No medals from Russia

[FredPuli43]

Men who were on the World War Two convoys taking supplies to Russia have been told they cannot receive medals from the Russian government. The Foreign Office says they cannot receive medals from a foreign power when the action concerned took place more than five years ago [from a BBC East local news bulletin tonight]

Any comment? It seems very petty of the government, but what is the authority for this Foreign Office rule? And what power has our government got, in practice, to prevent the medals being received? They might object to George Blake getting a medal, though they couldn't stop it, but one for our loyal men who are being honoured by an ally of the time seems to be unexceptionable.

[ichkeria]

On the other hand it's arguably a rather bizarre thing for the Russians to do - 70 years on and also twenty years since the demise of the state (the Soviet Union) which was the actual ally)

[douglas9401]

Is it any more bizarre than the various campaigns which spring up for memorials to this or that historical footnote involving almost forgotten people or acts?
Somebody has an idea, it gathers support and it happens.
Everybody then goes back to their lives and we move on.

[FredPuli43]

There's a difference between the certificate and medal referred to in aog's last link and this medal. The first is awarded in recognition of merely being in the armed forces during the 1941-1945 campaign to defend the USSR/ Russia. The medal which is now offered is a medal named after a Russian admiral and is specifically for courage and bravery at sea.

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

'MERELY' being in the armed forces during the 1941-1945 campaign to defend the USSR/ Russia, eh?

I along with most others, would undoubtedly consider that to be a great deal more than 'merely'.

[naomi24]

AOG, perhaps you should read Fred's post again. His meaning is quite clear and the language he uses is appropriate.

[anotheoldgit]

naomi24

And I was 'merely' pointing out what he had typed.

[FredPuli43]

aog,I shall have to employ a perversity filter with your posts, to detect any way of stretching words and phrases them completely beyond their plain and obvious meaning, so that they then justify your apparent obsession with interpreting anything and everything written on here as belittling the armed forces, anyone's work in World War II, this country, patriotism and many other things.

[naomi24]

AOG, I know you were - but since we can all read, there was reason to do it. There was nothing wrong with Fred's post.

[anotheoldgit]

/// The first is awarded in recognition of merely being in the armed forces during the 1941-1945 campaign to defend the
USSR/ Russia. ///

If I were to put,

A Medal is awarded to some women, in recognition of 'merely' being in the Women's Land Army during WW2.

Would you equally find nothing wrong with that statement?

[FredPuli43]

aog, you reply out of sheer mischief, knowing full well that your example of the use of 'merely' bears no similarity to my use of the word. Are you bored this afternoon?

[anotheoldgit]

fredpuli43

before criticising me of stretching words and phrases completely beyond their plain and obvious meaning, perhaps you should first read what you type.

There was no need whatsoever to include the word 'merely' in that passage.

"The first is awarded in recognition of being in the armed forces during the 1941-1945 campaign to defend the USSR/ Russia".

Can't you see what a complete difference that makes to the meaning?

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// aog, you reply out of sheer mischief, knowing full well that your example of the use of 'merely' bears no similarity to my use of the word. Are you bored this afternoon? ///

Oh so my use of the word 'merely' is defiantly dissimilar to your use of the word?

Now you are being rather arrogant surely?

No I am not bored this afternoon, but I am getting rather bored over this word 'merely'.

Did you get that, 'rather' bored, not 'merely' bored?

[anotheoldgit]

triggerhippy

/// oh AOG, your need to score points is so tiresome, take a day off chap. ///

Makes a change for me to score some points, others do not seem backward in such tactics.

But at least they join in the debate, and do not just hover over the site, waiting to swoop with their simple jibes.

Have you ever thought of taking some time off, because it must get rather boring for you, and you most certainly bore me?

[FredPuli43]

Not arrogant, aog, I hope, but conscious that you may be feigning ignorance. But, nonetheless, here goes: the primary use and meaning of 'mere' and its adverb 'merely' is to describe something as no more and no less than as designated, as described.

'A mere private,he rose to general' means that he was an ordinary private, with nothing to mark him out as, for example, having political influence, wealth, genius or, of course, exceptional bravery. 'Mere' is here used for the sake of the contrast, to point up the ordinariness of the man

And a medal for those 'who merely served' is one given to all who served; those who are ordinary servicemen or women, no more, no less, as designated; just for serving, in contrast to the other medal which is only given to those who display exceptional bravery when they served..

[naomi24]

AOG, //If I were to put,

A Medal is awarded to some women, in recognition of 'merely' being in the Women's Land Army during WW2.

Would you equally find nothing wrong with that statement?//

Although you usually ignore me – can’t think why - at least on this occasion you’ve acknowledged my presence – even though you didn’t have the courtesy to address me by name.

No. I would assume you meant that those women had joined the Land Army, but were not among those who had distinguished themselves in an extraordinary way.

Dictionary definition of ‘merely’: only; nothing more than.

That seems fair enough to me. Fred was quite right.