Talk:Canada's Hundred Days

Canada Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Canadian / North America / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Canadian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	World War I task force

First comment

First comment added 02:14, 8 August 2007
Comment deleted by poster 02:00, 23 June 2008
(This note added by Xyl 54 (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

46 Divisons, or 49?

A user posted in the article:

"Canada defeated 49 divisions wikipedia"

Can someone check if this is correct? I don't have the time to do so just yet. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have two sources who list the number of German Division defeated as 47. Perhaps furthur research is needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.200.183 (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read a considerable amount on this topic, but I don't have access to any references and won't until later this year due to my books being packed in boxes for a move. This number is an issue even in well researched histories on the subject and tends to vary. The number seems to be growing as the one I've seen the most (going by memory) is 44. The best way to deal with this also accounts for one of the reasons for the confusion. I suggest something like "the number of full divisions, or fragments of former divisions defeated by the 4 Canadian divisions during this time numbered no less than 44". Otherwise it is an endless pissing match between people who think their number is correct when in all likelihood they know nothing about what went into calculating the number. Again, from memory, the full divisions numbered something like 40 I believe, and there were some understrength enemy forces that in fairness should not simply be counted as a division no matter how they were listed in the German order of battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.102.23 (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does this even mean? Without solid data that defines what is being discussed here, this aspect should be deleted. I suspect the original data would have supported something like "Divisions in the Canadian Corps made contact with elements of 4x divisions during the War." I doubt there is a measure for "defeat" or "destroy" that would stand scrutiny. Bemcfarland (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Any particular reason this shouldn't be merged into the hundred days article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bureaucromancer (talk • contribs) 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was discussed at length previously, I don't know where that discussion disappeared to, but yes, there are many reasons it shouldn't be merged with the hundred days article, not the least of which is the spectacular level of contribution made by Canada during the hundred days get's watered down by doing it. Something like a quarter of all german forces defeated during the period faced the Canadians. While there is no doubt Americans and Brits are very good at minimizing others contributions and maximizing their own, this is one case where the meek Canadian viewpoint needs to be anything but. It would be very much appreciated if every time this issue gets resolved, someone else wouldn't immediately renominate it to be merged. Frankly, if one has to ask the question should it be merged, then they don't know enough on the topic to nominate it for merger. Only a cogent argument for why it doesn't stand on its own should be justification for such nomination. That never happens of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.102.23 (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that when stuff like this becomes politically motivated, 'lies of omission' become simply lies, and then you have books claiming Canada won the war alone. Quite honestly, I have met more Canadians who over-emphasise their own contribution than I have Americans, who are the subject of a quite unfair stereotype. It's their neighbour to the north who is more deserving of it. Alooulla (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved section to correct place in sequence Xyl 54 (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The discussion is here. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from a handful of authors making politically motivated boasts, was, in fact, Canada's contribution to the First World War "spectacular?" Let's ask the Australians or the French or . . . . Bemcfarland (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

um...

"Cent jours du Canada" is a literal translation of "canada's hundred days" (or "100 days of canada"... same meaning). Is there really any value in stating that this is what the period is known as in obviously French-speaking areas? Why wouldn't they? Now if it had a French name that meant something completely different, that'd be noteworthy. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the content. The source was an article about a movie and it didn't seem trustworthy.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Saying that it resulted in the collapse of the German Empire seems a bit...pompous. It was an important factor, certainly. But it was part of a larger Allied operation. Could someone change it to something a little less overstated? I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure on how to word it. -64.56.133.146 (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I amended it to alled victory, to mirror what is stated in the Hundred Days Offensive article. the better question is whether an infobox is required at all, I'm inclined to say no, but that's just me. --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox deletion

I removed the info box. I couldn't find any articles that separated out the Canadian participation for the hundred days offensive but focus on the amount of Canadian participation during that time period.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the article itself, "Reference to this period as Canada's Hundred Days is due to the substantial role the Canadian Corps of the British First Army played in causing the defeat and/or retreat of the German Army in a series of major battles from Amiens to Mons which along with other Allied offensives ultimately led to Germany's final defeat and surrender.". To suggest otherwise is a gross insult to the nearly 50,000 Canadian troops who died. 70.78.8.214 (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not with the level of Canadian participation (Canada's Hundred Days) but rather that it was not a separate battle from the Hundred Days Offensive. As such this is an article about the Canadian participation during that period is not a sub-battle of the offensive. This is unlike say the Battle of Vimy Ridge vis-a-vis the Battle of Arras.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, this is also a larger concept then a single battle participated in by Canada such as the Battle of the Canal du Nord, which has an infobox anyways. 08:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.8.214 (talk)

Selective Narrative

Whilst Canada's role in the victory on the Western Front is substantial, and therefore this article is warranted, the narrative seems to put Canada's role above those of other Empire forces in an unbalanced way. For instance, this article doesn't reference at all, the equally important role played by Australian forces on the Western Front, and the victory in the Hundred Days offensive. Nor does it properly play heed to the US-French efforts elsewhere. Having the infobox refer the outcome as a "Canadian Victory" seems biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.64.28 (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the article does mention the British, it seems to do so begrudingly. But WW1 content on Wikipedia has a large Canadian bias in general. Alooulla (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canada's Hundred Days. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050325172453/http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca:80/general/sub.cfm?source=memorials/ww1mem/le_quesnel to http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=memorials/ww1mem/le_quesnel

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British army number

I think that the Canadian corps at amens was part of the British fourth army not the first Fouris17 (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The corps was moved to the First Army after Amiens. I'll make the correction. Indefatigable (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second battle of arras

The Canadian corps activies in late August and early September involve breaking the drocourt-queant line. I think this battle is linked (in the introduction) as part of the second battle of the somme, but may be in actuality part of the second battle of arras. Fouris17 (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the 1918 battles, the battle nomenclature used here at Wikipedia is rather confusing, and I don't understand it came to be this way. It would make more sense to me if it more closely followed the tables created by the British Army committee after the war. But probably the editors who created those articles know more than I. In any case the article Second Battle of the Somme is the one that covers the family of battles that include Battle of Drocourt-Quéant Line. Indefatigable (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]