Really?
Posted on 06/13/2015 7:34:16 AM PDT by the scotsman
I thing the Japanese might point out one or two other engagements that resulted in a large loss of life.
Really?
Although there continued to be rebellions and resistance to William's rule, Hastings effectively marked the culmination of William's conquest of England. Casualty figures are hard to come by, but some historians estimate that 2,000 invaders died along with about twice that number of Englishmen. William founded a monastery at the site of the battle, the high altar of the abbey church supposedly placed at the spot where Harold died.
twice 2,000 is 4,000 so at least 4,000 died there.
I sure engagements on the WW1 battle field saw more then 4,000 dead.
9 March, 1945, 0100-0400 hrs..B-29’s firebombed Tokyo..80,000 min estimate Jap dead..single raid.
Not even close to being accurate.
Not even close. Number 9 on the list for ship sinkings in World War II.
Wilhelm Gustloff 1945 Sunk by Soviet sub Appx 9400 lost
Goya 1945 sunk by Soviet sub Appx 7-8000
Armenia 1941 sunk by German plane Appx 7000
Junyō Maru 1944 sunk by British sub. Appx 5600, mostly Dutch POWs killed
Toyama Maru 1944 sunk by American Sub. Appx 5400 killed.
Cap Arcona 1945 sunk by British aircraft. Appx 5000
Ryusei Maru 1944 sunk by American sub. Appx 5000 killed
Tamatsu Maru 1944 sunk by American sub. Appx 4500 killed
Finally, Lancastria.
Indeed, the wording is quite ambiguous. Better:
The sinking of the Lancastria resulted in the largest loss of human life from a single military engagement during WW II...
[I am supposing that the taking of Iwo Jima and the bombings of Hamburg - or of Hiroshima or of Nagasaki - are not considered "engagements" by the author - maybe he means "naval engagement".]
...Further, it resulted in the largest loss of life ever in the whole of British maritime history.
I suspect that that is what the author meant to say.
In any event, any sentence that - even after three re-readings - still leaves room for doubt is an example of poor writing.
Regards,
It is a relative thing. Compared to losing the entire war, it was a victory.
The Dzhurma survived and remained in service as a prison ship. It was even serviced in Washington State during WWII.
thx for the info.
Some context is needed, the British did manage to evacuate over 192,000 people during Operation Ariel, on top of 338,000 during Operation Dynamo.
It could have been much worse.
I think we all agree that the writer meant British naval engagement, but wrote it badly.
Plenty of battles where we have lost 4000+. From civil wars through the battles of Empire, to both world wars: the Somme’s first day is the worst, 20000 dead.
Conspiracy nonsense IMO.
Very true.
Ariel/Aerial gets ignored even in the UK.
Remember it was the BEF, not the British Army. We started off in France with 90000, by the end it was 400000. But that still pales against the French and Belgian forces and of course the Germans.
Yes, it was. 338000 and another 192000 later. And the British forces didn’t flee back to Dunkirk, that’s a myth.
The BEF fought brutal and brave battles back to the coast as the French and Belgians collapsed around them. Staunch defence of ports like Dunkirk and Boulogne, the counterattack at Arras (the real reason Hitler stopped the Panzers).....
Churchill of course wanted the US in the fight, but the conspiracy theories that he sacrificed US and UK lives to do so, or the Pearl Harbour nonsense, is just that: nonsense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.