Soviet Hierarchy of Soviet Awards?

[Christian Zulus]

Dear Dave,

many thanks for the highly interesting insight you shared with us about certain cases, but as members of the science of history - phaleristcs are a small part of this science - we should find general rules and scientific laws out of the thousends of individual cases for the time-period of the GPW in the SU.

As I already mentioned: "It would be also interesting to find out, why i.e. the Glory has the much more compelling and prestigious regulations in comparison to the Red Star, but ranks below the Red Star. That's somehow a contradiction and looks odd, because the regulation of an order and the order of precedence of the specific ranking had been done by the same institution: The secretariat of the Supreme Soviet. Maybe the ranking is a mere political decision, done by the Politbuero and the regulations are an affair for the experts in the secretariat of the Supreme Soviet.", there are a lot of such facts to build a rather consistent theory of the REAL precedence of order in conferring awards in the SU during the GPW.

The Soviet Union under the rule of Stalin was not chaos, as it might be seen out of your argumentation. The SU during the GPW till march 1953 was a rather well organized state. So my theory is, that also the hierarchy of awards - in practice - was rather well organized. Orders and medals played an extremly important part in communist Russia.

You are right, there are differnt shemes in Red Army, Red Navy and airforce. I already posted my Navy-list.

I am convinced, that we could find out certain "laws" of conferring awards! Let's try.

To collect SU-awards is a very nice hobby, but it should be more.

My opinion.

Best regards

Christian

[Dolf]

Christian, I think that your have drawn the wrong conclusions about Dolf's comments (and possibly mine as we seem to we seem to share a common side of this argument). I for one value research. But I for one would not question an official hierarchy of orders and try to create a new one. And I will give you two reasons for this.... firstly we have an official order in black and white so there is really no point arguing about it! Secondly, this black and white hierarchy has served as the framework behind the awarding of all soviet orders (even in the days when some pure combat decorations became long service awards!) And on this note I think I rest my case.

Regards,

Jim

Thank you, Jim. Hard for me to put it in words so well as you do in a language I can manage but definetely don't master.

Underlined, exactly my point.

And on this one I'll also rest my case on this matter.

Dolf

[Ed_Haynes]

I was thinking about getting involved in this potentially interesting discussion, but some of the tone adopted here makes me reconsider. Comrades, we must strive to maintain a mutually respectful tone, to share our thoughts and ideas as "gentlemen", not as rivals who must demonstrate constantly how much bigger our "knowledge" is than that between the ears of others. Phaleristics is not, I hope, a competitive sport. To descend into denigration of others' opinions just because they differ from our own threatens the strong community we have here and risks making us just like the other, snarling, whining, nasty, posturing fora.

That being said . . . .

What are we doing here? Are we trying to examine what people (or whatever rank) felt at the time or are we just pulling guesses out of out anatomy and asserting their truth? In the absence of primary sources and the authentic voice of the people we speak about (or around), we may be no more than channeling soldiers long gone in the assumition that their views must be the same as ours (simply because we are RIGHT). I know that capturing the views and voices of non-senior officers in any historical military is difficult, and doing so for the Soviet military during the GPW may be downright impossible. Memoirs, diaries, letters are in too short suppy to give us any hope in examing these questions seriously and professionally.

As a corrective against any "he said, she said" tone, I ask: To what degree can the patterns of "upgrades" and "downgrades" of award recommendations give us a glimpse at at least some of the answer to this question? Dave??

I shall shut up now. You're welcome.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Ed_Haynes

[Bob]

One "neutral" (and excessively rational I admit) way to develop a potentially alternative hierarchy would be to simply look at the market prices for silver, gold, etc. and then put a $ value behind each award. In fact, would be interesting to see that:

- official hierarchy

- number issues

- $ value as per metal market

- typical "collectors" price paid in market

Above should provide already a pretty good indication... let the market do the talking (blasphemy when it comes to Soviet awards of course).

[order_of_victory]

Ed,

I agree that is why Iam watching all the proccedings from the fence

Order of Victory

[NavyFCO]

What are we doing here? Are we trying to examine what people (or whatever rank) felt at the time or are we just pulling guesses out of out anatomy and asserting their truth? In the absence of primary sources and the authentic voice of the people we speak about (or around), we may be no more than channeling soldiers long gone in the assumition that their views must be the same as ours (simply because we are RIGHT). I know that capturing the views and voices of non-senior officers in any historical military is difficult, and doing so for the Soviet military during the GPW may be downright impossible. Memoirs, diaries, letters are in too short suppy to give us any hope in examing these questions seriously and professionally.

As a corrective against any "he said, she said" tone, I ask: To what degree can the patterns of "upgrades" and "downgrades" of award recommendations give us a glimpse at at least some of the answer to this question? Dave??

Ed-

I absolutely agree with you. It is impossible for us to fully consider all the variables that were considered when awarding decorations. Not a single one of us has seen (or will ever see) all commander's intents, directives, etc., that dictated the awarding of decorations. To add to that, we don't know if they worked on a quota system, or something else like that which would have dictated what award someone received. We often look at the upgrading and downgrading of awards on a citation as perhaps something with sinister meaning towards the recipient. In all likelihood, the explainations may well be more straightforward and above-board. It could be that some commanders held some awards in higher regard than other, whether that be based on their personal experience (they may have been turned down for a similar award, for what they considered as something more deserving) or they may have seen far too many of X award issued, and attempted in their own way to uphold the integrity of the award system.

Furthermore, other factors come in to play here. Not a single one of us can 100% know everything that was going on when an award citation was written. Was that award citation written for something completely different than was on the actual citation? (I have personally written an award recommendation like that before...) Was there more to the action than just that single event? What was the weather like? What were the defenses like? Many, many things we simply will never know. When reading unit histories about the War, I know of several units where nearly everyone in the unit received some sort of award for an operation, based on the person's rank and involvement. In that case, who determined who received what award? These are things we simply will never know.

Back to the original topic of this thread though. Was there an "unofficial" hierachy of awards as far as respect from soldiers was concerned? I am absolutely positive that there was. However, this hierarchy varied as much as soldiers (in a broad sense) varied.... what someone's peers, subordinates or seniors thought about certain awards most certainly differed based on those persons' own experiences.

Although it would be nice to have such a list, I personally think that any list that we could come up with would be both the right list and the wrong list at the same time. What could be the hierarchy for a Lieutenant Colonel of the Railway troops would be different from an NCO in an artillery unit. The same could be said for people within the various branches - artillery, rifles, tanks, partisans, etc. Having my own personal decorations and awards, I can say that some of them were much more impressive to me BEFORE I received them, but after earning them, I was not nearly as in awe of that particular medal/award as I once was and thus the "value" of that award - or my personal hierarchy has changed from what it was 8 or 10 years ago.

I am simply not certain how we can scientifically put a list together and say that list is the "official" list for one particular group of people. There are facts that we CAN know for certain - such as the types and variations of awards and so on that are "hard" facts. But once we attempt to determine into the thought proceses of people now long dead, we can never be able to say with any accuracy that we have the "final" answer.

Just my two cents (again.) Let's keep it civil, folks....

Dave

[Mondvor]

That is really interesting to see how the guys from USA and Western Europe at the beginning of 21st century discussing the REAL value of Soviet Awards during WWII.

It's very easy to make any assumptions and conclusions according to your own judgement. But to find how it was in reality, I think you should ask REAL soldiers of WWII. Only they could give you exact answer. Unfortunately, not many of them are still alive now.

Personally, I mostly agree with Dave that there was no universal rules for awards hierarchy. Who brought the idea that Glory was more valuable than Red Star? How about 1943? There was no Glories yet. Everything was quite different and the values of the awards would change from one cavalier to the other.

[Wild Card]

... To what degree can the patterns of "upgrades" and "downgrades" of award recommendations give us a glimpse at at least some of the answer to this question? Dave??

An excellent point and Dave your answer in post #31, to me, pretty well sums it up.

Following is a post that I was preparing while yours hit the front page, so some of it may be redundant; but I think that my question about the rise and fall of Lenin, Red Banner and Red Star is still worth putting on the table.

Thank you both,

Wild Card

[Wild Card]

Gentlemen,

I continue to be encouraged by the enthusiasm and information being generated by this thread. Although there are several comments and ideas to which I would like to respond, there is one in particular that I think covers many. I refer to the comment by NavyFCO:

?I don't think there was a "set" hierarchy of awards that was common to all Soviet forces. I think it varied greatly on the person's rank, military specialty, and their unit.?

I would reword this observation as follows:

?I do think there was a "set" hierarchy of awards that was common to all Soviet forces; but I think it varied greatly on the person's rank, military specialty, unit and the persons involved in the nomination and approval process.?

I can not resist mentioning here that before we all become too smug over the perceived, shall I say, manipulation or corruption of the award system by the Soviets, back in 1967 I saw the American Bronze Star degenerate into an officer?s version of the Good Conduct (or I was there) Medal. I just mention this as an example - please do not let this comment derail the purpose of this thread; another time, another place.

Next, I would like to throw another curve. For all of the differing points and views, I think that we all agree that over time during the GPW, there was a loss of importance and prestige regarding the Lenin, Red Banner and Red Star. Now consider the fact that, along with, at that time, the relatively new Medal for Valor, these three awards are all that the military had to award. Is it not possible that these three decorations were, let?s say, stretched or expanded beyond their original intent from the beginning of the war until the introduction of the other awards circa 1943, after which time the new awards eventually found their place in the system and the original three not only went back to their original purposes, but in many cases fell below it? Refer to the Gorbachev story in post #5.

Just one last item for consideration, I again maintain that the reason for the award is of the utmost importance. Discuss and evaluate that as much as we like, take a moment to be thankful that 90% of the time we know who got that Red Star and for what. Compare that with having $50,000 worth of Iron Crosses, Panzer Assault Badges et al., and not having a clue as to to whom or for what any of them were awarded?

Whatever floats your boat. Thank you,

Wild Card

[Ed_Haynes]

Thanks, Dave, Mondvor, and Wild Card. "Centering" is often needed.

We are REALLY discussing some important issues -- I think -- but, sometimes, we need to be reset.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Ed_Haynes

[Wild Card]

Hi Mondvor,

It is difficult to disagree with your opening statement; but I can tell you that to pursue your point, while enlightening, is hardly definitive. A lieutenant who spent the vast majority of his time at fire bases in the Central Highlands will have quite a different view from his counterpart who spent his tour behind a desk in Saigon; but both are more knowledgeable of the war than their contemporaries who were never there. To slice the bread a little thinner, a given intense situation or incident affects different people in different ways and their reactions and recall can be very different; and no matter how hard you may try to describe or explain it, one can never, never, comprehend it if they have not ?been there?.

Nevertheless this is not to say that those who weren?t ?there?, but truly research and study the war, which ever one we are discussing, don?t know what they are talking about. It is amazing how different things look the further you get from the trenches; but it?s still the same war and the picture still isn?t much prettier.

With regard to your question as to the idea that Glory is more valuable than Red Star, this is why it has been repeatedly suggested and generally agreed that this hierarchy be considered in a pre and post 1943 context.

Regards,

Wild Card

[Guest RedThreat]

Per Glory 3 vs. GPW 1:

I believe GPW 1 was considered to be a more prestigious decoration. The 2 orders had similar award criteria. They were awarded for virtually same deeds, but GPW 1 is made out of gold. A soldier must have been happier to get gold GPW 1 than silver Glory 3.

Below is a link to an article written by Vasil Bikov who was a junior officer in the front line infantry unit during the war. He became one of the most popular writers in the Soviet Union. Most of his books were written about and had a repution for realistically portraying experience of soldiers and civilians during the GPW. Though the article has a bitter, pessimistic, "everything was bad in the Soviet Union" tone, it expresses an opinion of a first-hand witness.

http://www.genstab.ru/vasil_b.htm

Here is an English translation of paragraphs in his article which are pertinent to the discussion on this thread. Forgive an awkward phrasing of an online auto translator.

"The hierarchy of awards, as well as procedure of rewardings, was defined not so much in the legislative order, but by privately developed tradition. Anybody from subordinates could not be awarded before the commander, any chief did not aspire to award the subordinate if he was not awarded himself. Awards were usually distributed not on merits as it is accepted to think of it, but depending on a post. An award of the Red Star the commander of a platoon, GPW of the second degree - the company commander usually received; the first degree was received by the commander of a battalion who by the end of war quite often deserved also an award of the Red Banner - most, by the way, dear of military awards. But in general it was an award for commanders and political workers of a divisional level and above. For generals there were many Polkovodets (Suvorov, Kutuzov, Khmel.) awards.

The strange metamorphosis has occured to the award of Glory founded in the middle of war for rewarding exclusively the soldier and sergeants of a field army and appreciated during war no higher than popular medal " For courage ". In the sixties under initiative of Konstantin Simonov who has made a documentary film about recipients of all 3 classes, last in the strange way has become equal to the Gold Star of the Hero, and in the given statute remains until now."

I hope you will find this article informative.

Simon

[Ed_Haynes]

Thanks, Simon. Much to chew on here . . . . .

[Riley1965]

Christian Zulus,

I must agree with Ed, Dave, Andrey and Dolf. I find your arguements without merit. Let's not try to "re-invent the wheel". The sources Dolf quoted are among the gentlemen I turn to when I need help with a Soviet ODM.

Doc

Edited September 29, 2006 by Riley1965

[Mondvor]

Gentlemen,

Finally I've reinstalled operational system on my computer and now I have an access to the forum from my home place

Of course I'll agree with Wild Card, but with one small addition. We can create "the hierarchy" or "scale of value" in terms of how we imagine it. But for real World War soldiers it might be slightly different. Each veteran (private or general) have had his own unique point of view on the subject which award is more valuable.

I think that we all should agree that long-service awards must stay aside in this evaluation. It's all about awards for some real concrete merits. We also should exclude some unusual presentations (like Lenin to Private or "For Valor" to Colonel). They are exceptions. If we analyze hundreds of award sets, we can probably see that the number of awards to non-officer ranks limited to MM, Valor, Glory, Red Star and Patriotic War (both classes). Everything else was very rare. For junior officers (from Jr. Lieutenent to Captain) it was Valor, Red Star, GPW, Red Banner, Nevsky and rarely 3rd class of Sv, Kt or Hm. Senior officers (up to Colonel) should eliminate Valor medal from the list. For some of them (who hold certain positions) we can add 2nd class of Sv, Kt and Hm. Generals should eliminate Red Star and 2nd class CPW as well as Nevsky. Also 3rd classes of "polkovodets" we can replace with 1st class. 2nd class awards stay also.

Of course this is only my opinion, that describes situation "in general". Exceptions are possible for every group I have described.

Lenin... Well, Lenin is a strange award. If we would not count long-service cases and HSU cases (for the case of HSU related Lenin it would be definitely top value award for both private and general), then the events of bestowing Lenin as a single award are not very common. That mostly happened at the beginning of the war (in most cases for Air Force members).

By the way, at pre-war period Lenin was not very valuable award comparing to Red Banner. One military bomber pilot received Lenin for Finland War and complained to his wife about that. He said that his gunner got Red Star, his navigator got Red Banner and he received Lenin. "What the hell" - he said. "Even a milkmaid can get Lenin, but I'm a military pilot". He was right. At the end of 1930th hundreds of Lenins were given to collective-farmers for their labor achievements.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Mondvor

[Wild Card]

Hi Riley1965,

Sorry but, without disparaging any of the experts you cite (all far more knowledgeable than I), I can not agree with your statement in total. I do not think Christian?s intent, and Christian please correct me if I am wrong, is to replace the ?official? hierarchy so much as to acknowledge there exists unofficial ones. This thread has demonstrated the fact that to many such an unofficial hierarchy does exist, although in many different formats.

Would you trade an Order of Glory 3rd for a long service Red Star? If so, send me a e-mail. I think that discussion of this subject has been long overdue; and a lot of valuable information and opinions has come out. In the end, the ?official? hierarchy will remain as the recognized authority; but as I?ve said before, like it or not, that second hierarchy does exist; as determined by you, me, the other members of the Soviet collecting community and our bank accounts; not to ignore the feelings and opinions of the men and women who won these awards.

Regards,

Wild Card

[Mondvor]

Would you trade an Order of Glory 3rd for a long service Red Star? If so, send me a e-mail.

I would trade Glory 3rd for long service Red Star if this Red Star belonged to HSU

[Wild Card]

I would trade Glory 3rd for long service Red Star if this Red Star belonged to HSU

Let me check...................nope, sorry

[Wild Card]

Hi Mondvor

For someone who has gone through the joy of reinstalling their operating system, you?ve made quite a comeback.

Going through your proposals and concepts, when I read the suggestion to remove the long service awards I felt that that kind of takes the fun out of it; but in all fairness, it does level the playing field somewhat. I must bring one point to the fore though - ?Generals should eliminate Red Star and 2nd class CPW as well as Nevsky?. I do not recall ever having seen a Nevsky awarded to a general, and think that such could be exceptionally interesting. Anybody out there got the details on one?

Thanks for your post, an awful lot to consider there.

Best wishes,

Wild Card

[Mondvor]

I must bring one point to the fore though - ?Generals should eliminate Red Star and 2nd class CPW as well as Nevsky?. I do not recall ever having seen a Nevsky awarded to a general, and think that such could be exceptionally interesting. Anybody out there got the details on one?

This is all because of my poor English I was trying to say there that Nevsky should not be counted as regular award for Generals. Their list might consists of GPW 1st class, 1st and 2nd class "polkovodets" and Red Banner.

[Mondvor]

Actually, you can find some generals wearing Nevsky. Here is one of them - General Krupskij, commander of 9th Ground-attack Air Corps. He was promoted to General on February 4, 1944. So his Nevsky might be awarded before that date.

[Mondvor]

Another General with Nevsky...

Edited September 29, 2006 by Mondvor

[NavyFCO]

By the way, at pre-war period Lenin was not very valuable award comparing to Red Banner. One military bomber pilot received Lenin for Finland War and complained to his wife about that. He said that his gunner got Red Star, his navigator got Red Banner and he received Lenin. "What the hell" - he said. "Even a milkmaid can get Lenin, but I'm a military pilot". He was right. At the end of 1930th hundreds of Lenins were given to collective-farmers for their labor achievements.

Wow! Now doesn't THAT story turn any list that we might make on its head!

In contrast, I just sold a group of awards that had been purchased directly from the veteran, a retired Air Force Colonel. According to the original buyer of the group who sat down and talked with the veteran for a while, the Colonel was exceedly bitter to the military and the USSR because while serving in the 1950s (still don't know what he was doing exactly - research is pending) he "only" received a Red Banner while all of his peers received Lenins for the "same thing."

I don't know what that "thing" was, but it's interesting to see how before WW2 a pilot complained about receiving a Lenin, yet 15 years later, another pilot was left with years of bitterness because he DIDN'T receive a Lenin.

It's interesting how people's minds change. Same award, same position in the "on paper" hierarchy, but vastly different points of view...

Dave

[NavyFCO]

I would trade Glory 3rd for long service Red Star if this Red Star belonged to HSU

Now here's some irony to throw in here. This is a reflection of the hierarchy of awards amongst collectors - and how different it can be...

I have owned 300 Glory 3rds, and have researched about 100 of them (maybe more.) I would happily trade a Glory 3rd for a post-war unnumbered and documented Military Merit medal or For Valor medal in a heartbeat, even though the Glory is "worth" more, money-wise.

Why is that? Because for me, if I see yet ANOTHER Glory 3rd awarded to an artilleryman or mortarman who killed "up to a platoon of Hitlerites", I might just hurt myself..... I'd rather have a Military Merit medal that was given for something unusual, such as the top graduate of the airborne officer school (I have one) in the 1960s than to have another Glory 3rd with a citation that reflects about 70% of all the others I've seen

So, I think we can all agree that there was an unofficial hierarchy of awards amongst soldiers, just as there is an unofficial hierarchy of awards amongst collectors. Both of these unofficial hierarchies are different between collectors, just as they were between soldiers - everyone has their own opinion and there's rarely a "common" ground.

Dave

[slava1stclass]

To all:

I have long held that if one could own only one grouping of Soviet combat-related orders that grouping should be a Full Cavalier set of the Order of Glory. Such a set truly embodies the up close and personal nature of combat one envisions when studying the campaigns in the East.

As others have already opined in this thread, certain Soviet orders may be higher in precedence - like the Order of Lenin. With the Lenin, however, one runs the risk that it could have been awarded for exceeding the year's quota for tractor production as easily as it could have been awarded for a valorous act. With the Order of Glory, there is no such chance.

As Wild Card previously noted, to each his own.

Regards,

slava1stclass

Edited September 29, 2006 by slava1stclass