Canada’s flag at the time of World War I
This a great year for anniversaries for Canada.
50 years ago we had D-Day, at which we distinguished ourselves greatly, and Dieppe where we got our asses waxed thanks to the brilliant strategy of Lord Louis Mountbatten.
For the purposes of this essay the anniversary of importance is the 100th of the First World War.
Canada entered the war automatically. As Prime Minister (later Sir) Robert Borden said “when England is at war Canada is at war”.
This was not the unanimous view of all Canadians. The Liberal party were not entirely sure – in fact they effected cancellation of the several dreadnoughts that Borden had promised the Royal Navy in anticipation of hostilities.
Let‘s look at this from two points of view – did World War I establish Canada on the national stage? Did the First World War unify the country?
As to the first, the answer must be yes. Even though at that time Canada was still part of the British Empire, it was admitted as a member of the League of Nations from the outset. The fighting of Canadians – as well as other parts of the Empire including Australia and New Zealand – made it difficult not to recognize these countries as standing on their own. Canada had a glorious record that was impossible to ignore when the war ended.
It is my view, however, that Canada ought never to have been involved. There are dozens of books – good ones – on the run up to World War I. Without exception they show no moral reason for the war. It was a mess and involved countries that simply in the terms of one author “sleepwalked” into hostilities. There was no great territorial claims to fight over. One might consider Alsace-Lorraine but France considered that stolen from her by Germany and France was not an initiator of the hostilities. This is not to say that there weren’t territorial disputes of long-standing – it is to say that none of those at that point were a Casus Belli.
When Britain entered the war it was because Germany had invaded neutral Belgium contrary to treaty. This was perhaps a reason for England to get involved but hardly one for Canada to care about. This conflict was European idiocy caused by unbelievable negligence and had nothing to do with anybody else.
The war in Canada was supported by English speakers many of whom were natives of England or first generation. Their loyalties had never really left England.
Quebec and other large minorities generally opposed the war and stayed opposed. I’m with them.
Let’s return to the question of the national stage – there is no question but that the involvement of what are now the Commonwealth countries led to the Statute of Westminster in 1931 which spawned the British Commonwealth of Nations, now the Commonwealth of Nations, and gave independence to each of the member countries.
On this point, then, I would argue that Canada certainly achieved international stature and became a nation because of the First World War. Whether that was worth losing 67,000 dead and a quarter of a million wounded is another question.
On the issue of national unity I would argue that it exacerbated the problems Canada had. The big issue politically was Conscription which was vigorously opposed by most French-Canadians. This issue lingered on until the second world war when there was a referendum, in 1944, on the question of conscription. 83% of English-speaking Canada supported it while more than 70% in Quebec opposed it. A wag asked, “why didn’t they just ask whether or not you spoke English or French!”.
In Quebec during the Second War, Camillien Houde, the mayor of Montreal, was jailed for the duration for opposing the war effort. He was re-elected in a landslide after the war. Our later prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, rode around on a motorcycle while wearing a German helmet.
I would argue that far from World War I bringing Canadians together it had precisely the opposite affect. One can argue as to whether or not this should happened – that’s a matter of personal taste. The fact of the matter Is clear that national unity suffered badly.
It was not, of course, the only sore on the national body. There were many others including language and culture. In fact one can even go back to Sir John A. Macdonald’s hangIng Louis Riel.
In my view, national unity was achieved, to the extent that it has been, by the referendum in Quebec in 1995 which the separatists barely lost. Since that time the demographics in Quebec have changed a lot and separatism has lost its luster. It is always dangerous to say that separatism is dead; However, it needs a great deal of reviving before it becomes a serious issue again.
The defeat of the separatists in 1995 had a great deal to do with the defeat of the Meech Lake Accord in 1991 and the Charlottetown Accord in 1992, massively in Western Canada, especially in British Columbia. Any Quebec hopes for special consideration were dashed.
The opposition to the settlements proposed from people like Trudeau was significant. They were able to convince a lot of French-Canadians that Quebec had an important place in Canada but not a special place in its constitution. The provinces, whatever their differences, are juridically equal.
Canada will, in my view, survive as a united country. However, not only does this have nothing to do with World War I – it is in spite of that conflict.
