Anachronistic history may create lovely myths...

...but does not help us understand well. Whatever one may end up thinking about Paul Gross's epic Canadian war movie, Passchendaele, Dan Gardner of the Ottawa Citizen makes a good point:

...
Gross's interpretation of Canada's Great War history is decidedly modern. War, militarism, and bigotry are condemned in Passchendaele. The villain of the piece is not a German but a bald, fat, pompous, conniving British officer who struts about spouting imperialist nonsense until he finally goes to the front line, reveals himself to be a coward, and dies a miserable death. (I suspect German propagandists might have thought Gross laid it on a little thick.)

The hero, a Canadian soldier played by Gross, is everything the Brit is not. Honest. Plain-talkin'. Brave in battle. He has no use for politics, doesn't care how the war started, and is loyal only to his comrades in the trenches.

The sharp division Gross draws between Canadian and Brit -- with the British Empire shoved over to their side of the line, thank you very much -- is also thoroughly modern. Canadians today see this country as a sovereign nation with no special link to Britain. The British Empire is, at most, an embarrassing reminder of the time when we were colonial subordinates; for many, it is a costume drama set in India.

This neat division between "Canadian" and "British" is something Gross shares with John Ralston Saul [more on Mr Saul here, from Robert Fulford], and many others.

But interpreting early-20th century history through this prism is a serious mistake. The overwhelming majority of Canadians of the time saw "Canadian" and "British" as overlapping identities, just as Canada was a country and a proud part of the British empire. That we don't share this perception today is irrelevant. That is how "it actually was."..

Moreover, the majority of early volunteers for the Canadian Army were in fact British immigrants; quite a few of them were likely still around the second half of 1917. I wonder if Mr Gross's movie portrays them?

...who were the men who volunteered to go to war in 1914? Historian Desmond Morton suggests that “for the most part, the crowds of men who jammed into the armouries were neither militia nor Canadian-born.” Most, he argues, were recent British immigrants anxious to return to their homeland in a time of crisis, especially when Canada was deep in a recession that had created large-scale unemployment. The best available statistics suggest that close to 70 per cent of the first contingent “were British-born” though the officer corps was almost exclusively Canadian. Command of the 1st Canadian Division went to a British officer, Lieutenant-General Sir Edwin Alderson, but Hughes appointed Canadians to command the brigades, battalions and artillery regiments. Much the same pattern held for the second contingent; 60 per cent were British-born, but their officers were Canadian...

More here on the Canadians at Passchendaele from Veterans Affairs Canada.

Update: Janice Kennedy, also of the Ottawa Citizen, in dealing with Passchendaele takes an almost absolutely pacifist position:

...as our moral sensitivities evolve, as we realize unequivocally that war is a failure that must be avoided, we should be greeting each new serious contribution to the [war movie] genre more critically...

Bah! Humbug!