Better Canadian Interwar Military

[SealTheRealDeal]

So I've been reading John English's Failure in High Command, and I've noted some interesting things.

1) The Otter Committee (the board tasked with distributing CEF battle honours to Militia units and broadly coming up with the organization of the Canadian Military post WWI) recommended a army comprised of eleven infantry divisions and four cavalry divisions. Of those, six infantry divisions and one cavalry division would be earmarked for, and prepared to serve as, an expeditionary force should the Empire again call on Canada.

These provisions were not adopted as Canada adopted the British Ten Year Rule on an unofficial basis.

2) Canadian interwar spending was crazy low, around $1.43 per capita durring the 1920s, for comparison New Zealand spent $2.33 per capita, Australia $3.30, South Africans $4.27, Americans $6.51, and the British and French both spending over $20 per capita.

Canadian spending is really low, even by the standards of its fellow Dominions.

3) Canada had introduced the position of Chief of Staff in 1922, but then abolished it in 1927 at the behest of the navy.

4) By maintaining the Canadian militia as the basis of Canada's army Canada maintained its very traditional, political, and status based form, complete with inter-service rivalries. (problems the WWI CEF hadn't had to deal with as it was an entirely new force)

5) McNaughton seems like a bit of an air head. My personal favourite vices of his being:
-Using the army as a poverty relief service
-Believing that the future of warfare was small well equipped and mobile forces rather than large conscript armies (about 40 years early on that one...)
-Assuming no other nations would catch up with British armoured doctrines
-Not acquiring more modern equipment on the basis that it would obsolete by the time war broke out, and accordingly officers would be best off imagining how such equipment would be implemented durring drills.

And I'm not even finished chapter 2...

So, how can we beef of the Canadian military so as to be better prepared for WWII?

 

[Father Maryland]

When the war started didn't the Canadian army consist of like less then 5,000 men and the navy consist of two small warships (one on each coast).

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

When the war started didn't the Canadian army consist of like less then 5,000 men and the navy consist of two small warships (one on each coast).

That was the case prior to WWI. The Canadian Military wasn't quite as unprepared going into WWII. The navy at least had 11 combat vessels at the start of WWII. Also the less than 5,000 men thing is from only counting the Permanent Active Militia, the Non-Permanent Active Militia (which at least for WWII should be counted as it was mobilized unlike in WWI) numbered an additional 46,000

 

[Fearless Leader]

During the last bit of RB Bennett's term, he got quite sick and H.H. Stevens was considered as a possible replacement. Some even wanted to stage a kind of internal Tory coup and overthrow Bennett. Stevens refused to cooperate and ran under his own party in 1935. Had Bennett died and Steven's taken over, the Tories might have adopted a more Keynesian approach to dealing with the Depression. "Military Keynesianism" could be a part of that giving you the money necessary for new equipment.

 

[Legofan4]

Well the question is why should they. Canada like America is very far from anyone who could do anything to them and has been growing more independent from Britian as time goes on so would in the future not necessarily be drawn in to their wars. They don't know that war is going to happen. So it just seems like an unnecessary expense without future knowledge.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Well the question is why should they. Canada like America is very far from anyone who could do anything to them and has been growing more independent from Britian as time goes on so would in the future not necessarily be drawn in to their wars. They don't know that war is going to happen. So it just seems like an unnecessary expense without future knowledge.

And America's per capita spending was over four times that of Canada... Australia, New Zealand, and (arguably) South Africa are even more isolated and they too were spending significantly more per capita than Canada. Canada's interwar military underspending went quite a bit further than simply forgoing unnecessary expenses.

 

[knightdepaix]

Maybe special forces or commandos with Winter, Alpine or mountain training could be trained and then deployed in fighting in the North Hemisphere? So in Norway, German troops would fight Canadians but still won. When USA were approaching the Japanese main islands in late 1944, a new front could be started from the Aleutians after the American victory in the Aleutian Island Campaign. From Dutch Harbor, US-Canadian troops with highest proportion of Canadian troops in ww2 would attack the Kuril islands and the Sakhalin island. So the Stalin government must yield to American demands more. Sakhalin could have been still divided in half until today (reference North and South Korea) and the Kuril Islands dispute would have not been possible because Japan would control the four islands in dispute. However, Koreans in Sakhalin would be allowed to return to Korea at their own choices. Given the economy blossom for Japan, the development of the southern half of Sakhalin would continue as it had been since 1900s due to at least geographical proximity.

For the economy of Sakhalin and the Kuril Island, I doubt it would change much... Paper and Pulp would be a major industry in Japanese control Sakhalin (with reference to Hokkaido) and the advent of current alternative energy, geothermal energy and small scale biomass based petrochemical industry would be possible for its right and as the middleman from the off-shore natural gas exploitation southward to Hokkaido.

I know it is a far stretch... Thanks for reading.

 

[Dorknought]

Canadian defense under-spending was a trend from pre-ww1. To cover the Naval situation between the wars, in 1918, the Dominions were still opposed to the idea of a single Imperial Navy. Canadian PM Borden suggested on behalf of the Dominion PMs that an Admiralty advisor visit each country in turn. In September 1918 the Admiralty agreed to send a Representative as early as convenient after the wars end. This later became Jellicoe's Empire Mission in Feb 1919.

In April, from Paris, Borden asked the Admiralty if Canada could take over a battleship, cruiser and requisite destroyers and submarines.

The Admiralty was quick to agree and in May 1919 proposed:
1 BC Indomitable
3 CL Arethusa
1 DL Marksman
8 S class DD
4 L Class SS
2 H Class SL already gifted

Estimated running costs were put at £1.327m per year if these ships stayed in Canadian waters. The RN acknowledged that the RCN would be in the nature of a training squadron for some years to come. At wars end the RCN only had 62 officers - not enough to run the BC.

Asked in August if they wanted the ships the Canadians demurred pending Jellicoe's report. Jellicoe arrived in Canada in Nov 1919 and quickly noted the dissension among Canadian politicians. Even the Naval minister recognised that the current RCN was a 'pure waste of money'.

For local defence Jellicoe suggested 3 CL, 8 DD and 8 SS. If Canada wanted to co-operate in Imperial Defence then 1-2 'Fleet Units' of a BC, CV, 2CL, 6DD, 4 SS and minesweepers and support ships. Gift ships on offer from the RN had to be taken up by the end of Jan 1920. Parliament asked for an extension on 1 CL, 1 DL, 4DD, 6SS and 8PG. As no policy had been set, the pre-war policy of a training cadre was continued and only 1 CL and 2 DD were asked for. These were initially Glasgow, Talisman and Termagant but Arethusa, Patrician and Patriot were selected instead with crew requirements totaling 486.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Perhaps have a 'dominion rule' that asks the 'Dominions' of the British Empire to spend a minimum % of GDP on their militaries

Same sort of way that NATO members are expected to spend 2 % plus on their defence budgets

And then come the tipping point in the late 30s that might increase further with long lead 'items' like Armament factories, Shadow factory schemes and improving ship building infrastructure etc.

Maybe involve the Dominions further in selecting replacement weapons - for example the Aussies never bothered to upgrade their rifle factory to make the No4 Lee Enfield and struggled to build Destroyers (IIRC only succeeded in building 3 of 8 planned Tribal DDs)

Take the concept of the 10 year rule seriously rather than use it as an excuse to continually do nothing

Given that - Canada did quite well all things considered and remeber that at the end of WW2 they had the worlds 3rd largests navy and had produced many thousands of tanks and aircraft including 4 Engined Lancasters.

 

[tomo pauk]

Key thing is indeed to increase spending for the military. Then, focus more on navy and air corps, then on ground forces - navy will be needed to deal with threats one either of the oceans, air force can cover vast expanses of sea and land quickly. Production of ships for the navy and aircraft for the air corps mix well with production for civil purposes, not a case with tanks and artillery. Canada has no population to outfit many divisions, better use trained manpower where it counts.

 

[Legofan4]

And America's per capita spending was over four times that of Canada... Australia, New Zealand, and (arguably) South Africa are even more isolated and they too were spending significantly more per capita than Canada. Canada's interwar military underspending went quite a bit further than simply forgoing unnecessary expenses.

Canada also had the natural defense of being next to America. Which will defend them out of their own defense if nothing else. And also Japan is much closer and more of a threat to Australia and New Zealand than anything could possibly be to Canada with the exception of an expansionist America in which case they can't stop them. So the lack luster attitude of Canada towards it's defense in the interwar years is understandable.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Canada also had the natural defense of being next to America. Which will defend them out of their own defense if nothing else.

Prior to the Ogdensburg agreement of 1940 that was not certain by any means.

And also Japan is much closer and more of a threat to Australia and New Zealand than anything could possibly be to Canada

Australia is closer to Japan by a mere 1,000 miles (and Northern Australia isn't exactly a built up area). New Zealand and Canada are about the same distance. Canada most certainly should have been as concerned about a potential Anglo-Japanese War as Australia and New Zealand were.

 

[riggerrob]

In another, Canada wank thread, I suggested keeping General Worthington in command of work camps, but paying the men slightly better. They build dozens of airfields and a variety of public works during the 1930s.

When a forest fire threatens a work camp - in Northern Ontario - Worthington sends some the lumberjacks to fight the fire. This leads to development of a water-bombing variant of Noordyn Norseman on floats. Meanwhile smoke jumpers start jumping from Norseman on wheels.

When Ottawa realizes that Britain will never sell them enough weapons, Bren and Sten gun production starts earlier in Canada.
Montreal Locomotive Works builds enough Valentine tanks to completely equip the Canadian Army.
When Valentine is replaced by Rams - on MLW production lines, Worthy eventually gets the big gun (75mm or larger) Ram 3 tank he always wanted.
Canadian Car and Foundry gets too busy building Grumman-pattern airplanes to have any time for Hurricane or Helldiver production. Part way through the war they licence Conestoga production rights from Budd. Budd cheerfully sells CCF plenty of shot-welding machines.

Most of these production lines are slow during the 1930s, but quickly ramp up production at the start of WW2.

 

[Legofan4]

Prior to the Ogdensburg agreement of 1940 that was not certain by any means.


Australia is closer to Japan by a mere 1,000 miles (and Northern Australia isn't exactly a built up area). New Zealand and Canada are about the same distance. Canada most certainly should have been as concerned about a potential Anglo-Japanese War as Australia and New Zealand were.

America will defend Canada even without such agreement because if someone is at war with Canada and not allied with America whatever enemy that is will generally be opposed to America. Why would America let any potential enemy get a foothold on North America. Canadian politicians knew this they were not stupid men. So why spend on a military that will only really be used overseas in an economic depression.

Pearl Harbor was on the ragged edge of the Japanese logistical abilities and Canada is even further away from Japan than Hawaii and until Pearl happens no one thought that the Japanese could even strike that far east let alone onto mainland North America. The Japanese also could base from the Mandates which are much closer to Australia than anything anyone else has close to Canada. And again the Canadian politicians knew this. So again why. This isn't Hearts of Iron where you can just pick a province and start building new military factories.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

So why spend on a military that will only really be used overseas in an economic depression.

Because that's exactly what happened... And there were plenty of Canadian politicians who (unlike King) didn't believe Hitler was a man of peace.

The Japanese also could base from the Mandates which are much closer to Australia than anything anyone else has close to Canada.

Militarization of said islands only followed Japan's withdrawal from the League of Nations in 1933, and it'd be a couple of years before the facilities were operational. So For most of the interwar Canada's defence concerns mirror those of Australia and New Zealand. And again, my figures for underspending were from the 1920s, so well before the South Pacific Mandate was of any military concern.

This isn't Hearts of Iron where you can just pick a province and start building new military factories.

And if they keep expenditures at a reasonable level they keep more lines in the existing factories operational than they did durring OTL's interwar, and maintain a force which will be able to contribute to major allied land operations prior to 1943. Australia had a smaller population, smaller economy, and weaker industrial base, yet it entered WWII with each of its services being stronger than their Canadian counterparts and was able to begin making significant contributions to the Western Dessert Campaign by late 1940.


Also, you do know that the question mark exists, right? You asked three questions and ended each of them with a period.

 

[naraic]

Given the political realities in Canada imo any Canadian military investment is going to have be from Canadian factories in order to keep economic benefits of industrialisation in Canada.

In the partially planned but not written timeline I'm working on where there is a mid 30s Anglo Italian war the I've planned on Canadian building a number of small warships for escort duty and a tiny carrier (escort carrier) and its entirely build in Canadian factories. Also there's a small line of hurricanes built on license.

At the end of the day Canada has the luxury of being firmly in both the US sphere and the British sphere. The two largest navies in the world would almost always be on the Canadian side of a war.

Anyway Canada spending significantly more but at the same time is possible but large scale spending is very unlikely to happen.

 

[Barry Bull]

And America's per capita spending was over four times that of Canada... Australia, New Zealand, and (arguably) South Africa are even more isolated and they too were spending significantly more per capita than Canada. Canada's interwar military underspending went quite a bit further than simply forgoing unnecessary expenses.

Australia (Japan), NZ (Japan) and South Africa (Internal Security and invention in Africa against other colonial powers) can all justify defence expenditure by point to potential enemies, there is no one for Canada to point to.

 

[Barry Bull]

Because that's exactly what happened... And there were plenty of Canadian politicians who (unlike King) didn't believe Hitler was a man of peace.

Would the Canadian voters accept that argument?

 

[tomo pauk]

Australia (Japan), NZ (Japan) and South Africa (Internal Security and invention in Africa against other colonial powers) can all justify defence expenditure by point to potential enemies, there is no one for Canada to point to.

Japan proper is probably much closer to Canada than it is to Australia, let alone New Zealand.
For this thread, the recent Great War experience is very fresh for the Canadians.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Japan proper is probably much closer to Canada than it is to Australia, let alone New Zealand.
For this thread, the recent Great War experience is very fresh for the Canadians.

Not closer, but about the same distance.

Australia (Japan), NZ (Japan) and South Africa (Internal Security and invention in Africa against other colonial powers) can all justify defence expenditure by point to potential enemies, there is no one for Canada to point to.

As I've outlined further up thread Canada is about as close to Japan as Australia and New Zealand are. They should be as concerned by a potential Anglo-Japanese war as their fellow Dominions.