walter tull bbc east 22.3.18 6.30pm

[ilkley remembers]

Interestingly, the US appears to have a rather more progressive attitude towards the retrospective award of military honours than we do in the UK. There is also appreciation that racist notions played a prominent role in the past when deciding who received the highest wards.

 

Over the last 30 years or so three men who fought in WW1 have been retrospectively awarded the Medal of Honour for gallantry during WW1: black soldiers Henry Johnson(2015), and Freddie Stowers (1991) and Jewish serviceman William Shemin (2015). In each case there was considerable political and family pressure to have their brave actions reassessed in the light of obvious racist and bigoted views held 100 years ago. In Stowers case the the US military claimed specifically that the a contemporary recommendation for the award of the Medal Of honour had been 'misplaced' and it was only at the intervention of Congress that his papers were discovered. This is redolent of the state of affairs claimed by the Ministry of Defence in the Tull case.

 

Examples of this type of intervention are hard to find in the British army but there is an interesting case from New Zealand in WW2. Maori soldier Haane Maneni was recommended for the award of the VC for his bravery in 1943 during the Tunisian campaign. Such was the strength of his claim that no less than 4 generals (Freyberg, Montgomery, Alexander and Wilson), supported the award of the VC. Yet Maneni's claim was ultimately refused. Following his death after the war, the Maori community campaigned to have the VC awarded retrospectively. The then New Zealand Prime Minister approached the Min. of Defence with the strongest recommendation that the VC be awarded but yet again it was refused. The recommendations for the award were on record yet they chose to use the excuse that the passage of time meant that the VC could no longer be awarded.

 

About three years ago I had a long conversation with MP Tom Watson about the pardoning of British soldiers shot in WW1. He told me that the greatest obstacle to ensuring that legislation was enacted to give these men the justice that they deserved was the attitude of the Ministry of Defence, who were quite incapable of understanding public opinion and exhibited views were more appropriate in the 1950s.

 

In the case of Tull I suspect that the MOD will remain largely out of touch with public opinion and rely on the same arguments that were used in the 'Shot at Dawn' saga to ensure that he is not awarded the MC. 

 

For me , If there is one scintilla of evidence to confirm that Tull was recommended for the the MC after his actions  in Italy then he should be awarded the medal. After all, I am sure that he bloody deserved it.

 

IR

 

 

[stiletto_33853]

3 hours ago, Buffnut453 said:

 

Frankly, I don't care about the retrospective MC issue, although I agree that he shouldn't be awarded it retrospectively just because of the colour of his skin.  However, I find it frustrating at the sniping of several people on this forum, often because Tull was black. 

 

I do not care if he was black or whatever colour he was, he could have been lime green with pink spots. It is what is in that persons head and heart that matters, nothing else.

 

I am sorry but I seem to recall there is not even any evidence he was recommended for the MC apart from one officers letter, and we all know how erroneous they can be sometimes. This issue has been repeatedly pushed forward, there was even a government e-petition a while back, it received just under 1200 signatories, or just over 1% of the required amount to be discussed!!! and yet here we are yet again discussing the man and at Parliamentary level. Now given that this has been pushed several times before and by whom is pushing it,  you tell me their are no political agenda's!!!! racial or otherwise. The last time it was pushed it was because he was the first British coloured officer and the first coloured football player, led a raid, wrong. So if you are going to raise the anti and get people all riled up about this you need to put the truth out there for people to make a considered judgement not on fabrications put forward to obtain your goal i.e a political agenda.

 

Given the circumstances, he was not eligible for the MC under the Royal Warrant covering the medal. So what are we to give everyone a gallantry award??? Today's standards of political correctness and morality should not enter into the equation, this was 100 years ago and should be judged by that time.

Just for the record, although I have been plain about this before, i am against retrospective awards.

 

Personally I find this state of affairs does nothing to an obviously brave and capable man's legacy. There are memorials out there to this man, his story is well known and what good would the award of an MC do now for the man, none.

 

Well there you have it, shoot for all I care, I do not believe this should be awarded.

 

Andy

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, ilkley remembers said:

Interestingly, the US appears to have a rather more progressive attitude towards the retrospective award of military honours than we do in the UK. There is also appreciation that racist notions played a prominent role in the past when deciding who received the highest wards.

 

      Your use of the word "progressive" is tendentious. It seems to mean the view that you support-and that anything that takes a different line is thus the opposite of "progressive" and to be deplored. My stance is one of equality (see first post by me in this thread). Or is "equality"-based on real evidence not "progressive" enough when set against the award of honours retrospectively by a process of who shouts the loudest? 

12 minutes ago, ilkley remembers said:

About three years ago I had a long conversation with MP Tom Watson about the pardoning of British soldiers shot in WW1. He told me that the greatest obstacle to ensuring that legislation was enacted to give these men the justice that they deserved was the attitude of the Ministry of Defence, who were quite incapable of understanding public opinion and exhibited views were more appropriate in the 1950s.

   I cannot respond to what Mr. Watson claims-save,that again, anyone who disagrees with his view is somehow unenlightened and regressive. The administrative regulations regarding the awards of honours after both 1921 and 1948 are of long-standing and have not previously attracted any degree of opposition to their overall practicality and fairness-however hard some cases may seem to have been treated. Again, why should a century of honourable adherence by all to this "drawing the line" be overthrown not on grounds of re-opening or extending the time limits for ALL- rather than just a shouting match for one.

Edited 27 March , 2018 by Guest

[Buffnut453]

30 minutes ago, stiletto_33853 said:

 

I do not care if he was black or whatever colour he was, he could have been lime green with pink spots. It is what is in that persons head and heart that matters, nothing else.

 

I am sorry but I seem to recall there is not even any evidence he was recommended for the MC apart from one officers letter, and we all know how erroneous they can be sometimes. This issue has been repeatedly pushed forward, there was even a government e-petition a while back, it received just under 1200 signatories, or just over 1% of the required amount to be discussed!!! and yet here we are yet again discussing the man and at Parliamentary level. Now given that this has been pushed several times before and by whom is pushing it,  you tell me their are no political agenda's!!!! racial or otherwise. The last time it was pushed it was because he was the first British coloured officer and the first coloured football player, led a raid, wrong. So if you are going to raise the anti and get people all riled up about this you need to put the truth out there for people to make a considered judgement not on fabrications put forward to obtain your goal i.e a political agenda.

 

Given the circumstances, he was not eligible for the MC under the Royal Warrant covering the medal. So what are we to give everyone a gallantry award??? Today's standards of political correctness and morality should not enter into the equation, this was 100 years ago and should be judged by that time.

Just for the record, although I have been plain about this before, i am against retrospective awards.

 

Personally I find this state of affairs does nothing to an obviously brave and capable man's legacy. There are memorials out there to this man, his story is well known and what good would the award of an MC do now for the man, none.

 

Well there you have it, shoot for all I care, I do not believe this should be awarded.

 

Andy

 

Andy,

 

I entirely agree that Vasilli and others are pushing a political agenda.  Please read my other posts where I've been very clear on the criteria I think should be applied IF (and it's a big IF) it can be proved that an individual was refused a gallantry award for unjust reasons.  Given the availability of contemporaneous documentation, I suspect it will be very hard to achieve such a standard of proof...but I'd still like to see the door opened so that true travesties can be corrected for any soldier, sailor or airman of any ethic, religious or social grouping. 

 

I knew nothing of Tull until I saw the piece on the BBC website so, although he's known to some, it's clearly a story that bears repeating.  However, his story needs no embellishment (again, my prior post about the modern demand to insert superlatives into someone's description - first, most, least etc).  I hope the "your goal" you mention is not directed at me but at those who are advocating for awarding him the MC retrospectively...I certainly do not fall into that camp.

 

My primary gripe is with certain forum members who seem to deny that there was any racism in the British Army (eg if there was racism, why was he commissioned? etc).  If embellishing Tull's story does nothing to enrich a brave man's legacy, then surely denying the challenges he overcame does exactly the same...but for even worse reasons?

 

Cheers,

Mark

Edited 27 March , 2018 by Buffnut453

[ilkley remembers]

Your use of the word "progressive" is tendentious. It seems to mean the view that you support-and that anything that takes a different line is thus the opposite of "progressive" and to be deplored.

 

No, I am sure that was not my intention.

rather than just a shouting match for one

 I cannot respond to what Mr. Watson claims-save,that again, anyone who disagrees with his view is somehow unenlightened and regressive

 

 

I am merely putting forward what I hope is a thoughtful point of view based on evidence

 

rather than just a shouting match for one.

 

I'm certainly not shouting

[stiletto_33853]

1 minute ago, Buffnut453 said:

  I hope the "your goal" you mention is not directed at me but at those who are advocating for awarding him the MC retrospectively...I certainly do not fall into that camp.

 

 

 

Cheers,

Mark

Mark, 

 

Most certainly not, my apologies if it came over that way. It was "your goal" as in the people that are pushing this for the umpteenth time.

 

Racism in the British Army, well I would say that he was a little better treated in The Army than he was in civilian life, although undoubtedly there was an element of racism in the Army. I seem to remember that due to the racism of the then Spurs fans he had to be removed to the Reserve's.

 

Andy

[Guest]

  No not shouting- This was not a pointy finger at you personally. I am sure the good citizens of Ilkley may hold off calling Environmental Health to complain of noise pollution indefinitely. We cannot name openly those whose views may be reflective of other agandas due to restrictions on "political" matters. If Tull was treated unfairly and this is within surviving evidence (not just a general weltanschauung against "British" attitudes)- If misconduct by the awarding authorities could be shown specifically, then I,for one, would be  at the head of the queue for the matter to be corrected. But hard evidence is not there,it seems, and speculation is not evidence at the best of times, let alone after a century..

     Where is the fairness to every other British infantry officer who participated in a trench raid or who saw front-line service if one is picked out for  memorialisation other than by dispassionate enquiry into his merits and conduct?

   

  

 

[Buffnut453]

1 minute ago, stiletto_33853 said:

Mark, 

 

Most certainly not, my apologies if it came over that way. It was "your goal" as in the people that are pushing this for the umpteenth time.

 

Racism in the British Army, well I would say that he was a little better treated in The Army than he was in civilian life, although undoubtedly there was an element of racism in the Army. I seem to remember that due to the racism of the then Spurs fans he had to be removed to the Reserve's.

 

Andy

 

Andy,

 

I agree entirely.  Racism was commonplace in British society throughout the Great War and beyond, hence my frustration at those who seek to diminish, explain away or refute our racist past because it, sadly, has echoes that continue in our society to this day.  Tull clearly was a remarkable man and should be remembered.  I'm glad there are memorials to him in Northampton. 

[Moonraker]

10 hours ago, ilkley remembers said:

... If there is one scintilla of evidence to confirm that Tull was recommended for the the MC after his actions  in Italy then he should be awarded the medal. After all, I am sure that he bloody deserved it.

 

IR

As has already been pointed out, many other officers (and no doubt Other Ranks)  are known to have been recommended for awards but did not get them. Presumably in each of these cases there were scintillae of evidence. Why should Walter Tull -  be singled out to receive one now, when there is considerable doubt that he was recommended for one? Because he was black?

 

Moonraker

[roughdiamond]

There is no doubt that there was then as there is one racism in our society, I took part in a discussion on David Lammy's Twitter page on which he refused to reply to the posts pointing out the inaccuracies in his statement on Walter Tull all of which he ignored. One contributor was rather forthright in their views and a look at their post history showed not only anti-black but anti-semitic posts.

 

There are documented mentions in memoires and letters of Regular Officers looking down on Officers who'd enlisted for the duration (temporary gentlemen) and even more so when they were raised from the ranks.

 

What rankles is the repetition by Vasili of claims which have been pointed out for a number of years are wrong and should therefore be treated as deliberate lies.

 

[stiletto_33853]

How strange that Lammy refused to answer regarding the inaccuracies, was he not the MP that got 130 MP's to sign a petition in the House. If he was an honourable man without an agenda he would have withdrawn that petition immediately he was made aware of any inaccuracies until such time as it could be investigated fully.

 

Andy

[ilkley remembers]

I am sure the good citizens of Ilkley may hold off calling Environmental Health to complain of noise pollution indefinitely.

 

GUEST, the  Environmental Health Dept. of Bradford MDC are frequently  visitors to Ilkley especially to deal with the weeping and wailing which accompanies the  failure of Betty's Tea Rooms to provide sufficient quantities of that great Yorkshire delicacy the 'fat rascal'.

 

On a more serious note I appreciate your argument that many officers and other ranks deserved awards for there efforts in incidents for which they did not receive recognition. However, I would respectfully propose that this is insufficient reason to oppose the award of the MC to Tull. Here I would argue, applying the same logic that the US use, that we have to accept in the first instance that 100 years ago, attitudes towards and decisions about black people were motivated by racism. Making this assumption is not that  difficult particularly given the widespread existence of racist attitudes amongst British society then and to some degree now, that has been pretty well documented. 

 

Yes I would support the award of the MC to Tull because it sends out a message that in the last 100 years attitudes towards black people have changed and it symbolises the debt which we owe to all those soldiers of black heritage who helped Britain in WW1

 

 

[ilkley remembers]

11 hours ago, Moonraker said:

As has already been pointed out, many other officers (and no doubt Other Ranks)  are known to have been recommended for awards but did not get them. Presumably in each of these cases there were scintillae of evidenc

Well I suppose that the fairly obvious answer to this view is that those who want retrospective  awards of MCs etc should do exactly as Vasilli did and write a book, approach lots of MPs and ensure that their respective case is well publicised in newspapers. In short, as they say "the ball is in their court."

 

11 hours ago, Moonraker said:

Because he was black

I think that this type of comment has been made on a couple of occasions during this thread. Well rather that dwell on the rather obvious problems with it, can I highlight the irony that there is a possibility that Tull was denied the award of the MC because he was black and now apparently he is being singled out for the award because he was...er...black

Edited 28 March , 2018 by ilkley remembers

[Guest]

 

32 minutes ago, ilkley remembers said:

applying the same logic that the US use, that we have to accept in the first instance that 100 years ago, attitudes towards and decisions about black people were motivated by racism.

 

   I regret that I cannot concur with what you say. There is no evidence  at all that Tull was improperly denied  an award for gallantry. I do not concur that what the Americans have done is "logic".  I would point out 3 things:

 

1)  A retrospective award done at the behest of those who shout the loudest devalues all of the awards for gallantry made during the war- that history can be "revised" by the volume of the mob is not good enough reason for me to think that Tull should be an exception

 

2) I would not support an award for Tull unless any other person who served in  the Great War is open to an award TO THE SAME CRITERIA AS IS BEING USED NOW FOR TULL BY HIS SUPPORTERS.    I regard this as unlikely to happen.

 

3)  A retrospective award to Tull imputes dishonourable conduct and racism by Tull's CO  and those above him in the chain of army seniority who considered recommendations for gallantry.  There is not the slightest shred of evidence that anyone concerned in the process of awards for gallantry  at the time acted improperly.

    Generalised statements that all Britons were racist and dishonourable  do not address the specific matter of Tull. I regret that I do not believe that awards of gallantry should be decided by the machinations of the kindergarten- that if diddums shouts loud enough, then diddums gets what he/she wants. I am not allowed to  put a name to Diddums  but it is not a knock at you- possibly,just possibly, against someone  about 3 miles from where I live

 

(PS-A Yorkshire fat rascal is something I have savoured in past years- passable to a Devonian such as myself in the absence of saffron cake or Devonshire Cream Tea)

 

 

[ilkley remembers]

GUEST, I suppose that you and I are not going to agree as to whether or not walter Tull deserved the MC but, nevertheless, I appreciate the quality of your view and would say that they are rather more cogent than some of the comments on this thread.

 

I can accept that some of the more noted players in this national saga are using Tull to promote both personal and political agenda and this is unwelcome. However, the use of term like 'mob' or allusions to  the kindergarten don't substantially add to the case against awarding the MC to Tull. Clearly, there is a momentum building about the possibility of this award and I wouldn't underestimate the political will that now is calling for his recognition.  

 

The arguments that both you and others have cited relating to the inappropriateness of a retrospective award of the MC to Tull are no doubt valid but decisions may well be made  using different criteria to the purely military ones. 

[roughdiamond]

1 hour ago, ilkley remembers said:

Yes I would support the award of the MC to Tull because it sends out a message that in the last 100 years attitudes towards black people have changed and it symbolises the debt which we owe to all those soldiers of black heritage who helped Britain in WW1

 

Below is the criteria for the award of a MC during WW1: -

"Awarded for an act or acts of exemplary gallantry during active operations against the enemy on land, to captains or officers of lower rank up to warrant officers".

No mention of what you suggest "tokenism" or "vitrue signalling", it's a gallantry award that requires a written citation checked and approved at increasing ranks in the chain of command, not one iota of evidence exists other than a letter from a fellow 2nd L/t who wrote to a bereaved brother that "he deserved it". Anyone with military service knows that Soldiers will "talk up" a bereaved comrade to their family and will assure them "he was killed instantly and didn't suffer".

 

I attended one such funeral for a mates Brother, his CO made it sound as if he was the greatest guy in the Bn till my mate cornered him later and asked "If you rated him that highly, why after 14 years was he still a L/Cpl and in 12 I've made Sgt"?

 

Sam

Edited 28 March , 2018 by roughdiamond

[Guest]

On 28/03/2018 at 22:51, ilkley remembers said:

GUEST, I suppose that you and I are not going to agree as to whether or not walter Tull deserved the MC but, nevertheless, I appreciate the quality of your view and would say that they are rather more cogent than some of the comments on this thread.

 

I can accept that some of the more noted players in this national saga are using Tull to promote both personal and political agenda and this is unwelcome. However, the use of term like 'mob' or allusions to  the kindergarten don't substantially add to the case against awarding the MC to Tull. Clearly, there is a momentum building about the possibility of this award and I wouldn't underestimate the political will that now is calling for his recognition.  

 

The arguments that both you and others have cited relating to the inappropriateness of a retrospective award of the MC to Tull are no doubt valid but decisions may well be made  using different criteria to the purely military ones. 

 

     If retrospective awards for gallantry are made for reasons other than those set out in the regulations currently and previously set out and applicable to all recommendations, then-really-what is the point of having them?   There appears to be a great deal of evidence that all those involved in the process of awards for gallantry at the time acted with scrupulous care.  Yes, there are always hard cases where either some at the time or some subsequently  contested that someone was hard done by. I regret that Walter Tull does not seem to come within this remit. A MID seems entirely consistent with what he did leading a patrol out and retrieving his men safely. My experience of those whom I have had the privilege to research is that something more than just coming back with all your men was required-perhaps rescuing or safeguarding under enemy fire. I have a local casualty whose first MC citation is for an action reasonably similar to Tull- with the addition that he engaged the enemy to secure the return of all his men (Captain J.S.Calder., MC and Bar, 1/5 London Rifle Brigade).  

    Alas, what was regarded as a commonplace to the men of the Great War  seems exceptional to us in our time-   but I think we must gauge awards for gallantry  against the standards of that time. When all is said and done, an award for gallantry must command the respect of one's fellows. That is what they are for- to make the man an exemplar.Whether Walter Tull  receives an award or not has little,if nothing, to do with the colour of his skin. It would seem that History can be revised for purposes other than strict accuracy and impartiality of the records. The memory of ALL those who served in the Great War should not become a football for the  non-historical agendas of some.

   ( I have a vision of what "Old Bill" would have made of all of this- I suspect that Bairnsfeather may have had some rather trenchant "solider's  words" about it. And I doubt if Old Bill's view of politicians was much different back then either-ie unprintable)

 

[stiletto_33853]

It just does not stop does it. When are these people with a political agenda gong to tell the truth

This is the very thing that I find does nothing for Walter's legacy, hence despite trying to promote the man honestly they bring some aspect of derision on that mans memory for lying.

Ilkley, I take your point, however  I for one would hate to see the US system used where people seek votes to obtain a soldier an honour by canvassing overseas forums, sites etc hence bolstering signatures from people of a foreign Nationality who may not fully aware of events or criteria for a particular award. That to me is false.

See Mr. Lammy is still using "The first black officer in the British Army" (note the date) which is not accurate or true. Nice to see an honest British politician coming out with yet more BS

 

Edited 29 March , 2018 by stiletto_33853

[LarsA]

But no evidence has been shown for him being MID? Please show the Gazette in question, if not it is fake news and wrong evidence.

 

Lars

[Guest]

Just now, LarsA said:

But no evidence has been shown for him being MID? Please show the Gazette in question, if not it is fake news and wrong evidence.

 

Lars

 

    I stand corrected on this. Thank you. I have yet to see the new edition of Paul Vasili's book to see what is  the SP at the moment.

[Buffnut453]

17 minutes ago, LarsA said:

But no evidence has been shown for him being MID? Please show the Gazette in question, if not it is fake news and wrong evidence.

 

Lars

 

It seems CWGC is happy to state that Tull was awarded the MiD:

 

https://www.cwgc.org/learn/news-and-events/news/2018/03/23/09/23/casualties-of-spring-1918-second-lieutenant-walter-tull

[roughdiamond]

43 minutes ago, Buffnut453 said:

 

It seems CWGC is happy to state that Tull was awarded the MiD:

 

https://www.cwgc.org/learn/news-and-events/news/2018/03/23/09/23/casualties-of-spring-1918-second-lieutenant-walter-tull

 

Looking at the National Archives Medal Cards and not the Ancestry ones only, he has one MIC which makes no mention of a MiD, if not on that card there should be a separate one for a MiD.

 

As Lars says above, if there's no LG entry for a MiD, there is no MiD.

 

Sam

 

Sam

[Guest]

I stand corrected by the above 2 posts..........   I think.

      I had taken Tull's MID from the CWGC blurb on him-which seems to quote an actual wording. I note that this is repeated in various other publications. Including a history of Walter Tull and Clapton Football Club (local to me) -which says:

"Walter led his men, at the Battle of Piave on the Italian Front, through extreme weather conditions and brought his troops back safetly without a single casualty. Walter was mentioned in dispatches for his “gallantry and coolness under fire.” "

      There are several authors given for this work. - including one Phil Vasili.   

 

2 points on this-  

1)  I cannot trace an LG entry for Tull MID.  I will endeavour to go back to basics and see what there is-including both editions of Vasili's main biography of Tull. If neither the MID or evidence of recommendation for MC can be verified, then the faint odour of Rattus Rattus may start to drift in.

 

2) In fairness to Tull and Vasili- lack of MID mention in LG is nothing new. I have had to correct CWGC on this before now and there are some MIDs that I simply cannot trace in LG. The whole system of recording MIDs in LG during the Great War was one almighty mess.

 

    If any GWF member has the references Vasili gives for either MID or recommendation for MC, then please post them-or,if in an earlier thread, post the link.  

 

PS I note that the Right Honourable David Lammy MP refers to a MID in his letter to the Prime Minister of 23rd March 2018,  helpfully posted above.............   oops.  A member sworn  of the Council is of course to be believed.

Edited 29 March , 2018 by Guest

[Gareth Davies]

On 28/03/2018 at 22:51, ilkley remembers said:

GUEST, I suppose that you and I are not going to agree as to whether or not walter Tull deserved the MC but, nevertheless, I appreciate the quality of your view and would say that they are rather more cogent than some of the comments on this thread.

 

I can accept that some of the more noted players in this national saga are using Tull to promote both personal and political agenda and this is unwelcome. However, the use of term like 'mob' or allusions to  the kindergarten don't substantially add to the case against awarding the MC to Tull. Clearly, there is a momentum building about the possibility of this award and I wouldn't underestimate the political will that now is calling for his recognition.  

 

The arguments that both you and others have cited relating to the inappropriateness of a retrospective award of the MC to Tull are no doubt valid but decisions may well be made  using different criteria to the purely military ones. 

 

For the sake of clarity in my tiny little mind, which action are you saying that Walter Tull took part in but was denied the MC - which action is it that you want him retrospectively awarded the MC?

[Moonraker]

13 hours ago, roughdiamond said:

... not one iota of evidence exists other than a letter from a fellow 2nd L/t who wrote to a bereaved brother that "he deserved it". Anyone with military service knows that Soldiers will "talk up" a bereaved comrade to their family and will assure them "he was killed instantly and didn't suffer"....

A reproduction of a letter from Second-Lieutenant Pickard to Tull's family does use the word "recommended".

 

Daily Mail

 

We now need David Lammy et al to produce evidence of the MID, and of course the MP is mistaken in writing that "Walter's race was clearly a factor in explaining why he was never awarded a Military Cross".

 

Moonraker