|
For persons interested in the "politics" of the Victoria Cross, an absolute "must read" is M.J. Crook, THE EVOLUTION OF THE VICTORIA CROSS (Tunbridge Wells, Midas Books, 1975). For a rather narrower slant on the subject, you might consult an article, "VC or Not VC: Bestowing a Battlefield Icon" which appeared in CANADIAN MILITARY HISTORY, Volume 5 No.2 (Autumn 1996). Canadian readers of this forum are particularly recommended to subscribe to CANADIAN MILITARY HISTORY, published by the Laurier Centre for Military, Strateic and Disarmament Studies, Wilfred Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario. Addressing the gentleman who ascribed Collishaw's not receiving a VC to his Pacific Coast origins, this is simply wrong. During the First World War the Canadian government was almost totally indifferent to all things aeronautical, whether in Canada or overseas. Any actions to recommend a Canadian for an air award would have been taken at the command levels within the British flying services. The claim that naval airmen were in some way discrimated against, vis-a-vis the RFC, should perhaps be investigated further. Without going into extended research, I know of at least two RNAS VC awards (Warneford and Bell-Davies); were there any others ? Whether the RNAS got two or more VCs, were the numbers of such awards disproportionate to the size of the RNAS compared to the RNAS ? And since a VC could not be awarded unless somebody first RECOMMENDED a person for said award, are there known (i.e. documented) instances of RNAS aircrew being recommended for the VC and having it downgraded to a DSO ? If downgraded, by whom ? This is important, for if a recommendation for an RNAS VC was downgraded at, let us say, Headquarters, Dover Command, then it would be due to internal RN/RNAS policies - not to RNAS/RFC rivalries. I mention this because of a story related to me by the late John Chown, who said that on many occasions in both world wars, members of the Royal Artillery and Royal Canadian Artillery, about to be overrun, would call down fire on their own positions. Admiring infantry officers, seeing this, would recommend a VC - superior artillery officers would downgrade it because artillery personnel were routinely trained and instructed to call down fire on their own posts when such desperate measures were needed - in other words, the artillery considered such heroism as just part of the job ! So perhaps the RNAS had a similarly conservative view of what constituted exceptional gallantry. More research and substantiation, please.
|