To Decorate, or not to Decorate

[michaeldr]

These are the alcoholic [sauvignon Blanc 2001 Chile - cheap and cheerful, and wonderful with my wife's preparation of Norwegian salmon] ramblings of one who leans to the left, a trick facilitated by the extra weight provided by the chip on the [L] shoulder. Any reader of the Torygraph is advised to change threads now!

Earlier today I was discussing [via this web-site] with Dick Flory, a GSO1 who garnered from Gallipoli a CMG and a MiD, notwithstanding the fact that his GOC considered him "useless."

This brought to mind other classics such as the cases mentioned by Prof Travers pages 190-191 of his "Gallipoli 1915."

He (Captain X of the 8th Batt. the Northumberland Fusiliers) "'gave the order to dig for cover in a ploughed field. He deliberately lost touch with the rest and whilst Passy, Tyrell and Atkins were later fighting, as we should have been, in the front line, Captain X was well dug in, employing half a dozen men in relays with the only shovel available. For 22 hours we lay there while the other Battalions passed through us, Captain X point blanc refusing to move an inch. At about 4 am on the 10th [August] we moved a few hundred yards to the left.......'

Then the Turks attacked, and Captain X was not seen again until 6.00 pm when he was located hiding in a 'donga,' a dry ravine or stream bed. But by 19 August, only two unwounded officers of this battalion remained, one, not surprisingly, being Captain X and the other the medical officer. Strangely Captain X escaped detection, reprimand or court martial, perhaps because there was no one else left to report on his activities. Again, undoubtedly because there was no one left to give decorations to, Captain X was awarded the DSO (Distinguished Service Order) for his work at Suvla. After the war Captain X went on to command a regiment in India.

Another potentially dubious award apparently went to the civilian captain of the hay supply ship 'East Point.' This captain was discovered by Captain Unwin, the hero of 'V' Beach, to have been awarded the DSC [Distinguished Service Cross] for his service off Suvla. But Unwin alleged that he discovered this captain hiding behind some boxes on board his ship, admitting that he could not stand shell fire, and doing nothing to put out a hay fire on board his ship. Unwin took over, and organized putting out the fire. Unwin told the Admiralty that the decoration was unjustly awarded and should be rescinded. It seems that the award stood, and de Roebeck simply remarked that Unwin had a quick temper."

All sorts of variations of various parts of the alphabet were given out to officers who had played whatsoever part in Gallipoli, but to the private soldier [or sailor in the RND] what did HM KGV have to say?

From "Hell's Foundations - A town, Its Myths & Gallipoli" by Geoffrey Moorhouse

"When the Great War was over, plans were afoot to issue a campaign medal to every man who had fought in the Dardanelles: the plans got as far as the production of a ribbon, which combined dark blue for the Navy, red for the Army, yellow for the Australians [the colour of their wattle] and grey-green for the fern-leaf of the New Zealanders. But neither the Gallipoli medal not the ribbon was ever issued, because HM King George V forbade them. "We do not." he is supposed to have said, "issue medals for retreats."

So why, papa George, did so many officers get so much of the alphabet for this "retreat," whilst all my grandfather got was a bit of paper [Certificate for Wounds and Hurts] for a bullet in the neck at Krithia?

If I understand the British press correctly there is about to be another enquiry into the "honours system." Not before time; indeed, only a hundred plus years too late!

As Winston S. Churchill said

"But tomorrow, I will be sober!"

Regards

Michael D.R.

[michaeldr]

An embarrassed silence:

your silence,

and my embarrassment

I am sorry if my irreverence has offended anyone. Offence was not my objective and if any has been caused, then I offer my sincere apologies. However I did hope to be just a little provocative on a subject which I thought was topical at this season.[New Year and another thread elsewhere causing great debate about 'virtual' ranks]

Last week I read A. P. Herbert's "Mons, Anzac and Kut" and Desmond MacCarthey in his introduction refers to Lloyd George's abuse of the honours system. LG is rightly condemned for this, but the question arose in my mind as to how straight, level or fair the system was before he got his hands on it. The armed services used the rewards offered by the honours system to their own ends and although I am not suggesting that they sank to LG's level of abuse, I do think that it is a subject which should not be ignored.

Compton Mackenzie overheard in the mess a junior speaking to a senior officer

"I hear, Sir, that Birdie has got his KCSI."

"Well I'm not surprised," snapped the senior. "He's been writing home for it ever since he came out here."

Travers tells how in October 1915 Godley was disturbed that he could not get a KCB until January 1916. Birdwood was "very sorry indeed." It did not come in January 1916 either and Hamilton was "bitterly disappointed." But all came right in the end and Godley got his KCB later in 1916. However "in what can only be seen as hypocrisy, Godley admonished Major Johnson in December 1915 for complaining about not getting honours and only being made a Brevet Lieutenant Colonel instead of getting a CB. Godley wrote blandly that the aim of every officer should be promotion not decorations."

In view of examples like these then the refusal to grant a campaign medal to those who fought at Gallipoli also seems to me to fall into the hypocrisy category

Thank you for your patience

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Will O'Brien]

An embarrassed silence:

your silence,

and my embarrassment

Michael

There's no need to be embarrassed by your posting.........I for one read it with great interest............my silence was only due to a lack of knowledge on the topic, certainly no offence taken in this household. (Although I do worry for someone who is driven to drink Chilean plonk )

Putting aside my knowledge deficit (it’s never stopped me before), here are my thoughts on the matter.

I have no doubt there were many occasions when awards were made when the circumstances did not warrant it. Although I have never seen such non deserving incidents as the ones you mention, I remember reading about an award of a MM to a soldier for a fictitious act of bravery. The CO of the Battalion was advised by HQ to select a man for the award, this was passed on down the line to a junior officer who couldn't find a suitable act of bravery amongst his men that warranted the medal, so being a resourceful chap he made up an incident & selected a soldier at random to receive the award.........I seem to remember that the piece I read describes the soldier as having a look of bewilderment on his face when the description of 'his act of bravery' was read out. Whilst this was portrayed in a humorous light in the book it was in (for the life of me can't remember the book) it does show that awards & medals went to non deserving people..............in the same vein I have no doubt that many many acts of bravery went unrecognised every day through out the war. I think Gallipoli was no different to any other campaign in this respect.

I too think it is sad & regrettable that no campaign medal was awarded for Gallipoli. However, I am also of the opinion that campaign medals or bars should have been awarded for all the major 'actions' & I have stated this in previous threads. I have heard many reasons for the non issuing of campaign medals/bars for WWI - cost & quantity being the most popular..............but certainly where Gallipoli is concerned I believe the powers that be were embarrassed by it. Embarrassed by the failure & embarrassed by the fact that that failure had been against the Turks (who were seen as a 2nd rate force).....................The easiest way to negate that embarrassment is to ignore the cause of it as much as possible...........something quite easy to do as the 'Horrors of Trench Warfare on the Western Front' was & is so deeply ingrained into the psyche of the general population that other campaigns such as Gallipoli are relegated & seen as of a secondary importance.

[christine liava'a]

you will be pleased to know that NZ did issue a commemorative medallion for Gallipoli, in 1967!

ANZAC Commemorative Medallion

About this medal

The bronze medallion was instituted in 1967 for award to Australian and New Zealand personnel who participated in the Gallipoli campaign in 1915. The medallion itself is not designed to be worn however those personnel who were still alive when the medallion was issued also received a replica lapel badge. Those who claimed the award on behalf of a deceased relative received only the medallion. This medallion is sometime referred to as the Gallipoli Medallion.

[michaeldr]

Will & Christine, many thanks for your replies

I too have heard the cost argument put forward against the issue of campaign medals and I can also sympathise with KGV's remark to a certain extent; this happened at a particularly bad time what with the loss of Kut as well. What upsets my equilibrium is the lack of consistency. If gongs can be dished out to the Staffs, then why cannot the ORs have a campaign medal? If we don't issue medals for a defeat, OK, but then how can we distribute honours to the Staffs?

The inconsistency in the distribution of medals reminds me of another example of inconsistency written of by Joseph Murray of the Hood Batt. RND

"....the Hoods were paraded for the general's [Gen. Paris] inspection; and after saying some nice things, he announced his intention of giving the officers leave to England and the men, if they cared, leave for Malta.

His speech was listened to in silence, but when the acting commander called for three cheers for the general the gallant Hoods gave him the raspberry. The general went pink and in a fit of choler cancelled all leave for the battalion and confined all ranks to camp for seven days."

My sympathies are with the raspberry blowers. If you face the bullets together then why not get the same leave destination or a share of the same recognition. By all means let the Staff have their honours, but at least let the men have a campaign medal at the same time. From the Brits; consistency please! To the authorities in New Zealand & Australia; well done!

Best Regards

Michael D.R.

[ianw]

Of course the other side of the coin is the refusal of certain unit commanders to put up anyone for awards as a matter of principle, believing that officers and men should be brave, competent and hard working as part of the job.

Arthur Behrend in "As From Kemmel Hill" reports that his colonel , A.H Thorp was such an officer. He also describes how a Sergeant gained the Medaille Militaire only because the second in command was commanding when the nomination was requested.

Lt Col. Thorp accepted the C.M.G and D.S.O at the end of the war.

[michaeldr]

Arthur Behrend in "As From Kemmel Hill" reports that his colonel , A.H Thorp was such an officer. He also describes how a Sergeant gained the Medaille Militaire only because the second in command was commanding when the nomination was requested.

Lt Col. Thorp accepted the C.M.G  and D.S.O at the end of the war.

Ian,

Thanks for pointing out the other side of the coin, a position which I can appreciate.

However I am not sure that this can be called an example of consistency

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Tim Birch]

The question of awarding medals and decorations has always been full of unfairness and abuse. The issuing of a galantry award usually requires witnesses to the event, but is wide open to abuse by a more senior (and sometimes jealous) officer or NCO to pass over an individual. Sometimes token decorations are awarded to a selection of officers, NCOs and men from a battalion or company which has overall performed well. Those making the selection may find this a difficult task and may be tempted by favoritism. Alternatively they may rely purely on chance choosing names at random. In such cases Murphies Law probably contrives to ensure that the award goes to an individual who was at the time not up to scratch.

On the question of Campaign Medals men who have endured great danger can be passed over for political reasons eg Government embarrasment at loosing the Gallipoli Campaign, or as in the case of the WW2 Bomber Offensive, because the campaign in which they fought and suffered grievious losses became morally unacceptable by the society they had fought for.

Tim

[munce]

I think it would be inconsistent to issue a campaign medal for Gallipoli and not for the other battles of the war; for whatever reason campaign medals for individual battles were not issued during WW1, and so it seems perfectly consistent that there isn't one for Gallipoli as well. I, like Will, think the authorities should have issued campaign medals for battles and actions in WW1, including Gallipoli, but it would be unfair to give one out for one battle and not for the others. As for awards for individuals, ORs also received gallantry awards during Gallipoli, right? They weren't only handed out to officers. Certainly the various orders and knighthoods, etc, would only have gone to senior officers, but if those officers did what was required to get them, then so be it. It's not that I don't recognise that the system is imperfect, and certainly all those involved were only doing their jobs (some better than others), and it seems unfair that a private doing his job doesn't get the same reward as a general doing his, but in the end that's life. The same thing happens in all spheres of life, in all countries, not just the British military.