Introduction
Justice has rightly demanded millennium pardons for those 306 innocent soldiers who were executed by the British Military Authorities for alleged cowardice and desertion during the First World War. The Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign welcomes the fact the Government, despite its previous resistance, now agrees with us that these soldiers should be pardoned.
Please read the cruel and shocking facts of how good and brave young soldiers met their untimely death.
It is incontestable that the military authorities assumed that executions were good for discipline, particularly for the lower ranks. But fear of rousing public awareness at home prevented them from shooting more soldiers. Remarkably, no executions took place at home in Britain despite there being 4.3 times more desertions than on the battlefield. Most at risk were the Irish Regiments. All but a handful of the executed were volunteers not conscripts. Ironically, the Germans took quite the opposite view and showed considerable understanding resulting in significantly fewer executions, as did the Belgians. And what about the Australians, much to the annoyance of Haig, none were shot? Further, not one American soldier in the four-million strong army was shot for military offences.
Field Marshal "Butcher" Douglas Haig, repeatedly lied when he said that all soldiers charged with desertion or cowardice were medically examined. He also insisted that no soldier was sentenced to death if suspected of suffering from shell-shock, though he didn't have the stomach to visit the wounded and dying in military hospitals. Yet in the summer of 1916 a secret order was given to all officers of the rank of captain and above, instructing that cases of cowardice were always to be punished with death. Medical excuses were not to be tolerated. And what did he do to boost morale? He authorised more executions just prior to, or during major offensives thus matching the brutality of the enemy with his own.
Most of the military experts belonged to the same group that had almost lost Britain the Boer War. At Sandhurst they seemed to have studied nineteenth century colonial war experiences and Crimean war tactics rather than the lessons learned during the American Civil War. Haig was convinced that one good cavalry charge would win the war for the Allies, so he continued to throw thousands of men at the German trenches in the vain hope of opening a large enough gap for the cavalry to pour through. Throughout the war the British stabled and fed 200,000 horses in France, waiting fruitlessly for their great charge.
Is it any wonder that critics should question Haigs ability? Ten years after the barbed wire and machinegun defences of the German Army had conclusively proved that the day of the Horse Cavalry was over he wrote, "I believe that the value of the horse and the opportunity for the horse in the future are likely to be as great as ever. Aeroplanes and tanks are only accessories to the men and the horse, and I feel sure that as time goes on you will find just as much use for the horse - the well-bred horse - as you have ever done in the past".
Prior to the bloody slaughter of 60,000 troops on the Somme in June 1916, Haig observed, "The nation must be taught to bear losses. No amount of skill on the part of the higher commanders, no training, however good, on the part of the officers and men, no superiority of arms and ammunition, however great, will enable victories to be won without the sacrifice of men's lives. The nation must be prepared to see heavy casualty lists."
It is quite incredible, but if the death penalty was for the "sake of example", why did Haig callously approve the hellish execution of two British deserters just four days before the Armistice? Although responsible for each death penalty, he did not have the time to study every case. For this, he relied on the sole judgment of Colonel John Bartholemew Wroughton (Assistant Adjutant General i/c Personal Services).
Over three-hundred innocent British and Commonwealth soldiers were brutally gunned down by the authorities, not in the name of justice, but as a stupid, spiteful and shameful example to others. Most were clearly suffering from shell-shock. This website exposes the farce of so-called military justice. A system set apart by gross ineptitude, and too often, the simple prejudice and intolerance of "officers and gentlemen". At first, if an officer broke down he was classified as suffering from neurasthenia, other ranks were seen as inflicted by hysteria. Treatment of enlisted men tended to be harsher and more punitive. Radical forms of therapy were seldom used on officers in the British Army. Treatment consisted of rest and encouragement, usually accompanied by withdrawal from the war zone for a longer period of rest and rehabilitation. Surprisingly, at the end of the war, proportionately more officers suffered from shell shock than other ranks.
Consider the case of eager volunteer, Rifleman James Crozier, 18, who went absent for four days in 1916. Eventually he was court martialled and, unconscious through drink, was blindfolded and shot for desertion by a firing squad that was feared would refuse to shoot. Not quite dead, the officer-in-charge delivered the fatal shot to the head. The military police were absent because of widespread hostility.
Two weeks earlier, Second Lieutenant A J Annandale, of the same Irish regiment, was tried for the same offence and sentenced to death. But the proceedings were quashed on technicalities advanced by "influential friends".
And how about the case of Private Thomas Davis, 21, another Irish volunteer, who, afflicted by a widespread dysentery, was absent from his sentry post for three hours? For his pains - he was shot like a dog! He is not alone in having no known grave.
Then there's the example of Abraham Bevistein, an enthusiastic Jewish volunteer! Assuming a false name and age he enlisted aged 15, was sent to France at 16 and shot at 17. After seven months fighting in the trenches, and earning himself a good reputation, he suffered a back injury and shock in an explosion. He was hosptialised for 2-3 weeks. Less than a month later he went missing seeking refuge in a farmhouse for nine hours complaining of shock and deafness from a rifle grenade. Before going absent he was seen by a sergeant who later testified to his nervous condition. He was obviously so concerned he put the teenager before a medical officer who found him fit for duty rejecting his complaint of deafness. Represented by an incompetent "prisoner's friend", he was court martialled and shot for desertion after admitting he intended returning when his company came out of the trenches. No mercy was shown for a sick soldier with an unblemished record. Such "examples" surely undermined morale!
The British State had disallowed the execution of anyone under 19 years of age since 1887, and after 1908, no person under 17 could be sentenced to death under civil law. Yet the British Army were indifferent about executing much younger men, often for minor offences!
For the rank-and-file, however, legal defence measures were seen as a, "sinister piece of cleverness" or "damned lawyer-stuff." The right of a prisoner's friend to defend the accused was often flatly denied. Indeed, in some cases, "special treatment" was meted out to those acting as a prisoner's friend, many of whom were, in any case, apprehensive and unconsciously biased towards the prosecuting authorities. And accused soldiers were seen as "degenerate" and "worthless". In any case, shell shocked men would find it difficult to make a coherent case and would be terrified of the court.
And what about General Routine Order No. 585 issued to the British Expeditionary Force on 13 January 1915? In cases of desertion, at least, the presumption of innocence was effectively removed and the burden of proof reversed. So, unless an accused soldier could prove his innocence the courts were entitled to presume his guilt. Such direction seriously undermined any notion of fair play and justice. More important perhaps, wasn't this unlawful?
Arthur Page, a qualified barrister, attended 1200 trails as a Courts Martial Officer, 300 of which were for capital offences. He observed that nine out of ten officers were totally unfit to act as members of the court. Procedures were flouted even to extent of swearing witnesses in on a French cookery book when a Bible could not be found.
Courts Martial should have been assisted by a judge advocate to ensure proper procedures were carried out, It rarely happened.
A.P. Herbert, an Oxford graduate in jurisprudence who was involved in both prosecutions and defence at courts martial, recalled his outright disgust at the behaviour of some military trials.
More recently, Judge Babington, an acclaimed expert and the first to gain access to the official records, observed that the courts hadn't the foggiest idea how to sentence. Their decisions were arbitrary, inconsistent and irregular. And he is critical proper medical examinations never took place. Little wonder, he's in favour of a full review and pardons.
Andrew Godefroy, a Canadian career military officer who recently studied the 25 Canadian executions, and who also favours pardons, concluded, "...some were bad eggs, some were in the wrong place at the wrong time and others were just plain unlucky." Isn't this an awful indictment of military justice?
The night before an execution, the condemned soldier should have been told he could make a petition for clemency to the King. It's an alarming fact, but not one was made! There's no historical evidence they were ever told. This quite disgraceful omission has to be judged in the light that a number of Commissioned Officers were successful in obtaining a pardon from the Sovereign in far less serious cases. At least 15 officers were spared in this fashion. Some even received a Royal pardon and were reinstated with full military honours. This is absolutely outrageous when compared with the way junior ranks were treated. Little wonder then, that the Government should not wish that you know about such blatant intolerance. Additionally, unlike the rank-and-file, officers were not subject to field punishments.
Not until near the end of the war were the military authorities formally advised that the accused's "friend" should be given a copy of any evidence allowing sufficient time for it to be given due consideration by the prisoner. This, despite the earlier appointment to every Corps in June 1917, of a barrister Courts Martial Officer.
Retired General Sir Anthony Farrar-Hockley, who opposes our campaign, justifies the executions on a contradictory and questionable assumption that it was right to shoot one soldier in order to save others on the basis it served as an example. More important, he asserts that men were motivated by not wishing to let their comrades down. Thus, one can conclude that fear of the death penalty was less relevant. His views conveniently ignore the fact that many soldiers felt an utter disgust for the death penalty which led to disrespect for their superior officers.
Occasionally feelings ran so high that senior officers genuinely feared a mutiny. Warnings that executions undermined morale leading to resentment of junior officers, especially in cases of incompetent leadership, were callously brushed aside. One battalion was even threatened with the shooting of every sixth man should disaffection over an execution not cease. At other times, those involved in a firing squad, including the condemned soldier, deadened their feelings with alcohol. After all, they were killing a mate from the own unit and would never, ever, forget it! And the blindfold was not just for the victim! It also protected the firing squad from starring down into the tortured eyes of their condemned comrade. Independent witnesses sometimes reported on the silent dignity and courage of the executed men. Those involved in the procedures returned to civilian life secretly disowning this moment of madness.
Nor was revulsion for the death penalty confined to the lower ranks! In 1917, for example, all company commanders in the 1/4 Suffolk Regiment quite remarkably refused the instructions of their battalion commander to take part in an execution of a six-times deserter. He had previously earned some twenty years penal servitude. The firing squad was obtained from elsewhere.
The efficacy of the "executed for example" thesis is further undermined by John Hughes-Wilson, another military historian and former career soldier who, with Cathryn Corns, remark in a new book that executions in the Great War, "...encouraged no one and probably deterred very few." Astonishingly, executions were mere "legal symbols" fully approved by Parliament and the people. Tell that to the dead and especially their relatives who only now are discovering the awful truth! For a major critique of this recent controversial book, please refer to the "The New Contemptibles" page, which seriously questions many substantial contradictions.
Remarkably, of the 3,000 death sentences passed, only three involved commissioned officers. Military justice was blind to its own damning prejudice. However, ultimate blame must be with Prime Minister Lloyd George who, for whatever reason, remained largely silent.
The SAD Campaign have adopted a refashioned Red Poppy showing a white centre. This symbolises the white patch that was placed over the heart of a condemned soldier when shot.
