By Matthew Clark
I just arrived back in Canada four days ago. My flight back was from Paris to Montreal. For fifteen days an old buddy accompanied me as we travelled Northern France and the adjacent parts of Belgium, touring the First and Second World War campaign sites, with a special emphasis on battles where Canadian troops participated. We did not use a tour guide, instead relying on our own ability to get around. This decision while allowing for more independence, also resulted in more confusion. Confusion as in what occurs when one is lost in a foreign nation with a limited ability to speak the local language. Nevertheless we persevered through the confusion and learnt some valuable lessons on what our fighting men went through in both World Wars.
In the Somme sector near Amiens where such actions as Beaumont-Hamel and Corcelette took place an astonishing aspect of the conflict was the defensive strength of the German positions. Intelligently the German senior command usually located their lines atop of elevation so that they would have to be attacked uphill. Employing machine guns they created cross fire zones which also had overlapping fields of fire. Since the trenches were rarely straight the Germans took an oppurtunity, whenever an attack was launched against them, to hit their opponents from the side as well as straight on. Often Allied soldiers were being fired upon from 3 sides when embarking on an offensive against their enemy. A good illustration of this of this circumstance is the action launched by Irish/Ulster units on July 1, 1916 at the Battle of the Somme. They endured a virtual slaughter of their ranks, suffering 1778 dead on that one day alone. It is a marvel that anyone in those ranks survived the day given the circumstances.
Similar conditions existed around Ypes, Belgium. Again the Germans assumed the high positions, making an attack upon their lines a daunting affair. Additionally there was a further challenge created by ground conditions. Water tables around Ypes were very robust. During World War One the area became a quagmire. Next to Stalingrad the Battle of Passenchendale in 1917 (more often referred to as The Third Battle Of Ypes) was fought under the worst conditions in modern warfare.
Finally our travels brought us to Normandy and the location of the Dieppe Raid, along with the D Day landings. Dieppe is surrounded by high cliffs offering the Germans clear fields of fire. Moreover the beaches are blanketed by small rocks, making traction for both men and vehicles, including tanks, burdensome at best, impassable at worst. Naturally enough the Germans cross angled their bunkers and pillboxes so that they were difficult to hit, yet did not hinder defensive abilities in the least. No wonder the courageous Canadian fighting men were slaughtered at Dieppe.
Although the D Day beaches did not have the rocks of Dieppe they did have the surrounding Cliffs and, as always, intelligently designed German defenses. Omaha Beach, where the American soldiers had such difficulty dislodging the fighting forces of the Third Reich, had elevation along the whole length of that shoreline.
During both World Wars the Germans won countless battles, while even the ones they lost they often still seemed a step ahead of the leaders of our armed forces. Nevertheless they lost! We won! Why?
Many reasons can be listed yet the quality which immediately comes to mind is the staying power of the Western Allies ( and their Russian ally to the east). First and foremost was determination. At St. Julien Canadian soldiers faced the first gas attack without any masks. So to alleviate the effects of the poison gas they peed into their hankerchiefs, put those hankerchiefs to their noses, and held the line against enemy attack. At Verdun French soldiers were so dehydriated they drank their own urine. Again the line was held.
During WWII British civillians and fighting men alike witnessed their cities being razed to the ground. Yet the thought of surrender was rejected out of hand. At Midway United States Torpedo Bomber(s) airmen went to almost certain death when they attacked the Japanese fleet. Thus the Japanese fighter aircraft were all flying low when the U.S. dive bombers made their appearances.
This determination, perhaps desperation is a more accurate term, came from the fact the enemy was on Allied soil. France, Belgium, during WWI, bombing Britain in WWII, with the threat of invasion. At Midway the Americans believed Hawaii was the next Japanese target of invasion if the Empire of the Sun was successful in seizing the Atoll.
Staying power also came from manufacturing. In the 20th century Western countries made things, lots of things. Their wealth was tangible in the products they produced. Allied armies often enjoyed overwhelming superiority over their enemies in the amount of material available to their fighting forces. As a result no matter how fierce and efficient the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey) were in the First World War, or the Axis Alliance (Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) in the Second Great War, they were defeated by an adversary (us) who had greater staying power.
Jump forward to contemporary times. What is the state of the Western Alliance ( NATO and her allies)? Very few, if any, of the NATO member nations have a healthy manufacturing sector. Western countries do not make anything. Their wealth is not in tangible products. Western economies are built on a financial system which more and more takes on the characteristics of an immense Ponzi scheme. Such a system will hardly inspire determination, and with it staying power, in it's citizenry!
Alarmingly it is NATO nations who are on the borders of their opponents. It was the American governments push to make Ukraine a member of NATO which is at root of the Russo-Ukraine war. Russia was invaded by Axis Forces in WWII, Central Power Forces in WWI, and the Napleonic Alliance in 1812, all through Ukraine. No Russian government was ever going to allow a hostile ( to them) alliance on the Russian Ukraine border. Is that position different from the United states government position on Cuba, or indeed the whole Western Hemisphere?
In the Middle East, and Afghanistan, American Alliance forces have waged continuous (neverending) war since 2001, almost 25 years. In all cases the American Alliance forces win all the battles, yet lose the war(s). We are fighting on their land, so they possess the greater staying power.
In the orient Western nations have allied with the island of Taiwan against the malevolent Communist China entity. There is little doubt that the Xi led government of mainland China is a malignant sore domestically and internationally. Nevertheless Taiwan has traditionally been a part of China. It's political fate is an issue to be worked out, in whatever manner, between the inhabitants of those jurisdictions. If Western Forces get involved they are unlikely to have the staying to emerge victorious. Therefore more lives, and money, will be fruitlessly wasted!
In the final analysis comparing the current Western Alliance to that of the first part of the 20th century results in a disturbing conclusion. By straying to faraway shores while literally giving up the tools of manufacturing we have lost the tenacity of our forefathers and foremothers. Conversely our opponents, fighting on or close to their own lands, using products both military and civillian built by the sweat of their fellow citizens, now possess the perseverence once so common to our own population. Sadly we are even lacking in the spiritual power which also once gave us the endurance to triumph. Our peoples long ago gave up on appealing to a merciful God to atone for our sins. We are lacking in material and moral resources.
The logical conclusion would appear to be that our future does not bode well
Comments