Btn Lost

[nshighlander]

Is there a case were a Btn was wiped out and not sent back to the front.This Btn was lost from the order of battle,not to return.Maybe adsorb in another Btn?

Cheers

Dave

[Terry]

Hi Dave,

Going by your nshighlander handle I'm sure you know about the two cases in the CEF where a battalion was basically dissolved and replaced by a new unit. 60th Bn replaced by 116th Bn in 3rd Div.; and 73rd replaced by 85th in 4th Div. both in late April,1917 after Vimy Ridge. I have never been sure why exactly this happened - heavy losses, poor performance, etc.

[mordac]

60th Bn replaced by 116th Bn in 3rd Div.; and 73rd replaced by 85th in 4th Div. both in late April,1917 after Vimy Ridge. I have never been sure why exactly this happened - heavy losses, poor performance, etc.

It appears the 60th Battalion was dissolved for political reasons. Following is a quote from the 116th's official history: "The 116th Battalion In France" (1921) pages 15 &16:

"It might be well at this point to state that we were under orders to join the 3rd Canadian Division, and it was generally understood that we were to take the place of the 60th Battalion, which, although the junior Battalion of the 9th Brigade, was held in very high esteem as a fighting unit. The reason given for this most unusual proceeding was that the 60th Battalion, being originally recruited in Quebec, could not get sufficient reinforcements from its own Province, and in consequence was receiving both officers and men from the Province of Ontario. This method of recruiting was evidently frowned upon by superior authority, and the 116th Battalion had been chosen out of many others in England as an alternative to the 60th Battalion, and as a means of overcoming the Provincial question of reinforcements.

Now, as already stated, the 60th had a wonderful record, and individually they were as fine a lot of men as one could meet anywhere; therefore, it is only natural that the news that they were soon to be broken up should cause consternation in the ranks, not only of the 9th Brigade, but the whole of the 3rd Division; and this did not increase the popularity of the 116th."

Garth

[Terry]

Hi Garth,

Why am I not shocked that politics played a part in the removal of this fine battalion from the division?

Cheers from New Brunswick,

Terry

[mordac]

Hi Terry:

Does the 85th. Battalion's history mention any reasons for their replacing the 73rd? I've been thumbing through Nicholson and haven't found any information yet.

Sure wish I'd placed a higher bid on that 85th Bn. history.

Garth

[paul guthrie]

Fellows I am not sure what the political angle was, was it French Canada v English Canada? Were there French battalions other than 22d? Probably away from computer til Monday, WFA national meeting in the middle of a hurricane, but will try and remember to look.

[jhill]

Nicholson covers this issue reasonably well, in my opinion. The basic policy, as with the British army, was that battalions have a geographic identity. This facilitated recruitment and gave each part of the country a sense of direct involvement with the war.

The political interference came mostly right at the start, where it seems well connected militia personalities got their units transformed to front line battalions without reference to their area's ability to keep those battalions reinforced. This first became a problem with the Quebec units (that is, the English Quebec units!). The 60th was the second battalion of the Victoria Rifles of Montreal (the 24th was the first), and the 73rd was the third battalion of the Royal Highlanders of Montreal (the 13th and 42nd were the others). The decision was made to replace these with the 116th and the 85th as there were more reinforcements available in Ontario and Nova Scotia.

The anguish and complaints these moves caused meant that the next adjustments were handled differently. British Columbia was also well connected politically and had more battalions than the population could support. The 54th (Kootenay), 102nd (North B.C.), 47th (New Westminster) (I think!), and the 2nd CMR (Canadian Mounted Rifles) were merely redesignated as Ontario battalions. The 44th (Manitoba) was redesignated as a New Brunswick battalion for the same reasons.

I may have missed something, but I believe this was the general scheme. Perhaps some expert will point out how the British army reacted to this issue.

Sorry to be so wordy!

[jhill]

Paul,

The French - English thing is one of the great tragedies of the Canadian war effort. The 22nd was the only french language unit and even they were not provided with much support in the way of training facilities, manuals, rest camps, etc. French Canadian recruitment was bungled from the start, and by the time the government recognized the problem, all front line units had been formed and all senior appointments had been made. There was not enough time to correct the early mistakes.

Of course this is my opinion. This is still an issue which provokes strong opinions. (Perhaps like the issue of recruitment in Ireland!)

[mordac]

Fellows I am not sure what the political angle was, was it French Canada v English Canada?

Hi Paul:

No, I don't think this was an English/French political decision. As James has pointed out, there were many militia regiments that had strong political ties with the federal government and the Minister of Militia. The 116th was one one these battalions with deep militia roots (formed in 1866) and had the ear of Sir Sam Hughes.

James - Nice summary of events. I couldn't agree with you more. Initially Quebec fully supported the war effort and provided the CEF with excellent battalions and men. However, the federal government dropped the ball and instead of providing Quebec with the encouragement they needed, they seem to have taken the stance that we really didn't need Quebec's support in the war. Also, condescending statements made by Sir Sam Hughes regarding Quebec's role didn't help matters. In 2003 Canadian's are still living with the fallout from that blunder.

Garth

[Terry]

Paul and Garth,

Didn't the 14th Battalion have a large number of French Canadians? I know the 26th here in New Brunswick had quite a few Acadians, although many other Acadians ended up with the 22nd.

I recall someone several years ago mentioning that although the 44th had been redisignated a New Brunswick battalion he had never actually heard of New Brunswickers serving in the unit. Obviously he had not researched it well enough, as many New Brunswickers were members of the 44th. A local graveyard has a couple of tombstones to NB'ers who were 44th Bn.

[David_Bluestein]

The 1st Battalion Hampshire Regiment was almost wiped out of existence after their attack on the Somme, July 1, 1916. The regimental war diary basically has no entry for this day except to say, (I para-phrase): " There was nobody left at the end of the day to reliably record what had happened".

A more knowledgeable Pal may know what reorganization this Battalion went through after July 1, 1916.

[David_Bluestein]

Paul and Garth,

Didn't the 14th Battalion have a large number of French Canadians? I know the 26th here in New Brunswick had quite a few Acadians, although many other Acadians ended up with the 22nd.

I recall someone several years ago mentioning that although the 44th had been redisignated a New Brunswick battalion he had never actually heard of New Brunswickers serving in the unit. Obviously he had not researched it well enough, as many New Brunswickers were members of the 44th. A local graveyard has a couple of tombstones to NB'ers who were 44th Bn.

Was this not also the case for the 102nd British Columbia Bn., later renamed Central Ontario Regt.?

[Mark Hone]

I have met quite a few people who are under the impression that battalions were disbanded after heavy losses, eg the first day of the Somme. I think that this is as a result of fictional accounts such as 'Covenant With Death' by John Harris, where the imaginary Pals battalion featured is destroyed on 1st July 1916 and not reformed.

[michaeldr]

Dave,

On Gallipoli there were a few examples of battalions whose losses were such that they could not continue in their original format

Due to heavy losses the 1st Royal Dublin Fusiliers and the 1st Royal Munster Fusiliers formed a composite battalion known as 'The Dubsters' between 28 April and 19 May 1915. Likewise the Royal Scots (Lothian Reg) were obliged to form composite battalions on two occasions in July and in November 1915

As for 'lost from the order of battle not to return' the Royal Naval Division provides a couple of examples. Douglas Jerrold recounting the early days of June 1915 and the fighting before Krithia, Gallipoli, states in his history "The Royal Naval Division"

"The price paid by the Naval Division for this very negative success was, unfortunately, out of all reckoning. More than sixty officers and 1300 men became casualties, and, of these, nearly half were killed. The losses in senior officers and in Company Commanders impaired the fighting efficiency of the Division for some time to come. In the 2nd Brigade one Battalion Commander (Lt-Col Collins), one Second-in-Command (Maj Myburg, of the Hood) and one Company Commander (Lieut. the Hon K. Dundas) remained. The loss of the few regular officers of experience was particularly grievous. A drastic reorganization was necessary, if those battalions who had already won for themselves a first-class reputation (the Hood, Howe and Anson Battalions) were to retain a separate existence, and it was in these tragic circumstances that Gen Paris found it necessary to disband, not only the Benbow, but the ill-fated Collingwood Battalion, whose cruel losses were due in no way to lack of gallantry or skill."

Regards

Michael D.R.

[armourersergeant]

In 1914 the second battalion of the 88th Connaught Rangers was disbanded/merged with the 1st battalion in dec . this must surley have been as they were decimated during the first battle of Ypres. It was never curiously reformed during the war.

Arm.

[nshighlander]

I do believe the 85th replace the 73rd do to high casualties.This was in the book Nova Scotias part in the Great War.

Cheers

Dave

[Broznitsky]

The French - English thing is one of the great tragedies of the Canadian war effort. The 22nd was the only french language unit.

Actually, the 41st Battalion was the second French-speaking unit formed, early in 1915, disbanded in England in April 1916. Recruiting for the 22nd Van Doos had siphoned off the "cream" of Canadien Francais, and even the 22nd had to "poach" men from other battalions to meet its sailing strength.

41st Btn should have wound up in 3rd Division overseas, but: incompetent officers from the top down, inadequate training/poor performance, embezzlement/fraud in pay and quartermaster units, widespread drunkeness (in all ranks), and two murders (!) led to the dissolving of the unit. The Canadien Francais wound up mostly with the 22nd, except for "B" Company (The Russians).

These men (including my grandfather) had been recruited in Quebec to fill the ranks of the 41st, due to lack of suitable Canadien Francais. I am researching these men now (thanks to the NAC!), tracking their progress through the Canadian Corps.

French-speaking recruitment, enlistment, conscription, military service, and SAD are all wide-open research/discussion topics that could occupy years. English-speaking Quebec battalions are a whole other path.

I would argue that English Quebec gave its support to the war effort, but French Quebec did not. As Mordac says, we still suffer from the fallout today . . .

[Neil Burns]

Hi Peter,

Quick question. Polish troops in the CEF are they normally listed as 'Russian' due to the partitions or Polish.

Thanks,

Neil

[jhill]

Quick question. Polish troops in the CEF are they normally listed as 'Russian' due to the partitions or Polish.

This is another excellent question which should instigate much learned research. I have been browsing through hundreds of Attestation Papers for men from my area (Edmonton), and, of course, there are many who were born in central Europe.

The trouble was, states such as Poland, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, etc, did not exist. Pretty much everyone was either a subject of the Austrian emperor or the Russian Czar. I have found some 1915 recruits, for example Martin Joseph Kedzierewitch (Regimental Number 100185), who seems to have given correct information about his birthplace in Galicia, and even being so incautious as to admit to service in the Austrian army! Somehow the army let him through and he served in France. He was lucky not to have been sent to an internment camp! He seems to have been discharged, and when he tried to re-enlist in 1919 he was careful to call himself Polish rather than Galician.

By the beginning of 1916 there are some curious changes. The 218th (Edmonton Irish Guards) Battalion started right off with a large batch of recruits with obviously Ukrainian names. Their papers have curiously similar responses to some questions. Many state their birthplaces as merely "Kiev, Russia" or somesuch, and their religion as "Russian". One is tempted to suspect they had been coached as to what to say, perhaps by the recruiting serjeant!

At any rate, from what I have seen so far, by 1916, everybody knew that one had to be a "Russian" to get into the army, and so it was! Before the war no Canadian Pole or Ukrainian would have called himself Russian, or Austrian either, for that matter.

At least, this is how I see the situation right now.

[mordac]

I would argue that English Quebec gave its support to the war effort, but French Quebec did not.

Hi Peter:

I think there's been myth created in English Canada about French Canadians 'poor' support during the Great War. I'd like to point out a couple of facts:

1. More people in Ontario voted against conscription than in Québec during the 1917 election.

2. On enlistment, the vast majority of men who joined the CEF were single; this was a conscience policy started by Sir Sam Hughes. The English speaking population had the highest proportion of single men of military age. The French speaking population had the highest proportion of married men of military age.

3. Yes, by 1916 it was harder to fill the ranks of the Québec battalions with replacement troops. However, by 1917 this could also be said of most other provinces across the country.

James - Another nice summary. If you get a chance find a copy of "In Fear Of The Barbed Wire Fence: Canada's First National Internment Operation and the Ukrainian Canadian's, 1914-1920" by Lubomyr Luciuk (ISBN: 1-896354-22-X) published 2001, 171 pages.

Garth

[Max]

Hello Everone

The 3/Monmouths took a real pasting at Frezenberg, 8th May, 1915, suffering casualties of 260 killed and 450 wounded. A and D companies were reduced to one officer and 30 men with B and C with 3 officers and 80 men.The 1st, 2nd (who had both suffered badly) and 3rd Mons formed a composite battalion on 14th May. These three battalions regaining there identities on 11th August 1915. All three Battalions had lost their Lt Cols wounded and were led by a Major.

Andy

[Ron]

THe Post Office Rifles was absorbed by the Poplar and Stepneys in early 1918 as part of a general re-organisation of the 47th Division.

Ron

[ianw]

I think the practice of leaving a cadre of officers and men out of any attack was designed specifically to allow for the rebuilding of any battalion, no matter what the losses in any particular attack were. Indeed, the almost constant battalion make up of brigades and divisions again gives a continuity designed to shrug off losses.

I am interested in the Quebec question. Can our Canadian members confirm that there was initially a good enlistment response from French Canadians but that it then fell off dramatically for whatever reason - or was the initial response luke warm as well ? Appreciate this is still a tricky subject but surely the statistics must be available.

[jhill]

I am interested in the Quebec question. Can our Canadian members confirm that there was initially a good enlistment response from French Canadians but that it then fell off dramatically for whatever reason - or was the initial response luke warm as well ? Appreciate this is still a tricky subject but surely the statistics must be available.

I might be willing (with some trepedation) to wander into a discussion on this, provided everyone agrees to be on his best behaviour. Perhaps some bold soul will take the initiative to start a new thread.

As an opening gambit I might throw out these points:

1. The "official" number of French Canadians in the first contingent is 1245. On the other hand modern observers question where this number came from. The Attestation Papers contain no question concerning "ethnic origin" or language preference. Presumably, the government just had someone go through and count the French sounding names.

2. For this same reason there are almost certainly no reliable statistics for the rest of the war. As the debate raged, all sorts of numbers appeared in the press; unfortunately all were designed to further one or other strongly held point of view.

3. The reasons for the fall off in French Canadian support for the war, especially in Quebec, are complex and not all restricted to actions of the military. In addition to egregious military snafus, there was the national political situation, some convoluted provincial politics in Ontario, and a certain imaturity in the national social consciousness.

All of these points, plus others, may provide the basis for discussion.

[Malcolm]

Not entering into any discussions but:

Another one to throw in.

Having passed on the address for the French Ancient Combatants office to (French) Canadians whose antecedants were killed in WW1 in France with the French Army, how many Quebec French went over to France and served in the French Army??

Aye

Malcolm