Soldado Edward Luxford

Soldado 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, filho do construtor Job Luxford, nasceu em Forest Row em 1875. Edward era o único filho de Jó, pois seu irmão, Maurice, morreu em 1886.

No início dos anos 1900, Job Luxford era um próspero empresário. Em 1904, ele comprou a Highfields House em Forest Row. Logo depois, ele comprou a Little Parrock Farm e sua olaria em Shepherd's Hill. Job Luxford serviu nos Conselhos de Freguesia e Condado. Ele também foi presidente dos Guardiões da União de East Grinstead.

Job era um conservador ferrenho e costumava descrever os liberais como a "escória da terra". Quando Charles Corbett, o candidato liberal, venceu East Grinstead nas eleições gerais de 1906, Job acusou todos os seus homens de votarem nos liberais e os demitiu quando se apresentaram para o trabalho na manhã seguinte à eleição. Como não era fácil encontrar bons trabalhadores, ele mais tarde devolveu os empregos a seus homens.

Com a eclosão da guerra em 1914, Job Luxford havia atingido seu septuagésimo aniversário. Como a maioria dos conservadores importantes da cidade, Job incentivou os jovens locais a se alistarem no exército. Um dos que aderiram foi seu único filho, Edward, que estava agora com trinta e nove anos. Edward juntou-se à Royal Garrison Artillery. Edward Luxford foi morto em combate em Ypres em 8 de maio de 1918.

Eu fazia parte de um grupo que acabou de voltar de uma visita ao túmulo de nosso menino na França, sob a organização da Peregrinação de São Barnabé. Que lindo! Um canteiro de flores com cerca de 80 ou mais metros de comprimento por 6 pés de largura e uma fileira de lápides sobre ele. Então, entre cada fileira, há uma caminhada de cerca de 3 a 3,5 metros de largura do mais belo gramado verde, tão liso e nivelado quanto uma mesa de bilhar. Foi bonito. Contei quarenta e oito pedras em uma fileira e me pareceu um batalhão em uma coluna de pelotões. Eu disse a mim mesmo: "Meu filho, muitas vezes desejei que você fosse enterrado perto de nós. Mas agora, se pudesse, não faria com que você fosse levado em consideração. Você está em um belo lugar entre seus camaradas, que lutaram e morreram com você . "


Sobrenome: Luxford

Este sobrenome interessante é de origem inglesa no início da Idade Média e é derivado da localização de algum lugar menor, não registrado ou agora & # 34perdido & # 34, que se acredita ter sido situado em Sussex, devido ao grande número de gravações anteriores naquela região. Estima-se que sete a dez mil vilas e aldeias tenham desaparecido desde o século 12, devido a causas naturais como a Peste Negra de 1348, na qual um oitavo da população morreu, e à prática generalizada de & # 34climpagem forçada & # 34 e fechamento de terras rurais para pastagens de ovelhas a partir do século XV. -> O nome do lugar é composto pelo nome pessoal do inglês médio & # 34Luke, Luck & # 34, que em última análise deriva de & # 34Lucas & # 34, uma forma latina do grego & # 34Loucas & # 34, homem da Lucânia (uma região em Itália), e o inglês médio & # 34ford & # 34, um ford, portanto, & # 34Luke & # 39s ou Luck & # 39s ford & # 34. Os primeiros exemplos do sobrenome incluem: o casamento de Edward Luxford com Annes Homwod em 20 de fevereiro de 1559, em Hurstpierpoint, Sussex, o batizado de Tomsen, filha de Edward Luxford, em 1º de abril de 1565, também em Hurstpierpoint e o casamento de Richard Luxford e Alice Overy em 8 de julho de 1610, em St. Margaret & # 39s, Westminster, Londres. O brasão da família representa em um escudo azul, uma divisa dourada entre três javalis dourados e # 39 cabeças cortadas. A primeira grafia registrada do sobrenome é de Thomas Luxford, datada de 6 de fevereiro de 1559, casamento com Alles Savadg, em Hurstpierpoint, Sussex, durante o reinado da Rainha Elizabeth 1, conhecida como & # 34Good Queen Bess & # 34, 1558 - 1603. Sobrenomes tornaram-se necessários quando os governos introduziram a tributação pessoal. Na Inglaterra, isso era conhecido como Poll Tax. Ao longo dos séculos, os sobrenomes em todos os países continuaram a se & # 34desenvolver & # 34, muitas vezes levando a surpreendentes variantes da grafia original.

© Copyright: Pesquisa de Origem de Nome 1980 - 2017


O príncipe Eduardo nasceu 16 anos depois de seu irmão mais velho

Se você acha que o Príncipe Eduardo parece muito mais jovem do que o Príncipe Charles, é porque ele é. Ele é cerca de 16 anos mais novo que seu irmão mais velho, nascido vários anos no reinado da rainha Elizabeth. De acordo com a Britannica, o príncipe Edward nasceu em 10 de março de 1964. A biografia revelou que ele nasceu no Castelo de Windsor, em Londres, e "foi batizado como Edward Antony Richard Louis" alguns meses depois.

Sua mãe é conhecida por agitar as coisas às vezes, e ela certamente fez isso ao dar à luz seu filho mais novo. De acordo com o Irish Independent, os pais geralmente não se juntam à mãe na sala de parto de acordo com a tradição real. No entanto, no livro "Meu marido e eu: a história interna de 70 anos de casamento real", Ingrid Seward revelou que o marido da rainha, o duque de Edimburgo, foi na verdade o primeiro pai real na história moderna a testemunhar o nascimento de seu filho.

"A Rainha, então com 37 anos, pediu-lhe para estar lá, ela estava lendo intensamente revistas femininas que enfatizavam a importância de envolver os pais no parto e ficou fascinado com a ideia", Seward compartilhou (via Irish Independent).


A Vida Privada de Eduardo IV

A Vida Privada de Eduardo IV, John Ashdown-Hill, Amberley Publishing, 2016, 336pp., & Pound20 hard, ISBN 978-1-4456-5245-0.

O Dr. John Ashdown-Hill, uma figura central no Projeto Procurando por Richard e um renomado historiador de Ricardo III com um talento especial para se aprofundar na mitologia da história, agora volta sua atenção para o irmão mais velho de Richard IV, Eduardo IV. Ele desvenda a complexa teia de histórias em torno da vida privada de Edward & rsquos & mdash, muitas das quais tiveram suas origens em crônicas escritas após 1485 & mdash discutindo a verdade por trás da reputação de Edward & rsquos. Eduardo tinha várias amantes? Ele produziu muitos bastardos? Quem era sua esposa legal? E o que causou a morte prematura de Eleanor Talbot?

A partir do momento em que se tornou público, a validade do casamento de Edward & rsquos com Elizabeth Widville, a bela viúva de um cavaleiro lancastriano, foi repetidamente questionada. Isso alarmou Elizabeth Widville e ela estava com medo de perder sua coroa e que seus filhos com o rei nunca iriam suceder ao trono. Mas após a morte inesperada de Edward em abril de 1483, um bispo anunciou publicamente que ele havia se casado com o rei anteriormente com Lady Eleanor Talbot. Como resultado, os filhos de Eduardo com Elizabeth, incluindo seu filho mais velho e herdeiro do trono, Eduardo, foram então declarados ilegítimos, tornando o irmão de Eduardo e Ricardo o herdeiro legítimo do trono. Mais tarde, foram feitas alegações de que Eduardo teve várias amantes e deixou para trás muitos filhos ilegítimos, embora as crônicas contemporâneas sejam omissas sobre o assunto.


Paciência (Luxford) Forward (abt. 1658)

Referência: DAN / 1242-1245 Título: Escritura para conduzir os usos de Fine (e cópia), Fine (e cópia) Descrição: Entre (a) Thomas Luxford de Randalls em Hurstpierpoint e agora de Glanvill, co. Hants., Cavalheiro. e Maria, seu w., John Forward de Iford, escriturário e Patience, seu w., Uma das filhas de Thomas Luxford com Patience Middleton, seu falecido w., Barbara Luxford, também d. de Thomas e Patience, John Whitepaine de Hurstpierpoint, gent. e Elizabeth, seu w. (b) Edward Burry de Lancing, cavalheiro. (c) William Marchant de Hurstpierpoint, yeo. (d) Robert Whitpaine de Hurstpierpoint, yeo. Terras chamadas Randalls, campo Isacke, Breaches, Haselcroft, hidromel Lyes, Campo Stockers em Hurstpierpoint (123a.), Terras chamadas Little Clayes, Great Clayes, a parcela de aráveis ​​(23a.) No E. lado das grandes Clayes, as terras chamadas de Riddens, as 3 parcelas de terra chamadas de Lawnes, a lagoa chamada de lagoa Foxhole, 1a. de terra situada no lado N. da lagoa (132a.) parcela tardia das propriedades de Danny, anuidade de 20 marcos fora do parque Dany onde ficava um grande bosque, 1 anuidade de 6s. 8d. emissão de Borwash meade em Hurstpierpoint. Uma multa será cobrada de (a) a (b). As violações devem ser para o uso de (c), o campo Isacke, o Lyes meade, o Hazlecroft e a anuidade de 6s. 8d. ao uso de John Whitpaine. O restante das premissas será para uso de (b), e a anuidade de £ 20 para uso de (d). Testemunhas: Richard White, Samuel Brewer, John Hill, Robert Hitch. Data: 27 de maio de 1685


Anzacs: Segunda Guerra Mundial

A Austrália entrou na Segunda Guerra Mundial logo após a invasão da Polônia, declarando guerra à Alemanha em 3 de setembro de 1939. Além disso, a Austrália foi atacada diretamente pela primeira vez em sua história pós-colonial. Suas baixas da ação inimiga durante a guerra foram 27.073 mortos e 23.477 feridos.

A Austrália travou duas guerras entre 1939 e 1945, uma contra a Alemanha e a Itália como parte do esforço de guerra da Comunidade Britânica e a outra contra o Japão em aliança com os Estados Unidos e a Grã-Bretanha. De 1942 até o início de 1944, as forças australianas desempenharam um papel fundamental no Pacífico Guerra, constituindo a maioria da força Aliada durante grande parte dos combates no Sudoeste do Pacífico.

A Austrália entrou na guerra contra a Alemanha em 3 de setembro de 1939, logo depois que a Grã-Bretanha declarou guerra quando expirou seu ultimato para a Alemanha se retirar da Polônia. O governo da Austrália acreditava que, como disse o primeiro-ministro Robert Menzies, "a Grã-Bretanha está em guerra, portanto a Austrália está em guerra", e pediu a Londres que notificasse a Alemanha que a Austrália era associada do Reino Unido. O apoio da Austrália à guerra foi feito principalmente em o fundamento de que seus interesses estavam inextricavelmente ligados aos da Grã-Bretanha, e que uma derrota britânica destruiria o sistema de defesa imperial no qual a Austrália dependia para segurança contra o Japão.

As principais unidades da AIF foram criadas entre 1939 e 1941. A 6ª Divisão foi formada durante outubro e novembro de 1939 e embarcou para o Oriente Médio no início de 1940 para completar seu treinamento e receber equipamentos modernos depois que o governo britânico garantiu ao governo australiano que o Japão não representam uma ameaça imediata. Foi planejado que a divisão se juntaria à Força Expedicionária Britânica na França quando seus preparativos estivessem completos, mas isso não aconteceu porque a França foi conquistada antes que a divisão estivesse pronta. Outras três divisões de infantaria da AIF (7ª Divisão, 8ª Divisão e 9ª Divisão) foram criadas na primeira metade de 1940, bem como um quartel-general (I Corps) e numerosas unidades de apoio e serviço. Todas essas divisões e a maioria das unidades de apoio foram implantadas no exterior durante 1940 e 1941. Uma divisão blindada AIF (a 1ª Divisão Blindada) também foi criada no início de 1941, mas nunca deixou a Austrália.

O bombardeio de Darwin em 19 de fevereiro de 1942 foi o primeiro e o maior ataque individual montado por uma potência estrangeira na Austrália. Neste dia, 242 aviões japoneses atacaram navios no porto de Darwin e nos dois campos de aviação da cidade na tentativa de impedir os Aliados de os usarem como bases para contestar as invasões de Timor e Java. A cidade foi mal defendida e os japoneses infligiram pesadas perdas às forças aliadas em outras áreas de Darwin também sofreram alguns danos e houve uma série de vítimas civis

O ataque japonês não foi como o ataque a Pearl Harbor no sentido de que foi contra uma nação que já havia declarado guerra ao Japão (em 8 de dezembro de 1941). Foi semelhante ao ataque a Pearl Harbor no sentido de que foi um ataque de surpresa aéreo bem-sucedido a um alvo naval que foi um grande choque para a Austrália. Embora Darwin fosse um alvo militar menos significativo, mais bombas foram lançadas lá do que em Pearl Harbor. O governo australiano minimizou os danos dos bombardeios em Darwin, acreditando que sua publicação representaria um golpe psicológico significativo para os australianos. Os ataques foram os primeiros e maiores de quase 100 ataques aéreos contra a Austrália durante 1942-1943.

Ao final da guerra, quase um milhão de australianos serviram nas forças armadas, cujas unidades militares lutaram principalmente na Europa, na campanha do Norte da África e no Pacífico Sul.

A Campanha da Malásia foi uma campanha travada pelas forças Aliadas e do Eixo na Malásia, de 8 de dezembro de 1941 a 31 de janeiro de 1942 durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial, a campanha foi dominada por batalhas terrestres entre unidades do exército da Comunidade Britânica e o Exército Imperial Japonês com escaramuças menores no início da campanha entre a Comunidade e as forças tailandesas. Para as forças britânicas, indianas, australianas e malaias que defendiam a colônia, a campanha foi um desastre total.

A batalha é notável pelo uso japonês de bicicleta de infantaria, o que permitiu que as tropas carregassem mais equipamentos e se movessem rapidamente pelo terreno denso da selva. Os engenheiros reais, equipados com cargas de demolição, destruíram mais de uma centena de pontes durante a retirada, o que pouco fez para atrasar os japoneses quando os japoneses capturaram Cingapura, eles sofreram 9.600 baixas

A Batalha de Cingapura, também conhecida como Queda de Cingapura, foi travada no teatro do sudeste asiático da Segunda Guerra Mundial quando o Império do Japão invadiu a fortaleza aliada de Cingapura. Cingapura foi a principal base militar britânica no sudeste Ásia e apelidada de "Gibraltar do Leste", a luta em Cingapura durou de 8 a 15 de fevereiro de 1942.

Resultou na captura de Cingapura pelos japoneses e na maior rendição de militares liderados por britânicos na história. Cerca de 80.000 soldados britânicos, indianos e australianos tornaram-se prisioneiros de guerra, juntando-se a 50.000 capturados pelos japoneses na campanha anterior da Malásia.

Em janeiro de 1942, antes da rendição, os esquadrões da Real Força Aérea Australiana (RAAF) foram evacuados e os navios de guerra da Marinha Real Australiana (RAN) receberam ordem de deixar Cingapura. Os restantes 65 enfermeiros do Exército australiano estacionados em Cingapura também receberam ordem de evacuar a bordo do SS Vyner Brook, um navio britânico, seus colegas, que haviam navegado no dia anterior, todos chegaram em casa em segurança.

O SS Vyner Brook foi atingido diretamente por bombardeiros japoneses e aqueles que sobreviveram fizeram seu caminho em terra para a Ilha de Banka, no estreito entre Sumatra e Banka, civis, soldados feridos e enfermeiras para os japoneses e foram metralhados na praia apenas um enfermeira sobreviveu, Vivian Bullwinkel

Em 943, apenas 2.500 prisioneiros australianos permaneceram, os outros foram transportados em "navios do inferno" para serem usados ​​como trabalho forçado na estrada de ferro Tailândia-Birmânia e em siderúrgicas, minas de cobre e carvão em Taiwan, Birmânia, Bornéu e Japão. Condições em Changi eram indescritíveis, a comida era escassa, doenças endêmicas, torturas e decapitações prevaleciam.

As tropas aliadas libertaram Changi em 5 de setembro de 1945, após a rendição incondicional dos japoneses em 2 de setembro de 1945.

Após a queda de Cingapura, o governo australiano e muitos australianos temeram que o Japão invadisse o continente australiano, a Austrália estava mal preparada para conter tal ataque, pois a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) não tinha aeronaves modernas e a Royal Australian Navy (RAN ) era muito pequeno e desequilibrado para se opor à Marinha Imperial Japonesa.

Na Primeira Batalha de Kokoda os defensores estavam mal treinados, em menor número e com poucos recursos, a resistência era tal que, de acordo com documentos capturados, os japoneses acreditavam ter derrotado uma força de mais de 1.200 homens quando, na verdade, eles estavam enfrentando apenas 77 tropas australianas.

Embora a Campanha de Gallipoli na Primeira Guerra Mundial tenha sido o primeiro teste militar da Austrália como uma nova nação, os combates durante a campanha de Kokoda representam a primeira vez na história da nação que sua segurança foi diretamente ameaçada. Embora tenha sido aceito que uma invasão da Austrália não era possível, ou mesmo planejada pelos japoneses, na época havia uma crença muito real dentro da Austrália de que isso era possível e, como tal, a campanha Kokoda passou a ser vista por alguns como a batalha que "salvou a Austrália", como resultado, dentro da psique coletiva australiana, a campanha e, particularmente, o papel do 39º Batalhão, tornou-se uma parte fundamental das noções modernas da lenda Anzac.

Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels foi o nome dado pelas tropas australianas a um grupo de pessoas da Papua Nova Guiné que, durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial, ajudaram e escoltaram as tropas australianas feridas na trilha de Kokoda. "Fuzzy-Wuzzy" foi originalmente usado por soldados britânicos no Século 19 como um nome para guerreiros Hadendoa na costa do Mar Vermelho do Sudão, e se referindo a seus elaborados penteados emaranhados de manteiga, os Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels foram nomeados por seus cabelos crespos e por seu papel útil.4000 vidas australianas foram perdidas na campanha , especula-se que esse número teria sido muito maior se não fosse pela ajuda dos Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels.

Escrito por um Digger australiano

“Eles carregaram macas sobre barreiras aparentemente intransponíveis, com o paciente razoavelmente confortável, o cuidado que prestam ao paciente é magnífico, se a noite encontrar a maca ainda na pista, eles encontrarão um local nivelado e construirão um abrigo sobre o paciente, eles irá deixá-lo o mais confortável possível, buscar água e alimentá-lo se houver comida disponível, independentemente de suas próprias necessidades, eles dormem quatro de cada lado da maca e se o paciente se mover ou precisar de alguma atenção durante a noite, isso é dado instantaneamente, estes foram os feitos dos 'Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels' - para nós! ”

Nenhum soldado ferido conhecido que ainda estava vivo foi abandonado pelos Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels, mesmo durante o combate pesado, a partir do Anzac Day 2007, apenas três dos Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels ainda estavam vivos, em julho de 2007, netos de soldados australianos da Segunda Guerra Mundial e netos dos Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels participaram do "Kokoda Challenge".

Pouco menos de 29.000 australianos foram feitos prisioneiros durante a guerra. Apenas 14.000 dos 21.467 prisioneiros australianos levados pelos japoneses sobreviveram ao cativeiro, a maioria das mortes em cativeiro foram devido à desnutrição e doenças.

Os 8.000 australianos capturados pela Alemanha e Itália foram geralmente tratados de acordo com as Convenções de Genebra, a maioria desses homens foram capturados durante os combates na Grécia e Creta em 1941, com o segundo maior grupo sendo 1.400 aviadores abatidos na Europa, como outros Como prisioneiros de guerra aliados ocidentais, os australianos foram mantidos em campos permanentes na Itália e na Alemanha, enquanto a guerra se aproximava do fim, os alemães moveram muitos prisioneiros para o interior do país para evitar que fossem libertados pelos exércitos aliados que avançavam. Esses movimentos muitas vezes eram feitos por meio de marchas forçadas em clima adverso e resultaram em muitas mortes, quatro australianos também foram executados após uma fuga em massa de Stalag Luft III em março de 1944. Enquanto os prisioneiros australianos sofreram uma taxa de mortalidade maior em cativeiro alemão e italiano do que seus homólogos na Primeira Guerra Mundial, foi muito menor do que a taxa sofrida sob o internamento japonês.

Como o outro pessoal aliado capturado pelos japoneses, a maioria dos milhares de australianos capturados nos primeiros meses de 1942 durante a conquista da Malásia e Cingapura, o NEI e a Nova Guiné foram mantidos em condições adversas, os australianos foram mantidos em campos por toda a Ásia -Região do Pacífico e muitos suportaram longas viagens em navios grosseiramente superlotados, enquanto a maioria dos prisioneiros de guerra australianos que morreram em cativeiro japonês foram vítimas de desnutrição e doenças deliberadas, centenas foram deliberadamente mortos por seus guardas.

A Ferrovia Burma-Thai foi a mais notória das experiências de prisioneiros de guerra, pois 13.000 australianos trabalharam nela em vários momentos durante 1942 e 1943 ao lado de milhares de outros prisioneiros de guerra aliados e asiáticos recrutados pelos japoneses, quase 2.650 australianos morreram lá, milhares de australianos Os prisioneiros de guerra também foram enviados para as ilhas japonesas, onde trabalharam em fábricas e minas em condições geralmente adversas. Os prisioneiros de guerra mantidos nos campos de Ambon e Bornéu sofreram as maiores taxas de mortalidade 77 por cento dos que morreram em Ambon e poucos dos 2.500 australianos e britânicos prisioneiros em Bornéu sobreviveram, quase todos foram mortos por excesso de trabalho e uma série de marchas da morte em 1945.

O tratamento dispensado aos prisioneiros de guerra levou muitos australianos a permanecerem hostis ao Japão após a guerra, as autoridades australianas investigaram os abusos contra prisioneiros de guerra aliados na zona de responsabilidade de seu país após a guerra e os guardas que se acreditava terem maltratado prisioneiros estavam entre os julgados pelo australiano - julgamentos de crimes de guerra administrados.

Quando a Segunda Guerra Mundial estourou, as enfermeiras novamente se voluntariaram, motivadas por um senso de dever, por fim cerca de 5.000 enfermeiras australianas serviram em uma variedade de locais, incluindo Oriente Médio, Mediterrâneo, Grã-Bretanha, Ásia, Pacífico e Austrália. Setenta e oito morreram, alguns por acidente ou doença, mas a maioria como resultado da ação do inimigo ou enquanto prisioneiros de guerra.

No início, o AANS era o único serviço feminino. O Serviço de Enfermagem da Força Aérea Real Australiana (RAAFNS) foi formado em 1940, e o Serviço de Enfermagem da Marinha Real Australiana (RANNS) em 1942. Mas o AANS permaneceu de longe o maior, e também fez a maior parte daqueles que serviram no exterior.

No final da guerra, as irmãs lactantes haviam sido comissionadas como oficiais, embora muitas relutassem em desistir de seus títulos tradicionais de “irmã” e “matrona”. Eles ainda deveriam receber o mesmo status e remuneração dos oficiais homens.

Nancy Grace Augusta Wake AC GM Nasceu em Roseneath, Wellington, Nova Zelândia, em 1912, e serviu como agente britânica durante o final da Segunda Guerra Mundial. Ela se tornou uma figura importante nos grupos de maquis da Resistência Francesa e foi uma das mais condecoradas serviçais dos Aliados na guerra. Após a queda da França em 1940, ela se tornou uma mensageira da Resistência Francesa e mais tarde se juntou à rede de fuga do Capitão Ian Garrow. Em 1943, Wake era a pessoa mais procurada pela Gestapo, com um preço de 5 milhões de francos por sua cabeça.

Depois de chegar à Grã-Bretanha, Wake se juntou ao Executivo de Operações Especiais. Na noite de 29-30 de abril de 1944, Wake foi lançado de paraquedas em Auvergne, tornando-se um elo de ligação entre Londres e o grupo local de maquis liderado pelo Capitão Henri Tardivat na Floresta de Tronçais. De abril de 1944 até a libertação da França, seus mais de 7.000 maquisards lutaram contra 22.000 soldados SS, causando 1.400 baixas, enquanto eles próprios levavam apenas 100.

Wake foi nomeado Cavaleiro (cavaleiro) da Legião de Honra em 1970 e foi promovido a Oficial da Legião de Honra em 1988.

Inicialmente, ela recusou ofertas de condecorações da Austrália, dizendo: "A última vez que houve uma sugestão de que eu disse ao governo que eles poderiam enfiar suas medalhas onde o macaco enfiou as nozes. O problema é que se eles me deram uma medalha agora, é não seria amor, então não quero nada deles. Foi só em fevereiro de 2004 que Wake recebeu o Companheiro da Ordem da Austrália.

Em abril de 2006, ela recebeu a mais alta honraria da Associação Real de Devolução e Serviços da Nova Zelândia, o emblema da RSA em ouro. As medalhas de Wake estão em exibição na galeria da Segunda Guerra Mundial no Australian War Memorial Museum em Canberra.

Em 3 de junho de 2010, um "poste de herança" em homenagem a Wake foi apresentado na Oriental Parade em Wellington, Nova Zelândia, perto do local de seu nascimento - Fontes


A verdadeira história de Salvando o Soldado Ryan

Mémoire & ampData Frederick & # 8220Fritz & # 8221 Niland

Ao ingressar no exército, os irmãos Fritz, Bob, Preston e Edward Niland de Tonawanda, Nova York se espalharam entre várias unidades com Fritz e Bob na 501ª e 505ª Infantaria de Pára-quedistas, respectivamente, Preston na 22ª Infantaria e Edward na Força do ar.

Em 16 de maio de 1944, menos de um mês antes do Dia D, Edward Niland foi capturado pelos japoneses. Ele havia saltado de pára-quedas nas selvas da Birmânia, mas errou o alvo. Embora ele tenha conseguido evitá-los por um tempo, ele foi capturado pelos japoneses e levado a um ponto de interrogação. acampamento na Birmânia. Depois que ele saltou de seu B-25, o resto de sua equipe nunca mais ouviu falar dele e presumiu que ele tinha sido morto em combate.

No Dia D, Bob Niland foi morto na Normandia enquanto assaltava as praias com o 505º Regimento de Infantaria Paraquedista, 82ª Divisão Aerotransportada. Ele morreu como um herói, oferecendo-se para ficar para trás com dois outros homens e conter o avanço alemão enquanto o resto de sua equipe escapava. O plano deles conseguiu diminuir a velocidade dos alemães, embora Bob tenha acabado morrendo enquanto manejava sua metralhadora.

No dia seguinte, Preston foi morto após invadir Utah Beach. Ele conseguiu sobreviver ao ataque à praia e conseguiu chegar mais ao interior, mas foi mortalmente ferido ao tentar capturar a bateria de Crisbecq, que havia afundado um contratorpedeiro dos EUA.

A notícia das mortes de Bob e Preston, bem como da morte presumida de Edward, 8217, viajou rapidamente e o governo decidiu notificar a família. A Sra. Niland recebeu todas as três notificações no mesmo dia. Seu único consolo era uma carta de Fritz se gabando das histórias que contaria depois da guerra.

& # 8220Pai & # 8217s Histórias de guerra hispano-americana vão ter que ficar em segundo plano quando eu chegar em casa & # 8221, escreveu ele. Parecia que ele não tinha conhecimento do destino de seus irmãos.

Quando o Departamento de Guerra soube que três dos quatro irmãos haviam morrido, decidiram que o irmão restante precisava ser trazido para casa - exatamente como no filme.

Paramount Pictures Matt Damon como o Soldado Ryan em Salvando o Soldado Ryan.

No caso de Fritz Niland, o padre Francis Sampson, capelão do 501º Regimento, foi encarregado de encontrar Fritz e garantir que ele voltasse para casa.

Após o Dia D, Fritz tinha ido ao local da 82ª Aerotransportada na esperança de se encontrar com Bob apenas para descobrir que seu irmão havia sido morto. Mas, graças a Sampson, que o rastreou, Fritz também soube que agora ele estava indo para casa.

Fritz foi enviado para a Inglaterra, depois de volta para casa em Nova York, onde serviu como M.P. pelo resto da guerra. De volta a casa, Fritz e sua família sofreram com a perda de seus irmãos, mas então eles receberam uma boa notícia.

Em maio de 1945, os Nilands receberam a notícia de que Edward, dado como morto, havia de fato sido encontrado vivo depois que o campo onde ele estava detido na Birmânia foi libertado. Agora, um segundo irmão Niland estava voltando para casa.

Embora agora houvesse apenas metade dos irmãos Niland do que no início da guerra, os dois que sobraram passaram muitas das décadas restantes juntos morando em sua casa em Tonawanda, Nova York.


Por que a história racista dos vales escolares é importante hoje

Na segunda-feira, a senadora de Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, escreveu uma carta mordaz ao presidente eleito Donald Trump & rsquos pick para a secretária de educação, Betsy DeVos, questionando se ela tinha a experiência para dirigir o departamento. Entre Warren & rsquos, muitas críticas a DeVos & rsquo registram & # 8202 & mdash & # 8202suas visões desconhecidas sobre muitos aspectos do ensino superior e questões de direitos civis, por exemplo & # 8202 & mdash & # 8202Warren também mencionou a & ldhistória carregada de forma quoracal & rdquo dos programas de vouchers.

& ldquoApós o processo Brown v. Board of Education e a segregação das escolas públicas ordenada pelo tribunal, muitos estados do sul estabeleceram esquemas de vouchers para permitir que os alunos brancos deixassem o sistema educacional e levassem os dólares dos contribuintes com eles, dizimando os orçamentos dos distritos escolares públicos. Os esquemas de vouchers atuais podem ser igualmente prejudiciais para os orçamentos do distrito escolar público, porque muitas vezes deixam os distritos escolares com menos recursos para ensinar os alunos mais desfavorecidos, enquanto canalizam dólares privados para escolas privadas inexplicáveis ​​que não seguem os mesmos padrões acadêmicos ou de direitos civis como escolas públicas. & rdquo

Depois do Supremo Tribunal dos EUA e rsquos Brown v. Conselho de Educação decisão, vários estados do sul abraçaram a resistência à integração por meio da abertura de escolas privadas que ficaram conhecidas como & ldquosegregation academies. & rdquo Os governadores da Virgínia e da Carolina do Norte apoiaram o fechamento de distritos escolares inteiros que receberam ordem de integração e uso de vouchers de escolas privadas como forma para empurrar contra a integração.

Erica Frankenberg, professora associada do Departamento de Estudos de Políticas Educacionais da Faculdade de Educação da Universidade Estadual da Pensilvânia, disse que embora os alunos brancos tenham sido afetados pelo fechamento de distritos, eles tiveram muito mais oportunidades educacionais do que famílias negras que ficaram sem um distrito escolar.

“Imaginem todas as escolas públicas em um distrito fechando por um ou dois anos e não tendo uma escola que os filhos pudessem frequentar”, disse Frankenburg. Obviamente, para as famílias que não tinham os meios, que predominantemente caíram para a comunidade negra porque eles não tinham o poder e o dinheiro para financiar suas próprias escolas, havia uma questão de o que fazer com seus filhos e como continuar a educá-los ? & rdquo

& ldquoHavia uma questão sobre o que você faz com seus filhos e como você continua a educá-los? & rdquo

Na Virgínia, o governador Thomas B. Stanley propôs o Plano Stanley, que foi aprovado em 1956. Ele permitiu ao governador fechar qualquer escola sob uma ordem de segregação, deu ao estado a capacidade de manter o financiamento de escolas não segregadas e deu subsídios e mensalidades subsídios aos alunos para manter os bairros segregados. Fazia parte da Massive Resistance, uma estratégia usada pelo senador da Virgínia Harry Byrd e outras figuras políticas da Virgínia para se opor aos esforços de integração escolar. Em meados dos anos 60, a Massive Resistance estava em seu último suspiro desde que a Suprema Corte dos EUA a declarou inconstitucional, mas as bolsas de estudo financiadas por impostos para alunos que queriam deixar as escolas públicas para frequentar escolas privadas ajudaram a manter a segregação.

As marcas de segregação escolar ainda são visíveis no condado de Prince Edward, onde o condado fechou as escolas públicas em vez de cumprir a dessegregação. A taxa de analfabetismo é maior do que a média do estado e a matrícula escolar continua diminuindo, como escreveu Kristen Green em The Atlantic. Green explicou que as escolas particulares sem playgrounds e refeitórios mostraram até onde os pais brancos estavam dispostos a ir para manter a segregação.

Frankenberg disse que a escolha dos conservadores de usar um contexto de direitos civis para justificar sua abordagem de mercado livre para melhorar as escolas não corresponde ao efeito dos comprovantes de realidade sobre os alunos negros de hoje. Ela também argumenta que alguns defensores dos vouchers argumentaram que a ideia de vouchers proporcionando um mercado escolar & mdash que Milton Friedman introduziu na década de 1950 & mdash não colocaria em risco os direitos dos estudantes negros a uma educação de qualidade, assim como os defensores dos vouchers afirmam hoje.

& ldquoNos & rsquo50s e & rsquo60s sul, eles diriam que os afro-americanos são livres para ir aonde quiserem com seu voucher também & # 8202 & mdash & # 8202que não estava sendo fornecido em uma base racial. Bem, pode ter sido o caso, mas não havia escolas particulares que aceitariam estudantes afro-americanos naquela época, no auge da resistência ”, disse Frankenberg. &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)

eu 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 Liberdade revista. 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 teve 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 Lista 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.

É improvável que as circunstâncias da morte do soldado Jemison sejam totalmente conhecidas, e esta passagem de seu obituário terá que ser suficiente para descrever seus últimos momentos: Ele "se sustentou na primeira fila de soldado e cavalheiros até o momento de sua morte. Correndo para a frente com a ordem de ‘Atacar!’, Ele foi derrubado na primeira fila e, sem luta, abandonou sua jovem vida. ” Independentemente dos detalhes, o que sabemos com certeza é que ele foi um jovem corajoso que morreu como soldado no campo de batalha, e seu legado fotográfico do terrível custo da guerra ecoará para sempre.

Para mais leituras, consulte: Circunstâncias extraordinárias: as batalhas dos sete dias, por Brian K. Burton e Echoes of Thunder: um guia para as batalhas dos sete dias, por Matt Spruill III e Matt Spruill IV

Originalmente publicado na edição de maio de 2007 de Guerra Civil da América. Para se inscrever, clique aqui.


Assista o vídeo: Победная раздевалка минского Динамо после матча с Адмиралом


Comentários:

  1. Vasek

    Você não está certo. Vamos discutir isso. Escreva em PM.

  2. Natalio

    Esta frase é simplesmente incrível)

  3. Kazemde

    Garota inteligente

  4. Vum

    Great topic

  5. Comhghan

    muito bonito, se ao menos fizéssemos isso

  6. Stancliff

    a frase excelente



Escreve uma mensagem