The Marquis please refer to the below link for WWII. http://www.linksnorth.com/canada-history/canadaandworldwar2.html
Most of which were carried out by British and French soldiers, and later, the Americans. Stop being so bloody nationalistic; it's the same old thing. "Ours were better than theirs". Do you know that ANZAC day, in Australia and New Zealand, is celebrated as a public holiday in recognition (primarily) of the achievements of our soldiers at Gallipoli? Most Australians and New Zealanders, however, wouldn't have a clue that the British and French outnumbered the Anzacs on the peninsula by a significant margin. The legend is that the Australians drove home the initial assualt while the British landings were virtually unopposed and they sat around drinking tea. That legend is, in a nutshell, bullshit. No one is saying you didn't contribute. To say the the war would have been lost without you, however, is codswallop.
I think the thing that turned WWI is ultimately what turned WWII. Germany simply could not maintain a war of attrition. Germany's manufacturing facilities, food production facilities were all vulnerable to allied attack. And the traditional solution to this weakness was very aggressive and risky battle tactics. http://media.ucsc.edu/classes/thompson/history30c/04_whygermany lost.html
With regard to your link - Yes, I am aware of the Canadian contribution in the Second World War. I have been for years - I have done a lot of reading on the subject. I am not taking anything away from you. I am not taking anything away from any of the commonwealth nations who contributed. I am simply saying that nationalistic pride is sometimes a fair margin away from the truth. That truth is that the British and French ground the Germans down to a stalemate in WW1, and the Americans made the difference when they finally decided to join in. Much the same happened during the second world war. The Commonwealth contributed as much as they could, and did some fantastic things when one takes into account their numbers. One cannot, however, say that they turned the tide.
Those tactics used by the Germans were in fact probably more effective than those used by the allies. Even after the Allied invasion of Normandy, the German soldier was every bit as good as his opponent and probably in many cases better - albeit hampered by a lack of equipment by that stage. Read about the Falaise Pocket. What should have been a complete massacre was averted by the German infantry being tactically better than a numerically and logistically superior opponent. Think about it. One nation, virtually alone (one cannot really consider the Italians to have been all that effective) fought on two major fronts against three major opponents, and nearly won control of Europe. Think about that very hard. Germany's supply lines were not overly vulnerable to attack from the allies until the entry of the USA into WW2. The daylight bombing campaign was not introduced (nor really very effective) until at least 1943. Those "agressive and risky" tactics were actually quite effective until the time they simply couldn't keep the up momentum. Germany was beaten numerically. Make no mistake about that.
I never said the Germans were not good fighters...quite the contrary. But ultimately, Germany the nation could not support a war of attrition which was ultimately what WWI was. The Allies in each case had the full manufacturing capabiltiy and raw resources of The United States to call upon for support.
Did you read the first post I put up the French and Birts broke when they saw the gas that left the Canadians there to fight and thathat they did. And do not say that the Canadians where the same as any other common weath when fighting. I had parents and grand parents in both wars and I am damn pround of what they did.
long range bombing wasn´t invented then. the war was far away from germany in ww1, france was the battlefield. germany lacking ressources and manpower was a key. the other important key was indeed america joining the war (mainly because of the lusitania incident). the word "unfair" doesn´t make much sense in war ... but it was exactly that. it was quite ok for americans that britian starved germans to death with their blockade, but germany trying to do the same with the brits is a reason to go into war. the kriegsmarine even warned americans to not take a trip on this damn ship. i´d like to add, that quite some people were sure, that it was an ammunition transporter. unfortunatly, there´s is no evidence yet. regarding conspiracy theories about the allies intentionally loosing the ship .... not easy to believe, but on the other side, it sounds reasonable - some people had more to loose than a war.
"... and the Americans made the difference when they finally decided to join in". I said that earlier. Without that, the Allies would have been (were) every bit as drained as the Germans were. The German soldiers never considered themselves to have been beaten in the first war. That was part of the reason Hitler later came to be so popular.
So is every Commonwealth nation who contributed. Do yourself a favour and go does some research on the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Indian regiments in WW2 fighting for the Brits. The Ghurkas. Every Commonwealth nation has its tradition of being "better" than the average British soldier. The simple fact is that for every heroic defense, every lone attack carried out where others faltered, you'll find a similar story for the Brits, if you actually took the trouble to be an actual student of it all rather than a dilletante. They were good soldiers. They were not what turned the tide. The Canadians weren't any better than any other Commonwealth nation in either war. Look them all up without a prejudiced eye, and stop being so damned nationalistic.
In both WWI and WWII Germany under estimated the value the US would play in both wars. I think in WWI all European nations kind of looked down at us yanks. Germans should not have attacked American shipping in WWI as that is what ultimately brought the US into the war.
Even MvR had a master and that master was Boelcke. Be Like Boelcke, Nike ripped that off. It's Dicta Boelcke not Dicta Richthofen that is still studied by fighter pilots today. Boelcke had 40 when MvR had 17-18 and Boelcke crashed(partially MvR's fault) MvR was killed by Canadians no matter who fired the fatal round. It was Brown's orders to "Wop" May that caused MvR's death - "Fly(dive) for your line if you are attacked at all". It was May's first patrol and his Flight leader Roy Brown, only wanted him to watch and not fight. Like many battles, MvR's fate was sealed before the fight started, his fatigue and Brown's orders made MvR's fate a near-certainty. Aussie Cedrik Popkin probably fired the fatal shot but no one really cares save a few arm chair historians
QUITE WRONG. For brevity I will limit my response to WWI. Canadians took Vimy. Canadians caused the "Black day of the german army" - Erich von Ludendorff, 1865-1937, German General and then... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_Hundred_Days
And once more, I suggest you analyse how this one battle turned the tide of WW1. Generally, it is not regarded as pivotal by anyone other than the Canadians themselves - in much the same way Australians regard Gallipoli as pivotal in their own national formation. I'll say it again - every Commonwealth country regards its own soldiers as being better than British regulars - and in many cases they were. This does not constitute proof of them being the catalyst that turned WW1. Anyone, from any nation involved, can point to a particular battle in which their own soldiers fought well and achieved good results. Virtually none of these caused too much movement in the "lines", though, nor resulted in any breakthrough leading to an invasion of Germany until after the Americans came up in such numbers as to turn the war. You can mention individual battles forever (and like I said, I could counter with one of my own every time) but not a single one achieved anything other than stalemate until after the yanks got there to shift the numerical and logistical balance. That is fact. By the way - I also suggest you don't rely on wikipedia as your primary source of information, much less quote from it. The numbers in that article aren't official by any means. Nor do either of you acknowledge or even mention the role played by the British artillery in this particular battle. Whether the Canadians could have done what they did without that support is questionable.
Very well, I shall waste my time with you (but for the last time). It's one thing I gotta explain these things to immigrants and kids in this country who don't give a fuck (now that is the ultimate testament to NEVER risk you life for your country in modern warfare), but I sure as hell won't let a knowledgeable person like yourself get away with comments like "Canadians" and "WWI" and "insignificant", unscathed... Easy, I didn't say Vimy was the end all be all. It was actually merely the beginning for the Canada Corps, well under a Canadian General, though Byng did wonderfully with them until handing them over to Currie after Vimy. Arty support was planned by Sir Edward Whipple Bancroft Morrison, KCMG (6 July 1867 – 28 May 1925) Morrison had command of all artillery at the battle of Vimy Ridge - the first Brilliant General to actually pull off a perfect creeping barrage. He was Canadian. Sure! Kudos to some great shooting by the Brits, but frankly Vimy was a Canadian battle and no one would argue that....unless you are? They had more important Victories later and even back in 1915 at 2nd Ypres they were the first time a former colonial force pushed back a major European power (Germans) on European soil. They also suffered the first gas attack ever there. I consider the American donation of men and materiel alone "significant". I am well aware this was lovely industrial warfare at it's worst and EXACTLY what that means. Numbers matter a lot. You can stop bragging for them. U.S was IMPORTANT in WWI. I take exception with what I perceive from you, that individual battles and actions by units at the Corps level(Seriously?) are insignificant. Here's some numbers: Canada : 60000+ Killed U.S : 53,402 Killed Canada : 172,000 wounded U.S : 204,000 Wounded Are you seriously going to tell me that spearheading nearly every attack after Vimy was "insignificant"? WHY? Listen it's true most armies were exhausted by 1917. French were done. BEF was good only on defense, but Canadians were also in it since day 1 and yes in some of the shittiest battles, the same ones Haig gambled a generation of Britain's finest. He lost the Pals divisions in the Somme but he lost Canadians too. Canada however came forward still, it had something to prove. You sell your own veterans short. Australian history is very close to Canada, yes it's true and I DO think ANZACs were SIGNIFICANT in WWI. Canada spearheaded EVERY attack along with the AUSTRALIANS. I can't believe you think that's insignificant. I have to question every conclusion you come up with. Why are Canadians marched to Amiens in secret (even in secret to allied troops!) if they are insignificant? Why does the German Army simply look for the Canada Corps post 1917, do predict when/where an attack will come, if they are insignificant? Why does the German army opt to not attack the Canada Corps in their 1918 spring offensive, having taken the french on the right and the Brits on their left...if they are insignificant?? I do NOT propose some kind of superhuman gene was possessed by Canadians back then, like many SIGNIFICANT units through history, the reasons read like a litany of good fortune and perfect timing. Commanders (Lloyd George was going to replace Haig with Currie in 1919 -from his biographer), The Ross Rifle, impending Nationhood, Pioneer youth of gun culture, No class struggles, individual soldiers knowing significant objectives, the list goes on and on. Canadian Battles WWII: Second Battle of Ypres Battle of Gravenstafel 22 April – 23 April 1915 Battle of St Julien 24 April – 4 May 1915 Battle of Frezenberg 8 May – 13 May 1915 Battle of Bellewaerde Ridge 24 May – 25 May 1915 Second Battle of Artois Battle of Festubert 15 May - 27 May 1915 Second Action at Givenchy 15th & 16th June 1915 Third Battle of Artois Battle of Loos 25 September - 8 October 1915 None Action of St Eloi Craters 27 March - 16 April 1916 Battle of Mount Sorrel 2 June - 13 June 1916 Battle of the Somme Battle of Flers-Courcelette 15 September - 22 September 1916 Battle of Thiepval Ridge 26 September - 29 September 1916 Battle of Le Transloy 1 October - 18 October 1916 Battle of the Ancre Heights (Regina Trench) 1 October - 11 November 1916 Battle of Arras Battle of Vimy Ridge 9 April - 14 April 1917 Battle of Arleux 28 April - 29 April 1917 Battle of Hill 70 15 August - 25 August 1917 Third Battle of Ypres Second Battle of Passchendaele 26 October - 10 November 1917 Hundred Days Offensive Battle of Amiens 8 August - 11 August 1918 Battle of the Scarpe 26 August - 30 August 1918 Second Battle of the Somme Battle of Drocourt-Quéant Canal 2 September - 3 september 1918 Battle of the Canal du Nord 27 September - 1 October 1918 Battle of Cambrai 8 October - 9 October 1918 Battle of Valenciennes 1 November - 2 November 1918 Capture of Mons 9 November - 11 November 1918 As CANADA CORPS U.S. (and I DO NOT Think their contribution insignificant! Just different) Battle of Cantigny 28 May 1918 Second Battle of the Marne in June 1918 Battle of Saint-Mihiel, beginning September 12, 1918 Meuse-Argonne offensive, lasting from September 26 to November 11, 1918
I have never said that the contribution made by Commonwealth and colonial troops were insignificant. In fact, I haven't said anything other than those achievements, while taking nothing away from them, are often overstated and viewed subjectively by the nation in question. If you're going to translate that into my saying they were "insignificant", then that would be your problem. Well, good. Considering the thread title, and if you pay attention to what I have actually said, then we appear to have no quarrel other than in what you're trying to insinuate I've said rather than what I have said. In fact, I suggest you go back, read what I was orignally replying to before you appeared, and it might all come clear. It is relatively common knowledge that artillery is a major influence in most battles during both world wars. In fact, Artillery is often credited with having caused the most military casualties of any military arm in either war. Therefore, the fact that the British artilllery was used so effectively, and for the first time in such great numbers, is hardly something you can simply dismiss with a wave of your hand. That isn't true. The first gas attack was used at the Second battle of Ypres against the French Algerians on the Canadians flank. It caused them to retreat (flee, might be a better term), and the Germans were so completely taken unprepared by the success of the attack that they failed to exploit their gain fully, allowing the Canadians to perform their excellent recovery of the situation. I found it quite annoying by this Grim reaper or whoever he was to say that the British and French "crumbled" around the Canadians, leaving them to confront the German advance. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how devastating that first gas attack really was, and a lack of understanding of the situation at Ypres in general. It also illustrates quite effectively what I'm talking about parochially viewing an event. If the Candians actually had been the main target of that first gas attack, then who knows how this might have affected things? The word you're looking for is "pivotal". Even the Germans knew it was the end once they learned the USA had joined the war. I'm sure you'll point out where I said anything of the sort? You're taking exception to shadows, my friend. No, I am not. Why, were you expecting me to? I might, however, differ with you slightly on why it was significant. It was not only due to effectiveness. The British and French were every bit as exhausted as the Germans. Not only the soldiers, but on the home front. Funds, resources, and materials were running low, along with the available numbers of replacement troops. Morale both at the front and on the home front was low. You can hardly blame any British general for hesitating to use his own for actions which were sure to generate high casualty lists. Although the historians and movies will often portray them as heartless criminals wasting good colonial troops as fodder, the fact is that it is a very human thing not to want to waste more of "your own". The problem is convincing those troops that this is not the case, that they are being used because they are so good at what they do. Which leads me to the next: Ah. So you're here saying that they volunterered to be the spearhead of most attacks after Vimy Ridge, as opposed to being told to be and simply stepping up to the plate - as many others did. I've heard plenty about this or that general saying good things about Commonwealth troops, and these comments are often quoted with pride in their home countries by armchair historians. It doesn't seem to register with these people that positive motivation and a proud fighting force go hand in hand with performance - and you can bet your bottom dollar those "shock troops" were told on a regular basis about the pride those generals had in them, and their confidence in their abilities. The easiest way to make someone do something is to make them want to. I, in turn, have to question your comprehension. I have never said anything of the sort, nor have I mentioned Australian contribution directly except on one occasion, that I recall. What Is significant, is that if you were to ask most Australians or New Zealanders who the major players in the Gallipoli campaign were, they'd tell you it was the ANZACS and the Turks. If you ask an Australian, he'll say we did it by ourselves. If you ask a New Zealander, he'll tell you the Kiwis were the best soldiers and the Australians took all the credit. And if you ask a Brit -he'll be barely aware any of us were even there. There was one New Zealand member here who actually tried to tell me on one thread that we won that campaign. They don't even know we were a relatively minor player. Most of them wouldn't even know the British and French were there at all, let alone in greater numbers. That is how national pride affects an objective view of things. So you and your friend from a page or so ago are hardly alone. 1. To deny the Germans knowledge that they were there. 2. Because they are aware that Commonwealth and colonial troops are used as shock troops and spearheads. This isn't exactly rocket science, you know. Simpy good military intelligence knowing where an attack is likely to come. 3. You attack were you think the line will be weakest and you have the greatest chance of success. I will reiterate, once more, that I have never said that your soldiers weren't any good. I have said quite the opposite about all the Commonwealth troops. I would, however, do a little more research on your Ross rifle. It really wasn't all that good, you know. As to your strings of numbers and American involvement vs Canadian... what are you trying to prove? Canada was a Commonwealth nation, and like most Commonwealth nations was in it from the beginning. The Americans weren't involved until both sides had been ground to burger meat through attrition. American involvement in the actual battles wasn't the significance of their contribution. It was the knowledge, to the Germans, that they were coming. It forced their hand, they failed, and sued for peace not long after the Yanks arrived. Had the USA not joined the war, the outcome might have been completely different. Which is, of course, very much a reiteration of what I've said from the very beginning. You can dispute it, if you want, and trot out your strings of numbers. The fact remains that the Germans were not beaten until the Americans became involved, and no one battle in WW1 was decisive enough to turn the tide prior to American involvement. They knew they were beaten the moment the USA declared war on Germany. You're going to have a very difficult time proving otherwise.
I believe this was it...not sure which part I saw though. http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_wilson_03_christmas.html
I read that as being insignificant. I think that's fair, didn't make a significant difference and insignificant. Yes I do think, if Britain did not have Canadians and ANZACS, the Entente would have LOST the war, without a shadow of a doubt in my mind. Without the Canadians , maybe maybe not and same with ANZACS. Without American involvement, I think a true peace treaty would have been reached in 1918-1919. One that would have possibly avoided WWII.
