Impact on the commonwealth with even greater Canadian and Australian WW1 casualties

Australia and Canada in proportion to their population and certainly to their geographic placement in the world gave up quite a few soldiers in WW1.

Could there have been political ramifications for the British commonwealth if even more soldiers had died or were dying during the war?

At some point would the citizens in Australia and Canada question their commitment to fighting a war in Europe based on how much blood they were sacrificing. Could this have prematurely started the disintegration of the commonwealth?
 
Australia and Canada in proportion to their population and certainly to their geographic placement in the world gave up quite a few soldiers in WW1.

Could there have been political ramifications for the British commonwealth if even more soldiers had died or were dying during the war?

At some point would the citizens in Australia and Canada question their commitment to fighting a war in Europe based on how much blood they were sacrificing. Could this have prematurely started the disintegration of the commonwealth?

My bet- & I could be wrong on this- is that
the casulities would have had to be MUCH
higher than they were IOTL as my impression is that in this period both nations
were on the whole happy to be a part of
the Empire & still loyal to Britain.
 
Both were a bit more circumspect in the contribution to WW2 as a result, the Australians always pushing to keep our divisions together as a corps and the RCAF insisting on keeping the RCAF in their own group in Bomber Command.
 
Both were a bit more circumspect in the contribution to WW2 as a result, the Australians always pushing to keep our divisions together as a corps and the RCAF insisting on keeping the RCAF in their own group in Bomber Command.

Canada waiting a week to officially declare war on Germany after the UK did, to show they were going to war as an independent nation.
 
Menzies was the only person to question Churchill over the Greek campaign, Curtin overrode Churchill to bring the AIF home in 42.
 
I could see little change in the the support provided in WW2 however I can see Commonwealth political leaders and by extension Commanders being a little bit more - how can I put it - mistrustful in WW2

For example the entire Greek campaign might have turned out differently if the ANZAC commanders had requested guidance from their governments (and would discover that they had been 'somewhat lied to' regarding their governments aquiesence to the AIF and NZ forces to be used in that adventure.

The same thing for the South Africans when placed in Trobruk in 42 maybe?
 
One outcome of Gallipolli was that Australians learnt they were different from the British. The bloodletting on the Wedtern Front confirmed that that opinion in their eyes.

Their own successes, purchased at such a cost, when measured (in their eyes) against the (poor) quality of British tactical methodology and (poor) leadership would only be exacerbated by greater casualties.

It is conceivable that the sense of betrayal arising from realization of the bankruptcy of Imperial defense as experienced in Feb 1942 would occur much earlier, Australia and Australians then would seek their own way in the world in the immediate aftermath of the Great War rather than after the Second World War.

Such a change in public opinion would have a Tsunami like effect of the political establishment not to mention societal changes. Australia would be a very different place.
 
Top