CEF or BEF?

[Tim Birch]

I have seen various references to the Canadian Expeditionary Force. Were they also part of the British Expeditionary Force? I have always understood that the BEF was the generic term for all British Forces in France, inluding British Colonial Forces, and not just those from the Home Islands. Can anyone clarify this?

Tim

[paul guthrie]

Well Tim that's what I think too, all Empire forces, dominions & other, as well as UK forces were BEF.

[Terry]

The book published by the Pay & Record Office , Canadian Contingent in the war was entitled "List of Officers and Men Serving in the First Canadian Contingent of the British Expeditionary Force 1914"

[marc leroux]

The "Crowned Republics" (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa) all participated in the Great War under the British organization. There was consideranle flack when Borden, Prime Minister of Canada, insisted that the Canadian troops be led by a Canadian.

Canada raised 5 divisions of troops as part of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, a Canadian army, fighting under British command.

I think that India, Burma fell under this as well, but I'm not at all sure about Egypt and Sudan.

Hope this helps

marc

[mordac]

Canada raised 5 divisions of troops as part of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, a Canadian army, fighting under British command.

Hi Marc:

There were plans to form and place in the field the 5th and 6th Canadian Divisions. The idea for creating the 6th Division was dropped in late 1916.

The 5th Canadian Division was formed and existed for a very short period of time. It's original composition was - 13th Brigade: 128th, 134th, 160th and 202nd Battalions; 14th Brigade: 125th, 150th, 156th and 161st Battalions; 15th Brigade: 104th, 119th, 185th and 199th Battalions. The Canadian Corps casualties suffered in the Somme and Passchendaele offenses was the death blow for the 5th Division. On February 9, 1918 the 5th Division was broken up to provide men to the existing infantry battalions.

Garth

[marc leroux]

Hi Garth,

I knew that the 5th was formed, but broken up for replacements. I never heard of a 6th even being formed. Were there soldiers assigned to it? I know that the majority of conscripted troops in Canada never made it overseas.

marc

[Bill Alexander]

Hi Garth et al,

The 5th Div situation is somewhat complicated. Currie wanted to maintain the fighting prowess of the Canadian Corps, which had been so dearly earned. The 5th Div had been slated on an off and on basis for employment in France. However, the manpower reinforcement problem was begining to be a major factor in Canadian planning. The reinforcement needs for 5 divisions was seen as untenable by the Canadian government. Four divisions at the front were drawing heavily on the pool of available soldiers, and a fifth "active" division would have been too difficult to reinforce. This was determined in early 1917, before the demands of Vimy, Hill 70, and Paschendale strained the reinforcement situation of the Canadian Corps.

In early 1918, as a response to the losses at Paschendale, the British re-organized their divisions from a 4 battalion order of battle to a 3 battalion order of battle per brigade. The surplus battalion was used to bring the existing battalions up to strength. It was suggested the Canadian Corps follow suit, but Currie opposed the idea. The argument went that the Canadians would have 20 surplus battalions, which, with 6 more from the Canadian reinforcement pool in England, would create two new divisions. Currie felt that this would create an administrative burden on the existing Corps HQ, and would require a re-organization of the entire Canadian Corps into a Canadian Army, with all the necessary HQ establishments to be added. Considerably more manpower would be required, but it would not translate into battle effectiveness. Manpower would be swallowed up in the bureaucracy of HQ staffs. Instead Currie suggested the existing Canadian divisions be re-inforced over establishment. This would provide a ready pool of manpower in the front line, and made the Canadian divisions a stronger and more effective fighting force. For the 5th Division it meant disbandment, with the remaining trooops shipped to France as the surplus establishment. It should be noted that the 5th Division's artillery served as Corps artillery, and the MG coys and Canadian Engineers of the 5th also served in France.

[jhill]

Bill,

Without disagreeing with anything you say, I am just cynical enough to add another explanation as to why the Fifth Division was never sent to France. As we know, Sam Hughes, the Militia Minister, was very keen to advance his son Garnet. He pushed his promotion to command the 1st Brigade despite the fact that Arthur Currie considered Garnet incompetent. In fact, General Byng had to ignore Sam's direction to give Garnet the Third Division after General Mercer was killed. Even after Sam was turfed at the end of 1916, Prime Minister Borden desired that Garnet be looked after, supposedly to keep Sam from trying to sabotage the government.

It seems to me that by booting Garnet up to the Fifth Division at the beginning of 1917, the best solution was achieved. Currie had Garnet out of the way, while Sam could still see his boy in command of a Division. Of course, from Currie's point of view this only remained a good idea so long as the Fifth Division stayed in England. Hence Currie (and the army in general) had a vested interest in limiting the field army to four Divisions, since normally the Division commander would accompany his Division to France.

Of course, I may well be wrong! Certainly personnel issues would never affect high level descisions, would they? :-)

[mordac]

Marc - The 6th Division only existed on paper. They were to have the 16th, 17th and 18th Brigades and had some battalions penciled in each brigade, but that's as far as it got. The plan was dropped in late 1916. It should be noted that Sir Sam Hughes was pushing to have both the 5th and 6th Divisions formed and fully manned.

Bill - Nice summery of the 5th Division's demise. Details can be found on pages 230 to 232 of Nicholson's history.

James - You're such a cynic. You don't really think Currie was trying to pull an end run on Sir Sam do you?

Garth

[marc leroux]

I think it could have been an interesting discussion:

Currie: Well, Sam, the good news is that I just appointed your son to head up the 5th.

Hughes: Hey, great. Thanks a lot! ... wait a minute, what's the bad news?

Currie: Well, Sam, we've had a few casualities ...

[Bill Alexander]

James, and Mark and all, Certainly a degree of politics entered the decision to allow Currie to keep the Canadian divisions in their establishment plus 100. Currie in fact privately commented "Without a very great stretch of the imagination you can pretty well know who our officers are who desire the new commands, and can come to as good a conclusion as I as to whether our efficiency would be impaired or not..." (D.Morton, A Peculiar Kind of Politics.) Currie had made Haig aware of the situation regarding the Canadian Corps re-organization. Sir Douglas Haig even commented in his diary in February of 1918, that "Canadian politicians are still trying to put their own political friends into high commands in Canadian units in France." Haig went further, and having lost the argument on re-organization of the BEF with his political masters, suggested that he (Haig) would insist that Currie be placed in command of the new Canadian army. Currie was faced with arguing against his own promotion!! (Note that the new Canadian army excepting HQ staffs, would still be only slightly larger than the existing Canadian Corps in January of 1918.)

Currie argued with the Canadian overseas authorities in England, (Sir Edward Kemp and General Turner), that the enhanced existing establishment would retain the power and prestige of the Canadian Corps. The training of new staff officers would take time, and there was no guarantee that the new Canadian army would retain the efficeincy of the existing corps. These arguments won the day and Currie kept the Corps.

One can only wonder to whom Haig was referring?

[laughton]

I find the original question interesting, as to whether it was CEF or BEF, particularly in the case of my research where my grandfather was in the CEF when he left Canada and then he switched to the British Army so that he could take an officers position and serve in France (which he did). At the end of the war he was first discharged (invalided out) from the British Army and then the Canadian Army. The Canadian Archives don't show a lot about him after the switch to the British Army as they record that he left the CEF at that time. To me then that means that in Canada they saw the CEF as a totally different item than the BEF.

[Joe Sweeney]

Tim,

This might be a little complicated. The CEF encompased the whole of the Canadian Overseas force and as such is a bit loose in definition. Operationally and tactically, units of the CEF were placed under British Military authority. So the Canadian Corps can be considered subordinate too and part of the BEF while still being CEF at the same time. Administratively, Canada retained control, so those CEF eliments remaining in the UK were CEF and not BEF.

Joe Sweeney