Currahee Chris
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,776
Sellout. You are officially off the list of trustables!! {sm4}{sm3}{sm4}{sm3}
Retrospective victoria cross/medal of honor. (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter waynepoo
- Start date
Sellout. You are officially off the list of trustables!! {sm4}{sm3}{sm4}{sm3}
Rob
Four Star General
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 26,622
Mitch,
Very interesting and I appreciate your view point on this. You wrote;
'Not every soldier is a hero and do the right thing many are and, have been shown to be rather the opposite'. Right so are you saying then that anyone arrested and charged deserved to die, because you do not appear to accept that any of the three hundred odd cases did not deserve to die. You mentioned the fact that we don't know how many were actually suffering from 'shell shock' or other mental illness. But I believe the fact is that health experts and lawyers studied these cases for many years and have come to a conclusion that quite a few of them were indeed incapacitated by shell shock or trauma and were not in command of their faculties, others had broken under the strain of combat and others were plain deserters, murderers etc.
There are two other factors here. First there is the fact that although these cases have been labelled 'Cowardice' for many years , this is a far too wide a brush stroke to be the truth. Let me give you an example of one such case.
A soldier having fought the Germans hand to hand in the trenches for some considerable hours, finds himself split up from his comrades, his rifle jammed and sees Germans advancing down the Trench towards him. He sets off to try and find his section in action in another stretch of Trench, to try and delay his pursuers he jams his rifle across the Trench. He returns to the line later that day, over the next few days he is in action again. Later he is arrested , tried and executed for discarding his rifle. There was never any suggestion this man was a coward. Now I ask you Mitch, do you REALLY believe that man deserved to die? The British army took the life of a fighting Soldier that was doing his duty in action and took a decision in the heat of battle, I think it makes a mockery of calling all those executed cowards.
Also there is the court martial procedure. How can anyone who is obviously on Doctors advice be too traumatized to give evidence or call witnesses in defence be shot? Its truly laughable and not a little obscene. There were also cases I believe where the defence provided was so poor as to be almost Blackadderesque in its effectiveness.
Amongst those executed there were murderers, repeat offenders, cowards, thieves etc, those cases are clear and sympathy thin on the ground, but facts are facts Mitch, genuine shell shock and terrible court procedures led to young men guilty of very little being murdered by the British Army.
You said that we hold Soldiers in high regard and perhaps think they can do no wrong, and I do get what you mean and agree with you, but don't you think its also possible that we don't want to accept the British Army were wrong in some of these cases and we just don't want to critizice them either? We should also remember that these are human lives taken here, not just a number, but a young man shot and the lives of his family ruined for ever, the least we could do is put right the injustice where we could.
Its all redundant in the end I guess as those young men have now got their pardon, but its a fascinating subject and probably will be debated for years to come. I thank god we don't shoot our young men anymore and the British army saw sense after WW1, I also have great respect for our commonwealth allies who did not shoot their own men in WW1. Despite not having this policy they had superb morale and were some of the best fighters in the War.
Rob
Very interesting and I appreciate your view point on this. You wrote;
'Not every soldier is a hero and do the right thing many are and, have been shown to be rather the opposite'. Right so are you saying then that anyone arrested and charged deserved to die, because you do not appear to accept that any of the three hundred odd cases did not deserve to die. You mentioned the fact that we don't know how many were actually suffering from 'shell shock' or other mental illness. But I believe the fact is that health experts and lawyers studied these cases for many years and have come to a conclusion that quite a few of them were indeed incapacitated by shell shock or trauma and were not in command of their faculties, others had broken under the strain of combat and others were plain deserters, murderers etc.
There are two other factors here. First there is the fact that although these cases have been labelled 'Cowardice' for many years , this is a far too wide a brush stroke to be the truth. Let me give you an example of one such case.
A soldier having fought the Germans hand to hand in the trenches for some considerable hours, finds himself split up from his comrades, his rifle jammed and sees Germans advancing down the Trench towards him. He sets off to try and find his section in action in another stretch of Trench, to try and delay his pursuers he jams his rifle across the Trench. He returns to the line later that day, over the next few days he is in action again. Later he is arrested , tried and executed for discarding his rifle. There was never any suggestion this man was a coward. Now I ask you Mitch, do you REALLY believe that man deserved to die? The British army took the life of a fighting Soldier that was doing his duty in action and took a decision in the heat of battle, I think it makes a mockery of calling all those executed cowards.
Also there is the court martial procedure. How can anyone who is obviously on Doctors advice be too traumatized to give evidence or call witnesses in defence be shot? Its truly laughable and not a little obscene. There were also cases I believe where the defence provided was so poor as to be almost Blackadderesque in its effectiveness.
Amongst those executed there were murderers, repeat offenders, cowards, thieves etc, those cases are clear and sympathy thin on the ground, but facts are facts Mitch, genuine shell shock and terrible court procedures led to young men guilty of very little being murdered by the British Army.
You said that we hold Soldiers in high regard and perhaps think they can do no wrong, and I do get what you mean and agree with you, but don't you think its also possible that we don't want to accept the British Army were wrong in some of these cases and we just don't want to critizice them either? We should also remember that these are human lives taken here, not just a number, but a young man shot and the lives of his family ruined for ever, the least we could do is put right the injustice where we could.
Its all redundant in the end I guess as those young men have now got their pardon, but its a fascinating subject and probably will be debated for years to come. I thank god we don't shoot our young men anymore and the British army saw sense after WW1, I also have great respect for our commonwealth allies who did not shoot their own men in WW1. Despite not having this policy they had superb morale and were some of the best fighters in the War.
Rob
waynepoo
Colonel
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 9,725
I started this thread after I finished reading the book ''Cruiser'' about H.M.A.S Perth, her Captain and crew and everything I have posted is MHO only. And I refer only to the issue of a retrospective VC to Hec Wallar and not any other. The opinion of the survivors of Perth, who were there, who fought the action, who saw the actions of their Captain, who survived the war are the opinions that really matter, and to them a great injustice was and has been done and before the few of these brave men who are still with us are gone, that wrong should be corrected.
Our opinions are just that, they were there...and they know.
Wayne.
Our opinions are just that, they were there...and they know.
Wayne.
Mitch
Major General
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 13,519
Rob...
Ok I hear what your saying. But, lets take the chap you mentioned. You and I have studied the wars and british army well enough to know that it was always seen as inexcusable and serious to lose willingly or otherwise your weapon. We know it and, the soldiers at differing times knew it and, the consequences that were applicable for doing that. Now, he may have been fighting hand-to-hand all day long but, he was guilty of that crime. Now, crime in that sense means different things today and, it may be hard to grasp that in 2012 that such a thing could be deemed as such in 1914 etc but, thats my point. We view things differently from just a few years ago let alone 90 plus.
Is it an overreaction to shoot someone for that? well maybe by todays standards but, thats what was seen as correct. The powers deemed that the way to run the army and that fitted with the times they were in. Now, we know that the british army became even more strict in WWI with the appalling acts that were seen of mass drunkeness and desertion etc with the french and, were even more strict with our troops. We were at war and, I suppose they had to do what was necessary to ensure soldiers did what was expected.
What was acceptable then for britain with an Empire and a military history second to none is not as important today. Can you imagine people lining the streets to join up to serve queen and country today? Not a chance but, they did in 1914 in their droves.
you talk of crimes well, again, I would say we are using a different interpretation of what a crime is compared to then. Thats the issue with retrospectivity you can do no other than import beliefs, terminology etc from today and contaminate the events with it from another period.
Its exactly the same with the awarding of medals I hear someone saying well, its our opinion but, those who were their know. How many thousands of times could this be said. I find it hard to understand when millions of people fought in both wars and, everyone knows only a small number are decorated that its obvious that extraordinary acts which could be classed as heroic will be missed. Where do you draw the line in acknowledging their acts? and, who decides and for what real reason as, many of the reasons I have heard put forth are spurious and, nothing really to do with the act itself.
Mitch
Ok I hear what your saying. But, lets take the chap you mentioned. You and I have studied the wars and british army well enough to know that it was always seen as inexcusable and serious to lose willingly or otherwise your weapon. We know it and, the soldiers at differing times knew it and, the consequences that were applicable for doing that. Now, he may have been fighting hand-to-hand all day long but, he was guilty of that crime. Now, crime in that sense means different things today and, it may be hard to grasp that in 2012 that such a thing could be deemed as such in 1914 etc but, thats my point. We view things differently from just a few years ago let alone 90 plus.
Is it an overreaction to shoot someone for that? well maybe by todays standards but, thats what was seen as correct. The powers deemed that the way to run the army and that fitted with the times they were in. Now, we know that the british army became even more strict in WWI with the appalling acts that were seen of mass drunkeness and desertion etc with the french and, were even more strict with our troops. We were at war and, I suppose they had to do what was necessary to ensure soldiers did what was expected.
What was acceptable then for britain with an Empire and a military history second to none is not as important today. Can you imagine people lining the streets to join up to serve queen and country today? Not a chance but, they did in 1914 in their droves.
you talk of crimes well, again, I would say we are using a different interpretation of what a crime is compared to then. Thats the issue with retrospectivity you can do no other than import beliefs, terminology etc from today and contaminate the events with it from another period.
Its exactly the same with the awarding of medals I hear someone saying well, its our opinion but, those who were their know. How many thousands of times could this be said. I find it hard to understand when millions of people fought in both wars and, everyone knows only a small number are decorated that its obvious that extraordinary acts which could be classed as heroic will be missed. Where do you draw the line in acknowledging their acts? and, who decides and for what real reason as, many of the reasons I have heard put forth are spurious and, nothing really to do with the act itself.
Mitch
Jack
Major
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2011
- Messages
- 6,347
Really great thread - possible for right minded, sincere people to be on opposite sides of the argument!
But I cannot shake the feeling that everyone, other than me, is wrong. Do not be self conscious - you would be surprised how often that happens.
The question needs to be de-cluttered and the principle assessed separate from any individual case.
The first question should be - Is it appropriate for a government to alter decisions from the past, even if those decisions were legal and transparent (ie perceived as just) at the time?
If your answer is Yes, go to question 2.
If your answer is no, that must be 'no' for everything - VCs, campaign medals and pardons. But wait - we are dealing with a civilian government, so whatever decision they make will set a precedent so it must be applicable to non military matters or military/civilian matters. So what about servicemen exposed to radiation during atomic tests? Is that different? What about a generation of RAAF ground crew sent to work in unsafe conditions when servicing F1-11s? What about 'orphans' sent to Australia from the UK where they suffered abuse and mis-treatment? But where would it end - could the 8th Division captured in Singapore sue for negligence?
If your answer to Question 1 was Yes, you now must, logically and fairly, face the fact that you have acknowledged that history is not inviolable (Larso - that means it is not safe from alteration or tresspass). You are then left to argue that history can change in Case 1 but not in Case 2, which is difficult once you remove the legitimate aura that surrounds the VC, which surely, is the greatest honour of them all, greater even than being PM.
I came to this argument via the back door (steady Phil). I would initially have said no to the VCs being awarded retrospectively. Yet I have long held the view that Bomber Command aircrew deserved campaign medals (I mean, seriously, the Battle of the Ruhr, how could that NOT be a campaign?) So I have had to acknowledge that I can hold one of those opinions, but not both.
If nothing else, I have addressed the lack of arrogance in this thread.
Jack
But I cannot shake the feeling that everyone, other than me, is wrong. Do not be self conscious - you would be surprised how often that happens.
The question needs to be de-cluttered and the principle assessed separate from any individual case.
The first question should be - Is it appropriate for a government to alter decisions from the past, even if those decisions were legal and transparent (ie perceived as just) at the time?
If your answer is Yes, go to question 2.
If your answer is no, that must be 'no' for everything - VCs, campaign medals and pardons. But wait - we are dealing with a civilian government, so whatever decision they make will set a precedent so it must be applicable to non military matters or military/civilian matters. So what about servicemen exposed to radiation during atomic tests? Is that different? What about a generation of RAAF ground crew sent to work in unsafe conditions when servicing F1-11s? What about 'orphans' sent to Australia from the UK where they suffered abuse and mis-treatment? But where would it end - could the 8th Division captured in Singapore sue for negligence?
If your answer to Question 1 was Yes, you now must, logically and fairly, face the fact that you have acknowledged that history is not inviolable (Larso - that means it is not safe from alteration or tresspass). You are then left to argue that history can change in Case 1 but not in Case 2, which is difficult once you remove the legitimate aura that surrounds the VC, which surely, is the greatest honour of them all, greater even than being PM.
I came to this argument via the back door (steady Phil). I would initially have said no to the VCs being awarded retrospectively. Yet I have long held the view that Bomber Command aircrew deserved campaign medals (I mean, seriously, the Battle of the Ruhr, how could that NOT be a campaign?) So I have had to acknowledge that I can hold one of those opinions, but not both.
If nothing else, I have addressed the lack of arrogance in this thread.
Jack
waynepoo
Colonel
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 9,725
I have had my say and have nothing more constructive to add, so it's good morning Jack , onya mate. {sm4}
Wayne.
The Military Workshop
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 4,778
Decisions, decisions.
For general consideration. The Govt panel is examining 13 cases summarised as follows. Whilst I do not agree with retro VC's I have indicated my thoughts with a Yes/No if they do go ahead and issue some.
Gunner Albert Neil (Neale) Cleary - Army Aged 22, a prisoner of war who sought to escape after the infamous Sandakan death march in 1945. He was recaptured by Japanese guards and brutally beaten over a period of days before dying. (Note : Another similar POW case was awarded a posthumous Commendation for Gallantry – which did not exist in WW2). No.
Midshipman Robert Ian Davies - Navy Aged 18, Australian-born sailor serving aboard the British battleship HMS Repulse. Attacked by Japanese aircraft off the coast of Malaya on December 10, 1941, he was last seen firing at the attackers as his gun position submerged. (Note : How can Australia issue a VC to an Aussie serving in another Naval service ?). No.
Leading Cook Francis Bassett Emms - Navy Aged 32, a cook aboard HMAS Kara Kara, a boom gate vessel stationed in Darwin harbour at the time of the Japanese air attack on February 15, 1942. Despite severe wounds, he continued to fire a machine gun at attacking aircraft. He died en route to a hospital ship. His actions were considered comparable to British sailor Jack Mantle, awarded the VC for defending his ship from German air attack in 1940. Yes.
Lieutenant David John Hamer - Navy Gunnery officer aboard HMAS Australia during operations off the Philippines in 1945 when the ship came under repeated Japanese air attack. Over nine days, he calmly directed anti-aircraft defences. One attacking suicide aircraft passed within five metres of his head. 50/50
Private John Simpson Kirkpatrick - Army Aged 22, British-born soldier who achieved lasting fame on Gallipoli. Day and night, braving enemy fire he and his donkey carried wounded to the aid station. He was shot dead on May 19, 1915. (Note : A Kiwi doing the same received the Military Medal although he survived and only a VC or MID (Mention in Despatches) can be awarded posthumously). No (however a lot of public sentiment in this case).
Captain Hector Macdonald Laws Waller - Navy Aged 41, commander of the cruiser HMAS Perth which encountered a superior Japanese force in the Sunda Strait on February 29, 1942. Perth fought until all ammunition was gone and the ship was struck repeatedly by torpedoes. Captain Waller went down with his ship. Yes.
Lieutenant Commander Robert William Rankin - Navy Aged 36, commanded the sloop HMAS Yarra escorting a convoy of merchant ships back to Australia ahead of advancing Japanese forces. Spotting three Japanese heavy cruisers on March 4, 1942, he turned to attack in the hope of allowing the convoy to escape. Yarra's situation was hopeless and Rankin was killed shortly after ordering surviving crewmen to abandon ship. Yes.
Lieutenant Commander Francis Edward Smith – Navy Aged 33, killed while serving as a gunnery officer aboard HMAS Yarra while directing a one-sided battle with superior Japanese warships. No.
Leading Seaman Ronald Taylor - Navy Aged 23, a sailor aboard HMAS Yarra who remained alone at his gun, firing continually until killed shortly before the ship sank. No.
Able Seaman Dalmorton Joseph Owendale Rudd - Navy One of 11 Australian sailors who participated in the attack on Zeebrugge, Belgium, on April 22-23, 1918. Essentially a commando raid, this was designed to seal off a canal allowing German submarines access to the sea. (Note : How can Australia issue a VC to an Aussie serving in another service ?). No
Ordinary Seaman Edward Sheean - Navy Aged 18, a gun-loader aboard the Corvette HMAS Armidale which was attacked by Japanese aircraft off northern Australia on December 1, 1942. Although wounded, he shot down one Japanese bomber and was last seen still firing as Armidale disappeared under water. Yes.
Leading Aircrewman Noel Ervin Shipp - Navy Aged 24, a sailor attached to the Australian navy helicopter flight in Vietnam, then operating with a US helicopter unit. On May 31, 1969, he was a door gunner aboard a US helicopter gunship which came under intense enemy fire, with its pilot hit. Shipp was observed to continue firing on the enemy position right to the moment of impact which killed all aboard. (Note : Not supported by his unit). No.
Lieutenant Commander Henry Hugh Gordon Stoker - Royal Navy Commanded the Australian submarine AE2 when it successfully penetrated the Dardanelles at the same time as Australian troops went ashore at Gallipoli. AE2 sank in the Sea Marmara and all aboard were taken prisoner. No.
I would choose Sheehan, Waller/Rankin, Emms and Hamer in that order. Incidentally the RAAF have had 4 issued so 4 might be a good number to choose. If 4 two popular Captains and two sailors. Could consider Unit citations to HMAS Perth, Yarra and AE2 and this is a good ""political"option. Although such citations did not exist then a precedent has been set when D Coy 6RAR received one for the Battle of Long Tan over 40 years later (not recommended by panel but awarded by Govt).
Note 11 are Navy (no Australian Navy member has been awarded a VC). So this leads to the obvious question is there a quota for how many out of 13 they could recommend for a VC{sm4} Is there a "quota" to say some preference should be given to the Navy cases ? Certainly Waller and Rankin are pretty much identical cases but note how two of Rankins crew are also being considered. Why not two crew members from the Perth as well ?
I think the Huey crewman case is a clear sign of Navy bias. His Huey was doomed and he went down firing. No VC was awarded to any RAAF member during the Vietnam war and I am pretty sure there were some more deserving cases. Would be interesting to know if any RAAF Huey gunner went down firing.
I have no idea how they came to pick the 13 but I am pretty sure many Army and RAAF cases from WWI and WWII could be found that are equally as deserving as some of the above.
Will be interesting to see the result.
Regards
Brett
For general consideration. The Govt panel is examining 13 cases summarised as follows. Whilst I do not agree with retro VC's I have indicated my thoughts with a Yes/No if they do go ahead and issue some.
Gunner Albert Neil (Neale) Cleary - Army Aged 22, a prisoner of war who sought to escape after the infamous Sandakan death march in 1945. He was recaptured by Japanese guards and brutally beaten over a period of days before dying. (Note : Another similar POW case was awarded a posthumous Commendation for Gallantry – which did not exist in WW2). No.
Midshipman Robert Ian Davies - Navy Aged 18, Australian-born sailor serving aboard the British battleship HMS Repulse. Attacked by Japanese aircraft off the coast of Malaya on December 10, 1941, he was last seen firing at the attackers as his gun position submerged. (Note : How can Australia issue a VC to an Aussie serving in another Naval service ?). No.
Leading Cook Francis Bassett Emms - Navy Aged 32, a cook aboard HMAS Kara Kara, a boom gate vessel stationed in Darwin harbour at the time of the Japanese air attack on February 15, 1942. Despite severe wounds, he continued to fire a machine gun at attacking aircraft. He died en route to a hospital ship. His actions were considered comparable to British sailor Jack Mantle, awarded the VC for defending his ship from German air attack in 1940. Yes.
Lieutenant David John Hamer - Navy Gunnery officer aboard HMAS Australia during operations off the Philippines in 1945 when the ship came under repeated Japanese air attack. Over nine days, he calmly directed anti-aircraft defences. One attacking suicide aircraft passed within five metres of his head. 50/50
Private John Simpson Kirkpatrick - Army Aged 22, British-born soldier who achieved lasting fame on Gallipoli. Day and night, braving enemy fire he and his donkey carried wounded to the aid station. He was shot dead on May 19, 1915. (Note : A Kiwi doing the same received the Military Medal although he survived and only a VC or MID (Mention in Despatches) can be awarded posthumously). No (however a lot of public sentiment in this case).
Captain Hector Macdonald Laws Waller - Navy Aged 41, commander of the cruiser HMAS Perth which encountered a superior Japanese force in the Sunda Strait on February 29, 1942. Perth fought until all ammunition was gone and the ship was struck repeatedly by torpedoes. Captain Waller went down with his ship. Yes.
Lieutenant Commander Robert William Rankin - Navy Aged 36, commanded the sloop HMAS Yarra escorting a convoy of merchant ships back to Australia ahead of advancing Japanese forces. Spotting three Japanese heavy cruisers on March 4, 1942, he turned to attack in the hope of allowing the convoy to escape. Yarra's situation was hopeless and Rankin was killed shortly after ordering surviving crewmen to abandon ship. Yes.
Lieutenant Commander Francis Edward Smith – Navy Aged 33, killed while serving as a gunnery officer aboard HMAS Yarra while directing a one-sided battle with superior Japanese warships. No.
Leading Seaman Ronald Taylor - Navy Aged 23, a sailor aboard HMAS Yarra who remained alone at his gun, firing continually until killed shortly before the ship sank. No.
Able Seaman Dalmorton Joseph Owendale Rudd - Navy One of 11 Australian sailors who participated in the attack on Zeebrugge, Belgium, on April 22-23, 1918. Essentially a commando raid, this was designed to seal off a canal allowing German submarines access to the sea. (Note : How can Australia issue a VC to an Aussie serving in another service ?). No
Ordinary Seaman Edward Sheean - Navy Aged 18, a gun-loader aboard the Corvette HMAS Armidale which was attacked by Japanese aircraft off northern Australia on December 1, 1942. Although wounded, he shot down one Japanese bomber and was last seen still firing as Armidale disappeared under water. Yes.
Leading Aircrewman Noel Ervin Shipp - Navy Aged 24, a sailor attached to the Australian navy helicopter flight in Vietnam, then operating with a US helicopter unit. On May 31, 1969, he was a door gunner aboard a US helicopter gunship which came under intense enemy fire, with its pilot hit. Shipp was observed to continue firing on the enemy position right to the moment of impact which killed all aboard. (Note : Not supported by his unit). No.
Lieutenant Commander Henry Hugh Gordon Stoker - Royal Navy Commanded the Australian submarine AE2 when it successfully penetrated the Dardanelles at the same time as Australian troops went ashore at Gallipoli. AE2 sank in the Sea Marmara and all aboard were taken prisoner. No.
I would choose Sheehan, Waller/Rankin, Emms and Hamer in that order. Incidentally the RAAF have had 4 issued so 4 might be a good number to choose. If 4 two popular Captains and two sailors. Could consider Unit citations to HMAS Perth, Yarra and AE2 and this is a good ""political"option. Although such citations did not exist then a precedent has been set when D Coy 6RAR received one for the Battle of Long Tan over 40 years later (not recommended by panel but awarded by Govt).
Note 11 are Navy (no Australian Navy member has been awarded a VC). So this leads to the obvious question is there a quota for how many out of 13 they could recommend for a VC{sm4} Is there a "quota" to say some preference should be given to the Navy cases ? Certainly Waller and Rankin are pretty much identical cases but note how two of Rankins crew are also being considered. Why not two crew members from the Perth as well ?
I think the Huey crewman case is a clear sign of Navy bias. His Huey was doomed and he went down firing. No VC was awarded to any RAAF member during the Vietnam war and I am pretty sure there were some more deserving cases. Would be interesting to know if any RAAF Huey gunner went down firing.
I have no idea how they came to pick the 13 but I am pretty sure many Army and RAAF cases from WWI and WWII could be found that are equally as deserving as some of the above.
Will be interesting to see the result.
Regards
Brett
waynepoo
Colonel
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 9,725
Brett,
As I have had my say already, I'll just say well researched, I agree about Waller of course and Rankin as well as Simpson. I don't know enough about the others you have listed to be able to give an opinion. My general opinion on this subject has been stated and there is no need to repeat it.
Thanks for you post.
Wayne.
As I have had my say already, I'll just say well researched, I agree about Waller of course and Rankin as well as Simpson. I don't know enough about the others you have listed to be able to give an opinion. My general opinion on this subject has been stated and there is no need to repeat it.
Thanks for you post.
Wayne.
Last edited:
Mitch
Major General
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 13,519
Brett...
What you post shows the problem with retrospectivity. You post yes to some and no to others. Another person would make different choices and, another may just say well, let them all have a medal. Comparing some actions with the action of another who did recieve a medal is neither here nor there really as, behind that there may be one hundred cases similar that never even were mentioned for consideration.
The mess with this is the subjectivity. One of the thirteen may get it but what about the rest?? Its better to leave these issues alone. Any system that rewards bravery is going to be problematic but, the VC has its strict criteria and, I still feel these are being looked at for the wrong reasons for anniversaries and the like.
On all I would say no and, that would be the end. the powers that be at that time ruled with the rules they had at the time and, we should respect that.
Mitch
What you post shows the problem with retrospectivity. You post yes to some and no to others. Another person would make different choices and, another may just say well, let them all have a medal. Comparing some actions with the action of another who did recieve a medal is neither here nor there really as, behind that there may be one hundred cases similar that never even were mentioned for consideration.
The mess with this is the subjectivity. One of the thirteen may get it but what about the rest?? Its better to leave these issues alone. Any system that rewards bravery is going to be problematic but, the VC has its strict criteria and, I still feel these are being looked at for the wrong reasons for anniversaries and the like.
On all I would say no and, that would be the end. the powers that be at that time ruled with the rules they had at the time and, we should respect that.
Mitch
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 17,372
Your last sentence demonstrates the problem I have with your position: "the powers that be at that time ruled with the rules they had at the time and, we should respect that." Why? The powers that be at that time had no more information than we have now, and their decision was no less subjective. Why is their determination, subject to the heat of the momment, as well as the political pressures and prejudices of a time when many people were viewed as second class citizens for the color of their skin or their religious beliefs, due any special respect? If a legal determination by a jury based on rules of evidence is subject to being vacated or set aside years later based on newly discovered evidence proving it is erroneous, why shouldn't the determination of a military tribunal or command with regard to a court marshall or award be sacrosanct? I just don't see the logic.
waynepoo
Colonel
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 9,725
Louis,
I wish I was as articulate , I know I couldn't say that so well. I agree.
Wayne.
The Military Workshop
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 4,778
As I have said I disagree with the concept of issuing retrospective medals. However it does not mean I don't think some of them should have recieved one.
If you look at Wayne's post at #3 it appear the Royal Australian Navy was at a disadvantage as for some strange reason their VC's had to go through the English Admiralty. Whether any were actually submitted I do not know. However lets assume the 11 RAN members being considered are the most worthy cases after much research by those who put them forward and made the list. Personally I do not think it too difficult to eliminate some such as :
Captain Stoker AE2 WWI - He got his sub into the Dardanelles at time of Gallipoli landings. He did not sink any enemy and scuttled his sub when it came under attack by a patrol boat. He and most of his crew survived the war after being POW's. He did receive a DSO. Two British Sub Captains who did sink enemy did receive the VC. I think Stoker/AE2 gets a mention because for a long time it was a mystery as to where AE2. DSO seems OK in the circumstances.
Davis and Rudd were apparently Aussies in the British Navy (Zeebrugge raid and HMS Repulse). Can't see how RAN can issue a medal to somebody in another Navy just becuase they are Australian. (Nobody on the HMS Repulse received the VC and two Brits received it for Zeebrugge).
Shipp the Huey gunner not even supported by his own unit members so should be a no. Have to consider impact on RAAF if he was to get it as seems unjustified.
This reduces the list to 7 possibles.
Of these Sheehan is the one most talk about first when talking about a RAN VC (based on many conversations over the years). He strapped himself to a AA gun to provide cover to his mates who were being strafed by Jap planes. Bullets were apparently still being fired after he submerged.
Waller and Rankin as seen by post 3 did the same as some British Captains who were awarded VC's. Waller on HMAS Perth was together with, and technically in command of a US ship, the USS Houston, whose CO (who also died) received the MOH for the same engagement.
I personally think the above three stand out as the most obvious choices. That leaves 4 in the ""middle".
I would regrettably rule out the other two crew for HMAS Yarra as there are probably crew from the Perth and Australia who did the same.
That leaves Epps (MG at Darwin) and Hamer the Gunnery officer of HMAS Australia. After further looking Hamer is an interesting case. The CO received a DSO and Hamer was one of 4 officers who received a Distinguished Service Cross for the action mentioned (9 day Kamikaze attacks). However this link below has some good background and shows he might be considered the most worthy of all cases for a VC. The link also mentions the reluctance of the British Admiral Royle to put forward any Aussies for VC's.
http://navyleag.customer.netspace.net.au/fc_06dh.htm
Hamer carried on in the RAN for another 20 years and became a Federal MP.
If there are going to be 4 I would go for Epps as he received no award and Hamer did.
If there was a bookie I could place a bet with I would bet on 4 to receive it (also on basis RAAF have 4).
If the panel look at the system as it existed and find the British Admiral in the Pacific had a policy of not forwarding Aussies then there is probably some justification in the retrospective awards.
Going back to Simpson he has acheived a recognition that surpasses most Aussie VC winners. The fact he was killed means the only options are a VC or MID as the other possible awards are for the living. However don't agree with his getting a VC.
Regards
Brett
PS You can be sure I will revive the thread when the results are known.{sm4}
If you look at Wayne's post at #3 it appear the Royal Australian Navy was at a disadvantage as for some strange reason their VC's had to go through the English Admiralty. Whether any were actually submitted I do not know. However lets assume the 11 RAN members being considered are the most worthy cases after much research by those who put them forward and made the list. Personally I do not think it too difficult to eliminate some such as :
Captain Stoker AE2 WWI - He got his sub into the Dardanelles at time of Gallipoli landings. He did not sink any enemy and scuttled his sub when it came under attack by a patrol boat. He and most of his crew survived the war after being POW's. He did receive a DSO. Two British Sub Captains who did sink enemy did receive the VC. I think Stoker/AE2 gets a mention because for a long time it was a mystery as to where AE2. DSO seems OK in the circumstances.
Davis and Rudd were apparently Aussies in the British Navy (Zeebrugge raid and HMS Repulse). Can't see how RAN can issue a medal to somebody in another Navy just becuase they are Australian. (Nobody on the HMS Repulse received the VC and two Brits received it for Zeebrugge).
Shipp the Huey gunner not even supported by his own unit members so should be a no. Have to consider impact on RAAF if he was to get it as seems unjustified.
This reduces the list to 7 possibles.
Of these Sheehan is the one most talk about first when talking about a RAN VC (based on many conversations over the years). He strapped himself to a AA gun to provide cover to his mates who were being strafed by Jap planes. Bullets were apparently still being fired after he submerged.
Waller and Rankin as seen by post 3 did the same as some British Captains who were awarded VC's. Waller on HMAS Perth was together with, and technically in command of a US ship, the USS Houston, whose CO (who also died) received the MOH for the same engagement.
I personally think the above three stand out as the most obvious choices. That leaves 4 in the ""middle".
I would regrettably rule out the other two crew for HMAS Yarra as there are probably crew from the Perth and Australia who did the same.
That leaves Epps (MG at Darwin) and Hamer the Gunnery officer of HMAS Australia. After further looking Hamer is an interesting case. The CO received a DSO and Hamer was one of 4 officers who received a Distinguished Service Cross for the action mentioned (9 day Kamikaze attacks). However this link below has some good background and shows he might be considered the most worthy of all cases for a VC. The link also mentions the reluctance of the British Admiral Royle to put forward any Aussies for VC's.
http://navyleag.customer.netspace.net.au/fc_06dh.htm
Hamer carried on in the RAN for another 20 years and became a Federal MP.
If there are going to be 4 I would go for Epps as he received no award and Hamer did.
If there was a bookie I could place a bet with I would bet on 4 to receive it (also on basis RAAF have 4).
If the panel look at the system as it existed and find the British Admiral in the Pacific had a policy of not forwarding Aussies then there is probably some justification in the retrospective awards.
Going back to Simpson he has acheived a recognition that surpasses most Aussie VC winners. The fact he was killed means the only options are a VC or MID as the other possible awards are for the living. However don't agree with his getting a VC.
Regards
Brett
PS You can be sure I will revive the thread when the results are known.{sm4}
Mitch
Major General
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 13,519
Louis...
I don't see why you cannot understand this really. well, I do as we often see things completely differently. Its rather simple, why these few? why only these cases? why not all of them? That’s the issue here not, being able to right alleged wrongs. Correcting the held opinions of the day or, changing criteria for the award of medals based not upon that criteria but, the values of the modern day is changing history. Was it accepted to be elitist was it accepted to be racist yes? (I would argue not much has changed) what you propose is to rectify certain snippets of history to appease. The problem I have also is appease who? Are you really saying giving out a handful of medals corrects histories ills? I think the logic in that is unfathomable. Its scratching the surface and, does nothing to address anything substantively. I ask why not all of the cases and, nobody has answered. If we are to go down this road then it should either be done fully or, not at all. If done in the way you suggest we cause further injustice that you believe have occurred in the first instance.
Now, in relation to the law and jury decisions that is a completely different proposition and, not the same at all in relation to the non award or award of a medal. You and I both know well enough that the advances in forensic science and, other issues mean that decisions are addressed. However, lets say its similar for me to address your point. What substantive new evidence has arisen in these medal cases? none other than a few people have deemed it to be wrong. The act has not changed that was put forth for the award only, modern peoples opinions and values and, may I add, for some very dubious reasons which, seem more to do with self enhancement of individuals than really wanting to award bravery. The distinction here and my stance on the absolving of the executed British troops was that we did a blanket amnesty on all and, not all were innocent.
I don't look back with rose tinted glasses at history. The times we live in are as racked with ism's as our history was. I don't see the need to interfere with what has gone on in a historical sense. That’s what this is doing and, only in the most insignificant manner. Your logic and, I see Waynepoo, seems to be lets re-address a handful of decisions and, that will make some feel all warm and wonderful that we have righted alleged wrongs. if its true that they were wrong then we have to address them all.
This logic means that we can re-write any part of history over and over, that some find unpalatable, sufficiently enough until its suits their values. Doing that skews it so much, for me, that we will end up with no history.
Mitch
I don't see why you cannot understand this really. well, I do as we often see things completely differently. Its rather simple, why these few? why only these cases? why not all of them? That’s the issue here not, being able to right alleged wrongs. Correcting the held opinions of the day or, changing criteria for the award of medals based not upon that criteria but, the values of the modern day is changing history. Was it accepted to be elitist was it accepted to be racist yes? (I would argue not much has changed) what you propose is to rectify certain snippets of history to appease. The problem I have also is appease who? Are you really saying giving out a handful of medals corrects histories ills? I think the logic in that is unfathomable. Its scratching the surface and, does nothing to address anything substantively. I ask why not all of the cases and, nobody has answered. If we are to go down this road then it should either be done fully or, not at all. If done in the way you suggest we cause further injustice that you believe have occurred in the first instance.
Now, in relation to the law and jury decisions that is a completely different proposition and, not the same at all in relation to the non award or award of a medal. You and I both know well enough that the advances in forensic science and, other issues mean that decisions are addressed. However, lets say its similar for me to address your point. What substantive new evidence has arisen in these medal cases? none other than a few people have deemed it to be wrong. The act has not changed that was put forth for the award only, modern peoples opinions and values and, may I add, for some very dubious reasons which, seem more to do with self enhancement of individuals than really wanting to award bravery. The distinction here and my stance on the absolving of the executed British troops was that we did a blanket amnesty on all and, not all were innocent.
I don't look back with rose tinted glasses at history. The times we live in are as racked with ism's as our history was. I don't see the need to interfere with what has gone on in a historical sense. That’s what this is doing and, only in the most insignificant manner. Your logic and, I see Waynepoo, seems to be lets re-address a handful of decisions and, that will make some feel all warm and wonderful that we have righted alleged wrongs. if its true that they were wrong then we have to address them all.
This logic means that we can re-write any part of history over and over, that some find unpalatable, sufficiently enough until its suits their values. Doing that skews it so much, for me, that we will end up with no history.
Mitch
The Military Workshop
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 4,778
Mitch,
Perhaps my post (I think you were replying to Louis when I was posting) answers your questions ""why these few? why only these cases? why not all of them?".
Race, colour, religion of footy teams supported are not issues in these cases. However one might be led to believe the RN not treating the RAN fairly by not even forwarding any nominations.
Regards
Brett
Perhaps my post (I think you were replying to Louis when I was posting) answers your questions ""why these few? why only these cases? why not all of them?".
Race, colour, religion of footy teams supported are not issues in these cases. However one might be led to believe the RN not treating the RAN fairly by not even forwarding any nominations.
Regards
Brett
Mitch
Major General
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 13,519
Brett..
In relation to the RN there is a lot of conjecture and probability he may have stopped VC's going to RAN personel but, and, this is the clincher, there is no proof he did. Again, for those who wish to re-write everything to suit the regulations were there in place on how to proceed. Its not as if he was not awarded any medal I mean a DSC is not given lightly. Again, I would say its a case of lets keep battering until we get what we want. Many thousands were not given a VC but, don't whine on (its not the term but you know what I mean) I think its more to do with politics and the anniversary of the RAN than actual bravery which, has already been awarded in recognition.
From many different things I have read about this they all seem to have within them that the RAN has not had a VC awarded. For me, its all about that it could have been anyone so long as the service or some get it thats all that counts.
Mitch
In relation to the RN there is a lot of conjecture and probability he may have stopped VC's going to RAN personel but, and, this is the clincher, there is no proof he did. Again, for those who wish to re-write everything to suit the regulations were there in place on how to proceed. Its not as if he was not awarded any medal I mean a DSC is not given lightly. Again, I would say its a case of lets keep battering until we get what we want. Many thousands were not given a VC but, don't whine on (its not the term but you know what I mean) I think its more to do with politics and the anniversary of the RAN than actual bravery which, has already been awarded in recognition.
From many different things I have read about this they all seem to have within them that the RAN has not had a VC awarded. For me, its all about that it could have been anyone so long as the service or some get it thats all that counts.
Mitch
The Military Workshop
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 4,778
Mitch,
This was a quote from that link.
"Throughout the time of his secondment to the RAN, Royle (the British Admiral) was seemingly reluctant to go into bat on anyone's behalf over the issue of a VC - whether it be Robert Rankin, Teddy Sheean, Hec Waller or John Band. Royle's reluctance was probably the major reason why no one serving in the RAN in the SWPA was ever recommended for a VC, let alone received one".
I looked up John Band who I have never heard of and info is at http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication:...Affairs_No._17/Band,_John_Morrell_(1902-1943)
A beachmaster in New Guinea. I would put him on the list instead of the Huey Gunner but suspect the Huey Gunner is the best option they had for the Vietnam war. I would put Band ahead of Stoker and the two British Navy Aussies. However he was a Naval Reserve so perhaps he is not being considered because of that. We will never know.
The list of RN VC''s is at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Victoria_Cross_recipients_of_the_Royal_Navy
and I count 20 in WW2.
Consider the following RN example of Tom Wilkinson :
Wilkinson was 43 years old, and a temporary lieutenant in the Royal Naval Reserve during the Second World War when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC.
On 14 February 1942 in the Java Sea, off Malaya, HMS Li Wo, a patrol vessel, formerly a passenger steamer, commanded by Lieutenant Wilkinson, sighted two enemy convoys, one escorted by Japanese warships, The lieutenant told his crew he had decided to engage the convoy and fight to the last in the hope of inflicting some damage, a decision that drew resolute support from the whole ship's crew. In the action that followed, a Japanese transport was set on fire and abandoned, and Li Wo engaged a heavy cruiser for over an hour before being hit at point-blank range and sunk. Lieutenant Wilkinson ordered his crew to abandon ship, but he went down with Li Wo.
In terms of period, location and action very similar to CO's of Perth and Yarra except he was RN not RAN.
Regarding Hamer the CO got a DSO and it is very rare that a subordinate gets a DSO for the same event as his CO. Hence the DSC. As I said I would not be awarding one to Hamer as I think it will be 4 if they do award any. If they do they will be setting a precedent as no such retrospective VC award has been issued.
Some of the incidents are coming up to 70th anniversary's (ie. Darwin and Naval battles) but the cases of Sheean, Waller and Simpson have been the subject of discussion for many years. Some of the others I had never heard of and I do a fair bit of reading. I believe once this group has been reviewed that is the end of any further consideration for Australian VC's.
It has long been considered strange that the only 4 VC's in Vietnam were awarded to Training Team Members who came under US SF Command (Mike Force) and worked with tribesmen. As you say it is hard to compare incidents. One case that is quite unusual and interesting is the case of WO2 Wheateley see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Arthur_Wheatley . I was surprised no regular Army guys were considered from Vietnam because it seems odd none received one.
Is an interesting matter for discussion and will be interesting to see how they decide. We should be able to see the final repoort online.
Regards
Brett
This was a quote from that link.
"Throughout the time of his secondment to the RAN, Royle (the British Admiral) was seemingly reluctant to go into bat on anyone's behalf over the issue of a VC - whether it be Robert Rankin, Teddy Sheean, Hec Waller or John Band. Royle's reluctance was probably the major reason why no one serving in the RAN in the SWPA was ever recommended for a VC, let alone received one".
I looked up John Band who I have never heard of and info is at http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication:...Affairs_No._17/Band,_John_Morrell_(1902-1943)
A beachmaster in New Guinea. I would put him on the list instead of the Huey Gunner but suspect the Huey Gunner is the best option they had for the Vietnam war. I would put Band ahead of Stoker and the two British Navy Aussies. However he was a Naval Reserve so perhaps he is not being considered because of that. We will never know.
The list of RN VC''s is at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Victoria_Cross_recipients_of_the_Royal_Navy
and I count 20 in WW2.
Consider the following RN example of Tom Wilkinson :
Wilkinson was 43 years old, and a temporary lieutenant in the Royal Naval Reserve during the Second World War when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC.
On 14 February 1942 in the Java Sea, off Malaya, HMS Li Wo, a patrol vessel, formerly a passenger steamer, commanded by Lieutenant Wilkinson, sighted two enemy convoys, one escorted by Japanese warships, The lieutenant told his crew he had decided to engage the convoy and fight to the last in the hope of inflicting some damage, a decision that drew resolute support from the whole ship's crew. In the action that followed, a Japanese transport was set on fire and abandoned, and Li Wo engaged a heavy cruiser for over an hour before being hit at point-blank range and sunk. Lieutenant Wilkinson ordered his crew to abandon ship, but he went down with Li Wo.
In terms of period, location and action very similar to CO's of Perth and Yarra except he was RN not RAN.
Regarding Hamer the CO got a DSO and it is very rare that a subordinate gets a DSO for the same event as his CO. Hence the DSC. As I said I would not be awarding one to Hamer as I think it will be 4 if they do award any. If they do they will be setting a precedent as no such retrospective VC award has been issued.
Some of the incidents are coming up to 70th anniversary's (ie. Darwin and Naval battles) but the cases of Sheean, Waller and Simpson have been the subject of discussion for many years. Some of the others I had never heard of and I do a fair bit of reading. I believe once this group has been reviewed that is the end of any further consideration for Australian VC's.
It has long been considered strange that the only 4 VC's in Vietnam were awarded to Training Team Members who came under US SF Command (Mike Force) and worked with tribesmen. As you say it is hard to compare incidents. One case that is quite unusual and interesting is the case of WO2 Wheateley see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Arthur_Wheatley . I was surprised no regular Army guys were considered from Vietnam because it seems odd none received one.
Is an interesting matter for discussion and will be interesting to see how they decide. We should be able to see the final repoort online.
Regards
Brett
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 17,372
First of all Mitch, you seem to operate under the premise that history should be inviolate. As far as I can see from what is accepted to be history from one year to the next, the definition of "history" is the accepted version of disparate facts at that given momment, usually based on what the powers that be, i.e. the winners, or the press, or the political party in control at that momment says it is. Take a look at history during the cold war, when "history" as taught in American schools did not even mention that the Soviet Union participated in WWII, compared to today, where it is accepted history that we could not have won the war without the Soviets. Should we not change "history" to teach about the contributions of the Soviets, because at the time when "history" was first set to page on the subject, the Soviets were considered the next big enemy?
And, as far as "why in this case" I look at it like this: if someone was nominated for a particular medal for valor at some time in the past, and he or his family wants reconsideration today, what does it hurt to look at it again today? I can't speak for your military, but I am fairly sure that my country's military has plenty of officers in the pentagon who could take a few hours to read the medal nomination and the witness affidavits from the time. If there is a glaring injustice, a person who clearly performed an act of valor above and beyond the call of duty, who was not awarded the medal for some reason not relating to the merits of his action: i.e.: a rule that only one person could be awarded the medal for that action, or he happened to be an African-American or Jewish or what have you, I think it should be revisited.
I look at it this way: Medal of Honor recipiant U.S.M.C. Lt. Jack Lummas was awarded the medal for single handedly taking two machine gun nests on Iwo Jima, then losing both legs while attempting to take a third. This is a richly deserved award. Suppose it came out that another U.S.M.C. Lt. similarly lost his life single-handedly taking two machine gun nests and attempting to take a third on Iwo Jima the next day, with the same eye-witness accounts taken in affidavit form, but the request that he be awarded the medal never got forwarded up the chain of command through some accident or negligence (this happened on several occasions were Medals of Honor were awarded years after the fact). Now, his family points this out to their congressman, and ask that he look into it. The request that he be awarded the medal is now re-considered, and everyone involved in the review says, yes, absolutely, his conduct clearly evidenced valor above and beyond the call of duty. Should the United States government (1) award him the richly deserved medal postumously, and have the President award the medal to his 85 year old widow, or (2) say, nope, too late, the powers that be at the time didn't award him the medal, so therefore he cannot be awarded the medal? If, like me, you respect the military man, the soldier, sailor, marine or airman, who put his life on the line to give us all the lives we enjoy, to me the answer is self-evident: you honor the memory of the fallen serviceman, and you make the award.
What does making the award do? It gives closure to the family of the fallen hero, and brings his sacrifice to the attention of the public, maybe, just maybe, teaching us all something incredibly valuable about sacrifice and heroism.
What does making the award hurt? Nothing that I can see. Your claim that this somehow devalues history makes no sense to me. We are not changing the standard, we are merely reassessing conduct in light of the same, highly honorable standard: conduct above and beyond the call of duty. What we are doing is removing from the equation things that have nothing to do with this standard: the personal jealousy of a higher up who refuses to forward the request up through channels, or the prejudices of the time against the color of a person's skin or the way he choses to pray, or simple negligence, where an approved recommendation that a person be considered for the award never makes it up the chain of command for consideration. To me, that is not devaluing history, or re-assessing awards in light of today's standards, it is a crucible wherein we are honoring history by burning away all the subjective b.s. that should never have been part of consideration in the first place, under the very written standards for the award that were in place at the time. Those written standards spoke only to valor, and cunduct at great personal risk above and beyond the call of duty. They did not mention popularity in the mess, or skin color, or religious background, so, to me, removing these elements from the determination is the purest form of ensuring "history" gets it right.
Mitch
Major General
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 13,519
Louis...
This is about the VC and, not the US or how they would handle this issue. Your definition of history has me somewhat confused but, I will draw quickly on the US bit before moving on. just because the US saw the Russians as enemy and did not teach about their input in WWII does not mean it did not happen. Thats a rather stupid approach taken by the US at that time and, by then including their input into classes at a later date does not change history at all it just chooses to ignore a section which, is rather different. so, its a rather mute and, unnecessary point although, it illustrates how you think about such things.
Moving back to the VC in question I still do not think it should be awarded and, for the reasons I have stated earlier. Its not IMO about the action but, other issues which, are being used for the wrong reasons. I live in the real world and not some eutopia where everything is perfect. Its not perfect its rather imperfect but, that’s not for us to judge now retrospectively. Where is the claim that any of these VC's were not awarded for racism et al? there is not. How many servicemen are involved in battle and do not win a single award the vast majority how many, have done acts very brave and, don't get a medal? Many many thousands.
We are changing history as their acts were not at that sufficient for the VC. Its ridiculous to keep going trying to get one. As you like your examples, its like the Irish referendum. They vote no and, the powers that be don't like the answer so, they re=word the question again and again until they get what they want.
That to me irrespective is re-writing history. You say we wash away all the subjective BS that should not have been involved in the first place. How, is that not doing anything other than re-writing history? That subjectivity warts and all is, part of the fabric of our history. You are taking a piece of history out of its entire context hitting it with a huge dose of your eutopian cleanser and, trying to make something that happened right. Your removing historical imperfections because they are distasteful. so, again I ask where do we draw the line?
I also am not keen on the usage of emotion and, the if you respect the servicemen line like I do. Its a line taken by a few on here whereby if you do not support the allied armed forces without question you are somehow against them. thats stupid in the extreme. However, emotion is always brought into these debates somewhere along the line and, just obfuscates the issues.
The criteria for the VC is strict and, rightly so as its the most important military medal ever and, it is, as a result, not handed out like candy. Will some brave acts not get awarded this medal for sure, will lesser medals be awarded yes. that should not mean that others not even involved have the right to say that should have been awarded this instead of that. Its done and, if a lesser award was given accept it. Many others heroic actions garner no interest at all let alone get a lesser award. Some are speaking as if a DSC MM etc and the like are lesser awards they are not. I remain in terms of the VC and the post that originated this debate against the retrospective awards. whether anyone finds that hard to grasp or, cannot understand, thats for them to take issue with. my posts are there to read some agree some disagree.
Mitch
This is about the VC and, not the US or how they would handle this issue. Your definition of history has me somewhat confused but, I will draw quickly on the US bit before moving on. just because the US saw the Russians as enemy and did not teach about their input in WWII does not mean it did not happen. Thats a rather stupid approach taken by the US at that time and, by then including their input into classes at a later date does not change history at all it just chooses to ignore a section which, is rather different. so, its a rather mute and, unnecessary point although, it illustrates how you think about such things.
Moving back to the VC in question I still do not think it should be awarded and, for the reasons I have stated earlier. Its not IMO about the action but, other issues which, are being used for the wrong reasons. I live in the real world and not some eutopia where everything is perfect. Its not perfect its rather imperfect but, that’s not for us to judge now retrospectively. Where is the claim that any of these VC's were not awarded for racism et al? there is not. How many servicemen are involved in battle and do not win a single award the vast majority how many, have done acts very brave and, don't get a medal? Many many thousands.
We are changing history as their acts were not at that sufficient for the VC. Its ridiculous to keep going trying to get one. As you like your examples, its like the Irish referendum. They vote no and, the powers that be don't like the answer so, they re=word the question again and again until they get what they want.
That to me irrespective is re-writing history. You say we wash away all the subjective BS that should not have been involved in the first place. How, is that not doing anything other than re-writing history? That subjectivity warts and all is, part of the fabric of our history. You are taking a piece of history out of its entire context hitting it with a huge dose of your eutopian cleanser and, trying to make something that happened right. Your removing historical imperfections because they are distasteful. so, again I ask where do we draw the line?
I also am not keen on the usage of emotion and, the if you respect the servicemen line like I do. Its a line taken by a few on here whereby if you do not support the allied armed forces without question you are somehow against them. thats stupid in the extreme. However, emotion is always brought into these debates somewhere along the line and, just obfuscates the issues.
The criteria for the VC is strict and, rightly so as its the most important military medal ever and, it is, as a result, not handed out like candy. Will some brave acts not get awarded this medal for sure, will lesser medals be awarded yes. that should not mean that others not even involved have the right to say that should have been awarded this instead of that. Its done and, if a lesser award was given accept it. Many others heroic actions garner no interest at all let alone get a lesser award. Some are speaking as if a DSC MM etc and the like are lesser awards they are not. I remain in terms of the VC and the post that originated this debate against the retrospective awards. whether anyone finds that hard to grasp or, cannot understand, thats for them to take issue with. my posts are there to read some agree some disagree.
Mitch
waynepoo
Colonel
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 9,725
Again Brett well researched mate, Louis again well stated, if it were possible to issue a medal(of any type) to all who should have recieved one and didn't - we should, to amuse that the powers that be always knew what they were doing or get everything right is ify at best.
Wayne.
Wayne.