Talk:Home Guard (United Kingdom)

message: Changed the references to "Remington P14" and "P17" rifles to Pattern 14 and M1917 respectively.  Remington was only one of three manufacturers of the P14 and M1917; Winchester and Eddystone (formerly a Baldwin Locomotive Works plant purchased by Remington) were also manufacturers.  The .30 caliber US version was the M1917, there was no "Pattern 17"/"P17."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.230.63.56 (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on Rifle Patterns

message: Some person (78.32.184.176) vandalised the page, going from a decent wikified article to amateurish garbage. I am reverting to a previous edit (by Timrollpickering at 23:17, 16 November 2008). CMarshall (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What the heck happened?

message: I wonder how relevant the story about the paratrooper is to this article. At least it is not correct. True, the Rotterdam area was attacked by paratroopers, and this showed the potential of this new weapon, like the events in Eben Amael (fortress captured by paratroopers) did. But the paratroopers did not land in a football stadium in Rotterdam to capture the Royal family in The Hague. Nor was it prevented because the plans were known. Hence the family only escaped on the 13th while the attackes started on the 10th of may. They landed in the fields and landed aircraft on airfields. The attacks on the airfields were at costs of heavy casualties. This was because a Dutch DC-2 crew was on the Oslo airfield when Norway was attacked. Paratroopers were used there (it is being said that Hitler wanted to test them in a smaller battle before using then in the attack on western Europe) and the KLM crew reported what they saw when they arrived back home. Because of this, the AAA crews were prepared and were able to shoot a lot of Ju-52's while landing or after landing. aerial photo's clearly show the results, as do statistics of losses. So, in my opinion that part should be removed (irrelevant) or maybe be a short mention of paratroopers being used in the Netherlands, Belgium and Norway.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.253.98 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the a-a defences and coastal sections as they do not appear to be relevant at all. MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

text: The home guard did operate anti-aircraft artillery.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not untill later in the war.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-aircraft defences

message: This movie has nothing to do with the Home Guard , while its similar to the other film mentioned its should not be included in this article Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to the synopsis in the Wiki article on the book of the novel, the defenders were US Rangers, so no deviation from the novel by the film then.Cloptonson (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: The Eagle has landed

message: Having read an article on the raising of the HG in Shropshire (back in 1980s), I was surprised (allowing for the need for information to be cited) that nothing is mentioned here that the decision to make it a uniformed force was influenced by a fear that in the event of invasion, and under the Geneva Convention, the Germans could put to death those offering armed resistance as francs tireurs if they did not wear recognizable uniform. That must have been a major factor and worth adding if one has citable information. I acknowledge the page mentions concern at the outset of the invasion threat about private defence forces making themselves liable to execution and that US Ambassador expressed that fear in connection with the involvement of US expatriates pre-Pearl Harbor.Cloptonson (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Geneva Convention Issues

message: In section "Croft's Pikes", an MP Captain Godfrey Nicholson is quoted.  It would be useful if a citation to the Commons debate (findable in Hansard) could be immediately added, because the next citation within the whole paragraph (and its first) is from a debate in the Lords, when Lord Croft spoke in their defence. A reader unfamiliar with the British parliament may get impression this was all being said in the same debate in the same chamber.Cloptonson (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Cloptonson, now done . Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation desired

message: It needs to be explicitly stated, with citations of course, that the Home Guard was drawn not just from men over-age and under-age for military service but also from men who were engaged in reserved occupations - notably mining and agriculture - which exempted them from conscription. The section "Social Impact" may be an appropriate place to mention them, as so many reserved occupation holders were active albeit part-time members and in some cases work places formed their own units.Cloptonson (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Reserved Occupations

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Home Guard (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202233051/http://www.thediamondjubilee.org/sites/www.thediamondjubilee.org/files/Ceremonial%20of%20the%20Coronation_0.pdf to http://www.thediamondjubilee.org/sites/www.thediamondjubilee.org/files/Ceremonial%20of%20the%20Coronation_0.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/2809/1/WRAP_Cullen_0481824-cedar-090210-home_guard_socialists_booklet_final_d.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does the source make any comparison to the home guard? As it seems to me there is a degree of OR here. The Irish rebels were not a recognized military body organised by a recognized nation. Thus I find it odd an RS would make the comparison better the HG and Irish volunteers (who were by definition in rebellion). The two situations are not analogous.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plentiful sources (and photographs) confirming that the Irish Republican leaders surrendered in full uniform. Who, in Easter 1916, was to be considered the legitimate government of Ireland, and who was the 'rebel', was (of course) the point at issue; the Irish state always maintaining that, ""Our nation has formally declared its independence and recognises itself as a sovereign State". Malcolm Atkin details some of the debates surrounding the establishment of the Home Guard as armed irregulars (and especially the Auxiliary Units); and notes that those opposing the new force put forward the argument that this would be inconsistent with former British treatment of irregular opponents in Ireland and Palestine. TomHennell (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The the question I asked, does the source you used make the connection?Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source for the surrender of Irish Republican leaders does note that they chose to do so in full uniform.  But that is all that is stated at this point in the article.  I can add a citation to Malcolm Atkin; on the apparent inconsistency between the 1940 justifications for Home Guard Auxiliaries and previous government's condemnation of Irish and Palestinian(Jewish) irregulars.  One point noted by Atkin, is that Orde Wingate had managed to insert himself into the planning of Home Defence in the summer of 1940, and hence that promoting Irish and Palestinian irregulars as possible exemplars for the Home Guard at this time may have reflected his known obsessions. TomHennell (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So then no it does not draw that conclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article states: "most of the Irish Republican volunteers executed by the British administration following the 1916 Easter Rising had been fighting (or at least, surrendered) in full Irish Volunteer or Irish Citizen Army uniforms." and that statement is supported in the sources cited.  The confirmation of inconsistency in British government attitude to uniformed irregulars (in Ireland and Palestine) is documented in Atkin - who also clarifies that the Auxiliary Units were constituted as a second phase of Home Guard operations; and not as a 'British Resistance'. TomHennell (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No that is not all the article says, if it is this is irrelevant as this is about the Home guard, not the Irish rebellion. The source does not support the claim there was an inconsistency, ass it does not say there was one.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish Rebels 

message: "or 25,000 platoons", not sections. This also seems pretty trivial We do not generaly list or care about Platoons (or sections).Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken; 'platoons' in the minister's statement do not correspond to 'platoons' as the army understands them - but then the Home Guard wasn't the army.  The important point relates to the controversy about the adequacy of the arms provided.   When Churchill claimed at the end of July 1940, that (due to the delivery of American guns) Britain was now a nation at arms; what he understood was that the Home Guard would now have 20 rifles and 1 automatic rifle for each 'section' of 30.  But that assumes that, as a volunteer came on duty, he took the weapon of the volunteer he was relieving.  The volunteers had understood the government as having promised that every man would have his own rifle, whether on duty or not. On this see Dale Clarke. [User:TomHennell|TomHennell]] (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Then that is what it should say, and in the section about kit.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  At least read the source 

message: The section on the First World War under 'Background' talks about the Volunteer Training Corps, but doesn't mention the Royal Defence Corps, which seems to have been much closer to the Home Guard in terms both of role (guarding fixed points) and personnel profile (older, less fitted to overseas service).  I cannot find a source mentioning the similarity between the two, but I note that the mention of the VTC isn't sourced either. Would there be any objections to me adding somthing about them here?217.155.59.206 (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just removed that, as it is unsourced, and thus wp:or tp claim any similairites.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Royal Defence Corps differed substantially from the WWII Home Guard in that it was an integral part of the British Army whose officers and men were paid regular army rates. It was formed to absorb the National Reserve formations of the various infantry line regiments that existed at the start of WWI. It is therefore the unpaid Volunteer Training Corps who can be seen as the Home Guards' equivalent as it was a voluntary formation with no pay system.Cloptonson (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  First World War preedessors