When putting words to paper, each person has their own creative method. This rings especially true when writing about history. With the seemingly endless supply of information and accounts, no two readings or viewings will contain the same exact information or viewpoint. Deciding which resource to agree with or more importantly to relate too often times prove difficult, as simply reading the information without further deliberation as to the authenticity may lead one down an incomplete path. This paper will discuss in large part the differences of two particular passages and which of the two I found most persuasive.
James Eayrs’ article “A Low Dishonest Decade: Aspects of Canadian External Policy, 1931-1939” and Norman Hillmer’s article “Defence and Ideology: The Anglo-Canadian Military Alliance in the 1930s” both explain Canada’s relations, or lack thereof, with Great Britain. While Eayrs’ viewpoint is a much more negative one. For instance Eayrs explains that “nothing was done by the Canadian Government to assist United Kingdom defence officials in their effort to stimulate the manufacture of arms in the overseas dominion ” insisting that the Canadian Government was putting forth no effort to assist the members of the Dominion with their requests to prepare themselves for the defence of their own territories. While Hillmer’s explanation of a similar situation is that “The PM William Lyon Mackenzie King cabinet was agreeable to the placing of British orders in Canada and to private firms taking the initiative in the establishment of munitions and aircraft plants ”. This explanation while stating essentially the same thing has a much more positive connotation and seemingly positive outcome on the people of Canada. It is also one that would lend itself more to the notion that the countries are, while remaining within their own constraints, working together towards a common goal. The negative view of Eayrs is present throughout his article and paints...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document