Dunkirk

[crusaderiv]

For the English...Dieppe was a raid to test the german defenses on the French coasts.
For the Canadians, it's a useless massacre.
Once again, English used Canadian soldiers to save their skin.

[allboxcars]

For the English...Dieppe was a raid to test the german defenses on the French coasts.
For the Canadians, it's a useless massacre.
Once again, English used Canadian soldiers to save their skin.

You're definitely not speaking for "the Canadians" with that anti-British viewpoint.
It was the Cdn Army that pushed to have 2 Div perform OP JUBILEE.
 

#735

[Octospire]

For the English...Dieppe was a raid to test the german defenses on the French coasts.
For the Canadians, it's a useless massacre.
Once again, English used Canadian soldiers to save their skin.

You're definitely not speaking for "the Canadians" with that anti-British viewpoint.
It was the Cdn Army that pushed to have 2 Div perform OP JUBILEE.
 

#735

+1
The British needed every soldier they could get whether they be Australian, New Zealander, Canadian, Indian, South African etc. Dieppe was a mistake but in the long run the lessons learned helped Operation Overlord aka D-Day be a success. The British simply did not through lives away because they werent British. If you look at WW1 how many British lives were lost simply because of incompetence in the higher echelons of command? My great uncle spent most of WW1 in prison because he refused to "go over the top" because he knew it was suicide, my other 6 great uncles didnt have his insubordinate attitude and they died because of the incompetence of their commanders.

The two soldiers who took my Uncle back behind the lines to the MP's thanked him for his actions because in his defiance of orders he not only saved his lives but their lives too.

Just for the record Dieppe was a failure but the battles of WW1 embody the old German proverb "The British fight like lions but are lead around by donkeys".

[crusaderiv]

You're definitely not speaking for "the Canadians" with that anti-British viewpoint.
It was the Cdn Army that pushed to have 2 Div perform OP JUBILEE.

Maybe not every canadians but a lot think that way. 
Canadian soldier was probably the best soldier in WWII but not their commanders who was under was under british command!
You realy think they had the choice?
If you received and order from your superior...you're going to say..no i' m sorry!

The British needed every soldier they could get whether they be Australian, New Zealander, Canadian, Indian, South African etc. Dieppe was a mistake but in the long run the lessons learned helped Operation Overlord aka D-Day be a success. The British simply did not through lives away because they werent British. If you look at WW1 how many British lives were lost simply because of incompetence in the higher echelons of command? My great uncle spent most of WW1 in prison because he refused to "go over the top" because he knew it was suicide, my other 6 great uncles didnt have his insubordinate attitude and they died because of the incompetence of their commanders.

The two soldiers who took my Uncle back behind the lines to the MP's thanked him for his actions because in his defiance of orders he not only saved his lives but their lives too.

Just for the record Dieppe was a failure but the battles of WW1 embody the old German proverb "The British fight like lions but are lead around by donkeys".

I agree, most of WWII and WWI great battle was won by canadian,australian and new zealand soldier. 
But Dieppe still the worst decision of british high commander in WWII.

[allboxcars]

Maybe not every canadians but a lot think that way. 

Only those who are misinformed.
Have you spoken to vets of OP JUBILEE or even current CF Members about whether they think the British sent Cdns to Dieppe so that the British wouldn't have to go?

You realy think they had the choice?
If you received and order from your superior...you're going to say..no i' m sorry!

Actually yes they did have a choice.
No Canadians were sent into harm's way without the explicit agreement by the Canadian Government in WW2. In the case of Dieppe the Cdn Govt was actively seeking to get into the fight and requested to participate in the raid.

#736

[MrMalachiCrunch]

I know more that a few Canadians who felt a bit used by the British in regards to the Dieppe landing.  It was a fiasco.  The intelligence gathered was of questionable benefit, the raid was planned poorly, the tanks bogged down on the stoney beachs and there was never any plan to hold ground.  Blame had to be laid somewhere, it probably should have been blamed on Canadians who ultimately gave the go-ahead for a poorly planned raid.  I suspect it was eagerness to punch above our weight that meant we said yes when it should have been no.  The brits share the blame because ultimately it was their plan.  The Brits always treat the colonials differently then 'real brits', but I suspect Canucks were treated MUCH better than say Indians.  Winston's ideas on the future of Indian and its people should be treated were from a different century.
 
So, do the people who hold/held these views dislike the brits, of course not, long live the queen!  Misinformed?  Perhaps a bit, but I would not question the loyalty of my mothers cousins who actually were on the beach, 1 died and 3 were held captive for the duration of the war and 1 made it back.

[allboxcars]

I know more that a few Canadians who felt a bit used by the British in regards to the Dieppe landing.  It was a fiasco.  The intelligence gathered was of questionable benefit, the raid was planned poorly, the tanks bogged down on the stoney beachs and there was never any plan to hold ground.  Blame had to be laid somewhere, it probably should have been blamed on Canadians who ultimately gave the go-ahead for a poorly planned raid.  I suspect it was eagerness to punch above our weight that meant we said yes when it should have been no.  The brits share the blame because ultimately it was their plan.  The Brits always treat the colonials differently then 'real brits', but I suspect Canucks were treated MUCH better than say Indians.  Winston's ideas on the future of Indian and its people should be treated were from a different century.
  
So, do the people who hold/held these views dislike the brits, of course not, long live the queen!  Misinformed?  Perhaps a bit, but I would not question the loyalty of my mothers cousins who actually were on the beach, 1 died and 3 were held captive for the duration of the war and 1 made it back.

The vets that I've spoken to naturally didn't have anything good to say about Dieppe.
But none of them implied that the British wouldn't have launched it if their own were going in, which I believe is an accurate paraphrasing of Crusaderiv's accusation.

As for misinformed Canadians... well, I was casting my suspicions on much younger generations of "internet savvy" Canadians who couldn't find Dieppe on a map but can find a conspiracy theory under every casualty.
So IMTO if someone's ascribing sinister Imperialist motivations to the inept & amatuer planning of JUBILEE then I'd characterize that as misinformation.

As for respect for those who were there...
it's literally awesome the pause that hangs over a conversation when somebody says "he was at Dieppe, y'know".
Never seen it not happen.
Almost like a miniature moment of silence.
I imagine a debacle like Hong Kong might cause a similar reaction but otherwise I've never seen it.
Truly PBI.

#740-720

[crusaderiv]

Only those who are misinformed.
Sorry it's not my case..

Actually yes they did have a choice.
No Canadians were sent into harm's way without the explicit agreement by the Canadian Government in WW2. In the case of Dieppe the Cdn Govt was actively seeking to get into the fight and requested to participate in the raid.
Ya I know...that the ''official reason'' Canadian government wanna fight...
But they didn't measure the consequences.
Don't forget..there always a motivation behind a decision.

As for misinformed Canadians... well, I was casting my suspicions on much younger generations of "internet savvy" Canadians who couldn't find Dieppe on a map but can find a conspiracy theory under every casualty.
So IMTO if someone's ascribing sinister Imperialist motivations to the inept & amatuer planning of JUBILEE then I'd characterize that as misinformation.
Again it's not my case, I'm not just so credulous as some canadian.
Conspiracy? who's talking about conspiracy?

 

[allboxcars]

As for misinformed Canadians... well, I was casting my suspicions on much younger generations of "internet savvy" Canadians who couldn't find Dieppe on a map but can find a conspiracy theory under every casualty.
So IMTO if someone's ascribing sinister Imperialist motivations to the inept & amatuer planning of JUBILEE then I'd characterize that as misinformation.
Again it's not my case, I'm not just so credulous as some canadian.
Conspiracy? who's talking about conspiracy?

No. Actually ascribing sinister motivations is your case.

You are. If it were a historical fact that Dieppe was launched for the purpose of "saving British skins" at the expense of the Canadians then it would require a conspiracy.

#721

[aequitas et veritas]

Dunkirk was the stolen Victory...Dieppe just a disaster and D-Day just the weirdest Landing ever...

[Dylan the Canadian]

Dunkirk was the stolen Victory...Dieppe just a disaster and D-Day just the weirdest Landing ever...

weirdest landing that was a do or die situation for the Allies.

[Octospire]

Dunkirk was the stolen Victory...Dieppe just a disaster and D-Day just the weirdest Landing ever...

weirdest landing that was a do or die situation for the Allies.

I think do or die is a bit of a overstatement. They could of failed and still won the war, in my opinion D-Day mainly served the purpose of liberating Western Europe before the Soviets got to the English Channel. The Allies still had their beach head in Italy and even if the entire invasion force was annihalated it was only 150,000 men, thats less than what the British brought back from Dunkirk in operation dynamo. I know it seems a bit cold to say its only 150,000 casualties but in the grand scheme of a World War the allies would of recovered to try again else where, they still had all of the ships and equipment for another landing.

[aequitas et veritas]

Dunkirk was the stolen Victory...Dieppe just a disaster and D-Day just the weirdest Landing ever...

weirdest landing that was a do or die situation for the Allies.

I think do or die is a bit of a overstatement. They could of failed and still won the war, in my opinion D-Day mainly served the purpose of liberating Western Europe before the Soviets got to the English Channel. The Allies still had their beach head in Italy and even if the entire invasion force was annihalated it was only 150,000 men, thats less than what the British brought back from Dunkirk in operation dynamo. I know it seems a bit cold to say its only 150,000 casualties but in the grand scheme of a World War the allies would of recovered to try again else where, they still had all of the ships and equipment for another landing.

-as I mentioned it in this Forum somewhere allready, the total numbers of casulties for the 13 Phase long Normandy campaigne was arround 250.000 men and officers on the Allies side...this was the number the United Staff of U.S Army figured as casulties for the whole "liberating Operation" from D-day to Berlin would be...crazy isn't ?...

[Octospire]

Dunkirk was the stolen Victory...Dieppe just a disaster and D-Day just the weirdest Landing ever...

weirdest landing that was a do or die situation for the Allies.

I think do or die is a bit of a overstatement. They could of failed and still won the war, in my opinion D-Day mainly served the purpose of liberating Western Europe before the Soviets got to the English Channel. The Allies still had their beach head in Italy and even if the entire invasion force was annihalated it was only 150,000 men, thats less than what the British brought back from Dunkirk in operation dynamo. I know it seems a bit cold to say its only 150,000 casualties but in the grand scheme of a World War the allies would of recovered to try again else where, they still had all of the ships and equipment for another landing.

-as I mentioned it in this Forum somewhere allready, the total numbers of casulties for the 13 Phase long Normandy campaigne was arround 250.000 men and officers on the Allies side...this was the number the United Staff of U.S Army figured as casulties for the whole "liberating Operation" from D-day to Berlin would be...crazy isn't ?...

Allied casualty projections have always been woefully low, especially those projections made by the U.S High command for campaigns like Iwo Jima or Okinawa. The United States brass continually underestimated both the Nazi's and the Japanese especially their resolve to win at such a high cost in men and equipment. If the U.S high command took the Germans seriously there wouldnt of been only 1 understrength division defending the entire Ardennes in late 1944, if the Germans had greater resources they may very well of split the allied forces in half and repeated their successes they had during the battle of France, thankfully though allied strategic bombing destroyed much of the Nazi's industrial capacity and most of the German troops were occupied on the Eastern front.

D-Day wasnt just a triumph of the military might of the allied forces it was more a triumph of the vast deceptions that made the Normady landings possible, like the false intelligence provided to the Germans that said the landings would be at Calais or the false invasion fleet that tricked the Germans into thinking that there would be an invasion in Norway. These operations made sure allied forces got ashore safely and that they werent at the mercy of a counter attack from greater numbers of infantry and possibly 3 or 4 Panzer divisions.