Today, the series of how the First World War influenced Canadian identity concludes. I encourage the reader to examine the previous parts in order to best understand the ideas expressed in this last piece on the subject. I shall return next week with another examination on subjects relating to the war. If you have a suggestion, I'd like to hear it, feel free to comment with it or any other questions or observations. I am also continuing to correspond for Centenary News and new articles from all contributors appear daily on that site. This project can be followed through Twitter and Facebook.
The difficulty in attempting to make proof
of positive outcomes of the First World War is that many minds are
prejudicially convinced of it being a largely wasteful and detrimental period
of humanity’s progress. That there are
linkages to it and the Second World War compounds common sentiment of the
negative outcome of the First.
It cannot be denied that the deaths of
several million people is indeed a tragic event elevated to the level of
catastrophe if no positive growth can be perceived. This is the argument, with some holding firm with
the idea that the war is an accident of history and others insisting that it
was instrumental in human development which has cast a shadow over the advent
of the centenary. Truth, as is usually
found in polarizing debates such as this, lies somewhere in the middle.
Canada, by 1918 had, by volunteer or
conscription, put some 620 000 into uniform.
This relates to about 30% of the male population of military age. Canadians overseas represented a larger
number than those living in Montreal or Toronto. In today’s terms, it would be akin to raising
an army of just over 10 million.[1] Most of these men believed that they had
fought for something, and would return to Canada with that idealism largely
intact. Within these were the “promises
of the Great War for real democracy, fair wages, social justice and change in
favour of the majority of people.”[2] While some would enter politics or become
influential in business, many veterans would settle as best they could to civil
life after the war. All remained a large
demographic whose service and sacrifice and therefore desires could not be
easily ignored.
The demobilised men of the Canadian Expeditionary
Force had returned home with a brilliant new commodity: that Canada was
home. Experiences overseas, of forming
bonds among comrades and fame on the battlefield had shaped this Corps from
displaced Brits and sons of immigrants on the most part to men who, with pride,
called themselves Canadians.
It was important that they were
returning to a land that the nature of total war had prepared to accept that
burgeoning sense of identity. Western
Europe in the course of events of 1914-18 would decline in its ability to meet
demands for industrial and agricultural output for loss of land, resources and
manpower in the war. Canada’s fortunate
geography, well separate from the ravages of war and rich in natural resources
allowed it to fill gaps in the needs of allies, becoming a leading granary and
arms producer. Therein began a
recognition of Canada beyond its notoriety in battle, less a backwater Dominion
on the edge of Empire and more a modern, industrialised nation able to supply
demand.
Increase in demand for exports had the
usual economic results, a growth in GNP and a consistent trade surplus[3], but the side effects
would mean more to identity than international awareness. During the war years, rail mileage doubled,
and the country was more connected, in a physical sense than ever before. Shifting in peace from a war footing put a
check on economic growth, with a slight recession and without a great boom that
ne next post war generation would see. Canada’s
economy, more importantly, had become a national entity; growth and recession
in one part of the country would benefit or deter the whole.
Entering (or re-entering) the workforce,
though, were hundreds of thousands of men who understood on a very intimate
level the notion that the importance of the whole supersedes the
individual. Throughout the 1920’s, the
idea of better and equitable treatment of the workforce, supported by
industrial growth saw an increase in disposable income.[4] This would be used to further
establish infrastructure through private utilities (primarily hydro-electric
power and telephone networks) and increasing automobile ownership demanding
large scale road building. Wage surplus
was also available for investment, furthering Canada’s economic growth, and the
purchase of luxury goods. Many of these
were made available through technological advances inspired by the war, not the
least of which was home radio through which the country was united in an unprecedented
ability to communicate ideas.
In international affairs, Canada’s
participation and good conduct in the war was reflected in a very important
aspect, that the country was permitted to send a delegation to the peace
conference at Versailles. While it is
true that most of the developments were dictated through the United Kingdom,
France, United States Italy and Japan, Canada’s presence cannot be viewed as a
mere sinecure. Britain, allowing
representation of components of Empire was a tremendous shift in Imperial
policy; a slow reckoning of the Dominions’ ability to self-determine which
would coalesce within the Statute of Westminster. Enacted by Britain’s Parliament on December
11, 1931, the Statute established legislative equality between self governing
Dominions and the UK. [5] It formalised the “Balfour Declaration” of
1926 which stated that the UK and Dominions were “autonomous Communities within
the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another in
any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common
allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British
Commonwealth of Nations.”[6] This declaration had in turn been inspired by
incidences of enacting foreign policy legislation, in Canada and Australia
without consent of London.
Sir Robert Borden put this trend into
perspective when he said “The development of constitutional relations through
which Canada and other Dominions have entered the portal of full
nationhood...was due to the valour, the endurance and the achievement of the
Canadian Army in France and Belgium which inspired our people with the
impelling sense of nationhood never
before experienced.”[7]
This was a great step toward autonomy
even if the Statute was unclear on exactly where the lines of this autonomy
lay. Having the ability to create
legislation did permit Canada to resolve external issues in its own way. The First World War, in effect, allowed the
country to choose its own destiny.
The legacy of the war did leave
divisions within the country. Rallying
behind the issue of conscription had empowered the separatist movement in
Quebec and women who’d contributed to the war effort were beginning a shift
toward equal recognition. Both these
issues and more besides would remain a part of Canada’s legacy for decades and
could not be enacted upon efficiently until the patriation of the Constitution
in 1982, finalising legislative independence from Britain.
Historians Desmond Morton and JL
Granatstein insist that history and its advances in politics and technology
would have occurred without the war.[8] It remains impossible to say whether this is
true, but the war certainly accelerated these developments. Without it, and Canada’s performance, the
notion of a national identity would not have developed as it did.
No comments:
Post a Comment