Battlefield Mysteries

Owen - I can go along with you on not caring too much about where Wittman was killed - just as long as someone stopped him using that damned 88mm on our Tank Crews !

Idler -
That "Valour and the Horror" was reviled all over Canada when it was first shown - 'never in all history was so many TV sets switched off at the same time' partly because it was made by a young CBC wallah looking to make quick buck - and he was from Quebec which didn't help -

Quebecers objected to volunteering in the war - then they objected to going overseas when conscription was finally passed late on in the war - only ONE Quebec battalion served in Italy among the other 14 battlions in the 1st and 5th Divisions - tells you all you want to know as they had the highest population in Canada at that time.
Cheers

 

Never knew that. I just have a memory of it being a bit self-critical which suggested that it was 'objective, not objectionable. Has the view changed over the years, or does it remain sensationalist rubbish?

 

Tom - are you saying that the French speakers in Canada were not willing to do their bit? There were a number of French speaking battalions in the BLA, and I have seen many headstones in NWE all in French in Canadian cemeteries.

Personally I liked Valour & The Horror - it was a well made programme with good veteran interviews, good reconstruction and good actuality filming. It also featured one of my heroes, Jock Dextraze DSO & Bar. He was born in Quebec and later said:

" I could see that this guy Hitler was going all over Europe, and I was very deeply affected when I saw what was happening to France. And ah... Not that I joined up you know to defend French speaking Canadians, or English speaking Canadians. I joined up to defend Canada."

More on him here: Jacques Dextraze - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Never knew that. I just have a memory of it being a bit self-critical which suggested that it was 'objective, not objectionable. Has the view changed over the years, or does it remain sensationalist rubbish?

Idler,

It remains, as you describe, "sensationalist rubbish". There was such huge backlash to the program, particularly by veterans, that, to my knowledge, it has never been aired again. The reputation and integrity of the McKenna brothers has really never recovered in Canada from that ill-advised program. The CBC is as left-wing an organization as you will find and most of the programming is anti-war and anti-military so the biased agenda was a big part of why Canadians were so upset.

As for Quebec, there were many French-Canadians who enlisted and fought with distinction but, by and large, the level of participation was far below that of English Canada. Right or wrong, that cultural divide is never far away and they mostly felt it was Britains war. My paternal ancestors arrived in Quebec, from France, in 1640 but my allegiance has always been to Canada. Two Irish grandmothers helped sway the vote!

 

Having met the McKennas, it was my understanding that the controversy was over the Bomber Command episode, not the one on Normandy?

 

It looks like the Mosquito one is the last of only three to be shown.

The programmes were obviously Canadian focused and I would have thought they would have included and a shame they didn't include other battles like Dieppe and Normandy to name two.

A

 

Having met the McKennas, it was my understanding that the controversy was over the Bomber Command episode, not the one on Normandy?

I wouldn't agree with that assessment. While the Bomber Command segment produced the biggest reaction, it was felt that the leadership in Normandy was unfairly maligned as well.
The best quotes are from Douglas Fisher, "Eventually, all hesitation to take on the moralistic denigrators of our military disappeared. Despite claims of The Valour’s epic worthiness, it now largely symbolizes an unfair, crude manipulation of events and people. No post-war item of anti-war propaganda has sparked such a turnaround in public interest as The Valour."
Brian and Terence McKenna, who as one droll academic phrased it, ” … were determined to be fair to the Nazis"

Fisher also notes the very positive outcome in that many veterans who had remained silent for decades about their experiences, were motivated to speak up, write memoirs, organize events and otherwise rekindle interest in Canada's WW2 role.

 

Paul -
see Canuck's messages # 24 & # 27 -

no question that many Quebecers served with distinction throughout the hostilities but only the 22e (Van Doos )regiment fought in Italy - they along with the Royal Canadians from Ontario and the PPCLI from the West were permanent staff (Regular Army) and consequently were included in 1st Division.

Captain Paul Triquot ( 5th Div.)from Quebec won the V.C. near Ortona - Major Mahoney -(5th Div.) New Westminsters from Vancouver won his V.C. at the Melfi River, in the Liri Valley -Pte. Ernest "Smokey" Smith - Seaforths, Vancouver (1st Div) won his V.C. at the River Savio near Cesena after the Gothic Line ....

The McKenna bros are still in hiding I believe !
Cheers

 

The best quotes are from Douglas Fisher, "Eventually, all hesitation to take on the moralistic denigrators of our military disappeared. Despite claims of The Valour’s epic worthiness, it now largely symbolizes an unfair, crude manipulation of events and people. No post-war item of anti-war propaganda has sparked such a turnaround in public interest as The Valour."

That may account for 'our' more positive view of it - moralistic denigration of the British Army (especially WW1) tends to be the norm. The fact that it didn't (as far as I can recall) blame everything on the British would also endear it to us.

Again I've learned something - I wasn't aware that there was a measurable French-Canadian reluctance to participate. Was that the same for WW1, or did our 'betrayal' of France and subsequent war with Vichy in round two create the problem?

 

Idler -
I think the animosity started on the plains of Abraham when Wolfe and his merry band scaled the cliffs and beat the tar out of the French - then the British allowed them to keep their culture, and religion etc - now and again they want to separate and they hold neverendums on the subject - last time we said OK - pay what you owe and you can leave - silence has reigned ever since.

They are just bitchers and they are what we call "have nots" which means that the "haves" i.e Ontario - Alberta and B.C. contribute to their well being with billions per annum - then they come back for more like Oliver - although they have 23% of the population with much productive capacity - their contribution to Canada is no where near 23%
Cheers

 

Idler,

No, the issue existed long before. In fact, as far back as the Boer War. Canada was bitterly divided over the appropriate level of participation in that war. Most French Canadians were strongly opposed to becoming involved in what they saw as England's 'wars of conquest' in far away lands. In 1914, they had some sympathy for the plight of France and Belgium, but still very little support for sending troops. Many thought Canada should limit its participation to supplying materials and food. Given the youth of this country at the time, approx. 70% of the first CEF volunteers in 1914 were born in Britain.
During the conscription crisis of 1917, and in the conscription crisis that would arise again in WW2, French Canadians were overwhelmingly opposed, while English speakers were firmly in favour. With the French being in the minority, the pro-conscription forces were successful. Many English Canadians who fought in WW1 and WW2 deeply resented the lack of Quebec support. And on it goes.
The divisions from that and other chronic language issues, continue to haunt this country. One example, in 2009, was the cancellation of a commemoration of the 1759 British victory over the French at the Plains of Abraham (generally accepted to be the turning point from which Britain assumed control of North America). Quebec sovereigntists were upset that the planned re-enactment would be insulting to French-Canadians!!!

 

Also available on YouTube (confirmed by Andy) with an Americanised narration.

I'll reserve comment on the content for the existing thread on Wittmann's demise in an attempt to keep things tidy...
What does an "Americanized" narration mean? All we get here in the states are "Americanized" stuff, so I have no frame of reference to go on....

 

Tom / Canuck,

idler Quote:

Again I've learned something - I wasn't aware that there was a measurable French-Canadian reluctance to participate.


I came across this a while ago doing research on the EATS programme.

Is the quote below a true description of the Quebec situation during WW2?

I ignored some of the information as it sounded like someone with an axe to grind.

The response from English Canada was overwhelming in terms of volunteers, not so in Quebec, where there were a FEW units of French speakers raised, such as the Sherbrooke regiment, the Maisoneuves, Three Rivers Tanks, and The Van Doos. The majority of French speaking males did not respond to calls for volunteers, so conscription was implemented. The result? Thousands of Quebec males went into hiding, in the bush. Many worked under false names, in war plants, happy to make "big money" and get lots of overtime, but un-willing to actually risk their life for the country.

The re-inforcement shortage started in Italy, where many wounded men were rushed back from the hospital to the fighting, before they were properly healed. By the winter of 43/44 the Canadian First Infantry Division was down to 50 percent of normal strength in all its infantry units, and in some armoured units it was only 30 percent of normal. That meant that attacks went in with only half as many men as normal, and in some cases, units were close to being completely eliminated, in combat, due to a lack of manpower to hold a newly captured objective.
After D-Day, in June,1944, the Second Division was starting to also be ground down through the bitter fighting in Normandy. The rates of loss were accelerated by the nature of the geography, which was small fields surrounded by tall hedges, which were fought for one after the other. Heavy loses, day after day, all through the summer, and into the fall. And all the time, over 100,000 trained men were sitting on their asses in Canada, because McKenzie King had made the foolish promise that they could "sign up for home service only" and never have to go overseas unless they volunteered to go.
What a slap in the face for those Canadians who HAD volunteered, and were now fighting in Europe, with fewer and fewer men to do the job? No wonder the "Home Service Only " men were known as ZOMBIES, by the fighting troops.
In the end a very small number, 13,000 actually signed to go overseas, but it was too few, and too LATE. Less than 2,000 of the Zombies actually got to a fighting area, before the war ended, in May,1945.

 

Spidge -
Pretty close as the 1st Div was not the same division at the Gothic Line as it had been at Ortona and the Liri valley - reinforcements were scarce - 5th Div needed another Infantry Bde - so all they could do was break up a couple of AA units and convert them to Infantry. Those were trying times and in my last battle six of our tanks were supporting both "A " and "C" compnay's of the Seaforths - they didn't make a whole company - we lost five Tanks - they lost 90 men that day - repeated the attack later in the eveing - finally won through but with few men - not replaced - so went off for a rest and reinforcement - but never enough !
Cheers

 

Geoff

I would say that both those quotes are accurate.

 

What does an "Americanized" narration mean? All we get here in the states are "Americanized" stuff, so I have no frame of reference to go on....


Bobby,

I suspect that we North Americans may be getting lumped together on this one although you and I probably have very different accents. Y'all be good now, eh!

 

Bobby,

I suspect that we North Americans may be getting lumped together on this one although you and I probably have very different accents. Y'all be good now, eh!
I would tend to agree on the different accents, yours is probably more like the Yankees from the northeast US, while mine is probably what you'd consider "slightly southern."

I am wondering if that "Americanized" narration is a good or bad thing....

 

Canuk & Ab -
and I have totally different accent having been raised in Scotland - but still recognise an Americanised narrative from way over there - depends on the point of view really - some people hate everyone else - I prefer humour - like the internet offerings of " you could have heard a pin drop ..." - others don't like it...and so it's tough beans for them...." and the lone British Soldier taking on 1000 Taliban ...." -

That was extremely funny....in my view ! no doubt that will re appear as Americanised ...but it won't be the same as the British humour is very odd at times !

One after dinner speech - I tried to interpret the difference of the Canadian and American - so I stole this from somewhere -

""the Americans have Bob Hope - Johnny Cash - and Stevie Wonder..whereas the Candians have no Hope - no Cash and it's no bloody Wonder "" .... got a few giggles ...
Cheers

 

Ah, so "Americanized" is the American accent! And the Canadian version of English sounds like the way we speak English, which is different from the way the British speak English, but sound American when they sing. Yes, it all makes sense now. I was thinking that it was a style of presenting things....