SHOT AT DAWN

The British soldiers killed as a deterrent to others during the First World War

 The memorial stands in a quiet corner of the National Arboretum near Lichfield and is a fitting place to contemplate the horror and pity of war.

   Unveiled on 21 June 2001 the white stone monument of a blindfold clad soldier was a pivotal part of the long campaign to grant pardons to the 306 British soldiers executed during the First World War.

   The Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign began in the wake of controversy caused by the declassification of courts martial papers for the soldiers 20 years ago, which prompted calls for a case review of these young men who were ‘shot as an example to others’.

   There were claims the men may have been wrongfully killed due to a series of botched military trials. 

   Found guilty of cowardice or desertion by military courts martial many of these men were suffering from what was known in the fledgling days of psychiatry as war neurosis or shellshock.

   Eminent historian and author, Julian Putkowski, spent many years scrutinising the records and his book Shot at Dawn, co-written with Julian Sykes, was the first to publish the names of the executed men along with details of the courts martial proceedings.

Putkowski gave his support to the growing call for a pardon and, after a number of refusals by previous governments, the posthumous pardon was finally granted by the government in November 2006.

   The pardon was welcomed by the families and campaigners but Randie Cush, education officer at the NMA, says remembrance was still essential: “It is very important to remember all those lives lost, not forgetting their families,” she said: “pardoned or not, we still remembered them.”

    The families of the executed soldiers did suffer immensely and many drifted in to a life time of poverty as Putkowski explains: “ With insufficient money to pay rent or buy food, emotionally traumatised families were evicted from their homes and in at least one case, the desperate wife of an executed soldier resorted to prostitution to feed their children.”

    A number of cases initially caught the public imagination, including that of 23-year-old Private Harry Farr who was shot for alleged cowardice following the battle of the Somme in 1916.

    Farr had suffered from shellshock during 1915 and was in hospital for five months before returning to the front.  Soon after he began suffering convulsions and again reported sick to a first aid post.

   A medical officer refused to see Farr despite the fact that he was unable to move, even under a barrage of verbal and physical abuse from an NCO in his unit.

   Farr’s medical history of shellshock was overlooked at the subsequent court martial and he was sentenced to death.  He was shot in October 1916.

    A case less publicised is that of 2^nd Lieutenant Eric Skeffington Poole, one of only two officers executed during the war, and a man who had also previously suffered shellshock.

    The case gained more relevance in 2001 when an article, written by historian Lawrence James for the BBC, claimed research had revealed Poole may have been shot for political reasons.

   James alleged there had been growing concern among the high command that courts martial were more lenient to officers accused of desertion or cowardice than to other ranks accused of the same offence.

    James’ article claimed Field Marshall Haig, the commander-in-chief of the British Army, had pressured for an officer to be shot to bring parity to the situation.

    Edward Skeffington Poole had been evacuated from the line during the first week of July 1916 after being knocked unconscious during a heavy German barrage. Poole eventually ended up at the main British hospital in Étaples, home to the notorious ‘bull ring’ training area.

   The medical officers, under intense pressure to get men back to the front, declared him fit for action and he was promptly returned to his unit.

   Two weeks later, Poole again complained of feeling unwell and was sent to a first aid post but disappeared soon after.

  He was found two days later in a state of confusion, and was brought before the commanding officer.  After failing to explain his absence Poole was charged with desertion.

   Poole’s court martial was convened immediately after Haig had issued a directive to press for an officer to be executed and Edward Skeffington Poole, it is claimed, became a victim of circumstances.

 He was sentenced to death and executed in Belgium on 10 December 1916.

 Julian Putkowski suggests that the War Office were all too happy to comply with the family’s wish to omit disclosure of Poole’s death from casualty lists circulated to the press and he agrees with James' claim, saying that the research: “confirmed what had already been stated... that it was deliberate policy to have an officer executed and the unhappy victim was Eric Poole.”

 The 2006 pardon finally gave some closure to the soldier’s families but campaigners deny claims they are trying to re-write history saying they are only looking to honour those forgotten victims of the First World War: “we are righting an injustice not re-writing the past”.