Vimy Ridge

newfangle

hates you.
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
7,046
Location
Waterloo, ON
I just finished reading Pierre Burton's books Vimy, and Marching as to War, and I am pretty convinced that Vimy Ridge was perhaps the most tactically sound military engagement of this century.

The British and French through 250 thousand troops at the ridge with no success at all.

In the winter of 1916, the Canadian corps began to plan for a new type of assault, under the leadership of Douglas Haig (Actually Arther Currie was the true mastermind, Commander of the Canadian 3rd). The plan called for a mix of troops, something never seen before in warfare. The British still incorporated the strict caste system, which led to the slaughter of thousands. The Canadians chose to blend machine gunners, infantry, and calvary into a heterogenous mixture Secondly, each soldier was given complete battle plans and the map of the assault area. Finally, a new artillary system was designed dubbed, "the creeping barrage." Simply put, advancing troops were protected behind a rainfall of shells that crept slowly up the battlefield, giving the Germans no chance for retalliation. At the same time, a massive artillary barrage was directed at enemy hardpoints and artillary.

On Easter Monday, 1917, and largest artillary barrage to date (yes, this record still holds) took place. 30 000 seasened Canadian troops ascended up the slopes of Vimy, assisted by a support crew of 100 000 gunners, medics, stretcher bearers, fighter pilots, engineers, and trajectory technicians. The losses were minimal by the standards of WWI with only 3000 dead.

This was the FIRST major allied victory in WWI, and the Canadian corps led the way as stormtroppers eventually leading to the defeat of the Kaiser.

*wipes tear away from eye*
 
When we Canadians set out to do something, we do it right. (Mainly cuz were trying to show off in front of someone usually Britain or the USA) but the troops rehearsed that for weeks. every soldier had a specific task. It was amazing, except for all the death. Something to be proud of.
 
Australians have similar views on several of our actions on the Western Front ;) Like the Canadians and Kiwis Australian's were used by the British as elite stormtroops/colonial cannon fodder depending on how you see things...

The Australian General John Monash is generally credited with being not only the best Allied General of the war, but with an offencive similar to the one you mentioned in 1917 (Le Hammel I *think*) where he combined troops, aircraft, tanks and artillery to storm a strong German position with minimal casualties.

Sadly General Monash was denied a Field Marshal-hood because he was Jewish :( (he's on the $100 dollar note though)
 
Vimy Ridge has its advantages, but its singularity, uniqueness and importance are all myths spawned by Canadian propaganda. For example, the claim that it was the first major allied victory is sheer bunk: what about the Russian defeat of an entire Austrian army at Lemberg? Or the Battle of the Marne? Or the Serbian defeat of the first Austrian attempt at invasion? etc.

Not that we'd have any propaganda, of course :D. Not with fellows like Lord Beaverbrook coming from these shores. Not with the likes of Pierre Berton at the typewriter.

I'm happy to be a Canadian, but I think it's important not to let nationalism run too far with history. Although I will admit we did our bit, and will likewise admit that Pierre Berton can spin a good yarn once he's reached that moment when he breaks free from what his researchers told him.

R.III
 
Originally posted by newfangle
On Easter Monday, 1917, and largest artillary barrage to date (yes, this record still holds) took place

I always thought that the german artillary barrage before Kaiserschalt (sp) in spring 1918 was the largest artillery barrage ever seen or is that wrong? :confused:
 
Originally posted by newfangle
First Western Front victory. My apologies.

Perhaps first trench warfare victory, since the Marne was on the Western front, and was one of several modest victories in 1914. But I would also quibble, since, however costly, the French unquestionably won Verdun: the German objective was to break through, and they sure as hell didn't at considerable cost to themselves.

I don't mean to be an a**hole; Vimy was clever, and useful, and important, and all who fought there or anywhere else should get fair due. But Canadian nationalism has been as good at building its myths as anyone else, and the whole "Canadians as shock troops" is a convenient disguise for a more unsettling fact: Canadians got given the difficult jobs because the jobs were difficult, not because the Canadians were special. A dominion soldier was more expendable than a British soldier. That's why we got moved to the front of the line so often.

R.III
 
The British did see the Commonwealth soldiers as expendable compared to their own, but Vimy is where we showed them wrong, with proper tactical knowledge, artillery bombardment and combined forces we did something not even the Brits of the French could.
But I do see some of the facts as a bit of Canadian proganada (why do those words feel so weird when put together, it's kinda like the feeling I get from typing Progressive Conservitive, and Royal Canadian Navy)
 
Newfangle wrote:

I just finished reading Pierre Burton's books Vimy...

Just a note of caution, I know that some professional historians have taken Burton to task for taking large liberties with history in his historical fictions. I have his Flames Across the Frontier and like it but read that some parts of it are "factually challenged"...
 
Originally posted by HotDog Fish
But I do see some of the facts as a bit of Canadian proganada (why do those words feel so weird when put together, it's kinda like the feeling I get from typing Progressive Conservitive, and Royal Canadian Navy)

I'm the Germans of 1917 felt the same way.
 
Newfangle wrote:

"Factually Challanged" as in the book doesn't glorify Americans?

Relax, brother; his critics were Canadian historians.
 
Originally posted by newfangle
Do they teach American school children about the Fall of Siagon. I know about Dieppe.
I think everybody should learn about Dieppe, it was one of the most humilating loss on the Western Front during WWII, hundredds of military and civilian ships where called to evacuate thousands of men while other died while being stranded on the beach, I'd be very dissapointed with the Americans f they didn't learn this, even if they wheren't involved like the Brits, French and Commonwealth where
 
Newfangle wrote:

Do they teach American school children about the Fall of Siagon. I know about Dieppe.

???

Yes they do. Americans learn in their schools about the failed attempts to force Canada to join them in 1776 and 1812-13, they learn about the hypocrisy of the Mexican War, they learn about the poverty of the inner cities and the needs for the reform movements in the 1880s-WW I (and Teddy Roosevelt's resulting original, and real "Compassionate Conservatism"), about the long labor struggles with the Wobblies and AFL-CIO, and indeed about the Vietnam War. My friend's teenage son had to participate in a project last year to explore why he thought the U.S. lost the Vietnam War.

What's your point? Why did you react to my statement with an anti-American tirade? My statement wasn't anti-Canadian. I merely pointed out that Pierre Burton has had some loud criticism of some of his works; how does that reflect badly on his entire nation? Why do you feel justified in attacking anyone else's? One of my favorite Polish historians, Jan T. Gross, is currently under very heavy criticism from all over the world for his last book but I'm not going to start attacking the nations of the people criticising him. My identity isn't that insecure, and the fact is his last book may indeed have some shoddy work in it. If a historian writes a book, even a historical fiction, they must be prepared for critical examination of their work - that's how history works. To be honest I should think you should apologise to the Americans on the list for having to bear the brunt of your undeserved tirade.

What triggered your outburst?
 
Originally posted by Case
Australians have similar views on several of our actions on the Western Front ;) Like the Canadians and Kiwis Australian's were used by the British as elite stormtroops/colonial cannon fodder depending on how you see things...

The Australian General John Monash is generally credited with being not only the best Allied General of the war, but with an offencive similar to the one you mentioned in 1917 (Le Hammel I *think*) where he combined troops, aircraft, tanks and artillery to storm a strong German position with minimal casualties.

Sadly General Monash was denied a Field Marshal-hood because he was Jewish :( (he's on the $100 dollar note though)

To quote a Wendy's commerical depicting a Brit "not bad for something from the colonies";)
 
Originally posted by Richard III


Perhaps first trench warfare victory, since the Marne was on the Western front, and was one of several modest victories in 1914. But I would also quibble, since, however costly, the French unquestionably won Verdun: the German objective was to break through, and they sure as hell didn't at considerable cost to themselves.

I don't mean to be an a**hole; Vimy was clever, and useful, and important, and all who fought there or anywhere else should get fair due. But Canadian nationalism has been as good at building its myths as anyone else, and the whole "Canadians as shock troops" is a convenient disguise for a more unsettling fact: Canadians got given the difficult jobs because the jobs were difficult, not because the Canadians were special. A dominion soldier was more expendable than a British soldier. That's why we got moved to the front of the line so often.

R.III

When he said victory, I think he meant not nearly as damaging to you as to the defender.
 
Originally posted by newfangle
Do they teach American school children about the Fall of Siagon. I know about Dieppe.

Actually the standard American education system teaches much about American history. Unfortunately from what I hear, if you want to learn some non-American history you have to go diggin yourself.
 
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Newfangle wrote:

Do they teach American school children about the Fall of Siagon. I know about Dieppe.

???
What triggered your outburst?

I'm curious myself. Of course American children learn that. Hell, all my vietnam war textbooks in university were American, and they all seemed pretty critical to me.

Although I'm sad to say the outburst probably came from the same pathetic, sh*tty, insecure Canadian nationalism that leads bad historical writers to try to glorify our wartime experiences so much. Canadians are twice as bad at flag waving and papering over wartime problems as americans. Look at the recent coverage of the mission in Afghanistan. If I see another damn article about "the first combat mission since the Korean War," or "the first combat casualties since the Korean War" (in reference to the friendly fire incident) I'll hunt the reporter down and throttle him. Since this conveniently papers over the not-so-glorious casualties and combat missions in Croatia, Zaire/Congo, Desert Storm, the Former Yugoslavia, Cyprus and so on

R.III
 
Back
Top Bottom