Category: All About Guns
Categories
Curator’s Corner: British SMLE
As we celebrate the Bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, evidence has been discovered that shows the Second Amendment was prompted by British plans to disarm each and every American.
In 1777, William Knox, Under Secretary of State in the British colonial Office, circulated a proposal entitled “What is it to be Done with America?” Knox advocated the creation of a ruling aristocracy loyal to the Crown, establishment of the Church of England throughout the colonies and an unlimited power to tax. To keep them servile, Knox offered the panacea of disarming all of the people and relying solely on a standing army:
The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, & the Arms of all the People should be taken away, & every piece of Ordnance removed into the King’s Stores, nor should any foundry or manufactory of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be evre suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without License; they will have but little need of such things for the future, as the King’s Troops, Ships Forts will be sufficient to protect them from any danger. (1)
It all began in September 1768, when rumors of an impending occupation by British troops, allegedly to suppress riots and collect taxes, inflamed Boston. A group of the freeholders led by James Otis and John Hancock met at Faneuil Hall and passed several resolutions, including the following:
WHEREAS, by an Act of Parliament, of the first of King William and Queen Mary, it is declared, that the Subjects being Protestants, may have Arms for their Defence; it is the Opinion of this town, that the said Declaration is founded in Nature, Reason and sound Policy, and is well adapted for the necessary Defence of the Community.
And Forasmuch, as by a good and wholesome Law of this Province, every listed Soldier and other Householder (except Troopers, who by Law are otherwise to be provided) shall always be provided with a well fix’d Firelock, Musket, Accountrements and Ammunition, as in said Law particularly mentioned, tot he Satisfaction of the Commission officers of the company; . . . VOTED, that those of the Inhabitants, who may at present be unprovided, be and hereby are requested duly to observe the said Law at this Time. (2)
A convention of Boston and several other towns met to consider the resolutions, and then petitioned the royal governor. When the governor rejected the petition, a patriot “A.B.C.” (probably Samuel Adams) wrote:
It is reported that the Governor has said, that he has Three Things in Command from the Ministry, more grievous to the People, than any Thing hitherto made knonw. It is conjectured 1st, that the Inhabitants of this Province are to be disarmed. 2d. The Province to be governed Martial Law. And 3d, that a Number of Gentlemen who have exerted themselves in the cause of their country, are to be seized and sent to Great-Britain.
Unhappy America! When thy Enemies are rewarded with Honors and Riches; but thy Friends punished and ruined only for asserting thy Rights, and pleading for thy Freedom. (3)
Two days later, the British troops landed in Boston and took over key points, including Faneuil Hall. (4) However, only one report could be found that the inhabitants were being disarmed.
Advices, so late as the 10th of October, mention….
That part of the troops had been quartered in the castle and barracks, and the remainder of them in some old empty houses..
That the inhabitants had been ordered to bring in their arms, which in general they had complied with; and that those in possession of any after the expiration of a notice given them, were to take the consequences. (5)
It is difficult to imagine much compliance with such an order, especially since such reports were not widespread with extensive protests. However, disarming the colonists was clearly being contemplated. From London, “it is said orders well soon be given to prevent the exportation of either navel or military stores, gun-powder, &c. to any part of North-America.” (6)
In an article he signed “E.A.,” Samuel Adams recalled the English Bill of rights as explained by Sir William Blackstone:
At the revolution, the British constitution was again restor’d to its original principles, declared inn the bill of rights; which was afterwards pass’d into a law, and stands as a bulwark to the natural rights of subjects. “To vindicate these rights, says Mr. Blackstone, when actually violated or attack’d, the subjects of England are entitled first to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law—next to the right of petitioning the King and parliament for redress of grievances—and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” These he calls “auxiliary subordinate rights, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights of personal security, personal liberty and private property”: And that of having arms for their defence he tells us in “a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”—How little do those persons attend to the rights of the constitution, if they know anything about them, who find fault with a late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defence at any time; but more especially, when they had reason to fear, there would be a necessity of the means of self preservation against the violence of oppression. (7)
Adams made clear that private citizens could use arms to protect themselves from military oppression. He went on to point out that the same persons who opposed the right to have arms also opposed the right to petition:
But there are some persons, who would, if possibly they could, persuade the people never to make use of their constitutional rights or terrify them from doing it. No wonder that a resolution of this town to keep arms for its own defence, should be represented as having at bottom a secret intention to oppose the landing of the King’s troops: when those very persons, who gave it this colouring, had before represented the peoples petitioning their Sovereignm, as proceeding from a factious and rebellious spirit. . . . (8)
For the next half decade, the disputes escalated, from the shooting of civilians “armed” with sticks (what became known as the Boston Massacre in 1770), to the embargo on shipments of arms to America and the self-arming of the populace into militia in 1774. In September 1774, pro-British rulers in Boston proposed the disarming of the people, but the measure was voted down, perhaps because of the protest it would have evoked:
It is said, it was proposed in the Divan last Wednesday, that the inhabitants of this Town should be disarmed, and that some of the new-fangled Counsellors consented thereto, but happily a majority was against it.—The report of this extraordinary measure having been put in Execution by the Soldiery was propagated through the country, with some other exaggerated stories, and, by what we are told, if these Reports had not been contradicted, we should by this date have had 40 or 50,000 men from the Country (some of whom were on the march) appear’d for our Relief. (8a)
Nonetheless, by early 1775, the British began a de facto policy of disarming the colonists.
What was actually going on may be exemplified by the experience of one Thomas Ditson, who was tarred and feathered by British soldiers. In his affidavit, Ditson claimed, “I enquired of some Townsmen who had any guns to sell; one whom I did not know, replied he had a very fine Gun to sell.” (9) Since the one who offered the gun was a soldier, Ditson continued:
there was something not right . . . and left the Gun, and coming away he followed me and urg’d the Gun upon me. . . . (10)
When he finally paid money to the soldier, several other soldiers appeared and seized Ditson, whom they proceeded to tar and feather. However, instead of entrapment, the soldier swore in his affidavit that it was a case of a rebel trying to obtain arms and urging a soldier to desert. The citizen said “that he would buy more Firelocks of the Deponent, and as many as he could get any other soldier to sell him. . . .” (11)
The British were wise to the American game, and the following ammunition seizure reported from Boston also alleged that soldiers killed people along the road:
The Neck guard seized 13,425 musket cartridges with ball, (we suppose through the information of some dirty scoundrel, of which we have now many among us) and about 300 lb. of ball, which we were carrying into the country—this was private property—The owner applied to the General first, but he absolutely refused to deliver it. (12)
The Revolutionary War was sparked when militiamen exercising at Lexington refused to give up their arms. The widely published American account of April 19, 1775, began with the order shouted by a British officer:
“Disperse you Rebels—Damn you, throw down your Arms and disperse.” Upon which the Troops huzz’d and immediately one or two Officers discharged their Pistols, which were instantaneously followed by the Firing of four or five of the soldiers, then there seemed to be a general discharge from the whole Body. (13)
Three days later Gen. Gage represented to the Selectmen of Boston that “there was a large body of men in arms” hostilely assembled, and that the inhabitants could be injured if the soldiers attacked. (14) The next day a town committee met with Gage, who promised “that upon the inhabitants in general lodging their arms in Faneuil Hall, or any other convenient place, under the care of the Selectmen, marked with the names of the respective owners, that all such inhabitants as are inclined, may depart from the town… And that, the arms aforesaid at a suitable time would be return’d to the owners.” (15)
Bostonians proceeded to turn in 1778 muskets, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets and 38 blunderbusses. (16) However, when “the inhabitants gave u their arms and ammunition- to the care of the Selectmen: the General then set a guard over the arms. . . .” (17) Gage then refused to permit the people to leave. “The same day a town meeting was to be held in Boston, when the inhabitants were determined to demand the arms they had deposited in the hands of the selectmen, or have liberty to leave town.” (18)
An anonymous patriot addressed “the perfidious, the truce-breaking Thomas Gage” as follows:
But the single breach of the capitulation with them [the people of Boston], after they had religiously fulfilled their part, must brand your name and memory with eternal infamy—the proposal came from you to the inhabitants by the medium of one of your officers, through the Selectmen, and was, that if the inhabitants would deposit their fire-arms in the hands of the Selectmen, to be returned to them after a reasonable time, you would give leave to the inhabitants to remove out of town with all their effects, without any let or molestation. The town punctually complied, and you remain an infamous monument of perfidy, for which an Arab, Wild Tartar of Savage would despise you!!! (19)
On June 12, Gage proclaimed martial law and offered a pardon to all who would lay down their arms except Samuel Adams and John Hancock. (20) A patriot responded with a poem entitled “Tom Gage’s Proclamation,” which told how the general had sent an expedition “the men of Concord to disarm” and how he afterwards reflected:
Yet e’er I draw the vengeful sword,
I have thought fit to send abroad,
This present gracious Proclamation,
Of purpose mild the demonstration;
That whosoe’er keeps gun or pistol,
I’ll spoil the motion of his systole;
Or, whip his breech, or cut his weapon,
As has the measure of his Treason:—
But every one that will lay down
His hanger bright, and musket brown,
Shall not be beat, nor bruis’d, not bang’d,
Much less for past offences, hang’d,
But on surrendering his toledo,
Go to and fro unhurt as we do:—
But then I must, out of this plan, lock
Both SAMUEL ADAMS and JOHN HANCOCK;
For those vile traitors (like debentures)
Must be truck’d up at all adventures;
As any proffer of a pardon,
Would only tend those rogues to harden:—
But every other mother’s son,
The instant he destroys his gun,
For thus doth run the King’s command)
May, if he will, come kiss my hand.—
* * *
Meanwhile let all, and every one Who loves his life, forsake his gun. (21)
Gage’s seizures and attempts to seize the guns, pistols, Brown Bess muskets and swords known as hangers and toledos of the individual citizens of Boston who were not even involved in the hostilities sent a message to all of the colonists that the right to keep and bear private arms was in a perilous condition. A report from London that the British were coming to seize the arms of all the colonists hit the headlines in Virginia and Maryland:
It is reported, that on the landing of the General Officers, who have sailed for America, a proclamation will be published throughout the provinces inviting the Americans to deliver up their arms by a certain stipulated day; and that such of the colonists as are afterwards proved to carry arms shall be deemed rebels, and be punished accordingly. (22)
The final break came when the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Causes of Taking Up Arms on July 6, 1775, which had been drafted by Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson and which complained:
It was stipulated that the said inhabitants having deposited their arms with their own magistrates, should have liberty to depart. . . . They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honor, in defiance of the obligations of treaties, which even savage nations esteem sacred, the governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for the owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers. . . . (23)
Debate now turned to war, and William Knox’s 1777 plan that “the Arms of all the People should be taken away” was far too late, had it ever been possible.
The above is only a small portion of newspaper extracts showing British attempts to disarm the Americans in the years 1768-1775. The grievances expressed led to the adoption of right to bear arms guarantees in the state Declarations of Rights beginning in 1776 and the federal Second Amendment in 1789.
The British resorted to every possible tactic to disarm the Americans—entrapment, false promises of “safekeeping,” banning imports, direct seizure and finally shooting persons bearing arms. As the Bicentennial of the Second Amendment approaches, the American people must make a renewed commitment to understand the historical origins for the Bill of Rights, in order to preserve their liberties.
Notes
1. Sources Of American Independence 176 (H. Peckman ed. 1978). Emphasis added.
2. Boston Evening Post, Sept. 19, 1768, at 1, col. 3, and 2, col.1
3. Boston Gazette and Country Journal, Sept. 26, 1768, at 3 cols. 1-2
4. Boston Evening Post, Oct. 3, 1768, at 3, col. 2 (includes an account of the invasion).
5. New York Journal, Feb. 2, 1769, at 2, col.2
6. Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, Oct. 17, 1768, at 2. col. 3.
7. Id., Feb. 27, 1769 at 3, col. 1. Adams’ authorship in confirmed in 1 H. Cushing ed., The Writings Of Samuel Adams 316 (1904)
8. Id.
8a. Massachusetts Spy, Sept. 8, 1774, at 3, col. 3.
9. Massachusetts Gazette; and Boston Weekly News-Letter, March 17, 1775, at 3, col. 1.
10. Id.
11. Id., col. 2
12. Connecticut Courant, April 3, 1775 at 2, col. 2
13. Essex Gazette, April 25, 1775, at 3, col. 3
14. Attested copy of Proceeding between Gage and Selectmen, April 22, 1775, reprinted in Connecticut Courant, July 17, 1775, at 1, col. 3, and 4, col.1.
15. Id. at 4, col. 2 (April 23, 1775).
16. R. Frothingham, History Of The Siege Of The Boston 95 (1903).
17. Connecticut Courant, May 8, 1775, at 3, col. 1.
18. Connecticut Journal and New-Haven Post-Boy, May 19, 1775, at 6, col.2
19. Connecticut Courant, June 19, 1775, at 4, col. 2.
20. Connecticut Journal and New-Haven Post-Boy, June 21, 1775, at 3 cols. 1-2.
21. Connecticut Courant, July 17, 1775, at 4, col. 1.
22. Virginia Gazette, June 24, 1775, at 1, col. 1; Maryland Gazette, July 20, 1775, at 1, col. 2.
23. Connecticut Courant, July 17, 1775 at 2, col. 1. The Declaration was published in virtually every colonial newspaper.
The Continental Congress adopted a similar address on “To the People of Ireland” which complained that “the citizens petitioned the General for permission to leave the town, and he promised, on surrendering their arms, to permit them to depart with their other effects; they accordingly surrendered their arms, and the General violated his faith…. “Id., Aug. 21, 1775, at 1, col. 3.
STEPHEN P. HALBROOK is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and author of the Independent books The Right to Bear Arms, Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France, Gun Control in the Third Reich, The Founders’ Second Amendment and That Every Man Be Armed.
Though the U.S. is one of the largest markets for civilian firearms in the world, certain types of guns rarely make it to our shores. Sometimes it’s due to laws and import restrictions. Other times it’s just a combination of features or the cartridge for which the firearm is chambered in, that there isn’t a market for it here. Just because they weren’t actively cataloged or marketed in the U.S. doesn’t mean that some of these models weren’t sold here, or an intrepid collector hasn’t found a way to bring one into this country, but the following is a list of some types of firearms that you’re unlikely to find on the rack at your local gun shop:
One: Handguns In .30 Luger Or 9×21 mm And Rifles In .222 Rem.
In many countries around the world, civilians are not allowed to own firearms chambered in cartridges used by military forces, including 9 mm Luger, .45 Auto and .223 Remington/5.56 mm. Consequently, many popular firearms in which one of these rounds is the standard chambering are offered in an alternative, non-military cartridge.
For 9 mm Luger handguns, the original popular “civilian” alternative was . 30 Luger, or 7.65 mm Parabellum. This bottlenecked cartridge, introduced in 1898, not only predated the 9 mm Luger, it is the parent case for the popular round. This makes adapting handguns designed around the 9 mm Luger to .30 Luger an easy task. Popular 9 mm Luger handguns that can be found in .30 Luger include the Beretta 92, Browning Hi-Power, Colt Commander, SIG P210 and P220, Ruger P-89, Smith & Wesson Model 39 and 59, and Walther P-38. While these designs were rarely marketed in .30 Luger in the U.S., small batches would be sold from time-to-time. For example, Browning imported about 1,500 Hi-Power handguns in .30 Luger in the late 1980s.
A Beretta APX Tactical chambered in 9×21 mm. Inset: A 9×21 mm cartridge (left) compared to a standard 9 mm Luger (right). Source: APX – beretta.com, Cartridges – wikipedia.com
In 1980, Israel Military Industries (IMI) sought to adapt their 9 mm Luger firearms designs to a caliber that could be purchased by civilians in restricted countries. To this end they developed the 9×21 mm. The 9×21 mm took the 9 mm Luger case and lengthened it slightly. Bullets were seated deeper, so that both rounds had the same overall length. IMI introduced the cartridge to the Italian market in their Micro UZI pistol.
The popularity of the 9×21 mm meant that it eclipsed the .30 Luger as the go-to “civilian legal” handgun round. Nearly every modern 9 mm Luger handgun design has been chambered in 9×21 mm, including the Beretta 92, Glock 17 and the Smith & Wesson 5904. Some 9 mm Luger carbines, such as the Beretta CX-4 Storm and CZ Scorpion, are also chambered in the round.
On the rifle side of things, manufacturers looked to the parent case of the .223 Remington, the .222 Remington, to adapt their rifles for the civilian market. Colt made a small run of SP1 AR-15s in .222 in the late 1970s and later, an AR-15A2 Sporter II in the same caliber. Many classic ‘80s semi-auto military-style rifles, including the Beretta AR-70, FAMAS, FNC, Valmet 62 and 76, and SIG SG-540 were made in .222 Rem. Not limited to military-style rifles, even sporting semi-auto .223s, like the H&K 630 and Mini-14, were also made in .222 Rem. Although increasing restrictions on semi-automatic firearms outside the U.S. mean few recent .223 Rem. semi-automatic rifles have been adapted to an alternative caliber, Heckler & Koch recently made a .222 Rem. version of their SL8.
To a lesser extent, the same process happened to .308 Win. and 7.62 mm NATO rifles with M1A, FAL and SIG SG-540 models made in .243 Win.
Two: A Different Definition Of Short-Barreled Rifle
A Beretta PMXs semi-automtatic carbine chambered in 9×21 mm. Source: beretta.com
Here in the U.S,. our laws dictate that a rifle’s barrel must be at least 16” long, so as not to fall within the purview of the National Firearms Act and its associated restrictions on ownership. Many other countries don’t share our arbitrary barrel length standard. For example, the Heckler & Koch SP5 and SP5K are sold in the U.S. as stockless pistols. In Europe, however, they are supplied from the factory with a stock.
Another example is the CZ Bren 2 Ms and Scorpion. In the U.S., versions with a 16” barrel are sold with a stock and those with a shorter barrel are sold stockless as a pistol. Not so in Europe, where all semi-automatic versions of the Bren 2 Ms and Scorpion are sold as a folding stock rifle, no matter what the barrel length. In Italy, Beretta offers a semi-automatic “Pistol Caliber Carbine” version of their PMX submachine gun with a 7” barrel. In some countries, a rifle is simply something you fire from the shoulder. Barrel length is not important.
Three: Most Firearms Made in China, Post-1994
When China began to open its economy and trade with Western countries in the 1980s, among their exports to the U.S. were firearms. Beyond the typical Soviet-designed guns, like the AK-47, SKS, Dragunov, and Makarov and Tokarev pistols, were copies of Western-designed firearms, including the Browning 22 Semi-Auto Rifle, CZ bolt-action .22-cal. rifles, Winchester 9422, Walther TT Olympia, pre-64 Winchester Model 70, 1911, UZI and M14. Some of us remember the heydays of $75 SKS rifles and 7.62×39 mm ammunition that was as cheap as .22 LR.
The Chinese CF98, a 9 mm Luger, rotating barrel locking, semi-automatic pistol that is an export version of the country’s service pistol, the QSZ-92. Source:cjaie.com
A series of events ended the importation of most Chinese-made firearms into the U.S., including a ban on Norinco-made products and the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. At the time, nearly two million Chinese firearms were being imported into the U.S. annually. While the Chinese kept producing (and copying) other firearms designs for export, most have not been allowed to come into this country. Ironically, Chinese-made firearms are sold in many countries that have stricter gun control laws than the U.S., including Canada and Australia.
Here are a few examples of interesting current-production Chinese firearms that aren’t imported into the U.S.:
- AR-15s: The Chinese-version of the M16, the CQ, has been made in semi-automatic form for the civilian market in M16A1, M16A2 and M4 styles.
- M14s in 7.62×39 mm: Known as the Model M305A, this semi-automatic version of the U.S. M14 not only fires 7.62×39 mm, but also uses AK-type magazines.
- JW-105: A bolt-action hunting rifle chambered in 7.62×39 mm and .223 Rem., marketed in some regions as the “Bush Ranger.”
- Copies of handgun designs including the Glock 17, SIG-Sauer P226, CZ-75 and Colt Woodsman.
- Civilian versions of indigenous Chinese designs, including the QBC-97 bullpup rifle and the Type 77 and QSZ-92 handguns.
The exception? Over the years, some Chinese-made shotguns deemed to have a “sporting purpose” have been allowed to be imported, including copies of the Winchester 1897 pump-action shotgun, Winchester Model 1887 lever-action shotgun, a hammered double-barreled ”coach gun” and Remington 870 shotgun. Savage also imports two Chinese-made shotguns, which it sells under its Stevens brand, the 301 and 320.
Four: Straight-Pull Bolt Actions
A close-up of the straight-pull bolt action of the Beretta BRX-1. Source: beretta.com
The Haenel Jaeger NXT straight-pull bolt action hunting rifle. Source: cg-haenel.de
Restrictions on semi-automatic hunting rifles have left straight-pulls as the fastest firing firearm for hunting moving game in many European countries. Straight-pull bolt-action rifles have never been as popular in the U.S., though the recently introduced Savage Impulse may change this. Consequently, most American shooters and collectors only know straight-pull bolt actions through military surplus rifles and many commercial straight-pull designs have never been sold here. Companies like Beretta, Chapuis and Haenel make straight-pull bolt-action hunting rifles that they do not sell in the U.S….yet.
Five: “Straight-Pull” And “Release” Versions of Semi-Automatic Firearms
As we pointed out above, many countries outside the U.S. restrict the sale of semi-automatic firearms to civilians. This has led to a creative work-around for those who want a fast-firing firearm for hunting or competition, but aren’t allowed to own a semi-automatic. Popular semi-automatic designs are altered to a “straight-pull bolt-action” system, whereby the action must be manually cycled for each round. Often these firearms are known as “assisted linear reloading,” because the action spring is left in place, so that the charging handle is pulled to the rear and then released to allow the bolt to move into battery under the spring’s pressure, as if you were chambering the first round in a semi-automatic rifle.
The Browning Maral SF Composite HC straight-pull bolt action. Source: browningmaral.eu
A few examples of these include modified versions of the Ruger Mini-14 and the Heckler & Koch SL8. Browning makes an manually-operated version of its BAR called the Maral. AR-15s are a popular candidate for this “assisted straight-pull” modification, with companies like LMT and Patriot Ordnance Factory, offering versions in .223 Rem. and .308 Win.
Another version of “assisted” loading is a “release” design. In what can only be described as “semi-semi-automatic” firearms, the action fires and ejects the spent case, but the bolt stays locked back in the open position and a lever must be pressed for it to close so that the next round is chambered. Savage makes a version of its A22 and A17 rimfire rifles that uses this system and French manufacturer Verney-Carron offers a “Stop&Go” system on both rifles and shotguns, where a prominent lever, placed where it can be actuated by the thumb of the shooting hand, allows the action to chamber the next round after each shot.
KYIV, UKRAINE — MARCH 17, 2022: A soldier stands guard outside a damaged residential building caused by what authorities say is an intercepted missile that fell from the sky in the Pozniaky neighborhood of Kyiv, Ukraine, Thursday, March 17, 2022. (MARCUS YAM / LOS ANGELES TIMES).
LVIV, Ukraine — “Jesus, what a fucked up country,” John said in exasperation at the vagaries of the Polish rail system. John was one of the latest recruits for Ukrainian President Zelensky’s Foreign Legion, bound for the Ukrainian city of Lviv where his recruiter had told him to report. A rail-thin, 20-something from Mobile, Alabama, John had tried the U.S. Army but left halfway through his enlistment due to “medical problems,” he told me. I wondered if his medical problems had resolved sufficiently for him to be fighting the Russians but said nothing. Sporting woodland camouflage, a scraggly goatee, and thick glasses of the style made famous by Jeffrey Dahmer, John seemed to me to be an unlikely candidate. He soon confirmed that impression.
“I wanted to fight, see,” he explained, “But my mom said that I wouldn’t be any good at that. So I figured, they are going to need someone to show them the way.”
The Way – it turned out – was not the Way to expel the Russians, but a different kind of Way. John was here to enlist in the Ukrainian Army as a chaplain. I tried to be encouraging but couldn’t deflect an image of John delivering eulogies in broad Alabaman to uncomprehending Ukrainian soldiers as they headed up the line. Sorry about the no-fly zone thing President Zelensky, but we can save the Ukrainian people in other ways.
John, incidentally, was one of the first prospective Legion recruits whom I met, but by all accounts, his story was not unusual. The initial crop of applicants has been a mixed bag – with a swarm of Fantasists for every one candidate with experience in combat. And even combat experience means little in this war – because trading shots with the Taliban or al Qaeda is quite different from crouching in a freezing foxhole being pummeled by artillery fire.
Recruits for the Ukrainian Foreign Legion are invited to apply via the Ukrainian embassy in their country of residence. After a cursory initial interview, they are told to head for Ukraine via Warsaw and overland to Lviv in western Ukraine. The route is so well known that it is heavily monitored by the Russians, according to a Ukrainian special forces officer I spoke with. He was worried that they would soon begin targeting recruits before they reached their destination. After Lviv, the recruits are sent to a camp near the Polish border for selection and training. Selection apparently follows no discernable process other than separating those that don’t have military experience from those that do. The former are put through a 4-week training course — the latter are given a weapon and sent to the front in ad-hoc units with a Ukrainian officer. Some candidates are inexplicably rejected while others – regarded as being eminently unsuitable by their peers, are retained. In any case, the process has some fatal flaws – no one becomes a competent soldier in just 4 weeks, and even experienced soldiers require assimilation training. Every war has its own dynamics which can be equally lethal to veterans and beginners if not properly understood.
In their first trial by fire earlier this month, the volunteers were put into a hasty defense north of Kyiv, as the Russians began their onslaught on the towns lying north of the city. After the initial volley of Ukrainian anti-tank missiles had stopped the attackers in their tracks, enemy soldiers spilled out of their armored fighting vehicles about a quarter-mile in front of the volunteers, and into a withering storm of fire that halted the assault. “Shoot the ones in black uniforms,” a Ukrainian platoon commander is said to have told his foreign charges. “They are Belarusians.” Ukrainians are particularly incensed (but not surprised) at the perfidious complicity of Belarusian autocrat Alexander Lukashenko in taking his stance as a sycophantic second to President Vladimir Putin. Sadly, as with Putin, it is Lukashenko’s soldiers who are paying the price.
Although the Legionnaires helped to halt the attack, their performance that day was uneven — an observation that led the Ukrainians to discharge the surviving members of the initial intake, without any ceremony or official notification. Worse was to come. An unknown number of new recruits were training at a camp near the border when, a strike by Tupolev bombers, carrying Kh 101 cruise missiles, destroyed the camp. The death toll is not yet clear, but Ukrainian officers have told me that it will likely be more than 100.
With most of its initial intake now discharged, and many from subsequent intakes killed or wounded, the plan to stand up the Ukrainian Foreign Legion program is one part of the Ukrainian war effort that is definitely not going well.
“We should only take experienced combat veterans — that is the lesson that we are learning,” a Ukrainian general told Task & Purpose on condition of anonymity. “The others don’t know what they are getting themselves into – and when they find out, they want to go home. We need specialized skills – especially snipers.”
Since the well-publicized death of several senior Russian officers, snipers have become in this conflict what fighter pilots were to Britain in 1940. But snipers won’t win the war for Ukraine. “They need to know how to plan,” said one U.S. official here in the country, with long experience of working with the Ukrainian military. “So far they have been in the defense, but if they want to win ground back, they are going to have to come up with a good combined arms plan. That’s not a collective skill that comes after a couple of classes – and the Ukrainians lack experience in doing this sort of thing.” Fortunately, so do the Russians.
John was having none of this. “Yeah, well they gonna need someone to administer to them,” he insisted, before shouting again in frustration at the Poles. “Can’t wait to get out of this shitty country.” I wanted to remind him that the place where he was going was considerably shittier but thought it churlish to do so.
Andrew Milburn retired from the Marine Corps as a colonel in 2019 after a 31-year career as an infantry and special operations officer. His last position in uniform was Deputy Commander of Special Operations Central (SOCCENT), and prior to that commanding officer of the Marine Raider Regiment and Combined Special Operations Task Force – Iraq. Since retiring, he has written a critically acclaimed memoir, When the Tempest Gathers, and has had articles published in a number of national publications. He is currently on assignment for Task & Purpose in Ukraine
Categories
