Retrospective victoria cross/medal of honor. (2 Viewers)

[waynepoo]

The awards appeals tribunal of the Australian Defence Dept is now holding public hearings into the possible retrospective awarding of the Victoria Cross to thirteen outstanding Australian servicemen of past conflicts. One of the thirteen is Captain Hector MacDonald Laws Wallar DSO (and bar) Royal Australian Navy CO of H.M.A.S Perth who went down with his ship at the battle of Sunda Strait on 1st March 1942. IMHO there is not doubt that Wallar should have been awarded the VC for this action, it is a sad fact that of the 98 Victoria Crosses awarded to Australians none have ever been awarded to members of the R.A.N. If any of my British and American friends believe that the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor should have been awarded to any of their countrymen and was not, I invite them to relate the story for us. Rather than than type out the story of Wallar please go to the site below form the Australian War Memorial.
Cheers, Wayne.
http://www.awm.guv.au/exhibitions/fiftyaustralians/48.asp

 

[Mitch]

I think Brett once raised a similar thread about retrospective awards. Whilst I agree bravery above and beyond should be recognised having looked at some of the refusals for the VC over the years its very interesting to read why they did not recieve one.

I am a believer in not retrospectively looking back and awarding medals of any sort. Where do you stop and, its a difficult decision to decide who deserves a medal and who does not and, at what level the bravery should be rewarded. Its a can of worms (in the good sense) to do this

Many thousands of men did heroic and awe inspiring acts but, were never decorated. for me, it should be left as it is and, the decison not to award this or that at that time should stand.
Mitch

 

[waynepoo]

Mitch.
I disagree, in the case of Hec Wallar and the Perth in particular and also in general where obvious mistakes were made in not awarding medals they should be made retrospective in all cases.
After any objective study of the facts regarding the actions of Wallar and the Perth at the Battle of Sunda Strait, it leaves only one unanwsered question: why was a VC not awarded.
I attached the last paragraph from Mike Carlton's book ''CRUISER'' The life and loss of H.M.A.S Perth and her crew, which speaks for itself.
Wayne.

 

[uksubs]

I think Brett once raised a similar thread about retrospective awards. Whilst I agree bravery above and beyond should be recognised having looked at some of the refusals for the VC over the years its very interesting to read why they did not recieve one.

I am a believer in not retrospectively looking back and awarding medals of any sort. Where do you stop and, its a difficult decision to decide who deserves a medal and who does not and, at what level the bravery should be rewarded. Its a can of worms (in the good sense) to do this

Many thousands of men did heroic and awe inspiring acts but, were never decorated. for me, it should be left as it is and, the decison not to award this or that at that time should stand.
Mitch

I agree with you mate don't agree with retrospective medal awards .watched Clarkson program on the VC and how it more harder than ever to win the medal with modern smart weapons.

 

[Jack]

I wonder if the reluctance to give VCs to men such as Waller stems from the fact that the Perth crew must have numbered close to 900. How many tail gunners in Lancasters got medals as compared to pilots and navigators? There may be a reluctance to award the medal to one man and not others although it has been done in the past. I seem to remember that the only awards you could get posthumously were either a VC or an MID and nothing in between. Is that correct? It must have meant a lot of guys missed out on awards like the MC and MM.

The other issue about retrospective awards (which are problematic given that it is, in one sense, a rewrite of history) is the long overdue pardons for British soldiers shot for cowardice during WW1. Given the number who had served with gallantry before the 'natural' process of battle fatigue and the cumulative effect of the horror it is unlikely that any would face even minor charges today. The British government displayed the moral courage to right an injustice - and full marks for them for doing so. If I was related to one of the 'possible' VCs (I'm not - mainly unspectacular footsloggers in my line) I would argue that if one injustice can be righted (remembering that the Australian VC was many years in the future - it was still an imperial award in Waller's day) why not another? That hinges, most critically, on whether it was an injustice. I think this is the crucial point. It is is not a question of whether men such as Waller were incredibly brave. I do not think anyone could dispute that. Was there an injustice is the first and only question in my view.

Anyway - just a few thoughts in an interesting thread. I will say that I am surprised the Australian government is going down this path. It is not really their style, although it is made simpler that not one of the 'forgotten' of 'ignored VC winners is alive.

 

[larso]

"I will say that I am surprised the Australian government is going down this path"

Yes I agree it's not normally a Labour Party thing but given there's likely to be a few awarded from the process it'll be one heck of press opportunity. I can see Mitch's piont about opening a can of worms - there must be hundreds of fellows a case could be mounted for. An important criteria for this current process is addressing 'injustice'. This narrows the field a bit but given a number of campaigns had a VC quota (often 2), it would surely be worth arguing the case of the one who finished third. Simpson at Gallipoli and Jacka in France both missed out on VCs due to incompetence, when it was widely recognised that they were due. I think now is the time though. The institution of the Victoria Cross for Australia, allows some scope for recognising valour important to Australia, as opposed to what was relevant to Britain. The Americans frequently award high medals to their servicemen who missed out for various improper reasons. A real shame is that the key family members, who would have appreciated the recognition, are virtually all gone themselves.

 

[Jack]

"I will say that I am surprised the Australian government is going down this path"

Any relatives of yours up for an Iron Cross?

 

[uksubs]

"I will say that I am surprised the Australian government is going down this path"

Yes I agree it's not normally a Labour Party thing but given there's likely to be a few awarded from the process it'll be one heck of press opportunity. I can see Mitch's piont about opening a can of worms - there must be hundreds of fellows a case could be mounted for. An important criteria for this current process is addressing 'injustice'. This narrows the field a bit but given a number of campaigns had a VC quota (often 2), it would surely be worth arguing the case of the one who finished third. Simpson at Gallipoli and Jacka in France both missed out on VCs due to incompetence, when it was widely recognised that they were due. I think now is the time though. The institution of the Victoria Cross for Australia, allows



some scope for recognising valour important to Australia, as opposed to what was relevant to Britain. The Americans frequently award high medals to their servicemen who missed out for various improper reasons. A real shame is that the key family members, who would have appreciated the recognition, are virtually all gone themselves.

I don't see your point about America given out medals got to do with this to be honest?

 

[Mitch]

Interesting points about the injustice of the issue. I wonder though, can we put the shooting as cowards of men which, although an injustice today, was not seen as that when it happened and, the not recieving of a medal??

The cowardice issue arose because of lack of awareness in psychological illness. It is also well documented that a number of troops actually were cowards. I use this term loosley as going over the top etc would have required more courage than I think I could have mustered.

How do we state that an injustice occured in not giving a medal, how, do we decide the level of the injustice and how it can be compensated for, (if there is one) with a certain medal?. I am a bit lost as to how we, today, can decide on the courage of someone in such a quantifiable manner that allows one to says he deserves a VC or, a MM etc.

I am sure that we could look through the records of those whose acts were denied medals and say that is surely worthy of a medal maybe, more than the chaps highlighted. My own family went through a similar thing. My uncle fighting in Italy went from his positions under heavy fire to get an injured soldier (his brother) and brought him back to safety (he later died of the wounds) His CO put him in for a medal and, it was refused, on the grounds that he rescued his brother. it was stated anyone would have done similar and, was not seen as meeting the criteria for the award he was put in for!!!

I would have to say we should leave history as it is
Mitch

 

[Rob]

I do agree with this Jack. I also believe the UK government showed great courage in righting this wrong and issuing pardons to those executed in WW1. Hard to imagine now perhaps but the execution of a Soldier in those days could have far reaching consequences for his family, I know the pardons have come as some considerable comfort to the descendents of those executed. I wasn't a fan of everything that government did but I salute them for this, their relatives have had the cloud of shame lifted from their families and can now remember with pride the efforts of those young men in the same way as everyone else in the run up to 2014.

Rob



TE=Jack;463238]I wonder if the reluctance to give VCs to men such as Waller stems from the fact that the Perth crew must have numbered close to 900. How many tail gunners in Lancasters got medals as compared to pilots and navigators? There may be a reluctance to award the medal to one man and not others although it has been done in the past. I seem to remember that the only awards you could get posthumously were either a VC or an MID and nothing in between. Is that correct? It must have meant a lot of guys missed out on awards like the MC and MM.

The other issue about retrospective awards (which are problematic given that it is, in one sense, a rewrite of history) is the long overdue pardons for British soldiers shot for cowardice during WW1. Given the number who had served with gallantry before the 'natural' process of battle fatigue and the cumulative effect of the horror it is unlikely that any would face even minor charges today. The British government displayed the moral courage to right an injustice - and full marks for them for doing so. If I was related to one of the 'possible' VCs (I'm not - mainly unspectacular footsloggers in my line) I would argue that if one injustice can be righted (remembering that the Australian VC was many years in the future - it was still an imperial award in Waller's day) why not another? That hinges, most critically, on whether it was an injustice. I think this is the crucial point. It is is not a question of whether men such as Waller were incredibly brave. I do not think anyone could dispute that. Was there an injustice is the first and only question in my view.

Anyway - just a few thoughts in an interesting thread. I will say that I am surprised the Australian government is going down this path. It is not really their style, although it is made simpler that not one of the 'forgotten' of 'ignored VC winners is alive.[/QUOTE]

 

[The Military Workshop]

Mitch is correct as I did start a thread about this in Jan 2011 (see below). I agreed with Mitch then and still agree with him now. This subject is again in the press here as the Govt is examining some specific cases. The Australian Navy has never received a VC and this often gets the press attention. Compared with some British Navy VC's it does appear some Australian's did deserve it based on similar circumstances. Wayne mentions HMAS Perth and her Captain.

Another example being examined is HMAS Yarra, a sloop, and her Captain Richard Rankin. On 3 MAR 1942 they were escorting three merchants in the Java sea when an overwhelming Japanese force of three cruisers and two destroyers appeared. They signalled their position, fired smoke and ordered the merchants to disperse. The CAPT then turned to face the enemy and steamed towards them. Only 13 of the 151 crew survived. This web page has some interesting background to the medal claims - http://users.picknowl.com.au/~wjb718/hmas yarra-rankin.html

Whilst I believe some probably did deserve such an award I do not believe such awards can be issued by a Govt 70 years later. It appear the US MOH hads been awarded many years later but I am not aware of any such later VC award.

My previous thread starter was :

http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/fo...d-of-Bravery-Medal-long-after-the-event/page3
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

 

[larso]

"I don't see your point about America given out medals got to do with this to be honest?"

My point with this comment was that the US does award its own highest award retrospectively. It doesn't set a precedent for anyone else of course but it has enabled some injustices to be set right - including where awards were originally denied for racist reasons. I'm sure the process has been utilised for political reasons at times but I believe it is for the great part a worthy endeavour.

 

[larso]

"Any relatives of yours up for an Iron Cross?"

I wish! No the only Iron Cross in the family is the one my dad dug up in the garden - true story.

 

[Mitch]

Brett...

Interesting post. I think this is a perfect case where a politician is bringing up an issue for wholly the wrong reasons. I think it diminishes IMO the actions of the man and, the importance of the VC to push an award just because a service has not got one
Mitch

 

[damian]

I am not in favor of overturning decisions made at the time. I did not support the retrospective pardoning thing but that is just me. However with these cases was a decision made not to award a medal or were they never considered for the award. Melville and cog hill were awarded their awards many years after the event

 

[Rob]

I am not in favor of overturning decisions made at the time. I did not support the retrospective pardoning thing but that is just me. However with these cases was a decision made not to award a medal or were they never considered for the award. Melville and cog hill were awarded their awards many years after the event

I would have liked to see the pardoning cases on a case by case basis. Some were clearly cases in which the convicted Soldier would have been executed in civvie street for the same offence, murder etc. (one case featured a man who having been convicted of murder but shown mercy and released,he then went out and murdered a Military Policeman) But others were not just unjust but bordered on the criminal in the lack of defence of accused or the blatant ignoring of circumstances. There can be no doubt that there is suspicion some were not shown mercy merely to give a lesson to others, you can't take someones life for a reason like that. So the blanket pardon did give pardon to those who did not deserve it, however more importantly it gave pardon to those who did not deserve to die and who had suffered a great injustice despite fighting for their country and in some cases showing great bravery before the incident that got them arrested. So for me who signed petitions about this I will take the guilty getting pardoned for the greater good.

I was proud of the government when they did this, it shows that even decades later wrongs can be put right, even if it only means the families can find some peace. As I said before I doubt any of us would begrudge those relative the pride they can now feel in 2014 as we remember that terrible War that took their lives.Very interesting subject and its also interesting to remember that other nations did not allow shooting of their Soldiers in WW1.

Rob

 

[damian]

I would have liked to see the pardoning cases on a case by case basis. Some were clearly cases in which the convicted Soldier would have been executed in civvie street for the same offence, murder etc. (one case featured a man who having been convicted of murder but shown mercy and released,he then went out and murdered a Military Policeman) But others were not just unjust but bordered on the criminal in the lack of defence of accused or the blatant ignoring of circumstances. There can be no doubt that there is suspicion some were not shown mercy merely to give a lesson to others, you can't take someones life for a reason like that. So the blanket pardon did give pardon to those who did not deserve it, however more importantly it gave pardon to those who did not deserve to die and who had suffered a great injustice despite fighting for their country and in some cases showing great bravery before the incident that got them arrested. So for me who signed petitions about this I will take the guilty getting pardoned for the greater good.

I was proud of the government when they did this, it shows that even decades later wrongs can be put right, even if it only means the families can find some peace. As I said before I doubt any of us would begrudge those relative the pride they can now feel in 2014 as we remember that terrible War that took their lives.Very interesting subject and its also interesting to remember that other nations did not allow shooting of their Soldiers in WW1.

Rob

I respect your point of view on this. I don't agree though and think we can only make a hash by trying to second guess history. In 100 years time people are going to be wondering what we were thinking about over certain issues today. Anyway we can agree to disagree.

 

[Currahee Chris]

Regarding the process here in the States, I am very supportive of the process of retroactive award review. There is a human element to this process- new information could come to light that wasn't available initially, we have had some racial issues in the past, etc. I really can't say I've seen anyone get too terribly bitter, agitated over an award being upgraded, etc. These decisions are rarely made (to open a "closed" case) so it's not like they are doing it every week.

 

[theBaron]

Well put, Chris. I agree, I don't think awarding the medal many years after the events is a bad thing. Though, I do think the review and investigation need to be thorough and be as clear of contemporary prejudices as possible. That is, the pendulum shouldn't swing too far the other way, and let our own likes and dislikes color the decision. Careful thought and consideration must always be given.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Louis Badolato]

Regarding the process here in the States, I am very supportive of the process of retroactive award review. There is a human element to this process- new information could come to light that wasn't available initially, we have had some racial issues in the past, etc. I really can't say I've seen anyone get too terribly bitter, agitated over an award being upgraded, etc. These decisions are rarely made (to open a "closed" case) so it's not like they are doing it every week.

I'm with Chris 100%. Heroism is heroism, and should be recognized. There are many examples of weird rules preventing the award of the Medal of Honor, like the rule during the Normandy invasion that only one Medal of Honor could be awarded per division. Several men whose conduct clearly went above and beyond the call of duty received lesser medals because of this rule. Correcting that inequity, and awarding them the Medal of Honor they richly deserved now is fine by me.

I have a close friend, Dennis Virga, whom I have known for several years, and I knew he was a Navy Seal in Vietnam, and had been badly injured in combat (he still walks with a bad limp), but the other day I saw his American Legion Post Commander hat sitting on his desk, and noticed that among the many mini-medals on it was the Navy Cross. He had never told me he had earned the Navy Cross (the second highest award for valor a Navy serviceman can be awarded), and I respected his privacy, and did not ask him about it. In my experience these brave men are very humble, and rarely talk about their heroism. I suspect that there are many men, like my friend Dennis, whose couragous acts would clearly warrant medals for valor, but whose acts either went unnoticed, or who for political, racial, or other reasons were never properly considered for such medals. I can see no reason why correcting this sort of inequity, and awarding, for example, a Tuskeegee Airman denied a Medal of Honor because of the racial policy of the time, a richly warranted Medal of Honor today.