[EyeBrock]

Apology accepted! The Brits are known for arrogance, I won't argue on that one!

Fred, I agree with you on the British plonkers who led our boys into oblivion. You won't find too many Brits who disagree that they were led by idiots. But then the Germans were even worse. The French were useless (nothing changes there) and the Russians, well, they had a revolution!
The Great War was a total waste. Four years of hell with the odd good day thrown in. The CEF as an entity fared much better than the average Brit Division. Better led, devoid of the snotty Public School educated rodney's who couldn’t lead a cricket team never mind a battalion of raw 20 year olds.

The CEF fought without class struggles and were open to innovation. Sandhurst officers studied the Canadians after the war as they were held as an example of an successful military entity. Canada should be proud. Whether a good portion of the CEF was made up of Brits or not. They were very effective at killing more of the enemy than they lost. That’s how wars are won.

Never forget, Dulce et decorum est. The old lie.

[fred22]

Hi eyebrock,
They may have been British going in but they became true canadians during that conflict i think. they sure as hell paid for it. As a newfoundlander historically speaking all we got was our democracy stolen and commision of government bya British govenor. great thanks for helping saving the empire.
Cheers
fred

[AdamNF]

Threads like this should not be aloud on this forum. This is only to try to create an anti-American sentiment and Canadians trying to feel superior. Simply pathetic.

[HistTeach]

dgthe3 dgthe3:

ok, i may have gone a bit over on that. i am sorry, and as far as where i got my info from, it was mainly from what i have heard about the general arrogance that some of the British officers had with respect to their colonial troops. Howver, that could have worked the other way higher up in the chain of command. They may not have trusted 'inferior' troops for many of the tougher missions so the sent the British troops in. That is pure speculation on my part, and probably wrong.

It can be said that the decisions were based on a more classis society. The choice to send colonial troops to hotter spots was a true and sound practice. Let us not take away from the fact that the Brits did suffer great losses and yes many of the CEF were Brits or of British heritage. However, it was societal class and nationalism that dictated some battle decisions. The common soldier was just that, common. British officers and staff officers were the upper classes of society. In the same way colonials were, all too often, viewed as being inferior. Canadians as well other colonial units were first used to fill the missing ranks of the fallen in British regiments. The Brits were not the only ones who saw colonials as cannon fodder. The French used their colonials in the same way. Even the Germans practiced the same concepts. Their choice, of French colonial and Canadian trenches, at Ypres in 1915, to use chlorine gas(for the first time) was founded on nationalistic and race choices. It was an era of nationalism where the top dog was the master of the race. It was instrinsic in society as it would be in command and command choices.

As to the choices and decisions of British high command, what they did and what they demonstrated was pure reaction to not having practice or knowledge on how to fight a modern war with new military technology. The British were reluctant to use planes and tanks (tanks = when technology was available) at the advent of the war. Much of their strategic choices were based on European warfare of the 19th Century. They did learn quickly that calvary was useless. So, the mass numbers of soldiers sent over the top became the calvary of WWI. Shear numbers hoped to route the enemy. One must consider that the new technology of warfare had not been tested on the battlefields of Europe since 1870 and the Franco-Prussian war. The Canadians had more machine guns in the field then the Brits did because they saw and understood the weapons effectiveness early in the war (German use or machine guns as artillery keeping troops pinned down).

[dgthe3]

What in the world are you talking about Adam? almost everything here has been anti-British and pro Canada/Newfoundland if anything.

[EyeBrock]

Ok Hist, give me any proof that the CEF or any Colonial troops were deliberately sent to “hotter spots” to get wiped out in preference to British troops going. Such general and vague statements come across as blatantly racist. Tell me any British colony that lost more men , per capita or in sheer numbers than the Brits. I’m glad my kid isn’t in your class. (Plus your spelink is crappy for a supposed teacher)

And before you continue to make the Brits the evil power in WW1, the enemy, the Germans that is, used exactly the same infantry tactics. Nobody disputes the tactics were futile. But to single out the British as the lone fools in this war is to take an indefensible and prejudiced position. Leave your own hatred out of this. I won’t argue that the Brits were riddled with class warfare. They always have been and still are. Despite that plenty of Eton grads were mown down along with the mill workers they led. Class didn’t play the big part in this war it has played in others. When the Brit nation is threatened they stand as one. The same thing happened in WW2. When your kids are torpedoed and bombers fly over your country it tends to do that. Remember, the Brits were fighting for their survival. Get off your smug perch.

Fred22, I think you are misplacing your blame for the Commission of Government. The Commission to supplant Responsible Government was a result of NFLD’s own politicians running the colony into bankruptcy. The shit state NFLD was in during the 1920-30’s was down to the Depression and the St John’s merchants. What is it with this thread? Why have the British become the bogey men? You guys need to look at this subjectively and stop post vague half truths riddled with racism. The truth is easy to defend. I haven’t seen much of it posted recently.

[fred22]

I am not anti-British at all. Commission of government was a side track sorry but name one seat in the British house of commons that was shut down because it had a corrupt MP and someone appointed to run it. The Germans actually in 1917 introduced the storm group based on the idea of flowing through defences to reduce pockets later on. This was quite innovative and got them quite a bit of ground before the Yanks arrived in large numberss. The use of tanks was limited in the first world war was limited by the chopped up terrain of no mans land and the poor ,initially, mechanical reliability of the tanks in question.
The British bite and hold limited offensive with the creeping barrage was was quite good. Did the canadians pioneer the creeping barrage? They sure pioneered things like:
1.) Using machine guns as part of the barrage
2.)Providing detailled info to the ranks like maps
3.)trench raids became one of their hall marks
4.) meticulous planning a las Vimy Ridge. Currie was quite good at this.
Relax eyebrock. Hist is simply making some points and making fun of his spelling adds nothing to yours. Sounds like you are sensitive about this.
Cheers
fred

[fred22]

Hi adam,
Like others have suggested reread the thread. If it's pathetic fuck off someplace else. It's rather refreshing to read how canada did well as opposed to then the americans enterred and won the war.
Cheers
fred

[EyeBrock]

OK Fred, lets kill this , “The Brits are to blame for the Commission of Govt” side thread.

From the Fed’s web site:

“Newfoundland's political affairs were in disarray after the 1932 election. Beset by a crippling public debt and a high rate of unemployment, the island's government appealed to Britain for assistance. Britain responded by appointing a Royal Commission to investigate the matter. The members conducted their study during 1933 and presented their findings in a report to the British government later that year. They strongly recommended that responsible government be suspended in Newfoundland in favour of a Commission of Government, which would oversee the island's affairs until such time as it could again be self-supporting. The Newfoundland government agreed to the suggestion, and the Commission took office on February 16, 1934.”

Lets lay the blame on this one on NFLD.

I lived in NFLD for three years so I'm not uneducated on this. I'm also a great admirer of NFLD. But this one is down to you guys.

[EyeBrock]

I’ll agree both sides had the odd innovation amongst the carnage and the Germans did kick our asses in 1917-18 , remember where “backs to the wall” came from? Haig in April 1918.
“There is no other course open to us but to fight it out. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause each one of us must fight on to the end. The safety of our homes and the Freedom of mankind alike depend upon the conduct of each one of us at this critical moment.”

The Brits were fighting for their lives at this stage. A heart rending position that still moves me.


I am a little sensitive on the both Wars as I had lots of family members killed in both. I spent 10 years in the Military and I believe it’s up to me to defend my fallen family and their conduct in the wars. Pointing the finger at the Brits as the bad guys in this winds me up. They were defending their homeland , don’t you think they did what they thought was best at the time? I’m all for analysis of historical facts but the name calling pisses me right off.

Remember for every soldier the RNR lost at Beaumont Hamel, the Brits lost 100,000 men . The wounds of that war are still deep in my family. The Canadians certainly brought a lot to the war. But there were British regiments and Divisions that went their own way with similar innovations that the CEF employed. It was an army of millions, they weren’t all incompetent. I’ve read Berton’s “Vimy” too. It’s a good read but Pierre likes to spice things up a little with controversy.

I like facts, not half truths, and when I see half truths I’ll address them.

The Canadians did invent and implement the “creeping barrage”. Along with more scientific artillery plotting. Good ideas too.

[fred22]

Hi eyebrock,
I can respect your feelings on lost family members. Most have lost some.
The commission of government is another topic we could start a differant thread on perhaps? The brits lost a great deal of people because tactics never caught up with reality although sieges like Vicksburg had shown the way. many have said the candians had less to unlearn so this is why they did well. I enjoy your opinion eyebrock eevn if I do not share all of them thats why I was disappointed when you slammed the door so hard on Hist.
Cheers
fred

[EyeBrock]

Maybe I was a bit harsh on him, but I saw a "social historian" doing the class thing. I can't help the huge chunk of Irish in my veins!

You have some good points too, most Newfies do. Nice work on 747 btw.

[fred22]

Hi Eye,
I am very proud of my heritage so i respect others who are in a positive way. 747 personifies many ugly things to me. I am actually quite a mellow chap these days. Four kids and a small business do that to you. I may be a Newfoundlander but I am first and always a Canadian.
Cheers
fred

[canadian1971]

$1:

I may be a Newfoundlander but I am first and always a Canadian.

to that Fred buddy!

$1:

many have said the candians had less to unlearn so this is why they did well.

I've read this too. It's a good point.

Have we been a little critical of British Comand? Looks that way Sorry Brits! *passes olive branch

It's just sooo easy to sit back dam near 90 years later in the Lazyboy and be critical of some of the things that they did. Gotta try and remember that no-one had see that type of warfare before...took time to figure out what works, and sadly, what doesn't.

[fred22]

How do you get those little things to appear in the text folks. the beer one looks really cool Canadian.
Cheers
fred