YANKEES REPULSED!

Vincent J. Curtis

5 Feb 25

STONEY CREEK – (Special to Esprit de Corps): After a desperate night attack by British forces upon the invading American army, the Yanks have withdrawn to Grimsby, and left the battlefield in British possession.

After losing Fort George on May 27, British forces (Brig-Gen Jⁿ Vincent commanding) withdrew to a position on the Burling Heights at the head of the Lake, disbanding militia units along the way.  One brigade of Americans, (Brig-Gen W^m Winder commanding), pursued Vincent as far as Grimsby, where he halted and awaited reinforcements. Winder was joined by a second brigade, Brig-Gen Jⁿ Chandler, commanding. This division advanced to Stoney Creek; and, on June 5^th, halted at the farm of the Gage family.  The plain object of the invaders was the capture of York.

Lt-Col Jⁿ Harvey was dispatched by Gen Vincent to reconnoiter the invaders’ camp, returning with both a plan and the password.  Harvey proposed a surprise night attack as the means of repulsing the American force, which greatly outnumbered the British and had a stronger artillery arm. Vincent agreed, and placed Harvey in command of the operation.  Thus, a British force consisting of five companies of the 1/8 (King’s) Reg^t of Foot, the 49^th Reg^t of Foot, approx. 700 men were to hurl themselves against a force five times their strength. Noteworthy among the gallant 700 were 30 militiamen (Lincoln, York, Oxford & others), and 12 native allies.

The gallant 700 was guided from Burlington Heights to their attack position by Mr. W^m Green, a local lad familiar with the terrain, the location, and the lay-out of the camp. Our fortitudinous British departed at 23:30 o’clock.  They followed the old Indian trail called locally, “The King’s Street”, tromping in silence over ten miles to reach Stoney Creek, where they saw the campfires of the unsuspecting invaders.  A couple of native allies dealt with a sentry, silently, in their usual fashion involving bow, arrow, and tomahawk.  Cheers of success cost us the element of complete surprise, and the attack went in noisily.  The plan had been to bayonet the sleeping invaders in their tents; but now the alarm was raised, and, though in a state of confusion, the alerted invaders stood to arms.

The charge was initially successful; but the terrible disparity in numbers began to tell. The invaders had time to form ranks and direct their musketry in the direction of the of coming commotion; their artillery became effective, and their center held.  At this desperate moment, the brilliance of Yankee generalship commenced to turn the tide in our favor.  Attempting a maneuver at night, the invaders left his artillery exposed. The gallant 49^th (Maj Chas. Plenderleath commanding) charged and captured two guns. The impulse of their charge carried the 49^th into a surprised invader regiment (believed to be the 23^rd U.S. Infantry Reg^t), and in the course of pursuing the flying 23^rd, our boys encountered and captured no less a personage than the invading commander himself, Brig-Gen Chandler, Esq. Not to be outdone by his superior, Brig-Gen Winder surrendered himself to the self-same captor of Gen Chandler, Pte A. Fraser, leaving the invaders leaderless, and hapless.

Retreat in confusion began by regiments.  Both generals now being guests of the 49^th, Yankee command fell to a Col Jas. Burn, who ordered a retreat, which didn’t arrest until the flying invaders reached their old camp near Grimsby.  In less than three-quarters of an hour an invading force strong enough in daylight to brush aside resistance and capture York, sure in its superiority, was knocked on the head and driven back, their commanding generals and four artillery pieces held as prises de guerre by a force a fifth of their size. At dawn, a victorious Col Harvey ordered his troops to withdraw into the woods lest invader scouts ascertain how few were the victors.  When it was clear that the invaders were at Grimsby, Harvey’s men embraced the hospitality of the camp the invaders had so graciously left to them.

-30-

Mark Carney's Habit of Deception

 Practicing Deception

Vincent J. Curtis

4 June 25

In the brevity of his presence on the public stage, Canadian Prime Minster Mark Carney has made numerous demonstrations of deception, which are contrary to trustworthiness, to good order, and to good government.  No, I’m not referring to the accusations of plagiarism or to his claims to the successful work of the Minister of Finance of the Harper Government, the late Jim Flaherty; no, I’m referring to actions like those below.

One of first acts as Prime Minister was to announce that he was cancelling the carbon tax, and, with a flourish, signed a document in an impressive looking red folder. The show resembled U.S. President Donald Trump signing an Executive Order: poof, it was the law of the land. The carbon tax was created by legislation, and it would take legislation to repeal it; hence, the carbon tax was not actually cancelled by his signature as Carney claimed it was; and the piece of paper in the impressive red folder that Carney signed had no force of law.  Orders-in-Council are documents that have force of law in Canada, and these are signed by the Governor-General upon the advice of the Cabinet or the responsible Minister. The OIC that the Governor-General signed in this instance merely reduced the rate of the carbon tax to zero; the law creating the carbon tax is still in force and on the books, and the tax rate can be raised at any time by another OIC: a carbon tax on commercial products like gasoline and diesel fuel is still the law of the land; the legislation hasn’t been repealed, either by Carney’s signature, the Governor-General’s signature, nor, so far, by Act of Parliament.  The show was political theatre that looked like a Trumpian exercise of power to the casual viewer.

Another series of acts of deception by Mark Carney concerned retaliatory tariffs by the Canadian government on goods imported from the United States; these tariffs were imposed in retaliation to tariffs suddenly imposed by the Trump Administration on Canadian goods. Carney’s tariffs were announced with great fanfare, and were offered as a sign of Mark Carney’s toughness and decisiveness against Trump; “elbows up” and all that.  These tariffs were supposed to collect $20 Billion, which were to be put towards the relief of those sectors of the economy affected by the Trump tariffs.  Secretly, on April 16^th, within weeks of their imposition, Carney introduced a program of exemptions, crafted in a way that makes it look like the tariffs remain in force, but any importer can request, and upon request receive, an exemption from paying tariff on goods imported from the United States.  This program wasn’t published in the Canada Gazette effectively until after the election (Published April 25; election April 28), though the exemption program came into force on April 16^th, i.e. before being published in the Canada Gazette.  This is why the Liberals refuse to answer the question put to them in the House of Commons, “how much tariff has been collected so far?” And “how can the government provide relief, or support, to those sectors of the economy affected by the Trump tariffs, when we’re collecting no money for it?”

Another area of deception concerns Bill C-69, the anti-pipeline legislation.  Carney has been making allusions to the construction of “nation building projects” that enjoy “consensus”, and hasn’t rejected openly the idea that oil and gas pipelines from Alberta qualify as “nation building projects”, at least not yet.  He has proposed get-arounds to deal with specific projects he approves of.  In the case of the anti-pipeline legislation, he’s hinted that a special piece of legislation would be crafted to override the sticky provisions of C-69 for that particular case.  This is not good-government legislating; it’s deceiving someone, such as the people who voted for and support C-69 as being decisive against more pipelines from Alberta.  But Carney doesn’t need to come out against pipelines from Alberta; he merely says “if there’s a consensus”, which there won’t be, because the Premier of British Columbia, David Eby, is adamantly opposed to running a pipeline through B.C. to reach tidewater from Alberta; and members of Carney’s own cabinet, such as Steven Guilbeault, are fervently opposed to more oil and gas production from Alberta.  Carney can appear to favor expansion of oil and gas production in Alberta, but be helpless to make it happen, which is his preferred option, given his long involvement in the Net Zero movement. Deceptive atmosphereics.

Another example of deception concerns the “decarbonized barrels” going through oil pipelines, as a condition of building new pipelines.  The process of extracting and upgrading Alberta bitumen was developed in the 1960s; roughly one quarter of the extracted bitumen is burnt to provide the heat and power to extract and upgrade the remaining three-quarters.  “Decarbonizing” means that either hydro or nuclear power replace the combustion of bitumen; that saved one-quarter becoming product for sale, for others to turn into, and burn, as fuel.  Alberta premier Danielle Smith has said that decarbonization has to occur after the pipelines are built; the revenue from a one million barrel a day pipeline will provide the money to pay for the construction of a nuclear reactor to replace the bitumen as the energy source to run the extraction and upgrading process. She’s also said it would be a failure if government had to build all these things, and not the private sector. Carney, the Net Zero guy, refuses to build a pipeline unless it carries “decarbonized barrels.”

Another, particularly disturbing, act of deception concerns the failure to produce a budget in the spring session of parliament, and pretending to be defeated by the summer recess routinely scheduled for late June.  Carney was the man with a plan; the banker, experienced in business; it therefore came as a shock even to Liberal supporters when the government announced that it would present no budget for fiscal 2025-26.  The public shock was so great, that a fiscal update was then floated to be presented in September.  A budget may yet be produced in September. The Carney government, and its immediate predecessor, has had the Department of Finance at its permanent disposal; it has last year’s budget as a recent example; it has last fall’s fiscal update; and it has Carney’s own seemingly omnipotent “experience” available to it, and yet something as basic as a budget is beyond its powers? This is deception; the Carney government doesn’t want the full scale of the fiscal crisis before the country, with a deficit exploded beyond $100 billion, known to the public; at least not yet.  Pierre Poilievre said he would work the parliament through the summer, if elected, to get Canada’s affairs put in order quickly, so pretending to be helpless before a rule of parliament is deceptive.

Carney still enjoys the honeymoon period of his Prime Ministership, and might win a majority if an election were forced on the country right now.  The good atmospherics he generated at the recent First Ministers’ Conference adds to his popularity, or at least to the illusion that something good is being done, and that he is competent.  His Trudeauesque performances in Question Period demonstrate that deception and contempt for its opponents remains the dominant attitude of the Liberal government: the new man isn’t being honest in the House, and nothing has changed despite the change of leader.

It will take a few months for people to see through the deception and fakery of Mark Carney as Prime Minister. His habit of employing deception as the smoother path than to face up to difficulties in a manful way, leads to a breakdown in trust, to bad government; and Canada has already had enough of that.

-30-

 

Haudenosauee Still Bullying Hamilton

Vincent J. Curtis

12 May 25

The City of Hamilton is once again menaced with trouble by the self-styled “hereditary chiefs of the Haudenosauee,” or Iroquois indians.  This aboriginal aristocracy insists on being consulted, and having an approval, on engineering projects concerning the Red Hill valley, and other places as their whimsy chooses, projects that are far above their capabilities to judge.

The consciences of city councillors are soothed somewhat, if not entirely placated, at this humiliation by the thought that they are bound by the so-called Nanfan Treaty.  It’s a pity no one in the legal department has read it, for otherwise the hereditary chiefs would be escorted from the building; and the city would have to deal with the trouble the chiefs imply they could cause.

The Nanfan Treaty is a straight-up quit claim, “quit claimed onto the King of England forever all the right, title, and interest and all claims and demands whatsoever.”

John Nanfan was the Acting Governor of the-then English province of New York; he had no royal commission to be Governor; and, more importantly, he had no Letters Patent from King Willian III to act as his plenipotentiary to negotiate a treaty with anyone on behalf of the English Crown.  Nevertheless, on 19 July, 1701, representatives of the Iroquois confederacy walked into his office with an offer to surrender lands - which they did not actually possess.  Specifically, the Iroquois Nations deeded to the English Crown their title to Beaver Hunting grounds that they claimed to have acquired by right of conquest in the 17^th century, and that saw the annihilation of the Huron Nation in 1649.  This territory included the Niagara Peninsula, all of South-Western Ontario (the “Land between the Lakes”), the Bruce Peninsula, and the north shore of Lake Ontario as far east as Oshawa.  This and more were part of New France at the time, and claimed, as well as occupied, by French Algonquinian allies, which included the Mississaugas of the Credit.  Much of this territory was subject to the Dish with One Spoon Wampum treaty!

The Iroquois “voluntarily surrendered, delivered up, and by these presents do for us, our heirs and successors forever, quit claimed onto the King of England forever all the right, title, and interest and all claims and demands whatsoever.”  That’s pretty definitive, and raises the question why would the Iroquois surrender title in exchange, apparently, for nothing (albeit land that wasn’t theirs)?  It was ostensibly offered as a gift to the King William III of England, his heir and successors, out of an admiration for him.

The answer seems to be that this was a way for the Iroquois to engage English help to protect hunting and fishing territory, which, up until then the Iroquois had to defend on their own; and, in particular, to drive the Mississaugas out of the Dish With One Spoon territory. For the English, the beaver trade would then flow though English hands instead of through French hands.  But the English did not help, and the Nanfan Treaty fell from the notice of history, until it’s recent revival.

The wording quoted above clearly denies the hereditary chiefs any right to interfere, make claims, or demands, concerning the surrendered territory - that includes modern-day Hamilton. If anyone had a claim, it would be the Mississaugas, but they sold this land to the Crown in 1792.

Naked force is an ugly thing; and submitting to a bullying and humiliating consultative processes is judged a pang the city can endure rather than have to deal with expensive delays and politically difficult confrontations. Nevertheless, there’s no treaty basis for some self-chosen group of indian aristocrats to have a veto over city engineering projects in the Red Hill Valley, or anywhere else.

-30-.

Net Zero nuttery

Vincent J. Curtis

1 May 25

Net Zero nuttery is rooted in the belief that carbon dioxide causes bad weather, and that Canada can stop the world from sliding into a climate catastrophe seventy-five years hence. It also means that the year of the tipping point, when the slide into ruin becomes irreversible, is 2030.  Mark Carney has to move fast.

But reaching Net Zero in Canada the task of Sisyphus.  Canada’s forest fires of 2023 produced four times the amount of carbon dioxide that the Canadian humans produced that year; every attempt to capture anthropogenic CO2 by planting forests is but the creation of a time-bomb that inevitably will explode.  A couple years of drought in a mature forest produces plenty of kindling; the fire that destroyed Jasper, AB, was stoked by dried pine trees that had been killed years earlier by the pine beetle.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump has pulled America from the Paris Climate Accord, and plans to re-introduce the production and use of “beautiful, clean coal.”  China, he observed at his recent rally in Michigan, opens a new coal-fired power plant every week; and India is not far behind. Both countries make steel by the use of coked coal, still the only practical way of reducing iron oxide into metallic iron.  Mr. Trump also plans to open the north slope of Alaska to oil and gas production under his program of “Drill, baby, drill.”  The curtailment of Alberta’s oil and gas production won’t compensate for these new sources of emissions which Mr. Carney believes will destroy the world.

The cities of Toronto, Mississauga, and Vancouver elected Mr. Carney and his party because they thought he was the man to deal with Mr. Trump, and prevent Canada from becoming the 51^st state of the American Union.  Apparently, these cities haven’t suffered enough crime, homelessness, and degradation of civilization enough to vote Conservative – yet.

Canadians will soon find that Mr. Carney is a lot less than his resume suggests.

-30-

 

 

Chris Vokes at Friesoythe

Vincent J. Curtis

23 Dec 24

Friesoythe is a town on the river Soeste in Lower Saxony, Germany, with a population of about 23,000. Originating in the 13^th century, modern Friesoythe is said to be influenced by several cultures: German, Anglo-Saxon, Dutch, Friesian, Swedish, and Danish.  In April, 1945, it was razed by elements of the 4^th Canadian Armoured Division on the orders of GOC MGen Chris Vokes.  Vokes further ordered that the town’s rubble be used to repair roads for the advantage of divisional armoured vehicles.

We last saw Chris Vokes December, 1943, at Ortona, Italy, where, as GOC 1st Canadian Infantry Division, he forced back two German divisions, and captured the town that was the Adriatic end of the Gustav Line. Monty took a dim view of Vokes in that, his first battle as a divisional commander, deprecating him as “a mere cook.” By 1945, Vokes was gaining the reputation as “Canada’s Fightingest General.”

Ortona was a vicious, unexpected urban battle in which the Germans sowed the town with booby-traps and mines.  What Vokes saw was a German Parachute Division willing to cause the utter destruction of a beautiful Italian sea-side town for the defence of the German Fatherland.  Friesoythe also happened to be defended by German Parachute troops who, however, seemed much more inclined to preserve, as the end of the war drew near, the Fatherland’s towns.

And the end was drawing near. Everybody knew it.  By the middle of April, 1945, only the most fanatical Germans were resisting stoutly.  Canadian KIAs were running four or five per battalion a day, and the troops were getting tired of it.

In April, 1945, Friesoythe had a population of about 4,000, most of whom had moved to the countryside as the Canadian Army approached.  The town was defended by about 200 German fallschirmjager.  First up to attack was the Lake Superior Regiment, which, on April 13, attacked the town by frontal assault, and were repulsed after taking 2 KIA and 19 WIA.

Next up were the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada, under the command of LCol Frederick Wigle, DSO, OBE.  Wigle had taken command from the much beloved LCol Dave Stewart, of Hill 195 fame, and quickly endeared himself to his men.  Vokes also had a high regard for Wigle, of whom he wrote in his autobiography, “A first-rate officer of mine, for whom I had a special regard and affection, and in whom I had a particular professional interest because of his talent for command.”

“Wigle decided on a daring flank attack” to capture the town after a night march, which “[took] the enemy unawares”, after the previous attack by the Lake Superiors.

The march and attack were successful, the town being taken and secured by 1030 hrs that morning. However, the advancing companies in the dark missed two platoons’ worth of Germans, who attacked an unguarded battalion Tac HQ.  Wigle was killed by a sniper’s bullet in the back, and perhaps the sniper was a civilian.  Or so it was believed at the time.  Alerted, the advancing companies quickly returned and saved Tac HQ from being overrun.  The Argylls were outraged at Wigle’s death and began burning the town.

Vokes wrote in his autobiography, “I summoned my GSO1…. 'Mac,' I roared at him, 'I'm going to raze that goddam town.”  Vokes had many willing hands, and he ordered that flamethrowing armoured vehicles be dispatched to reduce the town with industrial thoroughness and speed.  Friesoythe’s rubble was used to repair district roads.

Vokes said in 1985 he had no remorse over the destruction of Friesoythe.

The destruction of a captured town may seem shocking to modern Canadian eyes, but in the long history of European warfare, the sacking of a town that resisted capture, and whose needless resistance had caused unnecessary deaths among the attackers, was standard operating procedure, and expected. Sacking taught the world a lesson; and was a catharsis, purging anger, stress, and tension from the attacking troops.  As Ortona, so Friesoythe?

-30-

 

Chris Vokes at Ortona

Vincent J. Curtis

10 Nov 24

Maj-Gen Chris Vokes CB, CBE, DSO, CD (13 Apr 1904 – 17 Mar 1985) commanded the 1^st Canadian Infantry and 4^th Canadian Armoured Divisions in WWII. He also commanded the Canadian Army Occupation Force until its withdrawal from Europe in 1946. He was accused of being unimaginative as a general, a butcher, whom Monty is said to have called a “mere cook”, a reputation established at the Battle of Ortona in December, 1943.  We will be concerned with establishing the validity of that assessment.

Vokes was born in Armagh, Ireland, the son of Maj Patrick Vokes of the British Army.  The Vokes family came to Canada in 1910, where Major Vokes was employed as an engineering officer at RMC; and the family lived in the BMQs on Ridout Row.

Unsurprisingly, Chris Vokes attended RMC as a cadet, from 1921 to 1925; and was commissioned into the RCEs. After commissioning, he attended McGill University from 1928 to 1927, earning a B.Sc. degree. He took the elite Staff College course at Camberley, England, from 1934 to 1935, and while there was promoted to Captain.  Vokes’ lasting claim to fame in this era was to have made the engineering drawings for the rifle range butts at Camp Dundurn.

Brigadier-General Chris Vokes commanded the 2^nd Canadian Infantry Brigade during Operation HUSKY, the invasion and conquest of Sicily, (July – August, 1943) and Op BAYTOWN, the Italy landings, both under division commander Guy Simonds.  The Canadian Permanent Force between the wars was a very small place, and Vokes and Simonds must have known each other well. Simonds also attended RMC between 1921 and 1925, making them classmates.  In addition, both were Brits and sons of military officers, Simonds having been born near Bury St. Edmonds, Suffolk England; and his father having been an officer in the British RRA.  Simonds, however, was, like his father, a gunner, commissioning into the RRCA.  Simonds attended Camberley from 1936 to 1937.

So, why was Simonds picked over Vokes to command 1^st Div after Samson’s death? Simonds’ brilliance was noted at RMC, but the fact that Simonds was a gunner may have played a part in the selection. The GOC Canadian Army in England, Andy McNaughton, was also a gunner, as was Harry Crerar (RMC 1909; Camberley ‘24-‘25). Simonds did not endear himself to McNaughton after advsing diplomatically that McNaughton should step away from operations, and he was banished to Bernard Montgomery in Africa. Monty noticed Simonds’ gifts, and protected him from Canadian Army politics during and after the war.

Vokes was promoted Maj-Gen and given command of 1^st Div after on 1 Nov 43 after Monty moved Simonds to command the newly formed 5^th Canadian Armoured Division, to give Simonds experience with tanks. Thus it was engineer Vokes in command at Ortona. Not that being a gunner would have helped at Ortona; but the experience might have humbled Simonds, or driven him completely mad.

Many studies of Ortona have been written.  Ortona was not a general’s battle. No amount of artillery, no grand maneuver, no combination of fire and maneuver, no thrusting of reserves at the critical point at the critical moment was going to solve the problem of Ortona, given the band-box, and rugged and soggy terrain in which 1^st Div had to operate. Ortona was a soldier’s and a platoon commander’s battle, a combined arms battle at the platoon and company levels.  The capture of Ortona itself was left to 2 CIB, under the command of Bert Hoffmeister, while 1 and 3 CIBs were forcing themselves north and west of the town in an attempt to cut off its defenders.

Ortona, a town with a peacetime population of 10,000, formed the Adriatic end of the Gustav Line. The approach to the town was protected by a feature that came to be called “The Gully.” This feature, a ravine, was three miles long, averaged 200’ deep, and spanned 200 yards across at the sea-shore.

**************

 “The Gully” was a ravine, three miles long, averaging 200’ deep, and spanned 200 yards across at the sea-shore, tapering to 80 yards at its tip.  A road ran parallel to the ravine on the German side. This enormous ditch provided cover on the counterscarp, or reverse slope, and made the defenders impervious to artillery fire. The road behind it made admin and mobile supporting fire easy.  Recce snuck right up to the edge of the Gully, observed its excellence as a defensive position, that it was strongly-manned, and reported these details to higher.  These items of intelligence did not deter Vokes from ordering frontal attacks upon it.

It was only after crossing the Gully that the town of Ortona itself could be attacked.  Another problem was that the Gully feature was not well, or even correctly, marked on the topo map. Being impervious to artillery fire, the defenders could immediately come out of their hidey-holes and re-man their MG nests immediately after the lifting of fire. Shades of WWI!. Another problem was the ground was so muddy that tank movement was a problem, the ravine itself was too deep and wide for tanks to cross, and the Germans had developed mines and anti-tank weapons in the interim.

It took several attempts to figure out that “artillery conquers, infantry occupies” wasn’t going to work.  Reconnaissance by battle did discover that the Gully had to be turned at its south-western end, and, with the winning of a VC, it was.

C Coy of the Van Doos, 81 men strong, led by Capt Paul Triquet, VC, with the aid of seven tanks of the OntRs, managed on the night of Dec 14-15, to outflank the Gully around its south-western end, burst through German resistance and, with 17 men and 4 tanks remaining, seized a strongpoint, the Casa Berardi farmhouse; the rest of his regiment joined him and held it for four days, eventually the Germans were compelled to abandon the Gully.

The Germans began preparing Ortona for a deliberate defense on Dec 12, starting by rubbling parts of the town to create defensive positions and obstacles to tanks; they mined and booby-trapped everywhere, and made heavy use of snipers to halt movement in the open. Rushes by tanks were impossible.  What to do? Lt Bill Longhurst of the Loyal Eddies came up with “mouseholing.”  Many of the buildings of the town were of stone and masonry construction, and were connected together like so many rowhouses; by mouseholing was meant the placing by engineers of a charge against the wall that separated adjacent buildings, preferably on the top floor, and blowing a hole in the wall.  Bombers would toss in grenades, entrymen would then rush through the breach and seize the room of the next building, shooting any surviving enemy. The rest of the building would then be cleared top-down with grenades, Stens, and rifles. Rinse, and repeat.  Sound familiar?  Ortona was where these concepts were developed, and by mousholing, no one had to venture outside and risk the German snipers. The innovative use of combined arms: infantry (Loyal Eddies, Seaforths), armor (C Sqn 12RBC), engineers (4^th Field Coy RCE), direct fire anti-tank artillery (90^th Anti-Tank Bty) were essential in driving out the Germans.  Nor can we underestimate the morale factor: the belief in inevitable victory.

By the time the battle was over, 1^st Div. had suffered 502 KIA, and 2339 casualties total.  The German figures are not known, but the 90^th PanzerGrenadier Division was, for all practical purposes, destroyed, while the battalions of the 1^st Parachute Division were reduced to company strength.

Assessment: Vokes’ first time in battle was as a brigade commander in Sicily. Three months after the end of the Sicily campaign, he was appointed GOC 1^st Div, replacing Simonds. A month in that job and the battle for Ortona began. Vokes did not know the ground, did not know the enemy, his strength (2 division) or his intent(deliberate defense in urban terrain); lacking experience, he did not know himself; and the weather turned the ground into mud. He was pressured by Monty to hurry up. Not auspicious auguries for his first major battle all by himself, and the battle not being a general’s battle to begin with. The solution to Ortona turned on the discoveries of reconnaissance by battle, the improvisation of mouseholing, and the innovation of combined arms action at the platoon and company levels.  Do these factors support the contention that Vokes was an unimaginative engineer, a butcher, a ‘mere cook’, as Monty said?

Vokes may have been an inexperienced cook at the time, but the war didn’t end at Ortona.  He continued to be employed as GOC 1^st Div, and Simonds later employed him as GOC 4^th Div in Northwest Europe until the end of the war. Being a Simonds associate may have harmed Vokes’ postwar career. he was never promoted above MGen, as E.L.M. Burns eventually was, and he was employed only as commander of military districts until retirement in 1959.  His Italian reputation stuck with him ever afterwards, valid or not.

-30-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who were the Pharisees?

Vincent J. Curtis

7 Apr 25

Who were the Pharisees, and why do they appear so often in the Gospels? The Gospel of Sunday, April 6, related the story of the casting of the first stone. In the story, a group of Pharisees hauled an adulteress before Jesus, and demanded from him to know how she should be punished, reminding Jesus that, in accordance with Mosaic law, she deserved to be stoned to death.

The Pharisees, I learned from Gibbon, belonged to a sect of Judaism that strictly adhered to the Mosaic law.  They weren’t just pious, they were ostentatiously pious; and they may have been mutely righteous in their expectation that others be pious as well. Self-righteously pious people exist today, afflicting many religions, and the Pharisees formed a cult of them within Judaism.  When Jesus made reference to people who, during times of fasting, made it obvious to others that they were fasting, he was likely referring in particular to Pharisees.  That they gained no credit with God for their ostentatious piety, was likely taken by Pharisees as a biting criticism, not only for undercutting their pretensions to superior piety, but also because Jesus implicitly was claiming to know the mind of God.

Jesus did not respond immediately to the claimant question put to him about the adulteress by the mob of Pharisees; he sat down and began to draw something with his finger in the dirt.  Making them wait had the effect of quietening the mob, and forcing them to think a little.  After being questioned a second time by a quieter mob about what to do with this woman who deserved by the Mosaic law to be stoned to death, Jesus responded, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Jesus caught the Pharisees dead to rights; they were hoisted on their own petard.  Not one of them, in their sanctimonious piety, could claim to be without sin. Avoiding sin was the certainly basis of their piety; but the forgiveness of sins was unknown to Judaism; and not one could claim, in the presence of others of their kind, to have avoided sin entirely during their whole lives.  Having concentrated their minds by delay, and by this challenge to their conceit, Jesus returned to ignoring them; and, one by one, the mob realized the game was up, and departed in defeat, leaving Jesus alone with the woman. “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” he told the woman.  The prospect of the forgiveness of sins was revolutionary in the Jewish world.

Next Sunday will be Passion Sunday, followed by Holy Week, and finally culminating with Easter. Here again, the Pharisees play a central role in this story.  By claiming to be the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, Jesus was upsetting to their entire world view: he had to be eliminated, ‘cancelled’ (as we’d say nowadays) in the most emphatic manner possible.  Their plan was for Jesus to be put to death, publicly and officially, by the Roman magistrate, Pontius Pilate.

Palestine was then a province of the Roman empire; it was a particularly rebellious one, as it was peopled by the Jews.  The Jews were monotheists in a world of Polytheism; Yahweh wasn’t simply one god among many, on par with Jupiter of Zeus, but the only god there was; Jupiter and Zeus were utter fictions, as well as all the lesser gods of Polytheism.  The Jews groaned under the weight of a Roman government and the abomination of an official religion of Polytheism; they gained no sympathy for their plight by the rigor of their contempt for the treasured gods of Polytheism.

The Roman magistrate administered justice in accordance with Roman law; it was beneath the majesty of Roman justice to adjudicate disputes of religious doctrine among sects of Judaism.  Another, and even more important, responsibility of the Roman governor was to keep the peace; riots and rebellion in the province which he governed were not favorable indicators of his quality as a Roman administrator.

To have Jesus condemned by Rome, the mob, led by Pharisees, took Jesus before Pilate and claimed that Jesus was disturbing the peace, and saying that he was “King of the Jews.” These accusations were calculated to raise the ire of a Roman magistrate: first, by the spectre of public disturbances; and, second, by the threat characteristic of the Jews of forming their own kingdom on the territory of the Roman empire. Pilate was more impressed by the riotous mob before him than by the capital charges against Jesus when he took Jesus into custody.  Jesus was known to have said, “Render onto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and onto God that which is God’s.”; and, so far as Roman justice was concerned, this was a perfectly lawful position for a Jew to take. When, as Roman magistrate, Pilate questioned Jesus about his ‘kingdom’, and Jesus responded “My kingdom is not of this world,” Pilate knew he was in the presence, not of a criminal rebel, but of yet another Jewish mystic who was embroiled in another, tedious religious dispute.  It was beneath the dignity of Roman justice to execute a man who was guiltless of a crime under Roman law, and Pilate knew he could not be party to an official execution of Jesus.  “Truth? What is that?” spat a very worldly Roman magistrate, pressured by the riotous mob on his hands.

It was permissible under Roman law to employ torture to extract a confession; and after having Jesus scourged and crowned with thorns, Pilate presented the tortured figure of Jesus before the mob and said, “I find no case against him.”  When the Pharisees protested about the religious disturbances Jesus was causing, Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and crucify him; I find not case against him.”  Thus, the effort by the Pharisees to have Jesus discredited, legally and officially by a Roman magistrate, failed; and by turning Jesus over to the bloodlust of a mob, Pilate quieted the incipient riot.  A tawdry murder of Jesus would not achieve the religious end the Pharisees desired; and hence the Pharisees carried out a quasi-official crucifixion of Jesus, undisturbed by Roman authority, by which they expected to ‘cancel’ Jesus and the growing religious movement that percolated around him.

For me, learning who the Pharisees were added a new authenticity to the Gospels.  Now, it makes perfect sense for these Pharisees to be the ones who repeatedly challenged Jesus on his knowledge of, and adhesion to, the Mosaic law.  The shadings of local colour in the story of the casting of the first stone aren’t things a writer of pious fictions could retrospectively invent; that story actually happened, and somebody recorded it

-30-