Colonel Sir Edward "Weary" Dunlop needs to be honoured.
He's renowned for his leadership while being held prisoner
by the Japanese during WWII. Dunlop's dedication and
heroism became a legend among prisoners.

I was fortunate to have met him and hear
him speak about his experiences. A truly inspiring man.

Raoul Wallenberg saved hundreds of thousands of Hungarian
Jews from the Nazis. Personally pulling Jews out of
the "death marches"and cattle cars en route to the gas
chambers in Auschwitz. He worked under the aegis of the
Swedish Legation in Budapest and was able to arrange
Swedish "protection passports".

He qualifies as someone who gave of himself for the good
of others.

Foxy,

I think you are missing the point that david f is making.

Finally, back to the question of - making heroes
less necessary?

Peter Costello writes in his Memoirs that one of
his predecessors as Treasurer complained about the lack
of leadership in this country. "We've never had a Lincoln,"
he said. "We've never had a Roosevelt".

Costello went on to ask whether Australia will ever have
a Lincoln?

His answer was that - "Well, if we have a civil war over a
great moral question, where our national Leader manages to
get on the "right side" of the moral question, lead the
nation to victory, preserve the Federation and lose his life
in the process, we may have a Lincoln".

Costello then asks -

"Let us suppose that the South had not seceded to the United
States for another twenty years. Would we remember Lincoln?"

Costello tells us that events make the man or woman, just
as the men or the women make the events.

He points out that - "For much of his life Churchill was
considered a failure, shamelessly chasing wars around the
globe, a struggling Home Secretary, a propagator of failed
military strategy in the First World War, and undistinguished
Chancellor, but his moment came in 1940. If it had not, his
career could well have been marked as a failure".

I guess the point that is being made is that - a person's
influence can only be judged at the end of their career,
preferably judged hundreds of years thereafter.
People who will stand the test of time.

Richard Nixon used the quote of Sophocles:

"One must wait until the evening to see how splendid the day
has been".

Therefore, according to Peter Costello - his advice if
you want to be known as a hero, you need to time your
contribution to co-incide with great events. Great events
make the great man or woman. His final tip is - overcome
great odds. The greater the odds, the greater the
achievement.

Somehow I did not make my point clear when I started this thread. It was not to celebrate heroes. It was to lessen the need for heroism. Raoul Wallenberg was a hero and is remembered for his heroism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Wallenberg

He apparently died in Soviet captivity as a result of his actions.

However, if Hitler had been stopped earlier WW2 could have been avoided. Wallenberg’s heroism would have been unnecessary, and he would probably have died of old age, relatively unknown, and secure in the bosom of his family.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=chances+to+stop+hitler&cvid=43ec97f876f740e1a4e99ddde3e52a8b&pglt=43&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=U531

Are we working to prevent future wars?

Heroes: its just one of the superlatives that people use to try to elevate someone they like or admire above the pack. Its very much in the eye of the beholder.

"..cause of war. Too many people fighting for too few resources ..."

Wars are rarely fought over resources. They are usually fought over fears as to the intentions of 'the other'.

"Greg Mullins" is one of those climate change zealots who sees evidence for man's sins everywhere. He's in that group who predicts disaster every season and crows when the predictions occasionally come true.

Just on bushfires...I came across this factoid recently. Texas and California have roughly the same amount of forest. But Texas has, over time, about 5% of the forest fire damage as California. But they both suffer from the alleged culprit of climate change.

So why the difference. Almost all the forests in California are publicly owned. Almost all the forests in Texas are privately owned.

Draw your own conclusions.