Vimy Ridge

[DogOnPorch]

Canadians were more than just Brit's in drag. Germans loathed being across from both they and the Scots (Hell's Ladies) as we took to warfare much like we did to hockey. While Germans facing a French division might get a good night's sleep on occasion, those across from Canadians could expect trench raids on a regular basis. As well, Canadians rarely routed. The 2nd Battle of Ypres being a classic example of this...the Germans first using poison chlorine gas there. The French/Algerians ran while the Canadians stood their ground without gas-masks.

----------------------------------------------------

We make war that we may live in peace.

---Aristides

[ScottSA]

Canadians were more than just Brit's in drag. Germans loathed being across from both they and the Scotts (Hell's Ladies) as we took to warfare much like we did to hockey. While Germans facing a French division might get a good night's sleep on occasion, those across from Canadians could expect trench raids on a regular basis. As well, Canadians rarely routed. The 2nd Battle of Ypres being a classic example of this...the Germans first using poison chlorine gas there. The French/Algerians ran while the Canadians stood their ground without gas-masks.

----------------------------------------------------

We make war that we may live in peace.

---Aristides

Canadians were about as easy to control as a herd of cats, but as dangerous as a pride of lions.

[stignasty]

59% in Canada can't name Vimy Ridge

'On track to become a nation of amnesiacs'

Chris Lackner, CanWest News Service

Published: Monday, April 09, 2007

OTTAWA - As Canada marks the 90th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, a new survey suggests 59% of Canadians do not even know the name of the iconic First World War clash.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...ade3a3b&k=70857

[M.Dancer]

I serioulsy hope the question wasn't, name the iconic First World War clash.

.....Ummm...London Calling?

[ScottSA]

I serioulsy hope the question wasn't, name the iconic First World War clash.

.....Ummm...London Calling?

[August1991]

Army Guy, I've read your post twice. I won't go into a point-by-point rebuttal and I'm not even sure that I want to get into a protracted discussion of this. Nevertheless, I'll respond.

To these pionts i agree, i would go on step further and state all wars are piontless slaughters, to which we suffer more than what is gained. But that is mans history is it not.

I disagree strongly. All wars are not pointless slaughters - but some are.

The four RCMP officers killed in Mayerthorpe, Alberta were trying to stop someone dangerous. They did. The Montreal cop who shot and killed the lunatic at Dawson College had courage and he did something good.

It is wrong to say that violence solves nothing. It does, sometimes. Certainly not always.

I was in favour of Canada's participation in the Afghan war. But I don't see any purpose or gain in having young men being blown up randomly. Is this a challenge match to see how tough we can be? If so, we'll lose.

----

The idea of "Vimy Ridge as Birth of Canada" is an exclusively English/British/Protestant Canada idea. To others, Canada existed well before WWI. For example, in 1908, where were many Ukrainians? In France?

I lived in Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon) for several years. There were "Ceylonese" soldiers in WWI. They were British planters. Just like there were "Canadian" soldiers. In Westmount, there is a large bronze monument with a marching WWI soldier.

They fought for King and Empire. Ever heard of the Boer War?

Such is our history.

----

A few years ago, I discovered that my grandmother's first husband (not my grandfather) had a memorial in France on the spot where his Lancaster crashed in WWII. (This discovery caused a minor/major family crisis.) I wanted to see the monument, so I rented a car in Amsterdam and drove there. I say all this as backdrop to the following point: I had to drive by Vimy and I decided to stop briefly and look - something I'd never done.

Unless you see it with your own eyes, and then see a few other battlefields in WWI, it is hard to imagine how impossible the task was. Taking Vimy Ridge was like going up the North Saskatchewan River valley in Edmonton. The Englishmen who go abroad are the toughest sort.

----

Lastly, I'll note this. Every small town in France has a memorial for WWI with a list of men killed. The monument is poignant in villages near Belgium. No country suffered so much by such a war.

If there is any sense to WWI, it was to defeat the aggressive Germans who took land from France in 1870 and to stand to a Prussian/Bismarck ideology of discipline in which the collective (all of us together) matters more than the success of any individual.

But frankly, I see no sense to WWI - except far too many young men sent to get blown up by random shells.

[DogOnPorch]

Canadians were about as easy to control as a herd of cats, but as dangerous as a pride of lions.

There's one of those unofficial reasons for the Dieppe Raid...Canadians fightin' and fornicatin' in England.

"...what to do with these drunken lumberjacks? Any ideas? Any at all? Yes...Colonel Quiggly...your hand is up..."

:D

---------------------------------------------------------------

Whoever would want to murder an old man like me?

---Lord Mountbatten

[DogOnPorch]

Unless you see it with your own eyes, and then see a few other battlefields in WWI, it is hard to imagine how impossible the task was.

The Germans enjoyed some big advantages along most sections of the Western Front. After the Schlieffen Plan crashed to a halt on the Marne, they retreated back to the high ground and went on the defence. This left most Allied positions in the low areas and allowed the Germans time to build strong, elaborate trench and bunker systems often immune to 'normal' shelling. To add to the misery, the Germans would usually construct drainage systems in association with their trenches that poured any water in the area towards the Allied lines. Due to the general offensive policy of the British and French, most Allied troops were ordered to manage along with slit trenches that quickly filled with water then turned to mud. You don't dig permanent trenches when on the offensive being the general idea...

Lastly, I'll note this. Every small town in France has a memorial for WWI with a list of men killed. The monument is poignant in villages near Belgium. No country suffered so much by such a war.

France was literally bled white at Verdun. One of the few places the Germans went on the attack. It was designed by the German Crown Prince to be a meat-grinder that France wouldn't retreat from. It saw the first major use of flamethrowers as well as phosgene gas. A real horror show with some incredible events that are well beyond normal bravery. The battles for the big forts in particular. During WW1, only the Somme outweighs it on a scale of slaughter and destruction.

As for who suffered worst in WW1, I have to go with the poor Russians who lost millions in pointless battles led by stupid generals. Tannenburg is a good example...where a few small elite German corps fended off three massive Russian armies using trains and telephones, destroying one completely.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The policy of the Bolsheviki is demagogic and criminal in their exploitation of the popular discontent.

---Alexander Kerensky

[Army Guy]

I disagree strongly. All wars are not pointless slaughters - but some are.

The four RCMP officers killed in Mayerthorpe, Alberta were trying to stop someone dangerous. They did. The Montreal cop who shot and killed the lunatic at Dawson College had courage and he did something good.

It is wrong to say that violence solves nothing. It does, sometimes. Certainly not always.

I was in favour of Canada's participation in the Afghan war. But I don't see any purpose or gain in having young men being blown up randomly. Is this a challenge match to see how tough we can be? If so, we'll lose.

Yes, sometimes the use of force or violence is necessary to solve some of our every day problems, but when a government or nation decides to use force to solve it's problems the results are never good and come at a cost that far out wiegh the benifits. That being said there are plenty of reasons that we deem worth using force and are willing to pay a cost for...but the cost has always been higher than we expect, and in most cases the cost is piontless after a certain piont has been reached. A good example of this is the allied bombing of cities during WWII, it will be discussed forever if these actions did contribute to bringing the war to an early end. If they did not then it was a needless slaughter of many thousands.

I guess your statement of "all wars are not piontless slaughters" depends on who you ask, and what cost they have paided. As a soldier that has seen war up close, i've struggled with this question every minute of everyday when i was in Afgan,and continue to struggle with it at home..Were my actions and use of force contributing to end the Afgan's struggle in search of peace...Yes they were...But was there piontless slaughters, again Yes there were, operation Mudusa piont in fact, hundards of taliban died, did it make a difference, i hope it did, but i'm not sure it did have an effect, only time and history will say.

[August1991]

Yes, sometimes the use of force or violence is necessary to solve some of our every day problems, but when a government or nation decides to use force to solve it's problems the results are never good and come at a cost that far out wiegh the benifits.

I disagree.

IMV, there are Paul Bernardos in the world and sometimes - like Caligula - they get absolute control of a country. Whether as simple criminals, or dictators, ordinary people must stand up to psychopaths. We can't do this alone. Hence, we have police and armies.

There is no wrong in using force to arrest Bernardo, kill Caligula or defeat Hitler. I don't agree with Gandhi. Pacificism is no solution. Use of force sometimes leads to good.

My only questions concern how best to use the force, and whether the use of force is truly justified. Too many young men pointlessly died in WWI, and we arrested Steven Truscott.

I happen to think this Afghan war is right. Why? The Taliban offered a place for al-Qaeda to fight against America. The Americans defeated the Taliban and it's now NATO's role to ensure the Taliban don't return.

Civilized Afghanistan? Aid to Afghanistan? I don't believe in it. NATO should merely ensure that Afghanistan never becomes a place where al-Qaeda can organize itself.

I'm no military expert but IMV, NATO (Canadian) soldiers should stay in base and only fight if a regime sympathetic to al-Qaeda threatens to take power in Afghanistan. Canadians should not die to build mixed schools, remove the veil or bring civilization to Afghanistan. That's not our fight.

Moreover, Canadian soldiers do not show any courage when they die because of a random roadside bomb. IMV, this is a foolish way to conduct war. That's war by "face" and such wars, we'll lose.

Rather, we should make it plain to Afghanis that we will remove a regime tolerant of al-Qaeda. Other than that, the Afghanis can organize their affairs as they want. Their regime is their affair.

----

Army Guy, you mention WWII bombing. My grandmother's husband died on a mission in August 1944 to bomb an oil complex near Nantes. Did such missions accomplish anything? At the time, what choice did anyone have? It's been a question to me what some teenager from a small town in northern Ontario was doing in a plane flying over France in 1944 - but that's another question. Bear in mind that despite many missions over France, looking down and seeing its lights, he first touched French soil at the moment he died.

Countries don't win wars. Individual soldiers do. The effort of one Russian soldier was no more nor less than one American or British or Canadian or any other soldier. Did "Russia" defeat Germany? No. Many individuals of different nationalities chose to risk their life.

IMV, one chooses as best one can given what one knows. My one solace is that my grandfather died with the other guys in his Lancaster. That's how we defeat evil. We do it together.

I guess your statement of "all wars are not piontless slaughters" depends on who you ask, and what cost they have paided.

Some wars yes. But IMV, this Afghan war is not a pointless slaughter. Since 1978, Afghanistan is different. And the Afghanis that I know and trust and with whom I have discussed Afghan history since 1978, they more or less agree with what Harper is doing.

Canada is fighting the good fight. I just hope that our generals don't use our soldiers for pissing matches. If the Afghan War is a pissing match, we'll lose.