JBSI - Day 4

Where: Dieppe
Theme: Explaining Tragedy and Controversy to Students
Questions:
What lessons were learnt at Dieppe? Is it possible to compare the Raid on Dieppe to D-Day? These questions can help students to better appreciate the grey zones in history.
Introducing historiography to students using the Dieppe case.
Other Questions:
What matters more in history teaching: the Memorial or the Battle at Vimy?
Was it right to repatriate an 'unknown soldier' from Cabaret Rouge for the Ottawa Memorial?
Did Canada become a Nation on these battlefields or [is] that historical conceit?
How do we teach 'failure' in our History classes?

The "chert" (large round rocks) really were hard to walk on, no wonder the tanks had trouble on the beach.

Reflections:
I think it is important to teach the downfalls (failures) in Canadian history in our classes.  It is part of what makes it interesting and encourages critical thinking.  I generally spend a period (75 minutes) or 1.5 periods on Dieppe talking about the reasons for the raid, the goals and the realities of the battle.  I leave the decision about how successful or how justifiable it was to my students.  We talk about the ways in which Dieppe was unsuccessful.  Up until now, I've also talked about it in terms of a learning experience.  After today, though I'm going to have to adjust what I say about learning from it.  Some of the things the Allies "learned" they already knew, but the raid was different than an invasion (which I always discuss) and they already knew that.

Hindsight makes us ask, why on earth would anyone think attacking with cliffs on either side of your landing area, controlled by the enemy was a good idea.

I think it is important to teach more than just the victories in our history.  It is life and everyone deals with defeat, it's what you do with it that is important.  It is also important to realize that everything is more obvious in hindsight.  As historians we have that priviledge, but it is important to have the students work within historical perspective as much as possible, thinking about what the people at the time knew or believed.  Marie-Eve mentioned that hindsight makes us ask why not have the Air Force take out the artillery.  But at the time, the planned role of the artillery was to counter the Luftwaffe they were sure was coming. They also didn't want to bomb the French civilians who were still in the town - they were our allies. The planes weren't prepared to take out artillery. The plan was based on smaller raids and simply growing them.

Another interesting question that was asked today that I'd like to address with my students is how medals are awarded.  There were 3 Canadians who received Victoria Crosses at Dieppe, even though it was a failure.  Were they the only ones who deserved it?  Or were others who were brave/courageous simply surrounded by men who were killed in action and therefore unable to tell their stories?  We can't know I guess.  And is it fair that Montgomery and Mountbatten got promoted, while the commander of Canadian 2nd division lost his position and becomes the scapegoat for the failure.  Why?