Talk:Battle of Vimy Ridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Vimy Ridge article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... British military history task force Canadian military history task force German military history task force World War I task force

The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

Xtopher, in what way does this article need attention? Adam Bishop 07:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 missing images 2 John Monash 3 map 4 Decisive Anglo-Canadian Victory or British-Canadian Victory? 5 Canadian focus 6 Return to Vimy 7 Indirrect Fire 8 References

[edit] missing images

please note.

[edit] John Monash

Australians are as proud of John Monash at the Battle of Hamel in 1918, as Canadians seem to be at the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

Tabletop 08:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] map

i found this map, is it useable under fair-use?

• http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/vimy/map_e.html

there's a high-res map too... Mike McGregor (Can) 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think so its a goverment picture. DimitriTheCanuck 22:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decisive Anglo-Canadian Victory or British-Canadian Victory?

Would someone please justify their feelings on this? This seems to be controversial. --Zegoma beach 21:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It was part of the overall Battle of Arras, which was a British operation, and at least one British brigade went up Vimy Ridge itself on 9 Apr, which is not reflected on the map I uploaded to the page. Canadian nationalism aside, there were significant British assets employed in addition to the infantry brigade, including British artillery, service units, and the Royal Flying Corps who provided aerial recce.Michael Dorosh 22:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That's true but this battle is significant for Canadian history, so it's not "vandalism" when someone removes the "Anglo-" part from "Anglo-Canadian victory". We just never hear about anyone else's contribution to the battle; in fact we only learn that the British and French failed miserably before the Canadian attempt. It's just well-intentioned editing, not vandalism. I'm not sure what the British equivalent would be...Agincourt? Trafalgar? Waterloo? You probably never think of the Prussian contribution to Waterloo, right? Adam Bishop 20:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Importance to Canadian history does not mean that everyone else involved simply disappears, though. I'm not sure what your point is.Michael Dorosh 00:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing really, just that it's probably not vandalism, as you called it. Adam Bishop 00:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

1. An article on the larger Battle of Arras exists already. Feel free to label it "British victory" or whatever you will.
2. I'm not convinced that the British contribution was such as would require a modification of "Canadian victory." We ought to weigh substance against symbolism, true, but committing token forces to a major operation does not make one an equal participant (dozens of articles out there are described as "British victory" that included Canadian troops—perhaps you would like to systematically track these down and change them to "Anglo-Canadian victory"?) From my experience working with battles of different periods I'd say 1/3 is a good benchmark: When a given nation constitutes a third of an army, it is entitled to full representation. Not so in this case.
3. As for air assets, perhaps I should remind you that 24,000 Canadians served in the Royal Flying Corps (a third of RAF airmen were Canadian by 1918), so speaking of a "British" instrument, even there, is misleading. And arguing on the basis of service units, I have to add, is fairly weak. Somehow, I doubt the commissariat was involved in charging German trenches at the bayonet. Albrecht 02:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The confusion with the terms 'Canadian' and 'British' or 'Anglo' stems largely from the popular revisionist application or understanding of them in current parlance; mostly to serve the interests of a largely anti-British nationalism that regards Vimy as a 'founding mythology'. In the context of the period, of World War I, all Canadians were British. Canadian citizenship itself did not exist until 1947 and, even then, still included being 'British'. The Canadian Corps was a corps of the British Army. Canada, although a self-governing Dominion of the British Empire, remained subject to the British government. 'Anglo' is inappropriate in this context because it reduces the 'British' Army to a particular ethnicity, i.e., English, when, of course, 'Britishness' at the time applied to one's status within the Empire rather than to one's ethnic group. The 'Canadians' themselves were comprised mainly (approx. two-thirds) of soldiers native to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, whose British status and identity as members of the 'Canadian Corps'was not altered. One must distinguish between the identity of the 'Corps'at that time within the British Army and that of the identity of a whole nation in the same way that one identifies the 'Scottish' regiments as distinct from Scotland itself. There is a suggestion in the narrative that with the victory, being 'Canadian' implied no longer being 'British; as if the battle itself was won for 'independence'from Britain. There is absolutely no evidence for this even though it has been repeated so often that Canada is frequently referred to today as having been allied with Britain as they later were in World War II. It is worth noting in counterpoint that the recruitment posters and appeals in Canada for World War II continued to appeal largely to the British identity and sentiment of the Canadian population; even in Quebec, where French-Canadian nationalism and resentment toward the British in England and Canada and the notion of 'conscription' was as evident as it was in World War I. While there is no doubt that the performance of the Canadian Corps enhanced the developing 'Canadian' identity and supported the Canadian government's desire for a more distinct place 'at the table' alongside the Mother Country, the Imperial sentiment within Canada itself was sustained through the Statute of Westminster until well after the post-world war two period when successive political developments directed towards appropriating Franco-Canadian sentiment within the national identity has resulted in a re-branding of the country, its symbols and its history; including Vimy Ridge.pidd 15:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Done pidd! Very good overview that it very true. As a Canadian I agree wholeheartedly with your point here, and only wish that I had taken the time to make this same arguement. TrulyTory 05:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with Albrecht on this subject. Although the Canadian "Identity" according to some didn't exist in WW2 and was a way to make the french happy after WW2 that is NOT correct. The Canadian identity was building since Confederation. As the first Canadian Prime Minister John A. Macdonald said at a time where most Canadians were devided "Let us be French, let us be English, but most importantly let us be Canadian!". Canada may have not have self goverment till the Statue of WestMinister, it may have not had its own Constitution till 1982 but the Canadian idenity started many years before World War 1, and The Battle of Vimy Ridge was one of the first things Canadians associate with the Canadian idenity that was building for many years to call their own because of the quick Canadian Victory that the French and British were not able to do. DimitriTheCanuck 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the 'Canadian'identity since Confederation, through the South African War, the First World War, the Statute of Westminster, 1931, the Second World War and until the sixties remained also a 'British' identity not an 'English' or 'French' one. The Canadian identity was transformed at Confederation from being 'French', i.e., Canadiens, to all subjects in the Dominion. Because the Canadian identity before 1968 wasn't the current sense of it (and by all accounts there remains a weaker unity in the sense of identity than those of previous generations) does not imply that they were somehow 'less' Canadian before 1982. It is just that the understanding had chanaged. Do not confuse the identity of the 'Canadian Corps' with that of Canadian citizenship. While the former was forged at Vimy Ridge, the latter was not an issue at the time; although certain anti-British and Republican sentiments did exist and have some influence.pidd 21:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian focus

Because this battle is so important to Canadians, many descriptions are from the Canadian point of view. But objectively, shouldn't there be more information on the defensive side, on the allied forces, and a less triumphalist tone? Being Canadian I probably have trouble identifying the problem areas, but I'm sure that someone from another nationality would spot the problem areas quickly.

The battle was strategically unimportant, and the greater campaign it was attached to did not have a grand effect on the outcome of the war. As far as the History of the War is concerned, it is of minor importance, but as far as the History of Canada is concerned, it is one of the defining moments. If I have any concerns, it is the fact that the British division attached the the battle disappeared in the description of the events of the battle. I also think there's too much concern about the lack of British representation in the "it's not only a Canadian victory" section. Those points might be worthy of mentioning, but on a scale of what was employed rather than pointing out that the British made a contribution. --Forgottenlord 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It was not a division, but a brigade of British infantry, that was attached to the Canadian Corps for the initial assault. But the point is taken.Michael Dorosh 01:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It says that the British assistance was sizable, but can you compare it to the Canadians commitment? In 4 days, the battle was over. Shouldn't that count for a good point? pirkid 04:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Return to Vimy

It should be also mentioned that a program to celebrate the 90th anniversary of Vimy Ridge is being planned, and it is huge. It is planned to include the Canadian and United Kingdom Prime Minister, the French President, and the reigning Monarch. See http://www.returntovimyridge.ca/index.htm for details.

[edit] Indirrect Fire

"The Canadians also used a new technique they called "Indirect Fire", which utilized machine guns to hold German troops down in their trenches and also provide cover for their own troops..."

Indirrect Fire was not a new technique, just new as far as its application with machine guns.

Motorfix 12:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Does this article have enough references? The two footnotes appear at first glance to only serve as sources for two minor facts. In fact the first source actually contains much/all of the information up to that point in the article. Is there a way to make that more clear? From the placement of the second footnote, it would appear to only apply to the first bullet of the British forces section. Are there sources for the rest of the article? According to WP:CITE: All items used to verify information in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are generally not included in "Further reading" or "External links". So the books listed there are apparently not sources for the article. Sewebster 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)