Was Conscription in Canada Worth the Trouble?

[Terry]

I took a look at the statistics on conscription in Nicholson's official history of the CEF, and it makes you wonder if it was worth all the disruption, English-French bitterness, etc., that it created.

In round numbers it works out as follows:

- Registered = 402,000

- Exempted (job,etc.) = 222,000, lowering total liable for service to 180,000

Of the 180,000, 130,000 reported for service; another 26,000 were available but were not called up; and 24,000 were defaulters (I assume hiding in the woods).

Our total is now down to 130,000, of which nearly 9,000 were allowed to join the British forces, so we are reduced to 121,000.

Some 16,000 of this number are found unfit and released, and another 9,000 are discharged for various reasons. Total now stands at 96,000 on strength.

Of the 96,000, only 47,000 actually proceed overseas, and then many remain in the UK. Only 24,000 reach France, and in many cases the war ended before they reached the front line.

It seems that of 400,000 eligible candidates, a higher number of asoldiers should have actually been produced although I realise that by 1918, the pickings must have been fairly lean.

Any thoughts? Are there comparable numbers for other nations?

[DirtyDick]

I don't think that the various registration and conscription bills enacted in the UK furnished anything like the numbers of men anticipated, for many of the reasons you outline. I recall reading that the anticipated divisions formulated on paper were never brought to bear due to practical difficulties.

Niall Ferguson has an interesting chapter on the inefficient man-management of the British Army in his book 'The Pity of War'.

Richard

[N.S.Regt.]

Terry

I can only speak of the conscripted form Nova Scotia according to Nova's Part in the Great War some 14000 men were enrolled. Due to shrinkage 5000 of that number was was sent overseas. I know there was men of the Nova Scotia Depot Battalion Serving with the 25th Battalion 7 of them were killed all between Sept.- Nov. 1918. All of the 6 or so groups numbered to the Depot that I have named to the 25th all joined up after the war was over. I would think the number that would have see combat was small. I do have a uniform grouping to the 85th he joined on Oct 3 1918 and have met a Pte. Smith name and number eludes me at the moment who was also Depot Battalion. I would be supprised to see many that seen combat before Aug. 1918. 3181613 W.B. Miller is the only N.S. Depot that was awarded a M.M.

[jhill]

It seems to me that the conscription debate has always involved two separate themes:

1.The practical art of manpower allocation. This is the question of how to get enough men into the army to win the War. In a larger sense it also deals with attaining an optimal allocation of manpower to the various branches of the military, industry, agriculture, so so on. Terry's question deals directly with this aspect of the issue.

2.The formation of national public policy. This is what we usually call “politics”. Modern wars are not fought between armies, but between entire nations. A nation requires the willing commitment of every person to the war effort, and the imposition or non-imposition of conscription is judged in that sense.

In most countries, conscription was based , correctly, in my view, on the second theme. Regardless of the efficiency of the authorities, the voluntary system always runs the risk of offending large numbers of people because of perceived inequities in the sharing of the burden. In a wartime society the very notion of “slackers” can cause more damage to civilian morale than the slackers themselves cause to the strength of the army. To many, conscription is a necessary evil which minimizes these risks. The phrase “equality of sacrifice” was often used to sell this notion to the public.

In some countries, such as Canada, this analysis did not work so well. There were (and are!) large geographic and cultural communities who only got along because of a tradition of not interfering too much with each others' social lives. Also, as the War was on the other side of the world, there was no immediate danger to the country.

To put my “current” opinions on record (regarding the Canadian situation):

1.In 1917 the Canadian organization of manpower was not yet really efficient. Conscription probably put more men into the pipeline for the 1918 summer campaign than would otherwise have been the case.

2.The voluntary system would probably have achieved adequate results if it had been better administered.

3.The above comments are only marginally relevant since the majority of the population “needed” conscription to maintain their support for the war. This was a tragedy since it destroyed the support of the minorities. In the next war there would be similar crises, but they would be better managed that time.

(This can still be a sensitive issue. I am only voicing my own thoughts, and I am aware that others have different, but equally valid opinions).

[paul guthrie]

Was French Canadian participation greater in WW1 or 2?

[jhill]

Was French Canadian participation greater in WW1 or 2?

Oh dear me! I really do not think I want to go there! This is certainly one of those issues which produces much more heat than light.

1. In the sense that "participation" can be measured by the number of people serving in the military, we are faced with a lack of data. There was no indication of a soldier's ethnic status on his documentation, so we are reduced to looking for French sounding names or indulging in wild speculation. The results can be depressing. On July 17, 1916, Le Canada reported that there were 50,000 French Canadians serving with the army. On August 21, 1916, the Orange Sentinel reported that fewer than 5,000 French Canadians had ever enlisted. I suppose you choose the lies you are most comfortable with.

2. Like the "Enemy Alien" question, service with the military is not a good indication of French Canadian "participation". Even my lists of men enlisting in Edmonton units show strange trends. Some units have considerable numbers of French sounding names, others have hardly any at all. One suspects that many commanding officers did not care much for men with French (or Galician, etc.) names.

3. We are curiously blind to the fact that in Quebec, people spoke French and not English, while outside of Quebec, people spoke English and not French. This made most Quebeckers ineligible for service in most parts of the military, since knowledge of English was assumed. Even in the Infantry, it was some time before there were facilities for handling unilingual recruits.

In answer to your question, I suspect that during the Second War, the situation was better because the army and the government had organized things a bit better, but the same basic issues remained.

(Once again, I am expressing opinions. They may or may not coincide with fact.)

[Guest dinkidi]

G'day

Are Canadians in general aware that conscripted soldiers were sent to Russia after the Armistice in Europe?

ooRoo

Pat

[mordac]

Are Canadians in general aware that conscripted soldiers were sent to Russia after the Armistice in Europe?

Hi Pat:

Not many Canadians know that there was a Canadian Siberian Expeditionary Force from 1918 to 1919, let alone some conscripted men were part of the CSEF. Yes, it's true conscripted soldiers formed part of the CSEF. However, most of these drafted me were given the option of serving on the Western Front or Siberia.

A second group of men enlisted in the CEF as volunteers and chose to go to Siberia. There was a large recruiting drive across Canada to enlist men in the two Rifle Battalions, the 259th and 260th Infantry Battalions.

A third group of men had served in the CEF in Europe and then chose to go to Siberia.

And a fourth group had served on the Western Front, were discharged or invalided out then rejoined to go to Siberia.

Garth

[mordac]

Hi Terry:

You've asked and interesting question, "Was conscription in Canada worth the trouble?" Even with 85 plus years of hindsight, this is still a difficult question to answer.

When you read the letters and memoirs of Canadians who served in the front lines, they seem to have supported conscription. I think the general feeling was it was time all able bodied men join the war effort. If that meant drafting men, so be it. It's interesting to note that the men at the front were given a vote during the conscription referendum.

The politicians of the day were put in a difficult position. Due to the high casualties, did they want to shrink the Canadian Corps to three divisions or introduce conscription? With the new international prestige that the Canadian Corps had won for Canada during the war, I think the politicians were reluctant to reduce Canada's war effort. So, how were they going to get the men they would require to maintain four divisions?

Also, at the time conscription was introduced, the politicians had no idea the war would end in 1918. I'm sure most people thought the war would drag on into 1919 or 1920 and a constant supply of conscripted men would be required to fill the ranks of the Canadian Corps.

So was it worth it? Probably not. The long term social divisions in Canada can still be felt from a decision the was made almost 90 years ago. But, you know what they say about hindsight, it's 20/20.

Garth

[BeppoSapone]

When you read the letters and memoirs of Canadians who served in the front lines, they seem to have supported conscription. I think the general feeling was it was time all able bodied men join the war effort. If that meant drafting men, so be it. It's interesting to note that the men at the front were given a vote during the conscription referendum.

Funny that. The A.I.F. also had the vote during the Australian Conscription Referendum.

IIRC it was these volunteer soldiers, who voted against conscription, that swung the thing against compulsion.

Any Australians know more?

[Guest dinkidi]

Thanks for that Garth, it was certainly a touchy subject among a few Canadians I met.

Beppo!

The actual figures are, of course, available, but each soldier's vote would have to be "counted" in the State in which he was enrolled. There were 2 Referenda, 1916 & 1917. To succeed, the proposal must not only gain a majority of total votes, but must be accepted by at least 4 of the 6 States. From memory the soldiers' vote was about 50/50 and given the above allocation rules would [iMHO] not have a noticeable effect on the overall result.

ooRoo

Pat

[BeppoSapone]

Thanks for that Garth, it was certainly a touchy subject among a few Canadians I met.

Beppo!

The actual figures are, of course, available, but each soldier's vote would have to be "counted" in the State in which he was enrolled. There were 2 Referenda, 1916 & 1917. To succeed, the proposal must not only gain a majority of total votes, but must be accepted by at least 4 of the 6 States. From memory the soldiers' vote was about 50/50 and given the above allocation rules would [iMHO] not have a noticeable effect on the overall result.

ooRoo

Pat

Thanks Pat

I thought I read something by John Laffin saying that the AIF vote "swung" the referendum?

I suppose I could have it wrong, or it could be the 'spin' put on the figures?

[Auimfo]

Now we're touching on one of Australia's most turbulent periods. The 'referendum' caused many great divisions between it's people that lingered into the Vietnam War and to some extent still exists today.

Strictly speaking a referendum is a vote to change the Constitution but in this case the Prime Minister, Billy Hughes, already had the power to introduce Conscription. All he had to do was amend the Defence Act to include overseas service as well as home defence. His problem was that, although he had the numbers to pass the change in the House of Representatives, he didn't have the numbers in the Senate. Hughes thought that a 'national poll' voting 'yes' would convince the reluctant senators to change their minds since it was the popular view of the people. In reality, this 'national poll' did not mean anything officially.

What Hughes didn't calculate on was the amount of opposition he encountered. The vote in 1916 was extremely close - with conscription being rejected 51% to 49% (total votes). It was again close in 1917 but favoured rejection by a slightly larger margin. Hence he was unable to sway the senators and probably lost a couple along the way.

The votes of the soldiers at the front were also very close as Pat said. Initially in 1916 a slight majority voted for conscription. In 1917 they again voted 'yes' but by an even smaller majority.

I think the ordinary AIF soldier could be summed up by my Grandfather's thoughts. He voted 'yes' because he believed the shirkers at home should stand up and fight for their country. But at the same he had misgivings about this because he didn't believe he could entrust his life to a man who had to be forced to fight.

Tim L.

[marc leroux]

It is always easier to look back based on what we know now. I think if it had been possible to say "If we have xx more volunteers than the war will be over in 12 months" conscription would not have been necessary. But the Canadians, and the Allies in general, were losing troops faster than enlistments and something had to be done. I agree that the enlistment process could have been improved, and might have made up the difference, but by late 1916 most people that wanted to enlist had done so. If the war had stretched out untlil 1919 there would have been a shortage.

A significant portion of Canadian society was agrarian, and very labour intensive. Farmers tend to be very pragmatic and recognised that losing labour meant not getting crops in, and this would have played a big part in the reluctance to enlist.

Finally, while conscription was a catalyst to divisions between the Canadian subcultures, I don't believe that there would have been any significant difference in the long term. The problems have much deeper roots and are sufficiently volatile that another trigger point would have occurred.

marc

[lassuy]

Was there a significant enlistment of French Canadians in the French army? On a recent trip to Winnipeg, I was struck by the number of statues of poilus in the St. Boniface section of the city. Also, on a visit to the main cemetary, I noted a number of headstones with WWI dates.

[Guest dinkidi]

G'day Beppo.

Laffin would probably have held, and expressed, that opinion.

Tim's grandpa's 'confirming' view is frequently expressed in soldier's diaries etc

The vote was a 'secret ballot' and the results were extremely close. An extremely wide range of factors, including the Easter Uprising, provided distractions, red herrings etc. You can usually get yourself a Doctorate for analysing the debate & the results, so a simple one liner such as Laffins, IMHO cannot be a proper explanation.

After all. "There's lies, damn lies & Statistics.

OOrOo

Pat

[jhill]

Was there a significant enlistment of French Canadians in the French army?  On a recent trip to Winnipeg, I was struck by the number of statues of poilus in the St. Boniface section of the city.  Also, on a visit to the main cemetary, I noted a number of headstones with WWI dates.

I cannot believe that very many French Canadians served with the French services. In the first place, potential recruits would have to make their own way to France to join up, and very few (other than perhaps a few students or tourists already there) would have been able to afford the expense. More to the point, despite the affinity that English Canadians assumed existed between France and French Canada, there were no strong attractions. As an example, the recent anticlerical policies of the French army and government horified much of French Canadian society.

On the other hand, reservists; that is, men resident in Canada but born in France and still members of the army reserve, could, like their British counterparts, receive passage back home to join their units. Some undoubtably did so. In Edmonton, by April 1916, about 2000 British and Allied reservist had sailed for home.

In general, however, things worked the other way round. French born men living in Canada were more likely to join the Canadian service as the easiest way to get into the fight. I have a partial list of a few dozen such men from hereabouts. Perhaps the best known example is Edmonton's "other" General, Raymond Brutinel.

This said, I would be interested in stories of Canadians serving in the French army.

[lassuy]

Yes, I realize the gulf between France and French Canadian society, which is why it struck me as odd to see these memorial statues of French soldiers around. One of them is even in the median in the middle of a street. The cemetary I was looking about in is the one adjacent to the site of the old cathedral, which also sports a rather fierce looking poilu, in an overcoat and carrying his Lebel rifle, standing guard over the graves. Over in Winnipeg proper, one sees memorials and statues of Canadian soldiers, wearing the regulation uniform. Just wondering why the difference.

[Terry]

Thanks for your input, Pals. Many Canadians tend to think that it was only Quebec which was against conscription, but there were lots of people in the other eight provinces who were just as opposed to the draft.

[BeppoSapone]

G'day Beppo.

Laffin would probably have held, and expressed, that opinion.

Tim's grandpa's 'confirming' view is frequently expressed in soldier's diaries etc

The vote was a 'secret ballot' and the results were extremely close. An extremely wide range of factors, including the Easter Uprising, provided distractions, red herrings etc. You can usually get yourself a Doctorate for analysing the debate & the results, so a simple one liner such as Laffins, IMHO cannot be a proper explanation.

After all. "There's lies, damn lies & Statistics.

OOrOo

Pat

Interestingly the idea of the AIF swinging the vote(s) against compulsion is repeated in the "Daily Telegraph" obit. for Ted Smout, the WW1 Australian soldier who has just died.

"When, soon after Passchendaele, Billy Hughes's Australian government tried, and for the second time failed, to win a national plebiscite to extend conscription to overseas service, Smout, like the majority of Australian servicemen overseas, voted "No". He didn't want to serve with men who did not want to volunteer."

[Auimfo]

Beppo,

I suppose it's all a matter of where you find your figures and how you interpret them. From everything I've ever seen or read, the majority of AIF soldiers voted 'yes' but only by the barest of margins. Therefore the soldiers vote, as a whole, could not have influenced the outcome of the plebicite one iota. Of course each individual who voted no would have contributed to the result with their own singular vote.

Having a closer look at the Daily Telegraph quote, it may be the case that the majority of 'overseas' servicemen did vote 'no' but after including the servicemen still at home in Australia the vote may have swung slightly the other way.

I would imagine that the exact figures could be researched and proved one way or the other but I'm tipping they wouldn't stray far from the 50-50 mark be they overseas, at home or both.

Tim L.

[Guest dinkidi]

1916 actuals

[Guest dinkidi]

1917 actuals

[Chris Henschke]

"Contrary to the general belief, members of the A.I.F. at both Referendums, in 1916 and 1917, voted in favour of Conscription.

At the first Referendum, polling in France began on October 16, and occupied approximately one week.

At the second Referendum, polling was concluded on December 12.

In both instances the Diggers voted before the Commonwealth vote was recorded, and on both occasions recorded "Yes" majorities."

source; Returned Sailors and Soldiers' Imperial League of Australia - Official Year Book 1938

[Guest dinkidi]

Jist to throw a cat among the pigeons,

Total soldiers' vote in 1916 was 121,000 rising to 198,000 in 1917. I would have expected the AIF numbers to fall.