



Produced by Al Haines








  CANADA IN FLANDERS
  BY LORD BEAVERBROOK

  THE OFFICIAL STORY OF THE
  CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE

  VOLUME II




  CANADA IN
  FLANDERS

  By Lord Beaverbrook



  VOLUME II



  _WITH MAPS AND APPENDIX_



  HODDER AND STOUGHTON
  LONDON TORONTO NEW YORK
  MCMXVII




PREFACE


The narrative of the Second Battle of Ypres was written on the spot and
immediately after the action.  It was not until long afterwards that it
was possible to collect and collate the whole of the battalion diaries.
The story, therefore, could only be compiled from the personal reports
of the officers commanding units, and in some cases these were not
available, and certain regiments did not therefore receive the
prominence which was their due.  These regiments will, I am sure,
readily understand that the omission was not intentional, but due to
the impossibility of making sure of all the details of a great and
confused action until months after the event.  Although the material
has become available, I have decided not to attempt to rewrite the
story.  It is, in its main features, absolutely accurate, and has the
advantage which must belong to any narrative written within sound of
the guns, and while the impressions of the battlefield are still vivid
to the mind.  I am, in fact, afraid that any attempt on my part to
reconstruct the narrative would spoil whatever merit it may possess.

In the first place, it is necessary, however, to make good some
mistakes in the first volume which have been pointed out by persons who
were engaged in various actions.

The majority of errors occur in the matter of names, which, in about a
dozen cases, have been given inexactly.  In some cases it has been
possible to make the requisite corrections of initials, rank, or
spelling in succeeding editions.  I particularly regret the confusion
between the two brothers, Sergt. L. G. Newell and Sergt. F. C. C.
Newell, both of whom took part in the charge at Langemarke.  The
first-named, the older brother, died of his wounds after that attack,
while the second and younger recovered, returned to the trenches, and
won the D.C.M. at Givenchy.  With reference to the names of regiments
concerned in the Second Battle of Ypres, the King's Own Royal Leinsters
have been named by a misprint instead of the King's Own Royal
Lancashires, as part of Colonel Geddes' command, on page 56.  King
Edward's Horse should have the prefix 2nd throughout.  I offer my very
sincere apologies to both regiments.

As to the position of various units, it is stated on page 74 of Vol. I.
that Lieut.-Col. Watson, of the 2nd, was employed with his regiment on
a dangerous digging operation to connect a weak point in the line on
the night of April 28th, 1915.  It should have been added that the
entire 1st Brigade took part in this, the 2nd Battalion being on the
left, the 3rd in the centre, and the 1st on the right, the 4th
Battalion digging in the meanwhile a support trench close in rear.  The
omission of the description of the part played by the 5th Battalion
(Colonel Tuxford) in the Second Battle of Ypres was a serious one, but
this is dealt with in the course of the next few pages.

The only serious accusation of inaccuracy in the tactical survey of any
situation is preferred by those who maintain that the sketch of the
action at Festubert is wrong or misleading.  I have communicated with
Colonel J. E. Leckie, of the 16th Battalion, who, as a major, took a
prominent part in the assault and succeeded to the command of the
regiment, when his brother, Brigadier-General R. G. E. Leckie, was
promoted to a brigade.  He assures me that the sketch of the two
positions occupied by the Canadians in their successive attacks is
quite accurate, and, in fact, it is so.  None the less, it is easy to
see how the idea that there was an error originated.  In an attempt to
secure largeness of scale in the map, the area is unduly limited in its
scope.  The position from which the Canadians attacked is not given,
and the extent to which the Germans were forced back is only just
indicated.  In consequence, the words "First Canadian Position" might
be held to imply that this was the line from which they sallied forth
instead of the first position they occupied before they advanced to the
final attack on the orchard.  It is a misfortune if the plan
underestimates the ground won by the 14th and 15th.  No further serious
errors have been suggested so far as Vol. I. is concerned.

Mistakes will no doubt be discovered in the second volume.  They will
be found, however, to apply to the misspelling of the names of
individuals and to an occasional mistake or doubt as to the precise
position of a particular unit on a certain date, and not, I hope, to
any main question of the tactics or strategy of battle.

The contemporary historian cannot hope to avoid these errors.  He has
at his disposal neither the leisure nor the information of the writer
of after years.  He must take his information as it comes to him and
trust that rough justice is done, believing that his honest
misjudgments will be cleared up when the full history comes to be
written.  In the meantime, he may hope to supply material of value for
subsequent examination and use.  But for this final judgment we may
have to wait some years.  In the confusion and isolation of a modern
battle men are acutely aware of their own experiences, and can have
little knowledge of what is passing to the right or left, while the
staff behind have the same difficulty in discovering what is happening
on their front.  In these circumstances, the eye-witnesses themselves
often disagree.  Even the historians of the past have not infrequently
made mistakes and waged with the pen as fierce battles over stricken
fields as were ever fought by the opposing hosts with the sword.

There is, of course, one easy way out of these troubles; it is to have
no immediate record, but to await the official publications of after
time.  The Dominion Government has, and I think rightly, declared
against this policy.  It has been from the start in favour of publicity
so long as there was no danger to national interests.  It has not
concurred in the suppression of the deeds of regiments or individuals,
believing that in a democratic country the greatest stimulus to
exertion is the knowledge that one is known and approved by one's
fellow-citizens.  Its eye-witness accounts, therefore, set in many
respects the tone for similar publications, and it has adopted the same
liberal view in authorising a contemporary story.  In another respect,
the Dominion Government has been wise.  Enormous sums were spent after
the American Civil War in collecting the official records.  The units
had been disbanded and the witnesses scattered to civilian pursuits all
over the country,