vimy ridge

[trackend]

cheers for that info Maharg

 

[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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Maharg]

Emac44, well said M8.

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

Calm down rog I only tried to help.
Anyway who discredited it? Maybe it was someone who didn't like what they were reading. Italians you say. Hmm..interseting. How pray tell do you associate Lions and Italian troops? I have always thought of the Lion as a British Symbol.

What do you suggest I read? Maybe something good about Haig that wasn't written by a friend. How about a 'better book' that tells me the British Generals tactics of attacking entrenched positions with massed Infantry was a good idea.

 

[Graeme]

What do you suggest I read? Maybe something good about Haig that wasn't written by a friend. How about a 'better book' that tells me the British Generals tactics of attacking entrenched positions with massed Infantry was a good idea.

There's nothing wrong with your reading material. rogthedodge is simply in character. Upsetting everyone is his 'role'.
'rogthedodge' expands to 'roger the dodger'.
Now..doesn't this site explain everything?
Roger the Dodger

 

[Maharg]

LOL at least the cartoon character isn't one eyed.

 

[Emac44]

What were British Troops then slaughtered during WW1 but Lions. Lions for their absolute courage. Led by Donkeys who were Biritsh Generals safely stowed away 20 miles from the Front. Whilst men died attacking entrenched barbed wire positions and machine guns. Just saw today a documentary on the Somme. 120,000 British troops attacked on the Somme. 60,000 plus casualities on the first day of July 1st 1916. Wounded were left on the battle field to die slow agonizing deaths because of lack of facilities to evacuate them to clearing stations. Some 20,000 Allied Troops died because British High Command did not provide the facilities to evacuate the wounded or co-ordinate the evacuation properly. And Rog before you get off on this remember when planning a battle you also plan for your own casuality figures that will eventually occur during battle. And if Rawlinson Goth or Haig had not planned for casuality clearing from a battlefield that makes them poor battlefield commanders and no way can that be defensible. Overall through the whole battles of the Somme estimated combined casualty figures for British French and German losses are estimated at 1 million men killed wounded and missing. That is some butchers bill 1 million men Rog. Care to defend those figures and justify them by claiming British French and German Generalship was second to none. It was second to none alright. IT WAS BLOODY APPALLING

 

[Emac44]

There's nothing wrong with your reading material. rogthedodge is simply in character. Upsetting everyone is his 'role'.
'rogthedodge' expands to 'roger the dodger'.
Now..doesn't this site explain everything?
Roger the Dodger

It now does to me Graeme. Why would any one get upset when I just had only complimented the Canadians on rebuilding Monuments at Vimy Ridge is beyond me. Are you saying Graeme that Rog is nothing more than a cartoon character from a Beano Magazine and to be treated as such. Folded up and thrown away like cold chips in a bin