IrishGunner

Yes, under US law one must seek permission from the appropriate department (in this case the Department of the Army) in order to accept and wear a foreign award as an official decoration. It's usually a routine personnel action.

Wow - just seeing the photo and reading the posts sends tingles down my spine. This is the close I'll ever come to such a medal and history - and I'm thankful to do it here. Thanks so much. You have a great deal to be proud of in your family. With highest regards.

History aside (although it's fantastic) - the DSC with a Bar is damned beautiful item in its own right without the stories.

However, I don't recall ever seeing a picture of Ark Royal - perhaps someone could post and also give us some details of the ship ? Mervyn: here's a video announcing the cut of the Ark Royal with footage of her... HMS Queen Elizabeth is due in service in 2016 but fitted only for helicopters and when HMS Prince Of Wales comes into service in 2019/20 she will be fitted for aircraft and Queen Elizabeth will be mothballed and possibly sold after just 3 or 4 years service. hucks: Interesting that the news video above also mentions that it will be a decade until the new British carriers are ready and that the cost of continuing the project is LESS than scrapping the projects. Given the deep cuts in the British defence budget - makes one wonder if it were cheaper to scrap the HMS QE than continue, would Whitehall scrap instead. Are they continuing only because it's cheaper than halting the project or because they believe in the value of carriers? I have my concern that its former rather than the latter. Here's a video about the future HMS QE - will she be commissioned in 10 years time - what do you think? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFh-W9n8Xqg&feature=related Hope you don't mind a gunner and a Yank jumping in here - but as both a soldier and an American, cuts like this by a major ally are disconcerting.

Well, this is quite interesting for the second largest Navy in NATO. Ark Royal is the Flagship is she not? Would that mean Illustrious becomes the Flagship - but she's older than Ark Royal. The Queen doesn't want to outfit her namesake - wasn't the next carrier to be named Queen Elizabeth? With no carriers that means Britannia's waves will be ruled by a destroyer or frigate? I'm not Navy, but this is indeed a telling story. Economics have succeeded where the naval treaties of the first half of the 20th century failed. The US on the other hand still has 12 carriers.

Another great thread from the archives of the GMIC! The Royal Welch Fusiliers (and the Welsh Regiment) have been secret interests of mine for some years. My wife's father's ancestors are from Mold, Wales - just near Caernafon - which we visited in 1985 after we had been married just over a year. We spent some time in the RWF Museum - the first time my wife learned of this militaria obsession (but not the last) and she has "tolerated" many military site and museum visits since (well over 26 years together). And I obtained my very first piece of British militaria - a RWF cap badge. A couple years ago, I decided to quietly - and secretly - try to trace any military connections of her family and surprise her with a display in my collection honoring her family's Welsh origins. So far, all I have is that first RWF cap badge and a Victory Medal to a private in the Welsh Regiment with her family name - although I have yet to do any research on the man. Many things have distracted me from this secret mission - but this thread may just well re-light the fire! Cheers! :cheers:

My first USSR ODMs were two OGPW 1985 types - a 1st and 2nd Class; bought at a Berlin flea market sometime in 1985 - shortly after they were issued in the Soviet Union. I paid about $20 for the 2nd Class; my wife bought the 1st Class for about $40 as a Christmas present. At the time, I was more of a coin collector and these Soviet decorations were more of a novelty; I had no idea they had just been issued that year for the 40th Anniversary of WWII. They sat in a box for many years until a few years ago when I started seriously collecting ODMs. It was then that I learned more about the items. I also picked up an Order of the Red Banner of Labor at the same Berlin flea market in the early 1990s - after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Then I thought it a real curiosity of history. Paid about $20. A year or two later, I added the Capture of Berlin and the Defense of Leningrad medals while visiting Vilnius, Lithuania; again about $20 each. No photos; all are in a safe deposit box back in the US. This is a really interesting thread for me since over the past two months I've been living in Armenia I have increased my Soviet collection nearly 10 fold from these first acquisitions. And I truly can say there are only about 12 more pieces I'd like to add - all common campaign and jubilee medals - which I can likely pick up here before I leave in two months time. I have no desire for the high end orders. Okay, maybe a wartime OGPW, but that isn't absolutely necessary. So, it seems my Soviet "disease" has lain dormant for 25 years, has now erupted in a "feverish" frenzy, and will die out very shortly. Of course, I have enough "wants" in other countries that I won't be cured for long. :whistle:

Also I might cause some trouble by saying it, but their counterparts to the Soviet awards sometimes have a better looking design. I don't think you'll cause any trouble here with having an opinion or preference. That's what GMIC is all about. If you have a passion for something, you'll learn more about it and then we learn too! For example, I've not had any interest previously in Bulgarian awards, but your post has given me a chance to take a look at some. Thanks again.

Welcome to the GMIC! Having just started this summer; you are doing well! Let me ask, what has made you focus on Bulgaria as you start collecting?

20" of solid brass. What do you think is/was it's purpose?

Nice miniature bar; imagine if it were full size. :catjava:

Nice; I'd take one of these in artillery. :cheers:

Daniel; our resident EK document expert - Chris Boonzaier - is traveling right now. When he returns, I'm sure he can give you more information regarding your document. In the meantime, have you checked-out his site on EK's: www.kaiserscross.com By the way, as an Imperial German artillery collector, I have enjoyed reading about your grandfather and fellow gunner.

Only when the loser acknowlegdes total defeat can a solution be implemented. I hesitate to trust in absolutes. Had we pushed another 100 hours in the first Gulf War we would not be in the mess we are in today. Of this I might agree...

Yea, I'm afraid with all this mental exertion might result in a cataclysmic explosion of our heads! :lol:

It's just occurred to me that this debate has reached stalemate and we are firmly entrenched in our positions - just like the combatants of WWI. So, it seems to me that since Chris started this whole thing (as he would argue is the case of Germany starting WWI), he now has to surrender and accept my terms (just as he would argue is the case of Versailles)! Of course, since he doesn't think he's been decisively defeated, he won't like it! :whistle:

You have to decisively defeat someone before you can impose your terms on them and have them accepted as a good alternative. So, there was no peace solution at all that would have been good in 1918 because the allies didn't beat Germany decisively? Okay, if that's your argument, then the rise of the Nazis is still the allies fault because they should have gone all the way to Berlin, crushed Germany and devastated its territory (just like France and Belgium) to ensure that there would have been an acceptable good alternative. They failed to complete the job, then tried to impose a treaty doomed to fail because they didn't complete the job; therefore, their failure still set the conditions that led to the rise of the Nazis. Because the allies didn't decisively defeat Germany, any peace was doomed, and therefore, the conditions were still set for the rise of the Nazis. Not a very logical line of reason is it? But that's what you are opening up with your argument. So, still using this argument; do you believe we could have applied the same Versailles solution with success in 1945 simply because we "decisively defeated" Germany? In your line of reason, Versailles was good, we just didn't defeat Germany so it wasn't workable. So, why didn't we use Versailles principles in 1945? (Because we learned our lesson, that's why.) Left to its own devices in 1945 (just as it had been in 1918), Germany would have returned to the community of nations with a Versailles like treaty because it was beaten, right? Germany would have seen punishment as a good alternative simply because they had been defeated, right? Beat me into oblivion and I'll think any peace you impose is a good alternative? I fail to to see the logic in this line of (un)reasoning. It just doesn't hold any water even in a psychological sense let alone a historical sense. I might accept the punishment because I no longer have the means to resist, but I probably won't be satisfied. Again, if you look at the reconciliation attempted by Stresemann and Briand, there is ample evidence to show that - although Germany was not beaten into a pulp - Germany could have accepted a reasonable peace in 1918. One only has to go back to the Concert of Europe to find another example of this peace solution. Oh, and define "decisive" - the fact that fighting ceased and Germany was forced to accept terms it considered unreasonable was pretty "decisive" in my book. They completely disarmed - you can't impose your will on someone who isn't willing to stop fighting; but Germany did stop fighting and did disarm. You don't need to beat someone into submission to achieve "decisive" victory; you just have to get them to accept your terms. Germany accepted the Versailles terms. Pretty decisive. Decisive and scorched earth are not one in the same. Read Clausewitz. And no matter what you think - when someone is forced to accept terms to which they don't completely agree - they are bitter. You find a lot of bitterness in 1945 as well. But we dealt with the bitterness in a more rational, magnanimous way. You think the peoples of eastern Germany were happy with the peace imposed upon them by the Soviet Union simply because they were beaten? Germany was defeated sure enough and they had no choice to accept the terms. The Soviet Union suffered and won; they had the right to impose the peace they desired and the Germans had better damn well think its a good alternative since they lost fair and square. And they better be satisfied with it. That's your argument - you still believe it?

The Mexico ribbon would have made me snatch this up too, Noor! Well done. How do you keep finding these neat little treasures?

After Stalin, Hitler and co.... do you really not think the germans NOW knew better? We aren't talking about NOW; we are talking about 1918. But if you think we should have "punished" Germany the same way in 1945 that we did in 1918, then the world would be a different place and I fear an even scarier place. Because that's what you are saying - if the Germans are totally to blame - then we should have punished them in 1945 the same way we did in 1918. Plain and simple; their fault, their responsibility, they pay the full price and be damned of the consequences. Yes, we punished the country in 1945, but fortunately we also rehabilitated the country. It would have been just as difficult in 1918 as it was in 1945; and I think it could have been done without an occupation of the entire country. And just maybe if the allies expended a little more effort, millions of lives would have been spared between 1939-45. It's all speculation of course - as is the whole thread. But on 11 Nov 1918 a second world war was not inevitable; the allies could have made a difference. But on 18 Jun 1919 a second war became inevitable; the allies failed. But Hitler wasn't necessarily inevitable on that date either; that became inevitable in 1923 because the failed peace treaty led to a broken system that just got worse and worse for the Germans until Hitler seized power. The allies had several chances to break the chain before 1938, but they were wedded to their failed revengeful treaty and blind hope.

Hah - no, we are not agreeing at all - unless you agree that the allies insisting on the Versailles Treaty are to blame for the rise of Nazism. And I've shot down your "few points" already - and challenged you to come up with some realistic ones other than the "world changed." Yea, it's 1am here - I should go to bed.

Who should have ruled Germany wasn't the point of article; it's argument was that due to the power vacuum, occupation forces had to provide security and political structure. And certainly, the allies had no influence on German males born in the years of the late 1870's who could develop charisma, democratic values, rational and wise leadership. Hell, I'd argue that in 1918 there were damn few men in Britain or France who demonstrated those traits; but again that's another debate. But since you asked, I'll toss out a name; how about Gustav Stresemann - who just happened to be share the 1926 Nobel Peace Prize with France's Aristide Briand for their efforts at reconciliation? He despised the Diktakt of Versailles like all Germans, but felt the only way forward was to try to work within its provisions. Had the allies given him more support - maybe he would have had a chance - like supporting his efforts to reduce the crippling effects of reparations. He supported the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which demonstrated to many that Germany might be willing to try a peaceful approach. In return for some relief of reparations, the allies could have demanded he deal more strongly with the Beer Hall Putsch conspirators - remember those guys? One of Stresemann's key failures, but had the allies been engaged in working honestly with Stresemann in building a democratic state able to survive and "pressured" him with carrots and sticks; maybe Hitler would have rotted forever in Landsberg prison. But, no, something like that never entered the revenge hungry allies. Unfortunately, Stresemann died in 1929 - but he was Chancellor in 1923; six years is a long time to make changes. So, now tell me why Stresemann wasn't any good. Interesting quote: If the allies had obliged me just one single time, I would have brought the German people behind me, yes; even today, I could still get them to support me. However, they (the allies) gave me nothing and the minor concessions they made, always came too late. Thus, nothing else remains for us but brutal force. The future lies in the hands of the new generation. Moreover, they, the German youth, who we could have won for peace and reconstruction, we have lost. Herein lies my tragedy and their, the allies' crime. —Stresemann, to diplomat Sir Albert Bruce Lockhart in 1929

was there anything in the peace treaty that encouraged auschwitz? Show me where I said the Versailles Treaty specifically encouraged Auschwitz. But clearly the bad peace created the conditions that allowed Hitler to come to power - leaving the Germans to their own devices as it were. And there is ample evidence that the conditions after Versailles shaped Hitler's thinking. So, sorry Chris, but still a 50/50 split up to this point. Up to this point, Germany still could have made some better choices and they didn't; but it you want to take the argument as you said previously - the world had changed in the 20 years between 1918-1938. One thing that I am sure we will agree upon once Hitler was in power- but I don't think it is directly in this debate - the role of the allies in the debacle was over (well, if we subtract the appeasement argument) - for the most part anyway. Once the German people, and especially the German military leadership and intelligentsia, realized what Hitler was about - after 1940 in my opinion - they did nothing to stop the madness. Versailles cannot be blamed for the German blind-eye to concentration camps etc. (Or even the multitude of blind-eyes by non-Germans in the occupied territories like Poland.) And the allies of 1914-1918 cannot be blamed that it took the Germans until 1944 to try a coup. But if you want to start another thread, we can debate when the Allies of WWII knew about the death camps and why they didn't react more forcefully earlier on. So, at this point, 95% of the blame goes on Germany's head for Hitler's actions after he came to power - but the Allies knew and could have done more - so they get 5% of the blame. Before Hitler came to power - the allies still get equal blame.

1) Lets hear you realistic alternative peace paln for WW1 I gave to you dozens of time a realistic alternative; a plan that used the same principles that were used in 1945. Now let's hear you give me realistic reasons why it wouldn't have worked other than the simplistic retort that the "world changed." 2) To what % do you blame the allies for the Nazis? I never absolved the Germans of their blame nor responsibility. I have only repeatedly said the allies must take their share of the blame and responsibility for the failure of a peace that led to a second war. So, if you want another overly simplistic answer - then let's go with 50/50. The allies failed to come up with a good peace and the Germans reacted badly to a bad peace. Now let's hear your percentage.

Chris, come on now; do you really think the solution in 1918 was a good one? You really think that was the best possible and the right course of action? You can't see any alternatives yourself? And your argument that the 1945 solution wouldn't have worked in 1918 isn't backed up by any substantial facts. Can you cite one good reason why it wouldn't have worked (other than to say the "world changed"). It's too easy to simply say that the "world changed" - sure, it changes every day. That's too simplistic. I've read a lot of histories and you are alone in your argument as far as I can tell. No one believes Versailles was the best solution and almost everyone agrees that its negative aspects contributed to the rise of the Nazis and the resulting second war. You haven't given any substantial arguments to disprove that the 1945 solution wouldn't have worked in 1918. Now, I will agree that it wasn't possible to implement in 1918 because the British and French wouldn't have accepted that solution. But I have yet to see you argue that conditions in Germany wouldn't have allowed for such a solution - and that it wouldn't have been successful - if the allies had taken such an approach. For example; if the allied occupation had focused on installing and supporting a reliable German government (banning radical parties, dealing with the real economic issues, etc) instead of simply exacting revenge - tell me what conditions in 1918 prevented that from being successful and demonstrate how those same conditions weren't present in 1945. All I hear you say is the allies had a right to do what they did and there wasn't any other solution. This is no longer a debate on whether or not the allies had a "right" to exact revenge - that's a moot argument. The debate is on was the 1918 solution a good one - and if so, why did the Nazis still come to power and embark on a revanche inspired second war. Can you explain that?