Five Thoughts About the Second Battle of Ypres

In April, Canada’s commemorative attention normally focuses on the Battle of Vimy Ridge, fought in France from 9 – 12 April, 1917. The memory of Vimy tends to obscure another important April battle Canadians fought on the Western Front: the Second Battle of Ypres, involving Canadians between 22 and 25 April, and lasting into May. Though Vimy outshines it in collective memory, Second Ypres is still well known as the first gas attack of the war, and a successful, desperate defence of the Belgian city of Ypres.

Second Ypres is getting more attention this year because it is the centennial of the battle, but I think Second Ypres should be more important than Vimy for Canada’s sense of the past in the long term. Victory at Vimy encourages a nationalist memory, whether triumphant or critical. Though the memory of Ypres can fit with a nationalist narrative too, it more easily emphasizes imperialism and internationalism, and can prod us to reflect on transnationalism. Maybe more basically: the history of Ypres can push us to really think about what the First World War was, and why it is important for us now.

Here are five thoughts relating to these themes:

Most of the Canadians who fought at Ypres were immigrants from Britain. That was true for the CEF until conscription tipped the scales towards slightly more Canadian-born members. But British-born remained disproportionately represented. So it was largely an immigrant Canadian army at Ypres, and to a lesser extent right through to 1918.

The units that took the brunt of the German gas attack on 22 April were French colonial troops from Algeria and Morocco. Remembering that reminds us that Canadians were not the only “Colonials” on the Western Front, or even part of the only empire fighting in France and Belgium. In fact, all the belligerent powers were some form of empire, and that can include the United States, since by 1914 it effectively possessed subject territories, such as the Philippines.

Germany’s gas attack was the first of its kind, meaning the first effective use of gas against an enemy. (It was used by France and Germany ineffectively earlier in the war.) Especially when we keep in mind that Germany’s enemies quickly adopted gas warfare after Second Ypres, the battle can remind us of the important relationship between the First World War and technical innovation. Submarines, large-scale use of airplanes, and a host of other developments, were spurred by the war.

The use of gas contravened international agreements, and thus was against the rules of war. Remembering the inauguration of gas warfare should put us in mind of the First World War’s essential place in the history of war crimes. Was Britain’s blockade of Germany criminal, or a justified act of war? Whether or not a clear answer is possible, the historical reply (in a sense) was Germany’s decision to engage in unrestricted submarine warfare, allowing neutral shipping to be targeted. From war crime the discussion can move towards atrocities, which occurred in the invasion of Belgium, and genocide, which Pope Francis recently brought to the world’s attention in commemorating the fate of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

Fought by soldiers from all over the world, involving chemical weapons, masses of men and material, and costing enormous casualties, the Second Battle of Ypres ended inconclusively. It proved to be something of a prototype for offensives on the Western Front, each of which raised fundamental questions about the legality and utility of war with which humanity continues to grapple.