Read Tony Burman's Essay on Vimy!

Note how he spins his piece into an anti-Afghan swipe at our Exercise of National Commitments to NATO while taking the opportunity to glorify the deluded socialist volunteers of the Spanish Civil War!
Of course Tony denigrate our national commitment and armed forces and offer praise of delusional lefty tools! Burman is a tool.

I have been thinking about Vimy, how they are still turning up ordnance from that battle to this day. I don't think that it is even possible for the human mind to envision what the carnage was like on that day. It must have literally been hell on earth.

Very touching ceremony today in Vimy at the Rededication, especially in light of the loss of 6 more canadians. We will remember all of them and why we continue to fight for freedom.

Good point Kevin although hell may have been jealous that day.

I wonder if the cbc realized the compliment they gave to the current government, and PMSH, when they commented that- This ceremony was/is the best rememberance ceremony, logistically, planned, attended, ect, in the history of such events. It was very moving, the music was great, the fiddler was exceptional, and it made one proud to be a canadian. Congratulations to all who took part in any way. Didn't miss dion or layton and they will be remembered for not going.

Today I made the mistake of watching the CTV coverage of the rededication of our monument at Vimy Ridge. In this I was treated to the remarks of one Ms. Jane Urquhart 'celebrated' Canadian novelist.

Ms. Urquhart apparently felt it was appropriate to 'honour' the men who fought and died there by telling CTV listeners that the 19 thousand names inscribed on the memorial symbolize the great multicultural heritage of Canada. According to this 'much celebrated' author, multiculturalism is not something recent, and has always been central to the development of Canada. Evidence of this she said, can be seen in the names inscribed on this monument.

As someone who has been to the Vimy memorial and taken the time to read many of those names, I was stunned to learn that the overwhelming majority of anglo-saxon names I saw, have mysteriously been replaced are now multicultural in origin. A lot of Mohammeds and Singhs are there now I'm sure.

Funny, I thought I remembered multiculturalism being invented by the federal Liberals in the early 70's. I can only assume that my memory has failed me in that as well, given that Ms. Urquhart says it has always been thus. Presumably this goes right back to the Plains of Abraham. Who knew?

Not exactly on topic...but either was the last comment. So here:

Did anyone notice that Bourque posted the picture of the sixth Canadian killed in Afghanistan earlier today? When the family requested that his identity NOT be revealed? It's just something I heard. All pictures have been removed now..

I was over at the G&M Forums on the Vimy articles, They actually made me think that Gerard K is quite busy today, Not comments re the articles but the Looney Rants towards the Queen, PM Harper & the disgusting disrespectfull rants about Our Forces recent losses.
The looney left just can't give it a day of rest, They must tarnish in any way Solemn ReDedication Ceremonies.

According to this 'much celebrated' author, multiculturalism is not something recent, and has always been central to the development of Canada. Evidence of this she said, can be seen in the names inscribed on this monument.

As someone who has been to the Vimy memorial and taken the time to read many of those names, I was stunned to learn that the overwhelming majority of anglo-saxon names I saw, have mysteriously been replaced are now multicultural in origin. A lot of Mohammeds and Singhs are there now I'm sure.

You don't have to go to Vimy to realize that the fighting men were overwhelmingly Anglo, and not a multi-culti hodge-podge as per Urquhart.

Proof is all over the place. Cenotaphs of course. My 2 last places of work have had memorials to employees who made the ultimate sacrifice. The Bay at Queen and Yonge has a memorial at street level in the south-west corner. Soldier’s Tower at the University of Toronto has over 1,000 names. Etc.

Canada was a different country back then – there was pride in being “more English than the English.” The names of the fighting men were practically all of English origin. To state otherwise is a lie.

*
If you have a relative who enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force to fight in WWI,
you can search online for their "Attestation Papers" here.

*

I see that Iggy saw fit to attend the ceremony, but Dion and Layton could not be bothered...

To :Moe Real: I too saw the post on Bourque but I also noticed that although there were six photographs showing, the last two to the right were of the same soldier. I e-mail Bourque to point it out to him. He replied that it had something to do with his download of the pics. Quite possibly the sixth soldier (the one not shown) was the one whose identity is being kept private.

I suspect that Canadians prefer our war heroes far away and long a go.

Blogging and more to the point the Globe & Mail comments section has permitted the worst kind of human to come out from under rocks and slither into the limelight as though they were equal. I wish to start a movement to halt the G&M comments section. No one should be looking at a newspaper for gathering in evil comments anyway , but for the news of the day.
As for blogs, it is time they were regulated as to abusive and moronic comment and stripped of their ability to have haters and deniers on.

THey did it to Zundel after all.

As to Ms. Urquhart on CTV today, all we can do is sigh and wonder why the CTV globemedia conglomerate put her on there. We really had other things to concern ourselves with and this type of comment is precisely why we are losing our heritage and history. It is being re-written by socil engineering nut bars and their willing idiots like the Ms. Urquharts of the world.

"A soldier who lost his legs in an Afghanistan suicide attack last year says the death of six comrades -- the Canadian Forces' worst loss in a day in the war-torn country -- is a stark reminder Canada is at war.

And that hits home all the more because the roadside bombing happened so near the 90th anniversary of Canada's shocking victory at Vimy Ridge.

'It's very poignant (so near) the 90th anniversary of Vimy Ridge to have our people hurt and injured in such a way,' said Master Cpl. Paul Franklin.

'It just proves that we are at war and it proves that Canadians will always step up to the plate when we need to.'"

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/04/09/3961949-sun.html

I know I'm biased by my high regard for the Canadian Forces, but this guy is a hero to me.

I sense the convoy attacked was supporting reconstruction operations (can anyone confirm?), and I believe we are on an honourable mission.

To Canadians I implore - don't fall for the moonbat Bush Oil War nonsense.

To them everything is some Dubya capitalist conspiracy; anyway, they wouldn't support any military action for any reason - not even a genocide (witness Darfur et al).

Maybe Canada can step up to the plate again, further honouring the memory of Vimy. Like Vimy, our troops our doing a job the rest of the world can't and won't - trying to restore order to that permanent war zone known as Afghanistan.

Our troops aren't just running around in tanks shooting bad guys. They are, and we are good at that. We are also good at what winning what many call hearts and minds.

We are also good at reconstruction, and have a great track record in nation building - certainly better than the moribund overall record of the UN.

The people of Afghanistan want us to help them. These people braved death threats and voted in an election with a turnout higher than Canadian.

Here are areas where Canada can help out greatly:

- get Americans to move resources from Iraq to Afghanistan, so we can deal with border areas, where insurgents are holed up in Pakistan, and planning ops.

- use multilateralism to deal with the inevitable fallout from such actions, with such organizations as UN, NGOs, NATO, and EU.

- step up reconstruction and aid efforts, with required military forces to allow this

- get a handle on the poppy crop; find a solution that allows Afghan people some dignity and safety. (Yes more troops and military resources required)

With resources in place, endgame can be considered; without, then no end in sight.

The Canadian government might as well get on with this assessment anyway. If we don't get help by the time our mandate expires, we will have to question our participation, should we left alone.

Five of those killed in Afstan yesterday were from the Royal Canadian Regiment, of which Prince Philip is Colonel-in-Chief;
http://thercr.ca/general/charter.htm

so, fittingly, the Prince was wearing the uniform of an RCR colonel at the Vimy Ridge ceremony.

Prime Minister Harper, in his speech, did not mention the deaths. The Queen and the French prime minister (good on them) did. Who was playing politics?

The CBC coverage was first-rate. I'm glad I did not look at CTV, which I think in many ways is now worse than the Mother Corpse.

Mark
Ottawa

Joey:

Why Urquhart? She researched and wrote a fantastic book about the Vimy monument before any of the rest of us remembered that we had all forgotten about it.

As for her comments, whatever. Why do even the positive stories that get posted here that are intended to bring people together require some to bring it back to issues race?

Harper paid a tribute to the six of Afghanistan yesterday, against a Vimy backdrop, and linked both wars together, acknowledging that both wars were about democracy, freedom and human rights.

I think he was right in not singling out the six today - remember, Canada has lost more than fifty in that same war - but, quite frankly, he's damned if he doesn't and damned if he does.

If he did mention them today as well as yesterday, he'd have the left screaming that he was 'a political warmonger abusing the memory of the Vimy veterans'. If he didn't - he'll hear from those who feel he ought to have.

As noted, the Queen did it for us. But Harper did it yesterday- linking the two wars together. I think Harper's decision was right.

By the way, the CBC coverage was filled with self-praise, noting that there is an increased pride and involvement in Canada in their military. The CBC took credit for this, claiming that it was their coverage of D-Day, Juno Beach, the Dutch gratitude and etc - that has increased Canadian support for the military.

Oh, and it is interesting that Dion hasn't said a word in public about the six fallen in Afghanistan. There was apparently some official statement put out by his staff - but, he himself hasn't said a word. Layton has been interviewed on TV (I didn't watch it; I didn't think I'd be able to stand what he'd say); and Ignatieff has also said something publicly. Dion? The Invisible and Silent?

ET:

I think it is fine to like or dislike a politician, but why lie about them? Dion released a statement about the soldiers immediately. That does count as "public". At his first public appearance at a Vimy memorial in Montreal today he again mentioned it.

Why do people insist on twisting a positive event into political partisanship?

It is sickening.

@Ted: It's been a quasi-partisan event for a long time in Canada, because the victorious general at Vimy Ridge was Lord Byng.

It wasn't just Ms. Urquhart on CTV spouting p.c. talking points, Craig Oliver gave his own Afghanistan-pullout spin to the proceedings. Luckily there is a perfect antidote here from the Ottawa Citizen. Read all of it, but the WW1 part starts about 1/3 of the way down:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=cb23bb38-9350-4388-bedd-1e515cab0d9b

Gee, Ted it is sickening just like Dion and Layton not going to Vimy and trying to make political points. If they really wanted to go they would go, that is if they were really leaders.

From the link:

The battle for Vimy Ridge was not a battle for a few yards of ground, in a war of territorial conquest. Rather, it was a battle between dark and light- those who would oppress and those who would defend the rebirth and resurrection of mankind's potential. The Old Europe of empires and colonialism came to an end at Vimy Ridge.

The world changed forever on that Easter Monday, because on that day, it became clear to all that the ideas of freedom, rebirth and fighting evil are ideas that are worth defending, even at enormous cost.

That is an unbelieveably simplistic view of the situation. The First World war was fought over which nation would become the new dominant power in Europe. This was not a war fought for ideals of freedom! One can no more say that the British were "good" in this war than one can say that the Germans were "evil." The sad fact is that the First World War was a useless waste of young men's lives for a bunch of fat crusty imperialist old men who no more cared for democracy and freedom than they cared for the lives of those they sent to the front.

Vimy Ridge is important to Canada. It stands as one of our greatest military accomplishments as a nation, and it is a fine example of why Canadian troops were viewed as the best in the Empire during the First World War. We should celebrate the accomplishments of these brave young men. But we should not forget that this war needn't have been fought had the arrogant and stupid leaders of the major warring parties simply refused to solve things via bloodshed. None of them knew the destructive power of their new weapons, and millions of young men paid the price for it. It should never have happened!

The war we are fighting in Afghanistan today is a war for human rights. The Second World War was a war against a the brutality of Nazism. But it cannot be said that the First World War was a war fought over ideas, because that is simply not so.

If anyone can guide me to a website where I can locate the Attestation Paper for my grandfather who served under the Royal Newfoundland Regiment fom 1917 to 1919 and was in France in 1917, I would appreciate it. I have tried several sources and I do have his regiment number.

Ted - I think you should check out the definition of 'lie'. I did not lie about Dion. The verb 'lie' means to make an untrue statement with the intention of deceiving. I had no intention of deceiving and I suggest you use your terms carefully.

At the time I wrote it, I didn't know that Dion has made a public statement (I don't count his office releasing a statement; that's completely irrelevant). Admittedly - he waited until today to make the personal statement. My argument about him therefore still stands. And, why didn't he go to Vimy?

Dante - nice post. I agree with you about your definition of the war in Aghanistan; it's about human rights and freedom - denied by the Islamic fascists. And WWII was also about the same - human rights and freedom - denied by the Axis fascists. As for WWI - a restructuring of Europe, with the fall of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire...

WW1 also brought about the end of the Ottoman Empire.

jane: I believe i found my grandfathers & uncles from ww1 under goverment of canada archives. i can't remember the exact site, been a while.

Vimy has certainly become an important symbol for Canadians and this is an important day. The original Vimy Ridge memorial was beautifully built but also poorly built and quickly started showing decay because of some stone selection and architectural mistakes. The decision to rebuild it instead of simply patch and fix after decades of neglect was brilliant and this moment is significant. The battle itself was significant for Canadians and deserves the honours rendered this week.

However, the historian in me was somewhat aghast at reading the article Kate links to. Very little historical truth to it.

The "world" was not "changed forever" because of Vimy Ridge.

Most of the world quickly forgot the strategically irrelevant victory (in that the hill that was overtaken, once overtaken, did not provide any strategic advantage). Indeed, most (or at least many) non-Canadian texts, even those that note the Canadian victory, do not refer to that fight as a separate battle but only as part of the fighting of the Battle of Arrars that was, in fact, lost.

It was the first sign of a weakness in the enemy being the first major loss in two years by the Germans and it was a military breakthrough that was roundly touted in the press at the time as a major victory, but not looked on as having much significance later if mentioned at all. Certainly, it was particularly thrilling for Canadians because they succeeded where the French and British in the same battle had failed as the Globe quoted General Arthur Currie, the senior Canadian officer in the war, this past weekend as saying: “I would not want to have the impression left that Vimy was our greatest battlefield,” in his opposition to Vimy as the site of the national memorial.

Nor is the post Kate links to accurate in claiming that WWI, and Canada's part in it, was fought over ideas. It is a gross distortion of reality to say WWI was a battle for freedom and against oppression and tyranny and, yes, evil. The author laughably goes so far as to claim that it was a battle of freedom vs. the tyranny of oppressive empires! It may have brought or started to bring about the dismantling of empires, but it was fought by empires to preserve their empires. Canada was only in that war because of the British empire. The British were only in the war because of signed treaties with France and a political rivalry with Germany. Just because the British had a more successful formula for making and preserving rule over its colonies, does not make them freedom fighters. And just because we won ultimately doesn't mean that French (who were on our side if you might recall) or Austro-Hungarian or German colonialists were any much worse or better than the other in terms of freedom and free ideas.

The author of that post is accurate about the result, I think, in that it did precipitate the falling of empires and "Old Europe". But to me, World War I, the Great War, the War to End All Wars - unlike WWII and Afghanistan - was a tragedy of failed political power systems of illogical alliances and jingoistic bloodlust and very strange bedfellows indeed. WWI revealed a darker side to the human condition and a very real weakness at the heart of civilization. Unlike in WWII, million and millions and millions of people - mostly young men - died for political power.

There was no genuine higher purpose of ideology in the war. To claim so and in such overextended hyperbole is to dishonour the soldiers who fought and died, and to miss the lesson they pass to us, for good or ill. To them it was simply enough that they were called by their country to serve. It was their duty to follow where the King would direct them.

So let's remember Vimy Ridge. Let's remember our heros, and their bravery in the face of steep odds, those that fell that day and those that survived to see our ultimate victory. Let's not forget our monuments or neglect our duties and responsibilities to the country or the world which require a robust military.

But let's not make the mistakes of the past and rouse up the darker side of human condition.

And let's not make Vimy Ridge even more of a false myth or else we risk creating such a canyon gap between the myth and reality that we again make a mockery out of an important symbol of our emergence as a nation.

Ted

ET: Disingenuous again.

It is a lie to brazenly disregard the truth just as much as it is to deliberately repeat untruths.

You made your post at 4:03 pm. Before trying to score a political point by claiming Dion had not made any public statement, how much checking did you do? And if you weren't trying to score a political point, why not accuse Harper as well? He didn't make any public statement yesterday about the deaths as far as I'm aware. No, you were clearly more interested in a partisan potshot than in truth and you deemed irrelevant a truth (he did make a public statement).

I know you are an atheist but for some people Easter Sunday is a religious holiday and a time to be with family, and not running down the street, trying to horde camera time and get your name in print to show how much you care. A simple written public statement followed by further comment on Monday seems to me decent... or at the least not deserving of your libel.

DDT (4:13PM):

Actually, I agree with you and have said so: http://canadiancerberus.blogspot.com/2007/04/vimy-ridge-politics-and-doing-right.html.

Ted

Byng wasn't a spit-and-polish type, I recall an anecdote about his easy-going manner seeing him returning salutes as well as he could without taking his hands from his pockets, which fit in well with the free-spirited colonials. And we were very lucky in Byng--especially after he was made an Army Commander--who fully supported Currie to get him what he needed in supplies and artillery support from the High Command, but let's not pretend that Currie didn't do anything:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Arthur_Currie#World_War_I

Currie took over command of the Canadian Corps on June 6, 1917, and led during the successful Hill 70/Lens and Canal du Nord operations. And this makes interesting reading too:

http://scotsatwar.co.uk/AZ/HaigFellows'Addresses03.html

I've read, but can't recall the source, that P.M. Lloyd George intended to make Currie C-in-C with the also-innovative Australian, Monash, as his Chief-of-Staff had the war continued into 1919.

I apologize, since the following is unrelated to the topic.

I came across a rather unorthodox but bold analysis in the obscure - to me, at least - Objective Standard regarding the Bush strategy in the Middle East. It deserves a wider dissemination.

The “Forward Strategy” for Failure
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-spring/forward-strategy-for-failure.asp

Excerpt:

"We have galvanized the undefeated enemy. The forward strategy has taught jihadists everywhere a profoundly heartening lesson: that America fights so that Muslims can assert their desire for Islamist leadership; that America does not destroy those who threaten the lives of its citizens; that America renounces its self-interest on principle, because we do not believe we have a right to defend ourselves. A “paper tiger” is how Osama Bin Laden characterized America prior to 9/11, and he thereby inspired many Muslims to join the jihad. Nothing that we have done since 9/11 has contradicted the jihadists’ view; the forward strategy and America’s other policies have confirmed it. Note Teheran’s glee at the grotesque spectacle of America’s suicidal policy. To say that Iran in particular feels invulnerable or that jihadists in general are encouraged is to understate matters."

Many canadian cenotaphs or monuments are in bad need of repair, Thankfully our parlimentarians agreed a few years back to make funds available to communities to refurbish their cenotaphs. These monies are still available & i wonder how many communities know that they are, Mine did not until they approached our legion br. asking for help, we did help somewhat but also directed them for federal funds.
I believe it is to a max amount of $25,000.

Jane, go to triple w dot collectionscanada dot ca. That's the Library and Archives Canada. It will have a military section to it.

Ted - nice post on WWI. It was indeed about the restructuring of Europe and empires. But I do think that it was about ideas, most certainly not in the same clear sense of WWII against fascims or the cold war against communism, or the current wars against Islamic fascism.

But it was a collapse of the old class system in Europe (at least in structure but not in fact), and a beginning collapse of the European empires. Took WWII to finish that...

I'll disagree with you about the evaluation of British vs French colonialism, for the French always set up the colonized as 'workers' and themselves as the elite rulers, while the British set up a three class system. Quite different.

But, although one has to be careful about the myths we create, the fact is, we do create them and live within them. You are right though, that we must be careful not to live too much in fiction; we must keep that fiction tempered and constrained by facts.

bryanr:

The Veteran's Affairs Canada website has great information.

I was able to find out about my great uncle who was killed in WWI. And the exact location of his grave site.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/virtualmem

thanks reid: I also found my uncles in france on there, very touching to view. I just could not remember exactly where i found their papers.
Thanks also Et.

Ted, your remarks are disingenuous, at best.

In the narrowest of of interpretations, Vimy Ridge was about geography, but in reality, the victory at Vimy Ridge stirred the very tired allies and demoralized the Germans.The effect was far more reaching, and "particularly thrilling for Canadians because they succeeded where the French and British in the same battle had failed." The significance of Vimy Ridge reached far beyond the puffed chests in Ottawa.

The world had already changed- the age of empire was coming to a close. The war was not fought to preserve empires, as you incorrectly note. The British empire was already shrinking, mostly with the assent of Great Britain.The war was fought to prevent the spread of early fascism.

In fact, the world did change forever because it was not the land that made Vimy Ridge important. It was as I noted, about ideas.

Canada did not stand to gain anything in her fight in Europe, save for standing up and defending principles.

You speak of the "darker side of human condition." In point of fact, war is a more natural state of affairs for mankind. As a species, we have spent most of our existence engaged in war and not in peace.

It is a reality that freedom and democracy have done more to end wars than have any other cultural/societal influences. Simply stated, democracies may disagree, but they rarely, if ever, go to war against each other.

The Canadian efforts at Vimy Ridge underscored those truths. To say their efforts were only in defense of the British Empire, is absurd. Canada's efforts were first and foremost about about defending democracy- a value she shared with the UK and the other allies. Canadians may have been rightfully proud of serving the Queen, but they were more proud of serving the cause- and ideas- that are freedom and democracy.

You said that I "dishonour the soldiers who fought and died, and to miss the lesson they pass to us, for good or ill."

I submit by your refusal to comprehend- or to deliberately distort the truth- is to minimize or dismiss the lessons those Canadian soldiers passed on.

As John McCrae notedf two years earlier,

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

McCrae's fight was about a lot more than real estate.

My husband and I watched the rededication ceremony at Vimy today, with growing pride in being Canadian (not a feeling I've had for a very long time), in our Prime Minister, and in the tasteful and magnificent way in which the ceremony was conducted.

The music, both instrumental and vocal, was deeply moving, involving the participation of young and old from various ethnic backgrounds. The 17-year-old Metis woman, Sierra Noble, from Manitoba did an outstanding job of fiddling "The Warrior's Lament," a Metis tune. Her silhouette against the sky and the gigantic monument was profoundly moving. Tears weren't far away throughout the ceremony.

ET, it was actually Jack Granastein who gave the CBC all the kudos for a ceremony he said was the best he'd ever experienced. Peter Mansbridge, to his credit, demurred and said, rightly, that it was largely veterans' groups that had kept interest alive in Canadian's participation in two World Wars. (The veterans have actually had to keep on top of the CBC because of many inaccurate portraits of vets and battles, and haven't always been treated very well by the Mother Corp. Remember the McKenna brothers?)

What really annoyed me was Granastein not giving credit where credit is due--and that would be with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his CPC government and their consistent and generous support of Canada's veterans and troops and their considerable part in planning this ceremony. Of course it was the best Granastein had ever seen: The CPC government supports and encourages our troops and, no doubt, contributed enormous resources to ensuring that this ceremony would do our veterans proud.

When Granastein said he hadn't been paid to compliment the CBC, I groaned. No, I'm sure he didn't get a pay cheque, but the CBC probably flew him over to France and put him up at a very nice hotel and paid for his expenses. For a historian, Granastein has a pretty flimsy grasp of all of the negative things the CBC has had to say about Canada's part in WWI and WWII.

Today was a very moving tribute to the soldiers who gave their lives at Vimy, and helped to turn the tide in WWI. Too many today, wanting instant gratification and instant success, forget the sacrifice it takes for good to combat and defeat evil.

Jane:
If you want to access your relatives Attestation Papers, please contact me off-list at rattfuc@yahoo.ca
I will point you in the right direction.

Ralph

Sigmund:

The torch McCrae hands to the next was duty and loyalty. Notably absent is any call for a defence of freedom and liberty.

Canadians didn't enter the war and Britain did not enter the war because of any sense of ideology. From the simplist of technical reasons it was because of a series of illogical trade and defence treaties; to the most complex it was battling over power and empire and class systems and race and ancient territorial squabbles and a desire on the part of the big countries for world pre-eminence.

A part of why a few people wanted to go to war did indeed relate, however remotely, to a sense of concern about German militarism (though it is an extreme stretch to equate that with fascism). The causes of the war, however, are myriad and to the extent that the ideology of freedom and liberty played a role in the causes of the war it was minor. If it had any significance, it was significant as an additional propaganda tool and one, frankly, that was used as much or less often then the simple "Stop the Hun!" race-based propaganda of the times.

Canada entered the war for one reason alone: because Britain entered the war. There was no separate declaration of war. PM Borden and most Canadians would have thought the idea absurd and utterly redundent. Britain had declared war because of its defence treaties and so Canada WAS at war.

Re-writing history to support the politics of the present is as dangerous an exercise as it is an ancient one.

War may historically be a basic part of our human condition. Some, apparently you among them, would glorify that element. If there was a lesson left from the Great War, if there is a lesson the soldiers of that war spoke out about, is that modern technology had created a new enemy - war itself: the mass extermination, the mass disease, the mass displacement of people and families, the mass destruction like nothing before. Some would treat war as an ally of civilization but war became the enemy of all civilized people with that war. Calling it the GREAT war was no compliment.

It is because of the First World War that we now go to war cautiously and advisedly, over principle and values, and not simply because someone in government has told us that it must be so simply for that person's determination of the good of the economic and political interests of the country.

Ted - speaking of checking your facts, I'd advise you to do the same with Harper. He did speak yesterday to the media about the six deaths. His public statement, with him speaking against a Vimy backdrop and referring to both wars, was on the television news repeatedly.

I'd also suggest that you watch your adjectives - I was not 'brazenly disregarding the truth'. Explain what was 'brazen' - I hadn't heard that Dion said a word yesterday about the incident. Again, his office's statement is not Dion. And I didn't libel Dion. I critiqued him. He said nothing yesterday - and his office is not Dion.

And trying to use the excuse that Dion didn't appear publicly to say anything about those deaths because it was Easter Sunday is a red herring - and in addition, a lie in its basic meaning of 'intent to deceive'. You'd have to prove that that was and is the reason Dion said nothing. Was he at Mass? With his family for a religious observance? Provide proof. Provide proof that Dion said nothing yesterday because it was 'Easter Sunday' and a religious day. Prove it.

Also, provide proof that Harper's public statement about the deaths, yesterday, about which you are 'brazenly' unaware, was an act of 'running down the street, trying to horde camera time'. That sounds pretty ad hominem on your part; ie, libelous.

'been round the block' - yes, it was Granatstein (I came in late and didn't know who was speaking) who praised the CBC for their specials on D-Day, Juno and other recent military shows - but Mansbridge didn't reject the praise, accepting the image that the CBC is a great supporter of the Canadian military.

Not exactly on topic...but either was the last comment. So here:

Did anyone notice that Bourque posted the picture of the sixth Canadian killed in Afghanistan earlier today? When the family requested that his identity NOT be revealed? It's just something I heard. All pictures have been removed now..
Posted by: Moe Real at April 9, 2007 1:54 PM

Moe: I used have Bourque bookmarked so as to get his perspective after reading the best blog out there (Kates). I have had enough and removed him from my bookmarks and continue to enjoy reading from someone more pertinent to both sides of the coin.

Through the magic of Google Maps I managed to find Vimy Ridge. You can zoom in quite far enough to see some of the original trench lines.

http://phantomsoapbox.blogspot.com/

It'll shock you how small the place is.

Brazen, ET, because it is quite impossible to claim as decidedly as you did that someone has not spoken to the public about something and yet, without any evidence, you take advantage of a national tragedy to make an ad hominem attack for a political cheap shot. Especially with so little time elapsed between the tragedy and your comment I'm surprised you could conclude that he had not made any public statement yesterday or today. I am not even certain how you concluded Dion did not read from his prepared statement on Sunday. It seems like he may have.

I don't have to prove anything about Dion and his whereabouts on Sunday. That is irrelevant. YOU are the one making the accusation without a shred of evidence in order to score a political point out of this tragedy. Shame on you.

And I didn't say that Harper went chasing a microphone. He was already making a public appearance and commented on the tragedy. I see nothing untoward or politicizing in his comments. Again, shame on you for suggesting I was disparaging Harper. Everything I've seen and read today about this PM, who I admit not liking, indicates he has been very honourable. It does not seem like, at least today and yesterday, he has tried to score political cheap shots out of this tragedy. So why do you, ET?

I can't stand people who's first instinct, the moment someone dies or some other tragedy occurs, is to immediately turn and make a partisan jab at the other side.

Jim, already covered elsewhere. There were six pictures, but two were of same soldier, not sixth, who has since been identified, assuming on clearance from family, who were quoted.

Terrible loss, no doubt. Ted, I detect a certain amount of presentism (evaluating history by today's standards and norms) in your analysis. I do agree that WW1 was more about past grievances (Franco Prussian war with reparations against French), colonial holdings and, most of all, alliances. None of that changes that people of the time saw this as a struggle against tyranny, rightly or wrongly by today's standards.

Re: leaders' statements. I have no problem with what any have said. We will see in coming days if partisan advantage sought by anyone.

My grandfather served under Lt. Col. John MacCrae on the battlefield in WW1 as an acting corporal in the Canadian Army Medical Corps.
He also had the distinction of being one of the pallbearers for Lt. Col. MacCrae at his funeral.
Although he never talked about the war, he revered his participation in it and his contribution to the comrades he helped in evil times.
In short, he was just another Canadian doing his duty to "God and Country".
I cherish his contribution to our country every day.
God Bless him and those that went before him.
The rest of you that persist in picking apart the reasons for the war and our participation in it should just get a life.
It happened. It's over. Get on with it.

My granddaughter is a waitress in a restaruant popular with the younger crowd. Yesterday, she waited on a group of skiers, who were bragging about injuries, past and present, and badmouthing the war. One young man, on crutches was very quiet. Finally, someone asked how he got his leg banged up, and his answer sileneced the group for the rest of the night. Car bomb in Afganistan he replied. He suggested that they all watch the Vimy rededication and learn something.

Ted - I continue to critique Dion for saying nothing on Sunday. You first suggested the reason was because it was a religious day. Proof?. How do you know that he 'read from his prepared statement on Sunday. It seems he may have'.Proof?

You critiqued Harper for 'running down the street' etc. Those are your words. You keep making statements and then denying them.

Also, the poem Flander's Field says nothing about duty or loyalty. To what? What was the 'quarrel with the foe' about? About freedom and liberty?

WWI was, I think, about the restructuring of Europe into nations, and in particular, the implosion of the Austrio-Hungarian empire - and the rise of democracy and the middle class - in differentiation from the old two class structure. WWII finished off that hereditary structure and moved out of defining a population by class and into definition by merit.

Yes, Canada went to war in WWI because we were a part of the Commonwealth and it would have been unthinkable not to participate, but, Vimy Ridge established the Canadian military as a separate - and an extremely capable military force. That's a key reason for its importance.

ET UNHINGED AGAIN!

ET claims Dion did not make any personally public statements. Makes the claim without any proof. She was wrong and Ted called her on it. So she narrows her first false statement to being just about Sunday. Again, without any proof. Gets asked for proof and tries to claim Ted is the one making statements. I just read through Ted's statements, he never says what Dion was doing or not doing other than that he made a public statement on Sunday and on Monday.

ET then tries to go on the attack. Claims Ted attacked Harper. I can't see anything attacking Harper from Ted here (go to his website and that's a different story). In fact just the opposite. Although maybe in ET's ivory tower world, "he acted honourably" is considered an insult. I don't know. I'm not an academic.

And then she finishes off with a veritable ET flourish by claiming that the Austrio-Hungarian emperor went to war to defeat itself.

Well done. A true lesson in classic ET.

Class dismissed.

ET:

This is getting silly. You are still claiming Dion never made a public statement and he did. Sunday and Monday. Did he personally read his public statement on Sunday or send it in? I don't know and don't claim to know. You are the one going around making the big accusation he didn't.

If you want to try to score some cheap political points over this tragedy then the least you can do is provide some proof. A statement was made: please tell us how you know, when the rest of us don't, that Dion made no public statement on Sunday. No verbal statement that is since that is the only kind you deign to be legitimate.

(By the way, I get dozen or so "public statements" issued from the PM's office each week emailed to me on a dozen different topics. He doesn't read these. Are they irrelevant? I wouldn't say so.)

Point being, you've made a libellous petty statement for a political cheap shot, proven wrong, so you resort to an attack on the one who called you on it.

Classy.

Meant to say, of course, Harper doesn't read all of them verbally to the public. I'm sure he reads them. At least some of them.

Ted and ET: WW I was certainly not a "good" or "just" war in the sense that WW II was--though in 1939 that difference was not clear to many people, esp. in the US (remember the extermination camps really only became known after the war).

Had Wilhelmine Germany defeated both France and Russia and become the overweening controller of Europe, how long would it have taken (with some more naval construction by Germany) before Britain was effectively reduced to vassal status?

In the end there would have been a competition between German-dominated Europe and the US. Who can say what the outcome might have been. But, given sensibilities in the early 20th century, one can argue that even German global preponderance would have been better than the over a hundred million who died as a consequence of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Ho and Pol.

There may be an argument that the victory in WW I of the democracies over the authoritarians led to the totalitarians and much, much, more death in the end.

Mark
Ottawa

It's also pretty "classy" to post under "ET Unhinged Again", Ted.

Cut it out. Considering the topic of this post, I sort of expected better.

Two points about this post:

First, thanks to Neo and the link provided, I looked up my grandfather's Attestation Papers. The man died in 1961 or so when I was a youngster but once I saw his name and his signature I was a bit overwhelmed. Lest we forget, eh.

Second, I tried to read a piece of crap from some a-hole at the G&M by the name of Rick Salutin. Thanks to my grandfather and many others who did not return, that hunk of flaming left wing crap writer is free to spout his bile. Like a protester at a soldier's funeral, this guy knows no limits. These people truly disgust me.

Mark:

I'm not sure that Germany, had it defeated France and Russia, would have had the power to then continue on to take over England. If Hitler couldn't do it, then the Kaiser probably couldn't either.

Interesting question though.

Also interesting about whether the "democracies" brought on the totalitarians by defeating the authoritarians. I'm sure you've read Margaret MacMillan's amazing read of a book "Paris 1919". She argues that the peace treaty and the Allies leaders have unfairly been made the scapegoats for the mistakes of those who came later. She basically debunks the notion that reparations imposed on the Germans, the partitioning of national boundaries and the peace terms that were dictated to the Central Powers were in large part responsible for the Second World War.

Agree or not, it is an excellent read. And coming from a sharp Canadian mind, she makes a point of highlighting the Canadian participation and role, however minor, in the peace process.

In my humble opinion, both ET and Ted should be ashamed of themselves. I agree with kate, this is not the forum for a personal attack fest. Show some respect for those who died 90 years ago as well as yesterday.

CPAC is presently re-playing the 'entire' Vimy Ridge ceremony.

I caught the live CTV/CBC coverage, earlier today, but CPAC had some gov't commitee stuff playing at the time (at least here in T.O.).

This CPAC tape is showing ceremonies 'prior' to the CTV/CBC coverage, and will probably be re-played again tonite late, or very early morning.

Ted: Once Wilhelmine Germany was in effective control of Europe, could reduce army expenditures, and then build a fleet superior to Britain's, the game would have been over. Hitler did not have the time, or the resources, before 1939, to build the fleet. Had the Kaiser won in 1914/15 the increased fleet would have been no problem.

As to Versailles, the nature of the Treaty was not what led to Hitler. It was that many Germans still believed they deserved to have won and deserved to be the greatest power in Europe (if not the world).

The thing was not the Treaty but unsatisfied national aspiration and the power (or not) to seek to fulfill them. So winning in the first war might have produced a German imperium but not a fanatically exterminationist one. Maybe better for mankind as a whole, above all Germans, Jews, Poles, Roma, Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Serbs, Greeks et al.

As to Margaret MacMillan, it says a lot about our country that no Canadian publisher would touch the book.

Mark
Ottawa

odie441, Kate

With you on your comments. Does anyone know who was the PM then ... the opposition ... the MSM ... what they said or didn't say. Will anyone remember 90 or a hundred from now the current crop?

It's where the rubber meet the road (sorry for the cliche) any non-participant debating the event is irrelevant.

Lowell Green of 580 CFRA-AM, Ottawa, reported live, in real time, from the Vimy ceremony this day.

CFRA was the only private broadcaster permitted to broadcast from the Vimy ceremony.

A salute to Lowell Green.
...-

maz2: Surely CTV is, at least in theory, a private broadcaster? Perhaps you meant to write "radio". Lord love Lowell.

Mark
Ottawa

Jane: Did you find what you need,if not I'm thinking you may need to look under the Bristish armed forces as Nfld was still part of Britain then. Just a thought.

Since we are on the topic of documents/people tracking, does anyone know how one would find out about Quebec regiments fighting in WWII in 1941-1942, training near Leeds and likely (I'm guessing) fighting at Dieppe?

I believe the regiment I'm seeking is Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal, but I would like to explore some of its history to find out about a possible relative.

After the Vimy Ridge ceremony , CPAC is now re-playing the Ottawa, Vimy commemorations.

I have no doubt , that they will be re-played all night.

God bless the troops , past and present .

God save the Queen .

Could you imagine the Canadian Armed Forces trying to coordinate an attack like Vimy today? Just to give you an idea:

A nation of 8 million put 100,000 men into the field at Vimy. At that time we had an army of an estimated 620K - almost all of which was infantry.

The current American deployment in Iraq is a little over 250K I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) and the standing army is around 1.1 million. And Canada's current standing army is between 50-60K and I believe about a third of that is paper strength (logistics).

These figures alone show that our country has been a tremendous force in this world. And we should be proud of the courage of those who sacrificed their lives for it b/c they did so for a noble cause (including one of my own ancestors at Ypres).

Some may claim that WWI was just an imperial war which is true. But would you rather have had the legacy and splendour of the British Empire reign supreme over this world or that of Kaiser Wilhelm's Grosse Deutschland und Weltmacht (world power)? The answer is obvious.

Ted , I am no expert , but there are many Canadian Forces links at Mark's site (The Torch):

toyoufromfailnghands.blogspot.com

Or , hopefully , others can help ...

Been around the block, it felt like we took that same trip today with your and yours...truly a ceremony to remember, for all the reasons you listed.

Surprising how close to the surface emotions were today!

What a spectacular site, and the fiddler...oh, the fiddler...cut right to the heart of it...the the man holding the family photo, bowed deeply in remembrance, that song of old sung by all, and then the choir.

The faces of the elderly and young, together...the appreciation shown toward the Queen, and the pride of hearing this Prime Minister, and that of France.

Yes, this was a day to remember those days and those who were lost to us.

What's up with Granatstein? Is he expecting a Liberal Senate seat?

I saw him on TVO a few months ago, dissing "the government"--the Liberal Government, by the way--over and over again for not supporting our military. Steve Paikin didn't challenge him once.

I tried to contact Granatstein through one of the organizations to which he belongs: I pointed out the disingenuous nature of his criticism of "the government" because it sounded like he was criticizing the Conservatives, when, in fact, it was clearly the Liberals he was indicting.

I heard nothing from him.

Can anyone explain this man's duplicity?

Granatstein has been a pretty regular and severe critic of the Liberal Party and its support of the military. Just because Harper talks a lot about the military, though, doesn't mean Granatstein didn't intend the criticism for Canada's New-ish Government (TM) too.

I think he's been pretty consistent and not duplicious.

Sorry to keep babbling about CPAC , but just heard the ceremonies will be re-played tomorrow (Wednesday) at 12 NOON Eastern, 9 AM Pacific.

Yes , 'been around the block', I know the feeling.

I managed to keep a stiff upper lip , despite occasional, free-flowing tears.

BTW , CPAC is really on it tonite , with other amazing stories.

Actually , tomorrow is Tuesday .

Ted writes, "Granatstein has been a pretty regular and severe critic of the Liberal Party and its support of the military." I'd appreciate documentation rather than a mere assertion.

Ted, your logic eludes me. If a person criticizes someone who deserves it and then criticizes someone who doesn't, you seem to consider the mere fact that criticism is continuing as "pretty consistent and not duplicious". How's that?

Wait *til you see this YouTube bit.

Scroll down 4 to Easter Break.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp

Can you sense the spirit of Vimy Ridge in these GOLD Star Folks?

and here*s the missing Q in Muqtada = TG

Lookout:

Hunh?

You are the one accusing him of being duplicious because he is criticizing the Conservatives (how dare he!) when you think he means the Liberals.

I'm guessing you think he is duplicious because you think he didn't criticize and was maybe favourable to the Liberals. That ain't the case. He's a known critic of the Liberals. Do your own work if you are going to make such accusations.

The logic is that someone who thinks there should be a lot more done for the media might think that both the Liberals and the Conservatives aren't doing enough. If that logic escapes you, perhaps it is because you think Mr. Harper is not to be criticized under any circumstance?

Yes , tomorrow is Tuesday .

Source : Central Ontario Red Neck Society

(C.O.R.N.S.)

Jane - I found my grandfather's attestation papers in the archives.
http://data2archives.ca/cef/gpc011/515350a.gif.

Don't worry about the spelling of names etc. seems few could spell in that office. Hope this helps.

Ted, just respond in a straightforward way and back up your own statements: that's not my job.

And please don't put words in my mouth: I did not suggest that PMSH is above criticism.

Re Granatstein: He still seems duplicitous--it's not "duplicious"--re dissing "the government": the PCs have been in power for 15 months. When someone criticizes "the governmemt" for lack of action, the assumption is that it is the present government.

As I said, I heard Granatstein try on this little trick for about 25 minutes on a recent TVO program. Even though it was clear from the context--to someone in the know--which government he was referring to, not once did the word "LIBERAL", in relation to the offending inaction, pass his lips. Now, another person has mentioned this phenomenon during the Vimy coverage. Duplicitous is the definitely word for it. Get used to it.

I don't know, lookout. But if Jack Granatstein, the so-called "dean of Canadian military writing" is criticizing Conservative efforts in "rebuilding" the military, then you ought to be paying attention. Given how critical he is of the Liberals regularly in the Globe and in his 2004 book "Who Killed the Canadian Military?", he could not be MORE critical of the Conservatives than the Liberals so your claim of him being "duplicitous" is still a little baffling.

I don't know about your background, but methinks the man knows what he's talking about.

book review and place in history: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.cgi?path=114831094733875: "Granatsteins
"take no prisoners" assault on the educational "left" engendered a bitter counterattack, and the fight was on." "Granatstein ends his book with an
impassioned call for money and resources for the
army so that it can defend North America,
participate in the war against terrorism, play a
meaningful role in peacekeeping operations, and
act overseas with its friends and allies "when and
wherever Western and democratic interests are at
stake" "

Biography: http://www.cdfai.org/fellows/jackgranatstein.htm: "In 1995 he served as one of three commissioners on the Special Commission on the Restructuring of the Canadian Forces Reserves (chaired by the Rt. Hon. Brian Dickson, former Chief Justice of Canada), and in 1997, he advised the Minister of National Defence on the future of the Canadian Forces. He is a member of the Advisory Committee of the Dominion Institute, an adjunct fellow of the University of Calgary’s Centre for Military and Strategic Studies (1997- ), and Chair of the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century (2001-4). He is both a Board member (2004- ) and the Chair of the Advisory Council of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute (2001- )."

The guy has published more books than I have lived.

But LO! The man doth dare to not be super positive of the Conservatives. Attack! Attack! He must be an Evil Duplicitous Liberal Hack!!

The funny thing about Conservative kool-aid drinkers is that anyone who dares criticize a conservative must be an evil Liberal.

Ted
1. http://www.regiments.org/regiments/na-canada/volmil/qc-inf/065fmr.htm

2. http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/m223040/page5du10decet13dec.html#pag5fusiliers

Cheers

If you want to discover where a relative is buried, check the Commonwealth War Graves Commission:
http://www.cwgc.org/
(Not that that is what everyone above was looking for, but still, on topic.)

"Most of the world quickly forgot the strategically irrelevant victory (in that the hill that was overtaken, once overtaken, did not provide any strategic advantage)."

I'd be interested to know if Ted has ever been to Vimy Ridge.

It's very true that, operationally, the victory was tempered by the Allies' inability to exploit gains and follow through with an immediate pursuit.

But standing up there looking out eastward over France, you realize the "strategic advantage" immediately: the entire coal-mining region of Lens was now completely exposed.

This was why Vimy was so important to the Germans: possessing it provided the security to exploit those mines for their own war effort.

That's strategic.

I live in the UK so I went over to France last Saturday. On Sunday I was in Arras for the freedom of the city ceremonies. I even got to shake hands with Michael Ignatieff who was pleasant, engaging and as proud as the rest of us to be there. No partisanship that day.

On Monday, I was at Vimy for the ceremonies. I cannot describe what it was like to be there other than to make a few short observations:

1. The French could not have been more genuinely gracious and hospitable. M. de Villepin was in top form and struck me as very sincere and moving in his tribute, particularly his thoughtful mention of our latest casualties.

2. I sat next to a very elderly French gentleman. As we chatted during the course of the ceremony, I learned he was a retired professor who, as a small boy, had been at the original dedication in 1936 with his father and recalled seeing the King and the President of France. He has visited the site many, many times and insisted in being there on this day. Another elderly Frenchman had given up his Easter weekend with his family to volunteer with a local veterans' association. Why? Because he felt it was the right thing to do.

3. No one who was at the ceremony would think that our Prime Minister was anything other than respectful, sombre and considerate. His French gets better every time I hear him.

4. The Queen, as always, looked great. She too spoke French (people tend to forget she was taught the language early on as a wee girl). Prince Phillip was there too, decked out in his Canadian Army uniform as Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Canadian Regiment.

5. As "been around the block" very rightly pointed out, Sierra Noble was amazing. There wasn't a dry eye in sight when she performed; a performance that might well have done more than anything else on Monday to bring the 20,000 of us all together.

6. Our sailors, soldiers and airmen looked good. Both the pipe band and the air force band played extremely well - tightly and professionally. Our soldiers appeared fit, well drilled and seemed to represent just about every cap badge you could name in both the regular and reserve army - a nice touch and a fitting one, given the all the numbered battalions that made up the Canadian Corps.

7. The French Air Force timed their flypast of four Mirages right on the money. Most impressive.

Vive le Canada! Vive la France!

Apart from the ceremony, I also took time to visit various war graves. I've got more and more in the habit of visiting not only Commonwealth cemeteries now but also French ones and, yes, German ones too. They are most moving and sobering places to visit, and give one pause to think.

Ninety years on, whatever quarrel we had with the Kaiser has long since slipped into history. But all these fathers and sons remain: British and Imperial troops (for that is what we were then), French poilus and German soldiers too.

A sad and terrible thing indeed.

Oh, I almost forgot.

Three flags were flying at Vimy throughout the ceremony. Two of them were obviously the flags of Canada and France.

But the third was the Dominion Red Ensign of the day (not the later version superseded by our maple leaf flag in 1965).

I found that a hopeful sign. Someone, somewhere in the organizational machinery for this ceremony had enough historical perspective to make this gesture out of respect for our history.

In a recent article by Mark Steyn, he quotes Richard Fernandez (an Australian?) mentioning the "political divisions in the modern world between those whose concept of a nation is its people and traditions and those who conceive of it as an ecosystem delineated by a United Nations-approved boundary."

That old Dominion flag, flapping in the breeze alongside our national flag, imbued me with at least a small sense of optimism that someone out there understood how we came to be what we are today.

Well, Ted, maybe you should get some help with your language processing because, despite the verbiage form you, you've managed to miss my point.

The criticisms I heard Granatstein making were clearly against the Liberals, whose government had starved and belittled the military for well over a decade.

Did Granatstein make this clear? No, he did not. In fact, though the Conservatives had been in power for about a year, when he gave the TVO interview, he always attributed inadequate action to "the government". As I've said before, in context, "the government" would be construed as the Conservative government. Neither Granatstein nor Steve Paikin, the interviewer, made any attempt to correct the misconception, which, methinks, may not have been a misconception at all, but a deliberate slur.

I made an attempt to contact Mr. Granatstein at one of the many organizations with which he is affiliated. I emailed a message with my concerns. I never heard a word.

I might be quite wrong about him and his motives and would appreciate it if anyone with some solid information could give some feedback on this.

Thanks, JJM, for two thoughtful, moving, and inspirational posts.

I think that "someone" you mention has to do with our Conservative government and our fine PM, who do things altogether differently from the depraved Liberal Party. I too feel optimism that things aren't "as usual" in this country. Let's hope things continue that way.