Talk:Shot at Dawn Memorial

message: Of the 306 British and Commonwealth soldiers executed for cowardice and desertion during World War I, how many were other ranks (US - enlisted) and how many were commissioned officers? --TGC55 09:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three were officers: Lt. Eric Skeffington Poole, Sub-Lt. Edwin Dyett, 2-Lt. John Paterson. Roger 18:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Ranks? 

message: All very junior officers who would have had little responsibility, it should be noted. It may or may not be the case that majors and lt-colonels whose nerves had gone (as they would have put it at the time) were invalided out of the front line with more sympathy than would have been given to a private, but on the other hand an officer (or NCO) was expected to keep it together, set an example and lead his men - it was noted at the time that officers were more likely to "go to pieces" when out of the front line and the burden of responsibility was lifted. As for the executed men, the comment above is quite right - only about 10% of death sentences were actually carried out. No doubt there was rough justice in some cases, and some who in modern times would have been given medical treatment, but not all. Paulturtle (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Officers

message: Could someone please include a link to some article about the circumstances of these executions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.45.203 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 17 August 2007   
Can't think of a good web link, but the book Blindfold and Alone is an excellent account of the exevutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.182.29 (talk • contribs) 30 August 2008
Richard Holmes "Tommy" has a fair bit on this and military discipline in general, and is reasonably balanced. Gordon Corrigan "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" also deals with it - he is very revisionist and as an ex-officer himself is very much of the "tough luck" view on this issue, but he does give a lot of hard facts on this and other matters in a book which knocks on the head a lot of the popular myths about WW1.Paulturtle (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Event? 

message: The Memorial section says the memorial is “surrounded by a semicircle of stakes on which are listed the names of every soldier executed”. But the Introduction says the memorial is to “the 306 British Army and Commonwealth soldiers executed after courts-martial for cowardice or desertion”. So, which is it? There were 346 men executed in total; 306 of them were pardoned and the other 40 were not (I've added a table detailing charges and numbers BTW).  Does the memorial list all of them, or just the men pardoned? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the table was a worthwhile addition, as for the comment above, I'm not certain I understand your reasoning
Steve Bowen 20:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious? 

message: I've removed the list that was added here, for a number of reasons.</br>
First, it is unclear who is to be included (see the query above). And if it is intended to contain all 346 names then it will be too unwieldy for inclusion (there is a discussion here on this).</br> 
Second, WP does not normally list casualties, as it is not a memorial. There are external lists for that, and I have added one as an external link.</br> 
Third, the people listed are non-notable (or at least notable for one thing only) and would not normally have WP articles on them, so listing them is un-neccessary for linkage.</br>
So I have taken it out. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorial list 

message: This article states that the men commemorated here do not include those executed for murder or mutiny "who would have anyway been executed under civilian law". However, did the offence of mutiny exist in civilian law when, I thought, this was an offence against military law? I think a rephrase may be needed here.Cloptonson (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Mutiny and civilian law

message: All Australian soldiers in WW1 were volunteers. The two referenda to allow general conscription for war north of the equator failed. Prime Minister Hughes, who had called the referenda, ordered than no executions actually take place under military convictions, and the condemned were freed at war's end with a dishonorable discharge. The population had given him two sound lessons, and he was not prepared to offend them thereafter. Volunteers were obviously still subject to local civil laws. Many sercive men earned gaol time while on leave in England or Egypt. English officers were aware of the lighter sentences for Australian volunteers and when an opportunity presented itslef, they kidnapped serviceman and placed them on trial within a British courts martial.61.68.166.79 (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Australians 

message: There is a more complete description of the memorial here: Herbert Burden#Memorialised --JECE (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of the memorial 

message: The assertion that military law is based on Roman law seems extremely dubious. The reference does not exist. I intend to remove this chunk unless someone knows a better reference.  Riposte97 (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ‘Roman law’