Conscription Crisis

By 蔡天仁

In September 1939, Canada declares war on Germany, a week after Britain and France do.

Shortly after in early 1940, Prime Minister Mackenzie Lyon King pledged to limit Canada’s direct military involvement in the war (ie: Conscription). Regardless of this, many Canadians, both English and French speaking citizens enlisted.

Again, the French-speaking population of Canada completely opposed conscription and felt no obligation to participate in the European conflict.

Although conscription was promised not to be implemented, the government did impose the National Resources Mobilization Act in June 1940, which allowed the government to register men and women to work jobs that contributed to the war effort on the homefront, but did not force them to serve overseas.

Two years later, in 1942, Nazi Germany had occupied a large portion of Europe and Prime Minister Winston Churchill of Great Britain, along with the support of English-speaking Canadians, was pressuring Canadian Prime Minister King to impose conscription in order to provide a more active contribution to the war effort.

As a result, Prime Minister King decided to hold a plebiscite (a  national vote to ask for the opinions of the country’s citizens) on whether the government should revoke its promise on not imposing conscription. King was said to have stated “not necessarily conscription, but conscription if necessary”, showing the uncertainty of the situation. Unsurprisingly, most of English-speaking Canada supported conscription if necessary, while 72% of the French-speaking opposed it. Ultimately, 80% of the country supported conscription if necessary and passed a bill that authorized conscription.

Despite being supported by the majority of the population, King was hesitant to proceed especially since the situation was quite delicate, considering that the French-speaking population mainly opposed conscription. As a result, King waited two years after the plebiscite to impose conscription.

Even then, the Prime Minister chose to limit the number of conscripted soldiers sent overseas to 16,000, with only 2463 reaching the front lines and 79 of them losing their lives.

Cause and Consequence

The causes of the conscription crisis were the Plebiscite, Prime Minister Churchill, the shortage of manpower, Quebec’s loyalty (or lack of) to England and France, and the decline of French-speaking regiments in the Canadian military.
Prime Minister Churchill was pressuring the Canadian government to impose conscription in order to contribute more to the war effort in Europe. In this process, he received the support of many English-speaking Canadians, which caused a large divide when the Plebiscite was held, since the vast majority of French-speaking Canadians opposed conscription, while the majority of English-speaking Canadians supported it. The French-speaking population of Canada felt no obligation to contribute to the war in Europe, especially since they had been separate from France for more than two centuries, and some still viewed Great Britain as a overlord and a conqueror. These three causes were the reason why conscription in 1944 was considered a crisis, since there was much pressure from both sides, making the situation very delicate.
On the military side of things, the amount of casualties overseas after the Italian and Normandy campaigns caused a shortage of troops, which prompted King to impose conscription. Also, there were fewer French regiments in Canadian Army during World War 2 compared with World War 1. Despite the larger number of francophone soldiers in World War 2, there were no new French regiments created. Instead, they were forced to join the traditional French regiments if they wished to serve with a French-speaking unit. In addition, these regiments never were incorporated into a single brigade, which could’ve boosted morale and would’ve given the French regiments some recognition.

If the relationship between French and English-speaking Canada was improved before the onset of the war, then the issue of conscription may not have been considered a crisis. While it was not nearly as politically damaging as the Conscription Crisis of 1917, it still had a negative effect between the two parties. If the French speaking population of Canada felt more loyalty towards either Britain or France, then a larger percentage of the said population may not have opposed conscription, since they were fighting for a cause they believed in.

On the other hand, the opinions of English-speaking Canadians would’ve had made little change if the perspective of French-speaking Canadians had differed, as most English-speaking Canadians had a generally positive attitude towards the European partners such as Britain and France.

Primary Sources

One of the many enlistment posters created to recruit troops during the years of World War 2

This enlistment poster is an example of the general attitude of English-speaking Canadians during the years of World War 2. It has an obvious pro-Allied bias, since the Lion represents England as Canada’s (the beaver) ally and to some extend, as Canada’s superior. Regardless, it was produced by the Canadian government for the English-speaking population, since the poster itself is in English and the countries represented are Canada and Britain. It was created in order to instill a wartime fervour and to entice men to enlist with the military in order “to achieve victory”.

Ethical Dimension

When we consider the events and conditions of that time period such as the shortage of troops and the Plebiscite, the conscription crisis is justified by such things. From the Canadian government’s perspective, it was a very well thought out move, especially since there was a large amount of pressure from both the supporters and opposers to conscription. By limiting the amount of conscripts and waiting till the most appropriate (arguably desperate) time, Prime Minister King and his government managed to prevents the riots and political damage that occurred during the first conscription crisis in 1917 while managing to provide an active military contribution as per the request of Prime Minister Churchill. From the supporter’s perspective, it is understandable that since most of the supporters were English-speaking, they had a generally good opinion towards Britain and France, and were willing to support a military contribution in order to support the war effort. From the opposition’s perspective, most of them were French-speaking Canadians and did not hold Britain and France in a high regard, and as such, did not feel an obligation to  support them. Due to this, their opposition to the conscription is justified, since they did not want to fight for a cause that they didn’t feel strongly to.

To conclude, all parties’ perspectives and opinions towards this issue are justified, since the conditions of that time period supported their arguments.

The conscription crisis reveals human rights and behaviour, showing that humans will speak their mind on issues that they do not support and will act as how their statements are responded to. For example, the French-speaking population did not see the war in Europe as a cause they supported and stated that they did not support conscription for a conflict that they did not consider important to them.

Continuity and Change:

The main changes from the Conscription Crisis of 1917 and the Conscription Crisis of 1944 is the reactions and viewpoints of the parties involved.

Although French Canadians did not hold neither Britain nor France in a positive light in 1917 or 1944, the few French Canadians that chose to enlist joined the few French-speaking regiments in 1917, as the initial enlistees who chose to join English-speaking Canadians were treated poorly due to religious and language differences. This was primarily the case in 1944, as very few French Canadians chose to join English-speaking regiments and mainly decided to join the French-speaking ones. In a way, this could be considered a progress, as French Canadians were treated slightly better in 1944.

Also, in both cases, Prime Ministers Borden and King promised that there would be no conscription. Obviously, this was not the case as the war progressed and new soldiers were needed. However, the main difference between the two was the approach to conscription. In order to win the 1917 election and to impose conscription without objection, Borden formed a coalition government with Liberals who supported conscription and introduced the Military Voters Act and the Wartime Elections Act, which essentially gave power to soldiers overseas and also to women who were close to those soldiers. In effect, this gave Borden the power and backing to introduce conscription. As of January 1st, 1918, the Military Service Act was being enforced by the Union government.

In King’s situation, a Plebiscite was held in order to prevent the backlash that occurred during the 1917 conscription. Although King promised that he wouldn’t impose conscription, pressure from other parties forced him to do so. By holding a Plebiscite to seek the opinion of Canada’s citizens, King managed to avoid the consequences of actions of Borden. This is a huge progress from 1917, as King maneuvered around what would’ve been a political crisis akin to the one from 1917.

Finally, the reaction from the opposers of conscription changed greatly from 1917 to 1944. In 1917, French Canadians were extremely unhappy, as nearly 95% of all eligible conscripts applied for an exemption, with most of them being French Canadian. Eventually, a riot broke out in Quebec city after the arrival of military forces to “maintain law and order”. On Easter Monday, four innocent civilians were killed and dozens were injured. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damages occurred.

In 1944, there were some very small disturbances, which were short lived and had no casualties. Interestingly, the largest disturbance came from the Terrace Mutiny in British Columbia, where a rumour about soldiers stationed on the home front would be deployed overseas prompted a mild revolt.

This again, was a large progress from 1917 to 1944. While there were riots and violence in the crisis of 1917, there was no government intervention, violence or riots in 1944, as the situation was far better handled by Prime Minister King.

Historical Significance:

This event was not a extremely significant  in Canadian history because of the following:

However, it did show King’s finesse in avoiding another political crisis that occurred in 1917.

Profundity

This event would’ve caused some communities and families to lose some manpower, but the National Resources Mobilization Act would’ve allowed these families to make up for their losses, since women were given jobs traditionally alloted to men and farms would recieve additional support if they were contributing to the war effort.

Quantity

This affected a large percent of the population, as it basically called all healthy men who were not currently serving to be conscripted into the military. Although there were less men in the country at that time, it still was a large portion of the population. Despite this, very few conscripts made it overseas, since conscription came into play at the end of the war.

Durability

Again, conscription being imposed at the end of the war meant that it did not last long, as it was abolished shortly after the armistice was signed and peace was established.

The conscription crisis of 1944 is part of the larger narrative of mandatory wartime military service. It shows that the reaction to conscription varies depending on how the population feels about the conflict that is being fought.

Sources:
– Class notes
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_crisis_of_1944
– http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/conscription
– http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/newspapers/canadawar/conscription_e.shtml
– http://canadaonline.about.com/od/canadaww2/ig/Canadian-Posters-World-War-II/
– http://canadaonline.about.com/od/canadaww2/ig/Canadian-Posters-World-War-II/To-Victory-WWII-Poster.htm
– http://0.tqn.com/d/canadaonline/1/0/e/9/ww2tovictory.jpg
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1917
– http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP12CH2PA3LE.html
– http://www.histori.ca/peace/page.do?pageID=278
– http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/guerre/conscription-e.aspx
– http://www.lermuseum.org/en/chronology/first-world-war-1914-18/1917/conscription-crisis-1917/