Battle of Vimy Ridge 95th Anniversiary

[Traditional_Ale]

Back in the day (2001) when was in Stampede Showband we toured to Europe and held a special ceremony at Vimy. Blazing sun and all, we suited up in full dress uniforms and paraded in to the lonely tap of a single snare drum. We then set an arc and performed "October" by Eric Whitare, Franz Bibel's "Ave Maria" (as a choir), and of course, "O Canada." I can't remember what was placed on the steps, and then we left again to the tap of a single snare.

We had the tour of the place first, and it was so eerie. The tunnels are so cold even on the hottest days outside, so I could only imagine what winter must of been like in there. It truly is hallowed ground and I will never forget the feeling of being there, and being a part of that tribute. It made me feel more "Canadian" than I had ever felt before or since.

[CaptainCrunch]

The biggest failure of history teaching is the application of late 20th early 21st century rules and concepts to early 20th century historic events.

Instead of trying to understand the decisions made then based on the intelligence information and values then, we're literally monday morning quarterbacking with a flawed model.

It would be like watching the 1889 world series and then stating that Randy Johnson would totally p'wn major league baseball back then .

Magnum, your really wrong, based on the relationship with the commonwealth back then, the military structures and tables back then, and the way that the Canadian government was viewed in its relationship withing the British commonwealth, allowing the Canadian Expeditionary Force to fight as one component lead for the most part by Canadian Officers and Senior NCO as a all Canadian contingent was a huge step towards creating a national entity seperate from the Commonwealth, and went a long ways towards the establishment of the Statute of Westminsiter.

You might call WW1 a useless war, but based around the alliances back then, the intelligence that they were receiving and the decision making processes at the time and the people in power. Plus the whole colony system, WW1 was very much scene as a crucial war for the Commonwealth.

[Magnum PEI]

Obviously Canada had much more of a connection to Britain back then, and once Britain went to war Canada would as well even if it had control of its foreign policy. But my issue is with how the war is used to instill patriotism in modern Canada.

I was in high school in the early 2000s and WW1 was taught in all 3 years of social studies. Vimy Ridge was portrayed as a significant battle and a turning point in the war; Canada's entry into the war was because Britain stuck up for tiny Belgium; and Austria and Germany were to blame for the war. In short, we were made to look like the good guys.
The truth is Vimy Ridge was not a significant battle; we entered the war because Britain had a secret alliance with France because they were afraid of Germany growing to powerful; and blame should be equally shared between the two alliances.

The USA's involvement was downplayed and major events were not taught at all, for example the acquisition and extent of Britains' Empire, or the devastating blockade on Germany.

The government has rewritten history to inculcate a sense of nationalism in Canadians. I suppose most countries do this (in India the 1857 Mutiny is called the 1st War of Independence) but its just kind of a shock to realize your own country does it.

[nik-]

^ Pretty much all of World War 1 was pointless battle after pointless battle. I see no problem with picking one as a patriotic moment.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

Obviously Canada had much more of a connection to Britain back then, and once Britain went to war Canada would as well even if it had control of its foreign policy. But my issue is with how the war is used to instill patriotism in modern Canada.

I was in high school in the early 2000s and WW1 was taught in all 3 years of social studies. Vimy Ridge was portrayed as a significant battle and a turning point in the war; Canada's entry into the war was because Britain stuck up for tiny Belgium; and Austria and Germany were to blame for the war. In short, we were made to look like the good guys.
The truth is Vimy Ridge was not a significant battle; we entered the war because Britain had a secret alliance with France because they were afraid of Germany growing to powerful; and blame should be equally shared between the two alliances.



The USA's involvement was downplayed and major events were not taught at all, for example the acquisition and extent of Britains' Empire, or the devastating blockade on Germany.

The government has rewritten history to inculcate a sense of nationalism in Canadians. I suppose most countries do this (in India the 1857 Mutiny is called the 1st War of Independence) but its just kind of a shock to realize your own country does it.

Not entirely untrue, Vimy and the other 'anglo' supports of the Nivelle offensive went reletively well, the French on the other hand were drubbed and in effect withdrew from the war in an offensive sense, this left the war to 'us' which we won with many of the inovations that were first used effectively in Arras, I think with or without Vimy the outcome would have been the same, the French were badly led and it was always going to be a fight between the empire and the Germans in the end that decided it.

Don't under estimate the effect that the battle had on Canada just because the war was a fair bit stupid either, it did for Canada what Gallipoli did for Australia,althoug this wa largely as the british were spent as an empire afterwards.

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Not entirely untrue, Vimy and the other 'anglo' supports of the Nivelle offensive went reletively well, the French on the other hand were drubbed and in effect withdrew from the war in an offensive sense, this left the war to 'us' which we won with many of the inovations that were first used effectively in Arras, I think with or without Vimy the outcome would have been the same, the French were badly led and it was always going to be a fight between the empire and the Germans in the end that decided it.

Well there wouldn't have been much of a war if the French hadn't of stopped the world's biggest military machine initially. The British were packing up and heading to the channel until Joffre begged them to stay and fight. It was the blockade and the million America troops that ultimately decided the war.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Don't under estimate the effect that the battle had on Canada just because the war was a fair bit stupid either, it did for Canada what Gallipoli did for Australia,althoug this wa largely as the british were spent as an empire afterwards.

Gallipoli is different because it was a major defeat, not a minor victory. ANZAC day is the Australian equivalent of Remembrance Day, so its treated quite solemnly, not celebrated.

The British Empire EXPANDED after the war. They plucked most of Germany and Turkey's former colonies (but I thought the war was about Belgium?). The Empire wasn't over until Japan proved that whitey wasn't all-powerful, and then America decided to takeover as the World's #1 power.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

Well there wouldn't have been much of a war if the French hadn't of stopped the world's biggest military machine initially. The British were packing up and heading to the channel until Joffre begged them to stay and fight. It was the blockade and the million America troops that ultimately decided the war.



Gallipoli is different because it was a major defeat, not a minor victory. ANZAC day is the Australian equivalent of Remembrance Day, so its treated quite solemnly, not celebrated.

The British Empire EXPANDED after the war. They plucked most of Germany and Turkey's former colonies (but I thought the war was about Belgium?). The Empire wasn't over until Japan proved that whitey wasn't all-powerful, and then America decided to takeover as the World's #1 power.

How to answer so many wrong points at once, well lets start with the 'miracle of the Marne' and the 1914 campaign, the Germans pushed both the tiny BEF and the huge French army back towrds Paris, as in WW2 the French retreated much faster than the BEF leaving the British with the danger of having their flank turned, in the end, unlike in WW2 the French did stop and maintain some semblance of a line while the BEF caused so many German casualties that the Germans were unwilling to expose their own flank in an attempt to push the French and British apart completely (they did not make this mistake in WW2). The French had always envisioned the land war being their venue, the British were supposed to handle the ocean, the british even at the height of the empire had a tiny army in comparison with both the French and Germans, none the less in 1914 it was the BEF that generally held its line only pulling back as its French flank evaporated (exactly the same thing that happened in WW2).

The american involvement in WW1 was negligable, they arrived late, used dreadfull tactics and even worse equipment, got utterly bitch slapped by the Germans, and in the end they tagged along with the final push and no doubt their entry offered a moral boost but from a militarily point of view their contribution was negligable, they may have sent a million men but only 200,000 fought.

In the end the British had learned their lesson in Cambrai, they started to use a grab hold and defend tactic that forced the Germans to lose heavily in the counter attack when they couldn't afford the losses,and it was this that precipitated the final collapse, although by then the Germans were spent, as you correctly pointed out the wartime blockade was crippleing to Germany.

You are right Gallipoli is a somber occasion, but it is also the point that many historians feel that Australia as a seperate country was born, and it is no coincidance that Australia has a far more troubled veiw of the British as their birth was from a wastefull defeat, as opposed to the Canadian victory.

And whilst the British Empire may have grown after WW1 in shear size the loss of almost 3 percent of its population in such a reletively small country crippled it and made the transfer of its empire to the US inevitable.

Always remember history is writen by the victors, in this case the victors included the French who have generally tried to minimise the effect that the utter collapse of their forces in 1870, 1914 and again in 40 had. It has long been a French claim that the British betrayed them in 1940, even though they ceased to exist as a fighting force and were withdrawing from Paris when the British cut their losses at Dunkirk.

[FlamesAddiction]

I agree that the battle really helped place Canada on the global stage as its own entity, and I don't think there is any question about the bravery of the Canadian soldiers.

I do find a lot of the rhetoric about it a little over the top though. The Canadians weren't fighting to save the world from evil or for freedom. They were fighting for British imperial motives. If we were talking about WW2, then I could see the altruism angle, although a big cause of WW2, and several post WW2 conflicts, was the way the aftermath of WW1 was handled by the allies.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I agree that the battle really helped place Canada on the global stage as its own entity, and I don't think there is any question about the bravery of the Canadian soldiers.

I do find a lot of the rhetoric about it a little over the top though. The Canadians weren't fighting to save the world from evil or for freedom. They were fighting for British imperial motives. If we were talking about WW2, then I could see the altruism angle, although a big cause of WW2, and several post WW2 conflicts, was the way the aftermath of WW1 was handled by the allies.

Actually when you get right down to it we were all fighting to regain a couple of French provinces they had lost in 1870, the war made no sense for the British Empire, we pretty well stumbled into it thinking the threat of involvement would keep the Germans in hand which was really the British ambition.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Actually when you get right down to it we were all fighting to regain a couple of French provinces they had lost in 1870, the war made no sense for the British Empire, we pretty well stumbled into it thinking the threat of involvement would keep the Germans in hand which was really the British ambition.

I think there were also hopes for strengthening and expanding influence in the Middle East for England. When the Ottoman Empire started to crumble, Austria-Hungary, Russia and England all started to compete for who would control those areas. All 3 were trying to take advantage of the power vacuum, while also getting sucked into the France/Germany issues.

[drhu22]

'Vimy' by Pierre Berton I think is one of the definitive books on the subject. If you can find the time, it is a very good read.

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

How to answer so many wrong points at once, well lets start with the 'miracle of the Marne' and the 1914 campaign, the Germans pushed both the tiny BEF and the huge French army back towrds Paris, as in WW2 the French retreated much faster than the BEF leaving the British with the danger of having their flank turned, in the end, unlike in WW2 the French did stop and maintain some semblance of a line while the BEF caused so many German casualties that the Germans were unwilling to expose their own flank in an attempt to push the French and British apart completely (they did not make this mistake in WW2). The French had always envisioned the land war being their venue, the British were supposed to handle the ocean, the british even at the height of the empire had a tiny army in comparison with both the French and Germans, none the less in 1914 it was the BEF that generally held its line only pulling back as its French flank evaporated (exactly the same thing that happened in WW2).

The French purposely retreated and then regrouped to attack Germany’s exposed flank. The British thought it was all over and were evacuating their whopping 6 divisions back to England. Joffre persuaded them to stay. Both the French and British suffered heavy casualties.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The american involvement in WW1 was negligable, they arrived late, used dreadfull tactics and even worse equipment, got utterly bitch slapped by the Germans, and in the end they tagged along with the final push and no doubt their entry offered a moral boost but from a militarily point of view their contribution was negligable, they may have sent a million men but only 200,000 fought. )

EDIT: The USA had 300 000 casualties in WW1, and 4 million mobilized men. Not quite the negligible force you make it out to be.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

In the end the British had learned their lesson in Cambrai, they started to use a grab hold and defend tactic that forced the Germans to lose heavily in the counter attack when they couldn't afford the losses,and it was this that precipitated the final collapse, although by then the Germans were spent, as you correctly pointed out the wartime blockade was crippleing to Germany. )

Germany completely bypassed that region and almost captured Paris. Both sides had heavy losses. The difference was the fresh Americans.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

You are right Gallipoli is a somber occasion, but it is also the point that many historians feel that Australia as a seperate country was born, and it is no coincidance that Australia has a far more troubled veiw of the British as their birth was from a wastefull defeat, as opposed to the Canadian victory.

And whilst the British Empire may have grown after WW1 in shear size the loss of almost 3 percent of its population in such a reletively small country crippled it and made the transfer of its empire to the US inevitable.

Are you talking about southern Ireland? It would have had less than 1% of the ~500 million population.
How would losing the least industrial area of the British Isles cripple Britain? The oilfields of Iraq and Transjordan easily make up for that.
Britain was still willing to fight for its empire up until the 50s. If Churchill had had his way they would’ve never left India. I know there is a famous quote about the Somme, but Singapore and Suez are where the empire was lost.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Always remember history is writen by the victors, in this case the victors included the French who have generally tried to minimise the effect that the utter collapse of their forces in 1870, 1914 and again in 40 had. It has long been a French claim that the British betrayed them in 1940, even though they ceased to exist as a fighting force and were withdrawing from Paris when the British cut their losses at Dunkirk.

More anti-french rhetoric that seems to be so popular these days. Obviously the French are pussies because they lost to Germany 2/3 times. Must be nice to sit back on your island and get someone else to do all the work.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

More anti-french rhetoric that seems to be so popular these days. Obviously the French are pussies because they lost to Germany 2/3 times. Must be nice to sit back on your island and get someone else to do all the work.

Interesting statement since Britain paid the highest price relative to gain of all the Allies in WW2.

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by nik-

Interesting statement since Britain paid the highest price relative to gain of all the Allies in WW2.

This is true, but at the outset of both world wars Britain expected France to do most of the fighting. The stalemate and the quick German victory in the respective wars forced them to change their strategies.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

This is true, but at the outset of both world wars Britain expected France to do most of the fighting. The stalemate and the quick German victory in the respective wars forced them to change their strategies.

Amazing really seeing as it was a war to defend France, they had by far the largest land army and precipitated both wars as well as the franco prussian war that started it all.

Yes I can easily see why the UK should have stepped up more to a war it didn't want or start to keep another country safe, a country that repeatedly showed an inibility to defend itself.

The reality was in both '14 and '40 that the british had a very small army and relied on its navy, what it sent was what it had and to be frank in 1914 the British should not have been involved at all, it was a French war diplomatically precipitated by the French in order to regain the Alsace Lorraine, there was nothing at stake for the British and we should have left the French to win or lose their war alone.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by nik-

Interesting statement since Britain paid the highest price relative to gain of all the Allies in WW2.

I'd probably give the nod to Russia on that one, although Poland would win hands down but really is in a different class of pain to anyone else.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

The French purposely retreated and then regrouped to attack Germany’s exposed flank. The British thought it was all over and were evacuating their whopping 6 divisions back to England. Joffre persuaded them to stay. Both the French and British suffered heavy casualties.



EDIT: The USA had 300 000 casualties in WW1, and 4 million mobilized men. Not quite the negligible force you make it out to be.




Germany completely bypassed that region and almost captured Paris. Both sides had heavy losses. The difference was the fresh Americans.


Are you talking about southern Ireland? It would have had less than 1% of the ~500 million population.
How would losing the least industrial area of the British Isles cripple Britain? The oilfields of Iraq and Transjordan easily make up for that.
Britain was still willing to fight for its empire up until the 50s. If Churchill had had his way they would’ve never left India. I know there is a famous quote about the Somme, but Singapore and Suez are where the empire was lost.



More anti-french rhetoric that seems to be so popular these days. Obviously the French are pussies because they lost to Germany 2/3 times. Must be nice to sit back on your island and get someone else to do all the work.

They got their arses kicked 3/3 times, the French were a spent and meaningless force after Verdun and were it not for the Allies the Germas would have defeated them in both 1914, 1917 or 1918.

The French were thrown back reeling by the Germans, the only thing that slowed them was that the BEF and Belgiums in the North didn't fall back as fast, thus the front turned as a huge gate with the Germans deep into France in the South while the British barely left Belgium frontier, the attack in '40 was a text book copy except in 40 the Germans ignored the threat to their flanks and hooked around isolating the BEF.


And yes it was a luxury to have an island, we had no reason to be involved in either war and had we stayed out of the first one the French would never have started it and we would have been spared WW2 as well.

Empires arn't just land, Britian lost almost its whole population of men between 16 and 30, fully 3 percent of the total population of the country died as well as virtually bankrupting itself, by the end of WW1 the end of the empire was just a matter of time.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think there were also hopes for strengthening and expanding influence in the Middle East for England. When the Ottoman Empire started to crumble, Austria-Hungary, Russia and England all started to compete for who would control those areas. All 3 were trying to take advantage of the power vacuum, while also getting sucked into the France/Germany issues.

The French had their eyes on parts of the Levant, mostly by 1914 the British were concerned with Germany's industrial power, they wanted to keep France strong as an easy buffer to the growing threat to Britsh trade coming from the Ruhr, the French exploited this masterfully to draw the British into an alliance in order for them to take on the Germans on even terms and get revenge for 1870, you can make an excellent case that both ww1 and 2 were just extensions of the Franco Prussian war of 1870

[SeeBass]

Was watching the highlights of the Vimy gathering on tv last night.

The wife was saying we should go sometime and do a whole war tour trip.

Now that the wife is on board we are going to plan to be at Vimy for the 100th.

[Flames89]

This is an amazing book from personal memoirs of a Canadian soldier. You have to take it in doses because of how depressing and/or crazy it is.

http://www.amazon.com/Journal-Privat.../dp/1896979289