Why is it Canadians do so well in battle?

[Eland2]

As British PM David Lloyd George's biography states (and I've mentioned this before):

British Prime Minister David Lloyd George claimed to his biographer that had the war continued into 1919, he would have sought to replace Field Marshal Haig with Canadian General Arthur Currie, with Australian General John Monash as Currie's chief of staff.

Not sure how that would have gone with the British "hierarchy" at the time, both being Colonials and Militia officers pre-war.

It wouldn't have gone well at all. A storm of protest would likely have emerged from the British officer corps, and it wouldn't have been surprising to see them go above George's head and make a direct appeal to the King to have George's decision reversed if what he proposed had come to pass.

Currie always struck me as an intelligent, fairly humble and compassionate man, who, like many Canadian soldiers of his day and in succeeding decades, sought not glory or kudos but only to do a job, and do it right. Currie's genius lay not in applying the sophisticated and somewhat esoteric military tactics espoused by many generals of his era, but in looking at Vimy Ridge as a problem to be solved, and then figuring out what resources needed to be supplied, and how to apply them in a logical, methodical manner to achieve the intended aim.

It still amazes me at times to think that Currie was a simple school teacher and later a businessman before he became a soldier, but sometimes greatness comes from humble beginnings.

 

[TCBF]

- Most Canadians who fought in the CEF had British accents. They may have felt themselves 'Canadian' but only in the context of the colonies being British. Only by Nov 1918 was 51% of the CEF Canadian born.

- The CEF was provided with superb British commanders and staff officers. It took two years until the Canadian corps began to perform consistently. Politics led to the loss of a good British Corps Commander (Alderson) and the retention of some Canadian leaders of questionable talents.

- In my mind, Lloyd George was a war criminal (of sorts): he withheld reinforcements to the BEF as he felt troops were being squandered. This led to a reorganization of the BEF just as it was taking over miles of frontage from the French. The reorganization was disruptive and incomplete and the former French part of the line still relatively 'undeveloped' when the Germans launched their "Kaiserschlacht" on 21 March 1918.

- We have a lot of myths here in Canada. Fact is, we are no better at combat than any other group. As well: wars are won by people who show up - our efforts were never sustainable without conscription. Could we do that again?  The current generation may not run to the colours as quickly as their great-grandfathers, and it remains to be seen if the new sub-cultures will swamp the recruiting offices like the 'traditional' founding nations did. One could not blame some families from pointing at their names on the headstones in far flung places, and pointing out that their families have given enough in the last two hundred years, and maybe it is time for some of the new blood to shed some new blood for Canada.

- Many other countries have weathered brutal occupations and come out of it in one piece. Is that not a form of combat? Would Canadians resist? We have yet to prove our mettle in that regard. We might come out of such a trial as two countries, or three. 

 

[Canuck_Jock]

The subject of combat effectiveness of Commonwealth divisions, as well as reputation of all divisions, was covered by Richard Holmes in 'Tommy' (pp.180-82). The issue is more complex than first appearance and many, Guards, Scots, Highland Divisions for example, made claims of eliteism.  A couple of useful quotes:

"The most common belief is that British divisions were uniformly useless and Dominion formations were all first rate.  But the evidence of fighting quality is less clear-cut than is suggested..."

Further, " A scholarly examination of the detailed performance of a sample of fifty divisions in the last Hundred Days of the war concluded that: 'in general, ten British divisions performed at least as well as - and in some cases partly better than - the leading six or seven Dominion divisions." (Latter quoted from Peter Simpkins). "Success depended very much on the ability of the division's cadre to convert a flood of reinforcements into useful soldiers."

It should also be noted that, due to reorganisation in early 1918, UK divisions went down from 12 to 9 infantry battalions, effectively a quarter smaller.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Currie always struck me as an intelligent, fairly humble and compassionate man, who, like many Canadian soldiers of his day and in succeeding decades, sought not glory or kudos but only to do a job, and do it right. Currie's genius lay not in applying the sophisticated and somewhat esoteric military tactics espoused by many generals of his era, but in looking at Vimy Ridge as a problem to be solved, and then figuring out what resources needed to be supplied, and how to apply them in a logical, methodical manner to achieve the intended aim.

It still amazes me at times to think that Currie was a simple school teacher and later a businessman before he became a soldier, but sometimes greatness comes from humble beginnings.

Some points-

1. Gen Arthur Currie was not the commander of the Canadian Corps for the battle of Vimy Ridge. That honour was held by the Rt Hon Julian Byng, a VERY British commander who was sent to the Canadian Corps in order to "sort it out" so to speak. Interestingly, Byng initially saw this assignment as a punishment and attempted to get a different assignment. This is also why General Byng held the title "1st Viscount of Vimy". Julian Byng went on to become the Governor General of Canada but is probably more known for the hockey trophy his wife gave to the NHL. The belief that Currie commanded the Cdn Corps vice a division at Vimy is perhaps the greatest error many make when discussing the battle. No doubt, currie learned from Byng and adapted his style of preparation.

2. General Currie, despite the longings of historical revisionists, was highly unlikely to command the Imperial forces. In reality, he was little respected by the soldiers of the Canadian Corps and by many in the Imperial high command due to his appearance. A great deal of first hand evidence indicates that many Canadian soldiers felt that he was a butcher and held a great deal of contempt towards their commander (also note the lack of popular response to the criticisms Currie faced after the war about being a butcher from the press and his lack of involvement in veterans groups- silence is sometimes the best indicator!). Unfortunately for him he also had a poor report with the soldiers as he lacked charisma and did not "look the part of a soldier".

3. The Canadian Corps maintained a large cadre of British staff officers until the end of the war, a fact that is much forgotten today.

Arthur Currie was a successful officer no doubt, but his rise to the top of the Imperial charts would always have been stunted.

 

[Chispa]

Some, but not all, Canadians seem to prefer Great War and Second World War.

I've never had anyone not know what I am talking about with WWI and WWII.

True, 90% of Canadians are aware of WWI & II vs FWW GW, however LAC, CWM, DHH started religiously using FWW some years ago, post complaints received.  Though on LAC, etc., sublinks on pictures, documents you’ll see WWI & II, just like the spelling which at times is very American.

Parts of the world, Canada, owing to the influence of popular media, aka the APM, we are aware of more American War History then our own.

When my narrative is on Canadian, Commonwealth accounts I use FWW & SWW, on American accounts I use World War used pre 1945 By Gov, or WWI, and WWII.

In old Canadian books from 1920-30 seen the term "Great World War" used.


Joseph

 

[cupper]

In old Canadian books from 1920-30 seen the term "Great World War" used.

That would be because the Second World War hadn't happened yet.

 

[Molloy91]

Hitler was believed to have said, "Give me British officers, Canadian NCOs, and American technology, and I can rule the world." So perhaps the quality of training and discipline Canadian soldiers get might help explain why Canada's small army tends to punch well above its weight.

Sir Winston Churchill said that.

 

[TCBF]

Sir Winston Churchill said that.

- Prpaganda. Cite?

 

[mariomike]

- Prpaganda. Cite?

I don't know who said it. But, I've read it ( in various forms ) on here enough times.

"Give me German Officers, British NCO's and Canadian troops and I will win this war!"

Feldmarschal Rommel
source Die Wehrmacht Kreigbuch 43/44
http://army.ca/forums/threads/85581/post-835773#msg835773
Reply #18

 

[Molloy91]

I don't know who said it. But, I've read it ( in various forms ) on here enough times.

"Give me German Officers, British NCO's and Canadian troops and I will win this war!"

Feldmarschal Rommel
source Die Wehrmacht Kreigbuch 43/44
http://army.ca/forums/threads/85581/post-835773#msg835773
Reply #18

Yeah it probably has been said many different ways. I read in a book Churchill said "If I had Canadian soldiers, American technology and British officers I could rule the world."

 

[Treemoss]

Pretty much echoing what everyone has said.

Canadian troops, US tech, and British officers  8).



I think it's because we're not a super populated country and our military isn't that large, so we're required to train our troops extremely well. An Infantry officer Captain and myself talked a bit about it. He said that "we don't have a gigantic resource pool like other countries have, and we need to use what we have efficiently, so to compensate we train what we have to the best they can be".

 

[Osotogari]

I have no doubt Canada's almost universal success is a direct result of the slavish adherence to cutting-edge doctrine as taught by the ever-relevant infantry school at CTC Gagetown!  :facepalm:

 

[brihard]

I have no doubt Canada's almost universal success is a direct result of the slavish adherence to cutting-edge doctrine as taught by the ever-relevant infantry school at CTC Gagetown!  :facepalm:

The Judo guy made a funny!  ;D

 

[daftandbarmy]

An interesting article that reflects the reality of a balance between 'good' and 'bad':

When we construct a Canadian memory of the Italian campaign, there is room for examples of operational and tactical effectiveness, individual courage and a significant contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany.  There are however other stories that need to be told about the nature, purposes and cost of the campaign.  In 1994, I was presenting a paper at a conference in Edinburgh and was able to meet the Scottish poet Hamish Henderson who wrote 3/3 of the original version of the D-Day Dodgers.  He sang it for us in a light tenor voice, by the last verse we were all in tears.

If you look around the mountains

In the mud and rain

You’ll find scattered crosses

Some which bear no name

Heartbreak and toil and suffering gone

The boys beneath them slumber on

For they’re the D-Day Dodgers

Who stayed in Italy

http://canadianmilitaryhistory.ca/some-reflections-on-the-italian-campaign-terry-copp-keynote-2010-military-history-colloquuim/

 

[MSmith]

It's interesting you bring this up.  Being in Australia, you could replace "Canadian" with "ANZAC" in your paragraph and the exact same thing is said around ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day. 

I'm not saying one is better than the other, just noting the similarities (and I'm sure that the US, UK, etc. would have similar sentiments in the most part.)

  I think this is closest to the truth, not necessarily that the Canadians are the best fighting troops but that is the patriotic perception? As a Canadian I'd love to believe that we are the most formidable fighting force in the world but I don't think you could attribute our success in wars to being Canadian alone. As others have said there are plenty of examples where we did not succeed or were utterly defeated.

 

[Fhrosty]

I would honestly think that our Canadian Soldiers are always on top because, well,
not only do we thrive to give our people the best of the best,
but we seem to thrive to make things right.

We fight for our friends, for our families, and our neighbors.

We, as a country, fight together, no matter the fight,
we stand strong together.

In the face of a war, it is not only one that can win,
but the entire brotherhood, that will walk out in victory.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I would honestly think that our Canadian Soldiers are always on top because, well,
not only do we thrive to give our people the best of the best,
but we seem to thrive to make things right.

We fight for our friends, for our families, and our neighbors.

We, as a country, fight together, no matter the fight,
we stand strong together.

In the face of a war, it is not only one that can win,
but the entire brotherhood, that will walk out in victory.

I beg to differ... the conscription crises of both World Wars showed us that we really aren't all that 'together' when the poop really hits the propeller.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1917

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1944

 

[McG]

... And I don't think all our resources are "the best of the best."