no quarrel about the importance of the Mid-West to the US war effort, but we don’t have to go south of the border to explain the concentration of economic power in ON and QC.

My disagreement with C.B. is whether the disparity between the economic center and the ROC was due to a deliberate fostering of regional disparity, or an unintended consequence of the prosecution of a higher aim, the war program. Ditto for the fortunes of the Liberal Party.

The centralization of the economy during WWII was mostly due to transportation availability via the Great Lakes, and the abundance of Taconite Iron Ore in in the Missabi Range of Northern Minnesota.

Remember the American Midwest has long been the traditional Rust Belt, and with that came a natural location of heavy industry and manufacturing.

The rail and seas transport facilities were of very major concern during wartime. Inland, and safe, but readily accessible to the Atlantic. Not to mention the local availability of massive coal deposits needed for steel making and power generation.

I am not qualified to argue the specifics of the economics involved, but do suggest that the centralization of economic power and entrenchment of the Liberal Party were not planned government actions.

Since manpower and manufacturing infrastructure were concentrated in the former Upper and Lower Canadas due to the historical development of the country, it only made sense to pursue war production there. I am not sure of the importance of regional development as a factor in wartime planning. Trickle-down or not, the government’s prosecution of WWII sure ended the Depression, didn’t it. Which also could account for the predominance of the Liberal Party after the war.

I also would not go so far as to suggest that a CPC aim is to divide the country. That could be an unintended consequence of our political realities and the distribution of seats, without being a deliberate aim or strategy.