Col H

[roberthenry]

A very interesting story today in the daily mail contradicting the citation of Col H Jones action in the falklands from a soldier who was beside him when he died.

Hero or head the ball? Read it and decide for yourself.



www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=454279&in_page_id=1770

[Les]

One of the quotes from a reader sums it all up - "The reality behind the death of 'H' Jones is one of the biggest open secrets, both within the army and beyond. He was undoubtedly brave but the commander of a battalion does not personally engage the enemy. He commands and controls, that is what his job is. By taking the action that he did, he revealed that he had lost focus of the overall battle plan".

[roberthenry]

Have just realised Les that only two of the four pages printed on saturday have been reproduced on the daily mail website. The article goes on to tell about how every thing went wrong that fateful day, and the stubborness of Col H who refused to listen to anybody and made the advance anyway, and not alone as the citation makes out but with his small command team and with Sgt Barry Norman his personal body guard beside him. Col H had knealt down to check his magazine when he was shot without ever having fired a shot, not charging towards the argintinians firing as the citation suggests. It is all very interesting and it is actually an extract from a book called "Spearhead Assault" written by John Geddis a para who was there at the assault, it is being published by Century on May 17.

Much has been written about where Col H should have been at the time, but many many senior officers have been killed on the front line along with their men, look at the ammount of Generals alone who died on the front line in WW1. It ammounts to around 300 according to Richard Corrigans book. Take a look look at the ammount of Victoria Crosses awarded to senior officers for leading their troops into battle, and encouraging them on the front line, it is quite a lot. If you read some of the citations, some were walking up and down the front line in full view of the enemy encouraging their men.
The most decorated soldier of WW2 was Lt Col Blair Mayne whos fourth DSO was awarded for going forward alone to dislodge a crack German parachute battalion from their position which he successfull did to allow a canadian advance. He would not ask anyone to do anything he could not do himself. Not dissimilar to what Col H was supposed to have done. So I personally would not find fault with Col H for being at the front, but according to the whole story he very stupidly tried to advance in a direction which had already been tried and cost the life of his best friend, capt Dave Wood and some of his men. Everyone else thought this route suicidal, but he went anyway. The only question I would ask is, was it an action worthy of a Victoria Cross ?

[Les]

On the face of it, it sounds like a heroic action that would receive the VC. A bold leader leading his men on to victory etc etc. Not having read the full article ('cause it wasn't hosted on the paper's site www.invision.smileyville.net/smilies/disdain (2).gif[/img]), it now sounds like a VC that shouldn't have been granted. One of the criteria for the VC is that you put the life of the men around you before your own. It would be interesting to know who the "witnesses" were that could have put his name forward in the first place.

I'm not in the habit of slatting a VC action, but this now sounds decidely iffy!

[roberthenry]

Whoever wrote the recommendation would have been a higher rank than the Col. He would have taken or asked for witness statements to write it. But it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he may have influenced the wording of their statements.

A Lt R M Thurmans eyewitness report tells of Jones's increasing frustration at the absence of naval fire and poor accuracy of mortar fire , and finally Col H losing his temper, seizing a sub machine gun and charging up the hill calling on those around him.

Lt Gen Sir Roland Guy The honours and awards committee said. It can be argued that Jones's action was reckless and that at a critical moment in the attack he needlessly risked his life and showed a lack of judgement rather than conspicuous bravery. It is clear from the citation, however that his action, which epitomises the determination, drive and offencive spirit which exemplified his leadership of the Battalion, was committed at what was the critical and pivotal moment of the battle, that its effect upon the enemy and his own battalion was decisive and that such action was necessary at that moment to break the stalemate which had already lasted more than a hour.

What is very interesting is that the committee had considered at one point awarding a posthumous Military Cross to Col H, and that suggests there were serious doubts about the validity of the award.

A third VC was reccommended for Pte Illingworth but downgraded to a DCM with the comittee making the statement.

It is not for the VC committee to make any judgement on what would be the approiate number of VCs to award for this campaign in comparison with the numbers that have been awarded in past campaigns. however there will inevitably be great public interest over whether the award is in any way being cheapened if an excessive number are awarded.

That statement says to me that it dosen't matter if you have earned a VC we will only award a certain amount so that we can keep this an elitist award. But thats only my opinion

[Les]

Given that VC's were issued to a Colonel and a Sergeant, I think the Committee decided that H's VC was looked better to the public and the boosted the moral of the men, than downgrading him to a MC and then VC's to a Sgt & Private. Also, as you say, it sounds like the Driving Test...... sorry, can only pass 3 out of 5 today... come back tomorrow.

It smacks of the "old School tie"!

[roberthenry]

I think you are probably right, a Col sounds better than a private because if you ask most people to name the Falklands VCs most would be able to name Col H Jones but very few could name Sgt Ian Makay.

[David Cochrane]

I believe that the VC was given not just for his own action, but for the entire battalion and their work. The Argentinians had between two and three times as many men, knew that 2 Para was there and that they were coming that morning - the BBC had actually broadcast their position the previous night. The whole battle was not really necessary, but it had been slow going and they needed a victory to please the crowds back home. Jones himself was quite anxious for some combat.
In the past, VCs have been given to commanding officers of units that performed dangerous work (think of Beattie and Gibson), and who performed courageous actions themselves during the battle. From everything I've seen and read about him, Jones was quite an impetuous and impatient personality: when he saw that the Argentinian positions on the hilltop were causing so much trouble, he picked up a weapon and rushed them with a few men from the HQ. I believe that the rest of the men with him were hit before he was, and for the last few yards he was running alone; one man who watched it says that he was actually shot from behind from a trench that he had passed.
You could consider his action either reckless and foolish or courageous; he probably didn't consider the risks when he was doing it, but it would be too hard to factor in 'What was that person thinking?' when deciding to bestow a decoration. John Beeley, for instance, who was killed in Libya, received a letter from home the morning of his death. Nobody ever saw what it contained, but it upset him terribly. When he charged the German positions later that day, he may not have cared that he was likely to die - perhaps he wanted to.
At any rate, it's hard to deny the risks of Col. Jones' action that day; the question that really seems to be under debate here is 'Was it foolishness or courage that led him to do it?' As I said, it's virtually impossible to work out what exactly was in someone's mind (given Jones' personality he probably didn't really think about the risk of what he was doing), so the only thing that they really can consider is the action itself: a relatively small British force was instructed to attack the positions of a large, well-positioned enemy force without the benefit of surprise. As things got worse, the CO (who had decided to press on with the attack in spite of these odds) led an attack on enemy trenches atop a hill and was killed. Elements of this scenario have been seen in many VCs before: think of Capt. Warburton-Lee at Narvik, for instance. I don't think that the committee was unduly generous in Jones' case at all.
Incidentally, his name is probably better known than McKay's because the battle is more famous: Darwin/Goose Green was the first big land battle of the war and was a 'success against long odds' - the public loves things like that. Mount Longdon came later and was just one of several battles fought during those last several days. More people probably recognize McKay's name than the battle itself; it's likely the opposite for Jones and Darwin.