# CF post WW2 - defence of the realm vs intrument of foreign policy



## ChaosTheory (6 Dec 2011)

Currently I am working on my history OPME paper and all I have left is the final paper to write.  The question I am choosing to go with (as it seems the lesser of all evils) is:   "After the Second World War, the Canadian military was less committed to defence of the realm than acting as an instrument of Canadian foreign policy. Discuss the merits of this statement."

Now I have been reading the material but I just seem stuck on this question as I can't really find a definitive arguing that I can even find myself siding with.  Post WW2 Canada was involved in two different activities, peace keeping and the cold war.  With the cold war we were sucked into that given our proximity and location to the US and were involved in it whether we wanted to or not.  That and there was also the fact of joining in NATO, and NORAD etc.  

But then again Canadians were also an instrument of foreign policy by going out and being actively involved in peace keeping missions.  

Now my actual question is, do you happen to know of any resources regarding this subject that might help me decide on an opinion to research and defend?  

Thanks a lot


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Dec 2011)

First of all, look at what "defence of the realm" means.  I take it to mean "participate in wars in support of the Empire".  As for an instrument of foreign policy, would you not agree that joining in a collaborative defence arrangement with your largest trading partner, along with other like-minded nations, as a bulwark against the perceived threat of Soviet expansion, is a foreign policy that was undertaken by Canada?

And before you pull out your hash pipe about Peacekeeping, remember that it wasn't altruism.  One long mission, UNFICYP in Cyprus, was to keep two allies from going to war against each other.  And another, UNEF, was designed to prevent the Cold War from going Hot, and to allow some allies to save face (vis a vis prevention of Soviet Expansion: see above paragraph).

There are many resources out there.  Do a search using a search engine is my suggestion.

But more than what I just typed up here, I'm not going to write your essay for you.


----------



## ChaosTheory (6 Dec 2011)

I am taking defence of the realm to mean "defence at home" where as acting as an instrument of Canadian foreign policy is being the "pointy end of the spear".  I don't think I would take the first to actions of supporting the empire, it's been too long that Canada was a British Colony by this point that more people where starting to actually think of themselves as Canadians than Britons living in Canada.  

Looking at the later of the two choices, a good definition of that can be "self-interest strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve its goals within international relations".  The more I think about it seems a lot of the actions done post WW2 can overlap and be either-or.


----------



## Pusser (6 Dec 2011)

The role of the Canadian forces (small 'f' on purpose) does and always has included both concepts.  

Fighting the Fenians was not just about defending Canadian farms (defence of the realm), it was also about defending Imperial (i.e. foreign) policy (one of the stated goals of the Fenians was to free Ireland by ransoming Canada).  

The Cold War was about defending our homes (Soviets were expected to attack over the Pole making Canada a battleground) as well as the collective fight against Soviet communism (foreign policy).


----------



## GAP (6 Dec 2011)

> I am taking defence of the realm to mean "defence at home" where as acting as an instrument of Canadian foreign policy is being the "pointy end of the spear".



What was the threats towards Canada in that period that required at home "defence"? What external threat required Canada to deploy troops either in an active conflict (think Korea, Bosnia, Afghanistan) or in a more passive, but still threatening situation peacekeeping mission (Cypress, Egypt?, etc). Are there any other categories deployments would fall in? What were the political considerations that dictated each area? 

 :2c:


----------



## ChaosTheory (6 Dec 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> What was the threats towards Canada in that period that required at home "defence"? What external threat required Canada to deploy troops either in an active conflict (think Korea, Bosnia, Afghanistan) or in a more passive, but still threatening situation peacekeeping mission (Cypress, Egypt?, etc). Are there any other categories deployments would fall in? What were the political considerations that dictated each area?



The threats toward at the Canada came in the form of the Cold War and the Soviets.  While they were more directly involved with the Americans, Desmond Morton points out that we were involved on the US's side whether we wanted to or not.  This leads into stuff like NATO and NORAD.  

External threats?  None directly affecting Canada.  We were involved in a number of UN peace keeping missions, as Technoviking already pointed out, but those were not all "altruistic" as they were to prevent the Cold War from going "hot" and directly affecting us.  We didn't get involved in the Cuban Missile Crisis or Vietnam but we were involved in Korea.

While these can be "defence of the realm" they also make me think of Canada acting as an instrument of foreign policy.  It makes me think that everything Canada did can be labeled as both.


----------



## Robert0288 (7 Dec 2011)

"After the Second World War, the Canadian military was less committed to defence of the realm than acting as an instrument of Canadian foreign policy. Discuss the merits of this statement."

Just call out the statement on being flawed.  Defense of the realm in its classical definition (for the sake of arguement tanks on our own boarders) was no longer applicable within the new bi-polar frame work, and that foreign policy must work in concert with the military actions in order to solidify existing alliances (NATO) through peacekeeping missions (such cypress) and to keep a unified front in the face of the USSR.  

I don't remember any examples off the top of my head, but you can also bring up the 'theory' of Canada having a middle power role internationally and also within the NATO structure.  Quick google search also found this which may be useful: http://www.jstor.org/pss/424829


----------



## Pusser (7 Dec 2011)

Sareon said:
			
		

> The threats toward at the Canada came in the form of the Cold War and the Soviets.  While they were more directly involved with the Americans, Desmond Morton points out that we were involved on the US's side whether we wanted to or not.  This leads into stuff like NATO and NORAD.
> 
> External threats?  None directly affecting Canada.  We were involved in a number of UN peace keeping missions, as Technoviking already pointed out, but those were not all "altruistic" as they were to prevent the Cold War from going "hot" and directly affecting us.  We didn't get involved in the Cuban Missile Crisis or Vietnam but we were involved in Korea.
> 
> While these can be "defence of the realm" they also make me think of Canada acting as an instrument of foreign policy.  It makes me think that everything Canada did can be labeled as both.



Not true.  The RCAF was put on alert and began patrolling through NORAD (much to Diefenbaker's annoyance).  The RCN cancelled all leave, recalled its ships' companies, loaded up with warstock and put to sea to patrol the entire North American coast and fill the gaps left by USN ships deploying to the blockade of Cuba.  We had observers (albeit only a few) in Viet Nam.  They even got medal for it.  See:  http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/chc-tdh/chart-tableau-eng.asp?ref=ICCS


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Dec 2011)

Not to mention the forces in Europe were put on alert and deployed to their defensive postions according to the book I am reading right now.


----------



## cphansen (7 Dec 2011)

Sareon said:
			
		

> I am taking defence of the realm to mean "defence at home" where as acting as an instrument of Canadian foreign policy is being the "pointy end of the spear".  I don't think I would take the first to actions of supporting the empire, it's been too long that Canada was a British Colony by this point that more people where starting to actually think of themselves as Canadians than Britons living in Canada.
> 
> Looking at the later of the two choices, a good definition of that can be "self-interest strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve its goals within international relations".  The more I think about it seems a lot of the actions done post WW2 can overlap and be either-or.



I think there is one factor that seems to be overlooked. 

That is the change in the composition of the Canadian Forces. 

Korea was the last swansong of the Militia. After Korea the Regulars were given priority over the Militia, the theory was in case of hostilities with the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact we would not have the time to raise, train and equip a CASF, we would have to fight the war with already existing forces. 

This changed the political climate, no longer would the wars be fought by your local citizen soldier instead they would be fought by professional soldiers based in out of the way locations.
Out of sight out of mind. Which made it so much easier to use them as elements of foreign policy.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Dec 2011)

The advent of the Cold War in the late forties saw Canada willingly join the Western Alliance under the North Atlantic Treaty. By 1948, which was pre-NATO the army was exercising along the Alaska Highway against the threat of a Soviet invasion in the north and most of the regular army was airborne. The fifties saw the army deploy a brigade to Europe and another to Korea. In the space about a year the army went from three infantry battalions to 15 and a few years later Gagetown was established as a training and concentration site close to an ice free port to stage reinforcements to Germany. In all, the national strategy changed from a mobilization based force to forces in being and we entered an era of "frontier" soldiering which lasted four decades. It probably never really ended because when we left our permanent bases in Europe, the army instead began to rotate units to the ramparts. More traditional peacekeeping - if there is such an animal - mainly in the Middle East and Cyprus was an add on, although the bulk of our effort in terms of continents and missions fell to signals and logistics. It was not until the Balkans erupted, that combat arms began to enter real hot spots. (Much of the appeal of peacekeeping in the ante Balkan's era was the lack of casualties. This was not because most mission areas were safe. Instead, our provision of service support organizations meant that other countries sent infantry primarily, and on occasion they had a rough time.)


----------



## old medic (8 Dec 2011)

Post WW2 is a long time.
I think I would narrow down the time to Post WW2, Pre-Korea and concentrate
on 1945-1951 defence priorities.


----------



## ChaosTheory (11 Dec 2011)

Thanks a lot all, you've helped me think about this and get on the right path.


----------

