Talk:Home Guard (United Kingdom)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note on Rifle Patterns[edit]

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)[reply]


What the heck happened?[edit]

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)[reply]

In the belief that sources are now adequately given, I will now delete the reference. If you do not agree, please feel free to undo this.FWTTVK 03:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-aircraft defences[edit]

As far as I can tell this section is not about the Home Guard at all. They were neither observers or gunners. Why is this section here? 199.71.183.2 (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the coastal artillery section. Most vulnerable sections of coast had regular troops in the summer of 1940 - see Alanbrooke's War Diaries.

Anti-aircraft defences[edit]

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)[reply]

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

The Eagle has landed[edit]

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) Furthermore, "Went the Day Well" has the Home Guard unit massacred by the disguised German forces fairly early on: it is the villagers themselves who raise the alarm and finally attack the invaders![reply]

Ahem, the book "The Eagle has landed" featured the Home Guard rather than the US Army Rangers as the protagonists. Books are often made unrecognizable in the process of turning them into feature films. Read a book once in a while, buddy. 76.237.239.102 (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Safekeeping - Early History[edit]

The first to grasp the nettle and form volunteer units along this line was Commander-in-Chief Walter Kirke. Witness to the destruction of Poland in September 1939, Kirke knew that it was only a matter of time before the tanks and war planes of the Wehrmacht came to Britain's doorstep. Kirke also knew that, in such an event, Britain would be woefully under prepared.

As early as 1939, following the torpedoing of HMS Royal Oak at anchor in Scapa Flow, Scotland, Winston Churchill wrote a letter to the Chiefs of Staff asking, "What would happen if 20,000 enemy troops were to land on the east coast of England?"

General Kirke founded the Local Defence Volunteers in February 1940. Initially devised as a means to defend the critical port of Dover, the ranks swelled quickly with local volunteers, too old to enlist but eager to fight. Though not yet acknowledged by the British government, they began training to operate the batteries of four-, six-, and nine-inch artillery pieces which defended the port. Directed seaward to repel naval bombardment, these gun emplacements doubled in number with emergency positions which were being assembled even as the British Expeditionary Force left for Europe. While the coastal guns and the LDV stayed behind, the BEF marched to the borders of France and into battle.

Safekeeping - Further Reading/References[edit]

  • Charles Graves - The Home Guard of Britain (1943)
  • Norman Longmate - The Real Dad's Army - the story of the Home Guard
  • S. P. MacKenzie - The Home Guard — A Military and Political History. (Oxford University Press, 1995) ISBN 0-19-820577-5.
  • 'Duty Without Glory' - The story of Ulster's Home Guard in the Second World War and the Cold War by David R Orr (Redcoat Publishing, 2008)
  • 'To The Last Round: The Leicestershire & Rutland Home Guard 1940-1945' by Austin J. Ruddy, Breedon Books (2007)

Post War[edit]

There is an item in The Times 1954 about a post-war Home Guard. --jmb (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Times, Friday, Mar 05, 1954; pg. 10; Issue 52872; col G
Home Guard Study Their Duties Stanford Exercise BY OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

I have the original document appointing my father as a Second Lieutenant, Home Guard, dated 4 August 1954 as part of the preparations for him joining the British atomic bomb tests at Maralinga, Australia in 1955-56. He had been a conscripted Staff Sergeant during the 39-45 war and had been demobbed. I suspect this was to give him a rank in relation to the military team in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebmelmoth (talk • contribs) 11:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:or and wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Convention Issues[edit]

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)[reply]

Citation desired[edit]

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)[reply]

User:Cloptonson, now done . Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reserved Occupations[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Rebels[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The the question I asked, does the source you used make the connection?Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
So then no it does not draw that conclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

5th column[edit]

As this article is not about this subject that section is far too large. It has a lot of material irrelevant the the home guard.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tricky, in the summer of 1940, the Fifth Column and the Home Guard were considered as equivalent bodies; the Home Guard fighting on 'our' side and the Fifth Column on 'their' side. On this see Dale Clarke. After September 1940, the history diverges; although both the 'Battle of Bloodford Village' and 'Went the Day Well' presume an active local fifth column supporting the paratroop attack. TomHennell (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As it did not exist it was not equivalent, and fiction is not an RS. This is a "see Also" subject. And went the day well is from 1942 anyway, long after the threat of both invasion and a fifth column had passed (and indeed long after it was accepted there was no fifth column).Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The non-existence of the fifth column is pure hindsight; in the context of May 1940 it was very real indeed, and hence has to be treated as such. All the sources agree the actions of neither the Govermment (in establishing and arming the Home Guard) nor the male public (in volunteering for it in vast numbers) can be understood without also understanding that 'defence against fifth columnists and paratroops' was the major task that new Home Guard was envisaged as fulfilling. Without the fifth column threat the Home Guard in 1940 would have been much smaller, more concentrated in areas at threat of invasion, not as lavishly armed, and very differently organised. TomHennell (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like OR, do you have a source for this?Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
mostly from Dale Clarke; but I will be adding citations for the specific points. TomHennell (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify; Dale Clarke points out that all of the military threats against which the Home Guard had been mobilised turned out not to exist. "The Invasion never happened, the paratroops never arrived, and the Fifth column probably never existed". Hence the argument by McKenzie that the true rationale for the Home Guard was entirely political not military; and that the weapons given to Home Guard units should be seen as a political sop; largely obsolescent, improvised or ineffective. But Clarke maintains the contrary, that no one in the summer of 1940 had reason to doubt the reality of any of the three military threats listed; and that the formation and armament of the Home Guard in this period shows that they were all taken very seriously indeed; and continued to be so. He illustrates this with the particular example of the new Beaverette armoured cars being issued as a priority to Home Guard units protecting Midlands aircraft component factories in September 1940; when Alan Brooke was crying out for all new armoured vehicles to be rushed to the Regular Army defending the South Coast. TomHennell (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This does not mean they were seen as some counter to a fifth column. Or that the actions of spies are relevant anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That may be your opinion; but is not that of the the source. Moreover Fifth Columnists were not 'spies'; they were irregular combatants fighting (covertly) for the other side. Of course, they could be expected also to seek to pass intelligence back to the Germans; which was subsequently to present a severe headache for the Double-Cross System from 1942 onwards. But that is clearly outside the scope of this particular article. The point here is that, although the Germans had not, in fact, activated a fifth column in England in 1940, there could be no complacency that they might not do so in later years of the war. So the Home Guard remained prepared to counter that threat. TomHennell (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do we include information about a spy, not a combatant carrying out acts of sabotage?Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not Tyler Kent; but the Right Club membership list. Churchill drew the conclusion that the Right Club membership represented the 'tip of the iceberg'; and that numbers of active fifth columnists would be associated with them. As it happens Goebbels believed the same, and that a fifth column coup would shortly topple Churchill; just as Quisling had attempted to do in Norway, with no direct participation from German agents needed.
You need some sources for this, especially the idea Quisling attempted to overthrow the Norwegian government without German help.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quisling is not part of this article - nor for that matter is Goebbels. But the Right Club clearly is. TomHennell (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You raised him here, I did not. MY point is you make a claim about the fifth column and support it with an extraordinary claim about Quisling. The right club maybe, if you can source the claim they were seen as a potential fifth column.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to source the discussion of the Right Club from Christopher Andrew. Nothing extraordinary about the account of Vidkun Quisling's failed coup in 1940; it is fully referenced already in that article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quisling_regime#1940_coup
Wikipedia is not an RS and "the day of the German invasion of Norway".Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
nothing to do with this article; but I am puzzled what you see as problematic in the statement about Quisling's coup taking the Germans completely by surprise. It is all very well documented. Though looking back I see that my punctuation could have misled you; Goebbels in 1940 (I believe, in his diaries) expected a British fifth column might overthrow Churchill and sue for peace; without and direct German help being needed. I was not suggesting that Quisling's actions were unrelated to the concurrent German invasion. TomHennell (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And nothing you have provided supports that view.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Try 'The German Invasion of Norway' by Haarr. TomHennell (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What has that to do with the home guard?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nowt at all (though the Home Guard commonly referred to their likely foes as 'Quislings'); it was you that seemed to take issue with it; but as I say above, not part of the article TomHennell (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes i Asked what its relevance was, what it told us about the situation in the UK.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
as I said above "Quisling is not part of this article .... But the Right Club clearly is" TomHennell (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And you have provide no evidence they were seen as, by either the Germans or the British, a potential fifth column ready to launch a coup without German assistance (or even with it).Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
on which see Christopher Andrew 'The Defence of the Realm' , and Andrew Roberts 'Churchill: Walking with Destiny'. The Right Club had nominally disbanded at the outbreak of war; but continued in covert form; hence their decision to lodge their membership list with Tyler Kent (who had diplomatic immunity). Their main pre-occupation at this stage of the War, was assembling lists of Jews, jew-sympathisers, and 'agents of World Jewry'; in particular those who were deemed to be effecting Jewish control within the press, the BBC, and the Conservative Party. Which was not in itself illegal, but could clearly transition into fifth column action. Otherwise, they were promoting the NBBS, disseminating frequencies and times of broadcasts; which was illegal but Ramsay got round that by abusing parliamentary privilege. MI5's assessment after the War was that the Right Club were not a fifth column; but could have become one had the Security Services not acted against them so promptly and decisively. TomHennell (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to Renegades by Adrian Weale, which makes no mention of this, and just says that their activities were (page 35) anti war and antisemitic publicity (of a low, and mostly vanadalistic, kind).Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting; don't think we will never know one way or the other. Though Ramsay's facilitation of the NBBS was blatant. What the sources do confirm is Churchill's initial reaction to Red Book names, as possibly indicating an active fifth column in the making. TomHennell (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WE know he reacted to a spy scandal involving an American and an ex-Russian emigre. But i have seen no evidence that it was regarded as a real viable (or even potential) 5th column. most of its members were not even arrested.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again you need to read Christopher Andrew. MI5 didn't want to close down the Right Club; it had been so thoroughly penetrated by MI5 agents, that it was much more useful kept in being. And nor did they want to arrest all those on the membership list - partly for the same reason, but mainly because those on the list were generally protected by their social standing. But 'ordinary' people proved to be listening to NBBS following Ramsay's parliamentary question were indeed prosecuted. 'Ordinary' people were also much more likely to be interned. What Churchill was worried about, was not the high profile Right Club names, but the possibility that there could be considerable numbers of actual or potential lower-profile fifth columnists associated with them. In fact there weren't; at least not in 1940. TomHennell (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need other eds to wade in. We have exhausted this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

goes for me; I would particularly welcome suggestions of further published sources, in which the seriousness with which the Home Guard may have responded to a supposed fifth column threat is discussed, one way or the other. TomHennell (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least read the source[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Then that is what it should say, and in the section about kit.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'civilian' or 'citizen'[edit]

Whether the Home Guard were military personnel or civilians was a contested issue; the official announcement of May 1940 said that they would be members of the armed forces; and this was repeated in the Order in Council setting up the new body. But the legal officers of the Crown were not consulted beforehand; and remained of the opinion that civilians could only become soldiers by the authority of an Act of Parliament (as in the Territorial Army Act); and so that LDV volunteers remained civilians in uniform under English Law. All this is in McKenzie. Once the National Service Act of 1941 came into force, the point was resolved. Home Guard service then ceased to be voluntary, and Home Guard members were legally defined as soldiers. Hence, 'civilian' cannot stand in the lede; as it does not represent the position from 1942 onward. 'Citizen' is used as a descriptor in some of the references; but if an editor can come up with another better descriptor, please do. Litigation on the status of LDV volunteers before 1942 dragged on for years, eventually reaching the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in October 1944; where it was determined (against the arguments of the Lord Advocate) that volunteers in 1940 had indeed had the status of 'common soldiers' while on LDV duty (except in Northern Ireland of course) - and could consequently claim the range of legal privileges and exemptions that British Law allows to such soldiers. In particular, that the estates of volunteers dying on active service were not liable to death duties. TomHennell (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian is also used, and not all members of the home guard were even British citizens.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the term civilian is being used, it is being used wrongly; the whole basis of the Hague Conventions was the absolute distinction between 'lawful belligerents' and 'civilians'. Hence: "Generally speaking, a civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of GC III and Article 43 of PI (see PI, Article 50). Under the law governing the conduct of hostilities, as contained especially in Articles 48 et seq. of PI, and under customary international law, civilians are entitled to general protection against the dangers arising from military operations; in particular they may not be made the object of an attack. Except for the relatively rare case of a levée en masse, civilians do not have the right to participate directly in hostilities. If they nevertheless take direct part, they remain civilians but become lawful targets of attacks for as long as they do so. Their legal situation once they find themselves in enemy hands will be the crux of the following analysis." It is certainly the case, in the circumstances of Britain in 1940, that this distinction was blurred to the point of sometimes being unrecognisable; but as the LDV developed into the Home Guard, and became incorporated into the regular Home defence structures (releasing regular soldiers for active service overseas) it became much clearer that they were not civilians. 'Citizen' here could be replaced by any term indicating a lawful combatant who was not a regular soldier - Which in the language of the Hague Conventions might be either a "militia forces, volunteer corps, and a spontaneous rising en masse". Perhaps 'volunteer militia'? TomHennell (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that you can call a conscript a volunteer. Nor do I think sources agree that the status of the HG was that of lawful combatants, or even members of the armed forces (they were granted certain administrative privileges, but remained civilians when not in uniform).Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That they remained civilians when not on duty was not in dispute. The exact distinction is made for the Territorial Army in peacetime; and is spelled out in legislation. But of course, once war was declared the TA became regular troops (whether they were in uniform or not) and were covered by the Army Act in exactly the same way as full-time soldiers. The issue of whether the Home Guard were 'lawful combatants' was indeed disputed; but the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunals (specifically in the Hostages case appear to indicate that the Germans would not have been convicted of war crimes had they routinely shot Home Guard prisoners (as they did Greek, Yugoslav and Norwegian irregulars; even when captured in uniform). But that was not because the Home Guard (or the partisans/irregulars) were 'civilians'; but because they would not have been fighting according to the 'Rules of War'. Or rather, from the AMT perspective, the Germans could not have been expected to have known 'beyond reasonable doubt' that any one Home Guard unit was fighting according to the 'Rules of War'; when at least some Home Guard units (i.e the Auxiliaries) were not.
The terms "part-time" and "unpaid" might be a better fit perhaps? Alansplodge (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in the case of Frederick Mirrielees, who was killed when a hand grenade was accidentally dropped on 17 August 1940. The Inland Revenue tried to claim death duties on his estate but "The case wended its way through the full British legal system ending in the House of Lords in October 1944. There, the Lord High Chancellor (1940-1945), John Allsebrook Simon (1873-1954) ruled that by Statutory Rules and Orders 1940, Number 748 dated 17 May 1940, ‘members of the then Local Defence Volunteers later the Home Guard, should be subject to military law as a soldier.’ He went on to say that a ‘soldier is one who risks his life for the defence of his country; and no other characteristic of his calling carries any comparable weight in defining it. It is in public acknowledgement of this dedication that he enjoys any privileges that the law allows to soldiers. In this case the testator’s life had not only been risked but given; and the law and the nation would have been churlish indeed if they had denied a soldiers rights to one who had died a soldiers death.’ House of Lords 9 October 1944". [1] Alansplodge (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I had that case in mind. Whether the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would have been quite so accommdating to the arguments of the Mirrielees trustees had the Home Guard not been in the process of being wound up is a moot point. Subsequently the case becomes quoted as an instance of a House of Lords decision that should not be taken as a precedent; for exactly those reasons. TomHennell (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being given certain rights does not mean you are something. I agree it is confusing, that is my point. The issue is not if they were civilians, but if they were a citizens militia (at the time the British people were not citizens, they were subjects, and still are).Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point Slatersteven, but it might still be appropriate to categorise the Home Guard within the category of 'citizen' militias; even if in the particular circumstances of the United Kingdom, the volunteers were not all 'British Citizens'. But I can see the value of not confusing matters, so I would welcome an alternative formulation. My point is that 'civilian' in this context was a much contended concept in the context of the Home Guard; whereby one part of the British Government was strongly maintaining that the Home Guard were not civilians; while (almost all) other government departments maintained the opposite; at least prior the National Service Act. The 'non-civilian' party did win the legal argument (except in Ulster) ; but only when the Home Guard was safely on its way to being dissolved, so the issue not longer mattered that much (except to the heirs of deceased former volunteers).

Lewis tripod[edit]

The caption of a picture says Lewis tripod, I cannot see one.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

actually a rigid triangular bipod in Home Guard service, and the third man along would have been carrying it. I suspect we can see the bottom end of it behind his leg; but not being sure, I have removed the refernce. TomHennell (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered about that object, but we cannot make assumption, thanks.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that aircraft-pattern Lewis guns were modified by having the "spade handle" grips replaced by a conventional butt and pistol grip, either made-up from old spare parts or using crudely manufactured new parts, but no bipod or tripod was supplied, the intention being that the barrel could just be rested on a sandbag. However, many Home Guard units decided to improvise their own, so that the weapons could be used away from static defences. There was no standard design for these. Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Lewis gun#United Kingdom under Mark III*. It is referenced to Grant, Neil (2014). The Lewis Gun. Oxford (UK): Osprey. ISBN 978-1-78200-791-3. Still looking for a reference about the home made tripods. Alansplodge (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reference to triangular steel bipods, and a picture, in Dale Clarke 'Britain's Final Defence'. The various photographs on line do seem to show the bipod as being a standard design (intended with the skeleton stock to allow the gun to be fitted with the fatter 97 round magazine); so not home made. See picture here https://www.deddington.org.uk/gallery/index.php/WW2/Home-Guard/HGsmall-group_bren
No one is arguing they did not exist, just that it is not clear that there is one in the picture.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, my apologies. Alansplodge (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First World War preedessors[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Home_Guard_(United_Kingdom)&oldid=1220208938"