D-day (day) trip

[fcooke]

The Scheldt campaign was mishandled badly by Monty. The Allies needed the port working and the overall advance across Europe was hobbled by lack of supplies partly as a result of how long it took to get the port useful. The area should have been a top priority as such but the testosterone between Monty and Patton seems to have got in the way (who could go into Germany first). Why Ike did not intervene and get more resources into the campaign is a mystery to me.

Pegasus bridge - amazing how small the bridge/canal are.

[pontiouspilot]

There was very little that wasn’t handled badly by Monty in my humble opinion. Perhaps the only Brit that wasted more Canadians was Lord Louis.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: KenchiSulla

Canadians who were KIA in the battle for the Scheldt Estuary are buried here:

https://www.bndestem.nl/bergen-op-zoom/ ... 138692762/

Thanks for the link KS. The cemetery looks pretty small relative to the losses suffered, so I suspect there are other small cemeteries where some were buried or some of the bodies were repatriated after the war by their families back in Canada.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

There was very little that wasn’t handled badly by Monty in my humble opinion. Perhaps the only Brit that wasted more Canadians was Lord Louis.

Agreed, but I saw a documentary that showed that the real purpose of the Dieppe operation was for British Commandos to capture Enigma machines and code books. Dieppe was a big communications center for the KM. That part of the raid succeeded and may have helped the final steps to design the Ultra codebreaking system. That in turn played a key role in the Battle of the Atlantic, air battles and later land battles, so perhaps the sacrifice of the Canadians was not useless after all. That said, the losses could have been reduced considerably with proper intel on beach conditions and German defences.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: KenchiSulla

Canadians who were KIA in the battle for the Scheldt Estuary are buried here:

https://www.bndestem.nl/bergen-op-zoom/ ... 138692762/

Thanks for the link KS. The cemetery looks pretty small relative to the losses suffered, so I suspect there are other small cemeteries where some were buried or some of the bodies were repatriated after the war by their families back in Canada.

Indeed, Commonwealth and UK war casualties are often buried locally. Example:

https://www.tracesofwar.nl/sights/4218/ ... eloord.htm

[pontiouspilot]

Send in the Irish or the Canucks. I suspect that there were more than a few Canadian veterans who weren’t shedding any tears over the IRAs efforts.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

Send in the Irish or the Canucks. I suspect that there were more than a few Canadian veterans who weren’t shedding any tears over the IRAs efforts.

warspite1

Well there’s a candidate for crass post of the year.

Send in the…. Canucks.

Commonwealth forces engage in a poorly conceived, poorly planned and poorly executed operation in World War II. Well Dieppe was hardly a first was it? But of course what you are insinuating is that the British sent in ‘colonials’ to do the dirty work. Of course that completely ignores the debacle in Norway, or in France but I don’t want to deny you your wish to feel victimised – you can wallow in that to your heart’s content – and, as you will know, you are not alone in Canada – but you could always try and educate yourself with the link below about another 'favourite' - Gallipoli, and if you can’t be bothered to read it all – go straight to the Propaganda section, but I recommend you read it all.

http://diggerhistory.info/pages-battles ... Propaganda

Indeed there are plenty from these islands who are entitled to feel the same (but let’s not let the facts get in the way of a well ridden hobby-horse you so clearly are eager to mount).

“Send in the Irish”.

And what period are you talking about here? I wouldn’t be surprised if you were talking about WWII, but I hope you weren’t for your sake. Here – educate yourself and read this.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle ... 50818.html

If you are talking about earlier history then I would have thought you would have been fully aware that historically, poverty was probably the army’s biggest recruiter – and Ireland and Scotland provided a higher proportion of troops for the British Army because of it. That’s just a fact of life. But perhaps you can give me an example of where the ‘Irish’ were singled out in a specific campaign or battle?

But then we have the really unfortunate part of your post:

“I suspect that there were more than a few Canadian veterans who weren’t shedding any tears over the IRAs efforts”.

According to your seriously mis-guided and disrespectful comment, you link Canadian veterans (and any legitimate anger and resentment they may have held against a Government/Individuals that sent them into battle) with automatic support for a terrorist group?! How dare you try and speak for them. Maybe some veterans were from Irish stock and supported a united Ireland politically – but what links that with Dieppe, and I say again, how dare you speak for them and assume their support for a terrorist group?

The Irish Republican Army was a terrorist outfit. It would be easy for me to recount tale after harrowing, heart-breaking tale of atrocities they carried out against innocent men, women and children. And I could do the same for the loyalist terrorist groups. But there is no point. One group is no worse than the other – Catholic or Protestant, Republican or Loyalist, pro-Irish or pro-British – it doesn’t matter. If one believes blowing arms and legs off the innocent is justified then they are scum. Or do you reserve that opprobrium only for some?

Even today you probably actually believe that the British Government was fighting a colonial war with the IRA over Northern Ireland during ‘The Troubles’. But that level of mis-understanding is common amongst those that can’t be bothered to trouble themselves with facts and the truth. Far easier to get off on hyperbole and prejudice. Or you could try and understand. As a start try reading Making Sense of The Troubles (McKittrick and McVea).

[pontiouspilot]

Thanks for being right. All I said was that there were many bitter veterans over unfortunate mistakes. I’m not into debating with you whether there is any empirical basis for the feeling. There was no love here for lord Louis .....However he met his unfortunate demise.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

Thanks for being right. All I said was that there were many bitter veterans over unfortunate mistakes. I’m not into debating with you whether there is any empirical basis for the feeling. There was no love here for lord Louis .....However he met his unfortunate demise.

I am not a WWII veteran but was in the Canadian Forces, but I do not subscribe to terrorism for any rationale. My impression of Mountbatten is that he was not aware of his shortcomings and got most of his positions because of his status in British society. Many officers at the time did. I don't think he was deliberately sacrificing Canadians at Dieppe but he could have ensured better intel and support for the operation.

But lots of Allied General officers made similar miscalculations that got a lot of people killed. I am not impressed by Lord Mountbatten, but I am not about to say "Serves him right" to the IRA bombing. Smoldering desires for vengeance are evil motivations that keep too much of the world's violence going.

[spence]

Without renting a car I wish you luck getting to/from Normandy but you may find Ypres/Ieper interesting. There's quite a bit of history in the vicinity relating to the First World War and a lot of it relates to Canada: "In Flanders Fields the poppies grow, between the crosses row on row" (1st Battle of Ypres), the first poison gas attack (2nd Battle of Ypres), Passchendaele/3rd Battle of Ypres (nearby village finally taken by the Canadian Corps after 4 months, the mining offensive (June 1917), The Wipers Times (Are You a Victim of Optimism?), the 4th Battle of Ypres, the 5th Battle of Ypres. There's lots of museums in and around the town, quite a few graveyards of both sides, a gigantic monument to the Commonwealth MIA on which the builders ran out of space (it only lists those MIA up to April 1917 - the rest are on a monument in Tyn Got Cemetery). And there is a "Last Post" ceremony every night at 8PM under said monument by the Ypres/Ieper Fire Brigade.

To top it off the city is only a little over 2 hrs away by train or bus from Lille (and only half an hour by car).

In case you're wondering Belgium has two official languages: French and Flemish (sort of an old Dutch). The town was known as Ypres when the French part of the country was in the ascendant during WW1 and known as Ieper since it is in the Flemish part of the country.

[Kursk1943]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

Thanks for being right. All I said was that there were many bitter veterans over unfortunate mistakes. I’m not into debating with you whether there is any empirical basis for the feeling. There was no love here for lord Louis .....However he met his unfortunate demise.

I am not a WWII veteran but was in the Canadian Forces, but I do not subscribe to terrorism for any rationale. My impression of Mountbatten is that he was not aware of his shortcomings and got most of his positions because of his status in British society. Many officers at the time did. I don't think he was deliberately sacrificing Canadians at Dieppe but he could have ensured better intel and support for the operation.

But lots of Allied General officers made similar miscalculations that got a lot of people killed. I am not impressed by Lord Mountbatten, but I am not about to say "Serves him right" to the IRA bombing. Smoldering desires for vengeance are evil motivations that keep too much of the world's violence going.

Mountbatten did a great job as SEAC (supreme commander of East Asia Command), especially on the political level. He had to get along with all the quarrels and misgivings between the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, the US military (Stillwell...), the Chinese and not to forget PM WC.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

2nd tier powers/ dominions always got the worst, and WW2 was a bloody war; casualty calculation was always on the thousands. McArthur did the same with Australian troops.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: obvert

Forget all of those other suggestions. Just hop the Eurostar and come to London!!

The Imperial War Museum, RAF Museum, HMS Belfast, Churchill War Rooms, and much more. [:)]

I had been to London, a few time, I had been to all these place,
That said, this was in 2011... before I got deeply involved in WW2 wargames. I mean, I was at HMS Belfast, but at that time it was just "another ship", in those days I was interested in WW2 technology but I couldn't recognize a Spitfire from a Hurricane or Bofors from Oerlikon

Same can be said for Belgium and Netherlands, I had been to most places there (Brugge, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Brussels) but I was there in 2013 and did a more traditional touristic trip

I am still undecided, but for how things look at work, I might had to do the shortest distance trips like "Atlantic wall" and "V2 site"

thanks

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

2nd tier powers/ dominions always got the worst, and WW2 was a bloody war; casualty calculation was always on the thousands. McArthur did the same with Australian troops.

warspite1

It's a throw away line I see repeated from time to time - but have never seen anyone seek to justify the accusation with any reasoned argument let alone any actual evidence. I'd certainly be keen to see the evidence to support the view.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

It is a perception, I certainly don't have statistics. It would be interesting to compare casualties and risks taken by, for example, the Polish free forces, compared to the standard Allied soldier.

Were heavy Polish casualties in battles like Montecassino, Falaise or Arnhem above average? the perception is that it was, I don't know

[warspite1]

What we are talking about here is the notion that a country - and obvious examples would be the UK or France - would use their colonial (or dominion) troops (or as you say, troops subordinate to them such as the Poles) as cannon-fodder - giving them the toughest assignments and forcing them into carrying out break-through attacks, last ditch defences etc.

I don't think its something that can be measured by statistics alone - although that would be one of the variables to be looked at no doubt. Fighting capability (for want of a better term) - also has something to do with it as well as numerous other factors such as troop availability, training, experience and morale (e.g. regardless of what one thinks of Dieppe as a military operation, the Canadian troops - volunteers for overseas service - had been in the UK for almost 3-years and were 'itching' to get at the enemy. Morale was apparently becoming an issue.

[mind_messing]

What we are talking about here is the notion that a country - and obvious examples would be the UK or France - would use their colonial (or dominion) troops (or as you say, troops subordinate to them such as the Poles) as cannon-fodder - giving them the toughest assignments and forcing them into carrying out break-through attacks, last ditch defences etc.

That absolutely was the case. For the British as the war progressed and the manpower crisis deepened, keeping casualties as low as possible was a strategic need.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What we are talking about here is the notion that a country - and obvious examples would be the UK or France - would use their colonial (or dominion) troops (or as you say, troops subordinate to them such as the Poles) as cannon-fodder - giving them the toughest assignments and forcing them into carrying out break-through attacks, last ditch defences etc.

That absolutely was the case. For the British as the war progressed and the manpower crisis deepened, keeping casualties as low as possible was a strategic need.

warspite1

The manpower shortage really showed itself in 1944. But what are you saying, the British Army left all the fighting to the Canadian 2nd Army post D-Day? Was there no such problem with Canadian replacements - who remember were subject to being volunteers before serving overseas?

As I said, it would be nice to have some properly reasoned argument - or better still evidence - to show that the British (even if they could - which was increasingly not possible) used their dominion (or colonial) or Polish troops as cannon-fodder.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What we are talking about here is the notion that a country - and obvious examples would be the UK or France - would use their colonial (or dominion) troops (or as you say, troops subordinate to them such as the Poles) as cannon-fodder - giving them the toughest assignments and forcing them into carrying out break-through attacks, last ditch defences etc.

That absolutely was the case. For the British as the war progressed and the manpower crisis deepened, keeping casualties as low as possible was a strategic need.

warspite1

The manpower shortage really showed itself in 1944. But what are you saying, the British Army left all the fighting to the Canadian 2nd Army post D-Day? Was there no such problem with Canadian replacements - who remember were subject to being volunteers before serving overseas?

As I said, it would be nice to have some properly reasoned argument - or better still evidence - to show that the British (even if they could - which was increasingly not possible) used their dominion (or colonial) or Polish troops as cannon-fodder.

There's definitely an argument to be made to at least the insensitivity of British command to heavy losses from other nationalities. Monte Cassino springs to mind, Dieppe has already ben discussed, and the Polish contingent involved in Market Garden. The shameful treatment of Sosabowski, his Polish paratroopers and the Polish government in exile following Market Garden doesn't exactly paint British commanders as being concerned for their wartime Allies.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




That absolutely was the case. For the British as the war progressed and the manpower crisis deepened, keeping casualties as low as possible was a strategic need.

warspite1

The manpower shortage really showed itself in 1944. But what are you saying, the British Army left all the fighting to the Canadian 2nd Army post D-Day? Was there no such problem with Canadian replacements - who remember were subject to being volunteers before serving overseas?

As I said, it would be nice to have some properly reasoned argument - or better still evidence - to show that the British (even if they could - which was increasingly not possible) used their dominion (or colonial) or Polish troops as cannon-fodder.

There's definitely an argument to be made to at least the insensitivity of British command to heavy losses from other nationalities. Monte Cassino springs to mind, Dieppe has already ben discussed, and the Polish contingent involved in Market Garden. The shameful treatment of Sosabowski, his Polish paratroopers and the Polish government in exile following Market Garden doesn't exactly paint British commanders as being concerned for their wartime Allies.

warspite1

Simply throwing names out there - and please feel free to add Gallipoli and Dieppe to the list - is, of itself a pointless exercise in terms of supporting the argument. But I wasn't expecting anything different to be honest.