this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
147 points (100.0% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

3536 readers
264 users here now

Rules:

  1. Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 15 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Guy Simonds, Canadian general who led the Canadian forces in the battle of the scheldt in Belgium.

Basically just threw young inexperienced Canadian soldiers against battle hardened Germans until they literally ran out of soldiers.

He was celebrated because he let so many young Canadians die unnecessarily.

I know the story because I have a relative that survived that battle and another that died there.

[–] Anticorp 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Celebrated by who? The Germans? Why would Canadians celebrate a general killing all their kids?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

They celebrate the general that survived the battles he directed ... no one ever counts the dead that piled up in order to achieve victory on the battle field ... no one except the families left behind.

[–] Anticorp 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Did he win the battle? Generals usually aren't celebrated just for surviving, at least not in the USA. It's not difficult to survive as a general.

[–] PugJesus 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

A quick check of wiki suggests that the Scheldt was taken, but at unnecessary cost, at least in part because Simonds thought a much smaller force than was needed was capable of taking the region. Allied brass quarreling over objectives seems to have been a contributing factor as well.

[–] Anticorp 4 points 8 hours ago

Allied brass quarreling over objectives seems to have been a contributing factor as well.

Ah, a tale as old as Armies.

[–] PugJesus 6 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

I was referring to the Second World War ..... but the first world war was a weird bit of history, the more I read about it, the more confused I become as to why in the hell that conflict was even started. It reads more like a bar fight that went horribly out of control and lasted for four years and killed 20 million people for no apparent real reason .... which then laid the foundation for another more horrible war after.

I'm Indigenous Canadian and I'm probably the first fully English speaking generation in my family. My grandfather was recruited into this war after being told he had to help his king and that he would be rewarded for it all. He left the country to go to England for two years, worked like a dog in the Forestry Corp (thankfully never fought in the front lines), came home and never received a penny. He was as poor when he came home as when he left and no one cared. He and our entire family have also never understood why he even fought in that war. As much reading as I've done about that war ... I still don't understand exactly why so many people had to fight and die for such arcane, questionable and stupid reasons.

BTW ... I love all the references to Black Adder (that is the show right?) and Rowan Atkinson and Stephen Fry ... I really have to take time to watch that show

[–] PugJesus 4 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

I was referring to the Second World War …

Ah, goes to show I don't know my modern European battles very well. >.>

but the first world war was a weird bit of history, the more I read about it, the more confused I become as to why in the hell that conflict was even started. It reads more like a bar fight that went horribly out of control and lasted for four years and killed 20 million people for no apparent real reason … which then laid the foundation for another more horrible war after.

Yeah, more or less. Best summary would be:

Europe tries to make massive alliances for deterrence, under the understandable reasoning that no one wants to fight a stronger opponent than themselves

Alliances become so massive and entangled that one country (Austro-Hungary) deciding to start an armed conflict with a smaller country (Serbia), drags every other country into the conflict

Countries aren't always rational actors, and even when they are, placing bets on being able to force a fait accompli before consequences hit (a la Russia with Crimea in 2014) is always a risk.

You can also apportion some blame to Kaiser Wilhelm II for being such a dumbass as to give a metaphorical blank check to Austro-Hungary so he could sound big and strong in support of Germany's allies on the world stage. He had a lot of mommy and daddy issues. Thanks, monarchy.

It was said, early on, when the opening moves were being played and diplomatic avenues were still being tried, that in Austro-Hungary, the mood was that the war was inevitable but not serious, while in Germany, the mood was that the war was serious but not inevitable.

BTW … I love all the references to Black Adder (that is the show right?) and Rowan Atkinson and Stephen Fry … I really have to take time to watch that show

Oh, yes, the whole show is fantastic! Especially the last season.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 hours ago

Of all the reading I've done so far ... here's my favourite summary of the First World War

https://stephaniehuesler.com/2019/12/15/history-undusted-if-world-war-i-were-a-bar-fight/

[–] NOT_RICK 4 points 14 hours ago

I’m just going to assume this is Wayne Gretzky