Harper does it AGAIN

[blueblood]

Actually the last gov't that tried conscription was in the second word war and they were not only relected, they served another term after that too getting re-elected to their 4th majority.

point taken, but how much more popular was the second world war compared to the first?

[kengs333]

They are meeting the recruit goals

Do you have any supporting evidence for this?

[kengs333]

Actually the last gov't that tried conscription was in the second word war and they were not only relected, they served another term after that too getting re-elected to their 4th majority.

Yeah, and the conscripts that they sent over to Europe were poorly trained and equipped, but I guess that's beside the point...

[M.Dancer]

Yeah, and the conscripts that they sent over to Europe were poorly trained and equipped, but I guess that's beside the point...

and not factual either...

[kengs333]

and not factual either...

How so? What do you know about Canada's role in the European campaign? Nothing, no doubt.

[M.Dancer]

Do you have any supporting evidence for this?

Just the factual kind....

The numbers are not all in yet, but with the military’s recruiting year ending March 31, there isevery indication the Forces will have surpassed its target of attracting 6,426 new recruits by its 2006-2007year end

http://www.cdfai.org/bergenarticles/Behind...g%20dilemma.pdf

No need for the trepidation.

CFRG has achieved a level of success this past year that has exceeded all expectations. Due to the colossal efforts of personnel at all levels, and a renewed CF recruiting culture that maintains “everyone in uniform is a recruiter”, the Regular Force target of slightly more than 5500 was exceeded by 6%, bringing the total number of Regular Force enrollees to more than 5800.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/5_...ing-stats_e.asp

[g_bambino]

How so? What do you know about Canada's role in the European campaign? Nothing, no doubt.

I thought you said it was beside the point.

[AngusThermopyle]

Yeah, and the conscripts that they sent over to Europe were poorly trained and equipped, but I guess that's beside the point...

Never heard that one before. Would you care to provide some proof of this premise?

Allied troops trained for over a year prior to the D Day landings. I guess a year of training for a single operation can be construed as poorly trained. Not!

[M.Dancer]

How so? What do you know about Canada's role in the European campaign? Nothing, no doubt.

I know that for a fact less than 80 conscripts were killed in action.

Few conscripts saw combat in Europe: only 2463 men reached units on the front lines. Out of these, 79 lost their lives. Politically, this was a successful gamble for King, as he avoided a drawn-out political crisis and remained in power until his retirement in 1948

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1944

In November 1944, after heavy losses in front-line infantry units serving in Northwest Europe and Italy, Ottawa authorized the dispatch of 16,000 home defence conscripts overseas. Beginning in January 1945, 13,000 proceeded to Britain, but only a few thousand entered combat in Europe before the war ended. Canada’s war overseas was almost entirely a volunteer effort.

http://www.civilization.ca/cwm/chrono/1931...cription_e.html

Out of 158,043 home defence conscripts 16,000 were slated for overseas service but only 3,500 were eventually sent, some arriving after the German surrender. The Hochwald Forest battles saw Canadian conscript "zombies" in action for the first time in numbers. They fought well but did little to change the composition of the Canadian Army overseas which retained its volunteer status for all intents and purposes.

http://www.army.dnd.ca/1PPCLI/remote/history/nweurope.htm

Most of these men had been in service for over 2 years making them rather well trained and since they had exactly the same kit as volonteers, they were as well equiped as everyone else.

[M.Dancer]

How so? What do you know about Canada's role in the European campaign? Nothing, no doubt.

Apparently a fair bit more than you...

[kengs333]

I know that for a fact less than 80 conscripts were killed in action.

An unsourced figure from Wikipedia--I'm so convinced now...!!!!

[kengs333]

Apparently a fair bit more than you...

Apparently not.

[kengs333]

Never heard that one before. Would you care to provide some proof of this premise?

Allied troops trained for over a year prior to the D Day landings. I guess a year of training for a single operation can be construed as poorly trained. Not!

Sorry, but conscripts would have arrived directly from Canada well after D-Day and were not involved in training for D-Day. Read any book about Canadian involvement in the European campaign, and there will be at mention of the poor training of the replacement soldiers.

[AngusThermopyle]

An unsourced figure from Wikipedia--I'm so convinced now...!!!!

Hey, at least its a source.

How about one detailing how poorly trained Canadians were? I did ask earlier if you'd provide one. Other than your opinion that is.

Sorry, but conscripts would have arrived directly from Canada well after D-Day and were not involved in training for D-Day.

I never said they were involved in D Day, merely used it as an example of Allied training and preparation. Allied training standards were quite high for the most part, being heavily based on British training principles. If you want an actual factual example of your premise then look to the German Military at the close of the war. They were in such desperate straights that they pressed old men and kids into service with no training at all to speak of. That would have illustrated your point far more effectively.

Oh yes, some vague statement telling me to go read a book (no titles, just any old book will do I guess) does not count as a source. The fact is that I'm more than a bit of a history buff and have read numerous books about WWII, amongst other conflicts, so your advice is just a little too late on that score.

Edited September 25, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[M.Dancer]

Sorry, but conscripts would have arrived directly from Canada well after D-Day and were not involved in training for D-Day. Read any book about Canadian involvement in the European campaign, and there will be at mention of the poor training of the replacement soldiers.

That's correct. Most arrived after the war was over. Most had received their training in Canada and had 2 years of it.

[kengs333]

Just the factual kind....

http://www.cdfai.org/bergenarticles/Behind...g%20dilemma.pdf

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/5_...ing-stats_e.asp

Good boy. Now discuss how the recruiting process has changed from just a few years ago, and how many of these "enrollees" are weeded out and why.

Whatever the case, the Canadian military is having difficulty maintaining a paltry 2,500 man force in Afghanistan, and will all the way to 2011 (or beyond).

[M.Dancer]

Good boy. Now discuss how the recruiting process has changed from just a few years ago, and how many of these "enrollees" are weeded out and why.

Whatever the case, the Canadian military is having difficulty maintaining a paltry 2,500 man force in Afghanistan, and will all the way to 2011 (or beyond).

Given that you plainly are ignorant of the facts, I fail to see why I should bother. You didn't believe they were meeting the needs and now you want to play another game?

Go away troll, you're boring and stupid.

[AngusThermopyle]

Whatever the case, the Canadian military is having difficulty maintaining a paltry 2,500 man force in Afghanistan, and will all the way to 2011 (or beyond).

Sure they are, thats what happens after successive years of cutting them to the bone. Do you think they can fund their efforts by collecting empty pop bottles?

[kengs333]

Given that you plainly are ignorant of the facts, I fail to see why I should bother. You didn't believe they were meeting the needs and now you want to play another game?

Go away troll, you're boring and stupid.

In other words, you can't and won't admit it. The CF changed the manner in which they acquire recuits by not requiring them to be physically fit; now the CF helps these unfit recuits get into shape--if they can--but no mention is made of how many are later discarded. It's just a way of fudging the numbers to make things look less bleak than they really are.

[kengs333]

Sure they are, thats what happens after successive years of cutting them to the bone. Do you think they can fund their efforts by collecting empty pop bottles?

No, it has nothing to do with funding, simply the fact that nobody with any amount of intelligence would want to enter the military.

[kengs333]

That's correct. Most arrived after the war was over. Most had received their training in Canada and had 2 years of it.

About 13,000 MNRA men were sent overseas. Like all of the others sent over, they were poorly equipped and trained. Read any account of the Canadians in the European campaign and this will be discussed.

[M.Dancer]

In other words, you can't and won't admit it. The CF changed the manner in which they acquire recuits by not requiring them to be physically fit; now the CF helps these unfit recuits get into shape--if they can--but no mention is made of how many are later discarded. It's just a way of fudging the numbers to make things look less bleak than they really are.

Now you admit they are reaching their targets. If you can only admit you don't know what you are talking about....

but no mention is made of how many are later discarded

Feel free troll, to find a source that backs up your blatherskite.

[M.Dancer]

About 13,000 MNRA men were sent overseas. Like all of the others sent over, they were poorly equipped and trained. Read any account of the Canadians in the European campaign and this will be discussed.

If you would take your own advice, troll, you would see of the those who went overseas very few saw any action at all. How much training do you need to drive a truck in England? In this case most had over two years...

Now be a good troll and run off and find something, even a toaster site that has even an iota of information that backs up your uniformed opinions.

[kengs333]

Hey, at least its a source.

How about one detailing how poorly trained Canadians were? I did ask earlier if you'd provide one. Other than your opinion that is.

The point is that he doesn't even know that the figures come from a book entitled Broken Promises by J. L. Granatstein and J. M. Hitsman, nor does he know the context that they were used in the book.

I never said they were involved in D Day, merely used it as an example of Allied training and preparation. Allied training standards were quite high for the most part, being heavily based on British training principles. If you want an actual factual example of your premise then look to the German Military at the close of the war. They were in such desperate straights that they pressed old men and kids into service with no training at all to speak of. That would have illustrated your point far more effectively.

So how do we get from Canadian conscripts being poorly trained and equipped during the European campaign to "Allied training standards" prior to D-Day? The Allied preparation for the invasion and the hasty dispatch of Canadian replacements following the invasion are two different things.

Oh yes, some vague statement telling me to go read a book (no titles, just any old book will do I guess) does not count as a source. The fact is that I'm more than a bit of a history buff and have read numerous books about WWII, amongst other conflicts, so your advice is just a little too late on that score.

Read any (not "a") book. I invite you to read any book dealing with Canadian involvement in the European campaign. Do you really need someone helping you in this respect?

[AngusThermopyle]

Read any (not "a") book. I invite you to read any book dealing with Canadian involvement in the European campaign. Do you really need someone helping you in this respect?

Actually it appears that you are the one who needs the help. Did I not just tell you that I've read many books whoe's subject is Military history? Or did you miss that part?

Being retired Military I tend to have an interest in this sort of thing. Some of the conscripts may have had less than desirable levels of training but that does not negate the fact that Canada was and still is to this day considered to be a Nation with very high Military training standards.