I've just come across a line which I find really quite upsetting. Looking through the Warlincourt British Cemetery site, I read:

Lance Corporal Hawthorne, 1/5th Bn South Staffordshire Regiment. Executed for Cowardice 11.08.1916.

Does anyone know anything about this man and the circumstances?

I think it's the baldness of the statement that makes it so seem so awful.

Interesting though, that most other 'executions' of this type went down as desertion.

adrian

In brief he was in charge of a rear section of raiders on a trench raid. Juts before the raid was started the officer came and Hawthorne complained the night was too bright and it would be murder to go out in those conditions. Hawthornes comrades made similar comments and when the raiders left the advance trench Hawthorne and his party stayed behind.
Hawthorne was charged with cowardice and a second charge of 'previous to going into action, using words likely to cause alarm or despondancy'.
No attempt was made to justify his actions at his trial.
He was age 22 and landed in France as a private in March 1915.
Hope this helps
John

Adrian

Hawthorne didnt desert. According to "Shot at Dawn":-

"Further operations were planned for July - in the form of a night time raid omn the German trenches. In charge of the rear section of the raiders was L/Cpl Hawthorne. But when the officer who was to lead the party appeared, Hawthorne complained. He argued that the night was clear and bright,insisting that it would be murder to go out under such conditions. In the confines of a battalion dugout, the raiders' rendezvous, the sentiment spread amongst Hawthorne's comrades, who began making the same representations. Eventually the party were persuaded to leave the dugout but when the raiders left the advance trench neither Hawthorne nor his party followed."

Personlly, I struggle to find much reason for clemency in this case (but I know others will take a different view).

John

Sounds like a Catch 22 situation? Phil B

It would then be more accurate to say he was shot as an example, as I presume none of the rest of the party were shot for refusing to leave the dug out, just Hawthorne as the instigator.
Whether he should have been shot or not is open to debate, but the others also failed to follow orders.
Is there any record of what punishments they suffered?
Lesley

The result of his in-action ... court martial, death sentence, firing squad. And in all honesty, he probably had a fair idea that he would end up in a court room where his life would be at stake.
But not necessarily a Catch 22 as I understand it ...
What needs to be answered is how did the actual raid go? Were his fears realised? Did the patrol take severe casualties etc.
If the patrol WAS wiped out or heavily engaged resulting in substantial casualties then I suppose you could qualify for a Catch 22!

I think the threat of getting killed in the raid may be sufficient. If you recall, in the book it was the threat of being shot down that was half of the catch. Phil B

Lesley

I don't think it would, as such.

When we've discussed similar before, I have a good recollection of people saying that it was well embedded in military law/custom that, say, an NCO in charge of a party carried a greater responsibility and, therefore, likely to attract a more severe penalty.

Much the same principle applies today in criminal law - i.e. that someone in a position of trust is likely to get a more severe sentence.

John

i suppose by august 1916 he had enough after being involved in the attacks on hohenzollern redoubt and gommecourt.
enoch

The Manual of Military Law 1914 said, "...a non commissioned officer should as a rule be punished more severely than a private soldier concerned with him in the commission of the same offence."

According to "Blindfold & Alone", the refusal of Hawthorne's party to leave the trench, meant that the first group had to be recalled and the raid cancelled.

i suppose his death had nothing to do with general williams being put before a court of inquiry for gommecourt?
enoch

I think that by refusing to follow a lawfully given order secured the mans fate regrdless of General Williams fate.

Andy

I'm not suggesting this man was not punished appropriately, but just wondered how this worked up the chain of command.

I'm reading Gough's war memoirs at the moment, and in the part I've read so far, up to early 1915 there have been a couple of occasions when he records that he was ordered to carry out an attack or operation, but decided that the conditions were not favourable and so didn't do so. I'm not at home but can post the specifics when I'm back later on.

Obviously, he has to exercise some judgement about the men in his command, but isn't that what all commanders at whatever level have to do?

This is a controversial and difficult subject, but just some food for thought....

Alan

This is an interesting discussion.

I came across one example of a senior officer being courtmartialled and reduced to the ranks for not heeding the advice of a junior private, but one who was an expert.

The case was this:

Sometime in the 1970s a man who had been born in the Alps and lived there all his life was doing his military service in the Chasseurs Alpins.

The commanding officer decided to carry out some exercise (it was winter with heavy snow).

This man was one of those ordered to head up the mountain. He protested that it wasn't safe as it was very bad avalanche conditions and what they were being ordered to do would probably start an avalanche. The officer knew full well that he had lived in the region all his life and could be expected to know what he was talking about.

The officer went red and ordered them to shut up and get on with it. They did, and an avalanche swept away and killed 5 of them. The man I know, survived.

The officer (battalion commander) was courtmartialled as a result of the evidence at the enquiry and reduced to the ranks. The court said that he should have listened to someone who was obviously an expert on what he was saying (and should have been pretty expert himself after a good many years in the Chasseurs).

This is a bit different, though, Healdav - the officer leading the raid would almost certainly not be the one one who had ordered it. Whoever did order it would (should) have known in advance whether there was a good moon that night and whether cloud was forecast. It must have been a regular hazard of trench raiding. I can`t see the Oi/c raid having had the option of cancelling it? Phil B

What do you mean by "lawfully given"?

Robbie

Any order given by a "superior" officer which follows army regulations is lawfully given.

Andy

For info, in relation to my earlier post, the two instances in Goughs Fifth Army were: -

1. 29th August 1914, Staff Officer from GHQ directs Gough (then commanding 3rd Cavalry Brigade) to move 12 miles from his location to Golancourt. Gough says the order must have not been thought through, was not practicable and arrived at a bad moment (regiments were short of ammunition). "I told the Staff Officer therefore that I could not carry it out, and must continue my mission of acting as a rear-guard to the I Corps."

2. Aubers Ridge (9th May 1915). Gough then in command of 7th Division. "Late in the evening (after 6 p.m.) orders reached me through Rawlinson from Haig to take over the front of the 8th Division and renew the attack the next morning"

His Brigadiers examined the 8th Division front, found they were being heavily shelled, trenches full of dead and wounded, "the living in great confusion."

"In these circumstances it would have been folly to move up my division and to attempt to assemble the battalions in these same trenches with any hope of a successful attack next morning."

Gough met with his brigadiers and they "decided it would be throwing the division away to comply with the order, so I took it upon myself to cancel the operation and telephoned through to Corps HQ to say what I had done - or rather not done."

He goes on to say Rawlinson approved of this decision in the morning, and of course the dialogue with Corps HQ might mean Gough more or less got the OK

For this second incident, the Official History says (in a footnote) effectively that the 7th & 8th Division commanders together agreed it was impossible and that Haig "therupon cancelled his own orders for the attack by the 7th Division" - which is not quite how Gough puts it!

However, as I say above, food for thought on how complying with clear orders in the midst of a planned offensive may be seen as dependent on rank.


Alan

Has anyone got the tiral papers to see what was actually said?

John

Just by pure coincidence I ordered them from the Natiuonal Archives yesterday. I am expexting them within a fortnight based on previous orders. For those interested Frederick Hawthorne appears to be from Aldridge, near Walsall in the West Midlands and is actually commemorated on the local memorial there. He is one of several local SAD men that I am researching (Local to the Black Country) please get in touch via the Forum if your are interested.

Graham

Obviously not a coward, he would have known the penalties he faced for refusing to go, maybe it wasnt his own safety he had in mind, maybe he was concerned about his comrades as well, I know it was a long time ago and we have had time to reflect on actions and reactions from that period but to condem a man for all eternity by naming him on his headstone as a coward really is playing god, is the dead body of a British soldier the property of HM gov or the family? if the family why couldnt they bury him in a family or un marked grave.

Could not agree more. From what has been written in this thread it would appear that Hawthorne was somewhat unfortunate that someone further up the chain of command did not have his leadership qualities, or share his common sense.

Interesting that in the Dallas Moor thread CM wrote - and a general view from the Forum members - was that by allegedly shooting (killing?) at 4 men withdrawing from a heavy Turkish onslaught he was sacrificing the few for the many, who D-M then rallied to a counter-attack.

It would appear Hawthorne took a similar responsibility by being prepared to put his own life on the line to protect the men he was responsible for from what he regarded certain death. The subaltern got the VC and the L/Cpl a firing squad yet I know, albeit retrospectively, which of the two I would have rather had leading me.

Easy for the armchair generals sitting, 90 years later, infront of thier p.c's with a warm coffee to pass judgement...

I am wondering ninety years later, if the thinking of the men could have changed alot of the hopeless charges.
A soldier in charge of mean with a 'Ours is not to reason why' mentality would lead his men to death in hopeless situations, but a soldier with the ' Is this the right way to do this or is there a better way' mentality, while trying to save his men would go up on charges. One might think it was up to that soldiers commanding officer to judge the soldier and what he was trying to achieve.
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

What would have happened if a Lt or such had stood at the Nek and said No.?


Kim

I don't think Adrian was saying that this is inscribed on his headstone. If it is, then it wouldnt have been inscribed by CWGC but as a "family inscription". There is an often reported case (although I can't recall the name) where the family do make reference to the execution, but I don't think it's this one.

I think Adrian was saying this was the annotation in the cemetery register and, certainly, even that is something I've not in other registers. It is a clear policy of CWGC NOT to discriminate against executed soldiers.

John

It seems to me that many of the soldiers who were shot during WWI were actually guilty as charged and I think this is a case in point.

I think it would be in order for a junior NCO to give his opinion about the conditions to his officer in private, but if the order was still to proceed, then he had no right to disobey the order. You cannot run an army as a debating society where everyone follows their own opinion.

I think this is one of the cases which show that a blanket pardon in all death penalty cases would not be appropriate, because it would cover the guilty along with a number of possible miscarriages of justice (by 1914-18 standards).

I suggest that what most people object to is not the verdict but the sentence, but this was the way they did it in 1916 and we have to accept it. Nothing we do now is going to get him unshot or change the 1916 verdict.

If you look below, you will see Jacky Fisher's incredible remarks on obeying orders. This was fine advice from an Admiral of the Fleet to Admirals, but it does not apply to junior NCOs, not by any means.

John: The word is on his headstone. This is what surprised and unsettled me. As has been said, it condemns the man for all time. It is odd that it's so bald a statement in this cemetery.

adrian

Adrian

I'm gob-smacked. I've seen several SAD graves, knowing they were there, and there has never been anything at all to indicate they had been executed.

Terry Denham who is our resident CWGC "fount of all knowledge" may come across this thread and have useful information.

John

[SIZE=1][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]

John: What can I say? Difficult to say anything from a cringeing position - and very embarrassed too. I'm sure that you're absolutely right to be gob-smacked. Here's why: I took my original information from a website that listed all SAD graves. The reasons for the executions were given, along with plot numbers etc. I've obviously mis-read the paragraph as being a quote from the headstones, whereas it must the official record. Following your last posting, I've checked again.

I'm now just off to rap my knuckles.

adrian

I believe that the L/Cpl was guilty as charged. There does not seem to be any suggestion that he was shell-shocked or under more stress than would be expected under the circumstances. He seems to have made a judgement and taken a decision based on that judgement. He could not have been unaware of the possible/ probable results of that decision. As long as we have armies and send them to war, we will have military law. This will necessarily be much harsher than we would tolerate in civilian life. Having ensured a plentiful supply of coffee and heightened the parapet around my armchair, I await the onslaught.

The statement above that CWGC does not discriminate against SAD men is absolutely correct. Equality for all in death is the policy and no differentiation is made between causes of death. To discriminate would be a breach of their Charter. No mention of execution is recorded in any register or the Commission's database.

The Personal Inscriptions were the choice of the next of kin and there is only one SAD case which refers to the cause of death (Pte Albert INGHAM 18 Bn, Manchester Regt who was executed 01.12.16 and buried in Bailleulmont Communal Cemetery, France). His inscription reads "Shot at Dawn" and was purely the choice of his father.

There were suggested standard texts but otherwise the inscription is entirely the nok's choice.

Terry

Thank you for arriving so quickly to confirm the matter (although Adrian had already realised his misunderstanding).

I am also embarrassed that I had forgotten the inscription I was trying to recall was a Manchester. ("Must try harder, Hartley" - I hear the voices say).

John

It will be interesting to see how the trial was conducted and what evidence was given.

Until then as a comfy armchair beckons and my coffee awaits I will wait and see.

I too have seen many SAD headstones and none reflect the incumbents demise.. in the case of Eric Poole they didnt even know how he had died so the inscription is as to one who died honourably.

John

Adrian

In 'Blindfold and Alone' it states that Major General Thwaites (O.C. 46th Division) wrote prior to execution:
"..I am not convinced that the raid was organised in the best possible way and this may have tended to produce a want of confidence by the men in their leaders. I am doubtful whether the officers, as a whole, inspire confidence....I recommend that the death sentence be commuted without suspension of sentence."
It was the VII Corps commander, Lt. Gen. Snow, who sealed Hawthorne's fate, writing:
"An example is needed and I therefore recommend that the sentence be carried out." It was.
Maj. Gen. Thwaites must have felt badly about the outcome as he attended the execution and later wrote:
" I should like to place it on record that Lance-Corporal Hawthorne met his death like a man and a soldier." Unusual indeed for a divisional commander.

Ken

Adrian

Thought you might like to know a bit more about the man himself. Sue Satterthwaite has recently (8th July 2005) released an excellent book entitled, 'Leaving The Village' (£9-99 incidentally!), telling the stories of the men on the Aldridge (then Staffordshire) War Memorial. In it Sue has found the following concerning Frederick Hawthorne:

Baptised at Aldridge Parish Church on 23/9/94; son of a coal miner, Moses Hawthorne and his wife, Selina (nee Edwards) who lived at The Wharf, Aldridge. Pre-war Frederick worked at Aldridge Colliery, a job that was not for cowards - he could even have avoided military service as he worked in a reserved occupation! He volunteered in October 1914 and was in France for well over a year when the incident occurred that was to end his life. His parents, now living in Station Road, Aldridge, received the news that their son had , "Died of wounds".

Three of Frederick's cousins and one brother-in-law also lost their lives in the Great War.

All in all, Frederick was pretty typical of the men who left these shores to do their bit (voluntarily) for their country.

Ken

Just my tuppence worth...

I believe that SaD headstones were marked 'Shot At Dawn' as a matter of course and recall seeing several, in pictures and in person during school trips to the battle fields. Not sure when this stopped or if any remain with such an inscription.

It is not right to say 'this may was not a coward' as we have no way of knowing this. Also, what is a 'coward' and how do we judge this today against the events of 90 years ago. If the man stood his ground knowing he would be shot but that the lies of his party would be saved then his is a hero. I for one believe that this is unlikely. Taking human nature into consideration, the soldier had almost certainly seem some hard fighting and was senior enough to be in a leadership role during a difficult night raid. I am sure that for whatever reason he believed that the raid was not worth the risk and took his chances in staying behind, probably comforted by the fact that his party didn't want to go either.

Similary, he may have been a coward in the traditional sense, a hero or a fool. It's all supposition and we will never know. What we do know is that you cannot expect rational behaviour in a totally dehumanising environment such as the front lines of WW1.

Also that orders are orders and have to be followed. Obviously the court backed the OIC on this one. I'm sure that Gommecourt was a factor in this but maybe it should also have been a consideration in the SaD man's thinking... If they hadn't shot him for cowardice, they would have shot him for incitement to mutiny, disobeying an order etc. etc.

We should also think of what the butterfly effect was - what other things didn't happen or went awry because one man jeapardised this raid?

Sorry, you are incorrect in your first statement.

No CWGC headstone was ever marked by CWGC to indicate a cause of death and there is only one which bears a Personal Inscription indicating SAD - at the choice of the next-of-kin.

See my post above.

Just picked up on this one - an interesting comment about this being the situation in todays military law. Having been charged more than once under the Army Act 1955 mainly for relatively minor offences I can tell you that JNCOs where not charged in the Regiments that I served in, but were given extra duties so that their conduct sheets were clean - guess what happened to the Tom who was caught committing the same offence - absolute hypocriscy - no wonder it took me 8 years to make Corporal

All The Best

Chris

Actually Ingham's epitaph is not quite as bald as the above posting would suggest. It was clear that even in the circumstances of his death, his family stood four-square behind him. In full it reads:

'Shot at dawn
One of the first to enlist
A worthy son
Of his father'

Jack

That is so touching. The quiet protest, dignified and sincere.
Marina