What do you think?
Rate this book
Blindfold and Alone: British Military Executions in the Great War
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 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.
- GenresHistoryWorld War I
543 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2001
6 people are currently reading
55 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
November 28, 2025
This is an excellent book. An attempt to take an evidence based approach to a controversial subject. It destroys a number of myths about the process of trials and about the army.
It makes the point that military law is different for obvious reasons, but it also concludes that the threat of the death penalty has less effect on soldiers than unit cohesion and the desire not to let down your friends. It is interesting that a number of those who were executed had been moved to new units and therefore an additional instability was added to the day to day boredom, terror, and discomfort of their lives.
The book also makes a good case that we should not try and legislate the past. Clearly a number of the men executed should probably have been treated with a little more lenience, but based on the military law of the time and the understanding of mental health we are demanding today's standards be applied to the Great War. 37 of those executed were executed for murder, which was a capital crime in the British Empire at the time. Only 18 men were executed for cowardice. The majority were executed for desertion, which was easier to prove.
The other point that is made is about statistics: "During the period 4 August 1914 to October 1918 there were approximately 238,000 courts martial resulting in 3,080 death sentences. Of these only 346 were carried out..." As I noted previously 37 of those were for murder.
89% of the death sentences were commuted. This book points out that a lot of those that were executed had already been found guilty of capital offences on one or two or more occasions but had been returned to the front lines. Only to desert again. Yes, there were definitely some cases where a soldiers mental health should have saved them and yes, sometimes there's definitely a case where some poor bugger was shot to encourage others and on a different day they might not have been executed but mostly, by the standards of the time, these were handled as best as possible. It isn't nice to hear that because the mythology of uncaring posh men sending poor working class men to their deaths via kangaroo courts has become deeply embedded. We see General Melchett's court martial of Blackadder for shooting Speckled Jim and think that's just a slightly exaggerated version of reality.
Also this was a new type of war. British Military law had been developed from Napoleonic times. It wasn't designed for a large scale army of volunteers and conscripts who weren't given time to absorb the lessons of military law and culture. That too had an effect on how these things developed.
But fundamentally war is not peace, soldiers are not civilians, 1914 is not 2025. As someone once said, 'The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.' We can regret the past but we can't change it.
The other lesson I took from this book is the one that I take from a lot of books about the Great War: why didn't everyone breakdown? What kept millions of men from throwing down their weapons and running away? The British Army never mutinied on a large scale unlike the French Army for example. The question is why?
Highly recommended.
It makes the point that military law is different for obvious reasons, but it also concludes that the threat of the death penalty has less effect on soldiers than unit cohesion and the desire not to let down your friends. It is interesting that a number of those who were executed had been moved to new units and therefore an additional instability was added to the day to day boredom, terror, and discomfort of their lives.
The book also makes a good case that we should not try and legislate the past. Clearly a number of the men executed should probably have been treated with a little more lenience, but based on the military law of the time and the understanding of mental health we are demanding today's standards be applied to the Great War. 37 of those executed were executed for murder, which was a capital crime in the British Empire at the time. Only 18 men were executed for cowardice. The majority were executed for desertion, which was easier to prove.
The other point that is made is about statistics: "During the period 4 August 1914 to October 1918 there were approximately 238,000 courts martial resulting in 3,080 death sentences. Of these only 346 were carried out..." As I noted previously 37 of those were for murder.
89% of the death sentences were commuted. This book points out that a lot of those that were executed had already been found guilty of capital offences on one or two or more occasions but had been returned to the front lines. Only to desert again. Yes, there were definitely some cases where a soldiers mental health should have saved them and yes, sometimes there's definitely a case where some poor bugger was shot to encourage others and on a different day they might not have been executed but mostly, by the standards of the time, these were handled as best as possible. It isn't nice to hear that because the mythology of uncaring posh men sending poor working class men to their deaths via kangaroo courts has become deeply embedded. We see General Melchett's court martial of Blackadder for shooting Speckled Jim and think that's just a slightly exaggerated version of reality.
Also this was a new type of war. British Military law had been developed from Napoleonic times. It wasn't designed for a large scale army of volunteers and conscripts who weren't given time to absorb the lessons of military law and culture. That too had an effect on how these things developed.
But fundamentally war is not peace, soldiers are not civilians, 1914 is not 2025. As someone once said, 'The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.' We can regret the past but we can't change it.
The other lesson I took from this book is the one that I take from a lot of books about the Great War: why didn't everyone breakdown? What kept millions of men from throwing down their weapons and running away? The British Army never mutinied on a large scale unlike the French Army for example. The question is why?
Highly recommended.
December 15, 2022
3.75/5. Maybe worth a read if very interested in WWI but it can be skipped. It's informative but not a must read.
Writing style is fine, mostly matter of fact rather than emotional or outraged about the topic. First 100 or so pages covers the background and context - military law, shell shock, British views on mental health prewar etc. The next 300 pages, the bulk of the book, covers the various executions, with most of the chapters divided by the offence that led to execution - desertion, cowardice, murder etc or are dedicated to specific cases. These chapters tend to be the stories of the individuals and the trials, as well as the factors that led these specific men to be executed (mainly previous behaviour and offences, value as a soldier, the discipline of the unit) when the vast majority of death sentences (9 out of every 10) were not carried out. The final 50 pages covers the postwar debates around the death sentence for military crimes, and the legacy of the executions. This includes some discussion of the campaign at the time of publishing (2001) to pardon all the executed, which the authors opposed, but since that succeeded it doesn't really add anything now.
The book doesn't particularly argue against the executions on moral grounds, saying that we shouldn't judge the past by today's standards and by the standards of the time many of the accused were clearly guilty of the offences they committed (the main reasons being long term desertion and murder, very few for cowardice) and that few soldiers had a problem with the sentences at the time. But the authors do include when they believe that actually carrying out the death sentence was unreasonably harsh or the mental health of the executed wasn't considered enough. Additionally towards the end of the book the authors also argue that the death sentence wasn't particularly effective as a tool of discipline anyway.
Writing style is fine, mostly matter of fact rather than emotional or outraged about the topic. First 100 or so pages covers the background and context - military law, shell shock, British views on mental health prewar etc. The next 300 pages, the bulk of the book, covers the various executions, with most of the chapters divided by the offence that led to execution - desertion, cowardice, murder etc or are dedicated to specific cases. These chapters tend to be the stories of the individuals and the trials, as well as the factors that led these specific men to be executed (mainly previous behaviour and offences, value as a soldier, the discipline of the unit) when the vast majority of death sentences (9 out of every 10) were not carried out. The final 50 pages covers the postwar debates around the death sentence for military crimes, and the legacy of the executions. This includes some discussion of the campaign at the time of publishing (2001) to pardon all the executed, which the authors opposed, but since that succeeded it doesn't really add anything now.
The book doesn't particularly argue against the executions on moral grounds, saying that we shouldn't judge the past by today's standards and by the standards of the time many of the accused were clearly guilty of the offences they committed (the main reasons being long term desertion and murder, very few for cowardice) and that few soldiers had a problem with the sentences at the time. But the authors do include when they believe that actually carrying out the death sentence was unreasonably harsh or the mental health of the executed wasn't considered enough. Additionally towards the end of the book the authors also argue that the death sentence wasn't particularly effective as a tool of discipline anyway.
April 6, 2017
“I ask the House not to dismiss this petition with the remark that these men were cowards and deserved their fate. They were not cowards in the accepted meaning of the word… These men, many of them, volunteered in the early days of the war to serve their country. They tried and they failed.”
In a sense, this book is a moot point. In 2006, five years after publication, the government of the United Kingdom (under Blair) granted a blanket pardon to the British and Commonwealth soldiers executed for military offenses by the British Expeditionary Force during WWI. This came just over 90 years after the topic of pardons was first raised in the Commons, and came in stark contrast to past recommendations. As recently as 1998, a Labour government reviewed the issue of pardons and strenuously argued against pardons. They argued against not just a blanket pardon, but against granting any pardons at all. No new evidence was available; in fact, much of the evidence reviewed by early Parliamentary inquiries was now gone. As much as we might dislike the use of military executions during the war, the sentences were given legally and in accordance with legal norms of the day. There were simply no legal grounds for overturning the convictions. The theories, and misconceptions, about the executions that motivated this unprecedented reversal are what this book was intended to dispel.
Lots of popular books over the years have attacked the British courts martial system during World War I. Some of the more notable examples include The Thin Yellow Line by William Moore, For the Sake of Example by Anthony Babington, and Shot at Dawn by Julian Putkowski and Julian Sykes. These three present devastating criticisms of the court martial system and the executions they produced. But a single factor unites them: none of them had access to the court martial records. Corns and Hughes-Wilson, in contrast, wrote this book using the courts martial records as their primary source. Fortunately, almost all of the court martial records executions in the British Army were kept. Unfortunately, almost all of the non-execution court martial records were either weeded out of the war records or destroyed during the Blitz.
Even with the dramatically reduced collection of records, the extant documents immediately and unquestionably do away with many of the earlier criticisms leveled at the system. The actual records don’t show the heartless death march that earlier authors would have the court martial be. Rather, the records show huge ratios of pardons (commanders in chief refused to confirm 80% of death penalties given after trials), reluctance to sentence and carry out sentences, and serious efforts by non-lawyers to carry out the military legal system to the best of their abilities. The trials were certainly not perfect, but they were not nearly as appalling as we have been led to believe. Contrary to much public furor, the executions did not fall on class lines, though the executions certainly did involve setting an example. In reality, executions generally only occurred when two factors coincided: 1) the soldier had multiple capital offenses (which included things like murder and rape), and 2) the soldier’s division had bad discipline. Command weighed the horrific nature of execution with the risk that, if order was not restored, huge numbers of British soldiers would die in poorly executed orders. What all of this makes clear is the nature of evidence used in earlier books. Due to the lack of documentation, early authors had to turn to third party accounts. As might be expected, these third party accounts were often sensationalized to help sell wartime newspapers, and personal accounts became severely exaggerated with the passage of time and the mid-century changes in social outlook.
For example, 306 executions were carried out by the British Expeditionary Force during the war. The records of these executions were sealed for a long time, but publicly available sources (newspapers, family interviews, casualty lists) could be used to attempt to draw up a guess about how many had been executed, and what they had been found guilty of. Notably, a socialist newspaper published an estimate given by an ‘informant’ which, humorously, informed the (presumably outraged) readers that there had in fact been over 35,000 court martial executions during the war. In the newspaper’s defense, this was only 11,337.91% over the actual number of executions.
Another telling rebuke is that despite the general belief regarding the prevalence of executions for cowardice, only 18 of the 306 men to be executed were sentenced for cowardice. I would consider myself at least rudimentarily acquainted with the British and Imperial experience in WWI. I had a pretty stereotypical notion of how executions worked, which I imagine many others have as well: soldier, standing in the trenches, is ordered to go over the top, refuses, quivering under the barrage of artillery and machine gun fire, and is summarily executed (“Shot at Dawn”) soon thereafter. In truth, most soldiers seemed to have left not because of shell shock or sheer terror, but because of the brutal, grinding existence of life in the trenches. They volunteered to serve their country, but the war was not what they expected. Most didn’t seem to have a coherent escape plan, nor even a desire to escape one particular task; they just wanted to get away, wherever away was.
In a sense, this book is a moot point. In 2006, five years after publication, the government of the United Kingdom (under Blair) granted a blanket pardon to the British and Commonwealth soldiers executed for military offenses by the British Expeditionary Force during WWI. This came just over 90 years after the topic of pardons was first raised in the Commons, and came in stark contrast to past recommendations. As recently as 1998, a Labour government reviewed the issue of pardons and strenuously argued against pardons. They argued against not just a blanket pardon, but against granting any pardons at all. No new evidence was available; in fact, much of the evidence reviewed by early Parliamentary inquiries was now gone. As much as we might dislike the use of military executions during the war, the sentences were given legally and in accordance with legal norms of the day. There were simply no legal grounds for overturning the convictions. The theories, and misconceptions, about the executions that motivated this unprecedented reversal are what this book was intended to dispel.
Lots of popular books over the years have attacked the British courts martial system during World War I. Some of the more notable examples include The Thin Yellow Line by William Moore, For the Sake of Example by Anthony Babington, and Shot at Dawn by Julian Putkowski and Julian Sykes. These three present devastating criticisms of the court martial system and the executions they produced. But a single factor unites them: none of them had access to the court martial records. Corns and Hughes-Wilson, in contrast, wrote this book using the courts martial records as their primary source. Fortunately, almost all of the court martial records executions in the British Army were kept. Unfortunately, almost all of the non-execution court martial records were either weeded out of the war records or destroyed during the Blitz.
Even with the dramatically reduced collection of records, the extant documents immediately and unquestionably do away with many of the earlier criticisms leveled at the system. The actual records don’t show the heartless death march that earlier authors would have the court martial be. Rather, the records show huge ratios of pardons (commanders in chief refused to confirm 80% of death penalties given after trials), reluctance to sentence and carry out sentences, and serious efforts by non-lawyers to carry out the military legal system to the best of their abilities. The trials were certainly not perfect, but they were not nearly as appalling as we have been led to believe. Contrary to much public furor, the executions did not fall on class lines, though the executions certainly did involve setting an example. In reality, executions generally only occurred when two factors coincided: 1) the soldier had multiple capital offenses (which included things like murder and rape), and 2) the soldier’s division had bad discipline. Command weighed the horrific nature of execution with the risk that, if order was not restored, huge numbers of British soldiers would die in poorly executed orders. What all of this makes clear is the nature of evidence used in earlier books. Due to the lack of documentation, early authors had to turn to third party accounts. As might be expected, these third party accounts were often sensationalized to help sell wartime newspapers, and personal accounts became severely exaggerated with the passage of time and the mid-century changes in social outlook.
For example, 306 executions were carried out by the British Expeditionary Force during the war. The records of these executions were sealed for a long time, but publicly available sources (newspapers, family interviews, casualty lists) could be used to attempt to draw up a guess about how many had been executed, and what they had been found guilty of. Notably, a socialist newspaper published an estimate given by an ‘informant’ which, humorously, informed the (presumably outraged) readers that there had in fact been over 35,000 court martial executions during the war. In the newspaper’s defense, this was only 11,337.91% over the actual number of executions.
Another telling rebuke is that despite the general belief regarding the prevalence of executions for cowardice, only 18 of the 306 men to be executed were sentenced for cowardice. I would consider myself at least rudimentarily acquainted with the British and Imperial experience in WWI. I had a pretty stereotypical notion of how executions worked, which I imagine many others have as well: soldier, standing in the trenches, is ordered to go over the top, refuses, quivering under the barrage of artillery and machine gun fire, and is summarily executed (“Shot at Dawn”) soon thereafter. In truth, most soldiers seemed to have left not because of shell shock or sheer terror, but because of the brutal, grinding existence of life in the trenches. They volunteered to serve their country, but the war was not what they expected. Most didn’t seem to have a coherent escape plan, nor even a desire to escape one particular task; they just wanted to get away, wherever away was.
July 6, 2022
I first read this book when it came out, or shortly after, and have read it again since and consulted it often. It is a fantastic book because it deals with the reality of what court martials were, not the fantasy as is so much of what was written and filmed in the past - Kubrick's Paths of Glory may be a excellent film but it is lousy history and undersells the complexity of the subject - even as a portrayal of French, rather then British court martials it is woefully inadequate. Wrapping ourselves inn legends and cliché may be nice and make us feel good but doesn't help to understand the past or the present. The executions in the first World War can be viewed as tragic - but that doesn't mean they were bad in terms of the law or how they were carried out. I can only encourage anyone who thinks they know what happened too read this book, the first to have full access to the records. The past is not just there for us to use as a way of making glib judgements and condemnations so we can feel superior or more knowledgeable or imagine ourselves better people. The past is complex because when it happened it was the present, they had no knowledge of what was to come, and what is really surprising when you read this book is how little evidence of real prejudice or persecution there is. Times have changed, how we think has changed, but those men (and of course at that time they were all men - as were the accused) sitting in judgement weren't blinkered monsters but individual trying to do what was right as law, society, the army, even the fighting men at the front, saw it.
I can not recommend this highly enough.
I can not recommend this highly enough.
May 30, 2020
A vital read for anyone studying the First World War!
A really interesting book that tries to look back at executions of people for all different types of crimes during World War One. Despite the sensitive nature of the cases, and the fact the book is trying to give the military reasoning, it really shows the problems that surrounded the debate. Despite all the victims being pardoned in 2006 this is an essential read to understand the problems not only soldiers but the courts had in trying and sentencing these men.
The cases are handled very well, and show a thorough look through the documentation, and also question some of the cases. The authors do show sympathy but also logical evidence against a number of the cases and certainly give question to the decision to led on all those involved as though all the trials were wrong.
This is essential reading to show how emotion of the current can condemn systems of the past to quickly, and also that all the generals were heartless in what they did. It does draw away from questioning some decisions but does raise questions along with giving a clear opinion. These are certainly questions made of the medical information available for the army, but doesn’t really show any real will of the army to change once the old recruits became the volunteers and also the conscripts.
However, whatever side of the argument you are on this book is a vital resource in the historical debate of the First World War for getting the greater picture of the conflict.
A really interesting book that tries to look back at executions of people for all different types of crimes during World War One. Despite the sensitive nature of the cases, and the fact the book is trying to give the military reasoning, it really shows the problems that surrounded the debate. Despite all the victims being pardoned in 2006 this is an essential read to understand the problems not only soldiers but the courts had in trying and sentencing these men.
The cases are handled very well, and show a thorough look through the documentation, and also question some of the cases. The authors do show sympathy but also logical evidence against a number of the cases and certainly give question to the decision to led on all those involved as though all the trials were wrong.
This is essential reading to show how emotion of the current can condemn systems of the past to quickly, and also that all the generals were heartless in what they did. It does draw away from questioning some decisions but does raise questions along with giving a clear opinion. These are certainly questions made of the medical information available for the army, but doesn’t really show any real will of the army to change once the old recruits became the volunteers and also the conscripts.
However, whatever side of the argument you are on this book is a vital resource in the historical debate of the First World War for getting the greater picture of the conflict.
January 12, 2020
There aren't many books I haven't read on the First World War, so I am constantly on the lookout for new material, particularly if it is about a less well-known aspect of the conflict, in this case the execution of over 300 British and Commonwealth soldiers for amongst other things "cowardice in the face of the enemy".
It's a hard read, but then so it should be given the subject matter, but the research and analysis of each case is fascinating. None of us knows how we would have reacted if placed in the same situation and God willing, we never will, so it is imperative that we don't make knee-jerk reactions and assume all these men were cowards, because they almost certainly weren't and even if they were, it would hardly be surprising given the deprivations and unmitigated hell they faced day after day.
It is a harrowing read that makes you think, but it is a must for anyone with more than a passing interest in the Great War.
It's a hard read, but then so it should be given the subject matter, but the research and analysis of each case is fascinating. None of us knows how we would have reacted if placed in the same situation and God willing, we never will, so it is imperative that we don't make knee-jerk reactions and assume all these men were cowards, because they almost certainly weren't and even if they were, it would hardly be surprising given the deprivations and unmitigated hell they faced day after day.
It is a harrowing read that makes you think, but it is a must for anyone with more than a passing interest in the Great War.
February 1, 2016
A very detailed and scrupulously researched examination of the WWI military executions, largely concerned with rebutting the arguments of those wanting a general pardon for the men "shot at dawn". The writers show that only a very few cases were of dubious legitimacy by the standards of the day - and that last phrase is crucial. Far more death sentences were commuted than were carried out, and those who were shot received justice according to the codes then accepted both in military and civilian life. The final chapters are a well-argued case for accepting that you should not try to re-write history.
September 17, 2015
A detailed look at the executions undertaken during the First World War. Very comprehensive and informative.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews