What if there wasn't any Canadian divisions during WW1?

I was wondering what the First World War would look like if, instead of a formal Candian Expeditionary Force. Volunteers are just used to replace losses in British units and/or just given Regiments that were in British Divisions (similar to Canada's Royal 22`e Regiment for French Canadians).
I'm mostly curious on these two things.

1. Would the Germans have been able take Ypres during the second Battle of Ypres if there wasn't a Canadian division to fill the hole left by the gas attack on the neighbouring Colonial French Division. Espicially since there was a chemist among the Canadians who recognized the gas and came up with the idea of the urine soaked gas mask.

2. What would have become of Arthur Currie. Currie planned the attack on Vimy Ridge. I think this would be the most significant change or difference since Vimy Ridge was an all Canadian attack with all four Canadian divisions. Vimy ridge was a success because of Arthur Currie, a Canadian born lawyer. Aswell as his superior, Bing, who recognized the need for non traditional military planning. Bing was the CO of the attack but gave Arthur Currie, the CO of the First Canadian Division, most of the responsibilities with planning and preparing the men for the actual attack. He was the first to give every soldier a map and made sure each man knew where he was supposed to be, when they need to be. He came up with what he called the Vimy Crawl which was renamed the Creeping Barrage. And he came up with the first modern platoon fighting tactics. Which include Advancing Fire and the specific roles each soldier is required to fill. Basically the modern fighting unit and the basic maneuvers that all modern armies teach during basic training.

There are also other minors things such the poem Flanders Fields and the last 100 day push which Canadians spearheaded.
So is there anyone out there who knows how or if the war could have been different if Canadians were just used as British reinforcements and the two previously mentioned people were simply in different places when they were needed?
Am I just being overly nationalistic or is this actually something worth thinking about for someone who isn't me?
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Without a separate Canadian army

Without a separate Canadian Army (in the sense of an organization, as opposed to a command in the field), there are not going to be four divisions worth of volunteers for the Western Front, plus a fifth division equivalent in the UK as a depot formation, plus a continual flow of replacements....

So the biggest issue is finding four more divisions simply to fill the hole in the BEF's order of battle in 1914-18.

Considering how bitter the fights in Canada over conscription for overseas service were in BOTH world wars, and the rioting and mutinies such a prospect generated historically, a "battalion level" mobilization is going to be just that - think of the Canadian contingent in the Second South African War.

Put aside any of the operational questions; absent a commitment to organizing Canadian brigades, divisions, and a corps headquarters, the BEF is going to need to fill a corps-sized hole somehow... That will be extremely difficult, given the historical demands on British manpower in 1914-18.

There is a reason the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and South Africans all insisted on "national" formations in WWI (and WWII): without such, their level of support for the Imperial war effort will be minuscule.

Mobilization in a democracy is like that, as witness the insistence on the U.S. for an "American" AEF in 1917-18. The Canucks, Australians, New Zealanders, and South Africans were no more willing to see their young men used as fillers under British generals than the Americans were, and vice versa.

And the Americans went immediately to conscription for overseas service in both world wars; the "white dominions" all refused, or put some sort of caveat to it that essentially required volunteers for overseas service, and limited the demands on conscripts, generally to home service.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Interesting, all of the material I've read has always indicated that the British were reluctant to give colonies their own Army Formations. That the British command believed that colonial volunteers would have better served the War by treating them as Citizens of the Empire instead of as a foreign volunteer force.
But I guess I've mostly been exposed to rather biased material. Either way thanks for actually taking this seriously, the real world is surprisingly hostile towards questions like these. Wonder why?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
"The British" covers a lot of ground, but

Interesting, all of the material I've read has always indicated that the British were reluctant to give colonies their own Army Formations. That the British command believed that colonial volunteers would have better served the War by treating them as Citizens of the Empire instead of as a foreign volunteer force.
But I guess I've mostly been exposed to rather biased material. Either way thanks for actually taking this seriously, the real world is surprisingly hostile towards questions like these. Wonder why?

"The British" covers a LOT of ground, but from the perspective of the professional British Army as an institution, historically, because the Dominions never had much in the way of standing armies in peacetime, there was a lot of doubt over whether the various Dominion officers corps had the capability of leading a formation or corps/army level organization in the field.

Now, given the historical record of the British Army, that point of view is open to question, but in 1914? It is understandable, although certainly arrogant.

Having said that, the reality is that in a nation that was democratic, there is not going to be a national mobilization absent political control of said mobilization.

One of the questions worth considering is how deep the political fault lines in the dominions went - in both 1914-18 and 1939-45 that none had the political unity to mobilize to the extent the Americans and British did (albeit with Ireland as the exception that proves the rule for the UK in 1914-18).

Best,
 
I believe that there was speculation that a Dominion general was to be given command of an Army, presumably either Currie or Monash would be promoted from command of their respective Corps to command a Field Army. I don't know if this would be a new Army made up of Dominion Corps with a few other divisions thrown in, or one of 5 existing Field Armies of the BEF. Certainly the idea didn't go anywhere by the time WW1 ended.
 
I believe that there was speculation that a Dominion general was to be given command of an Army, presumably either Currie or Monash would be promoted from command of their respective Corps to command a Field Army. I don't know if this would be a new Army made up of Dominion Corps with a few other divisions thrown in, or one of 5 existing Field Armies of the BEF. Certainly the idea didn't go anywhere by the time WW1 ended.

The Canadian defence minister tried to get Currie to agree to the new British infantry division organization (three brigades of three battalions instead of three brigades of four battalions) because it would've allowed for the formation of a 5th Canadian Division (or 6th I guess, since there was a depot division which stayed in England), which would've allowed for the formation of a II Corps which would've allowed for the formation of a First Canadian Army.

Currie successfully opposed the idea because he felt it would add too much staff bureaucracy and not enough firepower.
 
I was wondering what the First World War would look like if, instead of a formal Candian Expeditionary Force. Volunteers are just used to replace losses in British units and/or just given Regiments that were in British Divisions (similar to Canada's Royal 22`e Regiment for French Canadians).
I'm mostly curious on these two things.

1. Would the Germans have been able take Ypres during the second Battle of Ypres if there wasn't a Canadian division to fill the hole left by the gas attack on the neighbouring Colonial French Division. Espicially since there was a chemist among the Canadians who recognized the gas and came up with the idea of the urine soaked gas mask.

2. What would have become of Arthur Currie. Currie planned the attack on Vimy Ridge. I think this would be the most significant change or difference since Vimy Ridge was an all Canadian attack with all four Canadian divisions. Vimy ridge was a success because of Arthur Currie, a Canadian born lawyer. Aswell as his superior, Bing, who recognized the need for non traditional military planning. Bing was the CO of the attack but gave Arthur Currie, the CO of the First Canadian Division, most of the responsibilities with planning and preparing the men for the actual attack. He was the first to give every soldier a map and made sure each man knew where he was supposed to be, when they need to be. He came up with what he called the Vimy Crawl which was renamed the Creeping Barrage. And he came up with the first modern platoon fighting tactics. Which include Advancing Fire and the specific roles each soldier is required to fill. Basically the modern fighting unit and the basic maneuvers that all modern armies teach during basic training.

There are also other minors things such the poem Flanders Fields and the last 100 day push which Canadians spearheaded.
So is there anyone out there who knows how or if the war could have been different if Canadians were just used as British reinforcements and the two previously mentioned people were simply in different places when they were needed?
Am I just being overly nationalistic or is this actually something worth thinking about for someone who isn't me?

One of the things that mitigates against this is the Regimental system of Recruitment used at the time.

Generally a 'Regiment' would recruit from a given area - so the majority of soldiers in a given Regiment would be from the same area - often the same town.

So imo it would naturally follow that 'Dominion' Volunteers would do likewise and join 'their' local regiment.
 
Some of the dominions already had reasonably sophisticated territorial formations in place before the war, that would make it much harder for troops raised via this system to be replacements.
 

BooNZ

Banned
"
One of the questions worth considering is how deep the political fault lines in the dominions went - in both 1914-18 and 1939-45 that none had the political unity to mobilize to the extent the Americans and British did (albeit with Ireland as the exception that proves the rule for the UK in 1914-18).

Best,

ANZAC losses in WW1 were around 80K from a combined population of around 6 million. US losses on WW1 totalled around 117K from a population of 92 million. Tell us more about this rule and these fault lines...
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Sure....

ANZAC losses in WW1 were around 80K from a combined population of around 6 million. US losses on WW1 totalled around 117K from a population of 92 million. Tell us more about this rule and these fault lines...

AIF VS AMF; the NRMA "zombies" in Canada; draft riots in Canada; "fair dinkums" in Australia; the Africa Pledge in South Africa; riots by the Canadians and the Australians in WW II over a) unlimited overseas service or b) breaking up existing units to provide fillers; the conscription crisis and rebellion in Ireland in WW I; etc etc.

Any U.S. draftee, in either world war, was GI issue and liable to go wherever he was sent. This is historical fact and not controversial; mobilization in the U.S. and UK (much less France and the USSR) was of a vastly different nature in both world wars than it ever was in the white dominions in either conflict.

Again, the U.S. first instituted conscription for unlimited service in 1863; the UK did so in 1916. Australia did not do so in either world war. Canada did not start sending conscripts overseas until 1944-45, and even then it was a trickle, had led to multiple political crises, and incidents like the Terrace Mutiny. The New Zealanders, paradoxically enough, followed Britain's lead when it came to conscription for overseas service, relying first on volunteers and then conscripts; the U.S. used conscription immediately in both world wars, and in fact had implemented it in peacetime in 1940.

Check the AWM website for conscription in Australia. Here you go:

https://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/conscription/ww1/

Money quote:

Enlistment for the war continued to fall, and in 1917 Hughes called for another referendum on the conscription issue. This conscription campaign was just as heated as the first, with the most prominent anti-conscription activist being the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, Dr Daniel Mannix. On 20 December 1917 the nation again voted "No" to conscription, this time with a slightly larger majority. Australia and South Africa were the only participating countries not to introduce conscription during the First World War.

The US introduced conscription May 18, 1917 (Congress had approved the declaration of war on April 2; conscription was actually approved by Congress in April, 1916, but was not adopted until the US entered the war); see:

http://www.legisworks.org/congress/65/publaw-12.pdf

In 1940, the US approved conscription on September 16, almost 14 month prior to the declarations of war by Japan and Germany against the US; in 1941, the service period was extended to last the duration of the war plus six months service for unlimited deployment overseas - so, no equivalents of the AIF-AMF divide, the Africa Pledge, etc. If you were drafted, you went where you were sent - no alternative other than CO status.

Best,
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
AIF VS AMF; the NRMA "zombies" in Canada; draft riots in Canada; "fair dinkums" in Australia; the Africa Pledge in South Africa; riots by the Canadians and the Australians in WW II over a) unlimited overseas service or b) breaking up existing units to provide fillers; the conscription crisis and rebellion in Ireland in WW I; etc etc.
From a New Zealand perspective, I was not aware of any significant issues, especially during WW1.

Any U.S. draftee, in either world war, was GI issue and liable to go wherever he was sent. This is historical fact and not controversial; mobilization in the U.S. and UK (much less France and the USSR) was of a vastly different nature in both world wars than it ever was in the white dominions in either conflict.
We can agree the mobilisations were different, but in many cases those white dominions had a greater proportion of their population in military service and incurred significantly higher casualty rates than the US. In WW1 the US arrived late and in many cases forgot to 'bring a plate' i.e. had to borrow arms.

Again, the U.S. first instituted conscription for unlimited service in 1863; the UK did so in 1916. Australia did not do so in either world war. Canada did not start sending conscripts overseas until 1944-45, and even then it was a trickle, led to multiple political crises, and incidents like the Terrace Mutiny. The New Zealanders, paradoxically enough, followed Britain's leD when it came to conscription for overseas service, relying first on volunteers and then conscripts; the U.S. Used conscription immediately in both world wars, and in fact had implemented it isn't peacetime in 1940.
Certainly interesting, but conscription itself is a tool for mobilisation not a measure to the extent of mobilisation. As outlined above, in many cases a greater proportion of the populations of white dominions served and also committed their economies to rationing to support the war efforts.

Check the AWM website for conscription in Australia. Here you go:

https://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/conscription/ww1/

Money quote:

Enlistment for the war continued to fall, and in 1917 Hughes called for another referendum on the conscription issue. This conscription campaign was just as heated as the first, with the most prominent anti-conscription activist being the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, Dr Daniel Mannix. On 20 December 1917 the nation again voted "No" to conscription, this time with a slightly larger majority. Australia and South Africa were the only participating countries not to introduce conscription during the First World War.

So Australia and South Africa were actually the exception to the rule...

...your reference also makes it clear conscription was not required to be considered during the first couple of years, a period which was the total length of US involvement in that war.

The US introduced conscription May 18, 1917 (Congress had approved the declaration of war on April 2; conscription was actually approved by Congress in April, 1916, but was not adopted until the US entered the war); see:

http://www.legisworks.org/congress/65/publaw-12.pdf

In 1940, the US approved conscription on September 16, almost 14 month prior to the declarations of war by Japan and Germany against the US; in 1941, the service period was extended to last the duration of the war plus six months service for unlimited deployment overseas - so, no equivalents of the AIF-AMF divide, the Africa Pledge, etc. If you were drafted, you went where you were sent - no alternative other than CO status.
So the US GIs would go wherever the British told them to?

NZ also introduced conscription in 1940 and by 1942 over 9% of the total population was in the military (around 8% serving abroad), compared to less than 3% of the US population in the same year.

Clearly the immense USA resources won both WW1 and WW2, but its location and its sheer industrial/economic power mean it has never really had to mobilise for war to the same extent as others.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The U.S. the draft from essentially Day 1 in WW I and

The U.S. used the draft from essentially Day 1 in WW I and M minus 14 months in WW II (i.e.prewar). None of the British/Commonwealth countries mobilized to the same extent in either world war. It was a mid to late war decision in WW I and a decision upon entry in WW II for the British and NZ, a late war decision in WW II for the Canadians, and a decision that was never made by the Australians and South Africans in either conflict, no more and no less.

Best,
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
The U.S. used the draft from essentially Day 1 in WW I and M minus 14 months in WW II (i.e.prewar). None of the British/Commonwealth countries mobilized to the same extent in either world war. It was a mid to late war decision in WW I and a decision upon entry in WW II for the British and NZ, a late war decision in WW II for the Canadians, and a decision that was never made by the Australians and South Africans in either conflict, no more and no less.

Best,

You have a very narrow view of 'mobilization'. The timing of draft/other system of conscription doesn't directly map to level of mobilization for the war effort.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Actually, in terms of quickly generating

You have a very narrow view of 'mobilization'. The timing of draft/other system of conscription doesn't directly map to level of mobilization for the war effort.


Actually, in terms of quickly generating organized combat units that be deployed and then sustained in combat for the duration of a given conflict, conscription provides the best return on cadre, the use of training facilities, time, etc.

A volunteer force is a luxury in a sustained conflict.

A regular "professional" force is a wasting asset in a sustained conflict.

The world wars were sustained conflicts. The U.S. approach to mobilization was the same, essentially, as that used by the Germans, French, Russians/Soviets, and (ultimately) the British, so pretty much the norm for a total war.

Best,
 
Top