|
MOH
Aug 9, 2006 16:35:36 GMT -6
Post by Diane Merkel on Aug 9, 2006 16:35:36 GMT -6
;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 9, 2006 16:47:49 GMT -6
Post by analyst on Aug 9, 2006 16:47:49 GMT -6
DC: Your basic problem is you do not believe anyone is a hero. This likely stems from being so immoral you don't believe anyone can be truly moral and upright, I rather feel sorry for you. You know all the negatives and none of the positives of life, tragic! MacArthur never accepted any bribes period. Had he done so he would have been prosecuted. This is an old canard from the 40's like having a pile of stocks he took with him when he left the PI. After 12/7 he never left the PI until Roosevelt and Eisenhower pretty much tricked him into leaving to take command of a non-existant American army in Australia. Never heard of your Mexican tale. Probably much more to it than you imagine. Take a look at run out PT boats trying to roundevous with a tight fitting sub to take a light aircraft to Australia and try to figure out just how many wounded could youcould take, Mr. tactical genius. Three PT's started, one broke down while they dodged Japanese destroyers. Cash had nothing to do with it. To compare Kimmel and Short with a MacArthur truly points up just how ignorant you really are! American stategy in 1941 in the far east was to abandon the PI and the American/Phillipino Armies! This came from the highest levels. Their problem was how to get out their best general who had decided to commit suicide with his men! They ordered him out, didn't work! So they lied to him! They claimed all kinds of ships and aircraft were on the way with supplies and reinforcements, all proved impossible to supply. Then they promised a non-existant army to come back and relieve his command to entice him out, and it worked. The Japanese had about six million army troops. MacArthur had about 20,000 soldiers and Phillipine scouts He was quickly assembling a Phillipine army of about 80,000, mostly untrained recruits. The British Malay Peninsula collapsed so what was there to do except stand and die. MacArthur was fully prepared to accept it. Wainwright was ordered to surrender which he did. He was promoted to general over the radio by Marshall shortly before the order. Had MacArthur been present he probably would not have surrendered. Actually, MacArthur would have been left to die in the PI by Eisenhower and Marshall had it not been for the intervention of the Australians. The continent of Australia lay directly in the way of the Japanese army. Britain had managed to obtain Australia's 3 division army to use in Africa. Australia demanded them back, muy pronto! Orders were being cut for their return even to the point of seizing ships. So the powers that be cut a deal! Australia would not ask for their troops right away if they were given America's best general with American troops to follow. So began the journey of Douglas MacArthur's return. The journey from Cagyan involved repairing defective superchargers. They spent three days there dodging Japanese Zeros. Here it was rumoured the mattress for his son was stuffed with greenbacks. This of course, was as false as the rest of the bribe allegations. The only way the party could continue was to abandon all their luggage including the mattress which only had ticking in it. The MacArthur family arrived in Australia with only the clothes on their back! This is all substantiated in "American Caesar" by Manchester. As to some Mexican MOH I find no record for Douglas MacArthur. I do however, find: "The President of the United States in the name of congress takes pleasure in presenting the Medal of Honor to MacArthur, Douglas Rank and organization: General, US Army, Commanding US Army Forces in the far east. Place and Date: Bataan Peninsula, PI. 1,April42. For conspicuous leadership in preparing the PI to resist conquest, for gallantry and interpidity above and beyound the call of duty in action against invading Japanease forces, and for the heroic conduct of defensive and offensive operations on the Bataan Peninsula. He mobilized, trained, and led an army which recieved world acclaim for its gallant defense against a tremendous superiority of enemy forces in men and arms. His utter disregard of personal danger under heavy fire and aerial bombardment, his calm judgement in each crisis, inspired his troops, galvanized the spirit of resistance of the Filipino people, and confirmed the faith of the American people in their armed forces. It's a shame what you did with your life compared to this man, you really are not fit to polish his boots. Don't thank me for pointing out your mistakes, misrepresentations and outright lies! It was a pleasure!
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 9, 2006 16:56:29 GMT -6
Post by analyst on Aug 9, 2006 16:56:29 GMT -6
Elizabeth: Did not read your last post before I posted. No, experience is certainly not the only arbiter of truth, but as someone said it is a deep teacher. And only a fool would ignore it. I do however, object to the out and out lies of some, and their immature cheering section. I also do not like to see genuine American heroes held up as common thieves with no substantiation or very poor citation. If I am guilty of that I stand convicted. I will now go to other endeavors, the research was stimulating.
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 9, 2006 18:29:56 GMT -6
Post by greenpheon on Aug 9, 2006 18:29:56 GMT -6
No doubt its "perfectly fine" for DC or other civilians to call it the CMH but it is a military medal and a civilian nickname, it is none-the-less wrong. The title of the medal is the Medal of Honor. Nothing more, nothing less.
Greenpheon
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 9, 2006 18:55:27 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 9, 2006 18:55:27 GMT -6
Of course, the real shame was MacArthur, after leaving Wainwright to his fate, refused to recommend him for a MOH after the surrender, saying others had done more (apparently having someone in mind.....). He in fact seems to have disapproved of the surrender. Eisenhower noted that Wainwright had done the fighting while "another got such glory as the public could find in the operation." Later, in 1945 when George Marshall himself insisted, Wainwright got it.
The 22k US regulars, 3k members of Philippine constables, and the 107k man Philippine Army were somehow overwhelmed, despite years of MacArthur's bragging and training, by 43k men of the Japanese invasion. So, MacArthur starts off with casualties in his column of 132k in killed, captured, wounded, or missing, but unavailable for combat. Somehow, that never gets counted when the stats are compiled. He gets to start over.
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 9, 2006 20:14:51 GMT -6
Post by markland on Aug 9, 2006 20:14:51 GMT -6
No doubt its "perfectly fine" for DC or other civilians to call it the CMH but it is a military medal and a civilian nickname, it is none-the-less wrong. The title of the medal is the Medal of Honor. Nothing more, nothing less. Greenpheon Green, I think the below quote explains why it is called the Congressional Medal of Honor. However, I just looked through the 1995 Army Service Awards manual and it only calls it the Medal of Honor. Billy "The Medal of Honor is the highest medal awarded by the United States. It has only been awarded 3,428 times in the nation's history. Below is an excerpt of the Army regulation that describes the eligibility criteria for award of the Medal of Honor... a. The Medal of Honor [Army], section 3741, title 10, United States Code (10 USC 3741), was established by Joint Resolution of Congress, 12 July 1862 (amended by acts 9 July 1918 and 25 July 1963). b. The Medal of Honor is awarded by the President in the name of Congress to a person who, while a member of the Army, distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his comrades and must have involved risk of life. Incontestable proof of the performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for the award of this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit. From chapter 3-6, Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) dated 25 February 1995"
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 10, 2006 15:30:27 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 10, 2006 15:30:27 GMT -6
I believe the primary reason is that it's the only military award given in the name of Congress, which is to say, by Congressional approval and therefore, by extension, the vote of the nation. That alone makes it pretty impressive. Because it grants benefits from the common Treasury, unlike most if not all lesser medals, it's a Congressional item.
Further, the Medal of Honor Society became the Congressionally Chartered CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA under Title 38, USC. in 1958, and it was on July 25, 1963, that Congress demonstrated its authority and amended Titles 10 and 14 of the US Code establishing criteria and guidelines for this award. That from their website.
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 11, 2006 7:23:56 GMT -6
Post by Scout on Aug 11, 2006 7:23:56 GMT -6
I think Elisabeth's use of the word purge is correct. Take a look at the MOH given out in the 1880's during the Indian Wars in the southwest...many were awarded for 'good campaigning'. No battle, no skirmish....it had become, more or less, a good conduct medal for lack of a better word. The origin of the medal was of course, the Anderson raid into Georgia to hijack some rebel trains and burn the rail line all the way to Chattanooga. The survivors of the raid were awarded the medal for their actions. The odd thing is that the leader of the raid, James J. Anderson, did not recieve one because he was a civilian. Also DC, I don't think 'train thieves ' is an appropriate term to use on them. They risked their lives..I know you don't understand that at all, or have any concept of it.
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 11, 2006 9:17:54 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 11, 2006 9:17:54 GMT -6
Of course, you know no such thing. Where do you get off making that accusation? And "train thieves" is kind compared to what else they were called by the Confederates. I doubt you'd challenge a Vet from the South who expressed it the same way, would you? Or a purported Vet in keeping with the fake personas exhibited on these boards often enough.
This goes back to the point of medals. No medals should ever be given for merely "risking their lives." There are some people who get a rush from it, and satisfy that desire by attracting fire and pointlessly risking not only their own but the lives of others and, sometimes, the mission. The mission being "the point." Knowingly risking your own life to save another or many others or the mission is as jaw droppingly impressive as it is totally rare.
The early MOH was an all purpose "way to go!" medal, since there were no others and non-coms and enlisted men couldn't be given brevet rank and reward. It's not to be confused with the very tight and high standards that exist today. The only reason it's discussed here at all is because the medal given to watercarriers and the medal today have the same name. If the lineal heritage of LBH medal was the Bronze Star or the like, nobody would notice or care.
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 11, 2006 22:22:11 GMT -6
Post by rch on Aug 11, 2006 22:22:11 GMT -6
I have to soul of a clerk and remember having to purge files of unneeded materiel. The problem with the word "purge" when associated with an individual, in this case Miles, is that it seemed to me to imply arbitrary and unjust use of power. It sort of like the word "ilk." There's nothing inherently pejorative about the word, but the odds are you"ll never read the phrase, "Nobel Peace Prize winners and others of their iIk." People don't line up to join an ilk.
I am a former member of the 8th U.S. Cavalry and thanks to couple of mass awards of the Medal of Honor the 8th may have more Medals of Honor than any other regiment. As I recall the members of the review board did not question any of the citations. The men who received the medal for "good campaigning" probably kept them.
It should not be a surprise that standards for awarding military decorations evolved. I remember reading in the novel "Paths of Glory" that the French just issued Croix de Guerres to the commanders who then handed them out as they saw fit. The South Vietnamese seemed to handle the basic Gallantry Cross the same way.
A person who gets a "rush" from riskng his life may actually relieve his fellow soldiers of some of their burdens and risks. Such persons are not uniformly stupid or careless. An award for valor usually involves something more than risking your life. It would be a very brave thing to stand at attention during a fire fight, but I don't think you'd get a medal for it beyond a Purple Heart. The motive for a brave man's act doesn't matter to me.
Calling the Andrews Raiders , who by the way included men from the same regiment Tom Custer and Edward Godfrey served in, "train thieves" doesn't do them justice. It sort of puts them in the same category as Jesse James and other crooks. Does anyone know the value in 2006 dollars of a locomotive, tender, and assorted rolling stock? And they did it for their country.
rch
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 12, 2006 4:33:41 GMT -6
Post by elisabeth on Aug 12, 2006 4:33:41 GMT -6
"People don't line up to join an ilk" -- love it!!
I hadn't really intended to start a whole new war in starting this thread, needless to say. What I was hoping to get at was the criteria by which the MOH winners from LBH were selected -- since many more were recommended for it than received it. Does anyone know how the review board in that case made their decisions? Were the choices entirely arbitrary -- "OK, guys, let's take the first x names and drop the rest" -- or were there other factors involved?
It may seem a trivial matter, but there are many things about it that are puzzling. For one: the CMOH website says the review board was restricted to 24 awards, and that's exactly the number listed in Men With Custer. However, the 24 includes Goldin, who, as we know, didn't get his until years later. So is the maximum limit of 24 correct? If it is, is seems odd that they'd stop at 23 at the time.
For another, it seems incomprehensible that of all those involved in the water party, Mike Madden should have been omitted from the list. He was promoted to sergeant, effective June 26th, which was probably a far more useful reward for him than a mere medal; just as Korn's nice job as Comanche's carer was probably more useful to him. But even so, the omissions and inclusions are on the face of it hard to understand. Do they perhaps reflect more effective lobbying by some company commanders than by others? The previous records of the men? The availability or not of other rewards, e.g. promotions, in one company versus another? Or was it all pure chance? Just thinking that it might flesh out officer/men relations a bit if we knew ...
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 12, 2006 17:49:23 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 12, 2006 17:49:23 GMT -6
Given the award meant nothing like it does now, I don't think anyone really cared, except politicos on the make like Goldin.
In All Quiet on the Western Front, there's a reference to the fact you had to be killed to avoid getting an Iron Cross, and when the awards came so easy it was a bad sign.
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 13, 2006 2:55:16 GMT -6
Post by elisabeth on Aug 13, 2006 2:55:16 GMT -6
Agree, those who got it were probably unimpressed; but those who didn't and felt they should have were almost certainly somewhat miffed. It's only human nature.
In Hardorff's Camp, Custer and the Little Bighorn, p. 82, note 6, McGuire tells Camp of his fury over Hanley's failure to credit him in later years for the part he played in recapturing the ammo mule. He says: "When he (Hanley) received his medal at Fort Meade, does he remember having made a remark like this, 'McGuire, you deserve a medal as much as I do, if not more, for you were wounded and I was not.' This remark was made to me by Hanley before the Company." Clearly it's Hanley, rather than the medal, that McGuire's angry about by 1910, but it sounds as if it mattered to both of them at the time ... Not for any intrinsic worth, but as recognition. There was little enough of that coming the way of the average trooper, after all.
Wonder if it counted for anything when they returned to civilian life? Making employers more ready to take them on, or whatever?
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 13, 2006 5:53:04 GMT -6
Post by schrack on Aug 13, 2006 5:53:04 GMT -6
The organization the Congressional Medal of Honor Society is chartered by the U.S. Congress. Do not confuse this with the proper term, The Medal of Honor. George Washington recieved the first of several medals for deeds in action. The Andre Medal was the first for American individual action then to become a " figure of a heart in purple cloth, or silk edged with narrow lace or binding " August ,17 1782 March 1847, there was the Certificate of Merit 1861, the Civil War, the Medal of Honor had its start not for notable gallantry but to boost morale. As wars progressed and deeds of action could be compared, the highest decoration and all medals became rarer. Doug
Above and Beyond, Boston Publishing
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 13, 2006 9:08:43 GMT -6
Post by rch on Aug 13, 2006 9:08:43 GMT -6
There is an article published from the 1989 CBMHA Symposium by Francis Zimowski. Only 22 Medals were originally awarded in Sep and Oct 1878. The medals to Goldin and Callan were awarded in the 1890's. They both applied for it.
The Jan 1990 Research Review has an article by John M. Carrol, who tried to find the original paperwork for the awards. Carroll couldn't find much.
Benteen submitted a list of 6 men, 4 received the medal.
McDougall submitted the names of 8 men with a paragraph long citation for each man. Only 4 of those men received the award. Neither Callan nor Criswell were included in McDougall's recommendations, but we have to remember that the record is fragmentary.
Godfrey, who succeeded Weir as Capt of Company D submitted a list of 11 men of whom only 1 got the medal. Edgerly submitted a list of 4 men; 3 were also on Godfrey's list and didn't receive the medal. Holden, the man not on Godfrey's list, did receive the medal. 6 D Company men who weren't on either list received the medal as water carriers.
Jackson, who succeeded Tom Custer recommended Hanley and Thompson and supplied a paragraph for each. They both received the medal.
Moylan recommended three men with a paragraph long joint citation. They were all water carriers and they all got it. Moylan's recommendations were made in Jun 1878, which suggests that the list may have been pared down to the water carriers.
It appears that the voluntary action of the men involved with the water party eventually began to loom large in the thinking of the men who made the final decisions. This also made it possible for Goldin and Callan to apply for their medals as water carriers. It's not clear from the article whether Carroll looked into the paperwork for these two medals.
rch
|
|