# Most Canadians can't identify the war during which Canadians fought at Vimy



## McG (7 Apr 2014)

This is sad.  Clearly it is time to make better investments in education.


> *Less than half of Canadians know which war the Battle of Vimy Ridge was fought in: new poll*
> Kelsey Rolfe
> National Post
> 07 April 2014
> ...


http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/07/less-than-half-of-canadians-know-which-war-the-battle-of-vimy-ridge-was-fought-in-new-poll/


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Apr 2014)

:facepalm: What is the school system teaching these kids nowadays?


----------



## McG (7 Apr 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> :facepalm: What is the school system teaching these kids nowadays?


With the exception of Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Quebec - it is not teaching history.

... or so says the article.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Apr 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> With the exception of Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Quebec - it is not teaching history.
> 
> ... or so says the article.



When I was going through the NFLD system we did....not sure about today though.....


----------



## blackberet17 (7 Apr 2014)

History is slowly, quietly, going the way of physical education is school systems.


----------



## Bluebulldog (7 Apr 2014)

We as a society, should be very much ashamed....


----------



## dimsum (7 Apr 2014)

Bluebulldog said:
			
		

> We as a society, should be very much ashamed....



Sad, considering I suspect that most Australians and New Zealanders would at least know which war Gallipoli was fought in and it has the same "uniting the nations" mystique that Vimy has for us.  It's always front-and-centre of their ANZAC Day ceremonies.


----------



## medicineman (7 Apr 2014)

People probably think they didn't really fight there, but had blue helmets on their heads and were getting between the Germans and the French...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Apr 2014)

:facepalm:


----------



## larry Strong (7 Apr 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> :facepalm: What is the school system teaching these kids nowadays?




Social Sciences and Humanities..........

https://education.alberta.ca/media/774373/soc20.pdf





Larry


----------



## Hisoyaki (8 Apr 2014)

In college (CEGEP), I had a teacher tell the class there were no airplanes in World War I.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Apr 2014)

Hisoyaki said:
			
		

> In college (CEGEP), I had a teacher tell the class there were no airplanes in World War I.


A PMed Tech told us that Afghanistan was hot because of the elevation -- it's closer to the sun.  She was a hottie, so we went with it.  Your CEGEP teacher?

/tangent


----------



## dimsum (8 Apr 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> A PMed Tech told us that Afghanistan was hot because of the elevation -- it's closer to the sun.  She was a hottie, so we went with it.
> /tangent



Do go on.....


----------



## Journeyman (8 Apr 2014)

It was our one day of "Base Theatre - canned briefings from hell";  when pre-depl trg is only 6 days (different union), one can't complain. 

That's all there is to tell.

Oh, and while Afg was warmish, her briefing made the snow on the mountains _even closer_ to the sun just puzzling.   



I believe PMedMoe  may know her, if she wishes to weigh in.


----------



## dimsum (8 Apr 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It was our one day of "Base Theatre - canned briefings from hell";  when pre-depl trg is only 6 days (different union), one can't complain.
> 
> That's all there is to tell.
> 
> ...



Maybe she was intentionally trolling to see if anyone was paying attention and correct her?


----------



## Journeyman (8 Apr 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Maybe she was intentionally trolling to see if anyone was paying attention and correct her?


Hell, she was the _only_ one any of us paid attention to.   >


----------



## JoeDos (8 Apr 2014)

unfortunately anything related to history after grade 10 you don't need to take it where I live. Social Studies in Grade 8 to 10 only really focus on the war of 1812 and french revolution but that was a fair amount of years ago so it may have changed. I took everything relating to history it was my favorite subject.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Apr 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> With the exception of Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Quebec - it is not teaching history.
> 
> ... or so says the article.



At least, Newfoudlanders have the valid excuse that they were not in Canada at the time.

Bet you most adult Newfoundlanders know what the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel is.

On the other hand, I am not surprised at this result: It seems to me that whenever the history of Canada is taught at pre-university levels, they concentrate all the curriculum on early Canadian history: you know - the Discovery of America, early settlers, the French regime, the British conquest, the Rebellion, Upper/Lower Canada then United Canada, the US independence war and leading to Confederation. And then it seems to stop around that time. Little or no more recent and contemporary history.

In grade 12, my son - a history buff who has read through all my WWII books - was actually teaching it to his teacher.


----------



## MilEME09 (8 Apr 2014)

It's sad the way schools are going. When I went through high school we learned American History before Canadian history, WWI didn't even come up until grade 12, and it was only a few paragraphs in a text book. I heard that the year after I graduated (2009) that the curriculum was changing and Canadian history was being removed completely in favour of expanded teaching on globalization. Well thats Alberta's education system for you, and it's not the only one. Canadian history should be mandatory nation wide.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Apr 2014)

And yet we grumble that the government is shining some light on Canadian history.


----------



## Goose15 (8 Apr 2014)

I find this quite interesting [and yes very sad] hearing about the lack of Canadian History. I am a 2011 graduate from High School; at my high school (Ontario) Canadian History was and still is a course that is mandatory for graduation. We also did not focus on the "Discovering America" type stuff. Our units were strictly Canadian. In fact in relation to this thread we had a unit and a half on WWI that included one of our years largest tests as well as a research project.


----------



## Tyson Fox (8 Apr 2014)

What's the big deal, it's a hundred year old battle. It's just a piece of trivia, and no one is dumber for not knowing it. It would be as irrational as getting upset if someone doesn't know what wars Wolverine fought in.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (8 Apr 2014)

I wonder if they felt the same way about Ridgeway in 1966... or maybe, you know, more things happened in a hundred year span that was fresher in their minds.  :


----------



## dimsum (8 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> What's the big deal, it's a hundred year old battle. It's just a piece of trivia, and no one is dumber for not knowing it. It would be as irrational as getting upset if someone doesn't know what wars Wolverine fought in.



I'm going to assume you're not just trolling.

Vimy Ridge is *not* just "a piece of trivia".  It was the first time in an expeditionary war that the entire Canadian Corps fought together under Canadian leadership instead of being "one of the Colonials".  

To put it simply, that was the moment when Canada (as a nation) realized it could step outside the UK's shadow.


----------



## Tyson Fox (8 Apr 2014)

Ah yes, start off your rebuttal by trying to discredit my intentions.

Well, I'm going to assume you aren't an old crackpot. So why is it important that people remember when a really old battle happened? Lots of important things happen, but people can't remember 2000 years of history. Maybe we should be more concerned that people worry too much about the past and not the present or the future.


----------



## Goose15 (8 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> Ah yes, start off your rebuttal by trying to discredit my intentions.
> 
> Well, I'm going to assume you aren't an old crackpot.



You just did what you complained about.



			
				Shipwreck said:
			
		

> So why is it important that people remember when a really old battle happened?



He clearly answered this question and what he said is accurate.



			
				Shipwreck said:
			
		

> Lots of important things happen, but people can't remember 2000 years of history. Maybe we should be more concerned that people worry too much about the past and not the present or the future.



Remembering the past is never a waste. The past shows us where we came from and is a key part of who we are today. The past also tells us what has and has not worked. Everyone here, including Dimsum, know that the present and future is important but to be ignorant of the past, especially such an integral piece - as explained by Dimsum - is excessively foolish.


----------



## cupper (8 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> What's the big deal, it's a hundred year old battle. It's just a piece of trivia, and no one is dumber for not knowing it. It would be as irrational as getting upset if someone doesn't know what wars Wolverine fought in.



Simply put, to quote George Santayana:

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. *Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.*"


----------



## dimsum (8 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> Ah yes, start off your rebuttal by trying to discredit my intentions.
> 
> Well, I'm going to assume you aren't an old crackpot. So why is it important that people remember when a really old battle happened? Lots of important things happen, but people can't remember 2000 years of history. Maybe we should be more concerned that people worry too much about the past and not the present or the future.



You can see how old I am on my profile.  If that's "old", sure.  

Cupper has already quoted Santayana before I had a chance, but it is _because_ I (and people like me) are concerned about the present and the future that we need to learn the lessons that were paid for, sometimes in blood, from the past.  

If you have the chance, go visit the Vimy memorial.  While you're at it, take a trip to Ypres in Belgium and visit the Menin Gate, preferably at or around 8pm.  I think, and I hope, that your eyes will be opened.


----------



## dangerboy (9 Apr 2014)

I am going to interrupt this discussion on the relevance of knowing the importance of the battle with an excerpt from the PPCLI's war diary on the events that occurred that day.



> 9th April 1917
> 4.30 a.m. Rum issue to all Coys.
> 5.30 a.m. Artillery opened and leading wave commenced to climb up our lip of craters.
> 7.10 a.m. Message No.1 received from Lieut. R.L. Haggard O.C. No.1 Co, stating that his Coy had reached FAMINE TRENCH with few casualties and that he was in touch with R.C.R. on right and No.3 Coy on left. Prisoners taken belong to 262 Regiment.
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> What's the big deal, it's a hundred year old battle. It's just a piece of trivia, and no one is dumber for not knowing it. It would be as irrational as getting upset if someone doesn't know what wars Wolverine fought in.



Good thing you didn't join an organization that thrives on history and tradition, like the Navy.


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck reign yourself in.  If you can't understand or comprehend why it is important to at least be AWARE of military history, while SERVING IN THE MILITARY, you should seriously think about seeking employment elsewhere.  Understanding the history of past battles is crucial to the development of tactics, training and doctrine going forward.


----------



## GR66 (9 Apr 2014)

I'm not shocked that few Canadians are aware of such an important event in our history.  We as a nation are simply not very good at promoting ourselves and our contributions.  I personally am very interested in Canadian (and in particular, military) history so am disappointed like many other people here.

To play Devil's advocate though, is Shipwreck's comment really as "wrong" as it may seem to most of us on the surface.  Followers of this website are either current/past members of the military or have a strong interest in the military so of course we're inclined to be interested in our military history.  Those in the profession of arms (or politics/policy for that matter) also have a practical need know and understand our military past in order do their jobs and plan for the future.

That being said, is it REALLY a big deal that the average Canadian doesn't know if Vimy Ridge was in WWI or WWII?  Or what year the "Last Spike" was driven.  Or the names of the opposing Generals on the Plains of Abraham?  Or [Insert Specific Historic Date or Factoid Here]?  There are lots of details that are important in a nation's or culture's history but is it the details we need to worry about?  

Maybe a more important question to ask is if Canadians understand how our involvement in WWI contributed to our independence and maturity as a country.  Does our teaching focus too much on the details (which unless a student is interested in the topic they will likely not retain) and not enough on the underlying impacts of those events.  Is a citizen that can recite the dates of the Magna Carta, the 30 Years War, The American Revolution, Confederation, Vimy Ridge, Dieppe, Kapyong, the Berlin Wall, Medak Pocket, the Quebec Referendum(s), etc. a better citizen than one that has no idea if neither can understand the political and cultural effects of these events? 

Certainly specific dates and events have the ability to focus attention on a shared history and identity, but at some point the importance of the "details" recede as those people directly affected pass on and the importance instead is on the results of the event.


----------



## McG (9 Apr 2014)

GR66 said:
			
		

> That being said, is it REALLY a big deal that the average Canadian doesn't know if Vimy Ridge was in WWI or WWII?  Or what year the "Last Spike" was driven.  Or the names of the opposing Generals on the Plains of Abraham?  Or [Insert Specific Historic Date or Factoid Here]?  There are lots of details that are important in a nation's or culture's history but is it the details we need to worry about?
> 
> Maybe a more important question to ask is if Canadians understand how our involvement in WWI contributed to our independence and maturity as a country.  ....


There are degrees of difference between being able to state that the battle of Vimy Ridge occurred in the Great War vs being able to say that Lord Strathcona (then Donald Smith) drove the last spike on 07 November 1885.  At the very least, Canadian's should know that the transCanadian Rail line was built in the 1880's to complete an obligation to BC stemming from confederation.  If you cannot get the event to the right time period, how can you understand the significance in any sort of context?  Likewise, does one understand how Canadian involvement in WWI contributed to our independence and maturity as a country if one believes believes the pivotal events leading to the independence and maturity were fought a quarter century later against the Nazis?  Canadian's know Vimy better than the final 100 days, so what do they know of WWI and its significance to the nation if they cannot place the battle during that conflict?


----------



## George Wallace (9 Apr 2014)

The unfortunate result of this lack of history being taught in our various 'Education Systems' across the country, is fact that we will now be faced with the problem of making the same mistakes that were made in the past, as opposed to having learned from them.   :-[


----------



## Journeyman (9 Apr 2014)

While all the reasons for knowing history and the follow-on effect for Canada of this war are all true.  However, the statement "it would be as irrational as getting upset if someone doesn't know what wars Wolverine fought in" -- comparing the sacrifices and the successes to an imaginary comic book character's story -- speaks volumes about the poster's intellect.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Apr 2014)

And here I thought he was talking about the war the Wolverines! fought in.



Because nothing is more important than bad Patrick Swayze movies.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Apr 2014)

While I don't necessarily agree with being able to list off endless dates of numberless historic events, there are certain pivotal occurrences that form and define a country's character.  Vimy is one of them.


----------



## blackberet17 (9 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> Ah yes, start off your rebuttal by trying to discredit my intentions.
> 
> Well, I'm going to assume you aren't an old crackpot. So why is it important that people remember when a really old battle happened? Lots of important things happen, but people can't remember 2000 years of history. Maybe we should be more concerned that people worry too much about the past and not the present or the future.



No one expects 2000 years worth of history to be remembered. But, as pointed out above, key pivotal moments should be remembered.

It's bad enough you seem to consider Vimy to be a "really old battle"...when it was less than a 100 years ago...97 years ago today, as a matter of fact.


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Apr 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And here I thought he was talking about the war the Wolverines! fought in.
> 
> 
> 
> Because nothing is more important than bad Patrick Swayze Stewart movies.



FTFY.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Apr 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> FTFY.



Nope.

Patrick Swayze.  And Charlie Sheen.


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Apr 2014)

Ah....yeah I only got about 20 minutes into that movie.


----------



## pbi (9 Apr 2014)

Hey....where did Shipwreck go.....?

Oh, well. Maybe he's history.  >


----------



## George Wallace (9 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Oh, well. Maybe he's history.  >



Swallowed up in the annuals of time.   A forgotten soul; never to be heard of again.


----------



## medicineman (9 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Hey....where did Shipwreck go.....?
> 
> Oh, well. Maybe he's history.  >



:rofl:  my office needs a new computer monitor


----------



## cupper (9 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Hey....where did Shipwreck go.....?
> 
> Oh, well. Maybe he's history.  >



Hopefully he will follow Santayana's advice and learn from this current history lesson.

But I fear he may be doomed to repeat his faux pas.


----------



## Tyson Fox (9 Apr 2014)

Heh, As if you could get rid of me that easily. And it appears Dimsum can dish out an jabs at people but not take them in return. Oh well.

Anyway, I see a lot of people telling me that if I don't know when a battle happened, I am doomed to repeat history? You all sort of regurgitated the same phrase, so I was wondering if any of you could explain a scenario where not knowing when a battle happened means that...we will have another battle at Vimy Ridge? There's no way to take the phrase, "Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it", in any sense but the literal. Battle tactics have changed anyway, and to think that century old land warfare is a daily consideration of a naval communicator is laughable. 

Not going to bother visiting the memorial in France or wherever it is, seeing a bunch of graves or whatever it is I am supposed to see won't change anything.

Some diary excerpt that had nothing to do with anything is also...irrelevant.

Hatchet man, are you trying to imply that say, a sonar operator can't be amazing at his job without knowing when some ancient battle happened? Because yeah, I can call a 97 year old battle really old when you can't find a person who was alive then to tell you about it.

And I'm glad that someone mentioned the building of the railway, that is something that should be commemorated. You all claim that we shouldn't forget our past or else we are doomed to repeat it. Well, then why is it that we like to forget the evil things that our country has done in the past? Would you not rather remember those over the proud moments? Shouldn't we be remembering things like Canada's Japanese internment camps, and the murder of the Chinese who were essentially slave labour on our railway anyway?


----------



## George Wallace (9 Apr 2014)

You really are a shipwreck aren't you?  Your logic is faulty.  You have contradicted yourself several times in your post.  I guess you are the guy why has her finger with a hammer and hasn't learned to not do it again.  Oh well.  Happy trails in whatever you endeavour, as I am sure you will never learn from your mistakes.


----------



## cupper (9 Apr 2014)

cupper said:
			
		

> Hopefully he will follow Santayana's advice and learn from this current history lesson.
> 
> But I fear he may be doomed to repeat his faux pas.





			
				Shipwreck said:
			
		

> Heh, As if you could get rid of me that easily. And it appears Dimsum can dish out an jabs at people but not take them in return. Oh well.
> 
> Anyway, I see a lot of people telling me that if I don't know when a battle happened, I am doomed to repeat history? You all sort of regurgitated the same phrase, so I was wondering if any of you could explain a scenario where not knowing when a battle happened means that...we will have another battle at Vimy Ridge? There's no way to take the phrase, "Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it", in any sense but the literal. Battle tactics have changed anyway, and to think that century old land warfare is a daily consideration of a naval communicator is laughable.
> 
> ...



Tell me what I win Johnny.

 :facepalm:


----------



## Tyson Fox (9 Apr 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You really are a shipwreck aren't you?  Your logic is faulty.  You have contradicted yourself several times in your post.  I guess you are the guy why has her finger with a hammer and hasn't learned to not do it again.  Oh well.  Happy trails in whatever you endeavour, as I am sure you will never learn from your mistakes.



I guess you are the guy why has her finger with a hammer....

And I'm the guy who's logic is faulty and contradicts himself.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> I guess you are the guy why has her finger with a hammer....
> 
> And I'm the guy who's logic is faulty and contradicts himself.




"Who has HIT her finger with a hammer and hasn't learned not to do it again."



Sorry for the hurried post.


----------



## Tyson Fox (9 Apr 2014)

Oh no worries, I figured it was something along those lines anyway.


----------



## dimsum (9 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> Heh, As if you could get rid of me that easily. And it appears Dimsum can dish out an jabs at people but not take them in return. Oh well.
> 
> Anyway, I see a lot of people telling me that if I don't know when a battle happened, I am doomed to repeat history? You all sort of regurgitated the same phrase, so I was wondering if any of you could explain a scenario where not knowing when a battle happened means that...we will have another battle at Vimy Ridge? There's no way to take the phrase, "Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it", in any sense but the literal. Battle tactics have changed anyway, and to think that century old land warfare is a daily consideration of a naval communicator is laughable.
> 
> ...



Tell me exactly what jab I couldn't take in return.  Use small words - ya know, me being old and all.

And who said anything about forgetting the internment camps and the Chinese labour?  The government has formally apologized for both - that's not exactly sweeping it under the rug.


----------



## pbi (9 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> '''Hatchet man, are you trying to imply that say, a sonar operator can't be amazing at his job without knowing when some ancient battle happened? Because yeah, I can call a 97 year old battle really old when you can't find a person who was alive then to tell you about it...



Whatever else you may think you are, you're not truly a member of the military profession if you don't understand and care at least a little about the military history that got us all here. Maybe, once you've been around a while, you'll realize that there's more to being a professional soldier, sailor or airman than being "amazing" at any particular little "job".

Or, maybe you won't.

If you do take the time to learn anything about your profession (instead of your "job") then you'll realize how much military history has to teach us if we are willing to learn. Don't dismiss human experience just because it's "old":  there are things that an RCN sailor from WWII could tell you about  naval life that you would benefit from hearing.  This is a very human business, despite all the technology (like sonar...) and its the human experience that matters. History is just human experience copied down for people to learn from.

So try learning something.


----------



## blackberet17 (9 Apr 2014)

The innovations of the First World War carried into the Second, and the wars since.

Where did platoon tactics come from? The Canadian experiences on the Great War battlefield, and demonstrated with brilliance on Vimy Ridge.

The creeping barrage? First World War. Effectiveness - thanks to intense planning, coordination, and resources - demonstrated on Vimy Ridge.

Innovations in artillery, counter-battery, aerial reconnaissance, land reconnaissance, patrolling, trench raiding, trench warfare, trench defences (as simple as a corkscrew-style picket for installing barbed wire!), gas masks, signals, combined arms...all these areas saw giant leaps in advances in tactics, thought, planning...many of which are the very foundation of what you would have learned on BMQ and SQ/BMOQ-L...all from the First World War.

And you think you have nothing to learn...


----------



## Tyson Fox (9 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Whatever else you may think you are, you're not truly a member of the military profession if you don't understand and care at least a little about the military history that got us all here. Maybe, once you've been around a while, you'll realize that there's more to being a professional soldier, sailor or airman than being "amazing" at any particular little "job".
> 
> Or, maybe you won't.
> 
> ...



Oh of course, my deployments and medals are family life sacrifices are all meaningless because I said remembering specific dates don't matter. Which by the way, human experience has nothing to do with. Remembering useless facts you read in a book is the opposite of getting the human factor.


----------



## Pieman (10 Apr 2014)

> Remembering useless facts you read in a book is the opposite of getting the human factor.


This is a throwback from the testing systems that schools use, not the purpose and point to learning historical context. You are correct in that our system molds its historical view points to its needs to a degree. However, there are nearly infinite points in history that you can read about, so we have to trust the experts who have decided what historical points are the really important ones to whatever group of people you happen to be in. That being town, country, generation, etc.  That is really what is going on when people say history is molded by the people who tell it. It has to be fashioned into a story so that people can understand and relate. How does that relate to the CF and your job? Context. 

This reminds me of a student in math class who asked "What is the point of 'X'? Why do I need to learn this when I don't need it in the real world." 

I responded, there are few things that a person really needs to get by in the world. You need to know math in the same sense you need to know how to use a hammer. You shape your world by the decisions you make using the knowledge you have.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Apr 2014)

Pieman said:
			
		

> This reminds me of a student in math class who asked "What is the point of 'X'?


Well "x" does equal the unknown, right?   op:


I'm done here.  Shipwreck is added to the <ignore> list.   :not-again: 



I see it's his birthday though; perhaps now in his 21st year he'll see more value in _his own_ Naval history than Marvel comics. I'll not be holding my breath though.


----------



## devil39 (10 Apr 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well "x" does equal the unknown, right?   op:
> 
> 
> I'm done here.  Shipwreck is added to the <ignore> list.   :not-again:
> ...



Agreed. This thread should be filed under "Trainwreck".


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> Heh, As if you could get rid of me that easily. And it appears Dimsum can dish out an jabs at people but not take them in return. Oh well.
> 
> Anyway, I see a lot of people telling me that if I don't know when a battle happened, I am doomed to repeat history? You all sort of regurgitated the same phrase, so I was wondering if any of you could explain a scenario where not knowing when a battle happened means that...we will have another battle at Vimy Ridge? There's no way to take the phrase, "Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it", in any sense but the literal. Battle tactics have changed anyway, and to think that century old land warfare is a daily consideration of a naval communicator is laughable.
> 
> ...



Vimy is far from ancient.  And like Blackberet mention, plenty was learned from Vimy, that was useful and is still applied to this day.  And to put it into context for you, since your a sonar operator, I guess studying/learning about the many naval engagements and battles  in the North Atlantic during WW2, particularly the development, use and deployment of the still new SONAR technology,  is also just as useless for you since it happened in the past, like before you were born past.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Apr 2014)

In a perfect world, karma will come back on Shipwreck and his topic for one of his ILP essays will be Vimy Ridge.   :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> Oh of course, my deployments and medals are family life sacrifices are all meaningless because I said remembering specific dates don't matter. Which by the way, human experience has nothing to do with. Remembering useless facts you read in a book is the opposite of getting the human factor.


I may regret this, but here goes ....

Since you mention family, do you know the story of your relatives?  Things about what your parents, aunts/uncles, grandfathers/grandmothers, so on did?  Why are those stories important?  Because they help you understand _*how you got to be who you are*_.

The lessons your family's stories teach you about yourself are the kinds of lessons history is supposed to teach you about Canada/the CF/the Navy/whatever larger group you're a part of.


----------



## pbi (10 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> Oh of course, my deployments and medals are family life sacrifices are all meaningless because I said remembering specific dates don't matter. Which by the way, human experience has nothing to do with. Remembering useless facts you read in a book is the opposite of getting the human factor.



OK now you are just shamelessly whining. We aren't belittling your medals and sacrifices (or those of your family): anybody on this site who has ever worn a uniform understands those things very well. Some people here have made just as big, or maybe much bigger sacrifices than you have in your short time in the service, but I don't see them waving it around.

The problem here isn't so much what you say, but the way you come across. Not a good start. Maybe you should put engines astern full,  reduce speed, come about, and try this evolution again.


----------



## cupper (10 Apr 2014)

Personally I'd like to see Shipwreck have this same conversation with his divisional officer come November when he gets tasked to a Remembrance Day Parade. 

Would at the very least provide decent entertainment for the rest of the ship's company.

op:


----------



## Griffon (10 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> Oh of course, my deployments and medals are family life sacrifices are all meaningless because I said remembering specific dates don't matter. Which by the way, human experience has nothing to do with. Remembering useless facts you read in a book is the opposite of getting the human factor.



The personal sacrifices that our troops have made in recent years have been significant, and the nature of war and it's new environment make day-to-day life harder.  But the losses pale in comparison to those suffered in the two world wars.

“We learn from history that we do not learn from history”


― Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

This is the important part.  What you say is supported by what Hegel said, but he said it as an impetus to study history and try to learn from their lessons.  Remembering the sacrifices of those that fought in wars much, much more terrible than anything we have seen in recent years should provide the drive to avoid the circumstances that led to them in the past.  But if we choose to forget, we are dooming ourselves to repeating them again and again, just as we always have.  We have the opportunity to stop the cycle, and that's why it is so important to keep ourselves educated on how atrocious war can really be.  Learning history, while not a lucrative pursuit in itself, is not useless.


----------



## cupper (10 Apr 2014)

To add to what has been said, it is not just war that we have lessons learned.

An excellent example that fits well with your career in the navy is all of the training you received at the Damage Control School is a result of hard experience through out the years.

I believe as part of the training you either get a lecture from or view a video of interviews with some of the survivors of the Kootenay Explosion in 1969. These aren't some old codgers that were the same age as your grandparents were when they were shagging in the back seat creating your parents. And it isn't ancient history that really has no bearing on today. They were proud members of the same service you are in now, doing the same jobs as you and your shipmates. And they had families and friends back home.

The lessons they learned in the aftermath, during the investigation and inquiry are still in practice today. Much of the training that members of the Protecteur received in their career development that saved their lives and minimized injuries and impacts were hard lessons learned by members of the Kootenay. And other incidents since then have added to the base of knowledge you received when you went through the school. 

As well, policies in place today with respect to how the death and repatriation of our fallen comrades is dealt with are a direct result of the outdated policies in place when the Kootenay's crew lost their shipmates.

As an engineer myself, I have a base of knowledge that was built on the successes and more importantly the failures of those who came before me.

So next time you ask, "Who cares about when some old battle occurred?", or "Why do I need to know of some seemingly insignificant event in history?" STOP. Think about the context in which it has come up, and what was learned as a result of that battle or that event.


----------



## kratz (10 Apr 2014)

cupper said:
			
		

> Personally I'd like to see Shipwreck have this same conversation with his divisional officer come November when he gets tasked to a Remembrance Day Parade.
> 
> Would at the very least provide decent entertainment for the rest of the ship's company.
> 
> op:



I'd like to see Shipwreck's excuses used to evade the Battle of Atlantic parade coming up in three weeks.   op:


----------



## rinoakes (10 Apr 2014)

This argument's getting pretty pretentious. It's nice everyone is feeling all important about themselves because they can identify battle dates. Maybe if I was in the army I'd care about Vimy ridge, but I'm not so I don't. Not everyone is interested in canadian history. I'm sure shipwreck is an expert on other useful things that none of you guys care about. 
I know alot about incidents that relate more to my job such as the chicoutimi fire. But 100 year old battles? Not interested.


----------



## cupper (10 Apr 2014)

rinoakes said:
			
		

> This argument's getting pretty pretentious. It's nice everyone is feeling all important about themselves because they can identify battle dates. Maybe if I was in the army I'd care about Vimy ridge, but I'm not so I don't. Not everyone is interested in canadian history. I'm sure shipwreck is an expert on other useful things that none of you guys care about.
> I know alot about incidents that relate more to my job such as the chicoutimi fire. But 100 year old battles? Not interested.



If you are not interested in 100 year old battles, then why did you even bother reading this thread, let alone making a post that essentially supports the original thesis, that there is a lack of understanding of Canada's history in today's society?

I don't believe anyone who has replied to Shipwreck's post could be considered as making themselves sound more important than they are. And no one has stated that they are an expert on anything, let alone Canadian History.


----------



## pbi (10 Apr 2014)

rinoakes said:
			
		

> This argument's getting pretty pretentious. It's nice everyone is feeling all important about themselves because they can identify battle dates. Maybe if I was in the army I'd care about Vimy ridge, but I'm not so I don't. Not everyone is interested in canadian history. I'm sure shipwreck is an expert on other useful things that none of you guys care about.
> I know alot about incidents that relate more to my job such as the chicoutimi fire. But 100 year old battles? Not interested.



Please don't parade your ignorance: that is far more "pretentious" than trying to get somebody to understand their own history.

One day the Chicoutimi fire will be 100 be years old. Will it lose its value as an experience worth learning from?

If you, or Shipwreck, or anybody else can simply dismiss Vimy Ridge (of all Canadian battles...) as "some 100 year old battle", then you probably don't have much sense of the things that have shaped this country. It isn't about some dumb "Army" thing: it's about an amazing military achievement that (among other great sacrifices in that War...) arguably led to Canada finally becoming a country in 1931, instead of a semi-autonomous colony. Don't worry about the colour of the uniforms involved: worry about the human experience that you can learn from.

I'm an infantryman, but I can look at Nelson or Beattie or Farragut or Scheer and see great leaders. Any soldier can learn things from the human experiences of the Battle of The Atlantic: I doubt you will hear any of the Army types on here saying that they couldn't care less about "some 80-year old naval battle".

You are bit young to have such a closed mind.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Apr 2014)

rinoakes said:
			
		

> This argument's getting pretty pretentious. It's nice everyone is feeling all important about themselves because they can identify battle dates. Maybe if I was in the army I'd care about Vimy ridge, but I'm not so I don't. Not everyone is interested in canadian history. I'm sure shipwreck is an expert on other useful things that none of you guys care about.
> I know alot about incidents that relate more to my job such as the chicoutimi fire. But 100 year old battles? Not interested.


Brave enough to tell an old sailor who's been through WW2 that you're "not interested" face-to-face if you're at a Battle of the Atlantic ceremony next month?  Or is 100 years where you draw the line?


----------



## Tyson Fox (11 Apr 2014)

It's amazing how convincing you can make an argument when you change what your point of view is halfway through. No one has told me why knowing when something happened is important, but I sure get a lot of responses about the school systems, how to use hammers, and vindictive comments about writing essays.

And how silly of me to think that when someone tells me I am not truly in the military, to take that as belittling my service record? And apparently the way I speak is incorrect. I have not broken any forum rules, the only thing I am doing differently is disagreeing with the majority opinion. It would seem that you guys should call it something else if you don't want this site to be a public forum.

And there is mention of discussing this with my DivO, which, doesn't affect anything at all, because people in the military are still allowed to have opinions.

You keep trying to convince everyone that a hundred years ago isn't a long time ago, as well, how much more preposterous can you get?

Oh and it's an "amazing military achievement", well I guess I just answered my own question. No military achievement is amazing, it's depressing that you place these deaths in a good light.

So yeah, keep clouding the issue, probably the only  way you guys can think you're right.


----------



## Emilio (11 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> It's amazing how convincing you can make an argument when you change what your point of view is halfway through. No one has told me why knowing when something happened is important, but I sure get a lot of responses about the school systems, how to use hammers, and vindictive comments about writing essays.
> 
> And how silly of me to think that when someone tells me I am not truly in the military, to take that as belittling my service record? And apparently the way I speak is incorrect. I have not broken any forum rules, the only thing I am doing differently is disagreeing with the majority opinion. It would seem that you guys should call it something else if you don't want this site to be a public forum.
> 
> ...



You want a straight forward and simple answer? Well here it is.

History is not about always remembering the exact month or date of an event, It's about learning the significance behind the event which lead to its name being placed in History. It's understanding how and why the event played out, and how we can recognize the signs of a similar event playing out today. 

And in the case of Vimy Ridge, It was the first time our identity as an independant country outside of the commonwealth was created, It should be seen as an event of pride and admiration for the lives layed down in establishing our nationality. 

To be a Canadian and misunderstand or not know of that, well that's just a plain shame.



> You keep trying to convince everyone that a hundred years ago isn't a long time ago, as well, how much more preposterous can you get



100 years ago is a long time, but so is 80 and 60, how long does it have to be before your grandchildren forget what happened in WW2, or Afghanistan?


----------



## Tyson Fox (11 Apr 2014)

Emilio said:
			
		

> You want a straight forward and simple answer? Well here it is.
> 
> History is not about always remembering the exact month or date of an event



Okay good, I agree. Topic title references Canadians inability to remember exact dates.


----------



## lethalLemon (11 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> Okay good, I agree. Topic title references Canadians inability to remember exact dates.



The topic title does nothing to indicate failure of recognising exact dates. It identifies that most Canadians don't even know that the Battle of Vimy Ridge occurred during the First World War let alone 1917...


----------



## Goose15 (11 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> Okay good, I agree. Topic title references Canadians inability to remember exact dates.



:facepalm:

The topic is about Canadians not knowing what "WAR" Vimy Ridge was fought in. The article is not about specific dates. Knowing something is in a particular war is a lot different than knowing a battle's exact date.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> *No one has told me why knowing when something happened is important*....


Ok, how many times did the word "school" appear in this one?


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Since you mention family, do you know the story of your relatives?  Things about what your parents, aunts/uncles, grandfathers/grandmothers, so on did?  Why are those stories important?  Because they help you understand _*how you got to be who you are*_.
> 
> The lessons your family's stories teach you about yourself are the kinds of lessons history is supposed to teach you about Canada/the CF/the Navy/whatever larger group you're a part of.


Also, knowing history isn't just about *when* something happened, but *why* it happened and *why* it's important.


----------



## Journeyman (11 Apr 2014)

So what's actually happening here -- not the specific topic, but the nature of the discussion?

[yes, it's my tired old 'opinions versus _informed_ opinions' hobby-horse   ]

On the one hand, there is Group A: the majority of respondents, who are saying it's a bad thing that this information isn't common knowledge. A quick look at their profiles and posting history shows them to be older, more experienced members, which suggests that their opinions _may_ be informed by more life experience -- having seen second- and third-order effects of applying diverse 'things learned.'  Now Group A may also be an example in dogmatic group-think, but because they've presented evidence to support their argument (in this case, lessons' learned plus the inherent benefits of knowing Canadian history to 'being' a Canadian), I'd  personally discount it; it needs to be considered when weighing arguments though.

Group B presently seems limited to Shipwreck and rinoakes -- from their profiles, two young sailors claiming there's little utility in knowing of things "old" -- who have stated little more than that they already know enough to be good at their jobs; they don't know about the topic, and in their opinion see no reason why they should care about it.  In effect, they appear to have no thirst for 'knowing'...for learning as broadly and deeply about a wide range of subjects, and how that can improve them as individuals.  

From their follow-on posts, it's not merely the absence of such a thirst for knowledge, there seems to be an active shunning of it.


....and that is what's sad about their not knowing of Vimy.


:not-again:  I'm done.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (11 Apr 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So what's actually happening here -- not the specific topic, but the nature of the discussion?
> 
> [yes, it's my tired old 'opinions versus _informed_ opinions' hobby-horse   ]
> 
> ...


I would say I'm definitely part of Group A in your example in regards to the belief that history is a very important thing so that no matter what in life we do we learn and move forward to not repeat those same mistakes.  Whether this be in the context of military operations, or in the regular routine of life.

I don't consider myself an old person, hell I am just around the corner from 30.  However in my short time on this ball of craziness we call Earth I have had many experiences that some at age 50 have probably not experienced, most of them not pleasant, but from those unpleasant experiences I have grown and developed as a person and have looked back to ensure that what I have gone through does not happen to my kids.

The sad reality is that a lot of good advice and reasoning has come out in this thread to try and explain why knowing and learning from history is important, but some people just cannot be swayed.  And it's been stated multiple times not only in this forum but elsewhere that the sacrifices made at Vimy, or Monte Casino, or Hill 553, or Medak, or Panjwai allow Canadians to think and live (within the confines of the law) however they please.  If that means they want to think that history is irrelevant and Vimy was too long ago to matter, then such is life.  It might be foolish and juvenile, I know I certainly can't understand it, but such is life.

Also if you want to think my post is inflammatory or calling those individuals out as being juvenile, so be it.  Because it's been made quite apparent that us in Group A thinking that history needs to be taught and learned from so we can continue to move forward in the future, is silly and outdated to the point of being archaic based on some opinions shared.  Some people just won't change their minds on both sides of the discussion.


----------



## Griffon (11 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck asked why it's important to know when Vimy happened. Here's the simple answer: context. 

Vimy is a part of a story. That story includes a war and the coming of age of a newly independent nation. It's important to know when it happened so you can see effects of battlefield technology and tactics development on the strategy employed by the Canadians in 1917, how they were a part of a battlefield evolution that broke the trench warfare stalemate. You need to know what war it was in to see that. It's important to Canadians because it was the first operation where all the divisions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force fought together. That fact on it's own is hardly earth-shattering, but in a political context it's an indicator of the growing maturity of a nation. This view of Vimy is a part of the story of the recognition on the world stage of Canada as an independent nation, or at least that's how some of us choose to see it.

Knowing when it happened allows you to place it in time with other events. It didn't happen in a vacuum.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Apr 2014)

If I may, as part of Group A, point out a few things.



			
				Shipwreck said:
			
		

> It's amazing how convincing you can make an argument when you change what your point of view is halfway through. No one has told me why knowing when something happened is important, but I sure get a lot of responses about the school systems, how to use hammers, and vindictive comments about writing essays.



No one has changed their point of view halfway through more than you.  As for telling you why knowing when something happened is important, such as how to use a hammer; it is more about why something happened and the results of that.  From your comments, I take it your "Past" is almost IMMEDIATE.  It would appear to me that to you, as soon as something has passed, it is in the Past and no longer important.  It was only a day or so ago that I made the comment of the "hitting yourself with a hammer and learning not to do so again" and now only a few days in the future you comment that the "how to use hammers" comment is not important.  I find this incomprehensible.




			
				Shipwreck said:
			
		

> And how silly of me to think that when someone tells me I am not truly in the military, to take that as belittling my service record? And apparently the way I speak is incorrect. I have not broken any forum rules, the only thing I am doing differently is disagreeing with the majority opinion. It would seem that you guys should call it something else if you don't want this site to be a public forum.



Ummmmm?  So, if we disagree with your point of view; we then are in the wrong?  



			
				Shipwreck said:
			
		

> ......., because people in the military are still allowed to have opinions.



Don't you think this discussion proves that point?  Or is it, as mentioned earlier, that we are all wrong because we don't see any relevance or legitimacy in your points?




			
				Shipwreck said:
			
		

> You keep trying to convince everyone that a hundred years ago isn't a long time ago, as well, how much more preposterous can you get?



It is a lot less preposterous than your not learning not to hit yourself with a hammer, mentioned a day or so ago.  




			
				Shipwreck said:
			
		

> Oh and it's an "amazing military achievement", well I guess I just answered my own question. No military achievement is amazing, it's depressing that you place these deaths in a good light.
> 
> So yeah, keep clouding the issue, probably the only  way you guys can think you're right.



Now this makes me wonder why you have chosen to join the military, if you don't realize the fact that we don't glorify killing, but we do recognize the sacrifice that many before us have made in the service to this nation to give us the freedoms and rights that we enjoy as Canadians today.

As has been a recurring theme throughout this discussion; if you can't learn from the past, you are doomed to make the same mistakes over again.   I wonder how often, you personally make the same mistakes over and over again and don't learn from them.  That would be a sad commentary of your life and future.


----------



## chrisf (11 Apr 2014)

I'd be doubtful about Vimy Ridge, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of Newfoundlanders who aren't aware of the battle at Beaumont Hamel.


----------



## pbi (11 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> ...Oh and it's an "amazing military achievement", well I guess I just answered my own question. No military achievement is amazing, it's depressing that you place these deaths in a good light...



Sorry, not quite following here. Who placed what deaths in a "good light"?

Reading this post, I have to wonder what you imagine the purpose of the military ultimately is. Let me bring it a bit closer to home for you and rinoakes: what is sonar?

Sonar is the sensor part of a sensor-shooter chain that will ultimately result in a powerful explosive device destroying a subsurface vessel. The sailors in that subsurface vessel will be torn apart, crushed, burnt, suffocated by chemical fumes or smoke or drowned. Many of them will die in absolute blind terror. Unless the sub makes it to the surface, they will all die.

That is what your "job" is ultimately about.

Now, we have to be able to attach some rational meaning to that act, or it becomes  a mindless mechanical task of destroying other humans, for no apparent reason. Or, worse, because maybe somebody enjoys killing people.

Or, just as bad, we pretend that somehow we have "clean hands" because it's "just a job" and we're not the ones pulling the trigger or releasing the ordnance or giving the orders. That is a morally bankrupt argument of the very worst sort.

In a professional military (which you have joined) people find that rationalization in understanding why we are asked to do what we do, and why we do it. Part of this understanding means realizing that, whether we like it or not, we live in a world where force is always an option. That, in the end, is why an organized military exists. The Canadian people expect that, if the time comes, Canadian sailors will do what is necessary, just as the RCN has always done so very well.

Using that necessary force, hopefully for the right reasons, normally takes place under stressful conditions of fear, injury, loneliness, confusion, deprivation  and hardship. You only need to look at what the sailors of the RCN went through during the Battle of the North Atlantic, or the Murmansk Run, to understand what I mean. To be able to organize hundreds of warships and aircraft, and thousands of sailors, to ensure the safe passage of millions of tons of cargo against a determined and skilled enemy who is trying to kill you, while fighting terrible sea conditions, is actually a pretty "amazing military achievement". I don't know what  else to call it. If you can't accept that, just what will you be thinking about on Battle of the Atlantic Day?

If you reject the idea that there can be "amazing military achievements", then maybe you might want to ask yourself what you really think your service is about, and what the military is actually for.


----------



## Tyson Fox (12 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Please don't parade your ignorance: that is far more "pretentious" than trying to get somebody to understand their own history.
> 
> One day the Chicoutimi fire will be 100 be years old. Will it lose its value as an experience worth learning from?
> 
> ...



Of course the chicoutimi fire will lose it's value as an experience. You think these subs will be running in 100 years? They barely run now. What is the big lesson? Fires are...bad? That's some heavy stuff. People should memorize the date the fire happened so they know that. 




			
				Emilio said:
			
		

> 100 years ago is a long time, but so is 80 and 60, how long does it have to be before your grandchildren forget what happened in WW2, or Afghanistan?



I would rather my child forgets WWII and remembers Afghanistan, so at least he knows how to recognize a pointless war. You all mention if you don't know history it will inevitably repeat itself every single time, so I would want my kids to know the failures before the successes.

And well, once you are old I guess it's apparently perfectly okay to have a closed mind. This forum makes that clear.


			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> So what's actually happening here -- not the specific topic, but the nature of the discussion?
> 
> [yes, it's my tired old 'opinions versus _informed_ opinions' hobby-horse   ]
> 
> ...



Ah yes, group A, the majority, which obviously makes them more credible. No one has ever been in the minority and been right before, especially on a forum consisting of the same demographic of old jaded military members, typically the people most resistant to change or alternative viewpoints. 

And Journeyman seems like such a fair moderator, he's clearly not a member of the group "A". He says they have presented evidence to support their argument, but no one has done any such thing. Personal views are not evidence. I doubt you could actually find evidence proving that vimy ridge matters so that whole line is foolish. He also mentioned a reason they are credible as: "the inherent benefits of knowing Canadian history to 'being' a Canadian)"

... the inherent benefits of knowing canadian history to "being" a canadian. Could you please expand on what those benefits are and what a Canadian is?

Oh and moving on to Group B, me and the intelligent rinoakes, well being young automatically makes you less reasonable, as compared to a senior citizen set in their ways, and in fact, although it seemed like you were trying to provide a fair balance, it was in fact a deception to lower my standing. You manage to put me being good at my occupation in a bad light, and you say I have no thirst for knowledge, which is wrong and irrelevant. Just because I think history isn't important doesn't mean I don;t know it better than you.

But he said he was done.



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> Shipwreck asked why it's important to know when Vimy happened. Here's the simple answer: context.
> 
> Vimy is a part of a story. That story includes a war and the coming of age of a newly independent nation. It's important to know when it happened so you can see effects of battlefield technology and tactics development on the strategy employed by the Canadians in 1917, how they were a part of a battlefield evolution that broke the trench warfare stalemate. You need to know what war it was in to see that. It's important to Canadians because it was the first operation where all the divisions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force fought together. That fact on it's own is hardly earth-shattering, but in a political context it's an indicator of the growing maturity of a nation. This view of Vimy is a part of the story of the recognition on the world stage of Canada as an independent nation, or at least that's how some of us choose to see it.
> 
> Knowing when it happened allows you to place it in time with other events. It didn't happen in a vacuum.



That sounds like it might be important to the army, even though it's not, but whatever, so why does this matter to a typical civilian? Every job has a history from law to science, but we don't call people stupid for not knowing famous canadian legal precedents or medical advancements. Y'all only think the military is special because you are in it and you want to pretend that your achievements are on the same level as the WWII veterans.

Oh uh George Wallace, if you want to have a discussion about hammers, I am so down for that, but I don't know why it's a big deal in this current one.

And uh, George, people just personally insult me, and you say that is disagreeing with your point of view. I managed to debate with people but I don't tell you that your military service is worthless or that your whole life is a waste. I just meant if you guys don't want to entertain other people you should make people spend thirty years in the military before they can join this forum.

Oh, uh Pbi, I can tell you what I will be thinking of on battle of the atlantic day. Probably my girlfriend and agatha christie novels. I like those books.


----------



## Emilio (12 Apr 2014)

> I would rather my child forgets WWII and remembers Afghanistan, so at least he knows how to recognize a pointless war. You all mention if you don't know history it will inevitably repeat itself every single time, so I would want my kids to know the failures before the successes.
> 
> And well, once you are old I guess it's apparently perfectly okay to have a closed mind. This forum makes that clear.



Your the only one here with a closed mind; and that's not insult against you, It's just a fact which can be seen from your previous posts.

Oh and Im younger then you, so you can trust me.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> ... how to recognize a pointless war...



Pointless to you perhaps, not for many of the rest of us, nor to the majority of Afghans. But what do I know? My opinion is formed by direct observation which I'll admit is no match for third party reporting and interpretation.


----------



## pbi (12 Apr 2014)

OK....this is turning into pig wrestling.  :

I have a feeling all of us are being had by Shipwreck and rinoakes, but being old and stupid (as so many senior citizens are, you know....) I'll give this another shot.

This whole thread  has IMHO nothing to do with the dates of anything, or any battle on land or at sea. It has nothing to do with the purpose of the military, or whether there is any human virtue demonstrated in war. It began legitimately enough, with MCG's post, but it has descended since then into a slanging match of generalizations and ad hominen attacks. I don't think you are interested in arguing about military history at all, since you apparently see very little value in it, or it seems, any value in any other kind of history.

So, here's what I think.

I think it's a legitimate practice on this site to ask people to substantiate their opinions or experiences by telling us a little about the background that has shaped them. Happens all the time. I've been called out myself in the past. Look at this:



> ...Y'all only think the military is special because you are in it and you want to pretend that your achievements are on the same level as the WWII veterans.



Aren't you claiming to be in the military too? Don't you think it's special? Or is it just like working at McDonald's?

Call out: I don't believe that you're in the RCN at all, despite your profile claim. In fact, I begin to doubt that you have ever served in the CAF, ever. You spoke earlier about your "medals deployments and sacrifices". I'd like you to state which "medals" you have earned in your service, from what deployments, on what ships or RCN establishments. Apparently you have a total of two years of service. If you would like me to state the same, I'd be happy to do so, as would the other posters here.



> I would rather my child forgets WWII and remembers Afghanistan, so at least he knows how to recognize a pointless war.



I sincerely hope that one of the "medals" you claim to be wearing isn't from the South West Asia Campaign, because that would  be wearing a medal from a "pointless war", now wouldn't it?



> ...so I would want my kids to know the failures before the successes...



So, from what informed basis have you made the assessment that the Afghan operation was a failure, since the study of military history apparently holds so little value for you? ? Doesn't that require us to see what lasting results it produces? And, anyway, you just admitted that history might have a teaching value.

You may be quite surprised to discover that many people on this site, me in particular, believe strongly in the study of military failure as a powerful learning tool. "The best mistakes to learn from are somebody else's".

And now this stuff: 



> ..And well, once you are old I guess it's apparently perfectly okay to have a closed mind. This forum makes that clear...





> ...a forum consisting of the same demographic of old jaded military members, typically the people most resistant to change or alternative viewpoints...





> as compared to a senior citizen set in their ways...



See "ad hominen" above.  If anybody on this site has specifically and intentionally insulted you just because you are young (relative to whom...?), then I agree that is not fair. But you have certainly done no better. You have very little idea how old anybody on this site actually is, and in any case age doesn't really affect the quality of a person's argument. (It affects trying to remember where you put your glasses...) Very young people can advance very sound arguments. You're just not doing it.



> ...Personal views are not evidence...



Rubbish. Personal views are evidence of lots of things: primarily they are evidence of how people process the world around them, of what they value, and of how they see others. Just to pick three.

Which all leads us to this interesting statement:



> ..Just because I think history isn't important doesn't mean I don;t know it better than you...



So, what, now? You have invested effort to become an expert in something that you don't think is important? Why did you do that? Is it maybe because actually you know it is important, or you wouldn't be on this thread. Or were you just trolling, as DimSum suggested?

Standing by for a response which will knock me clear out of my walker and make my false teeth fall out into my glass of warm skim milk.....


----------



## observor 69 (12 Apr 2014)

As so well stated here by Griffin, it's context  gentlemen:

Reply #78 on: Yesterday at 08:54:38 »

Shipwreck asked why it's important to know when Vimy happened. Here's the simple answer: context. 

Vimy is a part of a story. That story includes a war and the coming of age of a newly independent nation. It's important to know when it happened so you can see effects of battlefield technology and tactics development on the strategy employed by the Canadians in 1917, how they were a part of a battlefield evolution that broke the trench warfare stalemate. You need to know what war it was in to see that. It's important to Canadians because it was the first operation where all the divisions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force fought together. That fact on it's own is hardly earth-shattering, but in a political context it's an indicator of the growing maturity of a nation. This view of Vimy is a part of the story of the recognition on the world stage of Canada as an independent nation, or at least that's how some of us choose to see it.

Knowing when it happened allows you to place it in time with other events. It didn't happen in a vacuum.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Apr 2014)

Perhaps the root issue of the original article post could have been captured with a slight re-titling, "Most Canadians don't feel that Canada's accomplishments at Vimy Ridge were significant."

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> Of course the chicoutimi fire will lose it's value as an experience. You think these subs will be running in 100 years? They barely run now. What is the big lesson? Fires are...bad? That's some heavy stuff. People should memorize the date the fire happened so they know that.
> 
> 
> I would rather my child forgets WWII and remembers Afghanistan, so at least he knows how to recognize a pointless war. You all mention if you don't know history it will inevitably repeat itself every single time, so I would want my kids to know the failures before the successes.
> ...


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Apr 2014)

It's interesting shipwreck that you show such disdain for history, yet on another forum, your signature is

"Remember, remember the 5th of November"

That's a pretty specific and significant date in world history and was certainly much more than 100 years ago.


----------



## medicineman (12 Apr 2014)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps the root issue of the original article post could have been captured with a slight re-titling, "Most Canadians don't feel realize that Canada's accomplishments at Vimy Ridge were significant."
> 
> Regards,
> G2G



FTFY...though I was thinking of something more along the lines of "Most Canadians Are Generally Apathetic to Anything That Has Made This Country What It Is"

MM


----------



## pbi (12 Apr 2014)

Shipwreck......? Helloooo-oooooo.

 :crickets:


Still there?

Hurry up: it's almost time for my nap.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 May 2014)

What appears to be the survey released earlier this year, presented slightly differently ....


> A new Ipsos Reid poll, conducted on behalf of the Vimy Foundation indicates that, encouragingly, Canadians split on their success when presented with six multiple-choice questions about the history of the Battle of Vimy Ridge.
> 
> The poll is being released on the eve of the Annual Vimy Gala at the Royal York Hotel, Toronto, on May 5, 2014. Founded in 2006, the mission of the Vimy Foundation is to preserve and promote Canada's First World War legacy as symbolized with the victory of the Battle of Vimy Ridge in April 1917, a milestone when Canada came of age and was then recognized on the world stage. Visit www.vimyfoundation.ca.
> 
> ...


----------



## pbi (11 May 2014)

Look at that geographic distribution: telling.


----------



## 2 Cdo (12 May 2014)

If Shipwreck is the type of person the Forces is recruiting these days I'm glad I retired when I did. She/he whatever is a fucking oxygen thief.


----------



## medicineman (12 May 2014)

Just did the self Heimlich on myself...thanks for that  :nod:.  It does work too BTW.

MM


----------



## CountDC (12 May 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> OK....this is turning into pig wrestling.  :
> 
> Call out: I don't believe that you're in the RCN at all, despite your profile claim. In fact, I begin to doubt that you have ever served in the CAF, ever. You spoke earlier about your "medals deployments and sacrifices". I'd like you to state which "medals" you have earned in your service, from what deployments, on what ships or RCN establishments. Apparently you have a total of two years of service. If you would like me to state the same, I'd be happy to do so, as would the other posters here.



hmmmm - two years and a sonar.  Environment training is 5 weeks and sonar basic is 25 weeks.  I am old - how long is basic training these days?  Seems to me a good chunk of that two years was used up for training which does validate the question of medals, deployments and ships. 

Sadly this was one of my complaints while still young and in school, no modern Canadian history taught.  I am not a fan of remembering exact dates on events but it would be good if the schools at least taught the impact of Vimy and WW1 on our country and that the two go together.  Thankfully the history channel does a good job on that every year, just have to get the kids to watch.


----------



## pbi (13 May 2014)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> If Shipwreck is the type of person the Forces is recruiting these days I'm glad I retired when I did. She/he whatever is a ******* oxygen thief.



As I said earlier, I'm not 100% convinced that shipwreck is in the RCN. If he is, then I agree with you: pretty sad.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> hmmmm - two years and a sonar.  Environment training is 5 weeks and sonar basic is 25 weeks.  I am old - how long is basic training these days?  Seems to me a good chunk of that two years was used up for training which does validate the question of medals, deployments and ships.
> 
> Sadly this was one of my complaints while still young and in school, no modern Canadian history taught.  I am not a fan of remembering exact dates on events but it would be good if the schools at least taught the impact of Vimy and WW1 on our country and that the two go together.  Thankfully the history channel does a good job on that every year, just have to get the kids to watch.



You have the same suspicions I do. My point really isn't that he didn't want to memorize dates: I don't agree with that type of "learning" either. What I was on about was that, as far as I could tell, he didn't GAF about military history at all.


----------



## Journeyman (13 May 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> What I was on about was that, as far as I could tell.....


So you're saying even you weren't sure what you were on about.....   

 ;D


----------

