WW1:- If you were a command of an army in the western Front ...

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Switch625
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the Western Allies never even got to the German border, let alone invaded with a "march on Berlin." Germany surrendered while occupying large stretches of France, Belgium and Russia.

But you must be mistaken! Pierre Berton says so! And so do all the Veterans Affairs Canada websites!

 

[newfangle]

"March on Berlin," is a figure of speech.

Richy, are you a little upset that British High Command was utterly useless and caused the death of thousands?

Ask any German Soldier from both world wars. Canadians were the soldiers they disliked fighting the most.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Richard III


The Vimy Ridge battle was part of the larger Nivelle offensive, which almost lost the Allies the war and resulted in mass-mutinies throughout the French sector. Passchendaele happened after Vimy; and in 1918 - duh, after Vimy - the Germans had the allies on the run from March until August. .Most observers expected the Allies would lose the war at that point since the Germans were advancing with relative speed toward Paris. But Germany, exhausted, could not punch through quickly enough to compensate for U.S. reinforcements.

R.III

You assume its flag wagging, but you are wrong. Vimy was the only successful portion of the Third Battle of Arras, which is why it is so significant.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by newfangle
"March on Berlin," is a figure of speech.
Richy, are you a little upset that British High Command was utterly useless and caused the death of thousands?
Ask any German Soldier from both world wars. Canadians were the soldiers they disliked fighting the most.

1. A change of tune? "March on Berlin" was clearly not a figure of speech in your earlier posts. You alleged in your propaganda diatribe that the "march on berlin" began as a direct consequence of Vimy. Vimy supposedly "ended the stalemate." You are embarrassingly wrong: Vimy had no impact whatsoever on the course of the war, since the Allies almost lost it throughout late 1917- July 1918.

2. As for the terrible British High Command, it's not quite that simple. And your nationalism is showing again. But the truth is, Canada lost 9.8% of its mobilized total, or only 2% less than Britain (at 11.7%), and 1% more than the average losses in units of the British Empire. Your pleasant casualty stats in Vimy are also misleading, because they record casualties in a few days of fighting, where the French and UK casualties incurred were over several months of sustained combat (see below for more).

And finally, where do you think Currie learned about creeping barrages? Was it from a Canadian farm? Nope. Nivelle was the first to use them at Verdun, and the UK opened its first assault at the Somme under cover of a similar barrage in several sectors. It's not like all of the allies weren't trying the same tricks.

To further illustrate the point, take one of the three leading historians of WWI alive in the world today and a harsher critic of Imperial GHQ than you will ever be:

"More detailed studies show the limits of Allied military success against the Germans. Rawlings study of the Canadian Corps reveals, not surprisingly, that it suffered its highest proportionate casualties at Ypres in 1915 and at the Somme in 1916 - in other words, at the bottom of its tactical learning curve. However, there was no sustained improvement thereafter. The casualty rate at Vimy Ridge in 1917 was 16%; at Passchendaele 20%, at Amiens 13%; at Arras 15%; and at Canal d Nord 20% - exactly what it had been at Passchendaele."

(p.312, The Pity of War, Niall Ferguson)

3. I was present in the room when a senior German soldier from WWII was asked that very question. The soldier he disliked fighting most was British. But frankly, it's a pretty juvenile question.

So, in summary, you and your little Vimy-changed-the-world theories have been humiliated. Your blind nationalism is a pretty sad way to paper over the suffering of thousands of Canadians who found real life in the trenches to be exactly as hard as it was for everyone else, despite all the fairy tales about the clever Canucks and their shock troops.

Like the German Army of 1918, the correct thing to do now is give in, surrender, and put your Pierre Berton away until you've read something else.

R.III

I will deal with your next post in one moment.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by newfangle
You assume its flag wagging, but you are wrong. Vimy was the only successful portion of the Third Battle of Arras, which is why it is so significant.

Well, as I have explained already, the tide turned against the Allies during that offensive, so obviously Vimy didn't accomplish much. But to try one more time, let me try to give you a historical parallel for why this argument is so weak:

There were four "battles of Waterloo."

The first two were the battles of Quatre Bras and Ligny on 16th June 1815, which were inconclusive but served to allow Wellington to withdraw his forces in good order to the ridge at Mont St.-Jean.

The third battle was the decisive battle properly known as the Battle of Waterloo, in which Wellington kicked Napolean's arse on the 18th.

On the 19th, there was a fourth battle at Wavre. There, the right wing of the French army - led by Marshal Grouchy - engaged prussian units that Grouchy had been pointlessly pursuing on the 17th and 18th. He had violated his orders and failed to keep in touch with the main army, and so missed Waterloo. His troops could have made the difference in the main engagement on the 18th, but he was too busy pursuing the Prussian wing.

At Wavre, Grouchy trounced the Prussians, winning a great victory for France.

Pity, though, that the main army - and Napolean's empire - had already lost everything further back down the road.

By your logic, the battle of Wavre is, for France, the only successful portion of the Waterloo campaign, and so it is the significant one.

Ridiculous.

R.III

 

[Sobieski]

Originally posted by MadScot

Agreed in general. I wonder how much the German under-estimation of the military potential of the empire contributed to the War? Just a thought.


However, because Currie insisted on keeping his corps as a unit it reduced their usefulness compared to, say, the Australians - who were also very effective as shock troops AND were willing to fight in divisions rather than as a corps. After Gallipoli the Aussies were no more enamoured of British commanders (and arguably had more cause for distrust than the Canadians)


Sorry, have to disagree with that last part. Every army innovated during WW1. To different degrees, sure. But horizon-blue uniforms, tanks, gas (OK, it's not nice but it was an innovation were all things other people tried. And I'm sure there's a huge list. They would have done it - maybe not so well - the 'colonials' were clearly very good troops - but it would have happened.


Again, agreed. Although give credit to the French (in particular) for wearing down the peacetime German army also.

Hey., this is boring - I'm not arguing!

Slightly off-topic, but my Canadian history isn't hot. Did Canada draft in WW1 or just WW2?

I personally don't know that much about the Australians outside of Gallipolli. Although it is really hard to say who had more of a reason to be mad at the Brits, because you can't always put a price on lives. Needless to say, all the empirial holdings had a reason to be mad.

It is hard to say if the British/French would have been able to develop the same tactics. Perhaps different ones with t different level of effectiveness.......but who knows.

Although one could argue that it couldn't be a victory for the French, I am surprised that they were able to match the Germans in casualties, instead of losing a lot more compared to the Germans. France did suffer more than anyone in winning the war.

As for drafting, Canada insituted a draft near the end of World War I when volunteering was beginning to dwindle, however this is generally considered a blunder. The reason for this is that very few troops were actually conscripted, but it enraged many parts of the population, especially the French Canadians. The French felt Canada should be more concerned with its own affairs, and felt it shouldn't fight someone else's war (Ironic since it was France being liberated), although it is hard to argue with them now, that World War I probably wasn't worth fighting.

I forget if Canada had conscription in WWII, but I doubt it. Canada took more of a supporting role for much of WWII, in that it focused on production of food and goods to keep Britian, and Russia alive (and probably saved them, before the Americans really got going in terms of production). My answer for WWII, would be probably not.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Sobieski
I forget if Canada had conscription in WWII, but I doubt it. Canada took more of a supporting role for much of WWII, in that it focused on production of food and goods to keep Britian, and Russia alive (and probably saved them, before the Americans really got going in terms of production). My answer for WWII, would be probably not.

This is a fine example of why the debate on CFC sometimes stumbles.

If you read earlier, you will find a post where I answer this question. There is no need to say "probably." We did conscript in 1940 for home defence, and 1944 for Europe, and almost broke the country apart to do it.

And it's a sign of how twisted Canada's view of its history is that that you would relegate us to "more of a supporting role" in the WWII when that was a better description of our role in the First. Canadian ships made up about half of the escort force in the battle of the Atlantic, and Canadians contributed several divisions in Italy, three to OVERLORD and made up half of the 21st Army Group under Monty in the European Theatre.

Not a supporting role at all. You'd think it was Vimy Ridge or something.

R.III

 

[newfangle]

The Canadians didn't really have much interest in WWII. Dieppe lower their spirits (another GRRREAT idea by the British) and very few people joined the armed forces.

 

[Sobieski]

Originally posted by Richard III


This is a fine example of why the debate on CFC sometimes stumbles.

If you read earlier, you will find a post where I answer this question. There is no need to say "probably." We did conscript in 1940 for home defence, and 1944 for Europe, and almost broke the country apart to do it.

And it's a sign of how twisted Canada's view of its history is that that you would relegate us to "more of a supporting role" in the WWII when that was a better description of our role in the First. Canadian ships made up about half of the escort force in the battle of the Atlantic, and Canadians contributed several divisions in Italy, three to OVERLORD and made up half of the 21st Army Group under Monty in the European Theatre.

Not a supporting role at all. You'd think it was Vimy Ridge or something.
R.III

Yes you are right about the conscription

At the beginning of the war, Canadian troops weren't in direct combat in the same way they were in WWII. When I said supporting I was referring to materials and training grounds. Canada's official policy at the BEGINNING of the war was to provide material, but that changed by the end. I said beginning very specifically.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by newfangle
The Canadians didn't really have much interest in WWII. Dieppe lower their spirits (another GRRREAT idea by the British) and very few people joined the armed forces.

You inspired me to dig for the details.

In WWI, 415,000 Canadians served overseas during the entire war, of which 24,000 were from the conscription pool.

I have been unable to find the total enlistment figures for WWII as of yet, or total number served in Europe. But by comparison, 494,000 Canadians were serving overseas in army or RCAF units in Europe or in naval units afloat in the European theatre on VE day. Only 13,000 of the overseas personnel in the entire war were from the conscription pool. That's a minimum of roughly 481,000 voluntary enlistments, not including volunteers killed, wounded, returned from action or serving in other areas (e.g. Canada or the Pacific Theatre), as against 391,000 in WWI.

Sounds like spirits were real low.

Since Canada's population grew by about 20% between the 1911 and 1941 census, it's clear that voluntary enlistments in WWII actually outpaced those in WWI. Needless to say, your conclusion is once again a little soft on the factual side.

R.III

 

[Sobieski]

Originally posted by Richard III


You inspired me to dig for the details.

In WWI, 415,000 Canadians served overseas during the entire war, of which 24,000 were from the conscription pool.

I have been unable to find the total enlistment figures for WWII as of yet, or total number served in Europe. But by comparison, 494,000 Canadians were serving overseas in army or RCAF units in Europe or in naval units afloat in the European theatre on VE day. Only 13,000 of the overseas personnel in the entire war were from the conscription pool. That's a minimum of roughly 481,000 voluntary enlistments, not including volunteers killed, wounded, returned from action or serving in other areas (e.g. Canada or the Pacific Theatre), as against 391,000 in WWI.

Sounds like spirits were real low.

Since Canada's population grew by about 20% between the 1911 and 1941 census, it's clear that voluntary enlistments in WWII actually outpaced those in WWI. Needless to say, your conclusion is once again a little soft on the factual side.

R.III

For one there were 600 000 Canadians serving overseas in WWI, and there was a good population increase. Needless to say that is still a fairly big drop in enlistments. Canadian conscription was practically zero in WWI as well.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Sobieski
For one there were 600 000 Canadians serving overseas in WWI, and there was a good population increase. Needless to say that is still a fairly big drop in enlistments. Canadian conscription was practically zero in WWI as well.

Still looks like a decrease to me. But hey, at least I'm talking to someone who has numbers.

I cheated: my WWI service numbers and the conscription draws were from the Canadian Encyclopedia. The WWII service numbers were cross referenced from a range of sources pulled from my bookcase (the CE is unclear on that one).

Yours?

I take it we agree on the conscripted-overseas service numbers and the population % increase, but not the service overseas numbers?

R.III

 

[gerryandersson]

I woud have retreted, and in the exitment in the enemy woud
follo, over stretching their suply lines, i then turn back before they
have a chans of geting suplyse.
Attack the center and pirce the lines and suround them.

 

[Sobieski]

Originally posted by Richard III


Still looks like a decrease to me. But hey, at least I'm talking to someone who has numbers.

I cheated: my WWI service numbers and the conscription draws were from the Canadian Encyclopedia. The WWII service numbers were cross referenced from a range of sources pulled from my bookcase (the CE is unclear on that one).

Yours?

I take it we agree on the conscripted-overseas service numbers and the population % increase, but not the service overseas numbers?

R.III

Obviously there was an increase in population, and that conscription was almost useless, except as an internal antagonizer, but I do know that 600 000 Canadians served overseas in WWI, and I am assuming your WWII stat is correct. I say 600 000, because that is the number I have been taught every year for like the last 5 or so in school, not to mention the countless books and documentaries I have gone through.

Canada's overseas presence wasn't as great in WWII (taking scale into account), at least for the first few years, where Canada was relegated to training pilots, manufacturing, farming, and naval combat, (there really wasn't much choice considering the German occupation of France). I should point out that Canada's air support was indespensible to the Brits however, due to our high volunteership, and our distant location, great for training pilots from around the world far away from the war.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Sobieski
Canada's overseas presence wasn't as great in WWII (taking scale into account), at least for the first few years, where Canada was relegated to training pilots, manufacturing, farming, and naval combat, (there really wasn't much choice considering the German occupation of France). I should point out that Canada's air support was indespensible to the Brits however, due to our high volunteership, and our distant location, great for training pilots from around the world far away from the war.

I guess I would love to see a definitive overseas service in WWII figure, because that's part of my point; all I have is the "active on VE day" total. The RCAF fielded over 200,000 men and women during the war, but I have no number on how many rotated through in 1939-1944 and then might have been sent home. I think the TOTAL overseas figure in WWII is probably at least 600,000, if not more, but again, all I've been able to find is the rather inadequate number I cite above.

Newfangle? Thoughts?

R.III

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Richard III


Like the German Army of 1918, the correct thing to do now is give in, surrender, and put your Pierre Berton away until you've read something else.

R.III

I just noticed this and it annoyed me. Why would you assume that I would use Berton as an only source. Reading that books strengthened my interest and I pursued many more sources. I'm sure it will be impossible for you to understand that I am being as objective as possible here, as such I have lost interest in this thread. Thanks for doing all the research though. I'm sure it will affect the lives of millions...

 

[Sobieski]

Originally posted by Richard III


I guess I would love to see a definitive overseas service in WWII figure, because that's part of my point; all I have is the "active on VE day" total. The RCAF fielded over 200,000 men and women during the war, but I have no number on how many rotated through in 1939-1944 and then might have been sent home. I think the TOTAL overseas figure in WWII is probably at least 600,000, if not more, but again, all I've been able to find is the rather inadequate number I cite above.

Newfangle? Thoughts?

R.III

Newfangle can be a little moody sometimes hey?

Anyways you might be right, but when I said supporting role, I meant not in the frontlines for most of the war, which was true (because it was impossible to be). If your statistic is just on VE day, than you are probably right in that there would have been at least 600 000 in WWII.

 

[Richard III]

Yeah, it was active on VE day in the European theatre or afloat.

 

[cattlecrossing]

FL2 said that Satan started the war. Did Jesus finish it?

 

[Sayhueque]

Sit back in HQ eating filet mignone with sauce bernet sipping this accursed Chateau Laffitte.