Talk:Battle of Vimy Ridge

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

missing images

please note.

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)

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)

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 extremely 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)

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)

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.

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)