• IninewCrow
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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.

      • IninewCrow
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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.

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 hours ago

          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@lemmy.worldOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 hours ago

            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.

      • IninewCrow
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        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@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          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.