Author Topic: Unification is a child of the 1960s, so who is looking backward?  (Read 17096 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pusser

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 40,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,434
Re: Unification is a child of the 1960s, so who is looking backward?
« Reply #125 on: August 25, 2010, 13:41:25 »
There were a lot of good things that came out of Unification.  The sad part was the unneccessary destruction of pride and tradition and the fact that many of the "problems" that Hellyer believed existed either didn't really exist or were never solved in the process.  For example, if cost reduction and simplicity were really a problem, why were there more orders of dress with the common green uniform thatn there had been in the RCN, Canadian Army and RCAF combined?

A common supply system, common pay system, common medical services, etc. are all things that make a lot of sense.  However the former separate services were already moving in that direction anyway.  Hellyer pushed it way too far.  We should have done what the Australians eventually did, which was to combine into one Canadian Forces (with commonality where commanality made sense), with three separate services.
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline linkinarmy

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 35
  • For God and Country
Re: Unification is a child of the 1960s, so who is looking backward?
« Reply #126 on: January 20, 2011, 23:16:56 »
Would Canada ever change the Canadian Forces to Something similar of the Australia Defence Forces?

Online E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 176,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,866
Re: Unification is a child of the 1960s, so who is looking backward?
« Reply #127 on: January 20, 2011, 23:31:03 »
Would Canada ever change the Canadian Forces to Something similar of the Australia Defence Forces?


There's no need; we already have rid ourselves of most of the worst organizational clusterf*cks that Mr. Hellyer's minions perpetrated and, as Pussre said, there were, also some good things that we kept.

Many (most?) of the organizational and administrative problems we you have today are, I would argue, post-unification/post-Hellyer, self inflicted wounds - many caused by obstructed vision which is, in turn, caused by too many senior officers' heads being up too many American arses.

The US DoD is a wonderous thing to behold; it is vast and compelling; but it is not a paragon of organizational or administrative virtue, and things that may (appear to) work there may not be good ideas for different, smaller forces.
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline moirtrevor

  • Guest
  • *
  • 10
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1
Re: Unification is a child of the 1960s, so who is looking backward?
« Reply #128 on: August 15, 2011, 23:09:32 »
I am an older Aussie, an we down under still have a Royal Australian Air Force, A Royal Australian Navy and a Royal Australian Army Corps.
We are proud of our English heritage and whilst there have been discussions on becoming a republic and changing our flag (which is one quater the Union Jack) nearly 70% of Aussies do not want a change.
Good on you Canada for bringing back the Royal to your fine forces.
Queen Elizabeth 11 is also the Queen of Australia as well as Canada.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,480
Re: Unification is a child of the 1960s, so who is looking backward?
« Reply #129 on: August 16, 2011, 08:24:19 »

There's no need; we already have rid ourselves of most of the worst organizational clusterf*cks that Mr. Hellyer's minions perpetrated and, as Pussre said, there were, also some good things that we kept.

Many (most?) of the organizational and administrative problems we you have today are, I would argue, post-unification/post-Hellyer, self inflicted wounds - many caused by obstructed vision which is, in turn, caused by too many senior officers' heads being up too many American arses.

The US DoD is a wonderous thing to behold; it is vast and compelling; but it is not a paragon of organizational or administrative virtue, and things that may (appear to) work there may not be good ideas for different, smaller forces.

I dont know,you guys have adopted our .com structure. :camo:

Offline jeffb

    on pat leave! .

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 9,236
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 283
    • Afghan Ops
Re: Unification is a child of the 1960s, so who is looking backward?
« Reply #130 on: August 16, 2011, 09:06:58 »
I dont know,you guys have adopted our .com structure. :camo:

And you guys will someday adopt Royal once you realize how heart broken you are over the loss of the monarchy. That is a Tea Party plank isn't it?  :)

Offline ProudNewfoundlander

  • Guest
  • *
  • 55
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16
Re: Unification is a child of the 1960s, so who is looking backward?
« Reply #131 on: August 16, 2011, 20:29:26 »
I dont like the aestetic changes that were made because of unification, but seeing as most, if not all, have been reversed its a moot point. However, I agree with the structural changes. JL Granstein said it best in "Who killed the canadian military" when he said "The arms of the military should work together . I also read that the change may have been motivated by hellyers expereince in WW2, whereas he joined the RCAF, was not taken for whatever reason and was instead sent to artillery training in the army, and had to do basic training all over again, and eventually missed the war.

Online E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 176,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,866
Re: Unification is a child of the 1960s, so who is looking backward?
« Reply #132 on: September 16, 2011, 08:04:32 »
Sorry for going off tanget here, but I have to jump in.  No RSM has the authority to lay on extras.  That would be considered punishment and no one can be punished without first being charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced to said punishment.

Now, before the dogpile starts - I am well aware that RSMs, XOs, Adjts, etc often assign extra duties to all and sundry for a variety of reasons.  My usual advice to minor miscreants is to suck it up and do it because once it's done, it's done.  All is forgotten and we all get on with out lives.  This is often preferable to having a formal charge on record.  However, the fact remains that no one has the authority to punish without a trial.


Slightly off topic but I'm posting this here (because I think it falls into the “funny story about the old days”) rather than in the thread in which is was originally posted by Pusser:

About 45 years ago everyone was reorganizing (if that's the right word to describe chaos) everything; some were trying, usually in vain, to make everyone fit into some sort of purple mould which often seemed more suited to the girl guides than a fighting unit.

Anyone, one sub unit had a middle aged plus sergeant major – a tall, quiet and, actually very pleasant, even kindly man with a pretty spectacular World War II resumé that included parachuting behind enemy lines (before 1944). The sub unit was housed in some old temporary buildings, with which many of us were (fondly) familiar. At one end of the HQ building was stores – with the QMS and storeman and who ever else could hide there, at the other was the OC's office. In the middle was the OR (with a counter to separate the clerk and his helper from the great unwashed) and offices for the sergeant major and the 2IC – leading to the OC's office.

But the highlight of the OR was a big board – everyone had big talc covered boards in those days, but this one was better than most: nicely painted in the unit colours, proper, near professional lettering, and “data fields” that were large enough to be read, easily, from the counter. The title was “Sergeant Major's crap List” and the columns were (roughly) name, reason, from, to, remarks. Thus a soldier could walk into the OR, look at the wall and see:

Bloggins    Boots       16 Sep   21 Sep   Paint B4
Smith        Weapon   16 Sep   25 Sep   Wash Vehs

It was a pretty good system, well understood by everyone up and down the unit's chain of command and, while open to abuse (as ALL systems are) it was, as far as I knew, properly and fairly managed.

In any event, one of the agents of change from some higher, but unknown, HQ came for a visit – in order to impose the purple/girl guides standards on a not especially receptive unit. Of course that agent of change saw the sergeant major's board and, very nearly, squeeled and peed his pants. “You cannot have a 'crap List,' he said to the sergeant major, this is the modern era, we treat our people with respect.” (I suspect he (the agenct of change) couldn't bring himself to actually say 'soldiers.') The sergeant major answered, quietly and politely: “Of course you are correct, sir. I will get with the programme immediately.”

Later that day the board was revised. All the data remained the same and the intention was abundantly clear, but the title said, in very nice lettering: “Sergeant Major's Should Have Intensive Training List.”

Everyone from the CO on down – except the agents of change – was pleased, and everyone - including that agent of change, I guess - went on about the Queen's business, as well as they understood it.
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"