• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Victoria Cross winner will not be honored

C

CWOJackson

Charter Member
View attachment 92033

A disturbing story regarding commemorative events of The Great War planned for next year.

A national hero fighter pilot who was the first person to shoot down a Zeppelin will be left off a roll call of First World War Victoria Cross heroes because he was born in India. Sub-Lieutenant Reginald 'Rex' Warneford was awarded the medal for outstanding valour when he was just 23 for the mission. Under government rules he will be excluded from a poignant commemoration next year to mark the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I. His solo mission was celebrated nationally and the country also fell into mourning when he was tragically killed two weeks later. Despite the accolade, his name will not appear on commemorative stone slabs to be laid next year because the government ruled that only servicemen and women born in Britain are eligible.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ctoria-Cross-commemoration.html#ixzz2c4leysNE
 
You know, our friends in the UK, over the past 200 years, spoke of the folly of the "Great Experiment" we undertook here, sometimes pointing out exactly which parts just wouldn't work, or were bad ideas. As an "odd-ball" American, I suppose, these days I read what was said back then and see wisdom... But dang, talk about "tone deaf", geez. This decision is inexplicable, in 2013? What the ****?
 
Here's the Wikipedia entry on Sub-Lieutenant Warneford...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Warneford

He was English, he was educated in England and volunteered to fight for the Empire...he just was born in one of the "colonies".

I could understand this snubbing if there were going to be similar memorial stones placed in the Commonwealth countries in honor of their volunteers who earned the VC, but I don't really imagine India would agree to such an arrangement.

During the war, Britain called on its dominions and colonies, which provided invaluable military, financial and material support. The armies of the Dominions provided over 2.5 million men as well as many thousands of volunteers from the Crown colonies.[SUP][/SUP] The largest number of men came from the Indian sub continent, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Australian Imperial Force (AIF) began forming on 15 August 1914 and remained a volunteer force for the entire war.[SUP][/SUP] Throughout the four years of conflict, 331,814 volunteers from Australia were sent overseas with 63 VCs awarded; nine of these were given for the Gallipoli Campaign. Eleven members of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) were awarded the Victoria Cross. The Canadian Expeditionary Force (CEF) saw over 600,000 enlistments throughout its four-year history with 71 VCs awarded.[SUP][/SUP] At the outbreak of the hostilities, Newfoundland was a separate dominion and 2 soldiers from Newfoundland were awarded the Victoria Cross.
 
Why? This makes no sense to me. It would be like a child of an American military service member who was born in Germany being denied recognition of earning the CMoH. Wasn't this man a British citizen?

Ken
 
take it with a huge mine of salt guys, its the daily wail, about as truthful as saying panthers girls are all natural :icon_lol:
 
Unfortunately, this is just the sort of thing we are having to get used to in the UK. We don't have a single politician, in any party, worth his salt. Or, it could be that our real masters in the EU. have forbidden it. Calling them disgraceful (which they are) just washes right over their heads.
 
stiz said:
take it with a huge mine of salt guys, its the daily wail, about as truthful as saying panthers girls are all natural :icon_lol:
Click to expand...

Spot on stiz. Gents, the Daily Mail is noted for being ....selective ... in what it prints; while there may be some truth in that story I'd be reluctant to accept it at face value, with the Mail's track record in half truths, evasions and outright lies.

Oh, and worth mentioning; if Sub-Lieutenant Warneford had been Indian, rather than an Englishman born in India, that story wouldn't have been run at all.
 
stiz said:
take it with a huge mine of salt guys, its the daily wail, about as truthful as saying panthers girls are all natural :icon_lol:
Click to expand...

These type of newspapers exist in most countries. Either they make up their own news or they use very suggestive headlines.

The trouble is that although everybody thinks these newspapers are not worth the paper they are printed on, they are often the best selling newspapers, as they are very easy to read. And a part of their fresh made up news keeps circling in your brain and in they end you almost start to believe what they are saying.

Cheers,
Huub

BTW I don't think you "win" a VC, winning is something you do in the lottery.
 
stiz said:
take it with a huge mine of salt guys, its the daily wail, about as truthful as saying panthers girls are all natural :icon_lol:
Click to expand...

To be honest about it, having read the article, it had a great number of corroborating quotes from many people, including the current town mayor where he lived. So, one has to conclude the story is accurate and his name is to be omitted despite being a British citizen (or technically speaking a subject) simply because he was born to British parents on duty abroad.

The article included the note that some future commemoration will be planned for commonwealth recipients. But, I guess my question is what exactly defines someone as a citizen of the commonwealth versus a British citizen born abroad of British parents working for the government, which was the case here.

Ken
 
CWOJackson said:
Wasn't it the Daily Mail that also broke the story on how the HMS Belfast had been airbrushed out of posters promoting the Olympics?

Seems the Exmouth Journal, Exmouth having a connection to Warneford, is reporting it also...http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/our_vc_hero_rex_gets_official_snub_1_2340554
Click to expand...

I know we don't 'do' politics on Newshawks, but the Mail is a vile rag of the first order, legendary for it's ability to twist a story (but, I guess, all newspapers do that to an extent); it is one of the best selling papers in this country, and is thus very influential, it's readership being of that generation who believe if it is in the paper it must be true. But it has a track record of half truths, misquotes and outright lies; Skyhawk, get what you say about the corroborating quotes, but I'd even treat them with caution.

To me it is forever tainted because of it's political stance in the 1930s. The paper's proprietor, Lord Rothermere, was an open admirer of Hitler & the Nazis right up to the start of the war, and the paper reflected this; it maintained an anti-Semitic attitude throughout, even running an editorial condemning "the floods of Jewish immigrants" after the events of Kristallnacht - these were people fleeing for their lives, but to Rothermere they were just a nuisance.

Apologies for the rant. I just wanted people to understand why Stiz and I suggest the use of a pinch (or bucket) of salt when reading a Mail article. On the face of it though this appears to be a major injustice to the memory of Sub-Lieutenant Warneford but, I suspect, a way will be found to add his name to the memorial - and quite right too.
 
For me no need to explain Andy. We have a similar newspaper here in the Netherlands. They create propaganda and invent their own stories, can make or break people and funny enough, like the Daily Mail the newspaper was behind "the wrong side" during the war. The newspaper was even forbidden after the war.
Most people say they hate this newspaper and don't believe what is in it, but its actually the best selling and most influential news paper in the Netherlands.

It doesn't explain the story about the Sub-Lieutenant Warneford, but I'm convinced there is more behind this story than the newspaper tells us.

Cheers,
Huub
 
I skimmed the story elsewhere and was vaguely under the impression that the stones were to be laid at the VC recipients town of birth, which is fine if that was in the UK but less so if it was in what is now a foreign country.
 
Would it not then make sense for British citizens born abroad to have such stones laid in British towns deemed to be their home towns? Would that not eliminate the controversy, which it seems clear a number of people genuinely feel over this?

Ken
 
I'm puzzled as to why birthplace or even nationality for that matter would play a role in honoring Victoria Cross recipients. If they weren't born in the UK then lay their brick at the appropriate service's war memorial, or present it to their family in their home country, but honor everybody now and not some at a later date.
 
TARPSBird said:
I'm puzzled as to why birthplace or even nationality for that matter would play a role in honoring Victoria Cross recipients. If they weren't born in the UK then lay their brick at the appropriate service's war memorial, or present it to their family in their home country, but honor everybody now and not some at a later date.
Click to expand...

If the second article linked is accurate, it seems the stones are individually prepared, not group, and that they are to be placed in the birth towns on each man so as to provide a local connection. The thinking then is that they cannot place one in India. That's why I would figure choosing a suitable home town would make the most sense.

Ken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top