Simkins can’t help but continually leak out his disdain for Aussies and Canadians. It’s tiring. No one takes the colonial super man myth seriously - but it is fun. A begrudging “there’s no doubt the Aussie/Canadians were effective forces BUT… they had more brigades… etc. etc.” is what he routinely offers. Fact is, the Canadians and Aussies had leadership that didn’t want to spend their troops like a teenager with a new credit card… they played the nationalist card to keep their brigades strong with four battalions each…. and in the case of Currie, he even refused a promotion to full army command so that he could use a potential 5th division as a source of fresh replacements for his continuous assaults in the last 100 days, rather than thin them out into a small army formation while doubling administration. He knew what worked best for his troops and made sure Horne and Haig understood it would stay that way… something that could’ve been considered insubordination otherwise, but playing that nationalist card served him well and kept the morale of his men high. The Aussies, under Monash, were smart to do the same. As for the 12th performing well, indeed they did, in spite of their less influential commanders who could not/would not push back against the implementation of the new/weakened divisional formations. Yes, there was a manpower shortage (years of attrition, with CERTAIN generals squandering their manpower like drunken sailors with loose pockets, will do that), but one must ask why colonial nations with much smaller populations could maintain formations with more ‘punching power’, as Simkins put it, without rejigging their brigades.
In fairness I think he is only trying to give some balance to the 'colonial supermen' myth you read everywhere on youtube about how the Canadians/ANZACS won the war and British did nothing, he analysed the success rates and actually says they were indeed excellent troops, so he is not saying anything false like some of the appalling posts about the British you see everywhere.
Oh come on. He is just defending the reputation of the combat soldiers of his country. And he makes some valid points, the Canadian divisions did have more men and equipment. As a Canadian, I am glad they did.,
You Canadians and Australians can’t abide anyone disagreeing with your cosy chiefly false idea that your soldiers were far superior than the British. This man is a highly regarded historian.
Lovely. Thanks Peter. Is there a link to that Pals Bn performance data? Any tips welcome. 👍
Craig can't help but correct not only his coworkers but RUclips as well :0
Canadian. Peter Simpkins is a military historian of the highest order who doesn’t go in for yaaboo of our soldiers were better than yours rubbish.
Simkins can’t help but continually leak out his disdain for Aussies and Canadians. It’s tiring. No one takes the colonial super man myth seriously - but it is fun. A begrudging “there’s no doubt the Aussie/Canadians were effective forces BUT… they had more brigades… etc. etc.” is what he routinely offers.
Fact is, the Canadians and Aussies had leadership that didn’t want to spend their troops like a teenager with a new credit card… they played the nationalist card to keep their brigades strong with four battalions each…. and in the case of Currie, he even refused a promotion to full army command so that he could use a potential 5th division as a source of fresh replacements for his continuous assaults in the last 100 days, rather than thin them out into a small army formation while doubling administration. He knew what worked best for his troops and made sure Horne and Haig understood it would stay that way… something that could’ve been considered insubordination otherwise, but playing that nationalist card served him well and kept the morale of his men high. The Aussies, under Monash, were smart to do the same.
As for the 12th performing well, indeed they did, in spite of their less influential commanders who could not/would not push back against the implementation of the new/weakened divisional formations.
Yes, there was a manpower shortage (years of attrition, with CERTAIN generals squandering their manpower like drunken sailors with loose pockets, will do that), but one must ask why colonial nations with much smaller populations could maintain formations with more ‘punching power’, as Simkins put it, without rejigging their brigades.
In fairness I think he is only trying to give some balance to the 'colonial supermen' myth you read everywhere on youtube about how the Canadians/ANZACS won the war and British did nothing, he analysed the success rates and actually says they were indeed excellent troops, so he is not saying anything false like some of the appalling posts about the British you see everywhere.
He at least doesn’t go as far a Rob Thompson.
Oh come on. He is just defending the reputation of the combat soldiers of his country. And he makes some valid points, the Canadian divisions did have more men and equipment. As a Canadian, I am glad they did.,
You Canadians and Australians can’t abide anyone disagreeing with your cosy chiefly false idea that your soldiers were far superior than the British. This man is a highly regarded historian.