Executed Commandos Roll of Honour

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 22/02/2008 22:15:44

Hello,

I am interested in members views about any Roll of Honour descriptive categories of Killed in Action or Died of Wounds and whether a new term should be introduced to recognise those who were victims of Hitlers Kommando Order and were executed.

God knows what befell those unfortunate men before they died.

In my personal view, those Commandos who were executed deserve due recognition to record the deplorable and vile act of the Nazi regime in blatant breach of the Geneva Convention and humanity.

This was a war crime but it appears that the victims of this particular war crime have been merged into overall statistics.

Does anyone know the numbers of Commandos executed compared to those Commandos lost in open warfare :?:

Bob is quite right with "Fallen Comrades" as a proper way of describing the ROH on this forum but is it not time we should consider including the term Executed alongside K.I.A and D.O.W :?:

I'll get off my soap box now and ask the question:

Apart from the poll above, please feel free to comment on my remarks about this subject and reply here.
Thanks,
Colin

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 16/02/2008 15:53:02

I feel quite strongly about this.
I list below some of the causes of death listed on one fairly important RoH that I have seen:
KIA,
DoW (Died of Wounds),
killed on War Service,
accidently killed,
drowned,
killed in air raid,
died of grenade wounds,
battle accident,
road accident
presumed died of wounds.
On this list two commandos are listed as: Shot while PoW
There are a fairly large number of those simply listed as: CASUALTY

I think that all fallen Commandos should be remembered on equal terms - whether they died by accident, missing presumed killed or KIA, but I do feel that 'Casualty' is not a fitting way to remember those that were put to death in cold blood as a result of Hitler's notorious and illegal Kommando Order.
Some may balk at the term 'executed' (although that is exactly what happened) but surely 'shot while PoW' may be a more acceptable description of how these poor souls died?
That Bob has not differentiated as to the cause of death on the RoHs that he has worked so hard on but just listed the Commandos as 'Fallen' is a good idea.

Nick

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 20/02/2008 12:49:31

Although I feel that those unfortunate Commandos that were executed should be remembered as being so, I personally feel that they, along with their fellow Commandos, should all be referred to as our 'Fallen'. Whether a Commando was shot in the back of the head from 400 yards by a sniper, or at 4 ft by an execution squad does not change the fact they they all fought for their country, and they all 'fell' for their country.

Any changes or 'recognition' would be irrelevant, especially 65 years down the line. What would we change? Who would actually want to request any 'recognition'? Certainly not the individuals, certainly not their families.

This excellent forum is possibly the best tool that we have to take forward the history of the Commandos to the next generation and beyond. It is designed to celebrate and honour the wartime and also the serving Commandos and to remind all who visit of the brave and daring deeds that were and are being carried out. We should continue to focus our efforts on ensuring that this great history is taken forward, and celebrate it, rather than suggesting parts of it be changed.

I have always been opposed to the notation of 'execution' having a place on the Commando R.O.H. Colin has surely seen the results of his own poll which has been viewed by 121 people as of today. Support for his proposal has been virtually nothing.

The Veterans designated 'Founder Veteran Members' of the CVA also want no part in the resurection of wartime illegal actions. They do not want to go there.

Perhaps the matter will, mercifully, not be another, further distraction from the completion of the R.O.H. which we have been working on since last October.

I re-iterate that I think that all Commandos should be remembered on equal terms and the fact that Bob has not listed cause of death but instead listed all Commandos as 'Fallen' on the CVA Roll of Honour, a very good idea.

My problem is with other Rolls of Honour where causes of death are listed. To me, the term 'casualty' does not seem right and fitting.
It now transpires that one such RoH was, itself, compiled by Commandos and I must respect their reasons for doing this.

I am pleased we have been able to discuss this openly - partly because the Commandos (along with many others) fought and died for our right to freedom and democracy etc. but also because other well-intentioned and enthusiastic people, like me, can now refer back to this Topic and realise that it has already been raised and discussed.

My thoughts on the use of the term 'Casualty' remain the same but, as Geoff reminds me, changing the word won't change history...

I sincerely hope that my opinions have not upset anyone and I look forward to being able to refer people to the definitive Commando Roll of Honour and 'They Also Served' lists on the CVA

Nick

Hi All,

I feel that this is a very sensitive subject and one that could be very painful for families and friends. I believe, however, that there are many people in the 'modern' world who are completely oblivious of the way that Hitler's 'directive' committed commando soldiers to the possibility of an horrendous incarceration and death. I think that these brave men should be remembered by a larger audience who should be made aware of their ultimate sacrifice. I agree with Bob Bishop's term 'FALLEN' but if an asterisk was added, perhaps more information could be available as to why? I know that the faces of the men from No 2 Commando (Muketoon) fill me with great sadness - I didn't know!

If the administrator thinks this addition is too sensitive, then I will fully understand its removal.

Harry j.

Once again the subject of Commando executions has come up. Harry has written:

that this is a very sensitive subject and one that could be very painful for families and friends.

So why Harry are you and others persisting in your efforts to record this illegal action of warfare as a special notation on the R.O.H. of Fallen Commandos?

Our National Secretary, Geoff Murray, has addressed this subject fully and objectively in his posting of 2-20-08. Please read his thoughtful admonition.

Subsequent to Geoff's posting I also published my appeal (on behalf of my fellow veterans of No. 2 Commando) in which I stated that we did not want to go into the illegal aspects of warfare. I thought the implications of that statement would be clear.

The R.O.H. is now about 98% finished in respect of Honouring the Fallen of the Army Commando units. Please let us finish the work without further revisions to the established format which we were using. The compilation and cross-checking of over 960 names has been a long process.

Hi Bob,

Sorry, didn't mean to offend. I am more than happy to let things stand. It was just a thought.

Harryj

In reponse to the scorn and criticism that this post has attracted, I am amazed :shock:at this stance and closing of ranks against insubordination by posts that ask and pose relevant questions and views on this forum.

I have not in any way demeaned or wished to detract the excellent work that has and is on going with the online Roll of Honour. I have even complimented it

There now appears to be censorship prevalent among some senior members of this forum membership, that seems to be exercised at will.

Should we not all be issued with a list of what not to discuss on this forum :?: I don't have a military background so I am more inclined to question the reasoning behind an instruction.

For clarification, the online poll (that has been removed) was referred to being "viewed" by 121 people and support for my proposal was virtually nothing.

That is the idea of a poll, to gauge peoples opinion if they had an opinion on the matter. In the 5 days the poll was in place, is it assumed that all 121 visitors to that post were members :?: Remember we only have 185 members. I accounted for about 15-20 views as I kept checking the response, so how many were repeat visitors :?: it all adds up as each viewing.

Some may have a different opinion and the yes no answer did not match, so please do not use the opinion poll as steadfast ironclad reponse to the perceived opinion of the majority of vewers. How you would decipher the viewers visits to that post and poll you would have to undertake an analysis of web logs to that page and then seperate the ISP addresses.

In the topic of this post I have stated a fact, however unpalatable it may be, are we now to sanitise elements of our Commando History research :?:

If we are to inform visitors to this forum of atrocities committed against Commandos that are factual, and the perpetrators of these crimes were dealt with at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, then why can't we :?:
Freedom of speech and all that

Going back to the original thought process of recognition, how can "Execution as a P.O.W" compared to K.I.A. in "open warfare" be regarded as "a further distraction" or "irrelevant" as a way of recording the way they died :?:

Using this logic, as a comparison, the inhabitants of a village in Europe, executed by the SS would only be regarded as civilan "casualties" and ignore the manner of their death and so no crime or atrocity was committed.

I apologise for this "distraction" but I maintain my wish to express my view and free opinion that you, your comrades and my father fought so valliantly for.

Colin Russell

Again! the purpose of this forum and indeed website is to celebrate and take forward the history of the Commandos. Indeed that should mean all aspects of their history whether good or bad, however I feel that this post has gone straight in at the darker side of their history and one of the terrible fallouts of warfare; something some of us would rather not bring up on this forum at this moment in time and I shall explain why later.
Firstly just to clarify a few points: this post has not been subject to scorn or criticism, it has received honest replies and opinions and only implied requests; there has been no censorship, otherwise the whole post could have simply been deleted, it has not; there has been no 'closing of ranks', I personally have had absolutely no contact with anybody else regarding this topic. On all three of these counts I request that the author take a more considered and less emotional stance.
The reason I would prefer we discuss more 'palatable' topics, is because we still have wartime veteran members within our Association that were either witness to, or part of, this awful side of warfare. We have members that were made to watch; we have a member, who is a very good friend of mine, that was actually left for dead, however survived and suffers badly both physically and mentally to this day. I am being purposfully graphic because I would like to put this to bed; it is possibly a subject that we can re-visit in a few years time, when more appropriate. Until then, the atrocities indeed are fact, the perpetrators have been dealt with (unlike the SS in a village in Europe?), I have never in my time had any veteran member, whether witness to such deeds or not, bring up this subject, never mind suggest that we should give special recognition to those who were subject to it. So as I questioned in my earlier post, I cannot understand who and what we could benefit from this post? Kind regards.

Thanks Geoff,

Subject closed as far as I am concerned.

Kind regards,

Colin

Hi Geoff'

humble apologies if I have 'ruffled feathers'. Didn't mean to. Subject closed.

Harry j