Executed at Dawn Read Online Free PDF

The slope of the pole brought me into a hanging position, causing a large part of my weight to come on my arms, and I could get no proper grip with my feet on the ground, as it was worn away around the pole and my toes were consequently much lower than my heels. I was strained so tightly up against the post that I was unable to move body or limbs a fraction of an inch. The pain grew steadily worse until by the end of half an hour it seemed absolutely unendurable.

    Many officers supported the use of Field Punishment No.1 because they felt that it did at least provide an alternative to what would otherwise be a death sentence. By the end of the war some 60,000 men had been subjected to Field Punishment No.1 (Paxman, 2013). Sir Douglas Haig supported the use of Field Punishment No.1 on the grounds that it was an alternative to imprisonment. In his view, imprisonment would be an attractive alternative to the trenches for men of weak moral fibre, and such men needed to fear punishment, adding the justification that otherwise the ‘recourse to the death penalty would be more frequent’. (Sheffield, 2012)
    Field Punishment No.2 involved the offender being turned out in a full pack to be drilled, mostly at the double, sometimes by a military police sergeant, and possibly when the man or men concerned had just come out of the line. Another soldier (Van Emden, 2002) was given three weeks of Field Punishment No. 2, which meant that when off duty he had to spend his time emptying the latrine buckets. Later in the book there will be further examples of how prisoners and offenders were further punished by being involved in executions.

    † † †

    In addition to the Army Act and the Manual of Military Law , there were also the King’s Regulations for the Army. All officers were required to study and know these, as they regulated all aspects of military life in a very detailed way. Every soldier would also be clearly told what the capital offences were and the punishment they could expect, when sections of the Army Act were read out on parade, and, in addition, each was given on enlistment an abbreviated, printed version of the capital offences to be kept in their pay book.
    When a death sentence had been confirmed, the execution was carried out by the authority of the Army Act. Contained within this very detailed document is information on the constitution and conduct of a court martial, although it contains nothing about the organisation of the act of execution itself. So on what basis were the executions organised? How, for example, was the number of men that made up a firing squad determined, together with the distance they were to stand from the condemned, and whether the condemned should be tied to a stake or made to sit in a chair?

    As commander-in-chief, it was Field Marshal Haig’s signature on the death warrants; of the 302 men executed, just over 250 were on his watch. Haig’s post-war popular image as a ruthless disciplinarian was not one recognised by most under his command.
    The Manual of Military Law and Army Acts 1881 and 1907, in regard to the death penalty, mention only that the conducting officer needed to apply to the Army Council for directions. This is repeated in the Manual of Military Law of 1914, where paragraph 100 states:

    An officer who confirms a sentence is responsible for seeing that the sentence is carried into effect, and for this purpose he will, where necessary, obtain the approval above required for a sentence of death and in all cases will give the necessary directions for the execution of the sentence.

    The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the Army Act, the Manual of Military Law and the King’s Regulations for the Army did not provide any form of standard operating procedure to cover military executions. Some research by the Royal Military Police Museum has established that there was also nothing included in the Regulations for the use of the Provost Marshal’s Branch, British