IrishGunner

Post an abridged version or an abstract on GMIC Articles...

That Jubilee is nice. Was that awarded to only a select group?

Nice sterbeblid. I haven't seen that many decorations on one before.

Thanks for posting this reminder, Claudius. Must be a lot of material for a good article...

Some nice and even affordable pieces in there... As long as the provenance doesn't push up the bidding.

Not a true comparison, but I found that the West Point class of 1942 - the first graduating class after war declared in December 1941 lost 70 of 374 graduates in WWII. They could have had a few more deaths in Korea and Vietnam. The class earned a total of 134 Purple Hearts; some of those additional 64 casualties were possibly KIA in the later conflicts. But still nowhere near the loss percentage of St. Cyr 1914.

I would say they are state National Guard ribbons. Each state's National Guard has its own series of awards that mirror the federal Army. Based upon a cursory Google search, I believe that these are Massachusetts National Guard State Guard Service Ribbons. In my opinion, your ribbons have "yellowed" white stripes due to age. Stars added for "additional years of service" perhaps. I can't find anything specific about the ribbon, but the color scheme certainly seems to fit with other MASS National Guard ribbons. Perhaps an email to the National Guard Association of Massachusetts could confirm or deny.

Interesting facts. Almost 60% of the class died in service to France. I wonder how that compares to other nations' academies.

Stuart, thanks for posting the article. The line I took from the end paragraph is this one: "Should we really fault Chamberlain for postponing a potentially disastrous fight that his military advisers cautioned against, his allies weren't ready for, and his people didn't support?" The italics of the word "postponing" are mine. I could agree perhaps even with your quoted out-take, if there really was a grand strategy to buy time in order to be ready for war. But I don't think that really was the case. Chamberlain thought Hitler would stop with his "reasonable" demand for the Sudetenland. Neville thought it was the end game. He was blind to the real intent and long-term strategy of Hitler (He didn't read Mein Kampf I guess. Intell failure?) Therefore, Chamberlain failed to have a long-term strategy to deal with Hitler. I would have to read more, but if Chamberlain's move at Munich really was only a gambit to simply buy time, then it makes sense. But I haven't read anything up to this point that suggests that was the case. By not knowing his "enemy" Chamberlain failed to see that one morsel would not satiate the beast like he hoped.

I truly doubt he was bullied at school. Despite its tough sounding name, Rugby School, the place is primarily known for authors (like Lewis Carroll and Salman Rushdie) and accountants (like Neville). Poor Neville was destined to be milk-toast coward; leading hospitals and never being called to the Colours.

I've just re-read the original blog and noted the following: "later that evening I removed him from my Christmas card list." I didn't even know you had a Christmas card list. Wait, doesn't one have to be added before one can be removed?

I can't imagine the Americans hosting a similar event and ending up with a such a naff souvenir. We also hosted the 50th Anniversary of NATO Summit in Washington, DC in 1999. There were so many "naff" souvenirs made there are too many to mention. I worked the OPS Center and have a golf shirt (purchased) and a challenge coin (presented), both with anniversary logos. There were hats, attache cases, and other do-dads for other special areas. These were not for sale to the public, but only for teams working the event. So...now you can imagine.

Brian, notwithstanding... You betcha.

As the only Englishman present Of course, the best leaders England ever had were Englishwomen. Right Megan?

My wife's collection

These are simply musing and not an argument; Hear, hear. (Parliamentary speak don't cha know). I would consider my comments more along the lines of a Non-Paper (aka aide-mémoire). (Diplomatic speak don't cha know)

Megan, Chamberlain may have been doing what he thought the electorate wanted, but that doesn't make it right. While "politically correct," your argument would then justify what Hitler did in 1930s because he was "popularly" elected and, at least, in the beginning doing what the majority wanted. So, Chamberlain gets the Nuremberg Defense - Chamberlain was "just a good soldier; following orders; he had no choice." A "good historian" - to use your words - doesn't just look at the facts or to use your words - "find out what was known at the time and to whom, and what the 'will of the people' was". That's easy. It's okay I suppose if you are producing a History Channel 30-minute piece. But where's the "so-what" factor? The difficult part is analyzing the facts to guide the future. It's not enough to know why or how something happened. A "good historian" is finding the right lessons for the leaders to learn. Neville Chamberlain is not a very good lesson in leadership. I recommend Joshua Chamberlain instead.

1 Other than quotes this blog consists of my opinions Indeed and so diplomatically enunciated. I can only agree that Chamberlain is not alone to blame. He was simply the leader of the international community at the time. He is no more to blame alone for WWII than George Bush was to blame alone for Iraq. But being a leader means sometimes making unpopular decisions. It is my opinion that Neville did not have the requisite leadership ability (read back-bone) to make the hard decision. Instead, he chose "hope" as his option. Not a good strategy. He hoped by avoiding the hard decisions - read confrontation - he could secure Britain. Daladier had the same approach for France. Neither cared for random specks on a map. Thus, as "leaders" of the League of Nations it was easier to let Japan have Manchuria (what does Downing Street care about that far away place?); Italy have Abyssinia (oh, why we should bother - it won't endanger Cornwall if Italy gets some African "colonies"); Germany get parts of Czechoslovakia - (they weren't a real country anyway but some leftover vestige of the Hapsburgs) - surely the loss of those independent lands to aggressors isn't sufficient to risk war for Britain. (Not to mention, once those aggressor nations withdrew from the League; they were not subject to the League's rules.) I mean after all, it's just business ... just diplomacy. Just the way things had been done for decades and decades. The League was a sham. A fake. (Perhaps like the UN?) Britain and France really didn't need the League to act, did they? I'm sure if Whitehall or the Elysee had interests to protect they wouldn't have worried about some old diplomats in Geneva. The League was a mere fig leaf for cowards. I mean, why not follow the US lead; don't even join the League (the brainchild of our own president); why should we care about what happens in Europe or anywhere else (as long as Manifest Destiny isn't involved). At least that was a "honest" approach - a democratic approach - the Senate decided it wasn't in US national interests to join despite Wilson's personal and political investment. (Oh by the way, the US isn't a "parliamentary" democracy; the President can't be removed by a vote of no-confidence. He can be impeached, but that's a different story.) The best way to avoid war, is to prepare for war. Deterrence. Appeasement only signaled that we won't go to war for specks on the map (unless they are our specks on the map). Appeasement had no chance to avert war. It had no deterrence value. It encouraged war, only in a matter of time. No, Chamberlain didn't surrender. He had options. His back wasn't against the wall. He wasn't facing overwhelming odds. He could resist. Instead, he abdicated. He quit. He took the easy way. Much worse than surrendering. I can only agree that we should not vilify Neville...alone..., but I'm sorry, in my opinion, history should not forgive him his failure to lead at a time when leadership was needed.

Yea, that's what I thought...

So, is this a "group" to someone (possibly an Italian pilot in the Spanish Civil War) or a random lot of unrelated medals?

That's a logical choice. And I'd probably go with Captain rank considering only one combat tour in Vietnam.

Yes, a patch on the right shoulder is a "combat patch" - the Shoulder Sleeve Insignia of the unit served. The West Point patch on the left shoulder would have been his unit of assignment at the time; this changes as the soldier changes units. He probably was an instructor at West Point. Officers only wear the "Overseas Service Bar" for service in a theater of war; each bar represents 6 months. So, this officer served a one year - normal tour - in Vietnam. The button is the standard eagle; so, no way to tell what branch. As an instructor and with a tour in Vietnam, he was probably a Captain, Major or Lieutenant Colonel.

Chris is correct; The red patch is U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV). Google will tell you a lot. The jacket is an officer's jacket and could be any rank 2LT to COL. The jacket is also generic; he could be any branch. (Unless the buttons have "castles" instead of "eagles" - Engineer branch have special buttons.)

Kasle, the map is very helpful. I did not know there was a Ukrainian village with the exact spelling with an "S" - that's why I went with the Polish village. Based upon your map, I would agree with you...