Privaat Edward Luxford

Privaat Edward Luxford


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Edward James Luxford, die seun van die bouer, Job Luxford, is gebore in Forest Row 1875. Edward was Job se enigste seun, aangesien sy broer, Maurice, in 1886 oorlede is.

Teen die vroeë 1900's was Job Luxford 'n welvarende sakeman. In 1904 koop hy Highfields House in Forest Row. Kort daarna het hy Little Parrock Farm en sy baksteenwerf op Shepherd's Hill gekoop. Job Luxford het in die gemeentes en die landrade gedien. Hy was ook voorsitter van die Guardians of East Grinstead Union.

Job was 'n standvastige konserwatief en beskryf Liberale as die "vuilheid van die aarde". Toe Charles Corbett, die liberale kandidaat, East Grinstead in die algemene verkiesing van 1906 wen, beskuldig Job al sy manne daarvan dat hulle vir die liberale stem en hulle ontslaan toe hulle die oggend na die verkiesing vir werk aangemeld het. Omdat dit nie maklik was om goeie werkers te vind nie, het hy later sy werk teruggegee.

By die uitbreek van die oorlog in 1914 het Job Luxford sy sewentigste verjaardag bereik. Soos die meeste vooraanstaande konserwatiewes in die stad, het Job plaaslike jong mans aangemoedig om by die weermag aan te sluit. Een van diegene wat aangesluit het, was sy enigste seun, Edward, wat nou nege en dertig jaar oud was. Edward het by die Royal Garrison Artillery aangesluit. Edward Luxford is op 8 Mei 1918 in aksie in Ieper dood.

Ek was een van 'n partytjie wat pas teruggekeer het as besoek aan ons seunsgraf in Frankryk onder die organisasie van St. Barnabas Pilgrimage. Hoe mooi was dit nie! 'N Blombedding van ongeveer 80 meter of meer by 6 voet breed en 'n ry grafstene daarop. Dan is tussen elke ry 'n wandeling van ongeveer 10 tot 12 voet breed van die mooiste groen gras, so glad en gelyk soos 'n biljart. Dit was mooi. Ek het agt-en-veertig klippe in 'n ry getel en dit het vir my soos 'n bataljon in 'n kolom peloton gelyk. Ek het vir myself gesê: "My seuntjie, ek het gereeld gewens dat jy naby ons begrawe is. Maar as ek kon, sou ek jou nie in ag geneem het nie. Jy is op 'n pragtige plek tussen jou kamerade wat saam met jou baklei en gesterf het. . "


Van: Luxford

Hierdie interessante van het 'n vroeë Middeleeuse Engelse oorsprong en is afkomstig van 'n klein, onopgetekende of nou verlore plek, vermoedelik in Sussex, vanweë die groot aantal vroeë opnames in die streek. Na raming het sewe tot tienduisend dorpe en gehuggies sedert die 12de eeu verdwyn as gevolg van natuurlike oorsake soos die Swart Dood van 1348, waarin 'n agtste van die bevolking omgekom het, en die wydverspreide praktyk van afgedwonge skoonmaak. #34 en sluiting van landelike gronde vir skaapweidings vanaf die 15de eeu. -> Die pleknaam bestaan ​​uit die Midde-Engelse persoonlike naam "Luke, Luck ", wat uiteindelik afkomstig is van "Lucas ", 'n Latynse vorm van die Griekse "Loucas ", man uit Lucania ('n streek in Italië), en die Middel -Engelse "ford ", 'n ford vandaar, "Luke 's of Luck 's ford ". Vroeë voorbeelde van die van sluit in: die huwelik van Edward Luxford met Annes Homwod op 20 Februarie 1559, te Hurstpierpoint, Sussex die doop van Tomsen, dogter van Edward Luxford, op 1 April 1565, ook op Hurstpierpoint en die huwelik van Richard Luxford en Alice Overy op 8 Julie 1610, in St. Margaret's, Westminster, Londen. Die wapen van die familie beeld op 'n blou skild uit, 'n goue chevron tussen drie goue varke en#39 koppe met 'n kop. Die eerste spelling van die familienaam is blykbaar dié van Thomas Luxford, gedateer op 6 Februarie 1559, huwelik met Alles Savadg, te Hurstpierpoint, Sussex, tydens die bewind van koningin Elizabeth 1, bekend as "Good Queen Bess &# 34, 1558 - 1603. Vanne het nodig geword toe regerings persoonlike belasting ingestel het. In Engeland staan ​​dit bekend as Poll Tax. Deur die eeue heen het vanne in elke land steeds ontwikkel en dikwels tot verstommende variante van die oorspronklike spelling gelei.

© Kopiereg: Naam Oorsprongnavorsing 1980 - 2017


Prins Edward is 16 jaar na sy oudste broer gebore

As u dink dat prins Edward jonger lyk as prins Charles, is dit omdat hy is. Hy is ongeveer 16 jaar jonger as sy oudste broer, 'n paar jaar in die bewind van koningin Elizabeth. Volgens Britannica is prins Edward gebore op 10 Maart 1964. Biografie het onthul dat hy in die Windsor -kasteel in Londen gebore is en ''n paar maande later' as Edward Antony Richard Louis 'gedoop is.

Dit is bekend dat sy ma soms skommel, en sy het dit beslis gedoen terwyl sy haar jongste kind gebaar het. Volgens Irish Independent sou vaders oor die algemeen nie volgens die koninklike tradisie by die ma in die kraamkamer kom nie. In die boek "My Man and I: The Inside Story of 70 Years of Royal Marriage" het Ingrid Seward egter onthul dat die man van die koningin, die hertog van Edinburgh, eintlik die eerste koninklike vader in die moderne geskiedenis was wat die geboorte van sy kind.

"Die koningin, toe sy 37 jaar oud was, het hom gevra om daar te wees. Sy het vroegtydig vrouetydskrifte gelees wat die belangrikheid van vaders by die bevalling beklemtoon en gefassineer geraak het deur die idee," het Seward gesê (via Irish Independent).


Die privaat lewe van Edward IV

Die privaat lewe van Edward IV, John Ashdown-Hill, Amberley Publishing, 2016, 336pp., & Pound20 hard, ISBN 978-1-4456-5245-0.

Dr John Ashdown-Hill, 'n sentrale figuur in die Looking for Richard-projek en 'n bekende Richard III-historikus met 'n spesiale talent om agter die mitologie van die geskiedenis te kom, vestig sy aandag nou op die oudste broer van Richard, Edward IV. Hy ontbloot die komplekse verhaalverhaal rondom die privaatlewe van Edward en rsquos en baie daarvan het hul oorsprong in kronieke wat na 1485 geskryf is, en mdash wat die waarheid agter die reputasie van Edward en rsquos bespreek. Het Edward talle minnaresse gehad? Het hy baie bastards geproduseer? Wie was sy wettige vrou? En wat het die vroeë dood van Eleanor Talbot veroorsaak?

Vandat dit bekend geword het, is die geldigheid van die Edward & rsquos -huwelik met Elizabeth Widville, die pragtige weduwee van 'n ridder uit Lancastria, herhaaldelik in twyfel getrek. Dit het Elizabeth Widville ontstel en sy was bang dat sy haar kroon sou verloor en dat haar kinders deur die koning nooit op die troon sou slaag nie. Maar ná die onverwagte dood van Edward in April 1483, kondig 'n biskop in die openbaar aan dat hy voorheen met die koning getroud is met Lady Eleanor Talbot. As gevolg hiervan is Edward & rsquos se kinders deur Elizabeth, insluitend sy oudste seun en troonopvolger, Edward, onwettig verklaar, wat Edward & rsquos se broer Richard die wettige troonopvolger gemaak het. Later is beweer dat Edward talle minnaresse het en baie buite -egtelike kinders agtergelaat het, hoewel hedendaagse kronieke daaroor swyg.


Geduld (Luxford) vorentoe (ongeveer 1658)

Verwysing: DAN/1242-1245 Titel: Akte om die gebruik van Fine (en copy), Fine (and copy) te lei Beskrywing: Tussen (a) Thomas Luxford van Randalls in Hurstpierpoint en nou van Glanvill, co. Hants., Heer. en Mary, sy w., John Forward van Iford, klerk en geduld, sy w., Een van die dogters van Thomas Luxford deur Patience Middleton, sy ontslape w., Barbara Luxford, ook d. van Thomas en Geduld, John Whitepaine van Hurstpierpoint, gent. en Elizabeth, sy w. (b) Edward Burry van Lancing, gent. (c) William Marchant van Hurstpierpoint, yeo. (d) Robert Whitpaine van Hurstpierpoint, yeo. Lande genaamd Randalls, die Isacke -veld, die Breaches, die Haselcroft, die Lyes -mead, die Stockers -veld in Hurstpierpoint (123a.), Lande wat die Little Clayes, the Great Clayes, die stuk akkerbou (23a.) Op die E. kant van die groot klei, die lande wat die Riddens genoem word, die 3 stukke grond wat die Lawnes genoem word, die dam die Foxhole -dam, 1a. grond wat aan die N. -kant van die dam lê (132a.) laat pakkie van die demesnes van Danny, annuïteit van 20 merke uit Dany -park waar 'n groot bos gestaan ​​het, 1 annuïteit van 6s. 8d. uitreiking uit Borwash -meade in Hurstpierpoint. 'N Boete word gehef van (a) tot (b). Die oortredings is vir die gebruik van (c), die Isacke -veld, die Lyes -meade, die Hazlecroft en die annuïteit van 6s. 8d. vir die gebruik van John Whitpaine. Die res van die perseel is vir die gebruik van (b) en die annuïteit van £ 20 vir die gebruik van (d). Getuies: Richard White, Samuel Brewer, John Hill, Robert Hitch. Datum: 27 Mei 1685


Anzacs: Tweede Wêreldoorlog

Australië betree die Tweede Wêreldoorlog kort na die inval in Pole, en verklaar oorlog op Duitsland op 3 September 1939. Boonop het Australië vir die eerste keer in sy post-koloniale geskiedenis onder direkte aanval gekom. Die slagoffers van vyandelike optrede tydens die oorlog was 27 073 dood en 23 477 gewond.

Australië het tussen 1939 en 1945 twee oorloë gevoer, een teen Duitsland en Italië as deel van die Britse Gemenebest se oorlogspoging en die ander teen Japan in bondgenootskap met die Verenigde State en Brittanje. Vanaf 1942 tot vroeg in 1944 speel Australiese magte 'n sleutelrol in die Stille Oseaan Oorlog, wat die grootste deel van die geallieerde krag uitmaak gedurende die grootste deel van die gevegte in die Suidwes -Stille Oseaan.

Australië betree die oorlog teen Duitsland op 3 September 1939, kort nadat Brittanje oorlog verklaar het toe sy ultimatum vir Duitsland om uit Pole te onttrek, verstryk het. Die regering van Australië het geglo dat, soos premier Robert Menzies gesê het: "Brittanje in oorlog is, daarom is Australië in oorlog", en Londen gevra om Duitsland in kennis te stel dat Australië 'n medewerker van die Verenigde Koninkryk is. die gronde dat sy belange onlosmaaklik verbind was met dié van Brittanje, en dat 'n Britse nederlaag die stelsel van keiserlike verdediging waarop Australië staatgemaak het vir veiligheid teen Japan, sou vernietig.

Die belangrikste eenhede van die AIF is tussen 1939 en 1941 opgewek. Die 6de afdeling is gedurende Oktober en November 1939 gestig en het vroeg in 1940 na die Midde -Ooste gegaan om sy opleiding te voltooi en moderne toerusting te ontvang nadat die Britse regering die Australiese regering verseker het dat Japan nie 'n onmiddellike bedreiging inhou. Daar was beplan dat die afdeling by die Britse ekspedisiemag in Frankryk sou aansluit wanneer die voorbereidings voltooi was, maar dit het nie gebeur toe Frankryk verower is voordat die afdeling gereed was nie. 'N Verdere drie AIF -infanteriedivisies (die 7de Afdeling, 8ste Afdeling en 9de Afdeling) is in die eerste helfte van 1940 opgerig, sowel as 'n korpshoofkwartier (I Korps) en talle ondersteunings- en dienseenhede. Al hierdie afdelings en die meerderheid van die ondersteuningseenhede is gedurende 1940 en 1941 in die buiteland ontplooi. 'N Gepantserde AIF -afdeling (die 1ste Pantserdivisie) is ook vroeg in 1941 opgerig, maar het Australië nooit verlaat nie.

Die bombardement op Darwin op 19 Februarie 1942 was beide die eerste en die grootste enkele aanval wat deur 'n buitelandse mag op Australië aangebring is. Op hierdie dag het 242 Japannese vliegtuie skepe in Darwin se hawe en die stad se twee vliegvelde aangeval in 'n poging om te verhoed dat die Geallieerdes dit as basisse gebruik om die invalle van Timor en Java te bestry. Die stad is net lig verdedig en die Japannese het die geallieerde magte groot verliese aangerig, maar ander gebiede van Darwin het ook skade gely en daar was 'n aantal burgerlike ongevalle

Die Japannese aanval was nie soos die aanval op Pearl Harbor nie, omdat dit teen 'n nasie was wat reeds oorlog op Japan verklaar het (op 8 Desember 1941). Dit was soortgelyk aan die aanval op Pearl Harbor deurdat dit 'n suksesvolle lugverrassingsaanval op 'n vlootdoel was wat 'n groot skok vir Australië was Alhoewel Darwin 'n minder belangrike militêre teiken was, is daar meer bomme neergegooi as op Pearl Harbor. Die Australiese regering het die skade as gevolg van die bombardemente op Darwin verkleineer en geglo dat die publikasie daarvan 'n beduidende sielkundige slag vir Australiërs sou wees; die aanvalle was die eerste en grootste van byna 100 lugaanvalle op Australië gedurende 1942–43.

Teen die einde van die oorlog het byna 'n miljoen Australiërs in die weermag gedien, wie se militêre eenhede hoofsaaklik in die Europa, Noord -Afrikaanse veldtog en die Stille Oseaan geveg het.

Die Maleise veldtog was 'n veldtog wat deur die geallieerde en as -magte in Malaya geveg is, van 8 Desember 1941 - 31 Januarie 1942 tydens die Tweede Wêreldoorlog, die veldtog is oorheers deur landgevegte tussen Britse leërs van die Gemenebes en die Japannese keiserlike leër met geringe skermutselinge aan die begin van die veldtog tussen die Statebond en die Thaise magte. Vir die Britse, Indiese, Australiese en Maleise magte wat die kolonie verdedig het, was die veldtog 'n totale ramp.

Die stryd is opvallend vir die Japannese gebruik van fietsinfanterie, wat troepe toegelaat het om meer toerusting te dra en vinnig deur dik oerwoudsterrein te beweeg. Royal Engineers, toegerus met sloopkoste, het meer as honderd brûe tydens die terugtog vernietig, wat die Japannese nie veel vertraag het toe die Japannese Singapoer verower het nie; hulle het 9 600 slagoffers gely

Die Slag van Singapoer, ook bekend as die val van Singapoer, is in die Suidoos-Asiatiese teater van die Tweede Wêreldoorlog gevoer toe die Keiserryk van Japan die geallieerde vesting van Singapoer binnegeval het; Singapoer was die belangrikste Britse militêre basis in Suidoos Asië, met die bynaam "Gibraltar van die Ooste", duur die gevegte in Singapoer van 8 tot 15 Februarie 1942.

Dit het gelei tot die verowering van Singapoer deur die Japannese en die grootste oorgawe van Britse militêre personeel in die geskiedenis, ongeveer 80.000 Britse, Indiese en Australiese troepe het krygsgevangenes geword en by 50.000 aangesluit wat die Japanners in die vroeëre Maleise veldtog geneem het

In Januarie 1942, voor die oorgawe, is die eskaders van die Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) ontruim en krygskepe van die Royal Australian Navy (RAN) beveel om Singapoer te verlaat. SS Vyner Brook, 'n Britse skip, hul kollegas wat die vorige dag gevaar het, het almal veilig by die huis aangekom.

Die SS Vyner Brook het die Japannese bomwerpers direk getref en diegene wat dit oorleef het, het aan wal gekom na Banka-eiland in die seestraat tussen Sumatra en Banka, burgerlikes, gewonde soldate en verpleegsters na die Japannese en slegs een op die strand geskiet verpleegster oorleef, Vivian Bullwinkel

Teen 943 het slegs 2 500 Australiese gevangenes oorgebly, die ander is in 'helskepe' vervoer om as dwangarbeid op die Thai-Birma-spoorweg en in staalwerke, koper- en steenkoolmyne in Taiwan, Birma, Borneo en Japan gebruik te word. Changi was onbeskryflik, kos was skaars, siekte endemies, marteling en onthoofding was algemeen.

Geallieerde troepe het Changi op 5 September 1945 bevry, dit het gevolg op die onvoorwaardelike oorgawe deur die Japannese op 2 September 1945.

Na die val van Singapoer, het die Australiese regering en baie Australiërs gevrees dat Japan die Australiese vasteland sou binnedring, Australië was onvoorbereid om so 'n aanval teë te werk, aangesien die Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) nie moderne vliegtuie en die Royal Australian Navy (RAN) het nie ) was te klein en ongebalanseerd om die keiserlike Japannese vloot teë te werk.

In die Eerste Slag van Kokoda was die verdedigers swak opgelei, in die minderheid en sonder hulpbronne. 77 Australiese troepe.

Terwyl die Gallipoli -veldtog van die Eerste Wêreldoorlog die eerste militêre toets van Australië as 'n nuwe nasie was, verteenwoordig die gevegte tydens die Kokoda -veldtog die eerste keer in die geskiedenis van die land dat die veiligheid daarvan direk bedreig word. Alhoewel dit sedertdien aanvaar is dat 'n inval in Australië nie moontlik was of selfs deur die Japannese beplan is nie, was daar destyds 'n werklike oortuiging in Australië dat dit moontlik was, en daarom het sommige die Kokoda -veldtog deur sommige bekyk aangesien die geveg wat 'Australië gered het', gevolglik binne die kollektiewe Australiese psige, die veldtog en veral die rol van die 39ste bataljon 'n belangrike deel geword het van die moderne opvattings oor die Anzac -legende.

Die Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels was die naam wat Australiese troepe gegee het aan 'n groep Papoea-Nieu-Guinee wat tydens die Tweede Wêreldoorlog beseerde Australiese troepe bygestaan ​​en begelei het langs die Kokoda-roete, "Fuzzy-Wuzzy" is oorspronklik deur Britse soldate in die 19de eeu as 'n naam vir Hadendoa-krygers aan die Rooi See-kus van die Soedan, en verwys na hul uitgebreide bottermatte-haarstyle, die Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels is vernoem na hul krullerige hare en hul nuttige rol. 4000 Australiese lewens het in die veldtog gesterf , word bespiegel dat hierdie getal baie groter sou gewees het as dit nie was vir die hulp van die Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels nie.

Geskryf deur 'n Australiese delwer

'Hulle het brancards oor oënskynlik onbegaanbare versperrings gedra, met die pasiënt redelik gemaklik, die sorg wat hulle aan die pasiënt gee, is wonderlik, as die brancard nog steeds op die baan is, sal hulle 'n gelyke plek vind en 'n skuiling oor die pasiënt bou, hulle sal hom so gemaklik as moontlik vir hom water gee en hom voed as voedsel beskikbaar is, ongeag hul eie behoeftes, hulle slaap vier aan elke kant van die draagbaar en as die pasiënt gedurende die nag beweeg of aandag benodig, word dit onmiddellik gegee, dit was die dade van die 'Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels' - vir ons! ”

Geen bekende beseerde soldaat wat nog geleef het, is ooit deur die Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels laat vaar nie, selfs tydens swaar gevegte, vanaf Anzac Day 2007, was slegs drie van die Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels nog lewendig, in Julie 2007, kleinseuns van Australiese soldate van die Tweede Wêreldoorlog en kleinseuns van die Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels het aan die "Kokoda Challenge" deelgeneem.

Net minder as 29 000 Australiërs is tydens die oorlog gevange geneem, slegs 14 000 van die 21 467 Australiese gevangenes wat deur die Japannese gevange geneem is, het ballingskap oorleef, die meerderheid van die sterftes in gevangenskap was te wyte aan ondervoeding en siektes.

Die 8 000 Australiërs wat deur Duitsland en Italië gevange geneem is, is oor die algemeen behandel in ooreenstemming met die Geneefse konvensies. Die meerderheid van hierdie mans is tydens die gevegte in Griekeland en Kreta in 1941 geneem, met die volgende grootste groep 1400 vlieëniers wat oor Europa neergeskiet is, soos ander westelike geallieerde krygsgevangenes, is die Australiërs in permanente kampe in Italië en Duitsland aangehou, toe die oorlog sy einde nader, het die Duitsers baie gevangenes na die binneland van die land beweeg om te voorkom dat hulle deur die opkomende geallieerde leërs bevry word. Hierdie bewegings is dikwels deur gedwonge optogte in swaar weer en tot baie sterftes gelei, maar vier Australiërs is ook tereggestel ná 'n massale ontsnapping uit Stalag Luft III in Maart 1944. Terwyl die Australiese gevangenes 'n hoër sterftesyfer in die Duitse en Italiaanse gevangenskap gely het as hul eweknieë in die Eerste Wêreldoorlog, was dit baie laer as die koers onder Japannese internering.

Net soos die ander geallieerde personeel wat deur die Japannese gevang is, is die meeste van die duisende Australiërs wat in die eerste maande van 1942 tydens die verowering van Malaya en Singapoer gevange geneem is, die NEI en Nieu -Guinee onder moeilike omstandighede gehou, is Australiërs in kampe in die hele Asië gehou -Die Stille Oseaan en baie mense het lang reise op oorvol skepe deurgemaak, terwyl die meeste Australiese krygsgevangenes wat in Japannese gevangenskap gesterf het, die slagoffer was van doelbewuste wanvoeding en siektes, en honderde is doelbewus deur hul wagte doodgemaak.

Die Birma-Thaise spoorlyn was die berugste onder die krygsgevangenes, aangesien 13 000 Australiërs op verskillende tye gedurende 1942 en 1943 daaraan gewerk het saam met duisende ander geallieerde krygsgevangenes en Asiërs wat deur die Japannese ingeroep is, byna 2 650 Australiërs sterf daar, duisende Australiërs Krygsgevangenes is ook na die Japannese tuiseilande gestuur, waar hulle in fabrieke en myne gewerk het onder die algemeen moeilike omstandighede. gevangenes in Borneo het oorleef, byna almal is in 1945 doodgemaak deur oorwerk en 'n reeks dodelike optogte.

Die behandeling van die krygsgevangenes het daartoe gelei dat baie Australiërs ná die oorlog vyandig teenoor Japan bly, Australiese owerhede het die mishandeling van geallieerde krygsgevangenes in hul verantwoordelikheidsgebied na die oorlog ondersoek, en wagte wat vermoedelik gevangenes mishandel het, was onder diegene wat deur Australië verhoor is -beheer oor oorlogsmisdade.

Toe die Tweede Wêreldoorlog uitbreek, het verpleegsters weer vrywillig geword, gemotiveer deur 'n pligsbesef, en uiteindelik het ongeveer 5.000 Australiese verpleegsters op verskillende plekke diens gedoen, waaronder die Midde -Ooste, die Middellandse See, Brittanje, Asië, die Stille Oseaan en Australië. Agt en sewentig sterf, sommige weens 'n ongeluk of siekte, maar die meeste as gevolg van vyandelike optrede of as krygsgevangenes.

Aanvanklik was die AANS die enigste vrouediens. Die Royal Australian Air Force Nursing Service (RAAFNS) is in 1940 gestig en die Royal Australian Navy Nursing Service (RANNS) in 1942. Maar die AANS was verreweg die grootste en het ook die grootste deel van diegene wat in die buiteland gedien het.

Teen die einde van die oorlog het verpleegsusters as offisiere aangestel, alhoewel baie mense nie hul tradisionele titels "suster" en "matrone" wou prysgee nie. Hulle sou nog dieselfde status en loon kry as manlike offisiere.

Nancy Grace Augusta Wake AC GM Gebore in 1912 in Roseneath, Wellington, Nieu -Seeland, het tydens die latere deel van die Tweede Wêreldoorlog as 'n Britse agent gedien. Sy het 'n leidende figuur geword in die maquis -groepe van die Franse verset en was een van die geallieerdes se mees versierde diensvroue van die oorlog. Na die val van Frankryk in 1940 word sy 'n koerier vir die Franse verset en sluit later aan by die ontsnappingsnetwerk van kaptein Ian Garrow. Teen 1943 was Wake die Gestapo se mees gesoekte persoon, met 'n prys van 5 miljoen frank op haar kop.

Nadat hy Brittanje bereik het, het Wake by die Special Operations Executive aangesluit. In die nag van 29 tot 30 April 1944 word Wake in 'n valskerm in die Auvergne geval en 'n skakel tussen Londen en die plaaslike makiesgroep onder leiding van kaptein Henri Tardivat in die Bos van Tronçais geword. Vanaf April 1944 tot met die bevryding van Frankryk, het haar 7,000+ makies met 22,000 SS -soldate geveg, wat 1400 slagoffers veroorsaak het, terwyl hulle slegs 100 self geneem het.

Wake is in 1970 aangestel as 'n Chevalier (ridder) van die Legioen van Eer en word in 1988 bevorder tot beampte van die Legioen van Eer.

Aanvanklik het sy aanbiedings van versierings uit Australië geweier en gesê: "Die laaste keer dat daar 'n voorstel was dat ek aan die regering gesê het dat hulle hul medaljes kan steek waar die aap sy neute steek. Die ding is as hulle my nou 'n medalje gee, dit is ek sou niks van hulle wou hê nie. Eers in Februarie 2004 ontvang Wake die metgesel van die Orde van Australië.

In April 2006 word sy bekroon met die Royal New Zealand Returned and Services 'Association, die RSA -kenteken in goud. Wake se medaljes word in die galery van die Tweede Wêreldoorlog in die Australian War Memorial Museum in Canberra uitgestal.

Op 3 Junie 2010 is 'n "erfenis -pyloon" wat hulde bring aan Wake onthul op Oriental Parade in Wellington, Nieu -Seeland, naby die plek van haar geboorte - Bronne


Die ware verhaal van Saving Private Ryan

Mémoire & ampData Frederick “Fritz ” Niland

Toe hy by die weermag aangesluit het, was die broers Fritz, Bob, Preston en Edward Niland van Tonawanda, New York versprei tussen verskillende eenhede met Fritz en Bob in die 501ste en 505ste Parachute Infantries, onderskeidelik Preston in die 22ste Infanterie, en Edward in die Lugmag.

Op 16 Mei 1944, minder as 'n maand lank van D-Day, is Edward Niland deur die Japannese gevange geneem. Hy valskerm in die oerwoude van Birma, maar het sy stempel gemis. Alhoewel hy daarin geslaag het om hulle 'n rukkie te ontduik, is hy deur die Japannese gevange geneem en na 'n P.O.W. gebring. kamp in Birma. Nadat hy uit sy B-25 gespring het, het die res van sy span nooit weer van hom gehoor nie en aangeneem dat hy in aksie vermoor is.

Op D-dag is Bob Niland vermoor in Normandië terwyl hy die strande bestorm met die 505ste Parachute Infanterieregiment, 82ste lugafdeling. Hy sterf as 'n held en bied vrywillig aan om saam met twee ander mans agter te bly en die Duitse opmars te stuit terwyl die res van sy span ontsnap. Hulle plan het die Duitsers vertraag, hoewel Bob uiteindelik doodgemaak is terwyl hy sy masjiengeweer beman het.

Die volgende dag is Preston dood nadat hy Utah Beach bestorm het. Hy kon die storm van die strand oorleef en het verder na die binneland gekom, maar is dodelik gewond terwyl hy probeer het om die Crisbecq -battery vas te vang, wat 'n Amerikaanse verwoester gesink het.

Die woord van Bob en Preston se sterftes sowel as Edward se vermoedelike dood het vinnig gereis en die regering wou die familie in kennis stel. Mev Niland het op dieselfde dag al drie kennisgewings ontvang. Haar enigste troos was 'n brief van Fritz wat spog met die stories wat hy na die oorlog sou hê.

“Da's ’'s Spaanse-Amerikaanse oorlogsverhale sal agteroor moet kom as ek by die huis kom, ” het hy geskryf. Dit blyk dat hy geen kennis gehad het van sy broers se lot nie.

Toe die oorlogsdepartement hoor dat drie van die vier broers omgekom het, het hulle besluit dat die oorblywende broer huis toe gebring moet word - net soos in die film.

Paramount Pictures Matt Damon as Private Ryan in Saving Private Ryan.

In die geval van Fritz Niland het vader Francis Sampson, kapelaan van die 501ste regiment, die taak gekry om Fritz te vind en seker te maak dat hy by die huis kom.

Na D-Day het Fritz na die plek van die 82ste Airborne gegaan in die hoop om met Bob te vergader net om te hoor dat sy broer vermoor is. Maar danksy Sampson, wat hom opgespoor het, het Fritz ook geleer dat hy nou huis toe gaan.

Fritz is na Engeland gestuur, daarna terug huis toe na New York, waar hy as M.P. vir die res van die oorlog. By die huis was Fritz en sy gesin bedroef oor die verlies van sy broers, maar toe kry hulle een goeie nuus.

In Mei 1945 het die Nylande die nuus gekry dat Edward, vermoedelik dood, in werklikheid gevind is nadat die kamp waar hy in Birma gehou is, bevry is. 'N Tweede Niland -broer was op pad huis toe.

Alhoewel daar nou net die helfte soveel Niland -broers was as aan die begin van die oorlog, het die twee wat oorgebly het, baie van hul oorblywende dekades saam deurgebring by die huis in Tonawanda, New York.


Waarom die rassistiese geskiedenis van skoolbewyse vandag saak maak

Maandag het die senator, Elizabeth Warren, in Massachusetts 'n skerp brief geskryf aan die verkiesde president Donald Trump en rsquos vir die sekretaris van onderwys, Betsy DeVos, met die vraag of sy die kundigheid het om die departement te bestuur. Onder Warren & rsquos het baie kritiek op DeVos & rsquo -rekord   & mdash   haar onbekende sienings oor baie aspekte van hoër onderwys en burgerregte, byvoorbeeld   & mdash   Warren noem ook die & ldquoracially gelaaide geskiedenis & rdquo van bewysbewyse.

Na Brown v. Board of Education en die skeiding van openbare skole deur die hof, het baie suidelike state koeponskemas ingestel om wit studente toe te laat om die onderwysstelsel te verlaat en belastingbetalersgeld saam te neem, wat die begrotings van die openbare skooldistrikte verminder. Deesdae kan rsquos -bewysbewyse net so skadelik wees vir die begrotings van openbare skooldistrikte, omdat dit dikwels skooldistrikte met minder geld verlaat om die minderbevoorregte studente te onderrig, terwyl privaatgeld oorgedra word na onverantwoordelike privaatskole wat nie aan dieselfde akademiese of burgerregtelike standaarde voldoen nie. as openbare skole. & rdquo

Na die Amerikaanse Hooggeregshof & rsquos Brown v. Onderwysraad besluit, het verskeie suidelike state weerstand teen integrasie omhels deur die opening van privaatskole wat bekend gestaan ​​het as 'ldquosegregation academies.' teen integrasie te beveg.

Erica Frankenberg, medeprofessor in die Department of Education Policy Studies aan die College of Education aan die Pennsylvania State University, het gesê dat alhoewel wit studente deur distriksluitings geraak word, hulle baie meer opvoedingsgeleenthede het as swart gesinne sonder 'n skooldistrik.

& ldquo Stel jou voor dat alle openbare skole in 'n distrik 'n jaar of twee stilhou sonder om 'n skool te hê, 'het Frankenburg gesê. Uiteraard was daar 'n vraag oor gesinne wat nie die middele gehad het nie, wat veral die swart gemeenskap te beurt geval het omdat hulle nie die mag en geld gehad het om hul eie skole te finansier nie: wat doen u met u kinders en hoe leer u hulle voort? ? & rdquo

Daar was 'n vraag: wat doen u met u kinders en hoe leer u hulle voort? & rdquo

In Virginia stel goew.Thomas B. Stanley die Stanley -plan voor, wat in 1956 uitgevaardig is. Dit het die goewerneur toegelaat om enige skool onder 'n skeidingsbevel te sluit, die staat die vermoë gegee om geld van gedesegregeerde skole te behou, en het toekennings en onderrig gegee subsidies aan studente om distrikte geskei te hou. Dit was deel van die Massive Resistance, 'n strategie wat deur die Virginia -senator Harry Byrd en ander politieke figure in Virginia gebruik is om pogings tot skoolintegrasie teë te werk. In die middel van die 60's was Massive Resistance op sy laaste asem sedert die Amerikaanse hooggeregshof dit ongrondwetlik verklaar het, maar belastinggeld befondsde studietoelaes vir studente wat openbare skole wou verlaat om privaatskole by te woon, het gehelp om segregasie te handhaaf.

Die tekens van skoolsegregasie is steeds sigbaar in Prince Edward County, waar die graafskap die openbare skole gesluit het eerder as om aan die segregasie te voldoen. Die ongeletterdheidsyfer is hoër as die staatsgemiddelde en die skoolinskrywing daal steeds, soos Kristen Green in The Atlantic geskryf het. Green het verduidelik dat privaatskole sonder speelgronde en kafeteria wys hoe ver wit ouers bereid was om te gaan om segregasie te handhaaf.

Frankenberg het gesê dat die keuse van konserwatiewes om 'n burgerregte -konteks te gebruik om hul vryemarkbenadering tot die verbetering van skole te regverdig, nie ooreenstem met die werklikheidsbewyse en die effek van kleur op studente van kleur vandag nie. Sy voer ook aan dat sommige ondersteuners van koopbewyse aangevoer het dat die idee van 'n koopbewyse wat 'n skoolmark bied en mdash wat Milton Friedman in die vyftigerjare bekendgestel het & mdash nie die regte van swart studente op kwaliteit onderwys in gevaar sal stel nie, net soos bewysbewyse vandag beweer.

& ldquo In die & rsquo50's en & rsquo60's suid sou hulle sê dat Afro -Amerikaners ook vry is om te gaan waar hulle wil, met hul geskenkbewys dat dit nie op rassebasis voorsien is nie. Dit sou miskien die geval gewees het, maar daar was privaatskole wat Afro -Amerikaanse studente destyds op die bloeityd van verset sou neem, het Frankenberg gesê. &ldquoSo there is this assumption that there will be a market and the market will solve the problem but it only effectively did for one group of students and on a segregated basis. Vouchers and the market provided a barrier for African Americans to continue their education. We have quite frankly very similar things happening today.&rdquo

North Carolina, has had a voucher program since 2014, which is opposed by the North Carolina NAACP. In 1964, there were 83 private schools with a total enrollment of 9,500 students in the state, according to NC Policy Watch, a public policy think tank in North Carolina. But when the government really began to enforce school segregation, from 1968 to 1974, the number of private schools increased from 174 to 263 schools with more than 50,000 students. As of 2014, many private schools in neighborhoods where the majority people are African American were 95-percent to 99-percent white, according to NC Policy Watch.

The North Carolina NAACP noted this history of segregation in its brief challenging the constitutionality of North Carolina&rsquos voucher program. In 1956, the North Carolina General Assembly&rsquos education committee said it was be &ldquofoolhardy&rdquo to defy the U.S. Supreme Court, but defended segregation in its committee report. The report read, &ldquoIf the prevails ignorance in either race, our economy will stall, our society will seethe, and our democracy will degenerate&hellip Children do best in a school with their own race.&rdquo

The governor urged the legislature to do everything it could, legally, to prevent white students from attending integrated schools. In turn, legislators allowed school districts that were ordered to desegregate to close all of its schools and gave vouchers to students in those districts so that they could attend private schools. The North Carolina NAACP argues that the current voucher plan deprives both private school students and public school students of a racially diverse student body.

These kinds of efforts to resist desegregation were eventually recognized as unconstitutional, but not before they significantly hampered the enforcement of school integration and left a permanent mark on those communities. Voucher plans as they exist now, however, also work to exacerbate segregation, even though that may not be the intention of the policy. Qualitative studies looking at white, affluent parents find that they tend to choose schools based on the reputation of people they know, who are like themselves, rather than basing school choice on visits to the school or publicly available data on the school. These studies also show that white families are more likely to leave the traditional public school system or school zones that have higher proportions of students of color.

&ldquoIt&rsquos easy to see how it looks like an answer. But it&rsquos not a real answer.&rdquo

Thus, schools competing for these white, more affluent families have incentives to keep disadvantaged students out of their schools. In cases of school choice programs where students have free transportation and schools have diversity goals and outreach programs, integrated schools are easier to achieve. But without those protections, school choice does not promote better opportunities for students of color, according to Frankenberg and University of California, Los Angeles distinguished research professor Gary Orfield&rsquos 2013 book, Education Delusions? Why Choice Can Deepen Inequality and How to Make Schools Fair.

In addition to creating incentives for advantaged families to leave public schools, school choice programs don&rsquot provide enough money to truly benefit low-income families, Frankenburg said, because the private school tuition is often much higher than what is offered through vouchers. North Carolina&rsquos average school voucher value is $4,116.

&ldquoIf you want the market to work, you have to provide the market rate, and that&rsquos not something any governmental program has done on a large-scale basis,&rdquo Frankenberg said. &ldquoYou can&rsquot presume schools are going to accept kids, especially kids with special educational needs. If they don&rsquot want to, they don&rsquot have to. And then you also have the issue of the voucher often not being enough for the tuition. It&rsquos easy to see how it looks like an answer. But it&rsquos not a real answer.&rdquo

Drastic education cuts could be coming under Trump

The U.S. Department of Education probably won&rsquot be abolished, but will it be effective?

To be sure, there were advocates of vouchers who were concerned about issues of access to education for disadvantaged students in the 1960s and 1970s, such as Christopher Jencks, Theodore Sizer, and Phillip Whitten. James Forman Jr., professor of law at Yale Law School, explained that history in his 2005 Georgetown Law Journal piece on school choice.

The idea of seeking alternatives to public schools, especially schools where there were black teachers for black students, was championed by community control advocates on the left, Forman wrote. Sizer and Whitten wrote, &ldquoA Proposal for a Poor Children&rsquos Bill of Rights&rdquo for Psychology Today, which explained that vouchers could &ldquoweight the education scales in favor of the poor for the next generation&rdquo under the right conditions. One part of the proposal required that supplementary grants should be large enough that schools were motivated to compete for it. American Federation of Teachers President Albert Shanker argued Jencks&rsquo voucher proposal, which introduced the idea of bonus vouchers to promote integration, would be watered down and eventually morph into the conservative model for vouchers. Conservatives weren&rsquot on board either, since they wanted a model with fewer regulations.

With those efforts&rsquo emphasis on better civil rights protections, the Trump&ndashDeVos approach to vouchers doesn&rsquot have a connection to the &rsquo60s and &rsquo70s vision for school choice, Frankenberg said.

&ldquoThere have been some cases of people using vouchers for more civil rights aims but by and large, when I look at DeVos and Trump&rsquos platform, I think of Milton Friedman,&rdquo she said. &ldquoWhen you look at his writings, there are so many strong echoes of what I see in the platform right now.&rdquo


Who’s to Blame for Private Eddie Slovik’s Death?

On January 31, 1945, Eddie D. Slovik was executed for desertion—the only U.S. soldier of the war to suffer that fate. His story inspired a popular book and a film in which actor Martin Sheen portrays the private in his final moments.

Joseph Connor
August 2018

Private Eddie Slovik, executed for desertion in 1945, has been memorialized in print and film as an unwitting sufferer of a cruel army. A deeper look, though, reveals a different story.

Private Eddie D. Slovik was the last American soldier shot for desertion in 1944. (NBC/Photofest)

Ek t was August 1944, and the 24-year-old replacement’s knees turned to jelly as he experienced artillery fire for the first time on his way to his new outfit. He devised a bold plan to make sure it never happened again. His scheme worked so well that he never again heard enemy fire, but the price Private Eddie D. Slovik paid for that silence was higher than he had bargained for, as he became the only American soldier shot for desertion since the Civil War.

Slovik’s story remained largely unknown until 1948, when journalist and navy veteran William Bradford Huie uncovered it while researching an article, “Are Americans Afraid to Fight?,” for Vryheid tydskrif. Huie followed the article with a bestselling 1954 book, The Execution of Private Slovik, later made into a television movie that attracted a record audience. The book and 1974 film portray Slovik as a victim railroaded by callous army commanders itching to make an example of some sad sack as a way to deter desertions in the wake of the brutal Battle of the Bulge. Huie’s account has become the popular narrative.

As a prosecutor for 27 years with experience in death-penalty cases, I studied the Slovik trial record closely and found the popular narrative to be more of a good story than accurate history. The army, in fact, tried multiple times to give Slovik an out. The finger of blame for the private’s execution, I learned, points in a surprising direction.

EDWARD DONALD SLOVIK had a troubled life from a young age. Born in Detroit on February 18, 1920, he dropped out of school at 15. Before his 21st birthday, Slovik—at five foot six and 138 pounds, an unimposing figure—had been put on probation five times for burglary and assault, sentenced to jail twice, and had served time in a Michigan prison. Paroled in April 1942, Slovik met Antoinette Wisniewski, a brown-eyed, dark-haired bookkeeper five years his senior, and they wed on November 7, 1942. Slovik rode the wartime manufacturing boom, securing a well-paying job as a shipping clerk at the DeSoto division of Chrysler and largely keeping out of trouble.

To Slovik, the war looked like someone else’s problem. Although the army drafted men with criminal records, it did not consider those on parole. So Slovik was safe from the draft—for a time. But on October 22, 1943, the Michigan Parole Board discharged him he was inducted into the army on January 3, 1944.

Slovik hated being a soldier. “It’s just like being in jail. Only in jail it isn’t this bad,” he complained to his wife in a letter from Camp Wolters, Texas. He was already plotting to avoid combat. “I’m not trying to learn anything cause if you’re too smart or too good they’ll send you overseas,” he wrote her. Slovik must have learned something, though, because on July 25, 1944, the army shipped him to England and then to the Third Replacement Depot in France. “I don’t know why the hell I’m cleaning this rifle,” he mused to a buddy during the voyage to Europe. “I never intend to fire it.”


After a troubled youth, Slovik worked to get his life on track. Paroled in April 1942, he married Antoinette Wisniewski that November and took a factory job before the army called him up. (Arella Studio)

On August 25, 1944, Slovik and 14 other replacements were sent to join Company G, 109th Regiment, 28th Division, located near Elbeuf, France. It was a somber three-hour truck ride as the men passed burned-out vehicles from the recent fighting in the Falaise Gap.

When they arrived at about 11 p.m., Elbeuf was under shellfire, so the men dug in outside the city. The barrage lifted a half hour later, and the replacements were ordered into town to meet up with Company G. A nervous and trembling Slovik, however, stayed behind in his foxhole. In the confusion of the nighttime movement, no one from his new company had even realized he was missing.

The 109th moved out the next day, replaced by the 13th Canadian Provost Corps, a military police outfit. Slovik befriended the Canadians, as did Private John P. Tankey, another 109th replacement, who had simply gotten lost in the previous day’s shuffle. For the next six weeks, Slovik and Tankey made themselves useful, driving trucks, cooking, and guarding German prisoners.


The aftermath of Falaise Gap fighting terrified Slovik en route to his post with the 109th Regiment. When the 109th moved out to Elbeuf, France, he stayed behind with the Canadians. (Bettmann/Getty Images)

They might have stayed with the Canadians for the war’s duration, but a new commander arrived in early October. He wondered about the two Yanks and contacted the 109th. On October 8, 1944, the 109th retrieved Slovik and Tankey and returned them to Company G, now stationed near Rocherath, Belgium.

Soldiers often got separated from their units, so no questions were asked when Slovik and Tankey returned. Tankey fought with the company until he was wounded on November 5, 1944. But Slovik had other ideas.

He asked company commander Captain Ralph O. Grotte if he would be court-martialed for staying behind in his foxhole on August 25. When Grotte said he would check, Slovik demanded a court-martial. An hour later, he asked Grotte, “If I leave again, will it be desertion?” Grotte answered affirmatively.

Slovik’s intent was obvious, and the captain pulled Tankey aside. “Soldier,” he said, “you better stop your buddy. He is getting himself into serious trouble.” Tankey tried to dissuade Slovik, but Slovik rebuffed him. “Johnny, I know what I’m doing,” he said, and walked away from the company.

The next morning, October 9, Slovik turned himself in to the 112th Military Government Detachment in Rocherath. He handed a green slip of paper to Private William O. Schmidt, a cook. The slip was a confession, handwritten on a post-exchange order form. In it, Slovik admitted to deserting his unit outside Elbeuf on August 25 and again near Rocherath on October 8. He went a step further. “I’ll run away again if I have to go out their [sic],” he wrote in capital letters.

The confession, and the way Slovik had presented it, revealed his true intentions to the army. Slovik was begging for a court-martial because, the army later concluded, he had “deliberately decided that confinement was preferable to the risks of combat, and he deliberately sought the safety and comparative comfort of the guardhouse.” Slovik had done time back home, so jail didn’t faze him. And knowing the army hadn’t shot a deserter in years, Slovik didn’t fear execution he suspected the army would free jailed deserters once the war ended.

Slovik was returned to the 109th, this time in handcuffs. Lieutenant Colonel Ross C. Henbest, the battalion commander, advised him to tear up his confession and return to Company G, but Slovik refused. He wanted a court-martial, and he soon got one.


Eddie Slovik's handwritten confession (Historical Images Archive/Alamy Stock Photo)

ON OCTOBER 19, 1944, Captain Grotte charged Slovik with deserting on August 25 and on October 8 “to avoid hazardous duty and to shirk important service.” Under the Articles of War, the penalty for wartime desertion was death “or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.”

Lieutenant Colonel Henry J. Sommer, a 28th Division judge advocate, saw where Slovik’s defiance was heading. On October 29, 1944, he had Slovik brought to his office. Sommer told the private he faced a long prison term and possibly execution. He offered to suspend the charges if Slovik returned to his unit and even promised him a transfer to a different outfit. “I’ll take my court-martial,” Slovik replied. Army psychiatrist Arthur L. Burks examined Slovik and found no evidence of mental illness.

Slovik’s trial took place about two weeks later in Roetgen, Germany, before nine judges, all of them 28th Division staff officers.

Captain Edward P. Woods, 26, represented Slovik. While not an attorney, Woods was an experienced court-martial counsel and had won acquittals for several clients. Guilt was a foregone conclusion—Slovik’s handwritten confession saw to that—but punishment was still an open question.

No deserter had been executed since 1865, when Private William Smitz of the 90th Pennsylvania Infantry faced a firing squad. Of the 2,864 men tried for desertion since 1941, 48 had been sentenced to death, and those sentences were later reduced to imprisonment. The wartime army gehad het executed 140 soldiers—but for murder or rape. Nevertheless, execution was still on the books as a penalty for desertion.

The trial began at 10 a.m. on November 11. The prosecutor, Captain John I. Green, called five witnesses, all brought “directly from the frontlines with clothes torn and muddy,” as one witness put it, perhaps as a ploy to remind the judges of the hard duty Slovik had evaded. Woods made no opening statement, engaged in minimal cross-examination, presented no evidence, and made no closing argument. Choosing not to testify, Slovik stood silent.

In just a little over an hour, the trial ended. The judges found Slovik guilty and unanimously voted that he be “shot to death with musketry.” This was the approved manner of execution for deserters and was considered less dishonorable than hanging, a death typically reserved for rapists and murderers. The judges took a second vote, which produced the same result. “We’ve got to live with this the rest of our lives. Let’s take a third ballot,” suggested the presiding judge, Lieutenant Colonel Guy M. Williams. That vote again produced a death verdict.

But that wasn’t the end of Slovik yet. A capital sentence had to survive several layers of appellate review.

Major General Norman D. Cota, commander of the 28th Division, was the first to review and confirm the sentence on November 27, 1944. If he hadn’t approved it, Cota said, “I don’t know how I could have gone to the line and looked a good soldier in the face.”

The next review was by the theater commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Major Frederick J. Bertolet, a staff attorney, recommended the sentence be confirmed. In Bertolet’s opinion, Slovik had “directly challenged the authority of the government, and future discipline depends upon a resolute reply to this challenge.” Brigadier General Edward C. Betts, another theater judge advocate, concurred.

While awaiting review of his sentence, Slovik realized he was in deeper trouble than he had planned. On December 9, he wrote to Eisenhower, begging for his life “for the sake of my dear wife and mother back home” and expressing remorse “for the sins I’ve committed.” He ended with “I remain Yours for Victory, Pvt. Eddie D. Slovik.”

Slovik went too far, however, when he feigned ignorance. “I didn’t realize at the time what I was doing, or what the word desertion meant,” he wrote to Eisenhower. “I had no intentions of deserting the Army whatsoever.” This was demonstrably false and blunted any impact his letter might otherwise have had. Before departing his unit on October 8, Slovik had confirmed with Captain Grotte that his leaving would constitute desertion. He knew exactly what he was doing when he made his decision. Eisenhower confirmed the sentence on December 23.

One final review was conducted on January 6, 1945, by the European Theater Board of Review, made up of three attorneys from the Judge Advocate General’s department. The board upheld the sentence, and Eisenhower ordered Slovik to be executed.

On January 31, a 12-man firing squad in Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines, France, shot Slovik. In his final days the private blamed his criminal record for his fate. He was being executed, he told a guard, “for bread I stole when I was twelve years old.” Slovik was buried in an unmarked grave in a special section of the Oise-Aisne American Cemetery in France alongside 94 soldiers executed for rape or murder.

IF THE ARMY PLANNED to use Slovik as an example to discourage desertion, it did a poor job. Only the 109th Regiment announced his execution, and then only in a message from the regimental commander to his men. Neither Eisenhower nor Cota notified their commands of the execution, and no civilian or military newspaper reported it.
S. L. A. Marshall, chief army historian for the European Theater, insisted Slovik’s case was so little known that he himself did not learn of it until 1954 when he read Huie’s book. Even Slovik’s widow was kept in the dark, told only that her husband had died under “dishonorable circumstances.”


Antoinette Slovik (here, in 1974 at 59) did not learn the details of her husband’s death until a 1954 book spelled them out. Calling Eddie “the unluckiest poor kid who ever lived,” she fought to clear his name and secure life insurance funds the army had denied her. Unsuccessful, she died in 1979 at 64. (Walter P. Reuther Library, Archives of Labor and Urban Affairs, Wayne State University)

Among those who had heard about it, Slovik’s fate was a dubious deterrent. “Well, buddy, what difference does it make whether the Germans kill me, or our own army shoots me,” one deserter reasoned. “I’m still one dead son of a bitch.”

Who was to blame for Eddie Slovik’s death? The answer is Slovik himself. The army’s wartime justice system was a product of its times and a far cry from today’s military or civilian court systems, with fewer protections for individual rights, almost absolute discretion entrusted to field commanders, and court proceedings conducted in secret. But within that framework, it was Slovik who had incited the harsh outcome.

His fatal mistake was in provoking the army to court-martial him so he could spend the war in the safety of the stockade. He made his goal obvious to his commanders and did everything in his power to force the army’s hand. He pursued a court-martial without spending even one day with his unit, and his defiant promise to “run away again” rubbed a raw nerve. To the army, this was a “direct challenge” that required a “resolute reply.”

Slovik’s blatant defiance boxed in army decision-makers so that they felt they had no choice but to impose the severest level of punishment—death. Because Slovik welcomed imprisonment, it was neither punishment nor a deterrent, so the army upped the ante. “If the death penalty is ever to be imposed for desertion it should be imposed in this case,” Brigadier General E. C. McNeil advised Eis-enhower. Anything less, staff attorney Bertolet urged, “would only have accomplished the accused’s purpose of securing his incarceration and consequent freedom from the dangers which so many of our armed forces are required to face daily.”

Slovik may also have been to blame for another serious error: Woods’s failure to present any evidence that might have led to a lesser sentence. Woods had a duty to honor his client’s wishes, and Slovik seemed to have wanted nothing done. “There just wasn’t much I could do,” the court-martial counsel said later. “Slovik had made his mind up.”

The failure to present mitigating evidence jumps out to anyone who has ever taken part in capital litigation. In my experience as a prosecutor, even in cases where execution is unlikely, defense attorneys present whatever information they have, no matter how weak, that might discourage a death sentence. No one wants to roll the dice with a client’s life.

Woods specifically asked the court to advise Slovik of his right to testify and present evidence even though Woods had already done just that before trial. This is a tactic defense attorneys use to make clear for the record that an obstinate client’s decision not to present a case was made with eyes wide open, despite it being ill-advised and against the counsel’s advice. It heads off later claims that counsel never told the client he could testify. Throughout, Slovik had shown a stubborn self-confidence, bordering on arrogance, and brushed off anyone who tried to steer him from his self-destructive path.

Woods did have some mitigating evidence he could have presented if Slovik had let him. Slovik had served with the Canadians for six weeks and willingly took a rear-echelon job. This showed he was not a complete slacker. While this was not overpowering evidence, it didn’t have to be. A death sentence required a unanimous vote, and the defense had to sway just one of the nine judges to vote for prison instead of death. In addition, Slovik chose not to justify his behavior in so much as a written statement, which the army would have allowed in lieu of testimony.


Eddie was buried in an unmarked grave in France’s Oise–Aisne American Cemetery, alongside 94 soldiers executed for rape and murder.

Even if the judges had imposed a death sentence, this type of evidence might have led to a sentence reduction on review, as happened in a case similar to Slovik’s. That soldier, too, had schemed to serve the war in the stockade, but unlike Slovik, he already had several courts-martial under his belt. He deserted, was sentenced to death, and Eisenhower set a date for his execution. Noting Slovik’s case, army lawyers felt this soldier deserved to be shot as much as Slovik did. At the 11th hour, however, marginal mitigating evidence led Eisenhower to reduce the soldier’s sentence to life imprisonment. The soldier had served with his unit for several months before deserting, and three of the judges recommended clemency based on nothing more than his “soldierly” appearance and “cooperative” attitude at trial. After the war, the sentence was reduced further, and he was paroled from Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary on December 17, 1946. Slovik’s mitigating evidence was comparable, if not stronger, since he lacked the baggage of prior courts-martial.

The record undercuts other parts of the popular narrative.

Slovik’s criminal history couldn’t have affected the outcome of his trial because the judges didn’t know about it they were told he had no record. His convictions entered the picture on review, but only as a factor militating against clemency.

Nor does the timing of Slovik’s case appear to have played any role in the final decision. He was tried while the 28th Division was engaged in fierce combat in the Hürtgen Forest and Eisenhower’s review occurred during the Battle of the Bulge. None of the records of the decision-making process, however, mention those battles or suggest any special desire to target deserters due to the heavy fighting.

Since January 31, 1945, no other American deserter has faced a firing squad. The Uniform Code of Military Justice has replaced the Articles of War, and execution is still allowed for wartime desertion. The country has not fought a declared war since VJ-Day, however, and attitudes toward capital punishment have changed. Whether seen as a provocateur or a victim, Eddie Slovik is likely to remain the last American soldier to pay the ultimate price for desertion. ✯


The Mystery of Private Edwin Jemison

This vulnerable young private’s face has long been an icon of the Civil War. For years he was misidentified and the manner of his death remained unknown. The recent discovery of an eccentric veteran’s horrific tale of his demise seemed to bring closure. But was it a lie?

The haunting photograph of Private Edwin F. Jemison, Company C, 2nd Louisiana Volunteers, killed at Malvern Hill,has appeared in countless books and articles.His obvious youthful innocence has conjured up strong emotions in many who had seen the photo.To many, his face is a tragic icon of the Civil War,and a symbol of the lost generations and lives cut short by all wars.But despite the image’s popular use,a mystery surrounds the Confederate soldier.

Details of his life can be found in numerous records—he was born in 1844, one of five children born to Robert and Sarah Jemison the family lived near Monroe,La.and he enlisted in the 2nd Louisiana when he was 16 years old. It is how he died that eludes us.And we want to know—we want to learn his fate.That he died during the Peninsula campaign as his regiment attacked Union positions in the July 1, 1862,Battle of Malvern Hill is an established fact. A misconception perpetrated in 1906, however, has led many scholars astray as to the exact cause of his death.

Two almost identical accounts claim Private Jemison’s life was snuffed out by a cannonball. One report was relayed by his niece,Mamie Jemison Chestney,in a family history she compiled for her own nieces and nephews.In it,Chestney states: “While his [Private Jemison’s] parents knew where he died, it was many years before they knew the details. One day my father introduced himself to a man as they sat before a hotel.The man repeated the name and said it was the first time he had heard that name since 1862 that a young soldier of that name had been fighting beside him at the Battle of Malvern Hill and been decapitated by a cannon ball. Questions proved it was Uncle Edwin.”

The other account appeared first in the Atlanta Constitution on March 26, 1906, headlined as “Soldier’s Blood Spouted on Him, Captain Moseley Meets Brother of Wartime Comrade,” and then again on April 19,1906, in the National Tribune.The account was retitled “His Head Blown Off, a Former Wearer of the Gray Tells of the Tragic Death of a Comrade During a Desperate Charge on the Union Lines at Malvern Hill.” The article described an old soldier, identified as Captain Warren Moseley,telling the tale of a grisly death at Malvern Hill to a large group of fascinated listeners.While Moseley is speaking, a man emerges from the crowd and says that the soldier whose death is being so graphically detailed was his brother, Edwin F. Jemison.To get at the truth, both the Chestney and the newspaper accounts need to be closely examined.

Mamie Jemison Chestney was a schoolteacher and published author and an avid genealogist who traced and recorded her family history.As both an author and a teacher, she would have understood the importance of fact-finding and the accuracy of sources,and the many letters she wrote to her cousin regarding her family history show attention to detail. Keeping this in mind,we can assume that the source for her story about her Uncle Edwin was reliable.The source,her father R.W.Jemison Jr.,was the younger brother of Private Jemison.In looking at the story relayed to Chestney by her father, and comparing it to the story in the newspaper, it can easily be deduced that the man R.W. Jemison spoke to was Captain Warren Moseley.

Captain Moseley was a longtime resident and police officer of Macon,Ga.,the same town in which the Jemisons lived. Despite his claim that he had not heard “that name since 1862,” it is virtually impossible that a police officer like Moseley had not heard the name Jemison in Macon.To begin with,Private Jemison’s father and his brother Samuel were both prominent attorneys,as well as the city attorneys for Macon.As such,their names appeared countless times in newspapers in both Macon and Atlanta.In 1879 city attorney R.W. Jemison Sr. committed suicide in downtown Macon. The incident was much talked about in the newspapers,and as a police officer,Captain Moseley almost certainly would have known about it.

After R.W.Jemison Sr.’s death,Samuel Jemison took over his father’s position. When Samuel died in 1886,his death and funeral were also well-documented in the local newspaper. Captain Moseley must have heard the name “Jemison” since 1862, on some occasion or another.

R.W.Jemison Jr.stood to gain nothing from the story he related to his daughter about his brother’s death,so we can assume he was telling the truth.The question is whether Captain Moseley was telling the truth when he said he witnessed the death of Private Jemison at Malvern Hill.

Taking a look at the version of the story that appeared in the 1906 newspapers is the first step in uncovering who Captain Moseley was and what his motivation might have been. In part, the story says that during the attack at Malvern Hill, Moseley claimed he was “wondering who it was who stood foremost in a charge of a Louisiana brigade with fixed bayonet,advancing up the hill and across a clover patch,when a shell from a gunboat in the bay took off his head and spattered his brains and blood all about the uniform of Captain Moseley, himself advancing through the thick rain of shot with his Georgia brigade.”

Within the article, Moseley is quoted as saying:“I turned suddenly at the terrible concussion caused by the proximity of the shell’s trail of death and saw that man standing headless, with bayonet drawn as in the charge, his blood spurting high in the air from the jugular vein,and it seemed to me an hour before he reeled and fell, still holding on to his gun.To me that was one of the most horrible sights of the period. I went back and looked at him after the fight to assure myself that it was not a dream of frenzy in those exciting moments. He was there as I had seen him fall, and more than 40 years have passed with that picture forever impressed on my memory.”

Captain Moseley then states that he had “long tried to learn who the private was.”A listener in the crowd of gentlemen on the street corner asked where the Louisiana brigade had entered the fight, and when Captain Moseley went over this part of the story again, a little chapter adding another event to the stories of the ’60s was closed.“That was my brother,” claimed the man.

The listener in the crowd is identified as R.W.Jemison.The article states that “it was his brother’s blood that had been mingled with Captain Moseley’s on the uniform of the latter at Malvern Hill when the one was killed and the other was badly wounded in the rain of shells.”The article concludes with the awkward sentence,“Both Captain Moseley and Mr. Jemison have been citizens of Macon many years, but they had not known all of this one of the many unwritten tragedies of the civil war.”

Captain Moseley drew such a vivid picture of a soldier’s battlefield death that not only was he able to convince a crowd of listeners of what he saw but he also managed to persuade R.W. Jemison that the soldier in question was his own brother.He was a gifted storyteller,but was his story of Malvern Hill the truth,or just a means of getting attention?

On August 5,1861,Moseley enlisted in Company H,4th Georgia Infantry.Company H was initially known as the “Baldwin Blues,” a tribute to the infantrymen’s home of Baldwin County.Moseley stated under oath in his pension application, dated September 12,1910,that he was captured near Winchester,Va., in 1862 and held for three months at the prison at Point Lookout,Md.,at which time he was exchanged.

By 1863, Moseley was back in the Army as a member of Company A of the 4th Georgia Reserve Cavalry, a militia unit. He was promoted to captain of Company A,giving him the rank he used with such good effect during the postwar years.He surrendered at Milledgeville,Ga., in April 1865.

The information Moseley gave in his pension application is supported by the information in The Roster of the Confederate Soldiers of Georgia,which states that Moseley was “wounded and captured at Strasburg,VA June 1,1862.Exchanged at Point Lookout, MD, about September 1862. Wounded at Chancellorsville,VA. May 3, 1863.Elected Captain Co.A,4th Regt.Ga. Reserve Cavalry April 1863. Surrendered at Milledgeville, Ga.” Of greatest interest to this story are the dates the Roster gives for Moseley’s capture and release. The Battle of Malvern Hill was on July 1,1862. Moseley had been captured exactly one month before that fight and was not exchanged until two months after. Moseley could not have been at Malvern Hill, for he was enduring the mosquitoes at Point Lookout at that time.

Even if Moseley had been at Malvern Hill, he would not have been positioned close to the unfortunate Private Jemison. Moseley’s 4th Georgia was at least a quarter of a mile from Private Jemison’s 2nd Louisiana.He simply could not have been next to Jemison, getting covered with Jemison’s blood.Moseley,it seems,embellished his wartime record.

But why would he do so? What kind of man was Captain Moseley? It is clear from newspaper accounts of his life as a Confederate veteran that he was a man who reveled in this role,attending numerous reunions and using his veteran status to earn some money. Moseley, in essence, spent a good deal of his postwar life as a “professional veteran.”

For example, in June 1892 it was reported in the Atlanta Constitution that Moseley would be attending the 4 th Georgia annual barbecue and picnic in Jeffersonville.He would be one of the event’s attractions, and the paper said he would “wear the coat which shows by its numerous bullet holes the number of wounds he received during the war in the service of the south.”

In November 1905 there was another Confederate reunion in Macon, this time much larger than the one in Jeffersonville in 1892. The event had been carefully planned for many months. Moseley was given authority to organize the cavalry element of the reunion.Hoping to have 500 cavalrymen attend, he encouraged veterans and sons of Confederate veterans to participate.The newspapers promised that the parade would feature a cavalry charge, and the Atlanta Constitution noted “the fact that Captain Moseley will be in charge is assurance of a most interesting affair.This veteran was engaged in nineteen battles, and was wounded eight times. He will wear a uniform which he possessed during the war.”

When the parade was over, according to the newspaper: “Moseley and his cavalrymen formed at the foot of Cherry Street and charged up to Cotton Avenue. All the old men in this troop rode as in their younger days, and they seemed to warm up to that rugged heat of excitement always evident among the men on the eve of battle.The war whoop sounded and the men were off.At breakneck speed, they dashed down the paved street, flashing old-time sabers. The crowds fell in behind them and yelled themselves hoarse.”

At the reunions Moseley would tell tales of his life during the war. One such story was recorded in various newspapers in December 1900.The incident described by the newspapers occurred at the Augusta veterans’ reunion and revolved around a strange tale told by Moseley concerning a “Hoodoo hat.”At the “battle of Winchester,” said Moseley, a Yankee was shot through the head, the bullet passing through his hat. A soldier of Moseley’s 4th Georgia saw the fine hat,picked it up and wore it. Two hours later that man was killed, shot through the head, the bullet passing through the same hole as the bullet that had killed the Yankee. Despite two men having been killed by shots through the hat,another 4th Georgia infantryman picked it up,and he too was struck in the head by an enemy bullet.Yet another 4th Georgia soldier picked up the hat and was shot in the head the next day.The tale concluded that this hat,despite having four previous wearers shot through the head while wearing it,was still “a fine one,”but no one would pick it up again and it was left on the field.This story sounds far-fetched,but as a great piece of entertainment, it likely captivated all those Moseley told it to.

Moseley also used his status as a Confederate veteran to make some extra money. In newspapers across the country in 1904 and 1905, an advertisement appeared featuring two “famous Confederate Veterans,”along with their photographs, who “use and recommend” Duffy’s Pure Malt Whiskey. Moseley was one of those famous veterans, and he was quoted as saying:“I never felt better in my life,and I owe it all to Duffy’s Pure Malt Whiskey. I was wounded eight times during the war and after General Lee’s surrender returned home completely broken down. My wounds gave me a good deal of trouble, and I had attacks of extreme weakness, with great loss of blood. Doctors said nothing would enrich my blood and build me up so quickly and thoroughly as Duffy’s Pure Malt Whiskey. I took nothing else.Although past 65,I am in perfect physical and mental condition and devote twelve hours a day to my business.”

Moseley’s role as celebrity veteran hit a high note when he was appointed to the staff of General A.J.West, commander of the North Georgia Brigade of the United Confederate Veterans.As recorded in the Atlanta Constitution on December 16, 1906:“Captain Warren Moseley of Macon who was last week made an aide-de-camp on the staff of General A.J.West,is among the few very striking typical Confederate soldiers left to enjoy the annual reunions of the Georgia Division. He entered the war as a private in the fourth regiment Georgia volunteers, from Milledgeville, was engaged in nineteen battles and skirmishes, wounded eight times during the war,was a prisoner many times,and as often exchanged.He was given a captain’s commission by Governor Joseph E.Brown and toward the end of the war operated in north Georgia and Tennessee under Colonel J.J. Findlay,where bushwhackers were fought. Captain Moseley has since the war been a citizen of Macon and has served on the Macon police force for a long period.His devotion to the veterans’reunion and the commemoration of the courage and bravery of southern soldiers make him at once a loyal Confederate. His appointment to the position mentioned is generally appreciated in Macon. He will serve on General West’s staff with the rank of Major.”

In May 1907, there was a national reunion in Richmond,Va.,of both Union and Confederate soldiers who had participated in the 1862 fighting for the Confederate capital.The gathering was held just a year after Moseley’s meeting with R.W.Jemison Jr. Considering the fact that Moseley could not have been at the battles for Richmond, his account reads like a rather grand tall tale.

The June 1,1907,Atlanta Constitution report on the Richmond reunion quotes Moseley as saying:“At that time the ladies of this city gave several church bells in order that they might be broken up and used to make cannon for the Confederate army.There was enough metal in the bells to make three cannon.About twentyfive pounds were left, and the remainder was used in making buckles for the soldiers’ belts.These latter contained the letters ‘C.S.’The price of the belts was $100. We were then operating in the valley of Virginia.I came down here with ten prisoners.A number of beautiful young ladies met me,and told me I might have one of the belts. I wear today the same pair of trousers I had on when I was wounded in the thigh and leg.I was also wounded several other times. I have not been here in forty-four years. I went down to the battlefield of Seven Pines [May 31–June 1, 1862] yesterday, where our brigade first went into the fight.I went to King’s school house,near Frayser’s farm [June 30,1862], where I found a house from which we fought full of bullet holes. I then went down to the swamp and found twelve pounds of shot and shell. I also found a broken saber,which was evidently broken over the head of one of the enemy.”

A few months later,Moseley again appeared in the Atlanta Constitution discussing Frayser’s Farm,another battle fought near Richmond in 1862.In an August 15 article he discusses a photograph that was given to him.The photo is of the “Frazur house, made by the Yankees shortly after the famous battle of the Seven Pines, in June 1862.” It was presented to Moseley by “Ira Watson,one of the Federal soldiers who fought in the trenches before the old house at the time it was held against a large force of Yankees by Warren Moseley,Ace Butts,T.F. Mappin and York Preston, until General Doles reached the point with a sufficient force of men to drive back the enemy.These four men killed more than eighty federal soldiers and officers in the trenches from the attic of this house and lost only one companion,York Preston, who was mortally wounded by parts of the chimney falling upon him when it was knocked away by a shell.”

The reunion at Richmond would be one of Moseley’s last.He died on December 17,1912,and was buried in Rose Hill Cemetery in Macon. Ironically, despite Moseley’s devotion to the Confederacy and avid participation in veteran affairs,he lies in a grave beneath a tombstone that does not indicate his military service.

There is little doubt that Captain Moseley and R.W. Jemison Jr. met on an afternoon in Macon and talked about the Battle of Malvern Hill.And there is little doubt that Captain Moseley gave a graphic account of a young soldier’s death. But it can be easily seen that he made up his story about Malvern Hill.He had become a professional veteran,living in the glory of the past,basking in the attention and adoration he received from younger generations.

Dit is onwaarskynlik dat die omstandighede van die dood van Private Jemison ooit ten volle bekend sal wees, en hierdie gedeelte uit sy sterfkennis sal voldoende moet wees om sy laaste oomblikke te beskryf: Hy “onderhou homself in die voorste rang van die soldaat en here totdat die oomblik van sy dood. Hy het vorentoe gebind op die bevel 'Charge!' En hy was in die voorste rang geslaan, en sonder 'n stryd het hy sy jong lewe opgee. ” Ongeag die besonderhede, wat ons wel weet, is dat hy 'n dapper jong man was wat 'n soldaat se dood op die slagveld gesterf het, en die ontsaglike koste van sy fotografiese erfenis van oorlog sal vir ewig aanklank vind.

Vir verdere lees, sien: Buitengewone omstandighede: die sewe dae gevegte, deur Brian K. Burton en Echoes of Thunder: A Guide to the Seven Days Battles, deur Matt Spruill III en Matt Spruill IV

Oorspronklik gepubliseer in die Mei 2007 -uitgawe van Amerikaanse burgeroorlog. Klik hier om in te teken.


Kyk die video: ШАРА БУЛЕТ vs МИХАИЛ АЛЛАХВЕРДЯН #нокаут #бой #ШараБулет