Retrospective Award of Bravery Medal long after the event (1 Viewer)

[The Military Workshop]

In another thread the subject of the retrospective award of medals was raised.

I mentioned Simpson who was an Aussie at Gallipoli who used a donkey to evacuate the wounded. He was put up for a Victoria Cross in WWI but it was not approved. Even quite recently people raised the matter of awarding Simpson a belated VC.

Mitch commented

"A brave man indeed as were many thousands but, I don't agree with this retrospective pressure for awards they were deliberated at the time and denied for failing to reach the criteria for the VC which, and rightly so, is high and other awards are given in such cases.

Modern society seems to want to retrospectively amend written history events decisions to readily etc and I think its wrong IMO"

I agree with Mitch but it is an interesting subject.

An Australian Senator recently submitted evidence in support of the claim to Department of Defence officials in Senate estimates hearings in Canberra.

“Of the 97 Victoria Cross medals awarded to Australians, none have been awarded to Navy personnel. 93 have been awarded to Army and 4 to Air Force personnel.

“Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean is widely regarded as having acted in a manner worthy of a Victoria Cross when, despite an order to abandon ship, he strapped himself to an anti-aircraft gun aboard the sinking HMAS Armidale in December 1942, continuing to fire his weapon, even as the ship sank beneath the waves.

“Teddy Sheean’s targets were Japanese aircraft which were continuing to shoot his fellow sailors while they were in the water awaiting rescue.

“He was successful in shooting down at least one Japanese Zero fighter aircraft, and possibly more.

“I believe that his actions deserve to be recognized with a posthumous Victoria Cross. It would be a fitting tribute for this fine Tasmanian and would begin to redress the lack or recognition for Royal Australian Navy personnel,” Senator Barnett said.

Senator Barnett also nominated other possible candidates to receive a posthumous VC, including Captain Hec Waller, lost on HMAS Perth in March 1942, Lieutenant Commander Robert Rankin, lost on HMAS Yarra in March 1942, and Captain Henry Stoker, commander of the submarine AE-2, which penetrated the Dardanelles at the start of the Gallipoli campaign in 1915. Notably, all of these candidates served in the Royal Australian Navy.

“There appears to be overwhelming evidence to support the claims for Captain Hec Waller and Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean,” Senator Barnett said.

“If Victoria Cross’s could be awarded to these two men to mark the Royal Australian Navy’s 100th Anniversary next year, that would be a wonderful gesture.

Senator Barnett also said it would be a great boost to morale in the Navy today".

The Senator is an idiot trying to use an Anniversary and current Navy morale to suppport the VC's. Note three of the four were Captains who went down with their ship and Sheehan is from the Senators state.. Sheehan's case is worthy but I have read that the ship should not have been where it was due to the danger in that area and the Navy did want to draw attention to the fact it should not have been where it was.

There has been ongoing debate over the award of medals to members of D Company who took part in the Battle of Long Tan in Vietnam (Australia's most famous battle in Vietnam). There was a quota system in effect at the time and only so many medals could be awarded per year. For example most senior officers got a DSO for being in Vietnam. The Company Commander got a Military Cross when many thought he should have got a DSO. After numerous reviews some of the officers recently had their medals "upgraded".

The Company Comander was recently awarded the Star of Gallantry (a medal that did not exist during Vietnam). His medal set is now on display in a museum and includes both medals. He is still campaigning to get awards
for some of his soldiers. Due to a change in the medals system the medals awarded in Vietnam (ie MC an MM etc) are no longer in use. It does appear more medals (and higher awards ) should have been awarded but it is hard to overcome the fcat that was the system at the time.

I know Bruce Crandell the Huey Pilot at the battle of Ia Drang (featured in Once Were Soldiers) did not receive his Congressional Medal of Honor until 40 years later.I believe after the American Civil; War some CMH winners
were asked to return them as too many were awarded (in a naval engagement).

I don't know any British examples.

Anybody know any other such cases ?

Regards
Brett

 

[Louis Badolato]

Brett,

I have to disagree with you on this one. Many people deserving of medals were not granted them at the time because of "quota" systems in effect (like only one Medal of Honor per Division during the Normandy invasion). If a person's actions went above and beyond the call of duty, and the reason they were denied the medal was a ridiculous quota or a political reason like not wanting to call attention to the fact that a warship was at a particular location, that person should be awarded the medal his actions earned, no matter how many years later. If you have the enormous clanking brass stones to strap yourself to an antiaircraft gun on a shinking ship and shoot down Zeros attempting to straff your shipmates, there is no question in my mind that you deserve the highest award for valor that your country awards. I hope that brave Tasmanian' sailor gets his postumous VC, if for no other reason than to honor his memory.

Respectfully,

Louis

 

[lancer]

Brett,

I have to disagree with you on this one. Many people deserving of medals were not granted them at the time because of "quota" systems in effect (like only one Medal of Honor per Division during the Normandy invasion). If a person's actions went above and beyond the call of duty, and the reason they were denied the medal was a ridiculous quota or a political reason like not wanting to call attention to the fact that a warship was at a particular location, that person should be awarded the medal his actions earned, no matter how many years later. If you have the enormous clanking brass stones to strap yourself to an antiaircraft gun on a shinking ship and shoot down Zeros attempting to straff your shipmates, there is no question in my mind that you deserve the highest award for valor that your country awards. I hope that brave Tasmanian' sailor gets his postumous VC, if for no other reason than to honor his memory.

Respectfully,

Louis

Here, here! Well put. I would agree, give the man his due and the medal. How can an action like that not be worthy as it meets all the criteria? Hard to find a more courageous and unselfish act. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

It must be a new year if Brett and I are agreeing but, I do think he makes good points. For me, every soldier I believe, does brave things which, are often seen as the norm but, I still hold that regardless of the reasons and many were but many were not quota's or political decisions that we should not retrospectively go back and decide what should or should not deserve a higher medal or, a medal at all.

For me, and many will disagree, I think its wrong for us to again overule decisions made at the time and in keeping with the standards of that time and impose modern standards to them. I also see the argument that it could devalue the medal in questions worth.

I have never served and think anyone who has the strength to go into armed combat deserves a medal but, I do agree with Brett (from reading about the politician) that much of the hue and cry for citations to be retrospectively awarded comes from those with a personal agenda rather than sincerity and respect for the troops and their achievements.

I still adhere to the fact that we should not look back all the time and see what we can try and change.
Mitch

 

[The Military Workshop]

Louis and Al,

I do agree on Sheehan and did say his case was worthy. There is a good artwork of him strapped to the gun about to go under and he could have saved himself. If his case had been pushed at the time he should have got it. Unfortunately would not have been in the interest of the Navy command to admit their error. I have never heard of a VC quota.

When the story was mentioned in the news recently the newspapers mainly mentioned Weller who went down with his ship and this time around did not mention Sheehan (he has been mentioned before). It was only earlier when I searched that I found the Senator had mentioned 4 people.

Incidentally three of the proposed Navy guys have submarines named after them. Not sure that is a good thing as they never seem to be seaworthy.

Interesting about CMH quota of one per Division at Normandy.

One of the problems I see here may not apply elsewhere. That is that in WWI, WWII and Vietnam the bravery medals that existed were the same as the British Medals system. Not sure when but the system has since changed and the Australian Govt now has different medals which are unique to Australia. Oz still has the Victoria Cross but it is now technically an Australian VC. I stand to be corrected but have never heard of a case of a VC being awarded long after the event.

In the case of Crandall I do agree he deserved a CMH although I recall one of the other Huey pilots did receive one for the event although he is not the main one featured in the movie.

Can't remember his name but an Aussie pilot (forward air controller) who flew (on attachment) with the Americans in Vietnam was put up for a CMH by a US LT General. He flew a Cessna and landed under fire to save the life of a US LT COL. Was not approved as CMH only for US citizens. Paperwork forwarded later to Australia for a VC which was not approved.

Interesting point about the 4 VC's awarded in Vietnam was that all four were attached to the Australian Army Training Team which was part of the US Special Forces command. Each got their medal whilst commanding native tribesmen.

Regards
Brett

 

[The Military Workshop]

Had to log off and thern log on again and after doing so agree with Mitch !!!

Happy New Year Mitch !

Regards
Brett

 

[Mitch]

Yes I had a quick lay down also but, best wishes for 2011 to you and your family.

I forgot to add in the post there are the DSO, MC, DCM and MM below the VC how do we judge whose acts retrospectively deserve what medal and, what about those who do unbelievable acts of bravery whose acts go unoticed or those where witnesses die and retrospectivity in this case IMO is rather subjective rather than objective.
Mitch

 

[Louis Badolato]

It must be a new year if Brett and I are agreeing but, I do think he makes good points. For me, every soldier I believe, does brave things which, are often seen as the norm but, I still hold that regardless of the reasons and many were but many were not quota's or political decisions that we should not retrospectively go back and decide what should or should not deserve a higher medal or, a medal at all.

For me, and many will disagree, I think its wrong for us to again overule decisions made at the time and in keeping with the standards of that time and impose modern standards to them. I also see the argument that it could devalue the medal in questions worth.

I have never served and think anyone who has the strength to go into armed combat deserves a medal but, I do agree with Brett (from reading about the politician) that much of the hue and cry for citations to be retrospectively awarded comes from those with a personal agenda rather than sincerity and respect for the troops and their achievements.

I still adhere to the fact that we should not look back all the time and see what we can try and change.
Mitch

Again, I must respectfully disagree. It is not the standards of the time which prevented many deserving men from receiving the medals they deserved. Often it was politics (for example, Teddy Roosevelt was denied the Medal of Honor during the Spanish American War because, despite the fact that everyone agreed his actions warranted it, he was a Republican, and the Democrats did not want a Republican hero with the medal of honor running against them) or simple prejudice (like many heroic Japanese American or African Americans who were put up for the award, but denied it because of their race).

I have read the citations for many of the men who have received Medals of Honor recently, and their actions clearly went "above and beyond the call of duty". For example, several Medals of Honor were granted upon reconsideration for unbelievably couragous actions during the Normandy invasion. They were all considered deserving at the time, but, as I mentioned, the war department decreed that there could only be one Medal of Honor awarded per Division. How is it ever wrong for a person who sacrificed his life for his fellow soldiers in an act of heroism that was acknowledged as being "above and beyond the call of duty" at the time to be awarded the medal, based on the same criteria, once the dust has settled? I just don't see it.

 

[lancer]

All I have to say on the subject is that bravery and heroic actions are not confined to a specific time period. A heroic act is a heroic act, regardless of when and where it is performed. Recognizing said act, either at the time it occurs, or retroactively, is a proper action when it is deserved. History has no expiration date, and just because one era's criteria might be different than anothers, when recognition is deserved, it should be. JMO. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

Louis...

I don't really know a great deal about the MOH and its criteria for award but, the VC is very high and rightly so but, if as you say some of the criteria was one per unit then a line has to be drawn somewhere whether today we like it or not. I have read most of the citations for the VC and many of the ones where it was denied and, there often seems little difference in some of the acts that recieve and do not and, I am sure its the same for the US troops.

The criteria was set and, my point originally to Brett's post elsewhere, was that it should not be retrospectively changed as the immediate question then is where do you draw the line as to who deserves what medal for their actions? Many soldiers did brave acts and will never have those acts acknowledged. we know not everyone can be awarded medals and some will loose out the term ''above and beyond'' is so vague that retrospective acknowledgement means that we would have to look at thousands and thousands of acts and, even doing this you are going to miss a substantial number of very heroic acts.

We may not in modern times like the criteria that was set but, it does not mean we should begin to change the rules. Sadly, there has to be a line drawn.
Mitch

 

[IXEC]

Again, I must respectfully disagree. It is not the standards of the time which prevented many deserving men from receiving the medals they deserved. Often it was politics (for example, Teddy Roosevelt was denied the Medal of Honor during the Spanish American War because, despite the fact that everyone agreed his actions warranted it, he was a Republican, and the Democrats did not want a Republican hero with the medal of honor running against them) or simple prejudice (like many heroic Japanese American or African Americans who were put up for the award, but denied it because of their race).

I have read the citations for many of the men who have received Medals of Honor recently, and their actions clearly went "above and beyond the call of duty". For example, several Medals of Honor were granted upon reconsideration for unbelievably couragous actions during the Normandy invasion. They were all considered deserving at the time, but, as I mentioned, the war department decreed that there could only be one Medal of Honor awarded per Division. How is it ever wrong for a person who sacrificed his life for his fellow soldiers in an act of heroism that was acknowledged as being "above and beyond the call of duty" at the time to be awarded the medal, based on the same criteria, once the dust has settled? I just don't see it.

Louis and AL are right....

My father would have been the most highly decorated Aviation Engineer in the ETO and I have the documentation to prove it. Thats no small feat as there were 35000 of them in theater. He wasn't awarded his medals for the very reasons Louis pointed out. Its interesting to note my father was to be the 1st recipient of the Legion of Merit.

The only thing I can add to Louis comment is, it should be mentioned that " jealousy ", is also primary reason.

 

[Mitch]

IXEC...

Could you elaborate on the ''jealousy'' issue in relation to awards please
Mitch

 

[Currahee Chris]

All I have to say on the subject is that bravery and heroic actions are not confined to a specific time period. A heroic act is a heroic act, regardless of when and where it is performed. Recognizing said act, either at the time it occurs, or retroactively, is a proper action when it is deserved. History has no expiration date, and just because one era's criteria might be different than anothers, when recognition is deserved, it should be. JMO. -- Al

Very well put my friend. Needless to say, I agree with Louis and Al on this. To add, there are quantitative results of being presented the CMoH- descendants can attend West Point, additional retirement stipends, etc- not to mention the added fame and prestige the award brings. Of all the awards of the CMoH after the fact, I have yet to hear anyone stand up and say "Whoa, wait a minute, this guy didn't deserve it more than such and such.". There are usually pretty exhaustive investigations into the facts and circumstances before a decision is reached. Admittedly, I don't know how it works in Australia but I think the system is just fine here in the US.

 

[IXEC]

IXEC...

Could you elaborate on the ''jealousy'' issue in relation to awards pleaswe
Mitch

In my fathers case, it wasn't he who told me about the ramped jealousy that pretained to him. I was told by the men who served with him. His men referred to my father as " the best of the best "....

My father was a Battalion level 1st Sergeant who refused to become an officer even though he did officers duty as well as his own. One of the Lt's that my father " cleaned up " after went on to become the Battalion C/O....this C/O knew my fathers capabilities and although my father was recommended for numerous awards this C/O refused to sign them because he didn't want my father to look " better than him ". Other officers in the battalion would give the award's paper work to my father just to show him he was deserving of the awards.

There are "MANY" abusees in the services.

Here's just one example of the WW II Aviation Engineers and interservice rivalry....The AE's were "Army Engineers ", permanetly assigned to the "Air Force". The Army Engineers didn't want them because they were "assigned " to the Air Force and the AF didn't want them because they were Engineers. They were "orphans " as they called themselves. This abusive attitude lead to the Aviation Engineers NOT getting the respective awards they earned and deserved....One clear example was the Aviation Engineer's not being awarded the Air War Europe Campaign Star. Even though all the men in the ETO, Army Air Force from 6/42 through 6/44 did receive the award, the AE's did not only because they were " Engineers ", the Air Force wouldn't recognize them even though they were permanetly assigned to the Air Force and built ALL their airfields in England.... a " Catch 22 "

Don't forget....there's the," right way ...the wrong way ... and the Army way " when it comes to doing things in the service..


I could go on and on.....

 

[Mitch]

IXEC...

Thanks for that on the same page now. Fascinating information
Mitch

 

[IXEC]

IXEC...

Thanks for that on the same page now. Fascinating information
Mitch

There's was even "attitude" inside my father's Battalion....where H/Q level would award only to "themselves" but not to Company level, even if it was MORE deserving....

With no disrespect intended, higher military awards have a lot to do with politics and luck, IMO

 

[trooper]

[PHP]

[/PHP]

During the ACW many medals were handed out without any particular reference to the criteria of the original acts establishing the award. 864 were awarded to the 27th Maine who were only employed in the defence of Washington,29 were issued to the honour guard who escorted Lincoln's body to Springfield for burial. In 1916 an Army Board was appointed to review the 2625 awards to that date and 911 names were removed including the 893 mentioned above. Among those removed was that of Docter Mary Walker, the only woman to be awarded the medal on the grounds that she was a civilian contract surgeon and did not meet the military requirement despite the fact that the award was given for treating the wounded while under fire. This award was reinstated by President Clinton, and quite rightly so.
With regards the VC several awards were made some years after the events when the rules were changed to allow posthumous awards. Typical of this was the awards to Lieutenants Melville and Coghill for attempting to save the colour of the 24th during the Zulu war.

 

[The Military Workshop]

Trooper,
Good point on postumous VC's. However that is a change in criteria as before then only living people could receive them. One has to wonder who witnessed what Coghill and Melville did. If they got the VC for trying and dying to save the colours then an argument could be made for Captain Souter at Gandamuck who wrapped the colours around him (only problem is that was about 14 years before VC created).

Two of the 4 Aussie VC's from Vietnam were postumous. One was unusual in the sense that the recipient (Warant Officer Wheatley) stayed with a dying mate even though he could have got away. He pulled a grenade when the Viet Cong got near him. His action did not save his mate. He simply would not leave him. Of all the Aussie VC's his is probably one of the more unusual.

The two postumous Congessional Medal of Honor winners I am aware of are the two Delta guys depicted in the movie Blackhawk Down.

Was not aware so many Civil War CGM were not really worthy. I am guessing they were all from the North !!!

Interesting point on Teddy Roosevelt where not good politics for the Govt to award him one.

Regards
Brett

 

[trooper]

Hi Brett, of course the MOH members were all from the North. It was a Northen decoration! There was no official decoration offered by the South, the nearest thing was to be Mentioned in Dispatches although several private items were commissioned and issued, usually on a very local basis.

 

[The Military Workshop]

Trooper,

I guess in a Civil War he who controls the Congress / Parliament etc controls the medals.

Would be an interesting subject for a book, Confederates who deserved a MOH type medal.

Can't remember the exact incident but I recall there was an ACW naval engagement where a very large number of MOH's were awarded.

Regards
Brett