Days of Victory: Canadians Remembered 1939-1945

Dean F. Oliver is the assistant director of the Centre for International
and Security Studies at York University in Toronto.

The 50th anniversary of World War II inspired a deluge of books,
articles, and reminiscences about all aspects of the conflict in all
participant nations. Canadian oral history has risen with this tide, and
the years 1989 to 1995 have witnessed a small flood of personal
accounts, collected narratives, and edited works of correspondence,
papers, and documents. In this burgeoning literature, Days of Victory
will enjoy a well-deserved niche. Though it shares some of the
weaknesses of the genre, it is also easily the best general oral history
of Canada’s war yet to appear.

The title itself is mildly inappropriate. Hong Kong and Dieppe, which
the authors cover, were hardly victorious days. The rest of the book,
however, concentrates on those years after the “turn of the tide,”
or post–1942, when Allied fortunes did improve. It engages some of
what have now become staple topics in Canadian military historiography
(e.g., the internment of enemy aliens) and several far more original
themes, including contemporary Canada’s perception of women in
uniform, prisoners of war, VE and VJ Days, and the social implications
of a nation at war.

It is particularly strong in its coverage of war correspondents and the
military press, no doubt a reflection of the authors’ professional
ties to print media and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There is
a full chapter, for example, on the firing of Major J. Douglas
MacFarlane, editor of The Maple Leaf, by General G.G. Simonds over
MacFarlane’s criticisms of Army repatriation policy in September 1945.
This incident, little known to Canadians today, was a public relations
crisis of the first order in 1945. The account here is accurate, concise
and, where appropriate, judgmental. It is also the most detailed account
yet to be published.

Days of Victory is tightly organized and well-written. It is in some
places considerably original, in all others thoroughly competent—and,
for a work of history by two nonhistorians, it is remarkably error-free.
It is recommended highly for the general audience, but specialists can
read it with profit as well.