Resignations over unification

[baboon6]

I was recently reading a book about the  British night fighter ace J.R.D. "Bob" Braham, the most highly decorated Brit/Commonwealth  fighter pilot of the war (29 victories, DSO and Two Bars, DFC and Two Bars). Braham transferred to the RCAF in the early 1950s and attained the rank of Group Captain, mostly commanding CF-100 fighter units. In 1968 he resigned over the unification issue. My question is did any other prominent officers resign at this time? Thanks in advance.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Granatstein discusses this in some detail in WHO KILLED THE CANADIAN MILITARY ISBN 0006394752

 

[pbi]

This is a very interesting subject. During my Regimental Officers' Indoctrination in 1983, we had a panel of veteran PPCLI officers talk to us about various things. One of the subjects that came up was Unification. One of the retired senior officers stated that when Unification was foisted on the military, there was in fact considerable objection from the Army and the Navy. According to him, a number of senior people from these services did resign. But, he said, this only harmed those two services in the post-Unification era because wherever a sailor or soldier had left, an airman was ready to step up to a new senior position, thus giving the Air Force disproportionate influence in the early days of unification. I am not sure how true this is, but one can see certain examples of Air Force measures being imposed on other services. The "Base" concept, for example, in which the Base Commander is senior to the COs of the resident units, is an Air Force idea. The traditional Army practice was to have a Camp Commandant who was a more junior officer who was clearly only a caretaker, not really a "boss". We have to a certain extent returned to that idea now with ASU Commanders being LCols.

Unfortunately, resigning for cause has not had much of a following in our Army in the last few decades: even De Chastelain as CDS during the disbandment of the CAR only made a milquetoast "offer" to resign. To me, you do not "offer" to resign. If your superiors follow a course of action you cannot morally agree with, you resign. Otherwise, you get on with it.

Cheers

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
Unfortunately, resigning for cause has not had much of a following in our Army in the last few decades:

I personally disagree with your premise of "unfortunately", all resigning for cause does is allow someone of the "same" thinking and probably, less moral fibre, to be put into that vacant spot.........better to fight from within for change than to be the voice in the wilderness.
...and where as years ago a high-placed resignation might have had some impact,...in todays fast-paced media its just a one-day sound bite.

 

[pbi]

Quote,
Unfortunately, resigning for cause has not had much of a following in our Army in the last few decades:

I personally disagree with your premise of "unfortunately", all resigning for cause does is allow someone of the "same" thinking and probably, less moral fibre, to be put into that vacant spot.........better to fight from within for change than to be the voice in the wilderness.
...and where as years ago a high-placed resignation might have had some impact,...in todays fast-paced media its just a one-day sound bite.

I encapsulated my point a bit too briefly, I think. I agree fully that the professional officer has a duty to fight impropriety in the service first, by all means at his disposal including reporting his superior to his superior if necessary. But, should this not work, and the evil remains in force (or, more specifically, he is being compelled to do something wrong) then IMHO his choice is either to resign, thus signifying that he will have nothing to do with it, or he must put up. I did not mean to suggest the there should be immediate recourse to resignation. I do not agree, however, that the sole motivator for resignation should be an assessment of how much media impact one will make: that should be secondary. It is more importantly an expression of a particular moral or ethical stance, in order to meet your own convictions. Cheers.

 

[old medic]

Quote,

all resigning for cause does is allow someone of the "same" thinking and probably, less moral fibre, to be put into that vacant spot...

This also assumes the person had the conviction and honour to understand they should resign in the first place.

 

[old medic]

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/fourth_dimension/2004/feb04/01_fd_e.htm

" .....................   
Bill C-90, the Integration Act, came into effect on August 1, 1964, and the process went forward fairly smoothly, despite the protests of senior officers who thought unification was a dumb idea; most of them resigned, and some were fired.
...................... "

 

[Bill Smy]

Did not one or two Admirals resign?

 

[old medic]

www.afithinktank.com/pdf/cafu.pdf

" ........... 
The response from the military was immediate: two senior generals resigned in protest in 1964, seven admirals followed suit in 1967 as did Hellyer's own Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Frank Miller.
.......  "

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

...so in retrospect, in keeping with my post above, would things have been different if those opposed had stayed on, not necessarily being disloyal to the orders, but,by pulling strings[militarily and politicly]?

...I must admit my severe lack of knowledge on this topic so I can only be hypothetical.

 

[old medic]

We all become hypothetical when we start into what might have been.

I have to do a little more research on those ten, before I start hypothesizing.
Can anyone name the other nine?

 

[old medic]

A little more research......

FIRED:

CDS Air Chief Marshal Frank Robert Miller, CC, CBE, CD  (possibly not just over unification)
Rear-Admiral W.M. Landymore
Rear-Admiral J.V Brockan   

 

[Long in the tooth]

An interesting note on unification - due to the resignations of many senior officers, the first CDS, JV Allard (DSO and two bars) was promoted TWICE in one day.  Must've been quite the mess call....

(I knew this space between my ears was useful for something!)