Post by David Cochrane on Jan 27, 2016 3:36:11 GMT
This subject has sometimes come up in other discussions: just how comparable is the GC to the VC? The two awards rank first and second in the order of wear, but can they really be considered equivalent in terms of what is required to receive them?
To deal with this question, one must consider why these decorations are given in the first place - I actually think the film Zulu put it best, when it described the VC as being given for 'acts of bravery beyond that normally expected of a British soldier' (not an exact quotation, but close enough).
Beyond what is normally expected is the important thing here when we look at equivalent standards; a combat soldier is facing a well-armed and trained enemy, but he is himself equipped and trained to deal with this. The degree of danger he faces as a matter of course is well beyond what your average civilian would be expected to deal with.
Going down the line, police officers are armed (in some countries) and trained to deal with violent criminals - they're therefore also expected to be able to cope with situations more dangerous than a normal person can handle, but not as hazardous as those faced by military members. One can say the same thing about emergency rescue workers in the Second World War, or firefighters, etc.
Therefore, I think one can perhaps put GCs awarded to servicemen on the same pedestal as VCs, but not necessarily those given to civilians - although, of course, plenty of GCs have been given to civilians that may also stand up to comparison. That does, perhaps, show a problem of the way the honours systems of most Commonwealth countries have been set up: one set of decorations for military personnel and in combat, and another for all situations that don't meet both of those criteria. The different levels of expectation, and the standards for going above them, mean that awards of the GC (or CV) aren't necessarily comparable even with each other, never mind with the VC.
There is another facet to the question of what is expected of a person, and it is demonstrated perfectly, I think, by the accident at Tholthorpe and the subsequent decorations given: a GC to A/C Ross, while the NCOs involved received GMs and BEMs. The thinking behind this, described in the book Valour Reconsidered, which looked at the recommendations and discussions by the awards committees, was that, while A/C Ross didn't do a whole lot more than Cpl Marquet, he should receive a higher award because, as visiting base commander, he was not obliged to step in the way he did when the accident occurred - he could just as easily have kept his distance and organized a rescue effort that way. Cpl Marquet, on the other hand, was a ground crewman, and so this was part of his job.
A similar argument was made against the awarding of Arthur Martin-Leake's first VC, although in this case it was unsuccessful: although he had gone out in the open to tend to the wounded under heavy fire, a superior officer argued that, as a medical officer, this did not fall far enough outside what was expected of him to warrant a VC (he suggested a DSO instead).
A second example that illustrates this same aspect is the Blackpool robbery and the GC to Supt Richardson. It wasn't just that he got within close range of the thieves and was shot for his trouble - that happened to other policemen there - but also that a man in his position was at the scene in the first place. Like A/C Ross, he wouldn't be expected to show up in person and act the way he did, but when he learned at his office what was going on he decided to go himself and take part.
To deal with this question, one must consider why these decorations are given in the first place - I actually think the film Zulu put it best, when it described the VC as being given for 'acts of bravery beyond that normally expected of a British soldier' (not an exact quotation, but close enough).
Beyond what is normally expected is the important thing here when we look at equivalent standards; a combat soldier is facing a well-armed and trained enemy, but he is himself equipped and trained to deal with this. The degree of danger he faces as a matter of course is well beyond what your average civilian would be expected to deal with.
Going down the line, police officers are armed (in some countries) and trained to deal with violent criminals - they're therefore also expected to be able to cope with situations more dangerous than a normal person can handle, but not as hazardous as those faced by military members. One can say the same thing about emergency rescue workers in the Second World War, or firefighters, etc.
Therefore, I think one can perhaps put GCs awarded to servicemen on the same pedestal as VCs, but not necessarily those given to civilians - although, of course, plenty of GCs have been given to civilians that may also stand up to comparison. That does, perhaps, show a problem of the way the honours systems of most Commonwealth countries have been set up: one set of decorations for military personnel and in combat, and another for all situations that don't meet both of those criteria. The different levels of expectation, and the standards for going above them, mean that awards of the GC (or CV) aren't necessarily comparable even with each other, never mind with the VC.
There is another facet to the question of what is expected of a person, and it is demonstrated perfectly, I think, by the accident at Tholthorpe and the subsequent decorations given: a GC to A/C Ross, while the NCOs involved received GMs and BEMs. The thinking behind this, described in the book Valour Reconsidered, which looked at the recommendations and discussions by the awards committees, was that, while A/C Ross didn't do a whole lot more than Cpl Marquet, he should receive a higher award because, as visiting base commander, he was not obliged to step in the way he did when the accident occurred - he could just as easily have kept his distance and organized a rescue effort that way. Cpl Marquet, on the other hand, was a ground crewman, and so this was part of his job.
A similar argument was made against the awarding of Arthur Martin-Leake's first VC, although in this case it was unsuccessful: although he had gone out in the open to tend to the wounded under heavy fire, a superior officer argued that, as a medical officer, this did not fall far enough outside what was expected of him to warrant a VC (he suggested a DSO instead).
A second example that illustrates this same aspect is the Blackpool robbery and the GC to Supt Richardson. It wasn't just that he got within close range of the thieves and was shot for his trouble - that happened to other policemen there - but also that a man in his position was at the scene in the first place. Like A/C Ross, he wouldn't be expected to show up in person and act the way he did, but when he learned at his office what was going on he decided to go himself and take part.
