Retrospective victoria cross/medal of honor. (1 Viewer)

[theBaron]

... He had never told me he had earned the Navy Cross ...

Very true, Louis, so many of the men who've won medals share that trait and are reluctant to talk about it.

My Uncle Kermit was awarded 2 Bronze Stars and a Silver Star, and 2 Purple Hearts, and never spoke about it to anyone. I learned about them after he died, and they were listed in his obituary.

He only told the funny stories (and good stories they were, too).

Prost!
Brad

 

[Mitch]

Thing is that weird rules are still rules and, were applicable at that time. An obsession with ''fixing'' everything that happened historically i, just that an obsession. It means everything can be sorted out we may not have liked to suit the palet of the day. Its really, absurd. its importing modern day values on a different era and, should not happen. Racial and social inequality happened and, it was part of the day rightly or wrongly we accept that as a part of our history and, look at how we have moved on.

The rules were set for the award of the VC and, were, and are, set high for a reason. Look at the cases raised in relation to the VC that Brett posted and, we see more motives than rewarding bravery. I just don't see why we do not look at history for what it is rather than trying constantly to re-write bits some don't like
Mitch

 

[theBaron]

Thing is that weird rules are still rules and, were applicable at that time. An obsession with ''fixing'' everything that happened historically i, just that an obsession. It means everything can be sorted out we may not have liked to suit the palet of the day. Its really, absurd. its importing modern day values on a different era and, should not happen. Racial and social inequality happened and, it was part of the day rightly or wrongly we accept that as a part of our history and, look at how we have moved on.

The rules were set for the award of the VC and, were, and are, set high for a reason. Look at the cases raised in relation to the VC that Brett posted and, we see more motives than rewarding bravery. I just don't see why we do not look at history for what it is rather than trying constantly to re-write bits some don't like
Mitch

I agree that rules are rules, Mitch, and I also do not think that we should go looking for cases to review, just because the person involved is black, or Jewish, or a member of any other group. But I support cases such as this one:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01-10/news/30613335_1_machine-gun-jewish-war-veterans-platoon

This man certained deserved consideration, if not the award, and it appears that contemporary prejudice may have played a part in his case.

I agree, I don't believe in rewriting history to suit our contemporary prejudices-political correctness is a prejudice, too--but I don't disagree with reviewing cases like these, to see, if we consider the soldier's action, he should have been considered but was not.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Mitch]

Brad..

A brave man but, I would stick with what I said and would not retrospectively offer a medal. Reading this sounds more to do with the fact he is jewish than a hero. for me that will always diminish the value of the medal and, the other people who have earned it. As I mentioned we lived and, to some extent still do, in a prejudiced world where things are done to make it harder for certain groups, individuals etc to get recognition.

The question is where does it end? should we give a higher award to the black chap forget his name, who manned the MG, not even his job, and fired at the japs at pearl. It was obvious, if he was white, it would have been the MOH.

Thats not my refusal to accept some acts were unbelievably heroic, for sure, they were. I have read many many accounts where medals were turned down when you think, that should have earned at least this but, nothing. Not every soldier can get a medal many millions of men fought and only a few get credit sometimes, even the wrong people get the wrong credit but, thats life and, the times they lived in. I also wonder how a medal can change the fact that at that time in history their was severe racism or prejudice and, make a relative, often, quite distant, feel somehow more whole, against the open discrimination their family member may have suffered. That was one of the principles for the introduction of the VC by Queen Victoria so, even the common man would have his deeds acknowledged.

Its fascinating as a topic but, one that I don't really agree with
Mitch

I agree that rules are rules, Mitch, and I also do not think that we should go looking for cases to review, just because the person involved is black, or Jewish, or a member of any other group. But I support cases such as this one:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01-10/news/30613335_1_machine-gun-jewish-war-veterans-platoon

This man certained deserved consideration, if not the award, and it appears that contemporary prejudice may have played a part in his case.

I agree, I don't believe in rewriting history to suit our contemporary prejudices-political correctness is a prejudice, too--but I don't disagree with reviewing cases like these, to see, if we consider the soldier's action, he should have been considered but was not.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Currahee Chris]

Well, I would like to think that the retroactive review of medals like the DSC, MoH, etc have gone a long way in smoothing racial tensions over the years- to help us get where we are today. I can truly say I dont think I know of any WW2, Korean era war vet who has seen an award made to the TA, Nissei 442nd RCT, etc believe that these individuals werent' worthy of the commendations. I think a lot of the troops understood why these awards weren't granted at the time and all the troops are able to celebrate in the recognition of someone finally gettting their due. I really don't see how this grossly overstates the historical record by simply righting a wrong. There's no statue of limitations for human error- especially when someone's personal honor may be at stake. I have to believe that there are a gazillion ways in which the historical record can be muddied, abused, inflated, wrong what have you- fixing an honest or ethical mistake is the right thing to do and I couldn't care less how imperfect it may make the historical record.

Again, I'm just commenting for the US side of the house as I am not familair with the standards for the VC, etc.

 

[waynepoo]

Well, I would like to think that the retroactive review of medals like the DSC, MoH, etc have gone a long way in smoothing racial tensions over the years- to help us get where we are today. I can truly say I dont think I know of any WW2, Korean era war vet who has seen an award made to the TA, Nissei 442nd RCT, etc believe that these individuals werent' worthy of the commendations. I think a lot of the troops understood why these awards weren't granted at the time and all the troops are able to celebrate in the recognition of someone finally gettting their due. I really don't see how this grossly overstates the historical record by simply righting a wrong. There's no statue of limitations for human error- especially when someone's personal honor may be at stake. I have to believe that there are a gazillion ways in which the historical record can be muddied, abused, inflated, wrong what have you- fixing an honest or ethical mistake is the right thing to do and I couldn't care less how imperfect it may make the historical record.

Again, I'm just commenting for the US side of the house as I am not familair with the standards for the VC, etc.

Completely agree Chris, wrong is wrong no matter if it is history, righting a mistake is always the correct way to go. I would have though that awards not given because of bad decisions made by the powers that be should always be reviewed as standard practise. Not correcting these errors is what makes history imperfect IMHO.
Wayne.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Completely agree Chris, wrong is wrong no matter if it is history, righting a mistake is always the correct way to go. I would have though that awards not given because of bad decisions made by the powers that be should always be reviewed as standard practise. Not correcting these errors is what makes history imperfect IMHO.
Wayne.

I'm 100% with Wayne and Chris. Frankly, I do not understand the logic of sensitivity to the standards in place at the time of the injustice, be they racial prejudice, religious prejudice, or what have you. If the standard of the time has since been recognized as wrong, be it morally wrong (such as racial, religious or ethnic prejudice), or politically wrong (like Teddy Roosevelt being denied the Medal of Honor for his acts of heroism during the Spanish American War because he was a politically powerful Republican, and the President was a democrat and Congress was controlled by Democrats at the time), or wrong for pragmatic reasons (like the pre-determination that no matter what acts of heroism occur, only one Medal of Honor will be handed out per-division during the Normandy invasion), and there is an opportunity to correct the wrong, it should be corrected.

 

[OzDigger]

I'm 100% with Wayne and Chris. Frankly, I do not understand the logic of sensitivity to the standards in place at the time of the injustice, be they racial prejudice, religious prejudice, or what have you. If the standard of the time has since been recognized as wrong, be it morally wrong (such as racial, religious or ethnic prejudice), or politically wrong (like Teddy Roosevelt being denied the Medal of Honor for his acts of heroism during the Spanish American War because he was a politically powerful Republican, and the President was a democrat and Congress was controlled by Democrats at the time), or wrong for pragmatic reasons (like the pre-determination that no matter what acts of heroism occur, only one Medal of Honor will be handed out per-division during the Normandy invasion), and there is an opportunity to correct the wrong, it should be corrected.

I agree, if we perceive in hindsight that a correction needs to be made, it should be done if possible.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

It's a can of worms. There are a few examples of the award being improperly awarded and revoked - in one case for an entire company or regiment 40 years after the Civil War. There are also instances of the medal being granted after a review of discrimination (Blacks, Jews) by Carter and Clinton. But for every one corrected, usually due to some campaign or for political reasons, there are probably hundreds equally deserving heroes for whom it is not corrected.

Terry

 

[panda1gen]

Difficult area, the Perth action seems as gallant as it gets. Don't see why the Australian Gov turned down the Dutch offer though.

Got me thinking (sic) What about New Zealand .. they had ships at the River Plate and in the Med for example ...? Did they get anything?

I understand that Bomber Command - which had the highest casualties and was statistical suicide if enough missions were served - only had one awarded.

Becomes political. Problem is, if they hire a good lawyer, that may be the decider.

 

[waynepoo]

Difficult area, the Perth action seems as gallant as it gets. Don't see why the Australian Gov turned down the Dutch offer though.

Got me thinking (sic) What about New Zealand .. they had ships at the River Plate and in the Med for example ...? Did they get anything?

I understand that Bomber Command - which had the highest casualties and was statistical suicide if enough missions were served - only had one awarded.

Becomes political. Problem is, if they hire a good lawyer, that may be the decider.

It is my understanding that Bomber Command members who flew over Germany were not awarded a campaign medal (please correct me if wrong) this is IMHO an injustice if this is still the case. I do know that an Australian serving with Bomber Command - WC Hughie Edwards CO of 105 Sq. was awarded the VC for his actions on a raid to Bremen in 1941.
Wayne.

 

[larso]

"Difficult area, the Perth action seems as gallant as it gets. Don't see why the Australian Gov turned down the Dutch offer though.

Got me thinking (sic) What about New Zealand .. they had ships at the River Plate and in the Med for example ...? Did they get anything?

I understand that Bomber Command - which had the highest casualties and was statistical suicide if enough missions were served - only had one awarded.

Becomes political. Problem is, if they hire a good lawyer, that may be the decider."


Yes, this sums up the complexities pretty well. Given the events were all so long ago, it says more about satisfying current needs/sentiments than anything else. But in doing so, especially where it's to redress an injustice, it is an important process as it states clearly what values we hold dear, like that racism is wrong. I do hate the quota system alluded too. It seems to have only applied when it suited. It was clearly exceeded whenever it was convenient to do so. Of the 119 Australians in Russia in 1919 - two won VCs!

 

[trooper]

If we start rearranging history to suit modern day opinions then the other side of the coin will soon become evident and some awards will be considered to be inappropriate. " this action didn't deserve a VC or MOH it should be down graded". The past is the past, leave it alone and learn from it. Trooper

 

[johnnybach]

Whilst I very much agree with leaving history as it is - there is one change to the system of bravery awards - that I heartily approve of - and that's the cessation of the distinctions between Officer's medals, and those of the "Other Ranks". This little true story may illustrate the point.

I had a friend called Les. As he is no longer with us - I won't give his surname. During WW2, he was a Sergeant Navigator in a Lanc bomber. On one return trip, his plane was attacked by German fighters - and the front turret was hit - killing the airman manning the guns. By this time they were on their way back and over the English Channel, and the plane was in bad shape. Les worked his way forward and into the turret - and, firng the weapons, suceeded in shooting down one of their attackers - and she got back home. Half the crew were dead - and everyone else had been hit in some way. Les himself told me that, "It wasn't bravery - it was self protection!". He was duly recommended for an award by the pilot - who was awarded a DFC himself.

For those not familiar with them - here are the two awards below.

Les, as a Sergeant was awarded a DFM. By the time he received it, some months later however, after he got out of hospital, he had been promoted from Sergeant to Flight lieutenant. He enquired whether he could have a DFC instead - and was refused - as he was a Sergeant at the time of the incident.

It bugged Les until his dying day - and bugged me too, for him. A more quiet and unassuming chap you'd never meet. But I KNEW it bugged him.

I'm VERY pleased that they have apparently changed THAT little bit of crass stupidity, and it is now possible for the "Others" to receive Crosses too. johnnybach

 

[Jack]

Some years ago I had, as part of my job, the opportunity to interview a dozen or so members of Bomber Command, including a couple of DFC winners. (Good work if you can get it!) One of them remembered a story of a man on his crew (the real deal - brave, resourceful, determined) going for what I understood to be a promotion interview. He was knocked back and when he followed up why his comrade had not been promoted the reason the panel gave was that he had said 'them planes' rather than 'those planes'. Not officer material!

I know its an anecdote delivered after the passage of 65 years at the time, but it is hardly surprising that different medals were awarded depending on rank when you have that kind of attitude. To ensure that this attitude was not confined to the ETO, one of the guys flew with 22 Squadron (RAAF) in the Pacific and was still angry that he ate in a different Mess than his pilot.

 

[Mitch]

I think the bomber command issue is different to the medal issue. Bomber command and its superb actions in winning the second world war are sadly, for some of the whiners shrouded in the war crimes stuff. thats why spineless politicans have veered away from being proud and highlighting what they did. The calls have been for a campaign medal not, a change of awards for service men or, awarding certain medals to certain individuals so, that cannot be seen in the same light.

We are not changing history in recognizing an entire arm of a service for what they did. Its recognisable what they accomplished anyway with or without the medal.

I am in complet agreement with Trooper et al in that it should be left alone. I would like to know from those who want to change these issues, apparantly correcting wrongs!! where do we end the retrospectivity? Do we try and rewrite all actions to satisfy our apparant need to make everything ''right''

Interesting topic and, one which, as the anniversay of WWI beckons will see another badly done to serviceman from a different era undoubtedly, have his story hi jacked
Mitch

 

[Rob]

Fully agree re Bomber command, they richly deserve a campaign medal, their sacrifice in WW2 was enormous . The memorial opening in June is long long overdue, I hope thousands go there over the years to pay their respects.

As you say Mitch, we cannot possibly put right all the wrongs that have gone before, but does that mean we shouldn't do anything?? I don't believe this . I know the relatives of those executed in WW1 got immense relief and pride at having the stain removed from their families once and for all. We can't really say ' We can't pardon your son even though we know its the right thing to do, because we can't put right every wrong that ever happened ' . Just because something happened a long time ago does not mean it wasn't wrong. And I know some folk think that if people thought it the right thing then its wrong to change it now, in the case of some of the WW1 executed they knew THEN it was wrong, but no one had the stones to put a stop to it. So its taken someone with guts to stand up and say, sorry we were wrong and we are going to put this right. Mitch you are quite right in that we cannot change everything, but where there is/was a clear moral duty with overwhelming evidence of wrong doing, we should at least try.

I make one final point about this WW1 subject that I feel strongly about. No one was pointing fingers at individuals or certain regiments etc( I know Haig is often blamed in these cases), its not about blaming anyone because thats not what the decision was about, those people on the Western front were also trying to do their duty, they got it wrong and all we were doing is seeing justice done for those young men who had their lives taken by the British Army often as the result of laughable procedure nearly a hundred years later.

I do realise feelings run high about this and the medals issue, and the above post is only my opinion of course and am always happy to read opposing views,this is a fascinating thread with several very interesting stories, thanks for posting guys.{bravo}}

Rob

I think the bomber command issue is different to the medal issue. Bomber command and its superb actions in winning the second world war are sadly, for some of the whiners shrouded in the war crimes stuff. thats why spineless politicans have veered away from being proud and highlighting what they did. The calls have been for a campaign medal not, a change of awards for service men or, awarding certain medals to certain individuals so, that cannot be seen in the same light.

We are not changing history in recognizing an entire arm of a service for what they did. Its recognisable what they accomplished anyway with or without the medal.

I am in complet agreement with Trooper et al in that it should be left alone. I would like to know from those who want to change these issues, apparantly correcting wrongs!! where do we end the retrospectivity? Do we try and rewrite all actions to satisfy our apparant need to make everything ''right''
Mitch

 

[Currahee Chris]

Some years ago I had, as part of my job, the opportunity to interview a dozen or so members of Bomber Command, including a couple of DFC winners. (Good work if you can get it!)

Not sure I follow the "If you can get it" part of this sentence- It seems to me that all one would have to do is go to the local recruiter office, sign some papers, swear an oath and BAM!! You now have a job with all sorts of pay, benefits and 3 hots and a cot. You can have as many interviews with heroic veterans (as you will be virtually surrounded by them 24/7) till your hearts content. {sm4}{sm4}

 

[Mitch]

Rob...

Totally on the other side of the fence in this area. We have no idea how many of the troops executed for cowardice were actually cowards or, were suffering from PTSD or other psychological illnesses. I think we hold servicemen in to high a regard where its seen as disloyal to criticise them because they fight in wars. Not every soldier is a hero and do the right thing many are and, have been shown to be rather the opposite.

The fact that it took so long to change the decisions shows the reluctance to address these issues for many of the points raised here over the last few days. You mention the guts or, stones to do something about it well, looking at it I would say it was politically expediant for the person who did it at a time when his standing with the armed forces was at a historical low.

On the medal issue I do think we are doing little other than re-writing what bravery is and, that is wrong. Its so far away from righting wrongs IMO why only these cases? I have read hundereds probably thousands of citations where people are turned down for medal whose acts are IMO worthy of a medal. Some of the cases mentioned are raised because of ism's of one kind or another. Does that mean they are more worthy than another who just did not qualify for the medal as it was not deemed heroic enough to be awarded? A case could be made for each and everyone of the soldiers who did not get one or, recieved a lesser award.

The problem is its a can of worms we are being selctive in the choices for some warm glow we may get from trying to rectify an ism or similar which, offends today's sensibilities of some or another. What are they called? a rightious tree hugger or, similar LOL.

For me, its completely unfair to not be objective and review every case it helps no one to right one decision but, ignore many more and, why it should be left as it is. Accept that historically we were not perfect (still are not) and, move on. While I can see what you are saying it just is not an argument which I see as valid. There are too many caveats to treading this path.

Can you really tell me, addressing one of the cases mentioned here that wanting to award a retrospective VC because a service does not have one is worthy, irregardless of the bravery of the man in question??
Mitch

 

[damian]

I actually agree with Mitch on this. Also remember there are many people with issues with various western and other governments actions over the last three or four hundred years or so. So if we rewrite certain bits of history the demand for apologies reaprations etc will be strengthened. History is history for better or worse. Anyway there are good points on both sides of this argument. No real right or wrong position as far as aI can see.