Talk:Canada in World War II/Archive 1

Cleanup
11/03/2010 - 7:10am GMT - An article on Canada's military participation in World War II should not have a total of 11 citations. I had more citations in my grade four papers. Additionally, there is not nearly enough discussion about the participation Canadian soldiers played in the war, the concerns regarding the draft, or conversation as to the impact on the Dominion. This article has to be better written. -Pyke


 * I re-wrote the intro last night. This article has been systematically undermined, where subtile switches of words change the meaning entirely.  I am going to be very very bold, and will be entirely restructuring this article over the next few nights, with footnotes, to create a framework we can add to later.I suggest that this is a part of a larger problem which is the lack of articles on wikipedia about Canada in WW2, there are very detailed articles for UK and US actions, every campaign and unit.  We have a lot of work to do. WayeMason (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mobilization of the Armed Forces
This section is APPALLING! It comes across as being written from the point of view of someone interested in minimising Canadian contributions (whether or not that was the intent). You can say a lot of specious things by picking the right statistic. Since the comparison of how many served compared to other nations is used I'll give an example to contradict: Approximately 2.5% of the 12.5% or so of American population that served, died serving. Approximately 3.5% of the 9.5% or so of Canadians who served, died serving. Kind of makes the statements in this section about contribution seem less accurate doesn't it! And I question the statements about how many served abroad etc. If these are accurate statements then they are very interesting, and they most certainly should be in the article because they are things you don't find discussed elsewhere. However, it needs to be written as a recitation of facts so the sense of minimising the contribution is gone. Indeed, if Canada's overseas numbers really were smaller and thus less impressive than others, the fact that the percentage dead for number served was higher is disproportionately even more impressive. This needs to be addressed as it is an insult to leave it as it is.

I also had another thought. Comparing Australia and New Zealand with Canada as a means to show Canada did less is distasteful. I have always tried to emphasise to those ignorant of the Commonwealth contributions to both wars that the colonials almost always contributed disproportionately, and fought better, despite being looked down upon. I then make a statement something along the line that the Dominions disproportionate contributions were larger the smaller the Dominion ie. New Zealand, Australia, Canada. South Africa tends to be something of an outlier and maybe doesn't belong in the argument although still made impressive contributions compared to size and wealth. The analogy is also most important for WWI, where all were sending troops abroad and Australia and New Zealand made massively impressive and disproportionate contributions. It is a little less impressive for Australia and New Zealand in WWII compared to their WWI contributions being that they were both now on the front line and by necessity would contribute more whether they intended to or not. Thus these types of arguments are a quagmire that should be avoided except in the most general terms always emphasizing the positive about any nation's contribution.


 * It's not meant as an insult - Canada's contributions to WWII were extraordinary in some regards, but you also have to understand that before the war began both King's Liberals *and* the opposition had decided on a policy of "limited liability" for WWII and this constrained the military effort in many respects. In Canada, consumers were still buying cars and fridges and stoves in November 1941, and retail sales went up and up, ahead of inflation, for the entire war. Fact. Canada mobilized a smaller percentage of its population for war than any other major combatant and less than Australia or New Zealand. Fact. Half of Canadian Army personnel and three-quarters of RCAF personnel never left the country (though in fairness a great many RCAF personnel were on active duty in Canada - U-Boat patrols, BCATP, etc.) Fact. Sixty to sixty-five percent of Canadian males of military age in WWII never served in uniform. Fact. The Canadian Army was the last among the major combatants to enter sustained combat. Fact. On a percentage basis, Canadian losses in WWII are lower than Australia, lower than New Zealand, and, if the comparison is to the US, about the same, but the US was in the war for 28 fewer months than Canada. Fact. This is not an "insult." It's intended to provide an accurate perception of a military war effort which was, throughout the war, very significant but also quite deliberately restrained by the policies of the Mackenzie King government. And that's a fact, too. This country was alone among the major combatants in never adopting conscription for overseas service (and no, it wasn't adopted in November 1944 - there was a one time levy of NRMA men); King's overarching priority was to keep casualties down in order to prevent another conscription crisis that might undermine his party's electoral chances in Quebec.  Consequently, he wanted Canada's major contributions to the war effort to be economic ones (and here the leaders of the opposition agreed with him) - and in that regard Canada's contributions were disproportionately large. It's not meant as an offense. I can provide sources - recent sources by the country's top historians - for any of the claims above.--Ggbroad 14:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking over this section, I can't find *even one* statement that is less than 100% factually correct. Would you prefer that we repeat tiresome phrases about the "huge war effort for a nation of her size" which have no basis in empirical fact, just to soothe patriotic anguish?--Ggbroad 15:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It reads as I stated as someone picking away at contributions. I agree, if all of your "Facts" are indeed facts they need to be put in, they are extremely interesting.  They are more important to a discussion of home-front politics than to the military in WWII however.  Do you have to snidely compare to the ONLY two other Dominions, as being less than?  As I already pointed out, the Dominions always contributed disproportionately, and the smaller the Dominion, the greater the per capita contribution.  Shall we start an article for Australia and snidely compare every Aussie contribution as lacking in comparison to New Zealand?  Your writing style (and I'm assuming from your response it was yours) is to let your view point pervade everything.  If we were a "major" combatant, then every argument you've just made means we contributed more with less.  I've already pointed out that we fought as much as anyone, and had higher casualty rates among those who enlisted than most.  You insist on looking for each and every instance where someone contributed more and using that as a comparison to every point.  As for the last major combatant in sustained combat, this is yet again another example of how you desperately look for a way to state things to minimise.  Are you proposing that Australia or New Zealand, on the front lines of battle I might add, should have unilaterally engaged the enemy in sustained combat?  Please list where they did.  So because Canada (other than contributions of airmen to the RAF) didn't land in North Africa she is the last "major combatant" in sustained combat according to you.  The men at Hong Kong would disagree.  But I guess we are left at your whim to decide how sustained combat has to be before it counts.  It is also a fact that the reason we did not put troops in harms way was due as much to the wish (as in WWI) to keep our own command.  Britain as she was wont to do would happily use her "colonials" as cannon fodder and replacements for her own units.  There was considerable effort on the part of some in the military and at home in the government to commit troops in North Africa, but politics won out.  If you want to go into great gory detail on what went on behind the scenes, fine.   As it stands now, it reads as a national unwillingness to commit, when in fact it was the unwillingness of a few politicos to commit.  And I note in all of your commentary on the politics behind doing as little as possible you completely ignore the documented fact that this was in contradiction to a massive public majority in favour of fighting, and fighting as soon as reasonably possible.  And the whole conscription crisis thing has been overblown for decades.  A convenient excuse for MacKenzie-King apologists to justify his unwillingness to commit forces to combat.  As you have already pointed out, we could have done much more, we just didn't.  Indeed, every enlistee was asked to go active, so even if they weren't conscripted, they could choose from day one not to go into combat.  I would love to see the numbers on this, I've looked for them for years but they are hard to track down as no one seems to talk about it.  As I understand it, the vast majority "went active" but were still not committed to combat.  The fact that we still did more than most is impressive, not something to be couched as a lack of effort compared to other nations, which, I will say again, WERE ON THE FRONT LINE.  If Canada came within half of their contribution we would have been more than doing our share, we did much more than that.  Your statement: "Would you prefer that we repeat tiresome phrases about the "huge war effort for a nation of her size" which have no basis in empirical fact, just to soothe patriotic anguish?" sums up you politics, POV, and the source of the nasty bias in the article quite nicely thank you.  You and your ilk are the only ones who feel we did not contribute hugely in comparison to our size.


 * Okay. --Ggbroad 03:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Loss Rates
I'm perfectly willing to write a section on loss rates, emphasizing the point that they were, at certain times and places, very high. Terry Copp has observed how the loss rates in the Canadian Army in the Normandy and subsequent Northwest Campaign were fully the equal, and in some cases higher, of those of the CEF in the bloodiest battles of the Western Front. Similarly, something on the loss rates in Bomber Command should be written, and we must not forget that the losses in the BCATP were horrific as well.--Ggbroad 15:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A Major Rewrite In Order
May I suggest that a major rewrite is in order? I am happy to contribute to it. Obviously a subject of this importance requires a more carefully written, judicious, and detailed article than we have here. --Ggbroad 22:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to follow up on above, it's claimed at the end of this article that Canada was the 4th most powerful country at the end of the war, which hardly seems like a neutral POV and moreover, difficult to factually establish. The revitalized French army, for instance, was by early 1945 about 3x larger than Canada's army overseas, and what about China? India? As for the navy, true, it had 330 ships, but most of them were corvettes and the like with little actual striking power. --Ggbroad 22:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree that 4th most powerful country is a ridiculous statement. However, revitalized French army is a fallacy.  It was French colonials doing almost all the significant fighting, and they never stopped, as they acquitted themselves very well in Italy as well.  Of course white France likes to take credit for this.  Note the forces entering Paris in triumph weren't Algerians and Moroccans.  It is never a good idea to make the French an example in anything military, particularly when talking about WWII. <==== In terms of numbers, I'm pretty sure it was 3rd largest navy and 4th largest air force, as far as number of ships/pilots go.


 * The more I look at it, the more I realize what a total mess this article is. I'm not sure that I have the energy required to fix it. There are a lot of factual errors here, too, and facts are tossed about seemingly at random. --Ggbroad 22:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It would seem that the weaker of the two articles was already deleted. Oops. Agree this article is poor. The way to fix it is with footnoted facts, which is a deficiency in many wikipedia articles.Michael Dorosh 22:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Michael, couldn't agree more. But it's a major undertaking.--Ggbroad 22:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're telling me...you're trying to fill a page, I'm trying to fill an entire website with this stuff... :-) Michael Dorosh 23:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm going to look at this as a gradual effort, then.  --Ggbroad 03:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I notice that the entry on Canada, which is currently the FA on Wikipedia, is linked to this one. My apologies to anyone who follows a link from that very fine article to this one, which is a work in progress. --Ggbroad 08:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A Separate Home-Front Article?
Can't help but wonder if a separate article on the Canadian home-front - government, politics, economy, society, etc., isn't in order. Or should it be worked into this one? --Ggbroad 22:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We should definitely have a summary of these events here, but it would be great to have a more detailed separate article, and there is certainly enough material for one. - SimonP 13:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Downfall
For a brief reference entry, do you think it is necessary to mention that a Canadian division was offered for the planned invasion of Japan? I think it's rather inconsequential compared to many, many other aspects of Canada's war that deserve mention. My view. --Ggbroad 03:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it reflects our importance in the alliance and the role we might have played in the Pacific had the war continued. It is also significant (though not relevant to this article, I suppose) in that it marked the first time we trained extensively on US designed weapons - a switch we were going to make for the entire army in the early 1950s until Korea intervened. I'd keep the mention of it, as otherwise, it makes it seem our active participation in the war ended in May 1945. Our last VC was won in Aug 1945 (Hammy Gray) and that also reflects we were an active combatant nation until 2 Sep 1945 - not VE Day.Michael Dorosh 03:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * okay, fair enough --Ggbroad 11:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The importance of mentioning Canadian contribution to invasion of Japan is that the bureaucrats in the American military wanted to keep it all American. It was the quality of the troops that in part won Canada a role so yes it is important.  Stilwell of China fame would have commanded them, and undoubtedly considering the quality of the Canadian fighting man, their willingness to do the dirty jobs, and the leadership of Stilwell, they would have been well renowned post-war.  Frankly it was a match made in heaven as far as potential for fighting results, but thank God it never happened.  It is also full circle considering it was Canadians in Hong Kong who first saw land combat for this nation, a costly early contribution oft overlooked.

Name
I don't want to open up yet another debate about US vs. British english or common usage of terms, but in Canada, the official histories refer to the conflict as the Second World War, and it is considered proper in Canadian circles to do so. If this was an article dealing with international participation in the war, the use of "World War II" would be acceptable, but as a matter of style and to be consistent with other exclusively Canadian articles, should we migrate this to "Military history of Canada during the Second World War"? It could probably be done by a simple redirect, at least temporarily, but a move would be better and would retain this associated talk page.Michael Dorosh 13:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I notice an American keeps editing this page and changing "Second World War" to "World War II". Please don't.Calgarytanks 14:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That naturally applies to the First World War as well.Calgarytanks 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

4th Largest Navy
This, along with "3rd largest" navy is another one of those patriotic shibboleths that gets kicked around all the time, including by professional historians who should know better, but which is never really discussed. What does it mean? Number of ships? Tonnage? Almost invariably naval historians are interested in tonnage, not number of ships. And if it is 3rd (and can anyone prove that it is?) it should be noted that it's 1) a very, very distant 3rd and 2) because of the relative weakness of other major powers and 3) not 3rd in terms of firepower. --Ggbroad 13:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a bogus argument. Number of ships is always the standard in such a statement.  We're not talking about a merchant marine.  It is also a very significant statement because of the population size.  It emphasizes the massive contribution Canada made in the battle of the Atlantic far disproportionate to her size.  Relative weakness of other nations?  Britain and the U.S., Russia had huge navies at the end of the war.  Japan's despite being destroyed could easily have still remained larger considering where they started.  Canada was the only nation outside the "major powers" who you state are relatively weak without attribution that was in command of a theater of operations (in the North Atlantic).  Why some need to nitpick against accomplishments of Canada I have no idea.  If you don't know what you are talking about, silencio.  It is fourth, and an impressive 4th and should be left at that.


 * Excuse me. It's not nitpicking Canada's historical accomplishments - my desire, quite simply, is to produce an accurate article. As far as naval history goes, number of ships is very, very far from *always* the "standard" in such an argument, since by itself it tells us nothing about the actual power of Canada's navy. Tonnage is a major consideration - it is in many works on naval history and it was, moreover, a major consideration in all the naval treaties of the interwar period. Relative weakness of other navies is a  misstatement on my part - it should have been relative weakness of the Axis navies. If Canada was "4th place" by default, is that "impressive"? As for "far disproportionate to her size"...I wonder. Can you prove it? This isn't true of the Canadian Army or of the size of Canadian mobilization overall, which was actually disproportionately smaller than the other major combatants, and even Australia and New Zealand. I'm sorry if that offends your patriotic sensibilities, but it is in fact empirically true. So, it it true that the navy was disproportionately large? And, again, in what sense "large". I repeat, number of ships is categorically *not* always the standard in such a statement.Ggbroad 14:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well why don't you "prove it". Name one other nation of Canada's size with such a navy, ever.  Oops, didn't consider the other side did you?  The U.S. had 1222 ships in 1945, and more than 10 times the population.  You do the math.  Also, try and find some room for a reasonable assessment and realise that a nation 10 times the size has the ability to produce more than a per capita equivalent.  Britain for example, again, much more on the front lines than the U.S. had 900 ships which is probably much larger than the U.S. navy per capita, but certainly far less than the U.S. would have produced in the same situation.  4th place by default?  If you destroy the enemy with your ships, and out produce them with new ships, you win.  How do they get this position by default?  Do you not hear yourself?  Perhaps it is because you are typing it. Try this for me, say it out loud first, and if any reasonable person in ear shot cringes, you should probably rethink it.  And I'm sorry if you think corvettes are toys, and only aircraft carriers and battleships count.  Canada was deeply involved in convoy duty in the North Atlantic so she built a navy she needed, not one to make all the other boys jealous, jeez.


 * K. --Ggbroad 03:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Commonwealthposter.jpg
Image:Commonwealthposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion?
Who wrote that? is that a blog? regardless, the numbers are way off... 34,000??? "The war dead listed here are those reported by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission[29]. Total deaths were 45,365 which included Army (24,530), Air Force (17,394), Navy (2,169), Merchant Navy (1,270), unidentified by branch of service(1), and civilian deaths(2). These losses include war related deaths during 1946-47 (1,298)[22] However, the Canadian War Museum puts military losses at 42,000 plus 1,600 Merchant Navy deaths [66]. CANADIAN VIRTUAL WAR MEMORIAL contains a registry of information about the graves and memorials of more than 116,000 Canadians and Newfoundlanders who served valiantly and gave their lives for their country. [67]Newfoundland's losses are not included in these figures and are listed separately since it was not part of Canada during World War II. The preliminary 1945 data for Canadian losses was killed 37,476, missing 1,843, wounded 53,174 and POW 9,045.[20]"

The "conclusion" section states that 34,000 was the total number of dead Canadians, INCLUDING the soldiers who died of their wounds in the years after the war. I've never seen a number that low. Original signed by 76.70.66.122 (talk)


 * How about you go ahead and fix that? No need to write editorial comments in the article itself. A comment on the talk page is usually sufficient. However, WP encourages editors to be bold!. Just jump in and edit. Sunray (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Canadian Virtual War Memorial provided me with their database of fallen Canadian soldiers. Here are the exact numbers on Canadian military fatalities during the second world war:

1939 - 79 1940 - 964 1941 - 2,299 1942 - 5,718 1943 - 7,947 1944 - 19,595 1945 - 6,862 1946 - 737 1947 - 430 Newfoundlanders - 748 Merchant Navy - 1,625 Total - 46,998


 * The conclusion is ridiculously silly. Blaming the American media for downplaying the role of Canada is idiotic, as it is only natural America would portray her own soldiers. A citation is needed for COD3 being the only video game to portray Canadian soldiers, and I hope the anti-American sentiment of the conclusion will be reversed. --Evil Maniac From Mars (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not well versed enough to edit much here
But I just wanted to make the observation that Sweden has a longer article about it's history in WW2 then Canada, despite being neutral. Maybe this needs expansion?? 22:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.231.69 (talk)

-=-=-

In reading the talk page, I tend to think that the Ggbroad person has done a lot of revising and damaging to this article.

But what the hell do I know.

-Pyke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.57.198 (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)