NDP does it again.

[Jammer]

OTTAWA -- The NDP is in hot water over an MP's writings that praise communist pacifism and criticize Canada's participation in the First World War.

Writing on a left-wing Quebec blog, New Democrat MP Alexandre Boulerice mocked the conflict as "a purely capitalist war on the backs of the workers and peasants.

"The only ones to have refused this butchery, to have rejected the call of the 'sacred union' within each nation, were communist activists," Boulerice wrote in his 2007 posting on the blog Presse-toi à gauche (Hurry to the left).

Boulerice also sniped at Canadian soldiers involved in the Battle of Vimy Ridge, claiming that "thousands of poor wretches were slaughtered to take possession of a hill."

Almost 3,600 Canadians died in the battle to take the strategic Vimy Ridge from the heavily entrenched German forces of Kaiser Wilhelm on April 9, 1917.

The costly but successful capture of the ridge is widely considered the moment Canada came of age on the international stage.

Speaking after 96th anniversary commemorations of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney said he is outraged by Boulerice's posting.

"On such an important day of remembrance, I denounce these statements and call on Thomas Mulcair and Alexandre Boulerice of the NDP to immediately retract these inflammatory and inappropriate comments and to formally apologize to the Canadians and veterans they have insulted," he said in a statement.

Boulerice and his party have not responded to the controversy yet, but NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair issued an anniversary statement about Vimy Ridge early Tuesday.

"The Canadian soldiers' tremendous bravery, sound strategic planning and powerful artillery support are widely credited with the success of this mission," Mulcair said. "It is a point of pride for all Canadians that our soldiers serving today are still recognized as embodying those fine qualities."

 

[Edward Campbell]

There is a grain, plus, of historical validity in what M. Boulerice says. I have argued that the entente cordiale of 1904 - the treaty that bound France and Britain together - was the greatest single foreign policy blunder in over 800 years of prior British (English) history. By dragging Britain into what was, essentially, shaping up to be just another Franco-Prussian War the French guaranteed that it would become a complete European (World) War.

There were other factors, including fear of the rise of Japan after the Russo-Japanese War and German expansion in Africa and so on but it was, in the main, a clear eyed French appreciation of the situation - they had no hope of containing Germany on their own - and British preoccupation with the Irish question that took Britain's eyes off its long tradition of "balance of power" and lured them onto the continent.

The waste of that war, in blood and treasure, was shocking and it ended up being pointless. 

 

[BeyondTheNow]

...I have argued that the entente cordiale of 1904 - the treaty that bound France and Britain together - was the greatest single foreign policy blunder in over 800 years of prior British (English) history....

The waste of that war, in blood and treasure, was shocking and it ended up being pointless.

I do largely agree with your point, but feel it's important to mention the pact/alliance between Germany and Austria (the "blank cheque?").  As I understand it, a larger foreign policy issue or "blunder" was definitely related to them. I'd like to view your thoughts on that portion as I enjoy your posts and insight into these types of topics.

 

[dapaterson]

Link to the original article:  http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/04/20130409-144844.html


Jammer:  Please include links to sources when you post articles.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I do largely agree with your point, but feel it's important to mention the pact/alliance between Germany and Austria (the "blank cheque?").  As I understand it, a larger foreign policy issue or "blunder" was definitely related to them. I'd like to view your thoughts on that portion as I enjoy your posts and insight into these types of topics.

There were many causes, to be sure, but my thesis remains that, while a continental war was impossible to avoid, Britain ought to have stood aloof - providing goods and services to all comers and guaranteeing the freedom of the seas for one and all.

I think we need to bear in mind that the German goal was (still is?) the creation of a peaceful, prosperous, subservient Mitteleuropa which requires a  subservient France, too:

The British goal ought to have been to remain detached from continental disputes. British power had peaked circa 1830; it had already been overtaken in most measures of economic and military power by Germany (around 1870) and America (around 1890) but it remained a global powerhouse in services and sea power.

I blame the Irish! 

The defining political issue in Britain from 1885 through to 1920 was Irish Home Rule. It sucked all the political air out of the room leaving Lord Lansdowne, a political and strategic lightweight, free to sign two silly treaties: the an Anglo-Japanese Alliance (1902) (which almost dragged Britain into the Russo-Japanese War) and the entente cordiale in 1904, turning aside Lord Salisbury's sensible policy of "splendid isolation."

 

[Brad Sallows]

The initiation of WWI was more stupid than most chains of events leading to war, but the notion that communists are pacifists is ridiculous.  Communists are perfectly willing to go to war to force their beliefs on others; it is simply the case that at the time of WWI, they had too many of their fellow citizens in their respective countries to extinguish before they could devote any resources to foreign excursions.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well Stalin was willing to help out in Poland despite his commitments to exterminate various populations within in his own borders.

 

[Halifax Tar]

There were many causes, to be sure, but my thesis remains that, while a continental war was impossible to avoid, Britain ought to have stood aloof - providing goods and services to all comers and guaranteeing the freedom of the seas for one and all.

I think we need to bear in mind that the German goal was (still is?) the creation of a peaceful, prosperous, subservient Mitteleuropa which requires a  subservient France, too:

The British goal ought to have been to remain detached from continental disputes. British power had peaked circa 1830; it had already been overtaken in most measures of economic and military power by Germany (around 1870) and America (around 1890) but it remained a global powerhouse in services and sea power.

I blame the Irish! 

The defining political issue in Britain from 1885 through to 1920 was Irish Home Rule. It sucked all the political air out of the room leaving Lord Lansdowne, a political and strategic lightweight, free to sign two silly treaties: the an Anglo-Japanese Alliance (1902) (which almost dragged Britain into the Russo-Japanese War) and the entente cordiale in 1904, turning aside Lord Salisbury's sensible policy of "splendid isolation."

ERC, I am in no way debating you, I think your thesis is sound,  but did the naval arms race of the late 1890s - early 1900s not have a role to play ?  (Think HMS Dreadnaught)  I only ask as I am curently watching a 4 part documentary called "Steel Battleship" and it parades this as a major cause of WW1 quite heavily.  Interested to read your views on this.

 

[Edward Campbell]

No dispute, but my focus is Britain and British strategy, which, properly, included maintaining, at least, naval superiority in home waters and securing, always, the sea links to India. Both were accomplished with relative ease. That gave the Germans reason to wish to avoid a war with Britain and it should have given the British sufficient confidence to avoid an entanglement with France ~ it should have but it didn't.