving officers and men might well shed light on the number of SAD cases. Depravity on that scale was almost bound to be prejudicial to good order. Somebody does not get an invite, feels rejected and next thing we know, deserts.

[George Armstrong Custer]

That's good enough for me - I like your reasoning. They were all in it together, onan all. So to speak.

George

[PMHart]

As a relatively new poster I found Tom's insights into sexual goings on in the trenches were fascinating and they opened my eyes to a whole new concept of war in the trenches. I can't decide whether the miscreants got their just-deserts or come-uppance!

Innocent Pete

[GRANVILLE]

Look here, old chap - must you? I mean to say, I'd be very DISAPPOINTED if you distracted from a thread which is so studded with revelations.

Here to Learn George

DISAPPOINTED. Your damn right I'm disappointed at the puerile place that such a thread as this has been taken to. I wouldn't mind if some of these comments and innuendo's were being backed up by historical evidence; if anyone has got any then kick it off in a thread for the purpose, but I thought this thread was originally about the numbers surrounding those men and lads who for whatever reason were Shot at Dawn; not a subject I for one find particularly amusing, whatever the rights or wrongs of the individual cases.

Dave Upton

[PMHart]

Hi Dave,

All issues related to the number of SAD cases have been dealt with in the postings above: sources and websites have been revealed to render the thread utterly irrelevant. The bulk of the puerile humour is surely a reaction to postings which in a certain light may appear pompous. This of course does not apply to your recent missives which I have found most valauble in showing me where I am going wrong in this vale of tears we call life....

Pete

[Ken Lees]

I think it has been quite obvious for some time that this thread, however it began, has descended into farce. To claim now about it seems rather like the person who complained to their local council about the neighbours sunbathing naked in the garden next door. When the council official visited the shocked and deeply offended person who had witnessed these terrible events and asked to be shown from where the deeds could be observed, they were taken to a bedroom and told, "if you stand on that chair by the window, you can see into their garden".

No-one is forced to read any thread - but obviously many choose to do so in order to have something to complain about.

[George Armstrong Custer]

DISAPPOINTED. Your damn right I'm disappointed

Hi Dave - I'm glad we're of like disappointed mind on this. By way of compensation, though, as well as the exhaustive web resources on SAD which Pete has helpfully noted (including the list reproduced in the first post of this thread), Kate Wills has also pointed out that a search will reveal 296 results for SAD on this forum. In light of all that I'm even beginning to think that maybe this thread was a bit superflous after all!

Less Disappointed George

[GRANVILLE]

Hi Dave - I'm glad we're of like disappointed mind on this. By way of compensation, though, as well as the exhaustive web resources on SAD which Pete has helpfully noted (including the list reproduced in the first post of this thread), Kate Wills has also pointed out that a search will reveal 296 results for SAD on this forum. In light of all that I'm even beginning to think that maybe this thread was a bit superflous after all!

Less Disappointed George

All points taken, life's too short, let's move on however I'm not going to the bedroom window!

Dave Upton

[Kate Wills]

Perhaps so GAC. Lest it is closed, and thanks to the antics played out recently it remains on the critical list, I think it only polite to usher Lancashire Fusilier to say a little more about the nature of his intended research, and how we might help; as, in opening this subject here, I assume help is required.

An anomoly concerning totals has been mentioned.

As I say, there are at least 296 threads addressing this subject. Here's one

It's 14 pages bear reading. They play out all the arguments, and show why this subject needs its own Higgs-Bosun to bridge opposing views. However, one crucial point on which both parties agree is numbers.

The thread makes very interesting reading also because its opening poster shares much in common with yourself LF.

[John_Hartley]

As I say, there are at least 296 threads addressing this subject. Here's one

Kate - of all the threads you might have picked, you pick the one where the OP managed to consistently write complete tosh and then basically refused to engage in discussion. I remember it well.

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Perhaps so GAC. Lest it is closed, and thanks to the antics played out recently it remains on the critical list, I think it only polite to usher Lancashire Fusilier to say a little more about the nature of his intended research, and how we might help; as, in opening this subject here, I assume help is required.

An anomoly concerning totals has been mentioned.

As I say, there are at least 296 threads addressing this subject. Here's one

It's 14 pages bear reading. They play out all the arguments, and show why this subject needs its own Higgs-Bosun to bridge opposing views. However, one crucial point on which both parties agree is numbers.

The thread makes very interesting reading also because its opening poster shares much in common with yourself LF.

Kate,

Having extracted, for my own use, the data from the various military cemeteries shown on the web site, I thought there may be others like myself, who had not seen this raw data before, and may wish to see it. The list has been well received by some members who had definitely not seen the list before, and also like myself, had not read any of the books on this subject. This having been confirmed to me by the members who have contacted me directly, thanking me for posting the list. I certainly posted the list in good faith, and all of the ensuing discussion and debate was not requested or sought by me, and was certainly not in my mind at the time of the posting. However, this is a Forum, and debate and discussion are to be expected, and I have found this debate and discussion both informative and enjoyable to read.

I am at present obtaining the various books on the subject suggested both by yourself and other members, and I look forward to a good read.

I have explained all this before in my post #44 to Keith Roberts, and as I told him, I do not regret posting the list, and make no apologies for making the post.

LF

[grantowi]

So who is this man?

There is no birth registered for a Herbert T Burden in the Free BDM's

There is a Herbert Francis Burden (b 1898, Catford, Lewisham) in the 1911 census

Father was a Cricket Field Groundsman

Living at 8 Doggett Road Catford

Had 1 Sister, 2 Brothers

Grant

[SteveMarsdin]

That ties in with the details in the MIC posted.

(to AVS) Is there a response in the file to his specific defence (questioning his serving in 1913) ?