Who was the most decorated WW-II military man ?

[GrauGeist]

Hans Rudel was the highest decorated serviceman in the war (for Germany) and the only recipient of the highest order of the Knight's cross: Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds

Here's his list of awards:
Front Flying Clasp of the Luftwaffe (Frontflugspange) in Gold and Diamonds with Pennant "2,000"
Honor Goblet of the Luftwaffe (Ehrenpokal der Luftwaffe)
Wound Badge (Verwundetenabzeichen) in Gold
Combined Pilots-Observation Badge (Flugzeugführer und Beobachterabzeichen) in Gold with Diamonds
German Cross (Deutsches Kreuz) in Gold
Iron Cross (Eisernes Kreuz)
Iron Cross 2nd Class (Eisernes Kreuz 2. Klasse)
Iron Cross 1st Class (Eisernes Kreuz 1. Klasse)
Hungarian Gold Medal of Bravery
Italian Silver Medal of Military Valor
Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds
- The Knight's cross is a progressive award, the swords, oak leaves, etc. are added to it in regard to accomplishment with multiple levels of each degree (example: silver oak leaves, golden oak leaves, etc.)

 

[tyrodtom]

You need to read up on Douglas MacArthur, he may not have been a " combat soldier " during WW2, but in earlier times most definitely was .
Was reccomended for the MOH in the occupation of Veracruz in 1913?, and WW1, but didn't receive it either time, but was awarded 7 Silver Stars, 2 wound metals, and various other decorations in WW1. Not hardly the record of a desk jocky.

Another tidbit about MacArthur, his father Arthur MacArthur received the MOH for actions during the Civil War.

 

[Lucky13]

Had to read up on it myself...

Air Ministry, 2nd November, 1943.

The KING has been graciously pleased to confer the VICTORIA CROSS on the undermentioned officer in recognition of most conspicuous bravery:

Flying Officer Lloyd Allan TRIGG, D.F.C. (N.Z.413515), Royal New Zealand Air Force (missing, believed killed), No. 200 Squadron.

Flying Officer Trigg had rendered outstanding service on convoy escort and antisubmarine duties. He had completed 46 operational sorties and had invariably displayed skill and courage of a very high order. One day in August 1943, Flying Officer Trigg undertook, as captain and pilot, a patrol in a Liberator although he had not previously made any operational sorties in that type of aircraft. After searching for 8 hours a surfaced U-boat was sighted. Flying Officer Trigg immediately prepared to attack. During the approach, the aircraft received many hits from the submarine's anti-aircraft guns and burst into flames, which quickly enveloped the tail. The moment was critical. Flying Officer Trigg could have broken off the engagement and made a forced landing in the sea. But if he continued the attack, the aircraft would present a "no deflection" target to deadly accurate anti-aircraft fire, and every second spent in the air would increase the extent and intensity of the flames and diminish his chances of survival. There could have been no hesitation or doubt in his mind. He maintained his course in spite of the already precarious condition of his aircraft and executed a masterly attack. Skimming over the U-boat at less than 50 feet with anti-aircraft fire entering his opened bomb doors, Flying Officer Trigg dropped his bombs on and around the U-boat where they exploded with davastating effect. A short distance further on the Liberator dived into the sea with her gallant captain and crew. The U-boat sank within 20 minutes and some of her crew were picked up later in a rubber dinghy that had broken loose from the Liberator. The Battle of the Atlantic has yielded many fine stories of air attacks on underwater craft, but Flying Officer Trigg's exploit stands out as an epic of grim determination and high courage. His was the path of duty that leads to glory.

—Supplement to London Gazette, 29 October 1943, (dated 2 November 1943)


The Victoria Cross was awarded to Trigg's widow by the Governor General of New Zealand, Sir Cyril Newall, on 28 May 1944.

 

[GrauGeist]

Had to read up on it myself...

And all that information came from the U-Boat skipper!

 

[Edgar Brooks]

There were times during the history of the VC and the MoH where the prestige of the award was lost and they were given 'out like candy'. Sorry, but its the truth. Because no other military decoration was authorized during the Civil War, some seemingly less exceptional and notable actions were recognized by a Medal of Honor during that conflict.

So it's safe to assume that you share your compatriot's bigoted view; there was, in fact, no award, for bravery, for "other ranks," which is why the VC was instituted, making it a classless award. Also, no VC was awarded during the Crimean War, but were all presented, on a single day, by the Queen, after the war was over. I really do think that it's shameful that site administrators are so ready to make ill-judged, and ill-founded, statements, without bothering to check their facts; and, no, there's no need to ban me, because I'm banning myself, since I can't bring myself to read such nastiness.

 

[Njaco]

Bigoted? The one who is bigoted is the one who can't accept the truth that there were times in the 100 year plus history of these medals when they weren't to be awarded. You really need to take off those rose colored glasses if you thought my comment was "bigoted" and nasty. Incredible.

Yes, I do support my fellow Mods.

EDIT: I just checked Charles post and the All-Offended language he used was ....

I think Her Majesty's service gave away VC's like candy.

THATS bigoted???? Looks more like a question to me.

"Dugout Doug" was probably the only recipient of the MOH who really didn't deserve it.

Now, this IS an opinion and - my, my - only names one person out those 3,000+ recipients.

I'm giving you a few months to ponder the difference.

 

[Lucky13]

EDIT: I just checked Charles post and the All-Offended language he used was ....

I think Her Majesty's service gave away VC's like candy.

THATS bigoted???? Looks more like a question to me.

Chris, my friend, as I refuse to take part in this, at the moment, rather heated discussion, but, for what I learned in school, that's not a question, that's a statement, a question always have a '?', doesn't it?

The title Hero of the Soviet Union (Russian: Герой Советского Союза) was the highest distinction in the Soviet Union, awarded personally or collectively for heroic feats in service to the Soviet state and society...

Total awarded 12,775

So, this isn't a purely military award then it seem....

 

[Njaco]

Apples and oranges. Regardless, the response by Edgar was out of line - far out of line.

 

[meatloaf109]

Being a Socialist award, "Hero of The Soviet Union" could be given to just about anyone that the State decided had made a meaningful contribution to the greater good. So a better Borscht recipe could be as valuable as killing a few hundred invading Germans.

 

[buffnut453]

Chris,

Perhaps my last post (#20) wasn't sufficiently clear. My problem is that the specific inference was that the VC was given out like candy during WWII. You broadened the discussion into earlier periods but this thread was supposed to be about WWII. We can debate the arse out of whether a particular recipient did, or did not, "deserve" a VC or MoH but (again per my post #20) such discussions should, at least, be based on a reading of the actual events and the justification for why the recipient was granted the award. None of that takes away from fact that Charles' "candy" comment was, at best, ill put, don't you think?

 

[Lucky13]

Understandable I think, as these MoH and VC (at this point) are awarded for things, sorry, heroic acts, that many if not all of us merely dare to dream of doing, when first made it may have been awarded for some actions that we here find odd and don't really agree with (political or not) and which should probably been better awarded with a civilian version of the same, as with these, which I found on the Wiki about the MoH...

1900s: Early in the 20th century, the Navy awarded many Medals of Honor for peacetime bravery. For instance, in 1901, John Henry Helms aboard the USS Chicago (CA-14) was awarded the medal for saving the ship's cook from drowning. Seven sailors aboard the USS Iowa (BB-4) were awarded the medal after the ship's boiler exploded on January 25, 1904. Richard Byrd and Floyd Bennett were awarded the medal after World War I for the exploration of the North Pole. And, Admiral Thomas J. Ryan was awarded the medal for saving a woman from the burning Grand Hotel in Yokohama, Japan, following the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake. Between 1919 and 1942, the Navy issued two separate versions of the Medal of Honor, one for acts related to combat and one for non-combat bravery.

 

[Lucky13]

Being a Socialist award, "Hero of The Soviet Union" could be given to just about anyone that the State decided had made a meaningful contribution to the greater good. So a better Borscht recipe could be as valuable as killing a few hundred invading Germans.

Which I just found out!

 

[buffnut453]

Undoubtedly, some awards for valour are political in nature. One could argue that O'Hare's MoH for 5 kills in a single mission was done as much to boost morale at home as it was for anything O'Hare actually did in combat. Equally, from a historical perspective, many today would question whether Leefe Robinson's actions in downing a Zeppelin over London in 1916 truly merited Britain's highest award for gallantry. And, as I've said before, there are plenty of brave acts for which the VC was not awarded. The attack on Endau by 36 and 100 Squadrons in late January 1942 is one that immediately springs to my mind - real "Charge of the Light Brigade" stuff, with the men of both units being thrown into a daylight attack in archaic Vildebeest aircraft. I just vehemently disagree with the inference that VCs were given out like candy in WWII.

 

[meatloaf109]

I did not know about the two seperate versions of the MOH, Thanks for sharing that!
As for the controversy, I believe that Charles expressed his opinions as any American is still free to do. I happen to agree with him about Gen. MacArthur, I think that in that particular case, the award was politically motivated. I don't yet know enough about the Victoria Cross or under what circumstances it has been awarded, but I stand by Charles' right to have and state his opinions.

 

[Marcel]

Sorry discussions sometimes results in mud slinging. On the other hand, if someone would play down my country's pride, I might become unreasonable as well.

 

[buffnut453]

Meatloaf,

I'm not trying to restrict Charles' right of expression. However, if he's going to make statements like that perhaps he should back it up with evidence? He's been remarkably quiet since that post. I'm more than happy to get into a discussion--without it getting nasty--but let's understand why Charles thinks the VC is such a trivial award that it's given away for nothing. He can express his opinion but let's see the supporting justification and rationale. Is that unreasonable?

 

[GrauGeist]

Also, being an International forum, sometimes certain things may be taken out of context. Everyone has the right to thier opinion as long as it's not mean spirited or an attack.

I have seen comments directed toward my country that could be taken as questionable, but instead looked to the spirit of the discussion/comment.

I would think it's better to find out and discuss why a comment was made the way it was, than jump to conclusions and ruin a good conversation...

 

[buffnut453]

That's all I'm asking. Let's see the rationale or justification. We can argue the merits or otherwise of individual cases (eg Leefe Robinson or O'Hare) but anyone who's spent more than a few hours on this forum knows that broadbrush statements without supporting data are going to be questioned. I've been harangued for making far less contentious comments than the one Charles made about VC awards. It sticks in my throat because it calls into question the bravery of everyone who received the award.

 

[Lucky13]

As would anyone! (whooops! Meant as a reply to Marcel's post!)

As it may be, with this discussion, heated or not, disagreeing as to when a award for bravery should have been given or not, they're all in one way or another heroes and you don't raise heroes, you raise sons and in some cases daughters, some of them have it, some of them don't, it's all there, more or less deep in your heart, your bones, your soul, if you treat them like sons, or daughters, they'll always, one way or another, turn out to be heroes, even if it's just in our own eyes... Even though a hero might not be any braver than the next to you ordinary man, but maybe just those few minutes longer, or just to afraid to run... As for those long gone old heroes of the past, they have not then, not now or ever died, they're only sleeping at the bottom of our mind, waiting for our call, for whenever we have need to call for them, in more than one way, in the past, at the present they represent the finest, the bravest and the purest of wisdom of our race.

I might be wrong....

Also, might be wrong again, but doesn't media use the word hero too easy nowadays and as such, also done the same back then?

 

[GrauGeist]

Well said, Jan...and yes, I do see the word "Hero" being used a little too much in the media these days :/