Socials Question

[LordOfTheBorg 1]

Hey ya'll. I haven't been around very often, but my socials teacher asked me a very interesting question. We are doing history of Canada and such, and she asked "should Canada have implemented conscription during world war one?" I figured this would be an interesting questions to ask the board, and so have put it on here. now, i know there is a majority of americans, but you can answer tooo, but i figure i'd ask the canadians here... What does everyone think? and yes, conscription was implemented, in 1917 just before the war ended in 1918. Thank Robert Borden for that one.

 

- Your Friendly Neighbourhood Wally.

[Kor37 9]

First of all, no offense, but I didn't even realize that Canada had participated in WW1!

 

However, since they obviously did, I believe that conscription is based on need. If Canada had the required troops to fulfill their comittment to WW1, then no conscription was required. If not, then conscription would be needed.

 

Its much like the USA's involvment with Iraq right now. With our forces stretched to the max and war with Iran imminent, conscription may be right around the corner for us.

[LordOfTheBorg 1]

Yah, but we had no business even being in the war... we were just backing britain up, and in my opinion, it was ridiculous... if you read up on it, we lost around 60,000 troops in the war, which was horrible!!!! and a lot of women at home where mentally harmed because they had to work in arms factories, and they would become unstable after thinking about how they might not have checked certain shells and such..

[Lady Britannia 0]

First of all, no offense, but I didn't even realize that Canada had participated in WW1!

 

However, since they obviously did, I believe that conscription is based on need. If Canada had the required troops to fulfill their comittment to WW1, then no conscription was required. If not, then conscription would be needed.

 

Its much like the USA's involvment with Iraq right now. With our forces stretched to the max and war with Iran imminent, conscription may be right around the corner for us.

 

Any government that introduced conscription would be committing political suicide.

 

If the opposition to the war in Iraq is large now, just wait and see the chaos and anger that would be unleashed if a government tried to force people to fight.

[LordOfTheBorg 1]

This doesn't have anything to do with iraq.. i just wanna know what peoples feeligns were on world war one and about canada introducing conscription...

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

I don't think either Canadian or United States conscription for WWI was a good idea, and it probably wasn't necessary for Great Brittan either. The Kaiser's Germany posed no immediate threat outside of continental Europe. For the Fueher's Germany sure, but not WWI.

[trekz 7]

As an American, I'm not too familiar with Canadian history, but from the reading I've just done, this question is rather complicated:

 

The very first question is, as a member of the Empire, was Canada required to go to war against an European threat when Britain was attacked?

 

Initially there were many volunteers, but the majority, 64%, were British born men, recently come over because of the economic situation. The minsiter of militia, Sam Hughes, rushed ill trained troops overseas with a very poor Ross rifle as their main, often malfunctioning, weapon.

 

There was a reluctance of Canadians to joining the war effort, which increaed as casualties mounted, starting with an awful toll in some of the first mustard gas attacks released in trench warfare. Canadians were involved in a series of bloody, high casualty battles.

 

French-English tensions were high, with Quebec militia regiments initially not activated. Rules discouraging French as a language in Canada brought opposition to the government and the war from Quebec.

 

The conscription act was very controversial, brought on, some say, by the poor leadership of the war effort at home, and the deliberate opposition to French Canadians hopes to be included and respected as Canadian citizens. IMO it was a mistake, because of how the Canadian government had treated French Canadian citizens, and how it threw some of its soldiers into harms way without proper training and weaponry. It also had many of its soldiers treated like cannon fodder, according to some accounts.

 

Personally I feel strongly about the horrible toll of the mustard gas attacks. Two cousins of mine from Iowa died after the war from the effects of mustard gas. I'm not surprised that some Canadians felt very much against WWI.

[GhostofMajorHayes 10]

I have to say no mainly because WW1 and any other war for that matter should be fought by people that want to be there. Imo, conscription is wrong. Forcing others to fight and risk their own lives in a war that they may or may not believe in is not democracy. It is unjust.

[Gary Phaserman 0]

First: Was it not a Canadian that took down the Red Baron? (I know, some say it was an Aussie, but let's give the Cannuck some credit for a damned good bit of flying, mates!)

 

Second: I'm withholding my vote for now, pending some research. Were Canadians commanded by Canadians? Or were they used as cannon fodder by British Generals who didn't wish to send their own dear chaps out into the open field?

 

The other thing you have to understand about WWI was that, when you came out of a trench, you had to contest with Machine Guns firing at you from well-protected pillboxes, and you are sprinting across basically open fields with no protection. the basic idea isn't that dissimilar from the old Napoleonic style of fighting, where troops lined up in a line-of-battle and marched against each other. The difference was, now the defenders had a real advantage in that one or two soldiers could take down fifty or sixty soldiers at once from a well protected possition. Firing a rifle accurately enough to hit a target standing still is a feat that takes practice. Doing so on the move is even harder, and when you add in the element of enemy fire, accurate fire needed to take out Machine guns while running becomes virtually impossible. These sorts of mass wave attacks were, with a lack of really accurate artillery or aerial bombardment, the way of doing business back then.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

True, but that was because battlefield tactics had not yet caught up with battlefield technology. Napoleonic battle drills had not yet caught up with the machine gun, flying machines, or tanks. We had the same issue with our Civil War in that our own battle drills had not yet caught up with the greater use of artillery and calvary.

 

But the question here is on the ethics and practicality of conscription, not tactics.