I will be interested in others comments. But, I am rather brassed off with the crap writing with respect to historical matters where authors keep stating that a person and/or a Unit/Squadron etc "WON" a VC - or a medal for valor etc ...... These airman, soldiers and sailors didn't/don't go out there to 'win' medals for themselves, units or countries like it's a race. By gosh why can't these people get the wording correct and or seek proper proof reading before putting such rubbish out there .... From what I have read, every person must be recommended by a superior or an Officer of their unit (or an enemy officer I guess "Trigg, 200 SQN RAF"!), for their actions of valor and bravery before a medal is awarded or conferred to a person. A shame however, because I have spoken to good men that went without recognition (DFC eg.) of their tours - due to 'personality conflicts' with their CO's ! Other pet hates of mine by the way .... - Calling our RAF wartime sorties as Missions ...when they were properly called Operations ... Many veterans have corrected me on this ..- about time writers of books and websites got this correct as well !!!! - and describing incorrectly our Squadron numbers as -ths, or -nds or -rds ..... American terminology that is not ours !! Thx Glen
Just because somone 'wins' a medal, doesn't mean they personally set out to do so. Win/won is a perfectly acceptable word to use.
I'm with you Glen, 'winning' always seems an odd term, 'earnt', or 'awarded' seems so much more appropriate to me. It's an odd little semantic point though really, just one of those things that bugs one a little. I feel the same about 'died' when used in a military context. 'Killed' seems a so much more accurate description.
Glen I will be interested in others comments. But, I am rather brassed off with the crap writing with respect to historical matters where authors keep stating that a person and/or a Unit/Squadron etc "WON" a VC - or a medal for valor etc ...... These airman, soldiers and sailors didn't/don't go out there to 'win' medals for themselves, units or countries like it's a race. By gosh why can't these people get the wording correct and or seek proper proof reading before putting such rubbish out there .... From what I have read, every person must be recommended by a superior or an Officer of their unit (or an enemy officer I guess "Trigg, 200 SQN RAF"!), for their actions of valor and bravery before a medal is awarded or conferred to a person. A shame however, because I have spoken to good men that went without recognition (DFC eg.) of their tours - due to 'personality conflicts' with their CO's ! Well you did ask for comments and I am happy to oblige As one who has used this phrase in the past, see: http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/all-anniversaries/22601-ajex-remembrance-service-parade-2009-a.html where I say "and one of my old club friends Donnie Carlton sporting his hard won MM." I personally see no problem at all with my phraseology. Donnie may have been "awarded" the MM but he certainly "won" it ! Regards Ron
I've used the term myself. 'Here's where Rogers won his VC' for instance. Easier than saying 'here's the location of the action that Rogers was awarded a VC for.'
'Here's where Rogers won his VC' Easier than saying 'here's the location of the action that Rogers was awarded a VC for.' Or, 'Here's where Rogers earnt his VC' . Trying to think of other little semantic niggles... I know there's a million of them, but taking them too seriously can quickly head down the Mrs Trellis route .
, sorry. Mrs Trellis, of North Wales. The Infamous writer of letters to 'I'm Sorry I Haven't a clue'. BBC - Comedy - I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue
Goodness I remember Mrs Trellis. She was a bit like a serial Political Correctness claimant - ready to take offence at the slightest thing.... I agree that it is semantics re the medals but I definitely agree with the why did some people get them and others not for the same sort of effort. Rethe sqn numbering & misuse of mission its irritating but we need to help people to learn how to use it correctly. Mind you people do get offended sometimes when you try to do it! Dee :mellow:
medal for valor etc ...... - and American terminology that is not ours !! Glen, considering how much is posted day after day on so many forums from all over the world, by people who were there and others trying to learn more, it's not surprising that people "adopt" certain phrases which might irritate, but at least they are getting involved. What irritates me are those who insist on fantasy ideas such as Yamato versus Bismarck etc and all these combat "games" which desensitise kids to the true effects of war.
I agree that it is semantics re the medals but I definitely agree with the why did some people get them and others not for the same sort of effort. Dee :mellow: Dee, It is sometimes just a question of who the Supervising officers were, who would act or not act, as the case may be. Certainly I have no doubt that relationships, be it good or bad, played a part in whether a report was submitted for the recommendation of an award or not. It is human nature I am afraid. Regards Tom
I prefer earned, received, awarded and recommended...No doubt I have used won in some of my medal focused posts.
Marvellous, well I think that consideration must be given really to the fact that anyone publishing or writing for others to read has an obligation to ensure they get the facts and prose correct (I include myself here) - those that read and follow will repeat 'our' text ..whether it is correct or not .... and therefore the incorrect ways are doomed to continue ad norsium!!! The citations that the monarch signs for these awards use the wording .."confer" ... and the NZ book of "By Such Deeds" by Colin Hanson uses the description of " ..who was awarded...".. and "..recipients.." and "..bestowed upon..." for all awards and decorations - including VC and DFC. To my mind, to have won and to win something is to have undertaken a race or contest and finished in a place position .... I am still positive that military or civilian persons do not go out in every day life or wartime situations to win these awards or decorations for bravery or valor. We really should use the correct terminology!
To my mind, to have won and to win something is to have undertaken a race or contest and finished in a place position .... But that is incorrect. The dictionary definition isn't limited to 'winning a race', nor does it require the recipient to have set out with the intention of 'winning' a prize.
OK heres my 2 cents.... I am a Combat veteran. I have EARNED Decorations and Medals. sometimes it seems in this forum youre a bit Medal crazy. I dislike the term WON... I didnt win anything. I earned some of my awards others, I got for showing up... Ive witnessed soldiers in combat who have done acts of bravery which merited A high level award. they got nothing but a slap on the back and a "good job" from theyre CO, or theyre Sgt. I have seen fellow officers get awards for doing in my mind NOTHING... and this has gone on in all armies for years. Medals and fruit salad help you get promoted. honestly they dont impress me much.. Except for 2 the VC and my countries Medal of Honor.. Men who Earn the MOH refer to themselves as "recipients". I have read and watched several interviews with MOH recipients. One gentleman. a Former Captain in the US 1st Infantry div, Capt, Walter Ehlers summed it up far better then i could... He considers himself "merely a Caretaker of the medal. that medal is for the ones who didnt come home or who came home mentally and physically shattered". I admit Modesty esp from one of my countrys bravest is a trait i admire... I am not a hero, I have served with a bunch. just my 2 cents on the matter.
