- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
recceguy said:Humour me.
I think that was my mistake. I am sorry you are running out of Axes to grind but I will not humour you with more.
recceguy said:Humour me.
RHenderson said:I think that was my mistake. I am sorry you are running out of Axes to grind but I will not humour you with more.
dapaterson said:One of the fundamental difficulties in a situation such as this is that Canada does not hold the military records for whatever events occured in 1812. That makes it difficult to prepare an adequate assessment.
Imagine, if you will, that it is the year 2212, and the People's Republic of New Brunswick is considering whether or not to grant the battle honour "Sweetwaters - 2012" to the Royal New Brunswick Regiment.
The military records from that period would continue to reside with the Government of Canada; the PRNB would be forced to rely on regimental anecdotes describing the glorious victory, which in fact was merely three troops getting liquoured up, standing on a street corner and screaming. The Canadian military files included the MP report and witness statements, but the PRNB relied only on the RNBR's unit history. (Of course, this situation is entirely hypothetical)
While not the same, there's a risk that Canada's current efforts to commemorate the War of 1812 may be overlooking facts and information available only in the British records.
Kat Stevens said:But then the 1812 veterans will feel slighted and marginalized at having to share the stage. This will not do.
Infanteer said:Three separate zingers - well done!
Infanteer said:It would be fitting in 2015, when Afghanistan is done, to have units emblazon the Afghan honours and the 1812-1815 honours at the same time. The oldest and newest military history of Canada represented at one event.
RHenderson said:Structurally I feel the CDS should establish an separate permanent Honours committee to address these issues and have DHH advise that entity, opposed to the other way around.
bridges said:How do you know that that's not how it's happening now?
bridges said:Who would you have on the permanent committee?
RHenderson said:It is incredible how much documentation exists from the War of 1812.
Michael O'Leary said:And yet, no-one has yet pushed forth the individual unit justifications for these 1812 honours. Most readily available references only speak of the "Canadian Militia" at any action as a single collective grouping.
RHenderson said:About three years ago I asked. Before politely being told to pissed off, a DHH staffer said there was no Permanent CF BH Committee and is called together by the CDS upon recommendation of DHH to deal with specific 'issues' like KOSOVO. This meant to me, that you have to lobby or push for them to activate a process. Supposedly Afghanistan will be handled like WW2 with a Battles Nomenclature Committee that identifies the Battle Honours and after this the CF BH Committee is called together by the CDS to identify which unit gets what Battle Honour.
When the Royal Newfoundland Regiment tried to claim NIAGARA back in 2001/2 and again in 2008, it was handled by the CDS on the advise of DHH. No Committee reviewed their claim. There was no process beyond DHH going into their black box, and making sawing and hammering noises, then answering 'NO'.
I saw the corrspondence. It was just "Sorry. We can't find anything to support your claim." Accountability? Transparency? Where was the "no and here is exactly why your unit does not qualify" response? And this push by the regiment's advisory counsel came with the active support of numerous Newfoundland Senators and MPs. Again no committee heard the claim.
RHenderson said:Your question shows public communication is really poor.