View Full Version : WW2 'Hero' : Moral Dilemma
Say if a person who had a very minor role in WWII (if at all) fraudulently claimed he was awarded a certain high distinguishing medal immediately after the war (before online records could verify him) and his family and friends subsequently believed he was a hero etc. He also became a bit of a celebrity and did talks (wearing collectors replicer medals) and presentations etc on the assumption that he was for real.
63 years on, should his misdemeanour be revealed and the person be named and shamed or should sleeping dogs lie, as we say?
Aaldtimer
21-Jul-08, 02:42
Of course his lies must be exposed. Watched a programme on Douglas Bader last night that didn't show him in the best of lights either. A little embroidering of the facts!:(
Say if a person who had a very minor role in WWII (if at all) fraudulently claimed he was awarded a certain high distinguishing medal immediately after the war (before online records could verify him) and his family and friends subsequently believed he was a hero etc. He also became a bit of a celebrity and did talks (wearing collectors replicer medals) and presentations etc on the assumption that he was for real.
63 years on, should his misdemeanour be revealed and the person be named and shamed or should sleeping dogs lie, as we say?
Difficult one.
"Fake" recievers of medals dilute and devalue those who have earned them. Shame on them.
But... After 63 years, the fact is he's not going to be around much longer. Any stigma from his lies (if revealed) would still remain his descendents long after he is gone. What good would that do? I'd probably choose to let his family and friends remember him as their "hero" than a fraud.
I assume you know the fraudster? That being the case, does he know that you know?
Who would benefit by him being exposed this late on in the day? Some times it's better to say nothing. He has had to live with the lie all these years. It would be his family who would have to bear the brunt of his exposure. Im sure there are many more "fake" heros out there who have done worse than him. Let the old man die happy and let sleeping dogs lie.
Melancholy Man
21-Jul-08, 09:44
Hmmm... real case? It would depend on how much benefit he derived - not a few speeches and minor adoration from bystanders, but if he were accused of desertion or has been claiming pensions or reproaching others for not doing what he claimed to have done (see Gunther Grass).
Also, what was the context of his supposed award? WWII served as a rite of passage for all of the generation which came of age then, and this may be mortification at thinking he didn't honour his friends/comrades who died. His speeches could actually have been keeping their memories alive. I remember, as a child, an old man in tears at the memories of his dead mates.
Of course, some perspective would be needed: did he claim a conceivable award, e.g. taking on a machine-gun nest, or was it a bit silly, e.g. flying with Guy Gisbson (http://www.modoracle.com/news/Fake-WWII-Hero-Is-Scambuster_15743.html) or summat else utterly implausible (http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Sham-war-hero-caught-out.4264971.jp)? War is a very grubby thing, and always hides unpleasant secrets. WWII was a long war and a lot of people died.
teenybash
21-Jul-08, 10:32
I couldn't see how anyone would benefit through naming and shaming....maybe family etc should be told, after the 'hero' has passed on.
Whover has or is falsely claiming to have performed heroic deeds is more to be pitied than scorned as ther is a sad lack in their lives.
Melancholy Man
21-Jul-08, 10:38
Except the former army cook who claimed to have fought at Goosegreen and been the second SAS man on the Iranian Embassy balcony. He deserves to be laughed at and to have children pointing.
(That the second SAS man was, I think, Fijian Staff Sergeant Takavesi wouldn't have made a difference to him.)
Valerie Campbell
21-Jul-08, 14:47
Say if a person who had a very minor role in WWII (if at all) fraudulently claimed he was awarded a certain high distinguishing medal immediately after the war (before online records could verify him) and his family and friends subsequently believed he was a hero etc. He also became a bit of a celebrity and did talks (wearing collectors replicer medals) and presentations etc on the assumption that he was for real.
63 years on, should his misdemeanour be revealed and the person be named and shamed or should sleeping dogs lie, as we say?
Making up stories changes history. What else has he said that's untrue but people have believed it as fact? (rhetorical question) The most important point here though is the betrayal to his friends and family.
Is the person dead?
If so, why upset his family just because you can?
If not..............tell him you know and let him set the record straight himself.
Or alternatively, you could tell "The Sun" and let them humiliate the whole family in their umpteen page exposes of his actions because they believed him.
I can't see that it would bother someone who had deliberately lied to be exposed.......he'd just be amazed that he had got off with it for so long...........but it would upset his blameless family.
So if it doesn't bother anyone that the only people to be embarrassed by disclosure are those who were not actually involved with the deception....then go for it.
There are too many "Walts" who claim to have served or want to lie to people for their own egotistical agenda.
I seem to recall reading that in terms of decorations, there is an offence of wearing a medal that you are not entitled to, but it may not be an offence of claiming to have one that you don't have.
Personally, I don't give a monkey's. I think the human race has greater priorities than tracking down every little morsel of dishonesty that has occurred on our planet.
Then again, why not have the medal ripped from his uniform and put him in front of a firing squad? That'll teach HIM about breaking commandments willy nilly.
Then of course there is the question, has, through his 'celebrity status', he gained financially from his dishonesty?
Whitewater
21-Jul-08, 23:35
Tricky question, I voted to let sleeping dogs lie (excuse the pun). Reason being that I think all the people who served in WW2 were all heros in their own small way. He perhaps, in the early days tried to dress up his input a bit without realising the implications, but as time went on he probably found it rather difficult to tell the truth.
It would serve no purpose to name & shame, only distress for his family and friends, best to leave well alone.
Of course his lies must be exposed. Watched a programme on Douglas Bader last night that didn't show him in the best of lights either. A little embroidering of the facts!:(
I think you will find that the reason for Bader's deception was more out of protecting the valour of a fellow pilot than for his own benefit.
The conclusion the programme came to was that, in all probability in the heat of battle, he was shot down in a “friendly fire” incident and that to protect the reputation of one of his squadron he recorded the incident as having been the result of a collision with an enemy aircraft.
In this day and age we are all to ready to decry bravery as stupidity, thuggery and self-glorification in front of the television from the safety of our cosy living-rooms but I wonder how brave any of us would be if it came to the choice of staring violent death, or even worse life long pain, and being able to run away and hide?
Only those who have seriously had to make that choice have any right to pass judgement.
Melancholy Man
22-Jul-08, 00:27
but I wonder how brave any of us would be if it came to the choice of staring violent death, or even worse life long pain, and being able to run away and hide?
Standard response from [often young men] is that they'd fight if they had to, and be prepared to lay down their lives for their country. First, I'd hope that I could risk my life for my mates fighting beside me or for my family, not a dim abstract concept of country.
It's wrong said, I think, that we're divided into wolves and sheep. There is a third option: sheepdogs. I would *hope* I'd fall into this category, but I genuinely do not know if I'd be overcome by the gut-wrenching fear of escape and the organism's desire to live. Rather like Harry Paget Flashman.
Say if a person who had a very minor role in WWII (if at all) fraudulently claimed he was awarded a certain high distinguishing medal immediately after the war (before online records could verify him) and his family and friends subsequently believed he was a hero etc. He also became a bit of a celebrity and did talks (wearing collectors replicer medals) and presentations etc on the assumption that he was for real.
63 years on, should his misdemeanour be revealed and the person be named and shamed or should sleeping dogs lie, as we say?Is the Moral dilemma yours, or the old man's?
Name and shame now he is profitting from something he didn't do, and still is regardless of how many years have passed.
Shameless acts like this should not be swept under the carpet regardless of how long ago it started.
Revealing after he is dead is a waste of time will only add extra hurt to a greiving family, let the cat out of the bag now is my opinion.
Melancholy Man
25-Jul-08, 14:34
Perhaps Rheghead can give us an update on the situation.
northener
25-Jul-08, 22:22
I can guarantee if I stand at a bar somewhere in Britain for long enough, I will eventually get into a conversation with someone who says...."I was in the forces, but i can't talk about it...."
When met with a shrug of the shoulders and a nonchalant "OK", they invariably begin to tell me (uninvited) a complete pile of poop.
The SAS must be a bloody big regiment, the bars of Britain are full of ex-Troopers every Saturday night.......
No time for the tossers whatsoever, as soon as they find out the unwilling recipient of their sad tale is ex-Forces, they tend to clam up.
I can guarantee if I stand at a bar somewhere in Britain for long enough, I will eventually get into a conversation with someone who says...."I was in the forces, but i can't talk about it...."
When met with a shrug of the shoulders and a nonchalant "OK", they invariably begin to tell me (uninvited) a complete pile of poop.
The SAS must be a bloody big regiment, the bars of Britain are full of ex-Troopers every Saturday night.......
No time for the tossers whatsoever, as soon as they find out the unwilling recipient of their sad tale is ex-Forces, they tend to clam up.Been there, done that. I can tell when I am being fed bullshit, the smell usually gives it away.
Melancholy Man
25-Jul-08, 22:40
Can you talk about it, Northerner? In the catering corp, killed 70 thousand?
In reality we don't know the reasons why he started the deception. It could have been a small story that was spread by relations and friends when at first he was only telling one person.
It could have been like the snowball that grew and grew as it rolled. Perhaps the story grew legs and arms before he could draw back. By that time he could not tell the truth because of hurt it could cause if the it came out. Maybe he did like the kudos it brought him. We just don't know.
So over the years he had to keep the deception alive because everyone around him expected it and maybe even he believed it himself.
We would really need all the facts to be able to either condemn or to condone.
If this is a real situation, I would think about what benefit it would be to anyone to know the truth.
northener
25-Jul-08, 23:57
Can you talk about it, Northerner? In the catering corp, killed 70 thousand?
You weren't there, man.
Just me with my teeth blacked out, behind enemy lines armed with just a short-range cornish pasty and a NAAFI tea urn........
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.