Product Description

Three hundred and fifty-one men were executed by British Army firing squads between September 1914 and November 1920. By far the greatest number, 266 were shot for desertion in the face of the enemy. The executions continue to haunt the history of the war, with talk today of shell shock and posthumous pardons. Using new material released from the Public Records Office and other sources, the authors reveal what really happened and place the story of these executions firmly in the context of the military, social and medical context of the period.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #84261 in Books
• Published on: 2002-08-08
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 544 pages

The Guardian
This is a powerful, forcefully argued and necessary book'

Review
'Meticulous research backed by eloquent and elegant writing which accommodates the pressures and values of the time, disproving the First World War myth which had terrified conscripts forced 'over the top' by uncaring officers, and rear-echelon generals handing out death sentences to any who shied away.' (Brian James BBC HISTORY MAGAZINE (November 2003) )

'It is hard to describe a book on a subject as bleak as this as 'splendid' - but it is... This is a powerful, well-argued and clearexposition of the justice - both rough and tough - meted out. For the serious student of the Great War this book is a must because it exposes an aspect of that conflict's vast secret underbelly, which has been hidden far too long.' (MILITARY MODELCRAFT June 2003 (also TOY SOLDIER) )

Joanna Bourke, The Independent
impressive and impassioned...a powerful book

Customer Reviews

A well-researched, highly readable account
This is a well-researched and powerful book, which brings out into the open many of the true issues behind the executions that took place during the war. The authors have laid out in a digestible form the backgrounds to medicine and law as they applied at the time. By electing to select a range of cases to illustrate their points they have produced a highly readable and well-reasoned account of the reality of military discipline. LP Hartley's words: 'The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there' is a highly relevant quotation - things were done differently in our fathers' days and no amount of our regret can wash away that truth. As Corns and Hughes-Wilson point out, some men suffered harsh treatment at the army's hands, but others appear to have been treated fairly by the law as it stood in 1914. This is a truly excellent read and I can thoroughly recommend it to anyone with an interest in social or military history. It is well written and is thoroughly deserving of the excellent reviews it has received from the National Press.

A fascinating insight into this often 'taboo' subject
Set aside the hearsay and emotional accounts of the events surrounding those soldiers shot for cowardice during the great war.

Instead read und understand the clearest and most well researched factual accounts of these circumstances and allow yourself to make your own informed judgement on these difficult circumstances.

Whatever you decide, there is obviously a fine line between the assumption of cowardice and the little that was know of the psychological effects of life in the trenches on what were very typically young soldiers.

Altogether a fascinating book.

WARNING! This book must be read critically
The book contains much interesting, moving and no doubt correct information about its subject. That is valuable in itself.

Corns and Hughes-Wilson don't just offer information. They also argue for a certain thesis: 'Spilled water cannot be replaced in a smashed jug' (Arab proverb), and so any idea of retrospective pardons should be strongly opposed.

The book's presentation of its thesis is so slovenly, that it would be a fine text to use for practice on a course in critical thinking. Suppose you want to form your own opinion on this controversy. Here are a few examples of the kind of obstacles Corns and Hughes-Wilson put in your way:

1 There are gratuitous sneers here and there about their opponents who advocate pardons. The reader has to be alert to separate sneer from substance.

2 In presenting one of the main pillars of their argument they rely mainly on Arab proverbs and poetic aphorisms such as 'The past is another country'. The thoughtful reader will hope to find a clearly reasoned statement of the authors' position on the tricky question of moral judgements about other times and places. But once you cut away the book's vague rhetoric on this point there is nothing left.

3 There are some whopping contradictions to be found if you keep your eyes open. For example.
The authors seem to be saying, albeit rather impressionistically, that the executions were basically OK by the standards of the time. However, the jacket of the book states that the executions were 'Controversial even at the time' (so does the blurb above on the Amazon screen).
On the issue whether executions were necessary because they discouraged mass desertion that might otherwise have occurred, sometimes the authors seem to be suggesting that this was indeed so, and in other places the opposite.

4 There is also scope for spotting important inferences from the facts which the authors unaccountably fail to draw. They state (p. 103) that 'the death penalty was used only in a minute percentage of cases', and they back this up with ample evidence. Do they conclude that those few who were executed were therefore treated unfairly - perhaps even so unfairly that they deserve a pardon? No, Corns and Hughes-Wilson don't seem to notice that this possible line of debate even exists. As a reader, you will have to spot it for yourself.

On a frivolous note, I can't resist recording that the acknowledgement at the beginning to 'our eagle-eyed copy-editor' contains both a spelling mistake and a punctuation mistake in the same sentence.

In short, recommended to two classes of reader: those who want a library of all the main works on this subject; and those who want something for a good workout of the critical thinking faculties.
Definitely not for someone who wants just one thoroughly reliable work on the subject.