Talk:Military history of Canada/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Canada in Canada

This is a rather glaring ommision someone should write about the october crisis, the montreal olympics and the oka standoff, as these are the major uses (that i know of) of canadian force domestically. just putting it out there, i dont really have to to do this right now. another idea is a list of the reasons for canadian intervention as a seperate page, the information is there but it is scattered AND more information about minor peacekeeping missions could be added. Otherwise the page looks good.


The article implied that independence came in 1867. The closest thing to Canadian independence came in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster. So I changed it to read confederation, instead of independence.

I've noticed the use of this word before in articles about Canadian history, presumably written by Americans. It bears mentioning that Canadians don't use the word 'Independence' in reference to the situation with the UK; in fact, it's odd to see that term used at all in reference to Canada. When you say 'closest thing', you presumably mean the nearest technical analogue to American 'Independence', which is a distinct concept from that obtained by Canada. Canada never really had a problem with being in the Empire or Commonwealth, and never really actively sought 'Independence' as it is understood by Americans. Such a concept as understood in the context of American History simply doesn't exist in Canada. Americans 'achieved' 'Independence' through conflict with an imperial power, while Canada became a nation through the drafting of the BNA Act, and then the patriation of that act as a Constitution.Sigma-6


Why is there nothing here about the Red River Rebellion, and much more importantly, the North-West Rebellion? Fawcett5 18:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dunno. Could be because no-one has written about them in prior edits of the article. Be bold in updating pages! :) Cheers, Madmagic 09:03, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
On a closer look, they are both linked from the main Military history of Canada article. See the Civil insurrections section. It may be a Wikipedia convention within national military history articles to keep the insurrections out, I don't honestly know. Might be an idea to check the US and UK articles to see how they do it? Cheers, Madmagic 10:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
I think they should be added here IF the military was involved, which it was. If it occurred and was ended without military intervention (by negotiatios or police for example) it shouldn't be.say1988 13:42, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Vinland and Vikings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

English-French Conflict?

Why are "The American Threat", "The War of 1812" and "British Withdrawl" under English-French Conflict? I don't see the Americans as French and by the time of these conflicts Canada couldn't be called French.say1988 13:47, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have split the English/French conflict into one section, with sub-sections for the 17th and 18th centuries, and I've given the American Threat its own section. I think this is a more accurate split, and I hope other editors agree. --Scimitar 23:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


I think some info should be added about Canada's role in Haiti, and about how the "peacekeepers" there are systematicaly murdering and inprisoning as many supporters of Aristide and the Lavalas party as they can. The corporate media in Canada is completely silent on the issue, despite mounting evidence of very serious human rights violations commited by both the U.N "peacekeepers" as well as the Haitian police force which got their training from the good ole R.C.M.P.

By the way, the Haiti page itself needs a serious update to deal with what's been happening there since the U.N. began occupying it.

-> Haiti was invaded by a small group of U.S. Marines armed with about fifteen rounds of ammunition each. One resistant group of 300 people was able to take a city of over two-million people. Haiti has a problem in that it is apathetic, unwilling to participate in government processes, and then condemn anyone who does manage to form a government. I've seen the film of the few government leaders on the streets with M-16s acting like regular combat troops instead of leading as officers. Haiti has a serious attitude problem and lots of whining for a nation with millions of people.

  • Any documentation for these claims? Halcatalyst 23:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree there should be mention of Canada's role in Haiti but – cited, verifiable references from a neutral point of view notwithstanding – should only be elaborated upon briefly here and expanded in-depth in an article that's more appropriate. If Canada's military is involved in some sort of misdeed in Haiti, there should be a report online (official or not) regarding it, yes? E Pluribus Anthony 05:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you (unsigned) saying that Canadian soldiers in Haiti are systematically murdering and imprisoning Aristide supporters? Or when you say "peacekeepers" are you referring to other national contingents? If the latter, which ones? And why would that information appear on this page? --M4-10 19:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor changes

As a big fan of commas, I couldn't help but add several. I found this sentence in the Seven Years War section confusing and I'm not sure what it's supposed to say: "The French numbered no more than 3500 and before the British withdrew at the end of the day they had lost about 2000 men, mostly regulars, for a total French loss of about 350." DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that that sentence is pretty ambiguous. I have tweaked it, and hopefully it now makes sense. - SimonP 12:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The following is inaccurate and biased: "The victorious Americans looked to extend their republic and launched invasions in 1775 and in 1812. On both occasions, the Americans were rebuffed by British and local forces; however, this threat would remain well into the 19th century and partially facilitated Canadian Confederation in 1867." - As the article points out elsewhere, not all residents of the 13 colonies favored separation from Britain. The term "Americans" is misleading and prejudicial. Further, those in the US after the revolution had real fears that Britain would attempt to re-take the colonies. Britain committed what many US residents at the time considered provactive acts against the US and US citizens. This article, seemingly anti-American in its bias, suggest the US was operating out of an imperialist urge. - 1775 was prior to the start of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Indpendence by the 2nd Continental Congress. - The 1812 raid on York was by Kentucky militia. It has not been established they operating under federal command. - "Threat" implies an intent by the US Government to invade Canada. The US and Britain had boundary disputes during the 19th Century. Britain claimed some territory now in the US. These disputes were worked out diplomatically. The wording of the above passage suggests hostile intent on the part of the US against Canada (a nation which did not yet exist). No evidence is given for such alleged intent.

20th century

Should we mention funding levels for the military? It seems germaine to a discussion of the Canadian military, but perhaps there is a feeling that we should stick to harder events in this sort of article. I am not sure, but I thought that it is fairly well acknowledged that the Canadian military took a funding cut in the years after the cold war, resulting in a decline in standards throughout the military, personnel cuts, closing of overseas bases in Germany, etc... However, I don't know hard facts on this, so, rather than risk turning it into a National Post editiorial, I leave this for comment before making any substantial edits. Peregrine981 12:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

If there was a way to really get at it without it being POV (as you say, we don't want it to look like a National Post editorial), but I'm not sure that would be possible. The questions are, does that really stand out as anything particularly notable? Every NATO force took a pay cut after the Cold War, and for good reason; there was no Soviet threat anymore. Military funding tends to reflect threats to the nations doing the funding. Canada's military has arguably (the argument continues, and will continue) been able to meet its objectives since, and is, in fact, still sixth in NATO in overall funding. The 'underfunding' debate in Canada is also virtually identical to the 'underfunding' debate in every other NATO country, including the US. Certain political sectors insist that it is, and others insist that it isn't, because of their own varied understandings of the situation, and their widely divergent definitions of whatever perceived (or real) 'threat' might or might not exist.
The other question would probably be: by what criteria is 'underfunding' defined? Is the definition political in nature, relative to a political stance, and therefore necessarily POV? As in, do people on the other side of the debate also believe that it is not 'underfunded', or that the funding cuts were necessary? (AFAIK, this *is* the case) In that case, the discussion of it in the article would have to be separated from the political debate; rather than acknowledging 'underfunding', it would have, to be NPOV, to describe a *political debate* about whether or not underfunding existed, or whether post-Cold War cuts were necessary. For example, for a defensive force to have an overseas base (Like Lahr, in Germany, as mentioned) which existed to defend Western Europe against a Soviet advance when the threat of that advance had completely evaporated is arguably an unnecessary expense (to say nothing of doctrinally unsound). The debate then, is one of definitions, and is political in nature.
In the context of the fact that such cuts were universal in NATO, and that the 'underfunding' debate is universal in NATO countries, I'd be inclined to think that this would be more appropriately discussed in an article about NATO. Sigma-6

Time to summarize and section off?

The Military history of Canada article length is now at 51 kilobytes. Should we start breaking the sections up into different articles and work on summaries? Cheers, Madmagic 09:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Yes: I believe so (perhaps breaking it up by centuries to start, e.g., "Military history of Canada in 20th century") or similar, and particularly if it becomes a featured article, with all the richness and detail that entails. :) E Pluribus Anthony 11:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the first thing that should be done is to move the WWII section to a separate Military history of Canada during World War II, and replace it woith a brief summary. Canada is one of the few major participants without a World War II national military history article.- SimonP 14:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey! Perhaps both categories would work: by century and by event/era? They're separate but equal, and both allow for further expansion and consolidation. E Pluribus Anthony 15:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't really think there is any need for such a major change. 50kb is not a major problem, and it cleared FA at this length. - SimonP 17:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey; no problem ... perhaps this can be a preliminary discussion for a time when the article does grow to an unwieldy size. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 18:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

What about Kosovo?

I noticed that the article included a sentence which read "Since the Second World War, Canada has been committed to multilateralism and has gone to war only within large, UN-sanctioned coalitions such as in the Korean War, the Gulf War, and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan." I find this interesting because Canada joined Nato during the "Kosovo Conflict" in 1999, which was never sanctioned by the U.N. I also find it odd that there is no mention of the conflict at all in the whole article (as far as I can see). I remain your obedient servant, Wright Andrew 20:05, Novemeber 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nato action in Kosovo was done as enforcement to UN Resolution 1244, which in part calls for Deployment in Kosovo under United Nations auspices of effective international civil and security presences, acting as may be decided under Chapter VII of the Charter, capable of guaranteeing the achievement of common objectives. Raul654 05:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I changed the mentioned phrase before reading the discussion page here. Now I am confused. But I suppose the most direct thing to note was that UN Resolution 1244 was adopted on 10 June 1999: the day the war ended! --M4-10 07:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Which clearly indicates that it refers to the U.N. sanctioned peacekeeping operation which happened after the war that Canada participated in (and which was not U.N. sanctioned). --M4-10 07:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
The quote I mentioend comes from Annex 2, which was adopted by the G8 in early May. So it wasn't UN sanctioned, per se (although one could argue it was retroactively sanctioned) but it was still mutli-national. Raul654 07:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

10,000 years?

"For at least 10,000 years, the area that would become Canada was the site of intertribal wars among First Nation groups" - How can that possibly be known? We have no history that dates back to 10,000 years. In fact, it contradicts biblical accounts of the earth being closer to 6,000 years old.

We have no history that dates back to 10,000 years - incorrect. There is no *written* history that goes back 10,000 years; there are plenty of other sources of information, however. Raul654 08:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, it should contain facts. People shouldn't be reading something that may or may not be true. If it is debated material, than it cannot be represented as fact. ShoeShane
I am failing to see the point you are trying to make. That the native americans warred with each other for thousands of years prior to the arrival of europeans is not in question by anybody. In fact, they were the most warlike of all the stone age cultures. However, prehistoric 'war' has little resemblence to what we would call war today. "Even the most warlike of old stone age people, the indians of North America, regarded warfare much more as a ritual activity - part art form, part healthy outdoor exercise - than as a practical instrument for achieving economic and political aims..." (Gwynne Dyer, "War", 10) Raul654 10:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
PS - "Old stone age", in this case, refers to the Paleolithic period of human history (from about 2 million years ago to 10,000 years ago) Raul654 10:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the mention is a little out of context. Can it be described as military history? I would have though this implied both a dedicated organisation (a military!) and a more complete knowledge of the history- battles/reasons/etc. Biblical Accounts hold a little less water than Archeological ones, so I support the move to allow prehistory if everyone thinks it has a place in this article!
YHBT, perhaps? Adam Bishop 16:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, native americans did war with each other for thousands of years, but the article states "at least 10,000". There is absolutely no possible way to know that. So i am failing to see your point, you have no evidence. Therefore, there is no reason for that statement to be a part of the article. ShoeShane 06:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'll take the word of the military analyst quoted above over your "There is absolutely no possible way to know that" statement. Raul654 06:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
As long as this is citable and verifiable, and Gwynne Dyer is well-known (I have the volume here!), there should be no problem with including it. E Pluribus Anthony 06:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I suppose the problem is that there is no "history" as such from 10 000 years ago. No matter what Gwynne Dyer says. Although I still think the original comment was trolling (and here we are still arguing about, good job everyone), they were right in that one aspect. Adam Bishop 08:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
We agree to disagree. Anthropologists and archaeologists would beg to differ: history can predate traditional written and recorded accounts. Perhaps the phrase can be massaged, but I would take Dyer over varied user interpretation any day ... and citing such reputable works is all that Wp requires. Oh: I believe 'Creation' occurred on 23 October, 4004 BC ... or thereabouts, right? ;) E Pluribus Anthony 14:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
There has been no proof that Native Americans were even in North America 10,000 years ago. Furthermore, they don't engage in wars, they engage in skirmishes. AllStarZ 06:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Somebody said to me once: 'Absence of proof is not proof of absence.' I told them that they were full of it, but IMHO, those who use that brand of logic ought to be willing to accept it in return. There is *plenty of hard, solid evidence*, in fact, that a crossing of the Bering Strait took place somewhere between 8 and 20 thousand years ago. Depends who you ask, but unless you believe that people were miraculously deposited relatively evenly across the North and South American continents more recently than that, then we're at a standstill, and if you do, then you had better start dealing with that whole absence of proof thing. You can't have it both ways.
As for 'skirmishes,' is that defined by population density? The various nations of Canada most certainly had varied and violent long-term problems with each other's ways of life, and they absolutely had totally verifiable conflicts not unlike the classical Greeks did. Look, for example, at how the Chipewyan and the Inuit regarded each other. Look at the various slaughters and retaliations. I have to take issue with your definition of a 'skirmish.' it smacks of something of a trivialization, and it's factually inaccurate. What these people did here when they fought is absolutely what would be described as military history had it occurred anywhere else in the world. military history is about how and why people kill each other as political groups, and it strives to characterize what forms that killing took as far back as it can be traced. If you're trying to make this history into anything but that, then you had absolutely better justify the exception. Sigma-6 06:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Could someone more knowledgeable than me please 'freeze' or 'lock' this page for a while to stop this rapid vandalism war? --thirty-seven 00:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

User:EveryKing, thanks for locking the page. However, there is still minor vandalism. Under the external links section, it says: "Canadiens ar estupic sissys" --thirty-seven 00:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Military history of Canada did not begin "millenia ago"

I find it highly inappropriate to date the beginning of Canadian military history back 10,000 years ago. I do not dispute that there were wars between native tribes or even with native tribes against Vikings (though there is no definitive proof of this; just strong evidence), but the nation of Canada did not exist until the nineteenth century. I would think it fine to mention any wars starting from European settlement in the sixteenth century because there is a link between then and the modern nation, but combining any engagement beforehand would not fit with the article's title. Consider, it would be equally inappropriate to find mention of pre-Colombian tribal wars in the military history of the United States of America, or Etruscan wars in the Military history of Rome. It can't be denied that former civilizations do leave lasting impressions on later nations' military, but it seems that those histories should be reserved for another article. Perhaps the Military history of North America, which would include wars of Native Americans inhabiting modern day Canada and the northern US, would be more appropriate considering the natives of the land did not see a border distinction between Canada and the US (there was no 45th parallel to them), though there was a difference in cultural identity between them and say- the Great Plains Indians.--Acefox 19:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The lead of the article is quite explicit, cited (see above), and very appropriate: the land was inhabited by aboriginals (with or without internecine combat, amongst tribes with local or continental reach) long before being visited by inhabitants of the 'Old World'. Any such categorisation of what belongs here, by any user (present company included), is rather subjective: on the other end, one can argue it is wholly appropriate to include prior armed actions in articles about the history of current nation-states and their militias. E Pluribus Anthony 19:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I've got to agree with the Acefox here. The intro to the article is somewhat bombastic and overblown. It sets the wrong tone. I'm Canadian and it's all I could do to keep from laughing out loud when I read that. There are enough interesting bits in Canadian history without having to manufacture stuff.

Canada's native peoples did not leave behind written histories and what little we know about them prior to European contact has been inferred from archeological evidence and oral traditions. To describe nascent Canada as a site of 10,000 years of intertribal warfare is, at best, one dimensional and unfair to the native peoples. It diminishes their accomplishments in establishing their cultures on the empty continent.

Evidence for any sort of 'military history' for the natives peoples is thin at best and the article should reflect this. An overwiew of the development of native cultures is available at References to warfare within the document are quite few. The earliest references are to the period beginning 1500 B.C. and coincide with increasingly large populations and the development of more complex cultures. Any sort of 'military history' of Canada might more reasonably begin here and then build on what actually is known about the period. Wiggy!

Umm. . . the Ancient Greeks fought disorganized tribal battles against each other for centuries which are part of the Canon of Western 'Military History'. In fact, all types of combat between groups of people (whatever their level of technological or cultural development) are studied as military history. I'm more than a little confused, personally, that anyone would, given the fact that Stone Age weaponry and tribal warfare are studied extensively in early western military history, attempt to claim that Aboriginal North Americans don't have 'military history'. This is not 'thin at best'. They had weapons, and they fought amongst themselves. This is military history. As the prior post points out, however, it would be a good idea to refine the description. "To describe nascent Canada as a site of 10,000 years of intertribal warfare is, at best, one dimensional and unfair to the native peoples." I don't see that here any more than I see this article as 'an attempt to define Canada solely as a martial society'. This article is *not* about broader Aboriginal society. *Part* of it is, however, about *conflict in Canada*. When you're writing about *one* topic, you don't write about *all other* topicsSigma-6
Ancient Greeks also left written records about what they were doing... Adam Bishop 02:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 ? So societies that behaved similarly, but didn't leave *written* records (because of the nature of their societies) are excluded from history? We'd better delete the article on Stonehenge then. . . Sigma-6
Well maybe we need some sense of proportion here. Do a search on the term 'Military history of' and review the intros for the various nations that show up. I don't think there is anybody claiming histories that are millennia deep. To make that claim for Canada just comes across as overly grandiose. I came across a more succinct and digestible reference that might help make sense out of the aboriginal aspect here - - that might help to frame it up in a more appropriate manner to be put in the context of the article. My problem with claiming thousands of years of military history for such a young nation causes the article to seem less credible coming out of the gate. Wiggy!
We agree to disagree: I really do not see why having this in the lead or article is problematic or disproportionate to some. We describe in some detail the role of aboriginals in the Canada article for millennia: it is similarly appropriate to mention armed conflicts among them during this period in an article about the country's military history. The article was also nominated for feature article status containing this information, so it's good that discussion has arisen due to that. To minimise or remove this verifiable (and cited) information – which is all Wp requires – in fact besmirches their contributions, which predate recorded history but still form a part of Canada's history ... military or otherwise. In summary: the mentions in this article aren't out of proportion: this entire discussion is. E Pluribus Anthony 05:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Hear hear. Other countries *do* claim this. Look at the military history of China. When did Sun Tzu write? IIRC, off the top of my head, it's about 2500 years ago. China as we know it now was founded after WW2. Does that mean China cannot claim its own regional history? That's ludicrous. Canada is a geographical region with a long, fluid history. It's not as though suddenly there were Europeans here and then history began, or that suddenly, with the signing of the BNA act, history began. That's what's out of proportion. The oldest continually operational commercial concern on the planet is Canadian, and its history is a history of a gradual merging of cultures occurring at the fringes of the fur trade. Where do we draw the line? At the BNA act? At the 'discovery' of America? The Canadas were called the Canadas long before the BNA act, and the name is *not* a European one. You have to have a pretty stratified view of history to break it up into sections like that. Does *modern Greece* (after Turkish rule) claim Pyrrhus as part of its military history? Achilles? Does it claim its earliest archaeological excavations of weaponry? Damned right it does, and so does Canada claim its most ancient past. Anything else is unfair to this ancient land. Who, after all, is a 'Canadian' anyway? "young nation," indeed. There's nothing 'young' about it. Sigma-6 06:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

English-French Confilict - 17th Century

I am not sure that the following statement is correct:

"A year before the French founded Quebec City [1608, per the text above], the English began their first settlement, at Jamestown, Virginia to the south."

I believe that St. John's, Newfoundland is the oldest continuously-inhabited European settlement in North America. I have in the past seen dates for its founding as ealy as 1528. There are certainly other communities that were established before the implied date of 1607. However until I can remember my sources I will leave the page as-is.

St John's, Newfoundland was used as a fishing post for many countries (primarily the Portuguese) from the 1520s, but was not an "English settlement" until after 1620 or so. That being said, Annapolis Royal was the oldest-settled French settlement in the New World, dating from 1605 and consequently pre-dating the first English settlement at Jamestown by two years. Geoff NoNick 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Military History Task Force

hi, I just wanted to bring your attention to the Canadian Military Task Force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. We're currently looking for the task force so that we can start to develop and organize Canadian Military history content on the 'pedia.Mike McGregor (Can) 18:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

fourth strongest military power

Could someone help with the phrase: "fourth strongest military power" (in the section World War II), which doesn't explain much? "Fourth strongest power" in what terms, exactly - does anyone know? I understand from Dali (commenting on the military section of the Canada article where the same phrase now appears) that Canada was a distant fourth, and to prevent this description from being misleading I think it needs to be rewritten. I don't have any real expertise in this matter, but hopefully someone who does will expand and clarify this section. Pinkville 15:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, i have came across this term in many sources. Jacknife737 03:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You'd need to actually name one for your comment to have any weight in the conversation. FWIW, I've heard "4th largest air force" often, but not "fourth largest power". In terms of land forces, 8 divisions or so isn't exactly large; Romania was still larger in 1944, though after changing sides and being overrun I suspect that may not have been the case a year later.Michael Dorosh 04:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I know the discussion is over two months old, but I'll just weigh in on it in any case. Just to give one example, by March 1945 the French had seven infantry and three armored divisions active in Europe, and the total active French army was around 1 million. According to Stacey, the Canadian Army reached a peak size of around 495,000, of which about half were overseas. --Ggbroad 13:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point, thanks.Michael Dorosh 13:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I've heard fourth largest navy at the end of the war. In any case, we should delete the reference until someone can provide a verifiable source. HistoryBA 15:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It was actually third largest navy at the end of the war, if we are talk sheer numbers. I dont have the exact number here, but the airforce would certainly have been top 5 or 6 at that time. Obviously 8 Div is nowhere near the largest land force, however, given the overall ranking of the air forces and naval forces, fourth 'strongest' would probably be accurate. However, we obviously need to find a source that specifically states that fact.Easter rising
is that including the merchant marine?Skookum1 20:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No, they're just counting RCN. Actually, it's one of those truisms that gets kicked around the secondary literature a lot. Sometimes these things get kicked around for literally decades before anyone questions them. So, my question: what does 3rd largest mean? Certainly not 3rd most powerful. 3rd most number of ships? That might be true, although I'd like to see some authoritative figures. 3rd highest tonnage? If that's the measurement, and it strikes me as a more commonly used on in naval history, then I doubt very much that the RCN was 3rd in 1945. --Ggbroad 12:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It's actually third largest number of ships; the Canadian Navy tended towards a North Atlantic escort role and consequently had a very large number of rather small ships (in excess of 300, I believe), making it the third largest navy by number of ships at the war's end (that is, after all axis navies had surrendered). Don't ask me to reference that, though. Geoff NoNick 21:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

War of 1812

This article incorrectly claims that the force that partipated in the Burning of Washington was over seventy percent from Canada. This claim is historically incorrect and is nothing but shameful nationalism. In actuality, the force that burnt Washington was led by General Robert Ross and was composed of British reinforcements from the Peninsular War, which was part of the Napoleonic Wars and these troops were freed up by the end of the European conflicts. No Canadian militia participated in the Burning of Washington, and only a fool would believe that a force of over seventy percent militia would be a practical invasion force. Godfather of Naples on 20 March 2006, 21:15 (UTC)

Well, I just love this article fails to mention that the British captured and sacked the White House -- which is known history -- during this seems to only mention the capture and burning of York; I am getting so fed up of Americans writing historical documents and leaving the important parts out!!!

I totally agree. There is an obvious pro-American taint to the entire article ('American victories', 'manifest destiny' etc etc). No wonder it was called the forgotten war, it seems someone is trying to erase/re-write history here on Wiki as well. Why is Gen. Brocks victories glossed over, yet the American generals are glorified? Gen. Hull (of Detroit) was embarrassed (and stripped of his honour and rank) after giving up Ft. Detroit to Brock so easily.

Here's a prime example. "The successful defence of Canada relied almost entirely on British regular troops, the Royal Navy, and Native Indian allies, though in Canada the war is celebrated as a major Canadian victory." This is the oldest dispute, I think, in these perspectives. It is, I think, not really well understood by Americans that there is really no difference to speak of between 'The Canadas' as a British colony in 1812 and 'Canada' as a country in 1867. When we talk, in Canada, of the War of 1812, we include all the groups listed there as part of the regional history. After all, Canada was, and still is, a part of what remains of the British Empire, and furthermore, the person who wrote this quote clearly does not include 'Native Indian allies' as members of the population of Canada, which is, frankly, a little rankling, because those people are, after all, the only real Canadians, and their descendents are, after all, citizens of the current european-derived government. Plenty of us are descendents of the folks who garrisoned Canada, and were, and are technically now, British subjects, even when we're French, German, Polish, or even Aboriginal. It's a matter or perspective, and if you're focussed on 'independence', as Americans understandably are in this context, then you'd probably fail to see that Canada's history is also, in part, the history of those 'wholly British' troops who fought here. Who are Canadians anyway, if not 'British regular troops, the Royal Navy, and Native Indian allies,' as well as everyone else who participated in the conflict who is strangely not included in that list? The dress uniform coat of a Canadian soldier is scarlet, as is that of the RCMP. This is because our process of becoming a nation was not a sudden act of war, but a slow, gradual movement toward Confederation. It was a weaning, if anything. Sigma-6 07:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The entirety of the second to last paragraph sounds highly improbable and heavily edited. No "Canadians" whatsoever in the force that took DC? A tornado destroying ALL the British forces? This section needs to be redone. At the moment of this writing, it's simply ridiculous. Dali (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as no one felt like actually doing anything, I removed the "questionable" (a better word would be idiotic) content from said paragraph. After doing some research, it's evident that, as expected, the tornado bit was made up. Additionally, the part about "no Canadians being there" was in itself a flawed statement. Not only were there people who lived in what would eventually become Canada in the force that took DC, but many of the british soldiers who fought in the war of 1812 would remain in North America. Stating that these people were "British" is very much the equivalent of saying that the American revolutionaries were British and that the Americans owe their independence to the british: Technically true, yet an incredibly flawed statement. Dali (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This section seems to be a cut and paste from another article. It mentions "Brock" and disobeying someone's orders. Who is Brock and what were the orders and who was the individual who gave them? This explanation is not provided in the beginning of the section. Reading another website, the War of 1812 gives some clues, but this needs to stand alone and it needs to be fleshed out. Pudding30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan

"As of May 2006, sixteen Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan; though four died in a friendly fire incident." Why is the Tarnak Farms incident singled out? This article on the Military History of Canada doesn't mention Ortona, or any number of World War 1 or 2 battles where dozens or hundreds of Canadians died and the Battle of the Atlantic shares a line with the Battle of Britain. And truthfully, that's fine, because we have subordinate articles like Military history of Canada during World War II. Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan is where mention of Tarnak Farms and other incidents of small historical importance belong. M4-10

Agree I agree that there is too much emphasis on singling out Afghanistan casualties in this article and the "friendly fire" incident doesn't need to be mentioned here - but rather belongs at Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan.Michael Dorosh 02:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Where to put links to individual battalions/regiments

e.g.197th (Vikings of Canada) Battalion, CEF). I suspect specific regimental/battalion articles are too specific for this page's "see also" as would also be specific military bios (see Endre Johannes Cleven). Is there a list of Canadian battalions/regiments? A list of bio'd officers and soldiers?Skookum1 16:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

further: I know there's probably a list of war heros/medal holders somewhere; but shouldn't it, too, be linked in "See also". In EJC's case (my grand-dad) his was the first military funeral in Wpg in WWI, but "war hero" doesn't fit as the battalion wasn't formed yet. He may have gotten a post-humous medal, as he was the battalion's organizer and died en route to its first muster, but it's not a combat medal if he did get one; which I think my father would have had (being the eldest) and didn't.Skookum1 17:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
"May have"? Unlikely, as few posthumous medals were in existence at the time, and simply raising a battalion doesn't seem to be worthy of such, though there were medals such as the BEM etc. which were given for service outside of combat.Michael Dorosh 17:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
See, I wouldn't have known that; my Dad is long dead (d.1972) and so I can't ask him...but my cousins in Wpg might know, just haven't gotten in touch with them yet....Skookum1 20:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

American Revoluationary War

The article claims the American Revolutionary War was fought by colonists to expand their frontier westward and to avoid paying taxes to Great Britain. These are important aspects of that conflict and numerous constituencies promoted these agendas. However, it is biased and myopic to ignore the ideological motivations of the American colonists and their agitation for self-determination. Something mention of democracy might be appropriate.

Additionally, no sources are cited for the author's description of American motivation.

Samwise2021 19:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 19:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that ideological motivations were a factor for some of the colonists and especially for some of their leaders - the point that Gordon Wood makes in his book The Radicalism of the American Revolution there was no particular impulse for "democracy". On the contrary, the leaders of the American revolution, like most liberals of the era who had been influenced by Enlightenment thinking, were very suspicious of "democracy" - regarding it as a kind of mob rule. Consider, for instance, the Constitution as written in 1787. The Presidency, the Senate, and the Supreme Court are all insulated from public opinion: the President is chosen by the Electoral College (in essence, by the states); Senators are not directly elected; Supreme Court justices are appointed, etc. Only the House of Reps is elected, and then only by a rather small minority of the population. Notions of "liberty" were a factor in the American Revolution, but not so much "democracy". But I agree that the description of why the Revolution occurred is too narrow in this article. --Ggbroad 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

question for Ggbroad

<ref>Granatstein has a great deal on the often incorrect Canadian perspectives on the War of 1812.</ref>

You removed this as an 'attack on Granatstein'. My question is - how is this an attack on Granatstein? Granted it should include the link or reference to Granatstein's work, but it seems to me like it is advocating Granatstein, not attacking him?Michael Dorosh 22:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap, my mistake! I deleted the footnote without reading it properly - I thought it said that Granastein's views were incorrect. --Ggbroad 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I wonder, idly, if the American Military History article mentions the often incorrect American perspectives on the War of 1812? Probably not. Sigma-6 01:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't really understand the question or the point. Aspects of the article on the War of 1812 are hotly contested, to be sure. But I don't know that it's an "American" article and I don't know what an "incorrect American perspective" on the war might be. Americans believe many things. There are 300 million of them. --Ggbroad 11:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Ditto for 30 million Canadians. My family is based in Niagara, (though I live in Montreal,) and I'm a history buff, so I'm sure you'll understand that any broad and basically unsourced reference by anyone to 'the often incorrect Canadian perspectives on the war of 1812' are probably going to ruffle a few feathers. For one thing, not too many Canadians would make that statement, and those who would (rightly, I have to agree, since it's undeniable that those incorrect perspectives exist) would probably make quite a few more about the 'often incorrect American perspectives,' given, as you point out, that there are ten times as many of them. That being the case, I think it's clear where the accusations of bias come from. Please excuse me.
My favourite is the notion that the ancestors of people in what we currently call Canada were somehow not involved in the war. I can't tell you how many times people have told me that the war was between the Americans and the British, in a deliberate attempt to remove Canada from the discussion as anything but the strip of real estate used as the theatre. Interesting thought, but as I've said somewhere else on this page, you have to have a pretty stratified view of history to break it up like that. Go to Fort George sometime, (as perhaps you have,) visit the Linc&Weld museum, go to Ball's Falls or Queenston Heights. . . The regional history is that of the people of the area, their descendents, and their ancestors, and it's totally irrelevant to the region when the BNA act was signed when it comes to events which affected the people there in 1812-1815. Niagara didn't suddenly spring into existence in 1867. Where is it assumed that all the people affected by that war went? What happened to the individuals, soldiers, civilians, etc? Who are the descendents of all those Scots, Irishmen, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Aboriginals, etc? I think it's important to point out that those are the people that the regional history of areas affected by the war is about. Our national perspective is, after all, largely British and French (not to be exclusive, but we are talking about part of the Napoleonic Wars,) and absolutely dates back *much* farther than the moment we were made a country in our own right. That said, as a Canadian familiar with my country's history, I find it extremely odd, and somewhat telling, that people would wonder why anyone might think this article reflected an American bias. Notice, after all, the very top of this talk page where it is pointed out that it originally used the word 'independence,' which is, I don't hesitate to point out, a word which means, to me as a Canadian (and probably also to you,) nothing much more than the point when I personally moved out of my folks' house. It's a shibboleth, and any Canadian History buff looking at this page will be pretty likely to confirm that this article contains a number of them. Sigma-6 07:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


I'll grant you that Canada did stay out of the very short Falklands conflict, but was there any realistic expectation that we would participate? In any case, that would be three wars (or two and a scrap) --- "several" seems to me to imply more than that. In fact, Canada has been onside in every major conflict with its allies except Vietnam until the Iraq War in 2002. --Ggbroad 22:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


I'd like to see a citation for the claim that Canada has cumulatively contributed more troops to UN peacekeeping than any other power. I've seen a lot of exaggerated claims about Canada's role in Peacekeeping - including one on Wikipedia that Canada has contributed more troops than all other countries combined. I have Canada as having contributed (very roughly) 125,000 troops over the years - presumably, though, some of these are individual soldiers who served on multiple Peacekeeping deployments. That works out to about 10% of the UN peacekeeping total. Source for the claim that this is the highest?--Ggbroad 22:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would too....I deleted that claim out of another article, or maybe this one...? Anyway, seconded. Your points about 'several' wars are also well taken.Michael Dorosh 22:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)]
re) a recent sentence added by another user: "That number decreased largely because Canada began to direct its participation in UN-sanctioned operations through NATO, rather than directly to the UN. The number of Canadian soldiers on UN-sanctioned operations in July 2006 was 2,859". While this is true, does anyone else think that this sentence might be mildly misleading, coming in the peacekeeping section. Those deployments on UN-sanctioned operations through NATO are not peacekeeping mission - Afghanistan is not a peacekeeping mission, for instance. --Ggbroad 14:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I was reacting to the common use of the number of troops on UN "peacekeeping" missions statistic to attack Canada for not being "involved in the UN". Canada is very involved in UN operations, as the numbers show, but you're right to point out that they are not necessarily peacekeeping operations. However, it also bears observing that the top six nations that head the list of contributors to UN peacekeeping operations are Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Jordan and Ethiopia - hardly countries known for their commitment to the principals of peace and democracy. The sad truth is that many nations use UN peacekeeping operations as a means of equipping, training and paying their armed forces on the UN's dime. When you consider Western democracies, Canada is only a couple of hundred troops behind France, the UK and the US in terms of peacekeeping operations. Maybe a parallel could be drawn between Canada's declining support for old-fashioned peacekeeping and the dwindling credibility of such missions? Geoff NoNick 20:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, but is it our job in an npov encyclopedia to offer commentary on such matters? Or do we stick to facts? Also, is it true that support for old-fashioned peacekeeping is on the deline as far as Canadians are concerned? One thing we might point outis that Canada contributes a about 3% of the UN's peacekeeping budget, which is certainly rather significant.--Ggbroad 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that the provision of the facts I've included in the article doesn't constitute commentary (though my comments above do); I think that as an NPOV encyclopedia we have a responsibility to provide sufficient context to allow the reader to make sensible conclusions based on the facts. Geoff NoNick 11:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the 'credibility' of peacekeeping is really the issue. Just because certain countries violate international law with impunity doesn't mean that the law is wrong, nonexistent, or lacks credibility. It simply means that certain countries violate it with impunity. Systems of justice don't derive their validity and credibility from the people who violate them. I'll submit, however, that whatever Canadians continue to believe about the validity or credibility of UN Peacekeeping, their Government and their Military have effectively abandoned it as a defining part of their identity, with or without their consent, or even the reasonable level of public dialogue such a decision ought to have entailed. For better or for worse, it is hardly a part of the CF's mandate anymore, if at all. Sigma-6 01:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Peacekeeping (UN or otherwise) is a mission, not an identity. If it is in Canada's interest to materially support a ceasefire between two conflicting states again, I'm sure Canadian Forces will be employed in that role. However, in case you didn't get the memo, there's a war on, and there won't be anyone walking the green line between a state's army and some terrorists. If you can name a peacekeeping scenario that is more in Canada's interests than supporting the Afghan government and marginalizing the Taliban, please let us know. I haven't heard many suggestions from the Canadian people. --M4-10 01:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Then you clearly haven't been listening. Don't worry about it. Not listening is going around these days; it's probably not worth getting into. On the other hand, history tells us that war is the failure of diplomacy, and that 'wars' of nation-states against difficult-to-define nebulous groups of irregulars who, even within their own 'organizations' disagree broadly on their goals and constantly change sides, but can generally agree on the idea that they don't want to be ruled or guided by foreign interests, have a tendency to be exploited variously for propaganda and economic ends, tend not to be defined as 'wars' clearly enough for any really useful debate to occur, tend not to 'begin' or 'end,' and tend toward the establishment of support structures for profiteers and political opportunists. But hey, what do I know?
Incidentally, history also basically screams at us that directing state military power at extremists empowers them by lending them reflected credibility that they lack without international acknowledgment, and marginalizes no-one but the moral centre, making reasonable people politically irrelevant. That said, war isn't only the failure of diplomacy, it's also the failure to notice that historically, extremes are confronted by extremes, and when we start going to war with someone, we probably should try looking in the mirror. If you want to hear suggestions from Canadians, it might be a good idea to acknowledge the ones you disagree with, because they are citizens too, and they vote, and troops go where elected governments send them, based on policy dependent on public opinion (sadly, even when that opinion is informed by little more than fear and a desire for revenge).
Peacekeeping might not *be* an identity, but it *is* absolutely consistent with one which warfighting stands in stark contrast to. There should have been a debate, but of course, we're not at war with an organized enemy, we're constantly reminded, we're at war with an idea, right? When does that war end, exactly? When people stop terrorizing each other for political ends? Gee. . . we're going to be fighting a long time then, because that's not an enemy, that's military history; it's the levying of force against other political groups to bend them to your will. In case you didn't notice, by the way, the jury's still out on the memo (have a look at the talk page,) and I can't remember the last time a legally constituted democratic body actually got together and conclusively *declared* a war in the traditional fashion, and of all the officially undeclared ones we're fighting, I can't remember the last time that the legal, moral, or -gasp- religious basis of one of them wasn't hotly disputed. Sigma-6 08:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Canada and Wars of the 20th Century

Please take a look at this template and tell me what you think. Obviously it should be expanded with articles on the Korean War, the Gulf War, etc, but that's probably not a bad idea anyway. It wouldn't need to go on this page, just on the pages included in the list. Yay or nay? -- TheMightyQuill 08:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Military History of British Columbia

I'm just wondering if that might not have to be a separate article, given the very different context of military activities in British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest prior to 1871; even afterwards the continued presence of the Royal Navy at Esquimalt and the importance of Vancouver Island's coaling station for the British fleet in the Pacific are outside the pale of "Canadian" military history, yet are definitely part of British Columbia's military history. Likewise peculiarities of the Voltigeurs, Bluejackets (Royal Marines) and Royal Engineers in the colonial era, as well as the creation of American irregular companies during the Fraser Canyon War and the Chilcotin War (though those in the Chilcotin War were deputized, but still clearly an American "regiment"). Military history here also includes the Spanish fortification at Nootka Sound, events in Russian America (notably the Battle of Sitka, the ongoing shellings and sieges and attacks and counter-attacks of the marine fur trade era, and that's not even getting to "native militaries" like Nicola's alliance or the "fleets" of the Haida and Euclataws and other raiding peoples; then there's also the history of the militia regiments, e.g. the Rocky Mountain Rangers based out of Kamloops (should be redlinked unless there's an American group by that name), which were the mainstay of public defence in British Columbia until World War II. Part of the military history here is also the experience of threats from outside the borders; American invasion (1846, 1859-70 and 1898-1902, excepting feared Fenian Raids during the '90s), Japanese invasion (1907 and 1941-45) and the balloon bomb thing (the Alaska Highway is part of BC's and Canada's military history, BTW, though it's often forgotten to be that nowadays), Russian invasion/attack (from 1853, despite truce between Douglas and his RAC counterpart) through to the Cold War; Vancouver was also a staging point for Russo-Japanese War materiele (locomotive parts destined for Russia rusted away near today's PNE grounds when the Russians lost the war and the parts were not delivered) and also as a transshipment point for 300,000 (or so) Chinese coolies donated by Republican China to France during World War I. I'm not sure, as with so much else, that military history about British Columbia "fits into the Canadian picture". Partly because Canada has never seen "us" that way, or understood our history at all; partly because of the complex and peculiar nature of the details, which are contingent upon factors of geography and multiple-input culture/society; the reason the REs were here, for example, was because (other than engineers being exactly what Douglas wanted) they had been in Kwangtung just beforehand and could be relocated to BC easily, rather than a new round sent out from Cape Horn; likewise the settlement of British/Anglo-Irish officers in BC after the gold rush was meant explicitly to avoid "another Australia" (i.e. a concentration of convicts and underclass in the stock population).Skookum1 05:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits to war of 1812

The Feb. 15 edits to the 1812 section of this page by IP are a little suspicious, but no one reverted them. Maybe someone could clean that up? - TheMightyQuill 03:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are they suspicious? The information that is still contained is very highly slanted and opinionated towards the 'American' side of the conflict. There is glaring omissions, and the wording is pro-US and anti-British/Canada in nature. 08:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


I believe two changes should be made:

1. The table on the right hand side about 3/4 way down the page needs to have another table below it that lists the different wars that Canada has fought in. This already exists in all the other pages like "Canada and the cold war". Essentially, it would be another link within the page to further read about specific conflicts.

2. This "other" table needs to be altered to include the previous war contributions before 1867 like those included in this article about Canada's military history. A good example of a table is "Dynasties of ancient China" and how they list it on the right hand side.

I hope this makes sense Canking 10:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about cadets serving in Europe

Eric Lafontaine added this commentary and request for editing to the article, in the Canadian Forces Europe section. I have moved it to here:

(Actually it was a Summer camp/course, called CFE (Canadian Forces in Europe). The first part was with the Canadian Commandos in Petawawa and the second part was in Germany. The cadets were never considered active troops. This information (based on my experience) dates back nineteen years and needs to be updated by a younger former-cadet.)

--thirty-seven 07:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the editing assist. But what I meant to say, is that as the sentence is phrased in the article it sounds like the cadets were serving in a brigade as active troops. We weren't active troops. Cadets are minors and civilians. Although some military regulations apply to them they are not considered military personel. Unlike Cadet Instructors Cadre officers who are part of the reserve and are full commissioned officers. So if the sentence could be altered a little bit, in the article, I believe it could clarify things. By the way the CFE experience was a great one.

Eric Lafontaine 15:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, I didn't know for sure where to mention this. I just wanted to point out the link to the UN Website, in reference to Canada having "the second-highest peacekeeping fatility in the world, behind India.", is a dead link. The new link is: I couldn't seem to repair it myself :) Wikig39 11:50 5 July 2007

Thanks. It's now updated. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Air Force

I notice that there is very little mention about Canada's air force in this article. There is mention of Canada's airmen being involved with the Battle of Britain, but little else. Canada's air contribution, of course, has been significant, particularly during the Second World War (e.g. with 6 Group), the Cold War (e.g. No. 1 Air Division) in Europe and post-Cold War period. The section about Canadian Forces in Europe only mentions a mechanized infantry brigade. Canadian Forces involvement in Europe was much more than this. Canada invested a lot of effort and lives in maintaining an air force presence in France and West Germany, particularly during the 50s and 60s. Since there are sections about the formation of the army and a small section about the formation of the navy, why not a section on the formation of the air force? It seems that there is a serious bias toward the land forces/army in this article. Once I have the time, I can work on fleshing out more about the air force, but if anyone is so inclined to start this go right ahead.--BC 19:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Canadian peacekeeping missions

There's a list of Canadian involvement with peacekeeping missions here. Would someone like to wikify it? I think it would be a useful article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Demote/delist Military history of Canada

I was looking at Military history of Canada and frankly it is no longer of FA quality and should be demoted, likely to GA status. There are images without source or proper licensing, citations are skimp except for the post cold war era and dead links are ever present.Thoughts?Labattblueboy (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

War of 1812 Dates

In the War of 1812 subsection, there's a piece at the very end about how both Canadians and Americans claim it as a victory. (Which is accurate.) The part that seems innacurate to me is the line about why Americans claim it as a victory - "due to the battles of Baltimore and New Orleans before the wars end". I'm not sure about the battle of Baltimore, but the battle of New Orleans actually happened after a peace treaty had been signed in Ghent! (Word of the treaty hadn't yet reached North America.) I'm unsure of what changes need to be made, but if anyone else has ideas I'd appreciate it! --AntarcticPenguin (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

First World War

"On August 4, 1914, Britain entered the First World War by declaring war on Germany. The British declaration of war automatically brought Canada into the war, because of Canada's legal status as subservient to Britain. However, the Canadian government had the freedom to determine the country's level of involvement in the war. The Militia was not mobilized and instead an independent Canadian Expeditionary Force was raised, which eventually numbered four divisions which fought on the Western Front."

"In the later stages of the war, the four-division Canadian Corps was regarded as among the most effective and respected formation on the Western Front.[17] Because its component divisions were larger than comparable British formations (who were suffering manpower shortages by 1916)"

- I know there is a certain amount of brevity in this paragraph, but it is also misleading. Canada raised FIVE divisions for the CEF. (I'm sure the editors are aware, but) The Canadian Corps was larger because Currie refused to divide the 5 divisions into 2 formations. Instead the fifth division was divided into the other four divisions of the single Corps, which made it a larger organization in comparison to British formations and also because of British manpower shortages. I believe stating only four division and not mentioning the fifth, undervalues Canada's participation. Thank you.

Plus, it's also outlined here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Crimean war, Mahdist war

Canadian soldiers and volunteers did fight in the Crimean war and in the Sudan during the Mahdist war, —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Creation of a Canadian Army

Needs a spelling correction: 'Ordinance' is a legal document; the paragrah list should be spelled 'Ordnance' — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)