IrishGunner

Not sure if this was discussed previously or not. The UK National Archives has digitised thousands of First World War unit diaries, which are now available to view online.

Royal Canadian Navy remembers launch of submarine service in 1914 I found the fact that Japan sent warships to protect Canada's coast quite interesting...

Great information, Lambert. Thanks!

Thanks for the comments, Brian and Chris. I've viewed the area with Google Earth and other photos; it would be a great area to tour.

The UNC was formed in 1917/1918; so, yes, post-war WWI. I believe the organization still exists today. So, I don't know how long these medals were produced or how to tell how old it might be... I believe these are the type of medals that a veteran could purchase from the organization. Perhaps, some of our French experts will add some comments. I think it's fairly common to find the medal for sale online and at flea markets.

It is a veteran organization medal. Médaille de l’Union Nationale des Combattants - Medal of the National Union of Combattants

Just looking at this again. I thought he was in the active 1. bFuAR not the Reserve 1.bFuAR. I have a "sterbebild" to a soldier who was a batman - "Diener bei Oberleutnant Meiler im 1. kgl. Fuss-Art. Regt., 7. Batt." Died on 4 October 1914. I suppose the family (or printer) could have made a mistake and left off the "Res."

These are Tactical Recognition Flashes of the British Army. The red/blue flash in Post #1 and #4 is indeed Royal Artillery I don't know #2 and #3

I am not trying to talk myself out of anything. I am willing to talk about this "mess" as long as necessary to get you to accept some responsibility.

Megan, I agree. Context is important. That is why I say it is not sufficient to only post pictures without any commentary. Written comments are necessary to keep things in context and ensure there is no confusion about intent. Without the comments in the original post, one is left to make one's own conclusions. Or worse - adopt those one finds with Google. And it is quite possible those conclusions are not in line with the original poster's intent. At best, it is unintentional and lacking thoughtful consideration. At worst, it is intentional and provocative. Again, without contextual commentary, one is left to draw one's own conclusions. Flippant responses do not help the situation. And like current events, the situation can quickly spiral in the wrong direction. Context may not be necessary for "gongs" given for actions 100 years ago. But it is essential when talking about "gongs" given yesterday for actions last week. The topic can be sensitive to some members - and perhaps even painful since we do not know the personal lives and relationships of most members. When dealing with such topics, it is best to be cautious. It is irresponsible to post images related to controversial current events - without any accompanying written comments to provide context - in the belief that it is only phaleristic pursuit. The "rules" are not sufficient in this case since they don't address "taking into account sensitivities of fellow members." One has to be personally responsible to take that step. This is not a playground where children can act only in their selfish interests. If we are to assume we have an educational purpose, then there has to be personal responsibility. That includes talking about the difficult subjects of today when necessary- not avoiding them; but that discussion must be in the proper context. Perhaps I was mistaken about Nick's intent. But Nick could have prevented that by providing appropriate comments in the first place. In this case, a picture is not worth 1000 words.

I had this thought when I did a search on the UK Archives. It came up with two medal cards on two different rolls.

Verlust List 12. bFAR (assembled from the internet - weltkriegsopfer.de - certainly the list is imcomplete) Plinganer, Alois 5. Batt.; 24.08.1914; Todes- / Vermisstenort: Frankreich; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: nicht bekannt Depper, Wilhelm Gefreiter 4.Batt,; 29.09.1914; Todes- / Vermisstenort: bei Montauban, Frankreich; im Gefecht gefallen; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Fricourt (Arrondissement Peronne) Wöllmer, Karl Fahrer; 01.11.1914; Todes- / Vermisstenort: Hollebeke, Belgien; gefallen; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Menen, Belgien Hecht, Walter Kanonier 5. Batt.; 07.11.1914; Todes- / Vermisstenort: Oosttaverne, Belgien; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Langemark-Poelkapelle (Arrondissement Ypern) Augustin, Jakob Fahrer 1.Komp.; 17.06.1915; Todes- / Vermisstenort: Belgien; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Menen, Belgien Marx, Otto Gefreiter 6.Komp.; 28.12.1915; Todes- / Vermisstenort: Frankreich; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Carvin (Arrondissement Lens) Mederer, Alois Kanonier 2.LMK; 13.01.1916; Todes- / Vermisstenort: Frankreich; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Carvin (Arrondissement Lens) Bär, Hugo Gefreiter 1.Komp.; 03.04.1918; Todes- / Vermisstenort: Frankreich; gefallen; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Saint-Quentin (Arrondissement Saint-Quentin) Bausewein, Maximilian Vizewachtmeister 8. or 9. Batt.; 16.08.1918; Todes- / Vermisstenort: südöstlich Lagny, Frankreich; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Nampcel (Arrondissement de Compiègne) Albert, Julius Gefreiter 1. Bttr.; 11.10.1918; Todes- / Vermisstenort Gondrecourt, Frankreich; infolge Krankheit; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Briey (Arrondissement Briey) The list is organized in chronological order as a means to help track the Regiment's "path" through the war.

Germany inflicted a humiliating defeat on Russia at the Battle of Tannenberg, fought between August 26th-30th 1914. The rise of Hindenburg and Ludendorff

Former First World War enemies stand together in Mons to honour the fallen of 1914

Since I'm left only with Google translator to find out more... The unit on parade reportedly was the 1140 Artillery Regiment. That's at least something interesting...

No gloves off yet. Only a discussion. No need to yell. (Besides, it's against the "rules.")

While the largest, Blair Mountain was not unusual as far as the fight for labor rights by the Unions in early 20th Century United States. Especially by groups trying to organize mine workers. The mine owners organized some fairly substantial private armies to break strikes and attempts to organize labor by Unions. This "Death Special" was used in Colorado around 1914 against mine workers.

Why should you feel provoked? Unless you feel sensitive for some reason. I asked a simple question about the award. Nothing more. You are the one who ironically quoted GMIC rules and raised the specter of "overly political" comments in response. (See Post #10) Not me. Let's be clear. It's also clear that you have no desire to engage in an intellectual discussion about the award. Posting pictures is easy and not so interesting. Have a great day! Airborne!

I am not confused at all. If it's only the award you are interested in... Then you could have simply posted the medal itself without the ceremony. You didn't need to mention the unit, ceremony or citation at all to discuss "how it looks (after "modernization")" In fact, you didn't "discuss" anything in your initial posts. You simply posted images of ceremonies. You could have just said it has only been awarded twice in the "modern" incarnation, without any reference to unit. But you did mention the unit and that does open up the door to an "overly political" discussion. And I repeat; I suspect you knew that when you posted the topic. Trust has nothing to do with this. Frankly, you should "trust" me that my question was simply interest in the award itself - just like in many other GMIC discussions, it's interesting to understand for what reasons an award is bestowed. Why should you think I was asking anything about politics? I only asked what the unit did to be so honored. For all I knew, it is similar to a peacetime unit citation that many US units receive - like the Army Meritorious Unit Citation I earned while assigned the Army Staff. Can't you give more information about this award without going into politics? Perhaps not. If not, then why post the topic in the first place? If your interest is indeed that simple, make this a phaleristic discussion instead of a "veiled" political one by simply posting images with no phaleristic commentary. Oh, I did Google the award and unit - using the translator too - but I came up with too much "politics". Of course, Google is only so useful. That's why I'm a member of GMIC; so, I can get more insightful information from the experts. I "trust" you can enlighten me in an non-political phaleristic way. If not, then your topic is...as you point out yourself...in violation of the rules. So, in that vein; stop the BS and educate me; share some interesting facts about the award. After all, isn't that what GMIC is about?

Ironic. Insightful reading "between the lines" of your original post suggests very strongly that you are indeed already in violation of this rule. But I think you know that.

Well, Google translator could have told me that... I was hoping for a more insightful expert translation. With perhaps considerably more detail beyond the official party line.

So, what exactly did the paratroopers do to earn such a prestigious award? (For those of us that don't read Russian so well)

Very nice and wonderful that you had the opportunity to go to Barchon and see the pictures. I found this post especially interesting since I recently read about Barchon during the German attack in August 1914.

Yes, interesting. But flawed conclusions. "The best way to avoid disaster is to refrain from coming up with a limited military move and to instead look for diplomatic solutions." Appeasement was a diplomatic solution. Didn't work, did it? He cites the Cuban Missile Crisis; however, the "diplomatic" solutions worked because there was genuine fear of going to total war. (As Freedman points out). But that is the second flaw in his conclusion. Diplomacy only works when backed up with credible deterrence. That's the best way to avoid disaster; make the other guy sure that any limited military move is only a warning that you'll go all the way if necessary. Of course, diplomacy can't work if the other side has already made a military move - for example Iraq invading Kuwait; diplomacy was not going to get Saddam to withdraw after he'd already sent the Republican Guard across the border. Crimea being annexed by Russia is the current example. Does anyone really think diplomacy will reverse that move? Oh, and what about groups like ISIS? Or Hezbollah? I don't see their ambassadors in Washington, Brussels, London, Paris, Berlin, Cairo, or Tel Aviv. The more valid conclusion is that diplomacy is only one tool in the kit of a national leader. Information, military, economic are the other elements of national power. All must be used at the right time, in the right measure, in conjunction with each other to achieve solutions. I might even add legitimacy to the pile - a nation must use its national power in concert with other like-minded nations. These type of guys even forget Clausewitz; war is an extension of politics by other means. Until the pundits realize that talky-talky doesn't work, we'll have half-@** solutions. As for salami, he's right. We can't just slice ourselves a thin sliver and think the other guy won't do anything. We need to hack off a huge chunk before the other guy runs away with the whole thing. Best to start the hacking by taking off his hand.

Nice entries... Did you obtain the Pass knowing those were in there or were they a surprise?