Hello Indy (ie, The Juan Marichal of bowling), Sparty and the whole crew. Following WWI, the general view of the Canadian Corps was very favourable (as a Canadian, I may be biased.); what was the perception/view of the Canadian Army post-WWII?

Out of the Foxholes Questions
1

There were highs and lows, for sure. But I’m curious to hear what you guys think.
Cheers,
Kevin

Please only post one (1) question in a topic post - you can post multiple questions, just please keep them separate.

2

First Canadian Army didn’t have the “battle recognition” in WW2, even to Canadians, that the Canadian Corps had after WW1. Montgomery wasn’t a fan of Canadian generals with the exception of Simonds, and Monty’s views tended to become the default view of the British army after the war … I think it could be summarized as Monty felt the Canadian soldier was very good but not very well lead.

2 Likes
3

Add to that many British senior military officers felt the same way as Montgomery. Even up to his death he always felt Canadian leadership was inferior to the British. Ironically several historians believe that the Canadian military had some of the best and most capable leaders of the western nations and many techniques that modern militaries and police tactical units use in house to house clearing comes directly from Canadian practises of building clearing during WW2 specifically Ortona.

2 Likes
4

Monty wasn’t completely wrong … due to the responsibilities of the Canadian army between the wars, Canadian senior officers tended to have far less experience outside the bureaucratic parts of the job than equivalent British officers of similar rank. Canadian junior and field officers, on the other hand, were at least as good as their British counterparts (look at all the Canloan officers serving in the British army, for example).

1 Like