"Shot at Dawn"

Society Military and Strategic Issues
1

This was interesting to read yesterday. Traitors or deserters of the British Empire, from WWI, who were court-martialled and their lives put to an end by a military firing squad, have been ‘pardoned’.

I was recently reading a book on WW1 and it contained some details about a few who ended up this way. It feels quite strange that a young life ends like this and the family lives with a loved one’s memory wrapped in the labels of cowardice.

This John Hipkin, who initiated this movement seeking the pardon, is quite right perhaps, atleast a large fraction of the total ‘deserters’ may have really been ‘victims’ of war in true sense of the phrase, but then again, many others in same age groups etc stood their ground till last breath. Guess it depends from man to man, and losing one’s wits under fire especially if the person in question is a teenager, is not very unnatural. I wonder whether the Army then was right in treating them the way it did or not, and would any Army today not treat any ‘deserters’ the same way?

Like in every other case it’s often not easy to tell who was a real coward and who was made a coward by medical, psychological, emotional reasons…
But an interesting movement this is…

It’s also interesting that by tradition all such cases are sent to the firing squad at dawn.

http://www.shotatdawn.org.uk/

http://dawn.com/2006/11/09/int9.htm

Executed WWI soldiers receive pardon

LONDON, Nov 8: More than 300 British and Commonwealth soldiers executed for cowardice and desertion during World War I were pardoned on Wednesday, in a move hailed by families as proving they were `victims of war’. “The pardon, which covers 306 men shot at dawn during the 1914-1918 conflict, was announced by the government in August but was enshrined in law with the passage of the Armed Forces Act by parliament.

The act gained Royal Assent, or formal approval by Queen Elizabeth II, on Wednesday.

Families of the men immediately hailed the pardon, saying it finally acknowledges that they were “victims of war.” They have long contended the men were suffering from undiagnosed shell shock or faced unjust trials.

The move ends a 16-year-long drive led by John Hipkin, who founded the Shot At Dawn campaign in 1990 after being shocked at reading declassified service records about how many teenagers were executed.

“There is no excuse for shooting 17-year-old boys. To shoot one would have been terrible, but to shoot four is unforgivable,” Hipkin said.

“It’s about time there was a blanket pardon given to all the British (and Commonwealth) soldiers who were shot… That’s what we got.” In a statement, Defence Secretary Des Browne insisted that the move was not about “rewriting history”.—AFP

2

Re: "Shot at Dawn"

Yeah, shell shock as it was then called is now an accepted medical condition in the form of post traumatic stres disorder. Considering the way WW1 was waged ..it doesn't surprise me that soldiers suffered from it..i believe the worst case of outright mutiny was in the french army.

3

Re: "Shot at Dawn"

^ the french just collapsed under the onslaught of the Germans ......french actually lost every battle in WW1 without british and american help they would have capitulated sooner than 1870

general haig wrote on the pardon plea of a deserter
" how will we ever win if his plea is allowed", he was indeed a butcher ....

4

Re: "Shot at Dawn"

They should not have been pardoned. Right from the beginning of the war the British Army recognised combat fatigue and thousands of soldiers were treated for it.

Furthermore, the death sentence was not lightly applied. There was a rigourous military judicial process involving many officers and committees making separate investigations and judgement on the case.

Given that the existence of combat fatigue (or as it was incorrectly labelled at the start of WW1, "shell shock", was acknowledged by the British Army as a valid medical condition, it is pointless to try and use this as an excuse for cowardice.

This whole pardon campaign was driven by social liberals trying to cover up the cowardice of men.

5

Re: “Shot at Dawn”

The French Army, unlike the British, did not recognise the existence of cambat fatigue. From very early on in the war the British Army attempted to ensure that troops never spent more than 6 consecutive days at the front line, before withdrawing them first to the rear lines, and then out of the combat area. In this way the British Army successfully aimed to minimise combat fatigue (shell shock) and maintained morale of the soldiers.

French army troops, by contrast, were forced to essentially live on the front line for months at a time.