Battle of Vimy Ridge 95th Anniversiary

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by 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

thanks for that I will hunt that book down.

Another good one, although more British is:



http://www.amazon.com/Deaths-Men-Sol.../dp/0140168222

[CaptainCrunch]

Its very hard to read books about WW1 and especially books from the view of people fighting in the trenches.

The war itself really showed that the Leaders of the European nations were in way over their heads and it literally became nation f%%king nation and dragging the whole world into it.

Its a war that by todays standards makes little to no sense, but by the standards of that era made sense.

We also have to remember that at that time especially in Europe you weren't truly a man until you served time in uniform, and went out and got a bit bloodied up and earned a couple of medals. When WW1 started the propaganda in the UK was "Home by Christmas" this would be a short glorious war, which would follow the typical European ethos of honor on the battlefield.

Nobody was prepared for the type of warfare that they would fight thanks to the modern machine guns, better rifles, and a war that was almost forced to be fought from a defensive standpoint almost right from the start.

Gone were the glorious days of the cavalry charge, the almost stylish uniforms, and the fluid state of an offensive war.

The men that expected to go and earn glory in a gentlemanly war, instead found their feet rotting off due to trenchfoot, sitting for months in water soaked trenches covered in mud and parasties in the cold weather while watching in horror as yellow clouds swept towards their trenches.

They ate substandard food, and watched their clothing literally rot off of their bodies. They caught all manner of diseases as hygene went out the window.

And they waited in terror for their NCO or officers to scream "Up and at em boys . . . charge" where they'd be boosted out of the trench to run across a battlefield while machine guns fanned back and forth in grazing fire. By the time that you reached the other enemy trench the several thousand men that had jumped out of the trench with you were down to several hundred, and you still faced a brutal hand to hand trench battle where you were just as likely to be drowned or slowly bleed to death or have someone jam a bayonet between the ribs where the only way to get the bayonet out was to shoot your victim at close range.

In the span of a few short years the perception went from war glorious war where troops sang on the way to the battlefield to "war is hell".

Sadly not enough lessons were learned and when WW2 came along and showed the foolishness of static warfare it became a different type of death as war became like a lawnmower.

[undercoverbrother]

While difficult to read about the conditions for the soldiers, I am always amazed by their ability to rise above the conditions and make the best form the worst.

[CaptainCrunch]

A must read about the Christmas truces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

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.

Please, it takes two to tango. All three of these conflicts had a long build up towards the declaration of war. France had a treaty obligation to Russia in WW1, and in WW2 Britain decided when to declare war.
When did France have the largest land army? Maybe in 1870. Seems unlikely afterwards considering Germany had a much larger population, esp. in WW2.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

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.

Good on Britain for duping France into doing its dirty work, but it still comes across as cowardly to form an alliance and expect France to do all the heavy lifting.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

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.

Britain had an alliance with France dating back to 1904 and were honour bound to declare war on Germany. While France wanted its historical provinces returned, Britain wanted Germany’s overseas colonies, and they also were concerned about the growing threat of The High Seas Fleet, which was nearly a match for the Grand Fleet (and had better gunnery). There was a lot at stake for Britain.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

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 Germans would have defeated them in both 1914, 1917 or 1918.

they got their arses kicked 2/3 times by a militarily, financially, demographically, commercially, and industrially superior nation. 1914 was a French victory. The BEF had 6 divisions in the Battle of the Marne, compared to 65 French and 51 German. Were they the difference? Unlikely. Germany and France had armies of millions fighting, the BEF had 50 000. (BTW, I’ve seen the Marne referred to as ‘The Third Republic’s finest hour’ numerous times.)

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

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.

Yep, the 50 000 strong BEF was slowing down the German attack all by itself, right. Fact is they were retreating faster than the French, and would have been in Bighty were it not for an impassioned plea from a French General.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

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.

Too bad Britain had to sign that secret alliance with the French, they would have avoided WW1. But Germany would likely have replaced them as the preeminent world power. Briatin was just as eager for a fight as France(or any other of the major powers) anyways.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

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…

This is completely wrong. You keep making things up. There is no way Britain almost lost its whole population of men of military age.
I know Britain had less than 1 000 000 deaths, and with a population of around 50 million, that equals less than 2%.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

…as well as virtually bankrupting itself, by the end of WW1 the end of the empire was just a matter of time.

You could argue that from its inception the demise of the empire was a matter of time. The fact is the empire kept expanding in the interwar years and Britain still led the world in overseas investments. If they hadn’t of turned their backs on Japan in 1921 there might still be British territories in Asia.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

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.

But I said relative to gain. Russia lost the most men by far but gained massive amounts of territory and became a superpower. The UK basically had to sell off their empire as a result of lend lease and was pretty much an economic wasteland until what, the 80's? They really lost the most. Even Germany and Japan became economic powerhouses.

Poland, well yeah. Poland always gets the shaft.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Proud to be a grandson of one of those men.

I had a great uncle fight at Vimy as well, he made it threw the battle unscaved and from what my grandfather said was credited with 3 german kills only to die from the flu of all things before he made it back home.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

Please, it takes two to tango. All three of these conflicts had a long build up towards the declaration of war. France had a treaty obligation to Russia in WW1, and in WW2 Britain decided when to declare war.
When did France have the largest land army? Maybe in 1870. Seems unlikely afterwards considering Germany had a much larger population, esp. in WW2.


Good on Britain for duping France into doing its dirty work, but it still comes across as cowardly to form an alliance and expect France to do all the heavy lifting.

Britain had an alliance with France dating back to 1904 and were honour bound to declare war on Germany. While France wanted its historical provinces returned, Britain wanted Germany’s overseas colonies, and they also were concerned about the growing threat of The High Seas Fleet, which was nearly a match for the Grand Fleet (and had better gunnery). There was a lot at stake for Britain.

they got their arses kicked 2/3 times by a militarily, financially, demographically, commercially, and industrially superior nation. 1914 was a French victory. The BEF had 6 divisions in the Battle of the Marne, compared to 65 French and 51 German. Were they the difference? Unlikely. Germany and France had armies of millions fighting, the BEF had 50 000. (BTW, I’ve seen the Marne referred to as ‘The Third Republic’s finest hour’ numerous times.)


Yep, the 50 000 strong BEF was slowing down the German attack all by itself, right. Fact is they were retreating faster than the French, and would have been in Bighty were it not for an impassioned plea from a French General.



Too bad Britain had to sign that secret alliance with the French, they would have avoided WW1. But Germany would likely have replaced them as the preeminent world power. Briatin was just as eager for a fight as France(or any other of the major powers) anyways.

This is completely wrong. You keep making things up. There is no way Britain almost lost its whole population of men of military age.
I know Britain had less than 1 000 000 deaths, and with a population of around 50 million, that equals less than 2%.
You could argue that from its inception the demise of the empire was a matter of time. The fact is the empire kept expanding in the interwar years and Britain still led the world in overseas investments. If they hadn’t of turned their backs on Japan in 1921 there might still be British territories in Asia.

France had the largest army of the allies in 1914, it was roughly equal to the Germans it faced as the Germans had to split its forces with the eastern front.

Britain didn't persue an alliance with France, France persued an alliance with Britain in order to avoid another beating like the one it took in 1870 when Britain let them sort it out on their own. Britain was anxious for France to survive as a buffer to Germany but it was always Britains plan to avoid war, diplomatically the UK thought by supporting France it would stop the Germans declaring war, what it underestimated fatally was how eager the French were to precipitate it.

Britain did not fight the war to gain German colonies, in fact technically the British Empire didn't gain any land they gained protectorates, in reality the German colonies of africa were not worth fighting a war over.

The BEF started and predominantly fought the whole war in Belgium, for the most part it didn't retreat (or advance) more than 50 miles from 1914 to 1918, the French on the other hand were pushed back to within 70 miles of Paris, I'm not sure how this can be interpreted any other way than a massive retreat.

The UK population in 1918 was 40 million, the country lost 1 million dead and another 2 million wounded in the war, out of a male population of approx 20 million. Thats 1 out of 20 dead and a further 2 out of 20 injured, those deaths fell on the ages of 16 to 25 and virtually wiped out the whole generation, as they did in Germany and France.

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

France had the largest army of the allies in 1914, it was roughly equal to the Germans it faced as the Germans had to split its forces with the eastern front.

Almost all of Gemany's army was on the Wetern front as per the Schleffen Plan.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Britain didn't persue an alliance with France, France persued an alliance with Britain in order to avoid another beating like the one it took in 1870 when Britain let them sort it out on their own. Britain was anxious for France to survive as a buffer to Germany but it was always Britains plan to avoid war, diplomatically the UK thought by supporting France it would stop the Germans declaring war, what it underestimated fatally was how eager the French were to precipitate it.

It has always been British policy to isolate the leading continental power. They wanted the alliance as much as France.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Britain did not fight the war to gain German colonies, in fact technically the British Empire didn't gain any land they gained protectorates, in reality the German colonies of africa were not worth fighting a war over.

They wanted German bases in the Pacific and China, and German East Africa was necessary for the Cape-Cairo railroad. Most of all they wanted to end the German naval threat. Churchill was giddy when war was declared. To say France 'precipitated' the war is false, though I wont say they did anything to prevent it.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The BEF started and predominantly fought the whole war in Belgium, for the most part it didn't retreat (or advance) more than 50 miles from 1914 to 1918, the French on the other hand were pushed back to within 70 miles of Paris, I'm not sure how this can be interpreted any other way than a massive retreat.

The BEF retreated from Belgium and fought in the Battle of the Marne. I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from but they're hilariously inaccurate.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The UK population in 1918 was 40 million, the country lost 1 million dead and another 2 million wounded in the war, out of a male population of approx 20 million. Thats 1 out of 20 dead and a further 2 out of 20 injured those deaths fell on the ages of 16 to 25 and virtually wiped out the whole generation, as they did in Germany and France.

OK I looked it up, the UK population in 1914 was 46 million. They had 723 000 deaths. That = 1.57 percent. Almost half what you initially claimed. The percentage of males between 15-49 killed was 6.3. Thats pretty high, but not enough to 'wipe out a whole generation'. Germany and France had percentages twice as high.

[/QUOTE]
Thats a sweet map of how far the BEF retreated.

There is no point in arguing with you because you because you just make things up to suit your argument. At least your getting better with your numbers, they aren't off by an order of magnitude anymore.

[afc wimbledon]

Thats a sweet map of how far the french retreated, the British the North in Brelgium, Arras was the furthest extent of their line. if you look carefully you can see Passchendale and Ypres. The French held the south and were pushed back to Soissons and Rhiems, Rhiems was defended by the fort of Verdun, you may have heard of it, it was were the French were bled dry in 1917, caused their army to mutiny and effectively ended any further offensive efforts from them.

[Methanolic]

I will post this in the cool picture thread too.

I recently lost both of my parents (Mom March 2nd, Dad March 18th) and have been up in northern BC clearing out their residence for the last two weeks. Dad spoke many times of a lighter case that my Grandfather had with him at Vimy. He said Grandad carved a date into it with his bayonet at some point while he was there. Dad could never remember where it was and I always wanted to see it. Long story short, I found it and was amazed especially because of the date carved into it. I thought I should share.