[jeff744]

martin14 martin14:

jeff744 jeff744:

As the war continued the people willing to go dropped and the public became more concerned with the immigrants and not the war. While loyalty remained public opinion had largely shifted to thinking of the war as brutal and too costly, setting the tone for our WWII assistance which was primarily in supplies, training pilots and escorting convoys.

The first part of your post was ok, the second......

well, 1.1 million Servicemen, the world's 3rd largest Navy, 4th largest Airforce
and 50,000 dead buried around the world would beg to differ with you.

67,000 dead in WWI with another 173,000 wounded. The navy was extremely heavily corvettes used to protect the convoys. Per commitment we have about 7 million people in Canada for WWI and about 11 million for WWII and an increased number of non-combat positions.

The main goal of Mackenzie King was to minimize the troop contributions which is a key reason he accepted training most of the allied pilots in Canada and paying for it. I have done research.

[Regina]

During WWII Canada contributed more armed personnel to the war (per capita) than any other country. Over one million served out of a population of eleven million.

[DrCaleb]

The next time people read about Edmonton's downtown airport closing, remember that it was a major refueling stop for the fighter planes headed from US factories to the Siberian front in American's Lend/Lease program.

[jeff744]

Regina Regina:

During WWII Canada contributed more armed personnel to the war (per capita) than any other country. Over one million served out of a population of eleven million.

$1:

Unlike the buoyant mood at the outbreak of the Great War, there was no great enthusiasm for what lay ahead, no bold talk of committing every man and every dollar to guarantee victory. Instead, the Mackenzie King government steadfastly pursued a "limited liability" policy in the interests of maintaining national unity. There would be no conscription for overseas service, nor would there be any large military commitments. This policy perfectly suited the "phony war" phase in late 1939. The Germans offensive int he spring of 1940, however, changed the entire complexion of the conflict, and with the fall of France and the Nazi occupation of western Europe, Canada emerged as Great Britain's foremost military ally.

-- Saskatchewan: A New History / Bill Waiser

We didn't want to contribute that much, we were forced to.

[martin14]

jeff744 jeff744:

We didn't want to contribute that much, we were forced to.

Forced ?

I would love to see the evidence of Canada being 'forced ', please show it to us.


Be careful Jeff, other people have done research as well.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Dont suppose you want to put a link to your little blurb.

[jeff744]

martin14 martin14:

Forced ?

I would love to see the evidence of Canada being 'forced ', please show it to us.


Be careful Jeff, other people have done research as well.

Read the quote, we didn't choose to contribute that much, the Nazi occupation of Nazi Europe forced us to contribute more than we originally intended.

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Dont suppose you want to put a link to your little blurb.

It's in his book, p. 328

[martin14]

jeff744 jeff744:

martin14 martin14:

Forced ?

I would love to see the evidence of Canada being 'forced ', please show it to us.


Be careful Jeff, other people have done research as well.

Read the quote, we didn't choose to contribute that much, the Nazi occupation of Nazi Europe forced us to contribute more than we originally intended.

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Dont suppose you want to put a link to your little blurb.

It's in his book, p. 328

That has to be one of the more twisted interpretations I have read for a while.

The reason we didnt contribute much in the beginning was that we had a very small
peacetime army and navy, and it took time to get new soldiers, sailors and airmen
trained and over to Europe.

But a division was in England by Christmas 1939, and in France in 1940.

None of these men were 'forced'.


read the quote ? hows about learn to write.......

[jeff744]

martin14 martin14:

jeff744 jeff744:

martin14 martin14:

Forced ?

I would love to see the evidence of Canada being 'forced ', please show it to us.


Be careful Jeff, other people have done research as well.

Read the quote, we didn't choose to contribute that much, the Nazi occupation of Nazi Europe forced us to contribute more than we originally intended.

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Dont suppose you want to put a link to your little blurb.

It's in his book, p. 328

That has to be one of the more twisted interpretations I have read for a while.

The reason we didnt contribute much in the beginning was that we had a very small
peacetime army and navy, and it took time to get new soldiers, sailors and airmen
trained and over to Europe.

But a division was in England by Christmas 1939, and in France in 1940.

None of these men were 'forced'.


read the quote ? hows about learn to write.......

Funny thing about that, he was my prof for Prairie history since 1905, he stated repeatedly that we only did it out of duty and that the main goal was to minimize the troop contributions by sending supplies, protecting convoys, and training pilots (King had refused to do this before the war, only reason he allowed it when the war started was to minimize the amount we would have to contribute).

You completely missed the use of forced, the Canadian government was forced to send more than the goal, most of the people that went didn't want to go, they did because they felt they had to go out of duty.

[EyeBrock]

jeff744 jeff744:

The attitude of the time was largely that we were going to war for democracy, and Britain, at the time Canada was still extremely loyal to Britain and especially so in the west where many of the people had come from Britain within the last 10-20 years. At first the recruiting offices actually had to turn away people and the greatest fear was that the war would be over before they arrived, one paper actually suggested having a quota on German soldiers. When they passed the Wartime Measures Act the main complaint was that they didn't think it was strong enough.

As the war continued the people willing to go dropped and the public became more concerned with the immigrants and not the war. While loyalty remained public opinion had largely shifted to thinking of the war as brutal and too costly, setting the tone for our WWII assistance which was primarily in supplies, training pilots and escorting convoys.

What a load of old bollocks! You obviously know sweet FA about this. I'd be ashamed to post such drivel. Now run along.

[ShepherdsDog]

bootlegga bootlegga:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The USA was still stinging from European involvement in the US Civil War where both France and Britain traded with the South and supplied weapons and warships to the Confederacy. Anti-Uk and anti-French sentiment was so high at the outset of the war that it was not inconceivable that the US could have entered the war on the Austro-Hungarian & German side.

I highly doubt that the US would have ever joined the war on the side of the Germans - they were making far too much money selling arms and ammunition to France and the UK. Not to mention the fact that most of the people who fought in the Civil War were dead and buried. That, coupled with the near constant British efforts to ingratiate themselves with US administrations (like siding with the US over Canada on the Alaskan Pandhandle dispute), made it very unlikely that the USA would ever have sided with the Central Powers.

And while the USA was a rising power, it couldn't have broken the Allied blockade of Germany by itslef, as France and Britain had far larger and more powerful navies during the war.

Bismarck knew and stated, that the US would never enter a war with Germany against England.

$1:

The supreme geopolitical fact of the modern era is that Americans speak English.
- Otto von Bismarck

[EyeBrock]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

Last night I saw the movie Passendale. It was a good movie. I'm interested in how accurate the attitudes, feeling of the people at the time in that Zeitgeist. Were they accurately depicted in the film?

Well, on historical accuracy. The only Brit/Paddy accent I heard in the whole second-rate movie was the wanker militia guy back home.

I didn't hear any Brit/Paddy accents in the rest of the movie, but I did nod off a few times so something may have slipped by me.

The whole ‘Rally round the Union Jack’ portrayed as something semi-sinister was a bit weird too. These minor/major points bother me and the movie loses credibility as a result.

The reality is, in 1915, 70% of the Canadian Expeditionary Force was from the UK or Eire. The result of a recent and huge wave of immigration after the turn of the century. The celebration of Canada’s UK and Irish past was pretty mainstream until the 1960’s. Check out any events from that era, Union Flags everywhere.

Even by Vimy, the CEF was 60% British/Irish born Canadians. So, this crappy movie is well historically inaccurate in setting the social scenario. I don't know why Canada has such a problem acknowledging its Anglo-Celtic-Gaelic past.

I remember watching an Aussie drama set in WW1 and they had no such problems reflecting the actual makeup of the Diggers. The Australian Army in 1914 was fifty/fifty poms and Aussies and they don’t seem to mind admitting that.

But then they are all carrying the convict DNA! Buggers!.

[jeff744]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

jeff744 jeff744:

The attitude of the time was largely that we were going to war for democracy, and Britain, at the time Canada was still extremely loyal to Britain and especially so in the west where many of the people had come from Britain within the last 10-20 years. At first the recruiting offices actually had to turn away people and the greatest fear was that the war would be over before they arrived, one paper actually suggested having a quota on German soldiers. When they passed the Wartime Measures Act the main complaint was that they didn't think it was strong enough.

As the war continued the people willing to go dropped and the public became more concerned with the immigrants and not the war. While loyalty remained public opinion had largely shifted to thinking of the war as brutal and too costly, setting the tone for our WWII assistance which was primarily in supplies, training pilots and escorting convoys.

What a load of old bollocks! You obviously know sweet FA about this. I'd be ashamed to post such drivel. Now run along.

Yes, call the other poster an idiot with nothing to back it up, what a great argument.

[EyeBrock]

jeff744 jeff744:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

jeff744 jeff744:

The attitude of the time was largely that we were going to war for democracy, and Britain, at the time Canada was still extremely loyal to Britain and especially so in the west where many of the people had come from Britain within the last 10-20 years. At first the recruiting offices actually had to turn away people and the greatest fear was that the war would be over before they arrived, one paper actually suggested having a quota on German soldiers. When they passed the Wartime Measures Act the main complaint was that they didn't think it was strong enough.

As the war continued the people willing to go dropped and the public became more concerned with the immigrants and not the war. While loyalty remained public opinion had largely shifted to thinking of the war as brutal and too costly, setting the tone for our WWII assistance which was primarily in supplies, training pilots and escorting convoys.

What a load of old bollocks! You obviously know sweet FA about this. I'd be ashamed to post such drivel. Now run along.

Yes, call the other poster an idiot with nothing to back it up, what a great argument.

Well, really jeff. Come on....you are so off the mark it doesn't really warrant a sensible response. I tell you what, here's two interesting accounts of Canada and WW1;

"Fight or Pay" by Desmond Morton. An interesting social commentary of that period.

Ok, Mustang, don't give me shit, but I liked Berton's "Vimy". I know he made shit up but his historical drama works for me. I really felt he brought a Canadian angle to WW1.

I also recommend two British war poets. Wilfred Owen (my personal favourite) and Siegfreid Sassoon. Their stuff is haunting. No glory. 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria' and all that.

It’s all over the web but this stuff should be read from a book, with paper pages methinks.

Have a read of these suggested views/opinions/facts and I think you will re-think your little synopsis of WW1.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

I don't know why Canada has such a problem acknowledging its Anglo-Celtic-Gaelic past.

It's politically incorrect to be proud of your British heritage. Forget the fact they were the people who created the most prosperous, stable and egalitarian societies the planet has known. They weren't without flaws, but nowhere were things better........even today.