We appreciate Beverley Baxter’s keen wit. But Mr. Baxter, with a considerable number of other Englishmen or those with a British complex in the matter, seem to imagine that all Canadians are in favor of the existing regime in Spain.
As a matter of fact, there are many many thousands of Canadians rooting mentally and vocally for General Franco and his cause, and an equal number who are convinced that Britain is looking for trouble in poking its nose into Spanish matters on the side of the so-called Loyalists, who seem to be largely composed of Reds and anarchistic elements who would not be tolerated in Britain unless they confined their efforts to Hyde Park. —J. C. McGuffey, Ottawa.
I must thank you especially for Mr. Baxter’s “London Letter” in July 1 issue. Could you not have it reprinted so that it would be distributed among our young folk?
I shall be quoting from it in my Sunday’s sermon, and would read it all to my congregation were that possible.
I would also express appreciation for the wholesome standard maintained by the magazine. I have subscribed to it ever since its publication and have frequently quoted from it from the pulpit. I look forward to its arrival.
With all good wishes.—(Rev.) Alex P. Mitchell, Macleod, Alta.
Our Own Great Country
You have congratulations coming to you for your July 1 issue. Especially are you to be praised for the splendid article by M. Grattan O’Leary, “Three Score Years and Ten.” It was a masterpiece, and I agree with its every word.
I firmly believe that through the agency of such truly Canadian magazines as Maclean’s, citizens throughout the Dominion should be made acquainted with the sweeping, exciting story of Canada. This is a country to build and to trust. . It is a country worth living for, worth working for. If only all our citizens could feel and perceive what a land they live in, they would soon lose their exaggerated ideas of the greatness of other lands. As it is, Canadians generally, I think, know more about other countries than they do about their own. It is time this fallacious thinking was arrested throughout the Dominion, and a determined campaign started by Canada’s Press and Government to excite in us all an unperishable love for a great world nation.—Donald A. C. McGill, Vancouver.
Relies on British Navy I prefer not to accept “Defense and French Canada” as presenting the FrenchCanadian viewpoint, but rather that of an extreme individualist.
I am living and farming in Western Canada among many French-Canadians. Together we sow and reap our harvests with a feeling of security, whether the Empire is at peace or at war, knowing that our products will be protected en route to the world’s markets by the British Navy, thus ensuring us a market for our produce. This also applies to the mining and industrial sections of the East.
The writer speaks of Canada building her own defenses. It would be impossible for Canada to build a navy large enough and to maintain same to keep the trade routes open to the world’s markets during an European conflict.
Does not the professor know that
already the national debt is so enormous that the total revenue, it is said, is not sufficient to pay the interest on the national debt? What a lot of protection the Canadian people would get if they had only to rely on a navy that Canada could build at its present financial standing.
I do not know what prompted the writer to speak for the French-Canadians, but I will venture to predict that if Canada was ever attacked the writer of the defense article would be one of the first to cry for help from the Empire.
The article mentions that during the last session at Ottawa, every French-Canadian who voted for the increased Military Budget took care to emphasize that every cent for armaments must be spent for “Canada’s” own defense, and that our armaments must be used “only” for Canada’s defense.
Did a thought never occur to the “professional mind” as to the cost to the British taxpayer in keeping our trade routes open? Can these services to the Canadian public be lost sight of, without a thought of thankfulness and a sense of duty?
The whole trend of the article seems to be that it is all right to belong to the Commonwealth for what we can get out of it, but to be so individualistic as to give nothing in return. I, for one, am not accepting this portrayal as a FrenchCanadian viewpoint.
Another striking feature was outlining the attitude of the French-Canadian M. P.’s who opposed the increase in armament, stating they could not see against what country Canada might use such armament excepting possibly Japan, and then remarking that in such case we would have to rely on American protection.
In this the author admitted that Canada’s defense machine would be inadequate. Does he know of any time when Britain failed to come to the rescue of any member of the Empire when in danger? Then why flee for protection to the U. S. A.? A lame answer may be Canada’s proximity to the U. S. A. and American financial interests here, but I venture an opinion that this answer was not uppermost in the professor’s mind. —E. G. Shaddock. Ponteix, Sask.
Wants No Armament
I think the article on “Defense” by Jean Bruchési is good. All this talk about Canada needing arms will only deceive the unthinking and superficial minded. Canada’s natural and political defenses are immense, and anything the Canadians can add to them would be out of proportion to the expense incurred. Canadians have an uneasy feeling that in a land-hungry world they hold immense territories. Well, the best policy as regards that would be to fill those territories with settlers instead of embarking on a problematical policy of armament.
Britain, as the writer says, is always for herself. She does not even regard Canada as the most valuable part of her Empire. Again, nobody seems to know what Britain’s policy is. She never puts her cards on the table, never comes straight out with a clear-cut declaration. Britain’s politicians are past masters in the art of guile and deception, and no matter which way they turn they always contrive to justify themselves. Let Canadians remember that some countries spend half their national income for armaments. Canada, I believe, spends half hers on debts and relief charges at present. This is the true enemy at Canada’s gate. —H. G. O’Brien, Toronto.
The story you want is part of the Maclean’s Archives. To access it, log in here or sign up for your free 30-day trial.
Experience anything and everything Maclean's has ever published — over 3,500 issues and 150,000 articles, images and advertisements — since 1905. Browse on your own, or explore our curated collections and timely recommendations.WATCH THIS VIDEO for highlights of everything the Maclean's Archives has to offer.