posthumous VC wanted for 14-18 hero

[cockney steve]

Gentlemen (and Ladies ) I don't often ask of people but I recently had an email from a friend who is related to the deceased.
Briefly, volunteers were sought to retrieve guns , under enemy fire.
Benjamin G. Cobey was killed...his compatriots in the recovery were all awarded the VC......was Ben ignored because he was illegitimate?

100 years is a long time to right a wrong.
Anyone who signs into AARSE, please post this request there.

full details :- http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/david-cameron-award-posthumous-victoria-cross-to-benjamin-g-cobey

Thanks for your time to read....steve.

[SASless]

Sounds like a well deserved Award.....as everyone else was decorated for exactly the same conduct less being killed in the effort. I sincerely hope you succeed.:ok:

My Grand Father was nominated for the Medal of Honor....but due to being a Private.....he wound up with the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC). Had he been an NCO or Officer he would have received the Award based upon comparison of his actions to those of similar actions and subsequent Awards.

The System can be very fickle sometimes.:mad:

[air pig]

SASless,

Maybe another brave man who should have been awarded the nations highest military honour. Again despite a campaign it has been refused. Politics intervening again.

Talaiasi Labalaba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talaiasi_Labalaba)

[Tankertrashnav]

I make no comment on Ben Cobey's case because the facts put before us are very scant. On the basis of what we have been told we can't make an educated judgement on whether or not this man deserved a VC. The fact that he was in the company of three others who did receive it, is not, in itself, a reason for getting the award, although I am not saying that he might not have been deserving of it. On that basis (but not for that reason alone) I shan't be signing the petition.

Labalaba's case is interesting, because at the time (1972) the only two military bravery awards which could be awarded posthumously were the VC and and MID. It wasn't until much later (1992 I think) that the rules were changed so that "lesser" awards, such as the MC, DFC etc could be awarded posthumously. This if he just "missed" a VC for whatever reason, then the MID was the only alternative, whereas today a posthumous CSC might have been awarded.

Personally I've always viewed retrospective awards as being in the same area as retrospective pardons (eg Alan Turing) and apologies for historical wrongs - (slavery, colonialism etc). They do nothing for the individuals concerned, who are of course dead, and are usually an attempt to impose modern thinking on historical circumstances.

Probably not a popular opinion, but hey ho!

[SASless]

AP,

Wasn't there a Documentary or some kind of film or TV program about that fight? I recall seeing something....Tales of the SAS or something like that?

Some of the video in this reminds me of that film I watched a long time ago.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLk-21HXEjw

[Archimedes]

TTN, I'm minded to agree. There is conflicting information out there about Dvr Cobey, some of which suggests that he may well have died prior to the actual act of recovering the gun - this may have made a difference.

He was not denied the VC because he had died (Reynolds' award was gazetted alongside at least one posthumous VC), and I rather doubt, given the background of some of those awarded the VC prior to 1914 that the marital status of his parents would've come into it (had it been known).

I think I'm right in saying that the removal of the bar on posthumous awards came before 1992; John Hamilton (Green Howards and 22 SAS) was awarded a posthumous MC in the Falklands honours and awards list.

And the question of reopening awards is a very awkward one, differing considerably, IMHO, from that of campaigns for recognition for Bomber Command and the Arctic Convoys.

There is (or was) a campaign to award Blair 'Paddy' Mayne a VC; should John Sherwood's case be re-examined, given that we know that his actions during the Augsburg raid were deemed worthy enough for a VC, but that the recommendation was accompanied by the proviso that the award be a DSO if information arrived that he was a PoW prior to gazetting of the announcement of a VC (which it did, of course)? And as noted by air pig, the case of Labalaba would have to be reopened - as, more pertinent to this board, would have to be the case of LAC Reynolds, whose presence in the Battle alongside Donald Garland and Thomas Gray was not recognised by any form of award.

In any event, I think that more detail is required in this case (whether the book written by the petition's originator tells us more, I don't know) before anyone can say whether an injustice was done in the awarding process.

[air pig]

TTN and Archimedes,

Interesting comments, whilst I do agree with you about a retrospective view of history I do think there is always a place to honour a man who has served and died in battle. Labalaba's bravery is well documented, but I do take the point about re-opening old cases. My politics point was that this was a war with very little publicity and knowledge of the general public.

Politicians apologising is at best disingenuous, in my view, for previous history and at worst an attempt to make political capital from a section of the electorate for a period of history.

There was a successful campaign in 2006 to pardon all those executed in World War 1, regardless of circumstances of their sentence of execution, again trying to equate the circumstances then and now is fraught with difficulty. The books published make interesting reading. Men, in my opinion who should never have been executed, were, adjudged by the values and knowledge at the time. Our knowledge of the effects of battle on a man was then primitive and the concept of 'shell shock, battle shock' and acute psychiatric disturbance in the field was a diagnosis little known about and frowned upon by other doctors and senior officers. As we know PTSD is now a recognised post battle diagnosis.

Shot at Dawn: Executions in World War One by Authority of the British Army Act by Julian Putkowski and Julian Sykes

Blindfold and Alone: British Military Executions in the Great War by John Hughes-Wilson and Cathryn M Corns

I apologise, if I appear to be conflating two different subjects.

[GreenKnight121]

However, Ttn & a_p, there are many documented cases of well-deserved awards being short-stopped due to politics, racism, and class-consciousness... not to mention personal animus on the part of seniors, lost documents/witness accounts, and so on.

Should these continue to be denied just because a small number of politically-motivated awards have been made?


One example would be General MacArthur's "don't give awards to the Marines, they get too much publicity already" comment in regards to award recommendations in Korea.

[Wensleydale]

Where do we stop? There are many people who we think should have been awarded a VC but missed out. A few have already been mentioned, and I would add W/C Warburton (of Malta) to that list although at the time he was openly living with his girlfriend on the Island despite having a wife back in the UK.


Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but let the history rest... after all, the eye witnesses are no longer with us and nothing can really be gained from this.


(Now about me getting a retrospective OBE for my work in 1991).

[Heathrow Harry]

I'm with Wensleydale here - once we start going back and handing out medals everyone who ever served anywhere will be up for one...

leave the past to the past

[Icare9]

I've always had the opinion that the really brave don't seem to want medals to recognise their actions, mainly saying they "only did it to save a man, avoid someone else having to do it" as against those wanting medals to show they were "there".

I'm sure there are known cases where thousands of men (and women) did something extraordinarily brave but did it because it was the right thing to do. Some perished, often without surviving witnesses to their heroism. But to hand out thousands seems to diminish the act. I mean no disrespect to our American friends, but there seems to be an abundance of award ribbons, are so many necessary for self esteem?

To me it seems as if the "trio" of WW1 medals (as an example) the Star (of whatever date) was for those volunteering to be there, the British War and Victory were for being there, as they were issued to all who served Overseas.

There's no black and white clear definition, there are so many shades of grey.
I salute all in our Armed Services and fervently hope they never need to demonstrate the courage (that I probably lack) to deserve any award. Your service alone earns my respect and appreciation.

I also know that cometh the time, cometh their courage too. I leave it to their peers to judge what form of recognition that may take. It's too late in many of the quoted cases but their courage is unchanged whether a medal was received or not.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

would have to be the case of LAC Reynolds, whose presence in the Battle alongside Donald Garland and Thomas Gray was not recognised by any form of award.

I've always though this manifestly unfair also, but Garland got the VC for leading the attack, and Gray's was for navigating the formation. Reynold was just the poor bastard sitting in the back. If all the crew were to be awarded then all those in Lord's Dakota, Trigg's Liberator or Esmonde's Swordfish, for example, would be VC holders. Instead, they get nothing, but they're just as dead.

I have also shaken my head at the bravery, almost always unrecognized, of those crews who have waited in line during an attack, watching the preceding crews get shot out of the sky, but still running in when it was their turn, knowing, unlike the first crews, that it is almost certain death. Generally, the first crew gets the decorations.

I did read somewhere that when it came down to which of two men who had carried out an act of courage together got the VC, it was the senior man as the other was then adjudged to be effectively just carrying out orders, and thus had no choice. Not always the case, but seems to explain the decorations most times, especially in times past.

[Trim Stab]

it was the senior man as the other was then adjudged to be effectively just carrying out orders, and thus had no choice. Not always the case, but seems to explain the decorations most times, especially in times past.

If you read some of the VC citations for officers in WW1, some of them seem to be because they led their men out over the top in an attack, instead of just ordering them over the top while they stayed behind in the trenches, "encouraging" the laggers with a pistol.

[thing]

I did read somewhere that when it came down to which of two men who had carried out an act of courage together got the VC, it was the senior man as the other was then adjudged to be effectively just carrying out orders,There's an article in this month's Flypast about the Garland/Gray award. Apparently Reynolds wasn't awarded a gong because he 'wasn't part of the decision making process.'

I make no comment on that and I certainly don't want to detract from their collective heroism. I was staggered to learn of the overall Battle losses in France; I knew they lost a lot but I didn't realise how many.

As an aside, the VC is awarded for 'valour in the face of the enemy'. Doesn't mention being part of the decision making process.

[Wensleydale]

The other thing to note about the Fairey Battle VC is that Reynolds was not officially aircrew! Gunners were volunteers from the ground branches (often armourers) who volunteered for "extra duties" and received a small amount of flying pay and the brass flying bullet arm badge. Indeed, they were often seen as shirking their primary duties by their superiors and it was not unknown for them to "return to work" following a sortie. It is therefore not surprizing that only the "aircrew" received the VC as decision makers, with the gunner seen as being "part of the aircraft and along for the ride". I believe that official aircrew gunners did not come into service until the end of the year.


As for S/L Sherwood on the Augsburg raid. The reason that Nettleton was awarded the VC was that he was under orders that he could abandon the raid should he loose any aircraft in a Vic of 3 because of loss of gun protection. In the event, the Waddington formation was intercepted by Bf-109s and 4 of the 6 were shot down quite early in the operation. Nettleton decided that he and his wingman (John Garwell) should continue a further 2 hours into enemy territory in daylight despite these losses. Sherwood, leading the 97 Sqn formation, had a trouble free run into the target and was shot down by flak over Augsburg. His aircraft was seen to explode on impact and he was presumed dead. It was believed that he deserved an award but the awarding board were reluctant to award a VC although this was the only possible award he could be awarded (except MiD which was considered inappropriate). Therefore, the paperwork was annotated "recommend the award of VC unless shown to have survived". As luck would have it, Sherwood was catapulted through the glass of his cockpit when his aircraft exploded and his fall was arrested by a small tree - although badly injured he survived to become a POW and was therefore awarded a DSO for his leadership. In effect, Sherwood carried out his orders as instructed while Nettleton continued on in adversity - hence the awards received.

[Tankertrashnav]

I mean no disrespect to our American friends, but there seems to be an abundance of award ribbons, are so many necessary for self esteem?




It should be remembered that The Medal of Honor, their equivalent to the Victoria Cross also has very stringent conditions for its award. It has been awarded fewer than 3,500 times since its inception in 1860, and over 1500 of these were given in the American Civil War as no other gallantry medal existed at that time.

The Victoria Cross has been awarded just over 1350 times in a similar period, and given the large disparity in numbers between respective armed forces I would say the difference in the figures is understandable.

Re who gets the medal? A friend of mine has an AFC for a particular sortie. His crew all got a Queen's Commendation, but I doubt if any of them moaned and as a nav I'd have seen nothing unfair in the captain getting the medal while I just got an oakleaf. After all, if it had all gone pear-shaped it would have been his neck on the block, not mine!