Talk:William Douglas Home

message: I have reverted some changes made on 10 January 2009 to the section on his military career
Reverted:
:Douglas-Home was vehemently opposed to the policy of requiring the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany but he was conscripted and joined the Buffs (Royal East Kent Regiment). While a soldier he stood in the three parliamentary by-elections.
to
:In 1944 Douglas-Home was an officer in the 141st Regiment, Royal Armoured Corps (The Buffs). This was the first regiment to be equipped with the Churchill Crocodile flame-thrower tank.
Reason. It is actually rather important that he was an officer, what unit he was in, and what 141 RAC were equipped with.  These are all verifiable facts - see for instance A. Wilson's book Flame thrower.  Whether he was a volunteer or was conscripted is unsourced.  His political activities are covered in the preceding section.
Reverted:
:In 1988, Douglas-Home, inspired by the Kurt Waldheim affair, applied for a pardon. His argument was that the attack on Le Havre was a war crime because of the failure to evacuate civilians, and that if Waldheim ought to have disobeyed orders to save civilian lives, he was justified in doing the same.
to
:Towards the end of his life, Douglas-Home tried to petition the Queen for a pardon, on the grounds that his was a humanitarian act. The appeal was abandoned.
Reason. The later statement is sourced and true.  Whether he was inpired by the Kurt Waldheim affair is unsourced.  Whether he thought that the attack on Le Havre was a war crime is unsourced (and very different from claiming that trying to avoid the attack was a humanitarian act).  The original version states that the attempt at petitioning for a pardon was abandoned.  i.e. The preferred version sticks to the facts in the source.
It is important that Douglas-Home's biography is truthful, verifiable from sources, and when it mentions Douglas-Home's controversial POV on Le Havre should do so in a neutral or a balanced way.  Douglas-Home went to prison for what he did.  He was never pardoned.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Military Career

message: "Despite his opposition to the policy of requiring the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany he was conscripted into the Army in July 1940..." is a non sequitur.  There is no "despite" about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.163.20 (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst free speech is possible in civilian life, it was/is not for an officer in the British Army to question policy agreed by his or her government, neither is it within the remit of an officer to disobey a lawful command from a superior simply because he disagrees with it. If he felt so strongly at the time, he should have registered a protest with his commanding officer and then complied with the order, whereupon his protest would have been duly noted in the regimental records thereby absolving him from any legal responsibility for the results of the order.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non sequitur 

message: Married? Family? Valetude (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life?