Did Mackenzie King Handle the Issue of Conscription Better Than Robert Borden?

1052 Words5 Pages
One of the greatest crisis’s in Canada during WWI and WWII was conscription. Conscription means all able bodied men would be required to join the army. This subject divided the country, with the English-Canadians in support of the matter and the French-Canadians against the matter.(Cruxton and Wilson,118). The issue was dealt with differently in 1917 under the direction of Sir Robert Borden than it was during WWII under the direction of William Lion Mackenzie King. Though both times ended with the law of conscription being passed, Mackenzie King is credited with handling the matter better than Borden. In 1917, Borden visited troops and was taken aback to learn about the amount of dead and wounded. He was requested to dispatch more troops as soon as he could because volunteer enlistments weren’t keeping pace with the number of men being killed and wounded overseas. Borden knew the war could not be won without reinforcements and so he decided to pass the conscription bill.(Cruxton and Wilson, 118). In 1940, though Mackenzie King had promised no conscription, he passed the national resources mobilization act—this was conscription but only to protect Canada at home. But as war continued Mackenzie King was asked to send additional troops and just like in 1917 most volunteers were English, not French-Canadian. The English-Canadians sought after full conscription like Britain and the United States, while the French-Canadians still did not want any form of conscription. The countries unity was slowly crumbling but still Mackenzie King did not institute conscription. He felt there had to be other ways to solve the emerging problems then conscription. (Cruxton and Wilson, 263). In 1917, Borden felt the lack of troops was so awful that there was no choice but conscription. He knew that the French-Canadians were against all types of
Open Document