In today's Toronto Star Damien Cox in his column mentions that the new arena
being planned by the Devils may have an international size ice surface. I know
that in the past NHL teams like Boston and Buffalo had ice surfaces that were
smaller than regulation. Could a team under the present rules simply put in a
larger ice surface than the rules call for?

Craig Wallace





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Morey wrote:

>
> I think some actions go above and beyond the duty of putting the
> biscuit in the basket (or keeping it out) and a permanent retirement
> of that jersey in that player's honor is the least a franchise can do.

Very true.  And then there are just those really popular players that
everyone loves.  The New Jersey Devils will retire Ken Daneyko's number at
some point.  Sure, he is not a star player but he means EVERYTHING to Devils
fans.  So why not honor him?  I see no problem with that!

Keith Lenn
Keith@...

Hey Dave,

I wouldn't mind a copy of that

Jason Kasiorek

> From: "Dave Clamen" <davclamen@...>
> Reply-To: hockhist@egroups.com
> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 01:13:29 GMT
> To: hockhist@egroups.com
> Subject: [hockhist] some more info
>
> I just came across the opening day rosters/numbers of the NHL teams in
> 1933-34. It's a lot of typing so let me know if anyone wants it.
>
> Dave Clamen
>
> The statistical history of the races for the Allan Cup;
> League standings & playoffs;
> It's at
> http://www.geocities.com/fanofpucks
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> “How this web site saved me 72% on CDs and movies”
> --------------------------------------------------
> http://click.egroups.com/1/4737/4/_/479946/_/959822010/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This has been a Hockey History List mailing
> The Official mailing list of the Hockey Research Association (HRA)
> <A HREF=http://www.hockeyresearch.com/>Our Homepage</A>
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message
> to hockhist-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>

Ralph Slate wrote:

I noticed a *huge* mistake in the book, in the inside flap:

"With the demise of the Brooklyn Americans in 1947, the National
Hockey League was reduced to franchises in Boston, Chicago,
Detroit, NY, and Toronto"...

If the above passage has been quoted verbatim, then to me the biggest
mistake is the omission of the Montreal Canadiens franchise!





Donald M. Fraser, M.Sc.
Senior Ecologist & Principal
Gartner Lee LImited
140 Renfrew Drive, Suite 102
Markham, Ontario
L3R 6B3
Tel: (905) 477-8400 ext. 218
Fax: (905) 477-1456
email: dfraser@...
website: http://www.gartnerlee.com

I was interested in Morey's view that Richard's record of 50 goals in 50
games was undeserving of the Hart because it was accomplished against
inferior opposition with many of the league's top players serving in WW2.
Was it really seen as a "tainted" (my word, not Morey's) or a somehow less
impressive record at the time?  I've always thought it stood as one of very
few truly remarkable single season accomplishments in hockey, that
substantially raised the bar of individual performances.  When Mike Bossy
finally tied the record one could argue that the overall talent level in
the NHL was even more inferior or "watered down" because of expansion
(IIRC, the NHL was up to 21 teams by then).  I saw Bossy being interviewed
this week and he said that scoring 50 in 50 was the most difficult and
challenging thing he ever accomplished in hockey.




Donald M. Fraser, M.Sc.
Senior Ecologist & Principal
Gartner Lee LImited
140 Renfrew Drive, Suite 102
Markham, Ontario
L3R 6B3
Tel: (905) 477-8400 ext. 218
Fax: (905) 477-1456
email: dfraser@...
website: http://www.gartnerlee.com

>
> I was interested in Morey's view that Richard's record of 50 goals in 50
> games was undeserving of the Hart because it was accomplished against
> inferior opposition with many of the league's top players serving in WW2.
>

Why didn't Richard serve in the Armed Forces?

Mike Thompson

The article in either the News or the Post yesterday said that the
League rules mandate a minimum size, but no maximum.  Apparently
Schiller tried to put in international sized ice in Atlanta, but
received pressure from the NHL to conform.  Unfortunately, I don't have
web access right now, so I can't doublecheck the article, but I'm not
sure that the article wasn't wholly supposition on the writer's part.  I
don't remember an actual quote from Schiller in relation to New Jersey.

If he is thinking that way, then, as far as this Devils STH is
concerned, it is one more reason to mourn on July 12.

-melissa

-----Original Message-----
From: RFK [mailto:rfk@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 5:41 AM
To: hockhist@egroups.com
Subject: [hockhist] Rink Size


In today's Toronto Star Damien Cox in his column mentions that the new
arena being planned by the Devils may have an international size ice
surface. I know that in the past NHL teams like Boston and Buffalo had
ice surfaces that were smaller than regulation. Could a team under the
present rules simply put in a larger ice surface than the rules call
for?

Craig Wallace

I had heard he had flat feet.


At 09:37 AM 6/1/00 -0400, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>>
>> I was interested in Morey's view that Richard's record of 50 goals in 50
>> games was undeserving of the Hart because it was accomplished against
>> inferior opposition with many of the league's top players serving in WW2.
>>
>
>Why didn't Richard serve in the Armed Forces?
>
>Mike Thompson
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers.
>http://click.egroups.com/1/4633/4/_/479946/_/959866835/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>This has been a Hockey History List mailing
>The Official mailing list of the Hockey Research Association (HRA)
><A HREF=http://www.hockeyresearch.com/>Our Homepage</A>
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message
>to hockhist-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>
>

--- Melissa <MELISSA@...> wrote:
> The article in either the News or the Post yesterday
> said that the
> League rules mandate a minimum size, but no maximum.

Actually, rule 2 of the NHL rulebook
http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule02.html
is pretty specific about rink sizes:

"Rule 2
Dimensions of Rink
(a) The official size of the rink shall be two hundred
feet (200') long and eighty-five feet (85') wide. The
corners shall be rounded in the arc of a circle with a
radius of twenty-eight feet (28').
[snip]
Any variations from any of the foregoing dimensions
shall require official authorization by the League."

Either I'm missing something, or the writer of the
original article did some sloppy research.

=====
Pattie Anderson
pattiea@...
http://www.geocities.com/pattie_a/
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=693666

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

> From: Ralph Slate [mailto:slater@...]

> I'm stunned. How can they base a book on the golden era but get
> the dates so completely wrong? If you didn't catch the mistake, the
> Brooklyn Americans folded in 1942, not 1947, and the golden era
> (or Original Six era) was 25 years, not 20.

Haven't we been over this before?  I thought the league shelved the
team for the war (not that they didn't have other problems), and didn't
officially terminate the franchise until later.

> Yeesh. At least the photos are really good. Funny how the rinks
> looked so dark -- maybe because the high-powered lights weren't
> around yet.

I think a MAJOR reason why arenas look so dark in old pics is because
of the flash used by the photographers.  The flash only lights up the
foreground, and leaves everything behind them black.  Once technology
caught up with faster (and less expensive) films, the flash was put
away.

Marc

When you look at Richard's 50 in 50, then Bossy's, it must just drive you
Gretzky nay-sayers absolutely nuts that he did it in 39 games.

I think those who'd question retiring '99' league wide must be concentrated
in this group.  I doubt that the conditions will be such that someone like
Gretzky could come in the league again and do the things he did for as long
as he did (talent wise and as an ambassador of the game).  I certainly
don't consider it a bad precident because I don't think it is likely to
happen again any time soon.  In another 20 years, the Gretzky legend will
be even greater than the fact just as it is for Richard, Howe, Hull, Orr
etc.  It will be a tough act to ever top.


Darren



At 09:18 AM 6/1/00 -0400, Don Fraser wrote:
>
>I was interested in Morey's view that Richard's record of 50 goals in 50
>games was undeserving of the Hart because it was accomplished against
>inferior opposition with many of the league's top players serving in WW2.
>Was it really seen as a "tainted" (my word, not Morey's) or a somehow less
>impressive record at the time?  I've always thought it stood as one of very
>few truly remarkable single season accomplishments in hockey, that
>substantially raised the bar of individual performances.  When Mike Bossy
>finally tied the record one could argue that the overall talent level in
>the NHL was even more inferior or "watered down" because of expansion
>(IIRC, the NHL was up to 21 teams by then).  I saw Bossy being interviewed
>this week and he said that scoring 50 in 50 was the most difficult and
>challenging thing he ever accomplished in hockey.
>
>
>
>
>Donald M. Fraser, M.Sc.
>Senior Ecologist & Principal
>Gartner Lee LImited
>140 Renfrew Drive, Suite 102
>Markham, Ontario
>L3R 6B3
>Tel: (905) 477-8400 ext. 218
>Fax: (905) 477-1456
>email: dfraser@...
>website: http://www.gartnerlee.com
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to table saws.
>http://click.egroups.com/1/4634/4/_/479946/_/959866633/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>This has been a Hockey History List mailing
>The Official mailing list of the Hockey Research Association (HRA)
><A HREF=http://www.hockeyresearch.com/>Our Homepage</A>
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message
>to hockhist-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>
>

>Haven't we been over this before?  I thought the league shelved the
>team for the war (not that they didn't have other problems), and didn't
>officially terminate the franchise until later.

I can see this point of view -- especially since the war years probably aren't
considered part of the "Golden Era" because of the sub-par players. Either way
though, it's confusing -- saying that the Americans' demise came in 1947 makes
it sound like they were playing up to that date, not when they actually ceased.

It would be like saying that Bobby Orr retired in 1982 (or whatever was
mentioned earlier) because that's when his contract expired.

Ralph

>The Rocket was runner-up to teammate Elmer Lach.
>I wonder if anyone has any info regarding this.

Lach won the 1944-45 scoring title with 80 points, which was then the
second-highest total in NHL history (Boston's Herb Cain had scored 82 in
1943-44). And Lach's 54 assists were an NHL record.

It would be interesting to know how the Hart Trophy voting was split. I
imagine it must have been close.

A lot is made about Richard's 50-in-50 being "tainted" because of the
watered-down wartime competition he faced. But goals were harder to come by
in 1944-45 than the year before -- league-wide scoring had dropped from
1225 goals to 1103.

(In 1943-44, the Rangers had a soup can by the name of Tubby McAuley in net
and he racked up a 6.20 GAA.

Even though Richard faced better goalies in 1944-45 than the year before
(the GAA of the other five teams improved from 4.46 to 3.93), Richard's
output rose from 32 to 50. And where goal scoring had been fairly balanced
in 1943-44 (there were six 30-goal men among the NHL's top 10 scorers),
Richard dominated in 44-45. There's a sharp drop from his 50 goals to Toe
Blake and Ted Kennedy, who had 29. There were no other 30-goal scorers in
the top 10 in 44-45.

So he was clearly just on a different planet than the rest of the league in
1944-45.

By 1946-47, stars like the Bentleys, the Kraut Line, and Billy Taylor had
returned from the war. Richard again led the NHL in goals (45) and was
second to Max Bentley in scoring (72 points to 71).

His 45 goals accounted for a greater share of his team's offense (23.8
percent) than the 50 had (21.4 percent).

> >Why didn't Richard serve in the Armed Forces?

Darren Becker wrote

> I had heard he had flat feet.

On behalf of the french people and people of french
heritage on the list - what the hell is that is supposed to mean?

And Richard had bad injuries prior to joining the Canadiens -
hence during WWII. He had a badly broken ankle and
another serious injury that almost prevented him from
ever being invited to training camp. I don't know whether
or not if the military did call his name, but he would have
almost certainly would have failed the physicals.

I am Joe! And I AM CANADIAN!!
Hockey Over Time
http://www.lcshockey.com/history

> > >Why didn't Richard serve in the Armed Forces?
>
> Darren Becker wrote
>
> > I had heard he had flat feet.
>
> On behalf of the french people and people of french
> heritage on the list - what the hell is that is supposed to mean?

Flat feet is a disqualifier for military service. I'm not sure why you were
bringing his ethnicity into this.

Frank




>
>
> And Richard had bad injuries prior to joining the Canadiens -
> hence during WWII. He had a badly broken ankle and
> another serious injury that almost prevented him from
> ever being invited to training camp. I don't know whether
> or not if the military did call his name, but he would have
> almost certainly would have failed the physicals.
>
> I am Joe! And I AM CANADIAN!!
> Hockey Over Time
> http://www.lcshockey.com/history
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/4633/4/_/479946/_/959878705/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This has been a Hockey History List mailing
> The Official mailing list of the Hockey Research Association (HRA)
> <A HREF=http://www.hockeyresearch.com/>Our Homepage</A>
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message
> to hockhist-unsubscribe@onelist.com

> Flat feet is a disqualifier for military service. I'm not sure why you
were
> bringing his ethnicity into this.

Sorry, I thought it was some reference to "frogs." Why would flat
feet disqualify you from the army?

I am Joe! And I AM CANADIAN!!
Hockey Over Time
http://www.lcshockey.com/history

I would say that the passing of Howe, Gretzky, or Hull would never
generate the same reaction as the Rocket. Nor would the Rocket have touched
such a nerve if the end of his career had not coincided with the beginning
of Quebec's Quiet Revolution. Richard may have been the last of the
"habitants," while Beliveau seems to be a prototype for the new Quebec,
where Quebecois have become leaders in politics and business.

      In the National Post this week, Red Fisher recalled being asked by the
playwright Rick Salutin about why the Canadiens meant what they did to
Quebec. His response was that the Quebecois couldn't possibly win in any
other area of Canadian life -- economically, politically, linguistically.
So they found something they could win at, and that was hockey.

      Richard was asked if he thought Campbell punished him so severely back
in 1955 simply because he was French-Canadian, and he said he didn't think
it had anything to do with it. But for a people that was starting to
develop a consciousness of being persecuted or oppressed, the strong
perception was that the Anglo Campbell was trying to keep the francophone
down. Here was the last venue in which French Canada could hold its own
against the anglophones, and still they had to toe the line whenever
English Canada said so!

      Rocket didn't choose to be a symbol of this struggle. Unlike, say,
Muhammad Ali, he didn't have a political bone in his body.


      If anyone would generate the kind of outpouring the Rocket has, I
think it might be Orr, because he was the Baby Boom's superstar and because
people continue to be drawn to him. But who can really explain how we've
decided on Richard over any of the others?

We've seen the footage about the Richard Riot quite a lot the past few
days, and there's something I've been wondering about, and perhaps the
francophone members of the list can provide an answer.

A lot of the protesters were waving signs putting down Clarence Campbell,
and I'm having trouble understanding one of them. It just says "CAMPBELL,"
over a picture of a pear.

What does the pear mean? Is it an insult in French, along the lines of the
French word for pickle (which, if I remember Grade 8 French correctly, is
"cornichon" -- and I apologize in advance if that's completely incorrect
and completely something rude!)? Is it a play on words, or maybe a visual
joke?

Rest assured that the picture of a pig with "CAMPBELL" written above it was
not as hard to understand!

Beliveau is interesting. Every five years in Canada, the prime minister
nominates a new governor-general (the Queen's representative in Canada and
the technical, if not de facto, head of state). Beliveau's name has come up
as a serious candidate the last two times (in fact, I think Chretien even
approached Le Gros Bill about it a couple years ago). I can't recall anyone
objecting to the idea. Except, of course,  Beliveau himself.

So I'd say he's held in high esteem by Canadians of all description. But
it's true that he doesn't hold the place in our imagination that the Rocket
did. It boils down to personality -- Beliveau was as cool as Richard was
volatile. And he wasn't as flakey as Plante or as funny as Worsley or as
unpredictable as Geoffrion or as revolutionary as Harvey.

Could it be argued that Beliveau was -- at least on the ice -- hockey's
answer to Joe DiMaggio, about whom it was said that he never made a
technical error in a game. He also had DiMaggio's elegance. Where they'd
differ is that Beliveau seems to be incredibly comfortable in his own skin.

Beliveau was one of the best ever (can you name a better center during the
1960s? Mikita? Keon? Gilbert? I don't think they compare), but if you were
asked for an all-time top 10 list you'd overlook him. I think that's
because of the nature of the game. It's too fast, too adrenaline-powered,
too emotional. It's Rocket's speed inside the blueline, Orr's end-to-end
rushes, Hull's slapshot, that spring immediately to mind. Similarly, you
might not think of Dryden right away as one of the greatest goalies; you'll
unconsciously gravitate toward the more colorful, and unpredictable, Hasek
or Plante or Sawchuk.

Lloyd

>Of course, none of this applies to Beliveau, who like Richard was a
>French Canadian who played for the French Canadian team and no one else
>(in the NHL, at least...although even outside of the NHL, he only
>played for another French Canadian team).  But I don't think most
>people put Beliveau in the same category as the other three.  When you
>hear people get into discussions about the greatest hockey player ever,
>there's a small group of names you hear over and over -- Gretzky, Howe,
>Orr, Richard, etc.  Beliveau simply isn't mentioned that often.  No one
>disputes that he was a great player, but unlike the others, no one
>claims he was the best of all time, either.

Flat feet is definitely something that disqualifies one from military
service. I may be blind, but I read nothing in that post that reflected on
Richard's ethnicity. I have met Darren, and he is NOT prejudiced.

For the sake of the Americans on the list (and maybe even some Canadians) I
should mention that, during World War II, Canada's draft was somewhat
different from America's. Nobody could be drafted for overseas service (it
changed near the end of the war). Canada's huge military forces in Europe
were all-volunteer.

This was a British tradition. Britain itself adopted conscription only in
the spring of 1939. Australia and, I believe, New Zealand also did not send
draftees overseas. Britain had a historical fear of large standing armies
that could, theoretically, overthrow the government or sustain a
dictatorship. This fear was shared to a certain extent by the United States.

Many NHLers served bravely in World War II. Many NHLers did not enlist. The
same can be said of all professional athletes at the time.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Why do people look for ethnic slurs?

Bob McDonald

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

http://www.pilotonline.com/sports/sp0601ads.html

IN the continuing saga of hockey in Norfolk, the 2LS are now asking a judge
to grant an injunction forcing the city to restart lease negotiations.  The
city has asked the judge to dismiss the suit, and indications are that he
_might_ do so.  The most interesting part of this article was the
indication that previous to their going dark, the Red Wings inquired about
the availability of Norfolk for their NHL team.  Everybody looks stupid in
this situation -- I just can't imagine being a hockey fan in Norfolk right
now.

--
Hans Hornstein
http://www.byz.org/~lennier/
lennier@...
"Warning: DO NOT Confuse Soaps"

> Many NHLers served bravely in World War II. Many NHLers did not enlist.
The
> same can be said of all professional athletes at the time.
>

Were there any NHLers that came back from military service and "picked from
where they left off" ala Ted Williams?

Mike Thompson

What a very astute analysis of Belliveau. Thank you.

Bob McDonald

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

I can immediately think of three NHLers who came back from the war to resume
their careers:

Milt Schmidt, Woody Dumart, and Bobby Bauer.

I might also mention Phil Marchildon, the Canadian pitcher for the
Philadelphia Athletics.

Dave Clamen

The statistical history of the races for the Allan Cup;
League standings & playoffs;
It's at
http://www.geocities.com/fanofpucks

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Ralph Slate wrote:
>"With the demise of the Brooklyn Americans in 1947, the National
>Hockey League was reduced to franchises in Boston, Chicago,
>Detroit, NY, and Toronto"...

I've owned a copy of this one for a while and that was one of the first
things I noticed about the book. I've got "1942" and "25-year" scribbled in
the margin. By the way, looking at the flap copy, Montreal _is_ included in
that list as well.

>Yeesh. At least the photos are really good. Funny how the rinks
>looked so dark -- maybe because the high-powered lights weren't
>around yet.

The introduction to this book says Harold Barkley was the first to shoot
hockey games in color, which isn't as technically forgiving as
black-and-white. Hockey arenas didn't have the best lighting to begin with,
and even when the TV lights were switched on they probably weren't much
help.

Barkley figured out a way to synchronize a set of strobe lights to the
camera's shutter, which is why his (and others') pictures have that
frozen-in-time look about them.

The images in this book are terrific, but I rarely refer to it because the
text isn't all that informative. I also can't get past the amateurish
design of the book. The early Macintosh computers only came with about six
fonts, and this book uses 'em all! (Now that I've said that, I guess I can
forget about working for Warwick Publishing...)

The author of this book, Mike Leonetti, has also put out a series of books
called "The Game We Knew," published by Raincoast in Canada. There's one
title each about the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and they also feature Barkley's
photography. I have the Seventies book, which also has pictures by Dennis
Miles. You can really see a difference in the pictures taken later in the
decade: there's lots more light, but they're not as crisp, -- really
grainy, in fact -- and the color quality varies.

> Flat feet is definitely something that disqualifies one from military
> service. I may be blind, but I read nothing in that post that reflected on
> Richard's ethnicity. I have met Darren, and he is NOT prejudiced.

I apologize again although I have heard the flat foot reference
in a derogatory way more than once before. My father was called
a "frenchy flat footer" a lot by one guy back when I was a kid. He
didn't have flat feet, and when I asked him what that meant he
assumed it was something to do about "frogs." Hence why I took
offense to the original comment.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

I am Joe! And I AM CANADIAN!!
Hockey Over Time
http://www.lcshockey.com/history

--- Joe Pelletier <fuzzymonkey@...> wrote:
[snip]
> Sorry, I thought it was some reference to "frogs."
> Why would flat
> feet disqualify you from the army?

Having been assigned to training units in the US Army
Reserve for the last 13 years, I think I'm qualified
to answer this one.  :)

If you have flat feet, your feet swell in odd ways
when you march in combat boots.  I don't know why, but
it happens.  We once had a kid in basic training who
was awesome -- great attitude, smart, natural leader,
could run a mile in just over 4 minutes -- but he had
flat feet.  Somehow he snuck past the initial medical
exam, but one of the requirements for graduation from
basic training is completing a road march with a ruck
sack.  Poor kid wanted to finish so bad, but his feet
wouldn't let him.  We had to send him back home.  :(

Enough digression for one day!

Pattie

=====
Pattie Anderson
pattiea@...
http://www.geocities.com/pattie_a/
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=693666

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

Another neat book of hockey photos from the 1970s is "Shooting Stars," text
by Andrew Podnieks and photos by Lewis Portnoy.

Portnoy was the official photographer of the St. Louis Blues, and his
photos are really distinctive. Instead of putting the strobes along the top
of the Plexiglas the way they did at Maple Leaf Gardens or the Forum,
Portnoy set up his lights about 70 feet above the ice surface. It makes for
a really weird effect: the players seem to be glowing. He also used zoom
lenses more than most photographers, so you get really tight shots that
aren't limited just to the goalmouth area.

The Hall of Fame has a huge collection of Portnoy's photos -- 40,000 color
and 60,000 black-&-white -- that were donated by an insurance company.
They're really different.

Ouch. Now here's a controversial topic. The question of whether there
should be a draft was a very divisive one during both world wars. Both
times, the country was split along ethnic lines.

Canada imposed a draft in 1917, and French Canada was very bitter. World
War I was seen as a foreign war that Canada had no part in. There were even
riots in Quebec.

What deepened the divide was that English Canadians saw themselves as
British subjects first and Canadians a distant second. The Union Jack was
still on the flag. They were fiercely in favor of getting into the war.

Things hadn't changed much in World War 2, except that the Liberals -- out
of the two political parties, the one that had the most French-Canadian
support -- was in power, and they didn't want to alienate Quebec. There had
been considerable debate over whether to enter the war in the first place.

The government held a referendum in April 1942, and Quebeckers voted 71
percent against conscription, while the rest of Canada voted 70 percent in
favor. So the government had the green light to hold a draft, but Prime
Minister King still hesitated. "Conscription if necessary, but not
necessarily conscription."

By 1944 the Allies were so shorthanded that, very reluctantly, the
government brought in a draft. Quebec was still bitterly opposed to
conscription. I believe the mayor of Montreal, Camillien Houde, was jailed
for discouraging Quebecois from registering.

Lloyd

>For the sake of the Americans on the list (and maybe even some Canadians) I
>should mention that, during World War II, Canada's draft was somewhat
>different from America's. Nobody could be drafted for overseas service (it
>changed near the end of the war). Canada's huge military forces in Europe
>were all-volunteer.