Today is the 95th aniversary of the start of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, which was an entirely planned by and save for some of the artillery support entirely Canadian executed operation.
Lest we forget - - - Today is the 95th aniversary of Vimy Ridge
- Thread starter Aardvark154
- Start date
Vimy was a real coming of age for the Canadian military. A different time, a different type of warfare, brave souls all. We are indebted to them for their sacrifices.
I've been to Vimy.
One word describes it.
Humbling.
Took a tour of the tunnels. The guide said that thousands of men waited in the tunnels for 32 hours prior to the battle. There's no bathrooms in there. Hard to imagine even that, let alone an artilery barrage so intense you could hear it at Buckingham palace in London.
One word describes it.
Humbling.
Took a tour of the tunnels. The guide said that thousands of men waited in the tunnels for 32 hours prior to the battle. There's no bathrooms in there. Hard to imagine even that, let alone an artilery barrage so intense you could hear it at Buckingham palace in London.
The Canadian way, in WW1, was to plan meticulously, and to seek maximum effect for minimum casualties.
The British generals (Haig etc) had a different view - they sought to convince the Germans that Britain had overwhelming strength - so much so that we could afford to throw away thousands of lives. Striving for efficiency sends the wrong message to the enemy.
One might almost regard it as a sensible tactic - or a stupid, irresponsible, reckless, and horrifyingly inhuman tactic. It wasn't more effective than the Canadian way, as it turned out.
Compare with Battle of Britain in 1940. On sept 5th, when it seemed the RAF must be overwhelmed, Churchill ordered all reserves and all possible men and planes into the air. He knew the inexperienced boys were just cannon fodder -- many would be shot down right away. His idea was to convince Germany that the RAF was still strong. As it turned out, the tactic worked on that occasion. The germans abandoned the air superiority that was within their grasp.
The British generals (Haig etc) had a different view - they sought to convince the Germans that Britain had overwhelming strength - so much so that we could afford to throw away thousands of lives. Striving for efficiency sends the wrong message to the enemy.
One might almost regard it as a sensible tactic - or a stupid, irresponsible, reckless, and horrifyingly inhuman tactic. It wasn't more effective than the Canadian way, as it turned out.
Compare with Battle of Britain in 1940. On sept 5th, when it seemed the RAF must be overwhelmed, Churchill ordered all reserves and all possible men and planes into the air. He knew the inexperienced boys were just cannon fodder -- many would be shot down right away. His idea was to convince Germany that the RAF was still strong. As it turned out, the tactic worked on that occasion. The germans abandoned the air superiority that was within their grasp.
Don't forget buttercup, WW 1 was fought in Napoleonic terms. Like the charge of the Light Brigade, WW1 had new weapons that could kill/wound large numbers of men with fewer soldiers manning them. The German machine gun was a killer like no other seen on the field of battle. Weapons had changed, the commanders hadn't and this is what caused the large numbers of casualties.
Like the battle of the Somme, British soldiers went over the top, packs on, bayonetes and they walked across no mans land, orderly as they could and were mowed down by German fire suffering a horrific number of casualties. Why, because that is the way you fought battles and the commanders were stuck in the past.
Good commanders who adapted, like those that planned Vimy, were the new breed. Their vision and knowledge gained on the battlefield saved the lives of thousands of men. If they hadn't been given the reins the casualty list would have been higher. Vimy may not have been a victory.
Like the battle of the Somme, British soldiers went over the top, packs on, bayonetes and they walked across no mans land, orderly as they could and were mowed down by German fire suffering a horrific number of casualties. Why, because that is the way you fought battles and the commanders were stuck in the past.
Good commanders who adapted, like those that planned Vimy, were the new breed. Their vision and knowledge gained on the battlefield saved the lives of thousands of men. If they hadn't been given the reins the casualty list would have been higher. Vimy may not have been a victory.
Similar in the Battle of Epéhy in September 1918 which was in many ways the first combined arms attack.
I was pleased last year when my daughter brought home homework and a project on Vimy Ridge last year from her grade 8 teacher. Nice to see that despite being taken out of the curriculum years ago by politically correct Liberal nonsense there are some teachers in schools still willing to keep it alive.
Amazing. Every Canadian needs to see Vimy, Dieppe, and Juno. I saw them all years ago when I backpacked through Europe.
seeing those sites & holland are on my bucket list
I had a friend killed 2 years ago this week in the war on terror & have proudly worn red every Friday for the past 8yrs.
thank you for this post to remind people of the past & present our soldiers do
boom
I'm sure there's something in what you say. However, Vimy was 1917, by which time, the horrific casualty rates were all too clear -- we were running out of population.
My point was that incurring heavy casualties was a deliberate tactic -- to convince the Germans that we had the resources, and they should give up -- as, later, in the BoB. Haig didn't take kindly to the Canadians undermining his tactics.
I could be convinced that Germany agreed to a highly-disadvantageous armistice, only because they believed they could not match the Allies resources. the Allies were launching battle after battle, simply because the battles cost Germany more. Part of that equation was the Germans' realization that the British could, apparently, continue to absorb the horrendous casualties.
I would rather think that Haig's tactics were the result of strategic thinking, rather than blind stupidity. He did not change, even when the Canadians showed him that advances could be made while keeping casualties low, and he was not, apparently, a stupid man. And the fact is that Germany did give up.
Surely it's better to think that all those men's lives really were part of a victory plan. The alternative is just too awful.
That whole war didn't make sense, in hindsight it was pointless.
I realize it was part of the building of our nation, but what did it resolve?
I realize it was part of the building of our nation, but what did it resolve?
That was U.S. entry into the War.
The entire German Kaiserschlacht, the 1918 Spring Offensive was planned in one last attempt to strike a fatal blow before U.S. troops were present in France in sufficient numbers and with sufficient training to make the conclusion of the war for Germany pretty much preordained.
It gave trolls like you the freedom to attempt to derail threads on the internet.
What does any war prove, as is often said war is the failure of diplomacy.
At the same time Great Britain and Canada had treaty obligations to defend Belgium neutrality, we can look back and say was it worth it, then again no one had any idea that the First World War was going to be as it was. Further we get into the whole issue of should an aggressor nation be able to "get away with it" because the cost of responding may be different from what anyone could foresee.
That's why I said "in hindsight".
Never mind Canada, what did Great Britain gain in the war?
Or any country for that matter? We all lost.
The memorial itself is incredible. It stands by itself in the middle of field and it is impressive. Two towers or pylons with several stone figures.
Designed and created by Torontonian Walter Allward - architect, sculpter, it took him I believe 14 years to complete. The stone was brought to the site from Croatia.
Each statue is haunting, but none more than the statue of "Canada" or sometimes called "Mother Canada" I believe. She stands by herself, away from the other statues. She is young, as Canada at the time of WW1 was a young country, not yet 50 years old. In her hand is the laurel wreath, the symbol of peace. If you look at her gaze, it is cast downwards. Follow her gaze and you will see the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier below at the foot of the monument. She stands there, keeping watch over him, symbolic that he will never be alone, that she is there to watch over him. It is haunting.
I was there 2 years ago. Black and white seemed appropriate.
Last edited:
