vimy ridge

[rogthedodge]

New ideas such as the tank - perhaps?

I'm never going to claim Haig was perfect (who was?) but his achievements during the war have been subject a lot of mis-informed criticism.
For example he gets blamed for the Somme when his major error in that regard was in only making suggestions to Rawlinson and not ordering him to change the battle plan as suggested.

Recently his talents and achievements in adapting to the new form of warfare, overseeing the massive expansion of the Army and fighting off Lloyd-George have begun to be recognised.

No obvious and credible replacement was available then and few have been suggested since.

Let's not turn this into a fight amongst friends - I was responding to inaccurate and pointed comments by someone else.

To that end I'll pass on your observation on Byng.

[rogthedodge]

@ Emac44

Read what I wrote again.

I call them Empire troops because that's what they were at the time. The term colonials is also historically accurate. No-one would use such terms in a modern context as they're not accurate but in this context they're correct & appropriate. I never said 'colonials' but it seems to have irked you anyway.

I think you have some issues to get over.

As for Gallipoli I never said it was ideally-planned or good generalship but was commenting on your use of 'our' whereas (as you no doubt know) the majority of troop losses were among the Brits and French. Again a point you failed to make and sought to ignore.

'Disparaging remarks'? Where? I'd love for you to point them out to me!

As for British / Indian realations that's irrelevant - my point was to contrast their losses with yours - I took out the bit 'that they don't keep banging on about it' but, maybe, should have left it in!

As for Haig's tactical abilities again you're no-doubt aware of the sophistication of tactics and the all-arms-battle application of armour, air, artillery and infantry employed by the allies in '18. To develop such tactics from the BEF doctrine just 4 years before shows (in my opinion) remarakable flexibility and tactical awareness.

I'm sure you have examples of many, many Australians who could have done a better job - again I'd love to hear them.

[Emac44]

I made no such disparging remarks about the British French Indian or other Commonwealth Troops during WW1. However you quoted me Rog from your first posting and I say again I made no disparging remarks about the British French or other Empire or Commonwealth Troops. I was paying tribute to our Allies the Canadians in recognising the efforts of Canadians at Vimy Ridge and about time they repaired the Memorial to those men at Vimy Ridge. If it had been an New Zealand or South Africans British Scots Welsh or even India I would have said the same. My tribute goes to the men whom lost their lives at Vimy Ridge regardless of Nationality. My tribute also goes to the Nation of Canadia in recognising the bravery and the sacrifice of Canadians during a bloody wasteful war such as World War 1 and that the Canadian Govt recognises this in repairing the War Memorials for the Canadians. I suggest next time Rog do not read more into it than what you thought was being said. It was an innocent statement by me not an arrogant or ignorant statement. Just me giving thanks to Canadians who are our Allies

I will leave this be as it appears you read more into it then it was meant to be and I am not going to argue or debate on a mistake from a misreading of what I was trying to say in my posting. I have NO ISSUES TO GET OVER AS YOU THINK ROG. But you seem to think I do.

But I do have a problem when some one like yourself tries to make issues over nothing that can be construed as offensive to any one. Seems the issues are your own Rog for reading more into it than was apparent

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by rogthedodge

@ Emac44

Read what I wrote again.

I call them Empire troops because that's what they were at the time. The term colonials is also historically accurate. No-one would use such terms in a modern context as they're not accurate but in this context they're correct & appropriate. I never said 'colonials' but it seems to have irked you anyway.

I think you have some issues to get over.

As for Gallipoli I never said it was ideally-planned or good generalship but was commenting on your use of 'our' whereas (as you no doubt know) the majority of troop losses were among the Brits and French. Again a point you failed to make and sought to ignore.

'Disparaging remarks'? Where? I'd love for you to point them out to me!

As for British / Indian realations that's irrelevant - my point was to contrast their losses with yours - I took out the bit 'that they don't keep banging on about it' but, maybe, should have left it in!

As for Haig's tactical abilities again you're no-doubt aware of the sophistication of tactics and the all-arms-battle application of armour, air, artillery and infantry employed by the allies in '18. To develop such tactics from the BEF doctrine just 4 years before shows (in my opinion) remarakable flexibility and tactical awareness.

I'm sure you have examples of many, many Australians who could have done a better job - again I'd love to hear them.

Yes there are 2 Australian Generals who were far better than some champagne sippers then British had. Monash and Blamey. As for Tank development took the British nearly 3 years to decide best use of Tanks in the mean time Battle of Cambria was thrown away from the lack of foresight of the British in the use of tanks

As for blaming Rawlinson, I might remind you Haig was the GOC and it was his responsibility to oversee all areas his subordinates were doing and had done. And it was Haig who had overall command. So Haig has to bare responsibilty for the debacles on the Somme and not after 90 years others trying to take the blame onto Rawlinson and spare Haig.

And once again I remind you that the Gallipoli Campaign is seen as the emergence of Australian and New Zealanders in battle and the legend of these troops that came from Gallipoli. And at no means is this a reflection on British Indian or French Troops. Which was badly led for example at Suvla where the British having come ashore instead of advancing as they should have were ordered to sit and make tea. Where as Australians and New Zealanders were ordered to a full blown attack against the Nek and Chanuck Bair to act as a diversion for the Suvla Attack. Same attack by the Australians and New Zealanders could have been better achieved by diversions fients and artillery bombardments instead of the sheer bloody murder that was ordered from British High Command. And Wilson had explained that to British High Command and was ignored

Your disparging remarks I would say more to the case of sneering remarks towards Australians for some unknown reason of your own. And which I am reading as such. And how can anyone except some one with an axe to grind find what I said to the Canadians in this forum offensive

Do not try and buy of the blunders of British High Command during WW1 by trying to equate the BEF had good generalship. It simply didn't. There were British Generals who had qualities of Brilliance but these were far out weighed by the inept generals of High Command like Haig and Rawlinson for example. And if such advancements as Aerial Armoured and Infantry Tactics were so bloody brilliant as you are claiming in 4 years of WAR. Then why were they not used more effectively. Cambria is one particular set battle where tanks were used and the advantage by said armour was thrown away by inept planning by British High Command. One British general that showed some brains was Plumer but the likes of him were few and far between

As for the term Colonial Troops. that is extremely accurate as the British had thought that even when countries like Australia or New Zealand having gained independance (1901 Australia 1907 New Zealand). That both these countries were still considered Colonies or Colonial etc. And that these same men whom had come from those 2 countries were nothing more than COLONIALS and our Military was seen as such. Haig was reported as saying he didn't have faith in Australian Troops in battle and that our behind the line discipline was poor. He had at one time question Rupert Murdoch on the reinstatement of the death penalty for Australian Troops. Murdoch replied that no Australian Government would give any British Military power or Military Court the decission for the death penalty over Australian Troops etc. As the term Empire Troops came into practise something that came more apparent after the WAR not during by British High Command.

But you know what really irked me was your comments as I am reading them. You seem to forget that Australians New Zealanders and Canadians preformed brilliantly during WW1 and also WW2 and that in March 1918 that Australians New Zealanders and Canadians held 30% of the British Line during that month in March around Albert and stopped the German Advance cold. Until further British reinforcements were ferried up to bolster the line and reinforce against further attacks by the Germans.

You found my remarks insulting. Too bad. I find you whole attitude to be priggish narrow minded and some one who wants to find fault in just a comment I made to the Canadians in repairing a War Memorial for their fallen soldiers from WW1 a bit bizzare and totally uncalled for. But I have an issue now. You ****ing annoyed me when you got on your high horse and started having your snit session.

And before you go off again in your high horse Rog. When I referred to the Canadians as YOUR VIMY RIDGE. I meant that as Battle Field Honours of the Canadians. As OUR BATTLE HONOURS for the ANZACs who served at Ypres etc. Before getting easily insulted next time ask what is meant before getting your panties in a bloody twist and going around accusing others of showing no respect. Maybe thats a word you need to spell. RESPECT as you showed me none.

[Maharg]

Originally Posted by trackend

what was it the Germans said, "Lions led by Donkeys"

I have a book called 'The Donkeys' by Alan Clark, its about 1915 - Neuve Chapelle, 2nd Ypres and Loos, during which the core of Britain's regular army was all but destroyed.
On the first page there is a quote from Falkenhayn's Memoirs: Ludendorff said, "The English fight like lions". To which his colleague Hoffman rejoined, "But don't we know they are led by donkeys".

[trackend]

cheers for that info Maharg

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by Emac44

Pb well done Canada. Your Vimy Ridge. Our Menin Gate and Menin Road Ypres and Albert. I have a lot of respect for our Canadian Allies. Well done in restoring those monuments at Vimy Ridge. I have 3 words for you Pb


LEST WE FORGET

And this ROG is the quote I said. Somewhere you find it insulting for me to give respect to the Canadians.

Again YOUR VIMY RIDGE CANADIAN BATTLE HONOURS. Are you denying the Canadians this battle honour Rog and their right to pay respect to their own WAR DEAD by restoring a monument to their own soldiers?
Again Our MENIN GATE AND MENIN ROAD Ypres and Albert. OUR ANZAC Battle Honours. And the question is are you denying Australians and New Zealanders these battle honours. Because I failed to mention the British Indians South Africans Rhodesians and other members of the Commonwealth and including the French and Italians WAR DEAD as I was commenting on the restoration of Canadian War Memorials at Vimy Ridge. And the last part of my quote which I expressed to Pb

LEST WE FORGET

I don't know where you come from Rog but to me it means remembering ALL COMMONWEALTH AND BRITISH WAR DEAD and honouring as such and including our ALLIES and the ENEMY. But in this case it was directed at Pb for Canada not to forget the debt they owe their men whom lost their lives in service of Canada. And seeing Pb is a Canadian I believe he wouldn't forget his nations debt to those men buried at Vimy Ridge and nor should Canada. By the way Pb there was no BARB said by me about British High Command in my original post but seeing you mentioned it now. For the most part many of them were as useful as TITS ON A BULL. Now there is your BARB Pb against British High Command. And before I GET MISQUOTED AGAIN. The British Tommy wasn't at fault for the PISS POOR GENERALSHIP of British High Command. Just the British Tommy had to suffer due to it along with Commonwealth or Empire Troops

Oh and let us not forget that the Poor British Tommy nearly mutined over this so called lack lustre Generalship from British High Command. But I can't score the British High Command that badly the French were even worse and their armies did mutiny. Lyod George referred to it as the best kept secret of World War One. If the Germans had realised they could have won on the Western Front if not the War

[Maharg]

No worries trackend.

[Negative Creep]

I really don't see how it can be insulting. The contribution of the commonwealth and smaller nations in both wars tends to be completely overlooked. Most people think WW1 was fought by the British, French, Germans and Americans in the trenches of north West Europe. Saying Vimy was a Canadian battle is no worse than saying how the Somme was just fought by the British. Seeing how the contribution of the Commonwealth so often gets overlooked, I think if anything, we owe them

[rogthedodge]

Originally Posted by Maharg

I have a book called 'The Donkeys' by Alan Clark, its about 1915 - Neuve Chapelle, 2nd Ypres and Loos, during which the core of Britain's regular army was all but destroyed.
On the first page there is a quote from Falkenhayn's Memoirs: Ludendorff said, "The English fight like lions". To which his colleague Hoffman rejoined, "But don't we know they are led by donkeys".

Poor history. Now a discredited book. That quote is inaccurate, if it was ever said it was said about Italian Troops.

You really need to read some better books if you're going to comment on WW1

[rogthedodge]

Emac44 - you clearly have issues over something - I suspect a lot of it has nothing at all to do with WW1. The way you write does seem to indicate a certain inner anger. What's with this RANDOM use OF capitals??

You seem unable to accept certain facts of historical record, Haig was commander of all British & Empire troops - to blame him for the Somme is like blaming Eisenhower for the battle of the bulge. He is at fault for leaving it too much to Rawlinson but that's delegation for you.

Your original post was clearly seeking to make cheap anti-Brit jibes by ignoring the actual order of battle of the Canadian Corps and carrying on this fantasy that the war was won by the colonies - in spite of the efforts of the Brits.

I notice you still can't provide a single example of an Australian or Canadian general capable of doing what Haig did. You can't compare apples and oranges!

FWIW I don't decry anyone's contribution to the allied effort in WW1, never have. I include them all from the Zoaves and the Indians, the Aussies and cannucks, the Chinese labour Corps and the 4 British Armies (Reg, TF, 'New' and conscript). I also note that the UK lost a million men and the losses of Canada and Australia are roughly equal to that of India.

The best generals of the war were British, followed by the Germans. Some empire generals may have been capable at relatively junior levels but their potential effectiveness in high command can only be conjecture.

The truth may be uncomfortable but I'm afraid that's reality.

[rogthedodge]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

In reality the artillery might have had a preponderence of Brits but it was Andrew McNaughton who pioneered counter battery fire , made the artillery calibrate each piece (a rather new doctrine ) the pointy end of the stick and the ones that took the ridge were Canadians. Yes Byng was a Brit who flourished working with the Canadians but he was also open to ideas something Haig could never claim

Again that's tosh I'm afraid.

Improvements in arty performance were a gradual process from the early days of '14 when the expression 'Errors of the day' covered a host of factors through to '18 when massive efforts by all in flash spotting, sound ranging, engineering & ammo manufacturing standards, mapping and forward observing/communication led to a host of improvements such as counter-battery, creeping barage and no need to pre-register guns.

I can't find one single individual who is reponsible for all these improvements (and I've taken time checking) - British, Canadian or otherwise.

As I said right at the start it was an Allied effort. Claiming otherwise now is poor history

[Bernhart]

General Sir Arthur William Currie, GCMG, KCB (December 5, 1875 – November 30, 1933) was the first Canadian commander of the Canadian Expeditionary Force (a corps of four divisions) on the Western Front during World War I. Currie was among the most successful generals of the war; he is still considered one of the finest commanders in Canadian military history, as well as one of the most capable commanders on the entire Western Front (Along with John Monash).

Under his capable leadership the Canadian Corps won a long series of battles, fighting as a unit for the first time in a major war. They soon earned a fierce reputation as some of the most effective troops on the Western Front.

Currie was respected by his men as an extremely capable general, who closely followed the progress of battles onsite, and who would not waste their lives needlessly. Currie later faced intense criticism for wasting lives in the last days of the war because he had had forehand knowledge of the planned Armistice. This contradiction can be explained by the fact that Currie did not support the Armistice agreement. He believed that unless the Allied forces pushed onward and completely destroyed the German army, then they would have to come back and fight again in 25 years.

this guy is canadian and a lot more capable then alotof the british generals

[rogthedodge]

I never said there weren't ANY effective colonial commanders and for sure SOME were better than SOME British commanders. But certainly no-one can argue that ALL colonial commanders were better then ALL British, which some people above have been doing.

Plus there's a world of difference between commanding a Corps and being Commander in Chief. Apples and oranges.

Assuming Currie or Monash could have been better CiC's than Haig is pure speculation

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by rogthedodge

Emac44 - you clearly have issues over something - I suspect a lot of it has nothing at all to do with WW1. The way you write does seem to indicate a certain inner anger. What's with this RANDOM use OF capitals??

You seem unable to accept certain facts of historical record, Haig was commander of all British & Empire troops - to blame him for the Somme is like blaming Eisenhower for the battle of the bulge. He is at fault for leaving it too much to Rawlinson but that's delegation for you.

Your original post was clearly seeking to make cheap anti-Brit jibes by ignoring the actual order of battle of the Canadian Corps and carrying on this fantasy that the war was won by the colonies - in spite of the efforts of the Brits.

I notice you still can't provide a single example of an Australian or Canadian general capable of doing what Haig did. You can't compare apples and oranges!

FWIW I don't decry anyone's contribution to the allied effort in WW1, never have. I include them all from the Zoaves and the Indians, the Aussies and cannucks, the Chinese labour Corps and the 4 British Armies (Reg, TF, 'New' and conscript). I also note that the UK lost a million men and the losses of Canada and Australia are roughly equal to that of India.

The best generals of the war were British, followed by the Germans. Some empire generals may have been capable at relatively junior levels but their potential effectiveness in high command can only be conjecture.

The truth may be uncomfortable but I'm afraid that's reality.

The reality of British High Command Rog and you may find this hard to except. As it seems you do is that they were no bloody good and wasted millions of men in battle over a course of 4 years and yet here is you defending these same useless Generals as if they were the heroes of World War 1. Get this in your head real quick Rog. It was the men on the battlefield who were the real HEROES not some champagne sippers generals whose only ability was to see the useless sarcifice of men and material. Haig is responsible for his Junior Officers. Perhaps you need to realise this when Haig excepted responsiblity as GOC. Haig had overall command or didn't you know that and as GOC was responsible for all battle plans put forward whether by Rawlinson or not on the Western Front

If any one seems to have bitterness it seems to be yourself Rog. I made no disparging remarks about other Allied Troops. But you got yourself into a little tiss wald and began your boring tirade against me. Which lends me to believe that you are one useless bloody Twat. And purposely go about looking for imagined insults. Thank god most Englishmen are not like you. You obviously believe in the so called superiority of England still. But it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt British High Command was a bloody shambles during WW1 which cost the lives of millions of lives of Allied Troops. French High Command was no better nor was German and the Russians were the worse of the lot. But not according to you. You think other nations couldn't have produced better Generals with better ideas and a fresher approach which wasn't nulified by chasing fuzzy wuzzy or Boer farmers on the African Velt that like British High Command had. Comparing Eisenhower to Haig was like comparing chalk to cheese. Eisenhower was a better administrator unlike Haig. But if you want to compare some one like Haig go right ahead to Eisenhower. Seeing that the Battle of the Bulge was a German offensive during WW2 I don't exactly follow your logic in trying to equate that with a failing of Eisenhower. Haig on the other hand was inept and so were Goth and Rawlinson on details of the Battles of the Somme. Which I seem to recall was a strickly British High Command stuff up

As for issues I don't have any but just some silly twat who imagined insults when none were said. And I have already given you better examples of GOOD GENERAL ADMINISTRATORS and Generals who were Australian MONASH and Blamey but as you said their contribution can only by conjecture. They were better qualified then Haig was ever seen to be. As for Commonwealth Troops. Yes they were better then the British Troops but that was because British Troops to their disadvantage had poor leadership and had nothing to do with the calibre of British Troops. If British High Command led by example and trained their Troops adequately which they didn't the losses on the battle fields may not have been so high. If British High Command was less prone to their own reputations and thought more of the British Troops and requirements such things as near mutiny would not have occured and British Troops would not have openly stated that they would perfer to shoot at High Command (STAFF) then Fritz. If your so called British High Command was so bloody brilliant as you claim then why was the attitude of British Troops towards High Command so bloody poor during World War 1? Or are you going to find another excuse for Haig. Perhaps this time you might end up blaming the actual British Troops for their lack of approval of Haig. Oh it can't be Haig's fault for lossing 60,000 men on the Somme in one day. Lets blame Rawlinson oh that convient or could we blame Goth. I know says Rog. lets blame the men. its their fault for dying any way.

And even in all this I still proclaim I said nothing insulting towards British French or Indian Troops when I complimented the Canadians on the reconstruction of Canadian World War One Monuments at Vimy Ridge. Which Rog you still have not addressed. You seem to resent the fact that Canadians Australians New Zealanders etc would dare construct monuments at the old Battlefields of World War One for their WAR DEAD. ANZAC Day must really piss you off Rog. Seeing all those Aussies and Kiwis at Gallipoli or at Ypres laying and paying floral tribute towards Aussie and Kiwi War Dead. According to you Rog how dare Aussies Canadians and New Zealanders pay tribute to their own soldiers fallen in battle and still turn around 90 years later and call Haig the Butcher of the Somme. And Rog if that is your best British Generals that British High Command had Haig Rawlinson and Goth as you claim was the best of the best. Thank Christ the Allies didn't suffer your worse. These Champagne Sipper Generals who gained their rank and position due to having links with the British Monarchy or Parliament or had fossilized in High Coomand in the British Army due to length of service in Pre War British Army and this is what you call the BEST. BEST what Rog at showing total lack of judgement total unawareness of a modern battle field and total lack of intelligence when it came to fighting a modern war. 4 years of pitting men against machine guns and barbed wire emplacements and Haig and his cronies still couldn't see the uselessness of such battle plans that cost men their lives