Lest We Forget

[ZKOKQ 984]

Oh really, big-time history buff ?

 

Well, lest we not also forget, alongside the ANZAC forces at Gallipoli, the 21,255 soldiers from the U.K and Ireland ( the largest casualty figure of any nation ) who also perished there - amidst the claims of Colonial troops being sacrificed, the toll on Churchill's own country always seems to be overlooked.

 

RIP all of them.

Paul, you have taken this so wrong. This is ANZAC day. An event that  happens every year on April 25th. Gallipolli is where the identities in AU and NZ were forged.

Celebrating Anzac does not diminish the sacrifice of the British Empire or the Turks who also suffered. Per capita, NZ lost more soldiers in WW1 than any other country. In 1914, the population of NZ was only 1.2 Million, so think about it.

I feel that you need to read up on history, as I found your post to be very insulting to the meaning of Anzac.

And for your information, at Gallipolli, the ground on where lay thousands of NZ remains at Chunuck (sic) are sacred to the the Turks, and has been so since 30 years after the Armistice was signed

Remember this was our day to remember our forefathers, our brothers in Australia.

 

Read this http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/anzac-day/introduction

Ignorance is no excuse.  When it is Memorial Day, Armistice Day etc, I always pay my respects, and your post has made me quite angry, so will leave it at that.

[EngineRoom 205]

 

 

This isn't about counting how many casualties from each side etc so I won't partake in such discussions, the meaning of the day gets lost in such discussions.

 

Yet a few posts above you wrote:

 

 

 

The former British Empire had a policy of using its colonies as pawns in war and saving the troops from England for other battles, this is because it was easier to have heavy casualties from countries like Australia or New Zealand or the Dominion of Newfoundland then to answer for those losses from English troops to the families in England.

 

You were called out on this very ignorant statement and now try to backpedal. The decent thing to do would be to retract this statement and treat ANZAC day with the respect it deserves, instead of trying to make a political or revisionist statement out of it.

[Paul K 1,327]

Mathew, & Julian - as Nick has said above, I took exception to the ridiculous notion that Britain squandered the lives of Colonial troops in lieu of our own.

 

Go back - read what I quoted - read my response. The British casualty figures at Gallipoli utterly refute that notion, and that is what I pointed out - nothing less, nothing more, no nastiness, no disrespect. Read what I actually said, not what you've chosen to think I said.

 

And I know perfectly well what ANZAC day is. I lived in Australia as a child, where my father was seconded to the RAAF. I went to school and learned about it, and the Kokoda Trail, amongst other events in Australia's military history. Additionally my mother's uncle emigrated to Australia before WW1, and died in 1921 as a result of wounds received at Gallipoli. Private Robert Aitken, 19th Btn, Australian AIF, lying in Rookwood Necropolis, Sydney.

[WotanUK 289]

I am (fairly obviously) not Turkish, but the monument to the ANZACS and British troops by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is both fitting and incredible touching:

 

"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives ...

You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours ... You, the mothers who sent their sons from faraway countries, wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."

 

Personally i hope for a time when these types of tributes are no longer required.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

Mathew, & Julian - as Nick has said above, I took exception to the ridiculous notion that Britain squandered the lives of Colonial troops in lieu of our own.

 

Wounds do run deep in times of war and today in New Zealand their is a consensus that fighting wars under another nations command was a mistake, they believe that very strongly today. You will find the same from Australia and Canada as well. 

 

Growing up in Canada we always talked about the Dieppe Raids where we said that Canadians were used as a trial run, this is just another example so yes these are things the former colonies do talk about. Today military operations have a different command structure then we had back then.

[WotanUK 289]

 

 

fighting wars under another nations command was a mistake

 

I think that sentence can be much shorter and read:

 

"fighting wars a mistake"

 

I don't believe for one minute that the troops from the former colonies wanted to be involved in the war...but then neither did the majority of British citizens stuck in places like the Somme or Ypres.

 

The Dieppe Raids were a disaster dressed as a trial run, a politically motivated decision made by people who didn't suffer or lose anybody.  The problem was the Soviet Union (the somewhat forgotten element in WW2) wanted a second front and considering they lost over 20 million people, i think they certainly had the right to ask.

 

 

 

Today military operations have a different command structure then we had back then.

Not really, most military commands are joint if they involve multiple countries forces; in the first Gulf War wasn't it 'Stormin' Norman (American) in overall command?

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

Command is shared as it is rotated around

I don't believe for one minute that the troops from the former colonies wanted to be involved in the war...but then neither did the majority of British citizens stuck in places like the Somme or Ypres.

 

That's just it, look at the map of the world. New Zealand is a world away from Europe, during WW1 it had a population of 1 million people and 100,000 of them enlisted which is 1 in 10. They went overseas to fight someone else's war and had no idea what they were in for. 

 

 

 

The Dieppe Raids were a disaster dressed as a trial run, a politically motivated decision made by people who didn't suffer or lose anybody.  The problem was the Soviet Union (the somewhat forgotten element in WW2) wanted a second front and considering they lost over 20 million people, i think they certainly had the right to ask.

 

They did learn from those raids but they knew it was going to be a hit and run raid. Why Canada was used for those raids is beyond me but that is a big part of our heritage as well

 

Not really, most military commands are joint if they involve multiple countries forces; in the first Gulf War wasn't it 'Stormin' Norman (American) in overall command?

Yes in that operation but command does get rotated between nations so everyone gets their turn. Also each nation has a command structure under the operations commander.

 

Stormin Norman did an outstanding job BTW

[Poppet 707]

Nothing like a good dose of sore political history to get the party jumping.  Maybe this might lighten the mode a bit

 

 

Three men: an American, a Japanese and an Irishman were sitting naked in the sauna.  Suddenly there was a beeping sound. The American pressed his forearm and the beep stopped. The others looked at him questioningly. "That was my pager," he said. "I have a microchip under the skin of my arm."

A few minutes later a phone rang. The Japanese fellow lifted his palm to his ear. When he finished he explained, "That was my mobile phone I have a microchip in my hand."

Paddy felt decidedly low-tech. So as not to be outdone, he decided he had to do something just as impressive. He stepped out of the sauna and went to toilet. He returns with a piece of toilet paper hanging from his arse.

The others raised their eyebrows. "Will you look at that" says Paddy, "I'm getting a fax."

[EngineRoom 205]

 

 

Wounds do run deep in times of war and today in New Zealand their is a consensus that fighting wars under another nations command was a mistake, they believe that very strongly today. You will find the same from Australia and Canada as well. 

 

Not only do you take ANZAC Day as a platform for making remarks to cast aspersion on my country, but you now apparently presume to speak for all of Canada, Australia and New Zealand as well.

 

 

There are many people in my country who will never forget how our kith and kin in Canada, Australia and New Zealand never failed to answer the call and were always prepared to stand and fight at our side - even in our darkest hour when nobody else would. I would kindly ask you to stop dishonouring their memory and keep your opinions to yourself.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

Not only do you take ANZAC Day as a platform for making remarks to cast aspersion on my country, but you now apparently presume to speak for all of Canada, Australia and New Zealand as well.

I was born in Canada, I have lived in Australia and I now live in New Zealand. I didn't speak on behalf of these nations only made a comment on what was taught in school, by both my grandparents that served, and what is currently being said as part of the legacy today by many. Even my own mother made the same comment this week when we talked on the phone, so that is part of my heritage.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being from a nation that following these wars and in time of peace took steps towards further sovereignty. We learned from wartime and following that have made many changes for our reasons.

[mgh 89]

Anzac DAy, like Armistice Day and Veterans Day, are occasions to honour to honour those who served in the armed forces of those countries, and, in some cases, lost their lives.

It is not a time to resurrect half-baked political arguments.

[n4gix 4,947]

The others raised their eyebrows. "Will you look at that" says Paddy, "I'm getting a fax."

Thank you Elaine for your most excellent bit of humour! At least this is one I've never heard or read before! :He He:

[Paul K 1,327]

 

 Why Canada was used for those raids is beyond me but that is a big part of our heritage as well

 

 

 

This is from a Canadian website, Canada at War:

 

http://www.canadaatwar.ca/content-53/world-war-ii/the-dieppe-raid/

 

Churchill hoped the use of Canadian troops would satisfy the Canadian commanders following the long inactivity of Canadian forces in England. General Andrew McNaughton, who commanded the First Canadian Army and General H.D.G. Crerar, commander of I Canadian Corps eagerly accepted this chance for Canadian soldiers to get some combat experience. They had been stationed in Great Britain for two years without having ever engaged the enemy in a major operation. Canadian public opinion was starting to question this inactivity, and Canadian soldiers were raring to go.

 

Taking that at face value, Canadian Generals McNaughton and Crerar approved of Canadian soldiers talking part in the operation. If the Canadian army and general public wanted action against the Germans, then other than transporting them to the deserts of North Africa, a cross-Channel operation was the only option.

 

That is a different issue to whether the operation itself was ill-conceived, however. In hindsight, it was an expensive way of learning lessons that bore fruit during Operation Overlord - for example,  the Bobbin, which, fitted to a tank, laid a 3 metre wide reinforced canvas path ahead of itself to prevent the tank, and those following it, sinking into soft beaches. Picture the Churchill tanks stranded in the pebbles at Dieppe - that was one lesson learned, amongst many. Should that have been learned under enemy fire instead of in a quiet sheltered cove on England's south coast ? In hindsight, probably not. In hindsight...always in hindsight

 

That's the problem with hindsight. Nobody - not Canadian, nor British, nor American -  would have approved the Dieppe operation had they known of the difficulties ahead. Nobody was indifferent to the deaths of those Canadians, or the deaths of the British commandos, the US Army Rangers, and the Royal Navy landing craft crews who accompanied them. Nor the RAF above, which suffered it's greatest ever loss ( in terms of individual aircraft ) in one single day.

 

Certainly it was a bad day for the Canadian army, but they weren't offered up as cannon fodder by callous British commanders who knew what was going to happen. Plans go wrong, and every branch of every service of every nation has it's bad days in every war. Dieppe was one of Canada's...Arnhem was one of Britain's...Kasserine Pass was an American one. We all had them - but nobody planned that they should happen.

 

By the way, if you want a full and well-researched factual history of Operation Jubilee ( and I do mean full - it's one of the best I've come across on the internet ) there's a pdf which can be downloaded from the Canadian Armed Forces website:

 

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/oh-ho/detail-eng.asp?BfBookLang=1&BfId=27

 

Dieppe - too big for a raid, too small for an invasion.

[~Craig~ 10]

For me, this was a great, respectful post until ytzpilot jumped in with the most ridiculous, generalist statement of pure conjecture and ignorance.  

 

The War was an example of many nations uniting as allies to defeat an evil that threatened to global world order ..... to state that Britain was "sacrificing" it's former dominion and commonwealth nation's soldiers is quite truly the most infantile, ignorant and offensive thing I've read for a long time.

 

Oh and I am Irish BTW.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

(...)

 

"fighting wars a mistake"

 

(...)

 

 

This.

 

But these mistakes will be repeated over and over again, because people who decide on engaging in a war are not the ones who are going to die in it.