Imperialism

Until quite recently, the majority of Canadians outside Québec have been native speakers of English, and have usually supported English imperialism. Therefore, the English Canadians, by and large, responded well to the call for volunteers during the Boer War. The PM, Wilfrid Laurier, was opposed to Canadian participation, but he could not ignore the enthusiasm of English Canadians for the war. At the same time, the English apparently failed to notice, or ignored the agitation among les habitants against sending their sons in harm's way in support of English imperialism--and that would be a major issue in both the Great War and the Second World War.

The Canadians most notably provided mounted troops for the English war effort. The Royal Canadian Dragoons, Lord Strathcona's Horse and the Northwest Mounted Police were most prominent in the campaigning. A service battalion of infantry and Princess Patricia's Light Infantry also served, and served with distinction, but in facing the Boer Kommandos, the cavalry was the most crucial contribution.

Most of those who volunteered for cavalry service in the Canadian expeditionary force were already competent horsemen. Canada was also able to easily supply remounts and saddlery and tack for their contingent. The Boer's themselves considered the Canadian cavalry to be far superior to the English cavalry, and rated only the small Australian contingent on a par with the Canadians. The English, typically, dismissed the Canadian cavalry as inefficient and poorly disciplined, and even agitated successfully to replace the commander of the Northwest Mounted Police. But the Boers, who fought the Canadians, knew better. At Leilifontein, in November 1900, Canadian cavalry and artillery had marched out to disperse a Boer Kommando--and they were walking into a trap, as it turned out. They managed to extricate themselves, and three members of the Royal Canadian Dragoons were awarded the Victoria Cross.

Foreshadowing the drift of Canada away from the "Empire" and into the American sphere, one of the complaints of the English against the Canadian cavalry was their use of "American" equipment. While in fact only the Colt machine guns they used were American, both Canada and America had developed their cavalry equipment along the same lines, and their equipment was coincidently uniform and not intentionally so (at Leilifontein, one of those awarded the Victoria Cross was Sgt. Holland, who was given the award for his courage in holding off the Boer counterattack with his Colt machine gun).

The service of Canadian cavalry in South Africa was eventually grudgingly acknowledged by the Imperial Staff, and just about the last official act of Queen Victoria with regard to Canada was to "re-denominate" the Northwest Mounted Police as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and to allow all Canadian cavalry to discard the blue dress uniforms, substituting the English scarlet.

Canadian participation in World War I was on a scale that prohibits more than a cursory examination here. Suffice it to say that a nation of 7 millions provided more than 600,000 troops on the Western Front, and nearly 60,000 were killed outright, with almost 150,000 wounded and almost 30,000 missing. Among the nations participating in the war, only Australia suffered casualties on that scale. For a comparison, American casualties were only somewhat higher than Canadian casualties. Although the Americans were not engaged in the war for as long as the Canadians, their casualties were suffered from a force which by the end of the war numbered over three million, and from a population of more than 110,000,000 people.

At Vimy Ridge and Passchendaele in 1917, the Canadians performed with notable valor, which even the grudging Imperial Staff were quick to recognize (they needed the Canadians, and needed them badly). The old charges of inefficiency and slack discipline were leveled at them early in the war, but their performance on the battlefield wiped out any such complaints, and it was also rather acidly noted by the Canadians that they had been placed under English command by the Imperial Staff. In those battles, the Canadian Expeditionary Force was commanded by General Sir Julian Byng, an Englishman. The Canadians had, however, by then created their own staff, and were now under command of their own officers, including the commander, Sir Arthur Currie. A foul-mouthed man, who was intensely disliked by his own troops, Currie nevertheless proved to be an effective commander, and a brilliant operational planner. Earlier in the war, he had evolved the tactic of "trench raiding," which prevented the enemy from rotating troops out of the line, while leaving a light "trigger force" in the front line trenches. The Canadians taught this technique to the French, and it was only later reluctantly adopted by the English, who never acknowledged Currie or his Canadian officers for their innovation.

In August, 1917, the English First Army planned an attack in the area of Lens, which would force the Germans to withdraw their line many kilometers, as Lens was an important crossroads center. Currie refused to accept the English plans for the Canadian Corps, but said although the Canadians would of course participate, they would plan their own operation. The English, predictably, prefaced their attack with a four-hour "creeping" barrage--which some troops in the trench sourly referred to as "ringing the front doorbell." Currie had had his artillery register the open areas around Lens used as assembly points by the Germans, and the roads leading to Lens, with a sporadic and seemingly random fire in the days before the assault. On the morning of the assault, while the English barrage proceeded, the Canadian guns remained silent. Currie had refused to take the town of Lens, pointing out that the cost would be high, with little assurance of success. Instead, the Canadians concentrated on Hill 70, a low terrain feature near Lens, which nevertheless commanded all approaches, with no defilade between the hill and Lens (means nowhere for the Germans to hide). Having husbanded their artillery resources, as soon as the Canadians saw the Germans assembling for an assault, they called down artillery fire, which had already been registered for those targets. The Germans were forced to assemble their counterattacks behind Lens, and they were badly disorganized by the time they reached Hill 70, and the Canadians mowed them down. The Canadians suffered nearly 10,000 casualties, but they reached their objective and held it. This is not to say that the English achieved nothing in the attack--but the Canadians holding onto Hill 70 made Lens untenable, and contributed significantly to the English success in rolling back the German line.

In the Spring of 1918 Ludendorff used troops freed by the collapse of Russia to launch three massive attacks at weak points in the English and French lines. The first was in March, 1918, when a massive offensive was launched at the lines of General Gough's Fifth Army near St. Quentin. In general, this first attack bogged down as much from German hunger as from the Allied response. Initially disciplined and following the new doctrine of rapid attack bypassing strong points, the infantry began to bog down when they reached rear areas and found huge dumps of supplies, particularly food, of which they would never have dreamed. But the threat was still real, and the Germans looked like breaking out as Fifth Army collapsed. One of the key actions (there was more than one) which helped to halt the German advance was the battle at Moreuil Wood. There, the Canadian cavalry brigade launched what can reasonably be described as the last effective cavalry charge in warfare. They suffered badly, with 300 men and 800 horse killed, but they managed to throw the Germans out of Moreuil Wood despite the high cost, and the Saxon division which had threatened the railway to Paris (and therefore promised to fulfill Ludendorff's objective of breaking the line between the English and the French Armée du Nord) was obliged to fall back as their forward artillery positions were overrun. This would not have sufficed to halt the offensive if the Allies had not already been reacting effectively, but the sacrifice of the Canadian cavalry bought the time necessary for troops to come up and consolidate the defense.

The counteroffensive which broke the German army is known in popular history as the Hundred Days. To the French, it became known as les cents jours du Canada, in recognition of the part played by the Canadians in the offensive which broke the German line. In England by that time, even conservative newspapers were referring to the Australians and the Canadians as "the shock troops of Empire." If any "dues" were owed to the "Empire," Canada certainly paid them in the Great War.

Throughout the war, the Canadian Expeditionary Force relied upon volunteers. By late 1917, their manpower resources were strained to the limit, and the Cabinet discussed conscription. After the Boer War, in 1904, Canada had passed the Militia Act, which in effect created an army for Canada, which had not previously had a dedicated military organization. The militia act, and the volunteers, were Canada's only resource for troops for the war. One battalion, the 22nd, was raised among the French Canadians, and served with distinction, and became known as the Van Doos (they are presently serving in Afghanistan). So, in 1917, facing this lack of manpower, the Prime Minister, Robert Borden, passed the Military Service Act. Most of Canada's early volunteers were actually foreign-born, and the English-speaking press vociferously attacked the French Canadians as "unpatriotic," ignorant of or ignoring that 11% of the volunteers of 1914 had been native French-speakers. That was easy to do, as they were spread out into English speaking units--with the Van Doos being the only exception.

Borden now faced a national election, which he had planned himself to solidify his position--and French Canada was outraged. Bourassa, the French Canadian nationalist, proclaimed (in translation): Canada had no business in a blatantly imperialistic European war. Borden had used his "national unity" government to pass a military voting act, which allowed absentee voting by soldiers overseas, and allowed their votes to be distributed to any riding, without reference to their place of residence at the time of enlistment. Canadians serving overseas, for obvious reasons, favored conscription. Borden also passed acts which allowed women (almost all of them nurses) serving in the armed forces, and women with close male relatives in the armed forces to vote--in that election--women's suffrage was not implemented in 1917. Given the circumstances, that meant that almost no French-speaking women voted. Despite Bourassa's rhetoric, and the opposition of Wilfrid Laurier, Borden's "Unionist" party trounced the Liberals. Although General Hughes, Borden's Minister of Militia, had threatened to resign over the conscription act, and did so, Borden managed to keep his government more or less intact. In the event, very few Canadians were conscripted, fewer still were sent overseas, and almost none of those were ever actually put into combat. But a deep division between English-speaking Canada and French-speaking Canada was created and has never healed. Even today, Harper's government has alienated Québec over the issue of Afghanistan, and resentment and protest have increased as French-speaking members of the Van Doos are killed or wounded there. The resentments of the French Canadians which existed before 1917 have not in the aggregate matched what they have expressed over the issue of "imperialist military adventures." There have been almost no successfully Tory ridings in Québec since that time, and i doubt the PC (Progressive Conservatives) could buy a seat in Québec. Ironically, Harper's minority government depends upon the Bloc Québecois in the Parliament (they certainly could not form a coalition with the Liberals or the NDP), and les habitants are not happy about Afghanistan.

In the Second World War, the Canadians, of course, sent troops to Europe. There, most of them kicked their heels in England until 1942, with their morale plummeting, and their training neglected. Canadian troops served with distinction in Sicily and Italy, but most of them had their first taste of combat during the idiotic and abortive "raid" on Dieppe. Of the slightly more than 6000 Canadians who participated, more than 3600 were killed, wounded or captured. The operation failed to achieve a single objective. To this day, it is a bad idea to mention Dieppe to Canadians interested in military history.

The major contribution of the Canadians in the Second World War was at sea. The Royal Canadian Navy convoyed more merchant ships than the Royal Navy and the United States Navy combined. Predictably, the Royal Navy sneered at the RCN, and criticized its efficiency. They were fond of pointing out how few German submarines the Canadians had sunk--while ignoring their own habit of snatching any efficient Canadian destroyer and crew and placing them in their own "hunter/killer" groups which prowled the Atlantic look for U-boats. The "Sheepdog Navy," as they called themselves, relied upon little cockle-shell vessels such as mine sweepers and corvettes to shepherd their merchant ships--these could cheaply and quickly be manufactured in the ship yards of the Great Lakes, while larger ships could not be brought through the canal system to the St. Laurent River (there was no "St. Lawrence Seaway" at that time). However, there were shipyards in the St. Laurent which could build larger ships. So, the RCN staff called for designs to be submitted for a much larger version of the corvette, to be longer, but not much wider, and to armed and armored in a manner similar to a destroyer. Naturally, the Royal Navy claimed to have "re-invented" the frigate, which was how this new ship was classified. The Canadians are willing to dispute this--with about 150 frigates built in the Second World War, and 120 of them built in Canada, the Canadian claim seems not unjustified. The Americans were not then interested, as they were producing destroyer escorts, which were a smaller version of a destroyer--but they did buy a few from the Canadians. After the war, the United States Navy began to employ frigates for roles in which they had previously used the destroyer escort.

Naturally, the Royal Navy simply tried to take any new Frigates the RCN put into commission. But Prime Minister Mackenzie-King dug in his heels, and the Royal Navy was obliged to actually buy frigates from Canada. Despite Royal Navy sneers, in the Second World War, the RCN not only escorted more merchant vessels, but sank more German U-boats than the Royal Navy, and several Canadian destroyers and frigates served with distinction in the English Channel, including some nasty fights with German "E-boats," roughly equivalent to the American PT boat.

In 1939, Mackenzie-King had promised that there would be no conscription, and this was instrumental in the defeat of Duplessis' National Union government in the provincial elections in Québec that year. After the losses at Dieppe and with a dramatically enlarged navy, however, Canada was once again facing a manpower crisis, so in 1942, Mackenzie-King held a plebiscite to free him from his promise. Predictably, English Canada voted for it, and French Canada voted against it. In the event, only about 12- or 14,000 conscripts were ever sent to Europe, and only a few hundred saw combat. Once again, though, resentments between English and French Canada were exacerbated.

After 1945, i don't think it is appropriate to speak of Canada and "the British Empire," so i'll leave it here. Canada, participating in NATO, drifted further and further from the Royal Navy and the English army, and closer and closer to the United States. Although one may allege that the "British Empire" existed after 1945, or even that it exists today, the Canadian military sees its primary allegiance as being to NATO. Rather impoverished on the west coast, the RCN has concentrated its efforts and resources on the east coast, and has sought expertise in anti-submarine warfare, a natural outgrowth of its role in the Second World War. In 1967, to the disgust of many traditionalists, the Canadian flag was changed to the Maple Leaf Flag. To their greater disgust, in 1968, the army, the RCN and the RCAF were all combined in a single military body, the Canadian Forces. I doubt if empire is an issue with anyone in Canada today, but the resentments between English-speaking Canada and French-speaking Canada continue to simmer, while both dwindle in demographic significance in the face of the increasing diversity of the Canadian population.

Wow, thank you for that post. It is always interesting to read what other have to say on this idea. It is great that you would put that much work into it and I thank you for that. I would also like to apolagize for the double post but I had thought that the first post didn't work. That is why I posted the second one. So sorry for that.

well you asked Frank and you got The Reply.

What is imperialism? Here is the dictionary definition: 1: imperial government, authority, or system 2: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence.

The first definition defines "imperialism" as "imperial government". That is not very informative. I doubt that any Roman ever described their government as "imperial", though some 19th century Britons liked to bandy about the idea of a "British Empire". The second definition seems a bit more descriptive of the term. The problem I have with it is that it describes virtually every nation that has ever existed. Nations by their very nature are constantly seeking to extend their power, dominion and influence over other nations, both politically and economically. Sometimes that is done quietly as one nation diplomatically negotiates an advantageous treaty with others, and sometimes the extension of a governments control over the political and economic affairs of a territory is the result of arms. By the given definition, it seems virtually every nation can be termed "Imperial", but then the term ceases to have any meaning. Did Florance or Milan have "imperial" ambitions, and become an "empire" by extending its dominion over other Italian City States during the 15th century?

Every country is continually dealing in a competitive manner with every other country for power, territory, economic, and political dominion. And, they essentially all utilize the same strategies to achieve their ends, regardless of their political system. Diplomacy is always at the mercy of either economic or physical force/threat.

Large, robust economies inevitably dominate weaker economies that are narrow and vulnerable. Those States with vulnerable economies, have little choice in the matter unless they control a vital natural resource, or are able to build a very productive economy capable of meeting the competition. States with large oil reserves, but otherwise weak economies can and do prosper so long as their product is deemed essential by stronger economies. Many Asian States without important natural resources have followed a different strategy. Japan, Singapore, Korea, and China have built strong, dynamic economies on mass production of goods at low prices that are in demand around the world. The Common Market got a head start in the world's economy by reducing "artificial" barriers to production. As Asia and the Common Market have become stronger, the relative strength of the United States, Canada and other Commonwealth countries has diminished somewhat. India, Mexico and other emerging countries hope to build their economic strength through working smarter, and providing really cheap labor.

Without a strong economy it is difficult to build and maintain a credible modern military establishment. Development of weapons systems is expensive and requires a sophisticated technology, and a strong industrial base… the same features one expects to find in States with strong economies. The Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries gave Europe, the Commonwealth countries and the United States a great head start and military advantage over less developed parts of the world. The Great War (1914-1945) was a grave setback for many countries, but left the U.S. and Canada intact. The Soviet Union built an awesome military power during the Cold War, but did so at the expense of its economy that was literally run into the ground. With the U.S. taking a leading role in the Cold War, many nations used the American Shield to build their economic base while keeping their military expenditures to a minimum. Some States, notably the PRC and the DPRK always maintained large military establishments. For the PRC, with the world's largest population that is increasingly out of gender balance, a large military based on conventional infantry units is a necessity for internal political stability. The DPRK still dreams of conquering ROK, and it too requires a strong military for internal political security. Both, lacking a strong economic base with cutting edge technology, have relied heavily on espionage on a grand scale. Rather than develop a weapons system, its cheaper to steal it from a more advanced State. As the PRC increases its economic base, it can be expected to begin making technological strides toward a home-grown military technology, though that is probably still many decades in the future. India, whose alliance with the old Soviet Union helped keep its military strong, now relies rather heavily on a nuclear deterrent against the Radical Islamic States to its North-west. Pakistan acquired, tested and has made operational a nuclear arsenal to counter the Indian capability. This remains one of the most dangerous spots in the world with two traditional enemies faced off and armed with nuclear weapons. Other States with narrow economies and relatively small populations, try to bolster their military capability by buying into unconventional military approaches. They support international terrorist organizations whose operations can be readily denied. They modify weapons acquired from other States like the old Soviet Block, the DPRK, China, and regrettably from rogue capitalists in Europe and the United States. They have learned to wage war over electronic cyberspace where their small numbers and lack of conventional capability is not so great a disadvantage.

A world weary of war and the threat of nuclear annihilation has little toleration left for military solutions. What remains is economic competition for influence and dominance, and diplomacy. The world is rapidly becoming a single integrated economy where every nation's economic well-being is beyond national control. In that environment, the strongest national economies are most likely to "prosper", while nations with diminishing economic power have a dismal future. Diplomacy, as I said above, is unable to achieve what a nation's economy and military are unable to guarantee. The strong tend to prevail, and the weak are dependant upon the mercy of the dominant.

Some will undoubtedly argue that it shouldn't be that way, that "right" and "virtue" and "justice" should be the guiding star to international relations. Perhaps they are right, but that isn't the way things are in reality. Until men are angels it is foolish to expect them to behave as angels. Every nation, every people is primarily interested in its own welfare, security and prosperity.

Imperialism has not been much of an issue for Americans because historically we have had extremely few foreign conquests. But I'm curious about Canadians. Have any of your responses addressed the issue of how immigrants and refugees from British possessions outside of Canada have affected Canada? When the British (like fools) turned Hong Kong over to the Communist Chinese my understanding was that people from Hong Kong were not allowed to move to the U.K. but were allowed to move freely to the Commonwealth nations like Canada and Australia. Did many people from Hong Kong seek refuge in Canada when the Chinese took over? How did native Canadians receive these refugees?

I also understand that racism among the British hasn't ever been nearly the problem that it has been in the U.S. The Scots, English, Irish and Welsh have generally despised each other and have fought each other like cats and dogs, but Africans, Asians and (Asian) Indians have usually been able to settle in the U.K. and assimilate with little trouble. (I've noticed on the few BBC America programs that I watch that inter-racial romance is far, far, far more common than it has ever been on American TV). But in America we have a history of race riots in which we freely kill and maim each other.

Why is that the Brits cannot get along with people their own color, but generally accept people of other races when Americans are the opposite? Can the British Empire explain any of this? Historically speaking America has been white, black and red while the U.K./British Empire has been white, black, red and every other color under the sun.

you've been watching too much tv flaja.

It's not the watching that's the problem, it's the credulous believing . . .

In Canada, the most common family name is Lee, as derived from her Chinese citizens. The second most common family name is Singh, as derived from her Punjabi citizens.

BBB
I wonder what Blatham has to say about this subject?

BBB

The English, Welsh, Scots and Irish have a history of mutual hostility that predates the British Empire. But people from India and Hong Kong and Canada and some places in Africa have the British Empire as part of their common heritage. How has this heritage affected race relations in the U.K. and Commonwealth countries? Based on what I can seem from America race relations in the U.K. and Commonwealth are far better than they have ever been in the U.S. I am just curious as to why.