# The First World War is nothing to be proud of (John Moore)



## Edward Campbell (13 Apr 2012)

Although I agree with John Moore that _"The Great War was a needless enterprise. Launched like a negative billing option by a series of reciprocal agreements ..."_ I suspect that he and I part company on which reciprocal agreements and why they were wrong. I also believe that humanity, individually and collectively, often (but not always) can reach new moral heights in war: fighting and dying *for* something worthy and, in the process making a better world for all. While every single German soldier fought in an evil cause in 1939-45, some gave us good examples of how to fight a modern war with some _grace_ - fighting skillfully and courageously and then being magnanimous in victory and amicable in defeat.

Anyway, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ is Moore's commentary:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/13/john-moore-the-first-world-war-is-nothing-to-be-proud-of/


> The First World War is nothing to be proud of
> 
> John Moore
> 
> ...








John Moore
http://www.newstalk1010.com/JohnMooresBio.aspx


The 1914-18 war represented a massive failure in British foreign policy, arguably the worst policy blunder in 900+ years, since Harold Godwinson screwed with William of Normandy. But the fact that we, the British Empire, of which Canada was a proud and content part in 1914, was suckered into an unnecessary war does not mean that we should not be proud of the ways in which Canada responded and of the ways in which Canadians contributed, especially on the battlefield. There is little doubt that the men and women of the Canadian Corps did take some extra pride in being Canadian after Easter Monday 1917 and there is little doubt that Canada's contribution in war, especially at Vimy, helped lead to Canada having its own seat in Paris in 1919 and to the Statutes of Westminster in 1931. So yes, Vimy in 1917 was the birth of a really independent Canadian nation, 50 years after Confederation, and we do well to remember it with pride.


----------



## Dissident (13 Apr 2012)

Thank you for this Mr. Campbell.

After finding this article in the NP I came here in hopes of finding this article debunked.


----------



## Remius (13 Apr 2012)

One can look back and see the folly of the war and yes maybe we shouldn't be proud of that but...

We cannot ignore how those men and women acted back then and the reasons they did.  Most were not soldiers by profession, but average normal people.  farmers, shoe makers, young, old etc etc.  What they achieved and showed the world what they could achieve is what we should be proud of.  Canadian ingenuity and ability is what we need to be proud of.  Canadians are blissfully unaware of our real role in WW1.  The Canadian Corps was THE lead after Vimy.  Almost acting independantly and spearheading victory.

Never doubt that.

I for one am proud of those men and women and what they represented.  I could care less about some archduke or the politics.  The courage, the tenacity and the scarifice is what I truly remember and honour regardless of the cause.


----------



## Maxadia (13 Apr 2012)

It is something to be proud of, and it is also a tragedy when you look at the loss of life.  But I don't believe you should pick sides, as one is inseparable without the other when it comes to Vimy.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Apr 2012)

Mr Moore has the luxury of writing 95 years after these events and through the microscope of modern morals and opinions. Only a fool judges the past through today's lens. I'm  not saying that some historical events were not intrinsically wrong, they were; but it's important to measure the past with regard for what was normal, acceptable, and expected for the time period.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Apr 2012)

Disclaimer:  Thirty years ago I delivered the Montreal Gazette to the Moore household; John went to school with my sister; and I used to go see him perform at the ComedyWorks in Montreal when he was part of the On The Spot improv troupe.  I last spoke with him 18 years ago next month.


My read of his article does not see any denigration of the individuals who served or of their sacrifice.  Rather, it is a critique of the big-P Political exploitation of the war (both historical and current)  He saves his vituperation for the "damnable incompetents" in charge; and has nothing but sympathy for those whose lives were ended and shattered by the conflict.

Remembering those who fell also means we must remember how they fell, and why they fell.  "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."  The loss of 60 000 Canadians should never be a simple soundbite; it should be a cause to reflect , remember, and learn.


----------



## Spazz (13 Apr 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> .  "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."


In my four years of undergrad studies I have come to really dislike this quote...

While the loss of life can never be defined as "acceptable", it is important to identify both the reason and the outcome to such acts of violence. Realist Historians understand that history will always repeat itself regardless of how well we educate ourselves on the rights and wrongs of events in our past. Rather then trying to prevent what we deem as a repeat of a negative historical event, we must treat every situation in our present as a unique event separate from all others. We must judge our response through moral and ethic values of the present. I believe that to try and use history as a tool to understanding our present and future selves is fruitless. History must be used to explore and understand our past simply for the sake of establishing where we come from, not for understanding where we should go.

I agree with Mr Moore's ideas that there is more to defining our identity then just Vimy, or our contribution to the war in general. That being said, however "meaningless" one might consider the death of our soldiers in the war, there sacrifice and Canada's contribution spoke volumes of how we developed as a nation and where our right for sovereignty stems from.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (13 Apr 2012)

Whether he likes it or not, there was an awakening of Canadian nationalism as a result of the Great War. Canada entered the war as a fairly minor power that followed along British policy, but ended the war as a partner. Pride over the accomplishments of the Great War is not a recent invention of the government - its been there all along.

It is fine to say that the war was unnecessary, but perhaps there were underlying national power shifts that led to the war.  Regarding Great Britain's involvement, would Great Britain really have been happy with Germany in a position of utter dominance over the continent? I note the bit about the Second World War being a noble crusade.  I have no argument with that. Now, while Nazi Germany was a different beast than the Kaiser's Germany, the Second World War was still fought by Great Britain to prevent German dominance/hegemony. Why is entering the conflict in 1914 to protect Belgium any different than entering the conflict in 1939 to protect Poland?

I also note the standard refrain about the war being led by incompetents. Its easy to judge after the fact, but the commanders (at all levels) had to find their way along and that involved a certain amount of very costly fumbling about. Tactics and operations improved over the course of the war as the combatants adapted to the realities of modern war. Even if we accept his thesis about incompetance (which I don't), what difference does that make?  It should only reinforce pride over Vimy where a combination of good Canadian and British generalship prevailed.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Apr 2012)

I am of two minds on this subject.  As my family lost a member at Vimy, I am saddened at this tragedy and wonder what he and all the other fallen might have accomplished otherwise.  As a career military professional I am, however, in awe and proud of what they accomplished and wonder quite frankly if I could measure up to all of them.  It is I suppose a bittersweet thought process for me when I reflect upon both 95 and 75 years ago and those who proceeded me in this profession.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Apr 2012)

Moore can bite me.  

(That makes two persons named Moore who are on my "list")


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2012)

While Moore may be correct with 20/20 hindsight that the Great War was "unnecessary", it fulfilled may foreign policy dictates of that time, for reasons that may seem obscure to us today (building battleship fleets was one of the penultimate causes of the war, something we would shake our heads in wonder about today), while others seem just as immediate in 2012 as they did in 1912 (preserving the balance of power and preventing any one nation or block from dominating Europe).

While the blood cost was very high, the lessons learned were also very great, including how to operate at high levels in both the military and political spheres, mobilizing industry and commerce on a new and vastly larger scale than ever before, and taking credit for our accomplishments in our own name and in our own right; all which helped bring about the realization of Canada as a distinct nation and not just a cog in the Imperial machine.

We have paid a terrible blood cost in Afghanistan as well (by contemporary standards), but many of the same lessons about operating at high levels in various military and nternational spheres and taking credit for what we have accomplishd apply today as they did in 1917.


----------



## Maxadia (13 Apr 2012)

He's probably referring to the F35's ( then again, maybe not) but I don't view our current government as "military-happy". Rather, I see them as being supportive, as any good government should be.


----------



## exabedtech (13 Apr 2012)

I see this article as simply bemoaning the glorification of war in a country that really is a bastion of peace in a messed up world.  Nowhere in this do I see any disrespect towards our fallen, our military or anything other than the leaders who precipitated what really and truly was a foolish war (as most are).  Did we learn anything from it?  Not nearly so much as we tell ourselves.  I'm very proud as most Canadians of our achievements in this conflict, but Canada was destined for greatness with or without WW1.  Obviously we had to contribute... its what allies do, and still do, but our greatness comes more from our ability to work with others to resolve issues.  Want to define a great nation?  Look at how they treat their dis-advantaged and what recourse they offer to those who've been wronged.

Most conflicts are pointless in retrospect.  Will Afghanistan really be a better place 15 years from now than it was 15 years ago?  I sure hope so, but I think its more likely that they'll be either at war or another basket case than a great stable and friendly democracy.  That end does nothing to diminish the sacrifices our men and women have made and continue to make.  They serve our country and they're are few higher callings than to serve Canada.

You'd think we'd learn from history, but violence and brinkmanship are in our blood and always will be.  Look out, Iran - your next!


----------



## ArmyRick (13 Apr 2012)

I see shades of grey, not black or white

Yes, WWI was a nasty cost of life started by monarchies and politicians with little thought for the cost of blood BUT it also helped forged a nation in fire and it did help DEFINE us (Canadians) as more than just another colony of the British Empire (My take on it)

I compare it to a very nasty forest fire. Yes its a violent and destructive event, but new life will grow from it afterwards. Although the cost in human life in any war is very high.


----------



## Sythen (13 Apr 2012)

I think Algernon Charles Swinburne put it best when he said, "Not with dreams, but with blood and with iron
Shall a nation be moulded to last."


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Apr 2012)

Wait a minute... why didn't he blame the Germans? It was Germany's fault, just like the 2nd European Civil War, and is the reason we pacified them into a neutred, vassal state like status. And you know what? It worked. Europeans haven't killed each other (much) since 1945. That's got to be an achievement in itself.

Now if they could just balance the books without another friggin' Marshall plan.  :


----------



## dapaterson (14 Apr 2012)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Europeans haven't killed each other (much) since 1945. That's got to be an achievement in itself.



You might want to do a little research.  I seem to recall a little dustup in Yugoslavia in the '90s.


Edit to add: And, if you consider the British Isles as European, there was also a little thing called "The Troubles".


----------



## exabedtech (14 Apr 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You might want to do a little research.  I seem to recall a little dustup in Yugoslavia in the '90s.
> 
> 
> Edit to add: And, if you consider the British Isles as European, there was also a little thing called "The Troubles".


not to mention some 40 years worth of nuclear standoff


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Apr 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You might want to do a little research.  I seem to recall a little dustup in Yugoslavia in the '90s.
> 
> 
> Edit to add: And, if you consider the British Isles as European, there was also a little thing called "The Troubles".



Goodness me, these were mere knee scrapes compared to the 10s of millions consumed in the two 'big ones'.  

Moore's an idiot, of course. We helped to kick ass for peace and did a great job for which we should be 'stand on the roof and shout Huzzah! at the tip top of our lungs' proud. I've got a family full of vets who'd attest to that, if they were alive.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Apr 2012)

So, if the 130-140 000 fatalities of the Yugoslav civil war is a "mere knee scrape", that means Canadian fatalities in WWI and WWII of about 110 000 are...


----------



## larry Strong (14 Apr 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, if the 130-140 000 fatalities of the Yugoslav civil war is a "mere knee scrape", that means Canadian fatalities in WWI and WWII of about 110 000 along with the 19,276,800 other Allied fatalities, as well as the 9,882,000 Axis/Central Powers fatalities are...was a blood bath by comparison!



There FTFY


----------



## exabedtech (14 Apr 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> I think Algernon Charles Swinburne put it best when he said, "Not with dreams, but with blood and with iron
> Shall a nation be moulded to last."



By that measure, Rwanda should last 1000 years.


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Apr 2012)

And David Frum joins the debate with this piece that draws heavily on Shane Schreiber's _Shock Army of the British Empire_. It appears in today's _National Post_ and is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

David Frum: Going beyond Vimy

Apr 14, 2012 – 8:00 AM ET

You could learn a lot about Canada’s national psyche from the country’s enduring fascination with the battle of Vimy Ridge, fought 95 years ago this past week.

Canadians fought dozens of major battles during the First World War. Yes, Vimy was the most tactically spectacular: One of the best-planned, best-executed Allied operations of the whole war. Vimy fully deserves the honour it carries in the national memory.

But the exclusive attention to Vimy obscures other Canadian achievements even more deserving of honour.

Who remembers now the Battle of Amiens in August, 1918? Yet it was this battle that broke the spirit of the German Army in the West. German troops broke and ran before a Canadian and Australian-led assault: the first German rout of the war. Between August and November, Canadians spearheaded a sequence of attacks that destroyed the German army’s will to fight.

Those battles — collectively known as the Hundred Days — have been brilliantly summarized in a short book that, if it were up to me, would be assigned to every high school student in Canada: Shane Schreiber’s Shock Army Of The British Empire.

By Schreiber’s tally, the 100,000 Canadians who fought in the Hundred Days met almost one-quarter of the entire remaining German army on the Western Front: Forty-seven German divisions against four Canadians. The Canadian forces fought alongside an Australian/New Zealand contingent. The three Dominions together engaged some 40% of the German army.

Over those three months, the Canadians suffered more than 45,000 casualties, killed and wounded — or about as many as in the whole year from D-Day to VE-Day in World War II.

Being a Canadian, of course, Schreiber underscores his point with a final statistical comparison to the U.S. forces in the Meuse-Argonne region on the southern portion of the Western front.

Troops engaged

Americans: 650,000

Canadians: 105,000

Duration of Operations

Americans: 47 days

Canadians: 100 days

Maximum Distance Advanced

Americans: 34 miles

Canadians: 86 miles

German Divisions Defeated (out of a total of 200)

Americans: 46

Canadians: 47

Average Number of Casualties Suffered per German Division Defeated

Americans: 2,170

Canadians: 975

Total Casualties

Americans: 100,000

Canadians: 45,830

“The ultimate conclusion that must be drawn,” Schreiber sums up, “is that … the Canadian Corps was able to make a highly significant contribution to the defeat of the German army on the battlefield at precisely half the cost in terms of life and limb as the American army.”

Unlike Vimy, the Hundred Days was a strategic as well as tactical victory.

And while few would dissent from John Moore’s verdict in Friday’s National Post that the First World War should never have been fought, it’s also true that once fought, it was vital that the Western democracies win. A German victory would have locked an exploitative military dictatorship in control of the whole continent of Europe — a point now agreed by German historians fully as much as non-Germans. Canada’s indispensable contribution to that victory ought to be a matter of national pride, to be celebrated gloriously in the now-impending centennial of the First World War.

But how? Not with more wreath-laying. The last veterans of the First World War are gone, and will be longer gone in August, 2014. What we owe them now is not only sympathy for their sacrifices, but remembrance of their military achievements: a national commitment to remembrance that should carry on through the whole period of the anniversary, and culminate — not in April 2017 — but on November 11, 2018, the centennial of the day that Canadian troops liberated the Belgian town of Mons, firing what is often described as the last shot of the First World War.

This anniversary offers an opportunity to rediscover Canada’s heritage as a war-fighting and war-winning nation — in wars that, because won, made possible the free, democratic and peaceful Europe of the 21st century.


----------



## cupper (14 Apr 2012)

Damn. Old Sweat you posted the same article I was about to post.


----------

