Victoria Cross

[Hugh_A._Halliday]

Although the George Cross and George Medal were created with civilian gallantry in view (1940 witnessing the bombing of British cities on a scale dwarfing anything from the First World War), the warrants did not exclude military personnel, being drafted to address gallantry where the enemy was not present. The book DRAGONS CAN BE DEFEATED deals with the GM. Both awards went to many fire fighters and bomb or mine disposal personnel, but also to assorted folk (in and out of uniform) pulling people from burning aeroplanes, etc.

There are interesting GC and GM incidents which raise questions and few answers. Roderick Borden Gray, originally recommended for an Albert Medal, got a posthumous GC (and yet the enemy had been present long enough to shoot down his aircraft). Air Commodore Ross was in a party rescuing aircrew from a burning airplane that had bombs aboard. There were two men recommended for a GC but only Ross got one; the other man got a GM, two others involved received BEMs and there was at least one MiD for the incident as well. Why did Ross get a GC and the other man not ? The cynic might say "rank" but I think there were three other factors (a) the need to preserve the status of a GC, so limiting the number in this instance to one (b) "hands-on" rescue was not part of Ross' job description; he had the option of standing back and being a cheerleader; instead he was right in the middle of the action © Ross lost a hand - the only member of the rescue party seriously injured.

[LizMilne]

The description of the act for which Roderick Borden Gray was awarded the GC, in 'The Register of the George Cross' published by 'This England' magazine, would seem to make it clear that the enemy had departed by the time he performed the deed for which he was decorated. That is, having helped several wounded crew members into a dinghy, and despite being badly wounded himself, Gray refused to overload the dinghy by getting in himself. *Instead he held onto the side, eventually losing conciousness and dying. In such a case the George Cross is the appropriate award.

LM

[Michael]

My particular quibble is the granting of the George Cross for minefield incidents. The Indian Army received three such for Italy alone, two being to the Central India Horse, (Sowar Ditto Ram and Lt. Young [R.T.R. attached]) and one to the Madras Sappers and Miners (Subadar Subramanian who already held the Indian Distinguished Service Medal for services in North Africa). When the soldier in front of him stepped on an 'S' mines (a "Bouncing Betty"), Subramanian pushed him aside and flung himself onto the mine before it could go off.

I never could see why such self-sacrifice didn't qualify for the V.C.

[LizMilne]

The only explanation that I can give in all three cases (having reviewed the synopses of their deeds in the above-mentioned book) is that the enemy was not present. *Had Subramanian thrown himself upon a grenade thrown by an enemy soldier to save his comrade, then the VC would have been considered. I agree that the degree of self-sacrifice is the same (if not greater, apparently three USMC Medal of Honor winners survived throwing themselves on live grenades!), yet the technicality of the enemy not actually being present precludes the award of the VC.

There were instances in the 19th century of VCs being awarded when the enemy was not present *under the provisions of a Warrant which was in effect from 1858 until 1881. Later warrants re-stressed the necessity for the enemy to be present.

[Andrew_P]

In three instances the George Cross was awarded to members of the Australian Army in WW2 which involved prison camps.
Captain Lionel Matthews was awarded a posthumous GC for his actions in the POW camp at Sandakan in Borneo.
He was a member of the local underground movement until he was betrayed to the Japanese.
He underwent horrific torture but did not tell the Japanese anything that would betray other prisoners and he was subsequently executed.
The enemy were present in this case as they were in Cowra, New South Wales, when two Australian POW camp guards bore the brunt of the Japanese breakout of that camp. For their actions in this event they were also posthumously awarded the GC.


Cheers

[Michael]

The only explanation that I can give in all three cases (having reviewed the synopses of their deeds in the above-mentioned book) is that the enemy was not present. *Had Subramanian thrown himself upon a grenade thrown by an enemy soldier to save his comrade, then the VC would have been considered. I agree that the degree of self-sacrifice is the same (if not greater, apparently three USMC Medal of Honor winners survived throwing themselves on live grenades!), yet the technicality of the enemy not actually being present precludes the award of the VC.

There were instances in the 19th century of VCs being awarded when the enemy was not present *under the provisions of a Warrant which was in effect from 1858 until 1881. Later warrants re-stressed the necessity for the enemy to be present.

That's the answer I expected, Liz, but let's up the ante. *Take two Canadian R.C.A.F. V.C.s - Mynarski and Hornell. *In both cases their aircraft were hit by enemy fire, but it was their efforts after action was broken off that, in my opinion, won them the V.C. *You can bet that the enemy was not very far away from those Italian minefields. *They should have received the V.C.

And grenades raise a very interesting distinction - if you throw yourself on an enemy grenade it's a V.C. - but if you throw yourself on the grenade your mate was throwing at the enemy (L/Nk. Islam-ud-Din 6/9th Jat Regt.?) you get the G.C.

[Barrett]

Terry:
Sorry for the delay; have been a hard down of late and dunno when I'll get my own computer back.
Unlike the MoH, the administrators of the VC began considering "performance of duty" fairly early in the process. My statement was directed at the aviation era (i.e., 20th century) but Crook makes it plain that the Brits started examining the criteria in the Boer War and then got more serious in The Big One. The MoH, frankly, is a highly political award with a great deal of interservice bickering. Watch for my upcoming Smithsonian Press book "Above & Beyond" this fall (shameless hype.)
Many MoHs have been awarded just for doing a good/great job. The standards can be set so high as to render the award semi-impossible or they can be so lax or inconsistent as to denigrate the true valor of some/most recipients. Anyway, it appears that none of the US armed forces have ever addressed "performance of duty", so the VC nominations have been more heavily scrutinized since the aviation era.
Back again when I can.

[terry]

Hi Barrett,
Thanks for your reply. I recently checked a Medal of Honor website and saw that TWENTY-SEVEN MOH's have been awarded in the last three years! I can understand the three late Vietnam awards, but I wonder about some others. Teddy Roosevelt?
A total of 22 MOH's were presented to Asian Americans, twenty from the famed 442nd Regt.Combat Team. This struck me as a bot of overkill. Did they simply give one out to every DSC winner in the unit, blaming racism for the fact that they didn't get the big one sixty years ago? I know this was a fine outfit, but neither the entire Australian or Canadian military forces earned twenty VC's in WW2.
Is history being revised in the name of political correctness or to adjust very real racism of the era? I have heard it suggested that Tommy Prince, a Canadian Indian who served in the 1st Special Service Force (The Devil's Brigade) and won both the British MM and the American Silver Star, "... would have got the VC if had been a white man." Personally, I disagree. He was a brave soldier, but not especially deserving of a VC. Now that Canada has its own Victoria Cross - with Pro Valore on it instead of For Valour to keep every language group happy - I can just see some MP standing up in Parliament is propose awarding the VC to Prince, to right past wrongs!

[Barrett]

If you read betwixt the lines regarding Teddy's MoH, it was political back-scratching in the Klinton Administration. I'm a HUGE admirer of TR but no way did he rate the Big One; another example of rewarding a good job, not Above & Beyond.
yes, there's also a very large racial (i.e, political) context to the black and Niesi MoHs. As the regs stand, the MoH cannot be awarded years/centuries later unless the recipient was originally nominated for the MoH; that apparently did not apply in most such cases. It definitely did not apply in the most recent Vietnam award, which was a DFC (though the helo pilot dang sure rated the MoH!) Rickenbacker's MoH likewise was a DSC originally, uprated by congressional supporters.

[Hugh_A._Halliday]

Several items on this thread have struck me. First, although comparing honours of one nation with those of another is often misleading, I have long felt that, for much of their histories, the Victoria Cross and Medal of Honour have been as close as one can come to national equivalents. At various times both have been handed out by the bushel, because few other awards were available, and as new awards were created, the standards for each changed.

That said (and writing as a foreigner), I have been by turns amused and appalled at some Congressional Medals of Honour of late. My principal concern has been the sense that "History did not turn out the way we would now like it to appear, so let us change the history". Hence, well-meaning folk award Teddy Rosevelt the MoH (and when I check an old web site for a 1999 poll I find that American medal collectors and commentators went 50-50 on opposing and supporting this). Other well-meaning folk reach back to award Medals of Honour to blacks and other visible minorities decades after the events. Whether for Teddy or the others, I view such acts as utterly inappropriate, cheapening the honour, corrupting the process, and demeaning to the "recipients".

The sentiment "History be damned - let's change the facts" is not confined to the US, however. There was a report some two years ago that certain Australian politicians were proposing to award not one but THREE newly-minted Australian VCs to people that said politicians felt had been slighted by the British. There was a website devoted specifically to lobbying for a VC to John Simpson (I have not been able to find it for reference in this message, but when I read it the site was a mixture of Brit-bashing and misinformation).

Now if Australians wanted to bastadize the VC in general and their own version of it in particular, that would be their problem alone - but I fear that an Australian "history re-write" would set a precedent for Canadian equivalents. I had not heard the line of "Tommy Prince for VC" (though it would not surprise me), but various journalists have written that Buzz Beurling should have received one, and at least one writer has virtually declared that only his Canadian background seperated John Fauquier from a VC (utter rot !). Meanwhile, I occasionally handle letters in which various folk try to get DFCs for buddies of 55 years past. I have to write to say why these "oversights" happened and why it would be a bad thing to "correct" them.

It was with this in mind that I was horrified when earnest people succeeded two years ago in getting a Dicken Medal for a dog that had been killed at Hong Kong. Revisiting history in this way - even for a dog - makes it difficult to argue against similar "corrections" being attempted on behalf of humans.