# Op Ed piece:  You know it's D Day, right?



## jollyjacktar (6 Jun 2016)

A good opinion editorial piece.  He is correct in so many points, and asks what a veteran of this battle might think of the lack of recognition or knowledge by today's youth.  I think that of course it would be somewhat hurtful but on the other hand it also means that the children of today have known the peace that was bought by our veterans and not war.  So, mission accomplished.



> Jerry Amernic: Today is D-Day - You knew that, right?
> 
> 
> Monday, June 6 is the 72nd anniversary of D-Day. What's that again? Well, if you don't know, it was the invasion by Allied forces of Nazi-occupied Europe on the beaches of Normandy. In France. Canada played a major role that day. Along with forces from the United States and Britain, 14,000 Canadians stormed Juno Beach and when the day was done those Canadians penetrated farther inland than any other Allied forces. But the price was high: 359 Canadians died and 715 were wounded. Another 18,700 Canadians were later killed or wounded in the Normandy campaign.
> ...


----------



## Lumber (6 Jun 2016)

Eventually, the products of history become too numerous and complex for anyone to have a complete and accurate account.At which point did the British start forgetting the date of the Battle of Waterloo? How much about D-Day do you really expect a student in the year 2066 to know? What about the year 2116? I guess the best question to ask is, what is an appropriate, or "morally acceptable" depreciation rate for our knowledge of history? In this day and age of immediate gratification and distraction by all manner of things, are we forgetting too quickly?


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jun 2016)

Yes.

Since the Sixties, I would say we are forgetting too quickly.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Jun 2016)

I'll tell you who takes their history seriously: The French. 

When they graduate from Lycée (like high school but after 14 years of education), they know all of the battles they won or lost, including all the way back to when they were Gaul instead of France.

History is part of the curriculum in every year of school.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jun 2016)

Idiocracy is increasingly a documentary -- a sad indictment of our society and education systems, and the likely way ahead.


----------



## Lightguns (6 Jun 2016)

Perhaps but even in the Canadian army has there been any real marking of the occasion since the 50s.  As a young soldier interested in history, in the early 80s, I asked my Platoon WO about D Day celebrations.  His reply was that D Day was something that the militia did.  Sadly, no D Day infantry or cavalry unit is part of the regular order of battle.


----------



## mariomike (6 Jun 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Since the Sixties, I would say we are forgetting too quickly.


----------



## medicineman (6 Jun 2016)

There are times when I really think that there needs to be money put into public school history education that allows students to travel to some of the places in the world where our military forces of days past and present have made some significant difference.  I would think that many students here (and likely their parents as well) would be taken aback by having to tend to the headstones of fallen soldiers as a for instance, like in France or Holland.  They would hopefully not be so apathetic about those rights they have that they take for granted on a daily basis - talking to people that had those rights taken away from them would do them a world of good or seeing those that died ensuring others got them back.

:2c:

MM


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jun 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I'll tell you who takes their history seriously: The French.
> 
> When they graduate from Lycée (like high school but after 14 years of education), they know all of the battles they won or lost, including all the way back to when they were Gaul instead of France.



Yes, I remember reading the textbooks...


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jun 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Perhaps but even in the Canadian army has there been any real marking of the occasion since the 50s.  As a young soldier interested in history, in the early 80s, I asked my Platoon WO about D Day celebrations.  His reply was that D Day was something that the militia did.  Sadly, no D Day infantry or cavalry unit is part of the regular order of battle.



Yes, to a certain extent that is true.  The RCD were "D Day Dodgers".  They fought through Sicily and Italy, before joining the "D Day Gang" in NW Europe, as did the RCR and other of today's Regular Force units.


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Jun 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes, to a certain extent that is true.  The RCD were "D Day Dodgers".  They fought through Sicily and Italy, before joining the "D Day Gang" in NW Europe, as did the RCR and other of today's Regular Force units.



Plenty of Militia in Italy too as well though, like my dad with the 15th LAA Regt RCA.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jun 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Plenty of Militia in Italy too as well though, like my dad with the 15th LAA Regt RCA.



Yes, that is true, but the reply was in reference to the Regular Force units of today not being at Normandy.


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Jun 2016)

To be fair to the Reg Force personnel of the day, I do remember dad saying that they were held back in Canada as training staff to teach the flood of civilians that were coming into the organization and it was the Militia that went off as the guys at the coal face so to speak.  I wonder by June of 44 how many of these Reg Force guys were actually in the fore and not still stuck back in the training systems of the day.


----------



## Underway (6 Jun 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Perhaps but even in the Canadian army has there been any real marking of the occasion since the 50s.  As a young soldier interested in history, in the early 80s, I asked my Platoon WO about D Day celebrations.  His reply was that D Day was something that the militia did.  Sadly, no D Day infantry or cavalry unit is part of the regular order of battle.



That's pretty sad.  Regimental system at its worst.  It was an important day in Canadian _military_ history for the Navy and Airforce as well.


----------



## mariomike (6 Jun 2016)

Underway said:
			
		

> It was an important day in Canadian _military_ history for the Navy and Airforce as well.



Even 42 years later it was still a contentious issue for some,

OVERLORD: The Unnecessary Invasion
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FcbLhPs7tkkJ:https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/NoOverlord/index.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jun 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Perhaps but even in the Canadian army has there been any real marking of the occasion since the 50s.  As a young soldier interested in history, in the early 80s, I asked my Platoon WO about D Day celebrations.  His reply was that D Day was something that the militia did.  Sadly, no D Day infantry or cavalry unit is part of the regular order of battle.



None were there at Jesus' birth, either, yet they all seem quite gung ho to accept Christmas Day, Boxing Day, plus two days of special leave every year on that occasion...


----------



## RocketRichard (6 Jun 2016)

Just popped into one of my high school's Social Studies classes and and said "Today is the anniversary of D Day, tell me what you know about it."  

Response: "D Day was a battle where the allies landed on Normandy in France to start the liberation of France."  Not bad at all. Could have stayed for a more in depth discussion but the teacher had other content and I'm off to coach rugby.  All is not lost with today's youth...


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Jun 2016)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Just popped into one of my high school's Social Studies classes and and said "Today is the anniversary of D Day, tell me what you know about it."
> 
> Response: "D Day was a battle where the allies landed on Normandy in France to start the liberation of France."  Not bad at all. Could have stayed for a more in depth discussion but the teacher had other content and I'm off to coach rugby.  All is not lost with today's youth...



But did you follow that question with _"Do you know that because of a video game back story?"_


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Jun 2016)

We have seen a great resurgence of the Civillian population embracing the Military, in many decades.  Obviously our efforts in Afghanistan spurred that, but we should be proud of our Nation.

This constant commiserating about how good it was and the youth today doesn't care, is just age old Legion Barfly angst.

We have seen some of the greatest support.  I say let's embrace it, and stop perpetuating the lies.

 :2c:


----------



## RocketRichard (6 Jun 2016)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> But did you follow that question with _"Do you know that because of a video game back story?"_



Sure did, they said "We never play video games Sir"


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jun 2016)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> But did you follow that question with _"Do you know that because of a video game back story?"_


If they knew THAT much, I'm not _that_ put out if they learned it via video game.


			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I'll tell you who takes their history seriously: The French.


Methinks, like with the Dutch & the Italians, people remember harder when it happened in their backyards.


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Jun 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If they knew THAT much, I'm not _that_ put out if they learned it via video game.



Nor I, but it establishes a source for why some know and others don't, considering they were all subjected to the same educational system. A while back I was reading comments on a Great War forum where some were decrying the fact that all some people knew about the First World War was learned from Blackadder. Others quite rightly pointed out that for some it starts a long journey of discovery, and that it matters not where their desire to learn more began, as long as some from each generation continue to pursue that knowledge. (Soon some of those critics will be complaining about Great War knowledge starting with Battlefield 1.)


----------



## mariomike (6 Jun 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Methinks, like with the Dutch & the Italians, people remember harder when it happened in their backyards.



And the French.

My uncle was one of 290 airmen shot down ( MIA ) on the Revigny raids 240 km east of Paris 7 weeks after D-Day. Only 59 survived.

My grand-parents and my father first started going there in 1948. My dad's last visit was in 2004. They couldn't speak highly enough of the local people.  

The book "Massacre Over the Marne" put it this way, "It is perhaps difficult for anyone who has not lived under the oppression of German occupation and witnessed first-hand the frightful evil of Gestapo police methods to appreciate fully what it meant to work in direct opposition to them. The married man or woman caught harbouring an Allied airman brought reprisals on the whole family - even small children were put to death."


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jun 2016)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Nor I, but it establishes a source for why some know and others don't, considering they were all subjected to the same educational system. A while back I was reading comments on a Great War forum where some were decrying the fact that all some people knew about the First World War was learned from Blackadder. Others quite rightly pointed out that for some it starts a long journey of discovery, and that it matters not where their desire to learn more began, as long as some from each generation continue to pursue that knowledge. (Soon some of those critics will be complaining about Great War knowledge starting with Battlefield 1.)


Ah, seen - all good points.

Any thoughts from anyone re:  my cynicism about how much would stick if made mandatory in schools these days?


----------



## Chispa (8 Jun 2016)

Heads-up: been like this for many-moons, 75% of Canadian's are Clueless of Canada's involvement in SWW, Second World War, just that it pops up in the News once a year, just like remembrance Day. What's alarming the latter percentage know more on USA involvement in WWII named by the American Propaganda Machine the N.Y. Times 1939. Winnie the Pou War Mongerare suggested to the US Pres., it should be Styled as "The Unnecessary War."

Canadians more likely to learn U.S. history from popular culture: Poll According to an Ipsos-Reid poll, while eight out of 10 respondents believe that Canadian history has memorable events worthy of being recorded for TV or film, 90 per cent said they learned more about American history from those media. By Canwest News Service October 17, 2008. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=44b3d16b-c6ad-4349-b7e6-2c98b46d94eb



> Canadians learn a lot about history from film and television - American history, that is.
> 
> According to an Ipsos-Reid poll, while eight out of 10 respondents believe that Canadian history has memorable events worthy of being recorded for TV or film, 90 per cent said they learned more about American history from those media.
> 
> ...



Not counting Canada at War Accounts are littered with countless of inaccuracies, Our students, etc., are getting the shaft, it's a god done shame!

That's all I'm going to say about that.

THK U FR YR Time,

Joseph.


.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Jun 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Ah, seen - all good points.
> 
> Any thoughts from anyone re:  my cynicism about how much would stick if made mandatory in schools these days?



I studied history at SFU, and even passed some stuff. My brother's girlfriend was a high school teacher in Kitslano and asked me to come in a do a presentation about history to her Grade 10 class. I guess she was getting bored and needed a break or something.

In preparing for the presentation I had a look at their history text book and found that it was actually really good. I expected it to be the usual PC drivel you hear in the media from various eejits, but it covered most of th important events in 20th century history including Canada's participation in WW1 & 2, Korea etc.

I'm pretty sure that ithe text was a lot better than any similar book I had access to in Grade 10.

Anyway, it gave me a bit of hope.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Jun 2016)

Chispa said:
			
		

> Heads-up: been like this for many-moons, 75% of Canadian's are Clueless of Canada's involvement in SWW, Second World War, just that it pops up in the News once a year, just like remembrance Day. What's alarming the latter percentage know more on USA involvement in WWII named by the American Propaganda Machine the N.Y. Times 1939. Winnie the Pou War Mongerare suggested to the US Pres., it should be Styled as "The Unnecessary War."



   I'm sorry (sincerely), but I read through that 3-5 times...and I'm still baffled.  
Are you suggesting that people who are promulgating Canadian military history are ignored/misunderstood because this is how they write?

Seriously.   "Winnie the Pou War Mongerare"   WTF?!


----------



## dimsum (8 Jun 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Seriously.   "Winnie the Pou War Mongerare"   WTF?!



I, for one, want to know more about this.  Does he goad Eeyore into action on a two-front campaign against Piglet and Tigger?  Where does Christopher Robin fit into this?

Inquiring minds need to know!   ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Jun 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I, for one, want to know more about this.  Does he goad Eeyore into action on a two-front campaign against Piglet and Tigger?  Where does Christopher Robin fit into this?
> 
> Inquiring minds need to know!   ;D



I'd have thought you'd be more interested in Owl's overwatch role in the whole campaign. :0


----------



## dimsum (8 Jun 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'd have thought you'd be more interested in Owl's overwatch role in the whole campaign. :0



Well of course, but you don't let the cat out of the bag.


----------



## Chispa (9 Jun 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm sorry (sincerely), but I read through that 3-5 times...and I'm still baffled.
> Are you suggesting that people who are promulgating Canadian military history are ignored/misunderstood because this is how they write?
> 
> Seriously.   "Winnie the Pou War Mongerare"   WTF?!



I have no clue concerning your interpretation: Canadian military history are ignored/misunderstood because this is how they write? You can write what ever U want, In Canada we have Freedom of expression!

It is what it is, my opinion, deriving from what I read, seen, many Canadians are clueless, and pointing out the difference between WWI & II vs FWW or SWW. The Great War though used by the British press when the war was in full swing, derives from the Napoleonic Wars.

Yes I know came out wrong, the wording, spelling, and left it in, had to go, meant, Winnie the Pooh Warmonger, he was cuddly as a bear. BBC ON THIS DAY | 23 | 1951: Churchill denies 'warmonger' claims news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/23/newsid.../4013583.stm

Sorry for the confusion, I’m on Very Heavy medication at this moment and when I posted. Few days ago after the completion of Prof. Alec Bell’s AEA and CAC aeronautic endeavours, I ironically, as in strange, odd, diagnosed with stage 5 Bell’s Palsy, lol. Got nailed with in six hours after seeing my doctor for an eye infection.

PBA The above was written and still under the influence of prescribed narcotics, lol

As for:Birth Name, Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Nicknames, Winnie, The British Bulldog. Two front against Piglet and Tigger, who represents Tigger and Piglet? Lol

C.U.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Jun 2016)

Chispa said:
			
		

> PBA The above was written and still under the influence of prescribed narcotics, lol



Forgive my bluntness, but maybe you should stop posting until you're more clear headed.


----------



## Chispa (9 Jun 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Forgive my bluntness, but maybe you should stop posting until you're more clear headed.



No worries be as blunt, I'm very clear headed..... I guess what he meant after or someone reading it on my blog as I see, is concerning terminology, Canadian British Vs American in Historical war accounts. I see both sister sites use American Spell Check, which is confusing pour moi, constantly checking those red lines too see if I spelt it correctly in Canadian English.

All the above posted comments are the facts, with the documentation supporting, therefore clear headed. What is sad our Canadian History is full of mistakes and that is not even debatable. On Bell's AEA CAC Historians/ Authors, though their narratives were vague, dropped the ball, filled with mistakes, is that the type of history we want our children too learn, so they in turn perpetuate the same inaccuracies in history Accounts. Like Dan Snow, D. O'keefe, etc., their are many mistakes.

Just my thoughts.


Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies.
http://canadianmilitaryhistory.ca/review-of-sherrill-grace…/

Has Cook ever dropped the ball?


----------

