What do you think?
Rate this book
Canada in the Great Power Game 1914-2014
The First World War was Canada's baptism of fire, or at least the only one that people now remember. (Montrealers in 1776 or Torontonians in 1814 would have taken a different view.) From 1914 to 1918, after a century of peace, Canadians were plunged back into the old world of great power rivalries and great wars. So was everybody else, but Canadians were volunteers. We didn't have to fight, but we chose to, out of loyalty to ideas and institutions that today many of us no longer believe in. And we have been doing the same thing ever since, although we haven't quite given up on the latest set of ideas and institutions yet.
In Canada in the Great Power Game, Gwynne Dyer moves back and forth between the seminal event, the First World War, and all the later conflicts that Canada chose to fight in. He draws parallels between these conflicts, with the same idealism among the young soldiers, and the same deeply conflicted emotions among the survivors, surfacing time and again in every war right down to Afghanistan. And in each case, the same arguments pro and con arise--mostly from people who are a long, safe way from the killing grounds--for every one of those "wars of choice."
Echoing throughout the book are the voices of the people who lived through the wars: the veterans, the politicians, the historians, the eyewitnesses. And Dyer takes a number of so-called excursions from his historical account, in which he revisits the events and puts them in context, pausing to ask such questions as "What if we hadn't fought Hitler?" and "Is war written in our genes?" This entertaining and provocative book casts an unsparing eye over what happens when Canada and the great powers get in the war business, illuminating much about how we see ourselves on the world stage.
In Canada in the Great Power Game, Gwynne Dyer moves back and forth between the seminal event, the First World War, and all the later conflicts that Canada chose to fight in. He draws parallels between these conflicts, with the same idealism among the young soldiers, and the same deeply conflicted emotions among the survivors, surfacing time and again in every war right down to Afghanistan. And in each case, the same arguments pro and con arise--mostly from people who are a long, safe way from the killing grounds--for every one of those "wars of choice."
Echoing throughout the book are the voices of the people who lived through the wars: the veterans, the politicians, the historians, the eyewitnesses. And Dyer takes a number of so-called excursions from his historical account, in which he revisits the events and puts them in context, pausing to ask such questions as "What if we hadn't fought Hitler?" and "Is war written in our genes?" This entertaining and provocative book casts an unsparing eye over what happens when Canada and the great powers get in the war business, illuminating much about how we see ourselves on the world stage.
423 pages, Hardcover
First published April 5, 2014
6 people are currently reading
139 people want to read
About the author
Gwynne Dyer
34 books111 followersGwynne Dyer, OC is a London-based independent Canadian journalist, syndicated columnist and military historian.
Dyer was born in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador (then the Dominion of Newfoundland) and joined the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve at the age of sixteen. While still in the naval reserve, he obtained a BA in history from Memorial University of Newfoundland in 1963; an MA in military history from Rice University in Houston, Texas, in 1966; and a PhD in military and Middle Eastern history at King's College London in 1973. Dyer served in the Canadian, American and British naval reserves. He was employed as a senior lecturer in war studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, 1973–77. In 1973 he began writing articles for leading London newspapers on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and soon decided to abandon academic life for a full-time career in journalism. In 2010, he was appointed an Officer of the Order of Canada.
Dyer was born in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador (then the Dominion of Newfoundland) and joined the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve at the age of sixteen. While still in the naval reserve, he obtained a BA in history from Memorial University of Newfoundland in 1963; an MA in military history from Rice University in Houston, Texas, in 1966; and a PhD in military and Middle Eastern history at King's College London in 1973. Dyer served in the Canadian, American and British naval reserves. He was employed as a senior lecturer in war studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, 1973–77. In 1973 he began writing articles for leading London newspapers on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and soon decided to abandon academic life for a full-time career in journalism. In 2010, he was appointed an Officer of the Order of Canada.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
November 26, 2014
Now we're well into the twenty-first century, all that bad old history has gone away - or so most people think: the centenary of the First World War has no lessons for us, so we'll just do a national commemoration of Our Glorious Dead and move on to more relevant things. There are two problems with that approach. One is that being dead isn't glorious. The other is that the system that produced those old wars and consumed all those lives isn't dead at all.
Don't let the marketing fool you, this isn't so much about the First World War as it is about Canada's place in the last century as one system (alliances formed and broken by the European powers of Britain, France, Russia and Germany) gave way to another (where power is in the hands of the countries with nuclear arms).
Dyer brings out the nuances to Canada's approach as second tier power in the Great Power Game. While Canada has always been pressured into following the leading anglophone power (first Britain, now America) we've never quite devolved into a client state the way lesser commonwealth countries such as Australia have done. Dyer chronicles the twentieth century and shows how we played the game: we tried briefly to be a great power after WW1 and intervened briefly in the Russian Civil War, we bucked Britain during the Suez Crisis, we let ourselves get duped into Norad and Korea but stayed out of Vietnam and Iraq. We don't always get it right, but Dyer reminds us that we're at our best when we remember that war has become too costly after 1914 and we tend to forget this when we lend ourselves out as pawns in the Game.
Dyer is eminently readable and his dark sense of humour shines through without descending into the pessimism that's earned him the nickname Grim Dire (based on his nuclear war and climate change writings). I particularly liked his descriptions of various prime ministers: R.B. Bennett is '"of large displacement" (as they used to say about ocean liners)', while he compares Mackenzie King (PM throughout ww2) to Mr. Burns for being a fussy bachelor and calls him a fruitcake for his regular seances where he spoke with his dead mother, dead pets, and eventually with FDR.
Don't let the marketing fool you, this isn't so much about the First World War as it is about Canada's place in the last century as one system (alliances formed and broken by the European powers of Britain, France, Russia and Germany) gave way to another (where power is in the hands of the countries with nuclear arms).
Dyer brings out the nuances to Canada's approach as second tier power in the Great Power Game. While Canada has always been pressured into following the leading anglophone power (first Britain, now America) we've never quite devolved into a client state the way lesser commonwealth countries such as Australia have done. Dyer chronicles the twentieth century and shows how we played the game: we tried briefly to be a great power after WW1 and intervened briefly in the Russian Civil War, we bucked Britain during the Suez Crisis, we let ourselves get duped into Norad and Korea but stayed out of Vietnam and Iraq. We don't always get it right, but Dyer reminds us that we're at our best when we remember that war has become too costly after 1914 and we tend to forget this when we lend ourselves out as pawns in the Game.
Dyer is eminently readable and his dark sense of humour shines through without descending into the pessimism that's earned him the nickname Grim Dire (based on his nuclear war and climate change writings). I particularly liked his descriptions of various prime ministers: R.B. Bennett is '"of large displacement" (as they used to say about ocean liners)', while he compares Mackenzie King (PM throughout ww2) to Mr. Burns for being a fussy bachelor and calls him a fruitcake for his regular seances where he spoke with his dead mother, dead pets, and eventually with FDR.
September 22, 2014
I just finished Gwynne Dyer's latest book: "Canada in the Great Power Game - 1914-2014".
Dyer is infuriating, tells you things you don't want to hear or believe are true. Then, months or years later, you are amazed how right he was, like his 2007 "The Mess They Made: The Middle East After Iraq", which eviscerated the Iraq and Afghan wars. Dyer has serious cred, too.
This new book is a must-read for students of Canadian military and
political forays into international conflicts since the Boer War.
Dyer is infuriating, tells you things you don't want to hear or believe are true. Then, months or years later, you are amazed how right he was, like his 2007 "The Mess They Made: The Middle East After Iraq", which eviscerated the Iraq and Afghan wars. Dyer has serious cred, too.
This new book is a must-read for students of Canadian military and
political forays into international conflicts since the Boer War.
December 1, 2014
A very readable and entertaining history from WW1 to the present that you will find surprising and informative. I've just added this to my top 10 favourite non-fictions books of all time (I liked it that much).
This is not a read of history through a prism of good and evil, but an explanation with reasons. I particularly liked his selection of source material (letters and such) that he included. I don't know enough to know if Gwynne is always right but he sounds logical and devoid of obvious bias.
Highly recommended.
This is not a read of history through a prism of good and evil, but an explanation with reasons. I particularly liked his selection of source material (letters and such) that he included. I don't know enough to know if Gwynne is always right but he sounds logical and devoid of obvious bias.
Highly recommended.
January 28, 2017
Don't read this book if you want to continue to use the 'Canadians fought in wars to preserve our rights and freedom' standard line. Many won't agree with Dyer's book, but will they present their side as well as Dyer has presented his. Doubtful. I was convinced by this book.
October 10, 2021
This is Dyer's take on the politics of Canada's involvement in world conflicts over a 100 year period. Readable, informative and thought-provoking.
November 19, 2014
Even though I took a few Canadian history classes in undergrad, the profs never seemed to devote much time to Canada's military exploits, not even our involvement in the two World Wars. With Gwynne Dyer's Canada in the Great Power Game, 1914-2014, I was hoping to get a sort of overview of our military history fighting wars abroad which I had never really gotten in school. This book, however, is not just a listing of what Canada has involved itself in militarily since 1914. Rather, Dyer attempts "to make sense of our country's century of involvement in big and little wars, all of them far from home and none of them threatening what strategists like to call our 'vital interests.' Not just to recount the wars, but to account for them." That's the premise of the book in two short sentences. And what an interesting premise it is. Were we/are we really out there fighting for 'the greater good' and self-defense, or are we dragged into these wars because of our relations with other countries and international power plays?
Dyer actually begins the book with the Boer War, which I had no idea any Canadians even fought in. Britain was hoping to send Canadian troops into South Africa to aid the British fighting the Boers in order to take over the natural resources in the territory they held. Whether or not to send troops was an issue. French Canadians were against the idea, but English Canadians felt more obligated. What ended up being decided was that the Canadian government would gather troops, but make them out as volunteers. Then-Prime Minister Laurier stated that this would not set a precedent for further Canadian military involvement, but others new it certainly would. And it was only months after the Boer War ended that Britain attempted to get Canada to place some of its forces in an 'imperial reserve.' Although that did not pan out, what did end up happening was that Britain created a General Staff comprised of men from the Empire, in which troops were trained in a standardized way. This meant that if there were to be a war, forces throughout the Empire could easily fight together.
When Britain declared war on Germany in 1914, that meant Canada was at war as well. Many Canadians were excited about the war, although numbers of men signing up to go fight fell very short of what was expected. Nonetheless, Canada performed extremely well during the First World War and its men became known for their skills in battle. And if you are Canadian, you know that the First World War, especially Vimy, was Canada's "national awakening," so to speak. From this arose the desire to become more independent and exert sovereignty. With the creation of the League of Nations, Canada fought to have a voice; however, part of the premise of the League was defending member countries from aggressors to preserve peace around the world. Canada, like the United States, was not really in a position to ever be threatened militarily. Why should Canada risk the lives of its men to fight wars abroad that would never pose a threat to its own security?
When the 1930s rolled around and another war looked like it might be in the near future, Canada faced the dilemma of whether or not to get involved. Like any time previously, its geographic location meant it would not be in danger because of a war in Europe. Here Dyer includes a quote from Lester Pearson in 1938: "...But if I am tempted to become completely cynical and isolationist, I think of Hitler screeching into the microphone, Jewish women and children in ditches on the Polish border... and then, whatever the British side may represent, the other does indeed stand for savagery and barbarism." King's goal was to fight a limited war - no conscription, only volunteers and focusing on war in the air and at sea. In fact, conscription was postponed so far into the war that by the time it was introduced there was no serious outrage, as there had been during the First World War.
By the 1950s Canada, as a member of both the UN and NATO, had to deal with the issue of the Korean War. Unlike in the two World Wars, the 'Communist threat' united both French and English Canadians and so there was no major upset when Canadian troops were sent overseas. However, although Canada had sent troops, those involved in the decision making did not agree to how the US chose to conduct the war on the peninsula. Then came America's war with Vietnam, which was unsupported by Canadians. During the Cold War was the whole issue of nuclear armament for the possibility of nuclear war - even though there never was much of a possibility of this actually happening. This was really the one time where Canada's geographic location became problematic, as the fastest way for both the USSR and the US to reach each other was through Canadian airspace.
The book sorta putters out after the Cold War, which I was a little disappointed in. Our peacekeeping role is only briefly touched on maybe two times or so. Dyer does bring up that we had troops in Bosnia and Croatia during the wars there, but I would have liked to read more about that, especially since they did see combat. He also thinks rather highly of the UN and does indeed show where it does good, but doesn't really touch on where it fell (horribly) short - Bosnia, Rwanda (especially considering a Canadian was in charge of the UN mission there). Afghanistan and Iraq both receive some attention, but again, it's pretty short. The more recent the event is, the less I know about it, so I was hoping for more there.
One thing I definitely did not like was the chapter "Would a German Victory Have Been Worse?" It's not that I don't think Dyer was making good points or that I disagreed with him, it's just that I don't like reading 'what would have happened?' theories simply because we can't ever know. He doesn't extend this far enough that things become totally implausible (which he states himself), but with something so complex there's no definitive answer to what the post-war situation would have been like. This same thing comes up again in "What if We had Not Fought Hitler?" For me, this stuff just is not interesting and nothing can be proven.
I really enjoyed Dyer's writing. It's simple and straight-forward. I also really like the mostly chronological organisation of the book. I think it's much easier to understand when the information flows naturally by date. Sometimes thematically organised books work really well, but this one would have not. I also liked all the quotes he used; these all came from people he named and had a significant role in whatever was being discussed.
An issue I had with that book is that there is no bibliography. There are no end notes. There are no footnotes. How I am I supposed to know where Dyer got his information? How much is factual and how much is his own opinion? Considering I have no idea who this guy is, should I be trusting everything he's telling me? After reading his profile online I think it's fair to say he definitely knows what he's talking about and that what he is presenting is factual. Still, when he's saying anywhere from a quarter to a third of all shells used by the British in WWI were Canadian-made, or similar facts, I'd like a source for that. I simply can't understand why there are no sources in this book.
Overall, I really really liked this book. It was thorough, informative and just enjoyable to read. The lack of a bibliography, however, is definitely a problem and I wish there would have been more information about what was going on after the Cold War. I also could have lived without those two 'what-if?' chapters. I think this book works both if you are looking to read more about Canada's military history or if you want to understand more about what pulls us into wars. With all that being said, I for sure recommend this one.
Dyer actually begins the book with the Boer War, which I had no idea any Canadians even fought in. Britain was hoping to send Canadian troops into South Africa to aid the British fighting the Boers in order to take over the natural resources in the territory they held. Whether or not to send troops was an issue. French Canadians were against the idea, but English Canadians felt more obligated. What ended up being decided was that the Canadian government would gather troops, but make them out as volunteers. Then-Prime Minister Laurier stated that this would not set a precedent for further Canadian military involvement, but others new it certainly would. And it was only months after the Boer War ended that Britain attempted to get Canada to place some of its forces in an 'imperial reserve.' Although that did not pan out, what did end up happening was that Britain created a General Staff comprised of men from the Empire, in which troops were trained in a standardized way. This meant that if there were to be a war, forces throughout the Empire could easily fight together.
When Britain declared war on Germany in 1914, that meant Canada was at war as well. Many Canadians were excited about the war, although numbers of men signing up to go fight fell very short of what was expected. Nonetheless, Canada performed extremely well during the First World War and its men became known for their skills in battle. And if you are Canadian, you know that the First World War, especially Vimy, was Canada's "national awakening," so to speak. From this arose the desire to become more independent and exert sovereignty. With the creation of the League of Nations, Canada fought to have a voice; however, part of the premise of the League was defending member countries from aggressors to preserve peace around the world. Canada, like the United States, was not really in a position to ever be threatened militarily. Why should Canada risk the lives of its men to fight wars abroad that would never pose a threat to its own security?
When the 1930s rolled around and another war looked like it might be in the near future, Canada faced the dilemma of whether or not to get involved. Like any time previously, its geographic location meant it would not be in danger because of a war in Europe. Here Dyer includes a quote from Lester Pearson in 1938: "...But if I am tempted to become completely cynical and isolationist, I think of Hitler screeching into the microphone, Jewish women and children in ditches on the Polish border... and then, whatever the British side may represent, the other does indeed stand for savagery and barbarism." King's goal was to fight a limited war - no conscription, only volunteers and focusing on war in the air and at sea. In fact, conscription was postponed so far into the war that by the time it was introduced there was no serious outrage, as there had been during the First World War.
By the 1950s Canada, as a member of both the UN and NATO, had to deal with the issue of the Korean War. Unlike in the two World Wars, the 'Communist threat' united both French and English Canadians and so there was no major upset when Canadian troops were sent overseas. However, although Canada had sent troops, those involved in the decision making did not agree to how the US chose to conduct the war on the peninsula. Then came America's war with Vietnam, which was unsupported by Canadians. During the Cold War was the whole issue of nuclear armament for the possibility of nuclear war - even though there never was much of a possibility of this actually happening. This was really the one time where Canada's geographic location became problematic, as the fastest way for both the USSR and the US to reach each other was through Canadian airspace.
The book sorta putters out after the Cold War, which I was a little disappointed in. Our peacekeeping role is only briefly touched on maybe two times or so. Dyer does bring up that we had troops in Bosnia and Croatia during the wars there, but I would have liked to read more about that, especially since they did see combat. He also thinks rather highly of the UN and does indeed show where it does good, but doesn't really touch on where it fell (horribly) short - Bosnia, Rwanda (especially considering a Canadian was in charge of the UN mission there). Afghanistan and Iraq both receive some attention, but again, it's pretty short. The more recent the event is, the less I know about it, so I was hoping for more there.
One thing I definitely did not like was the chapter "Would a German Victory Have Been Worse?" It's not that I don't think Dyer was making good points or that I disagreed with him, it's just that I don't like reading 'what would have happened?' theories simply because we can't ever know. He doesn't extend this far enough that things become totally implausible (which he states himself), but with something so complex there's no definitive answer to what the post-war situation would have been like. This same thing comes up again in "What if We had Not Fought Hitler?" For me, this stuff just is not interesting and nothing can be proven.
I really enjoyed Dyer's writing. It's simple and straight-forward. I also really like the mostly chronological organisation of the book. I think it's much easier to understand when the information flows naturally by date. Sometimes thematically organised books work really well, but this one would have not. I also liked all the quotes he used; these all came from people he named and had a significant role in whatever was being discussed.
...Well yes, of course. It was the great moment of American imperialism at its height, when they really felt they had the answers to everything in the world, and had dozens of alliances, and were willing to move into any cabbage patch anywhere in the world and fight against Communism or feudalism or anything which didn't go with the American way of life. It was rather overpowering. (Charles Ritchie)
Q. What inspired Sutherland Brown to think that way in the 1920s - I mean, a war with the United States? A. Well, I don't know. I think possibly there wasn't any other war to think about. (laughter) (General E.L.M. Burns)
An issue I had with that book is that there is no bibliography. There are no end notes. There are no footnotes. How I am I supposed to know where Dyer got his information? How much is factual and how much is his own opinion? Considering I have no idea who this guy is, should I be trusting everything he's telling me? After reading his profile online I think it's fair to say he definitely knows what he's talking about and that what he is presenting is factual. Still, when he's saying anywhere from a quarter to a third of all shells used by the British in WWI were Canadian-made, or similar facts, I'd like a source for that. I simply can't understand why there are no sources in this book.
Overall, I really really liked this book. It was thorough, informative and just enjoyable to read. The lack of a bibliography, however, is definitely a problem and I wish there would have been more information about what was going on after the Cold War. I also could have lived without those two 'what-if?' chapters. I think this book works both if you are looking to read more about Canada's military history or if you want to understand more about what pulls us into wars. With all that being said, I for sure recommend this one.
September 22, 2017
Interesting mix of history, commentary and speculation. No matter what else, I always find Gwynne Dyer interesting. We Canadians often have a sketchy knowledge of our own history, and are as prone as anyone else to subscribe to popular myths and misconceptions regarding the motivations, actions, and results that have forged both our national identity and our place in the world. The author is able to describe and analyse our engagement (or sometimes lack of) in foreign conflicts from a strategic, military and political perspective, without losing sight of the impact of real people, and especially the interplay between domestic politics, key personalities, and the forces arising from the changes in the nature of international relations during the 20th Century. A useful read for any student of Canadian history.
July 12, 2021
2-3 Hindsight is always 20-20. However, it is good to revisit one's history from time to time. Starting with the Boer War, but mainly focussing on WW1 and WW2, Dyer explores Canada's involvement in various countries as both peacekeepers and soldiers. I was struck by the comment that most of those making decisions on behalf of the soldiers were politicians without children. Most decisions appear political in terms of Canada as a "power" country.
The book is long and contains a lot (perhaps too much) of detail in the form of interviews, excerpts from letters and journals and exerpts from newspaper articles. While the ideas interest me, the length of the book was a bit daunting. Not as much time was spent on the cold war or the current (as of 2014) situation as I might have liked.
The book is long and contains a lot (perhaps too much) of detail in the form of interviews, excerpts from letters and journals and exerpts from newspaper articles. While the ideas interest me, the length of the book was a bit daunting. Not as much time was spent on the cold war or the current (as of 2014) situation as I might have liked.
September 13, 2021
Not just a political realist history of Canada’s role as an actor on the great-power international stage, and how that has intertwined with domestic Canadian history, but also an argument in favour of the principle of collective security via the UN. Informative, reflective, but also pressing,
and full of ideas on how to approach Canada’s international position. Could be a bit longer and more informative on other aspects like China, but perhaps that’s retrospective given our present concerns about Chinese foreign policy. Also makes a mistake in suggesting that Stalin’s purges had realist political concerns in mind, which is wrong to suggest. Otherwise, this is a good book to better understand Canada and engage yourself in its politics if you so want.
and full of ideas on how to approach Canada’s international position. Could be a bit longer and more informative on other aspects like China, but perhaps that’s retrospective given our present concerns about Chinese foreign policy. Also makes a mistake in suggesting that Stalin’s purges had realist political concerns in mind, which is wrong to suggest. Otherwise, this is a good book to better understand Canada and engage yourself in its politics if you so want.
September 7, 2017
I am a Gwynne Dyer fan, but I found this book to be less satisfying than most of his work. Perhaps this is because it is really co-authored by an uncredited ("for contractual reasons") Tina Viljoen, or perhaps it is because it is the reworking of material originally intended for a TV production. It relies heavily on quotes and excerpts from letters and biographies, and I found that really interrupted the flow while reading. Another problem I had is that the book theoretically covers 19140-2014, but it really effectively stops in the 80's.
September 24, 2017
Disappointed
September 18, 2018
What we have here is a very rare specimen: an interesting Canadian History book! Entertaining in addition to being informative.
June 26, 2025
A very interesting read, looking at how Canada has interacted with world powers throughout the last 100 years since the First World War. I learned some things I did not know and found solid observations from an impartial writer. Dyer recognized the contributions of persons from across the political spectrum and the role they all played in shaping where Canada currently sits in the global hierarchy. A very interesting read, easy to understand and reads very much like a high level history. Quick to pick up and difficult to put down once you get into it.
December 21, 2015
I enjoyed this book not just for its wealth of information on Canada's involvement in world events (especially WW1 and WW11) but for its easy reading style. For certain, it is not, nor intends to be, a doctoral thesis type book with massive referencing and documentation, but it is a book that is suitable for all readers with a rudimentary remembrance of high school Social Studies. And that is not a criticism in the least as Dyer does use dozens of quotes from politicians, bureaucrats, soldiers and ordinary citizens to tell his story and make his point.
Much of the book tells how Canada got itself involved in European Wars that were of no threat to Canada. He starts with the Boer War and Laurier's decision to kind of support mother England by sending a voluntary force of Canadians to help fight the Boers. But the majority of the book details Canada's involvement in the two world wars which Dyer claims were just continuations of the power struggles between European states that had been going on for over two hundred years. Canada was dragged unwittingly into these wars even though neither Canadian security nor even world democracy (especially in the case of WW1) were threatened. Canadian involvement in the Cold War through Nato and Norad are discussed in detail as well.
After each detailed chapter on the specific events that Dyer writes about, he takes a few pages to go on what he calls excursions in which he poses a question: what would have happened if Germany had won WW1 which was a possibility as late as 1918? Is it unfair to criticize the act of appeasement when Britain and France were no where near ready to take on Germany? What would have happened if we had not fought Hitler. Alternate histories are a fun read.
While he does talk about more recent history and Canada's move away from alliances (Canada's refusal to be a part of the invasion of Iraq for example) there isn't the detail of the earlier events. As well, for someone who played around with alternate histories, Dyer does not predict anything for Canada's role for the future. These are minor criticisms.
Dyer isn't telling us to avoid conflicts, to become isolationist, or to ignore the plight of other countries. He is a fan of the United Nations and the role it and Canada as a member can play, but he does warn of the consequences when we join alliances and enter conflicts without question.
Much of the book tells how Canada got itself involved in European Wars that were of no threat to Canada. He starts with the Boer War and Laurier's decision to kind of support mother England by sending a voluntary force of Canadians to help fight the Boers. But the majority of the book details Canada's involvement in the two world wars which Dyer claims were just continuations of the power struggles between European states that had been going on for over two hundred years. Canada was dragged unwittingly into these wars even though neither Canadian security nor even world democracy (especially in the case of WW1) were threatened. Canadian involvement in the Cold War through Nato and Norad are discussed in detail as well.
After each detailed chapter on the specific events that Dyer writes about, he takes a few pages to go on what he calls excursions in which he poses a question: what would have happened if Germany had won WW1 which was a possibility as late as 1918? Is it unfair to criticize the act of appeasement when Britain and France were no where near ready to take on Germany? What would have happened if we had not fought Hitler. Alternate histories are a fun read.
While he does talk about more recent history and Canada's move away from alliances (Canada's refusal to be a part of the invasion of Iraq for example) there isn't the detail of the earlier events. As well, for someone who played around with alternate histories, Dyer does not predict anything for Canada's role for the future. These are minor criticisms.
Dyer isn't telling us to avoid conflicts, to become isolationist, or to ignore the plight of other countries. He is a fan of the United Nations and the role it and Canada as a member can play, but he does warn of the consequences when we join alliances and enter conflicts without question.
May 31, 2015
The coverage of Canada reluctantly being drawn into World Wars One and Two is adequate, however when Dyer strays into analysis of the Cold War, the arguments are suspect and even flawed. It is the school of thought that the U.S. was the primary agent in provoking the post-war tensions. While the U.S. certainly bungled in its policy making, Stalin was hardly a benign party in the power struggle. By extension, Canada became a more influential player in the geopolitical theater and obviously its interests were more aligned with the democratic bloc. This would be manifest with their participation in the Korean War and as a voice and presence in the United Nations.
Participation in any of the international conflicts always provoked mixed reactions in Canada. Both when they were part of the British Empire and later after independence. The French-Canadian population were never enthusiastic about making sacrifices for British interests and domestic politics in Canada always governed the response. Issues such as conscription and defense spending were always subject to delicate political maneuvering. Dyer is strong on the Canadian poltical front but falters in navigating the larger picture. Another defect and a reason for the lower rating is the lack of a bibliography. That is unacceptable for a purported work of scholarship.
Participation in any of the international conflicts always provoked mixed reactions in Canada. Both when they were part of the British Empire and later after independence. The French-Canadian population were never enthusiastic about making sacrifices for British interests and domestic politics in Canada always governed the response. Issues such as conscription and defense spending were always subject to delicate political maneuvering. Dyer is strong on the Canadian poltical front but falters in navigating the larger picture. Another defect and a reason for the lower rating is the lack of a bibliography. That is unacceptable for a purported work of scholarship.
July 9, 2015
A military history of the world over the last century from a Canadian perspective. That's not to say the book is written with a Canadian bias, rather it examines events and circumstances as they pertain to Canada and explains Canada's reaction to and place in these events. Gwynne Dyer offers a fair and insightful analysis and the book is focused less on 'what happened' and more on 'how it happened, what it meant, and what were the goals of the major players.' You'll certainly find no flag-waving or good-against-evil narratives like you might find in other books on the same topics.
September 21, 2014
This update of Defense of Canada includes coverage up to April of 2014, including Chretien's decision to keep us out of Iraq. Nothing new if you have been following Dyer, but if you have been accepting the usual run of Canadian patriotic mythology, this may prove a useful corrective.
October 28, 2014
Every Canadian should read. Every person whose country is in NATO should read. Important for an understanding of the purpose of the United Nations.
August 15, 2015
First time I have really understood the motivations and the events of the two World Wars and the Cold War, let alone from a Canadian perspective.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews