AndyHollinger Posted 8 October , 2004 Share Posted 8 October , 2004 Re: futility of war - I've copied below an interview with Canadian historian and author Pierre Berton (publ. in the Toronto Sun in 1998). ************************** Popular historical writer and journalist Pierre Berton argues the deaths of more than 66,000 Canadians were in vain. "The whole bloody war was stupid," says Berton, adding a negotiated peace with Germany in 1917 could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and prevented the humiliation of the Germans which laid the groundwork for the rise of Nazi fascism. Berton says the countless war memorials dotting our country today are a testament to the stupidity of a war led by generals and politicians who should have known better than to involve Canada in a war that pitted Europe's greatest powers against each other in a wave of nationalism, imperialism and ambition -- the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy vs. the Triple Entente of France, Russia and Great Britain. DIED 'IN VAIN' "They did die in vain, of course, that's the terrible thing. But nobody wanted to say that because of the mothers. If you think that your son was killed uselessly, you'd be very upset," Berton says. "Was it worth it? I don't think it was. They weren't fighting Hitler. That was a different kind of war. There was some reason to fight Hitler." Berton argues world leaders at the time didn't realize technological advances in machines guns and other weaponry would result in a war of such massive, endless carnage. Without tanks to advance the troops, the two sides were deadlocked in a bitter stalemate that dragged on for years as casualties mounted. All wars are futile from the comfort of an armchair in a free Canada after your side wins. Because the Kaiser wasn't Hitler doesn't mean he was a "good" guy nor were the aims or practices of the German society of his day "just like ours" Just to illustrate ... if the south had "discovered" sharecropping and Jim Crow in 1859 they wouldn't have lost 25% of the white men in the Confederacy and could have "saved" the lives of the 600,000 men who died. Was it futile to fight? If the north knew they'd abandon the freed slaves in 1876 to local enforcement of the 14th Ammendment to condemn a race to virtual slavery was the war futile? Wars seldom decide stuff with finality ... however, they do decide stuff ... Germany owning the continent? No, thank you. Not in vain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bonza Posted 8 October , 2004 Share Posted 8 October , 2004 Germany owning the continent? No, thank you. Not in vain. I don't consider that Paschaendaele, or 3rd ypres, denied Germany any Continent. It certainly denied a few continents, sub-continents & islands, significant numbers of their best citizens. I am therfore happy with my first answer. YES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryn_Hammond Posted 8 October , 2004 Share Posted 8 October , 2004 Looks as though John Hartley was wrong and our friend WILL get a selection of comments to cherrypick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Dave Posted 8 October , 2004 Share Posted 8 October , 2004 [Although that buffoon Lloyd George had withheld recruits from Haig in 1917, he left us with an England full of raw 18 year old conscripts.] Yes, AND ANZAC volunteers. NZ Div was quite badly mauled during the battle. It had introduced the 4th Brigade to it's order of battle, but withdrew and disbandoned it when it could not replenish the casualties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie Posted 8 October , 2004 Share Posted 8 October , 2004 [NZ Div was quite badly mauled during the battle. It had introduced the 4th Brigade to it's order of battle, but withdrew and disbandoned it when it could not replenish the casualties]. Dave: How many NZ troops were on WF during 1917-1918? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dycer Posted 8 October , 2004 Share Posted 8 October , 2004 Ladies and Gents, We've been invited to debate a particular Battle not the War! I still think the paragragh in "Covenant with Death" by John Harris sums it up.When Eph Lott? suggests that instead of all the Armies the Politicains and others who caused the War should fight each other in a field!Unfortunatley this is fiction. The reality as has been said was terrible.I still say it was not a "futile" cause.Despite the conditions the Men continued to fight so they must have thought it was right. Can I anticipate the execution debate.Whether justified or not I do not think the Generals,etc would have sentenced hundreds of thousands to death in front of a firing squad.I also see the rejoinder "they didn't need to,they just let them die in the mud" George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lordbest Posted 8 October , 2004 Share Posted 8 October , 2004 I have just finished reading Wilson & Prior's book but I am still having trouble working out why Haig chose to attack at Ypres- was he just looking for a breakthrough or was there another reason? any opinions would be greatly appreciated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dycer Posted 8 October , 2004 Share Posted 8 October , 2004 Lordbest, Don't take this as a put-down as I can still remember my A Level studies but recommend you read more than one book from the reading list suggested as research material. To get an objective opinion it is probably better to read a few books, reach your own conclusions and test them against us.We are always ready to debate. Another thing to bear in mind that many of us cannot be objective when discussing the Battle as we had relatives with whom we still closely identify who fought(and died) in the Battle.My Uncle's Battalion went into the Line on the 18th June 1917 and was not withdrawn until 25th September.In that period it had 2 Officers and 26 other ranks killed and 2 Officers and 128 other ranks wounded.Compared to other Battalions these are relatively small losses but how can I support your point that the Battle was "futile" when balancing it against the conditions my Uncle served in and the colleagues he lost.Just for your own interest my Uncle was killed the following March having served in France since November 1914.To add to his immediate family's misery he has no known grave.He is by no stretch of the imagination unique. I urge you to do a bit more research and test your own conclusions with us. Best wishes George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andigger Posted 8 October , 2004 Share Posted 8 October , 2004 As I mentioned I just finished Steel and Hart’s Passchendaele The Sacrificial Ground and near the end I think they include a quote from Ludendorf that provides some insight, or at least perspective into the question of how the assault effected the Germans. Andy “On The 26th and 30th October and the 6th and 10th November the fighting was again of the severest description. The enemy charged like a wild bull against the iron wall which kept him from our submarine bases… He dented it in many places, and it seemed as if he would knock it down. But it held, although a faint tremor ran through its foundations. The impressions I received were continuously very terrible… We knew that the enemy suffered heavily. But we also knew that he was amazingly strong and, what was equally important had an extraordinarily stubborn will… The only thing we did not know; how long the battle would continue. The enemy must tire sometime.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadawwi Posted 8 October , 2004 Share Posted 8 October , 2004 When I quoted what Mr. Berton had to say about war, I did not mean that was my personal opinion. I was simply putting his viewpoint out there as a point of discussion so that the student asking the original post could see the range of opinions on this subject. I look at these issues from every angle and I do not have a fixed one-sided view on anything of this depth and nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bonza Posted 8 October , 2004 Share Posted 8 October , 2004 Disagree entirely, but amicably, Drake. Given the many hundreds of thousands of participants in that few months in Flanders, and not knowing what each individual had been through, we cannot assume total agreement in attitude. Just look at the variatios amongst an infinitely smaller "population" on this forum, and bear in mind that most of us had some connection to those participants. ooRoo Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bonza Posted 9 October , 2004 Share Posted 9 October , 2004 G'day Rupert. {Sorry, had not noticed your signature} I would like to think that my personal opinion was influenced more by gradual awareness of 'community' attitudes towards WW1, than by indoctrination or so called education. IMHO the modern approach to 'learning history' is overwhelmingly an exercise in agreeing or disagreeing with the latest work of some academic. [Perhaps on that we agree]. I DO NOT subscribe to the notion that the ANZACS did well then, so WE were better than anyone else then, and will continue to be forever. In fact you may notice that I try to debunk similar offereings from any others. My family can claim connection to only 2 participants in 3rd Ypres, one died of wounds and has a known grave, the other survived. The survivor {incidently My Uncle Rupe} greatly influenced my outlike on life. He had been gassed, wounded etc, his youngest brother had been killed at Ypres & is 'on' the Menin Gate, but he was always jovial. There is, however, one quote made by our Historian, Dr Bean, that strikes a chord with me, personally. You can say what you like about them, but ya can't deny WHAT they did. I spend a lot of time trying to find out what they did. That's a big enough task without trying to understand why. And understanding what every WW1 soldier did & why is jist too much to contemplate. I'm too old to change my vote. It's still YES! All the Best Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bonza Posted 9 October , 2004 Share Posted 9 October , 2004 Best regards cousin. Roop Nephew! See!just can't help myself ER! I stuck in an extra para while you were responding ooRoo Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Dave Posted 9 October , 2004 Share Posted 9 October , 2004 [NZ Div was quite badly mauled during the battle. It had introduced the 4th Brigade to it's order of battle, but withdrew and disbandoned it when it could not replenish the casualties]. Dave: How many NZ troops were on WF during 1917-1918? I am not sure of the exact numbers but Glyn Harpers Book, Massacre at Passchendale states there were 24000 NZ tps involved in the battle. Of that 952 were KIA, 3052 WIA and 1300 unaccounted for. Quite a large slice from a small Div and one that caused it to lose it's self confidence for the remainder of the war. The other interesting aside is that the casualty rate is comparible to Gallipoli, but Passchendale has never really been recognised by NZ as anything comparible in it's national experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie Posted 9 October , 2004 Share Posted 9 October , 2004 Thanks Dave. Will try to get hold of this book. Re casualities and Gallipoli, the same can be said for the Australian experience as well. Have you seen "Gallipoli" the film? Fantastic, moving film. Perhaps we'll see Passchendale the movie one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie Posted 9 October , 2004 Share Posted 9 October , 2004 Captain Dave, Unfortunately Gln Harper's book Massacre at Passchendaele: The New Zealand Story is not available in the UK. I shall keep looking for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Dave Posted 10 October , 2004 Share Posted 10 October , 2004 Captain Dave, Unfortunately Gln Harper's book Massacre at Passchendaele: The New Zealand Story is not available in the UK. I shall keep looking for it. If it helps; Glyn Harper. Massacre at Passhendale. Published in 2000 by Harper Collins Publishers (NZ) Ltd. Harper Collins Publishers (NZ) Ltd. PO Box 1, Auckland New Zealand Not a bad book and it certainly sheds some light on the NZ Div exp in that particular battle. The only mild criticisim is that the author always prints the casualty list at the back of the book. In this case the list makes up 40% of the book. He has released a book on the NZ Div during the Sring Offensive of 1918, and he has done it again! Quite a good writer, but I don't think he needs to pad out his books with casualty lists trawled off the Commonwealth War Graves site. Good luck finding it. I dunno if the movie 'Gallipoli ' could ever be beat in terms of an antipodian war experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie Posted 10 October , 2004 Share Posted 10 October , 2004 [Not a bad book and it certainly sheds some light on the NZ Good luck finding it. I dunno if the movie 'Gallipoli ' could ever be beat in terms of an antipodian war experience. Thanks for your help, Dave. Gallipoli - the best. Robbie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 10 October , 2004 Share Posted 10 October , 2004 Unfortunately Gln Harper's book Massacre at Passchendaele: The New Zealand Story is not available in the UK. I shall keep looking for it. The paperback edition of the history of the New Zealand Division is available from Naval and Military Press. Around GBP19.00 IIRC. It gives a detailed account of the involvement of the New Zealanders in the attempts to cross the gully and ascend Passchendaele ridge. I have visited the area at the same time of year. Utterly miserable weather. Dear knows what it was like with the ground as chewed up as it was. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie Posted 10 October , 2004 Share Posted 10 October , 2004 Unfortunately Gln Harper's book Massacre at Passchendaele: The New Zealand Story is not available in the UK. I shall keep looking for it. The paperback edition of the history of the New Zealand Division is available from Naval and Military Press. Around GBP19.00 IIRC. It gives a detailed account of the involvement of the New Zealanders in the attempts to cross the gully and ascend Passchendaele ridge. I have visited the area at the same time of year. Utterly miserable weather. Dear knows what it was like with the ground as chewed up as it was. Robert Fantastic, thanks heaps Robert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 10 October , 2004 Share Posted 10 October , 2004 No worries mate. I also have paperback copies of the history of the New Zealand Machine Guns Corps and the New Zealand Engineers, also from Naval and Military Press. Both books feature additional information about the NZers involvement in Third Ypres. The former unit is of interest to me because my Grandfather served in the NZ Machine Guns Corps and he fought at Passchendaele. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now