/u/American_Graffiti et al. have provided some great details. As a product of the Canadian education system I think I can provide some perspective as to why so many Canadian have such skewed view of WWI.

WWI is not covered as an war on it's own, but studied in the context of what it meant for Canada. In school Canadian's only really learn about the parts of the war that involved Canada. As /u/so_ein_scheiss pointed out four battles in WWI: Vimy, the Somme, Ypres, and Passchendaele. Constitute the majority of the topic of WWI. Major events like the invasion of Belgium, the Battle of the Marne, the Battles of the Frontiers, etc., and the entirety of the Eastern Front are almost completely ignored. The result is those Canadian's you were talking to (like most Canadians) are completely ignorant of France's involvement in the war and the terrible costs France had to pay. It is perfectly understandable that you feel slighted by their comments. But please bear in mind that is it not intentional.

The reason for this lopsided perspective is that WWI was culturally a huge event for Canada. You could call it 'Canada's war of independence'. Before the war Canada like most British colonies were seen as just that: colonies. While yes, they had quite a bit of self governance and some independence. Canada was seen abroad, and felt a home, to be merely an appendage to the British Empire. In 1912 Canada's population of 7.2 million was not that different from Algeria's population of 5.5 million. Unevenly distributed across a land area almost as large as Europe.

Creating the CEF (Canadain Expeditionary Force) was a major national challenge. Previously Canada had participated as part of the British army. Raising, training, and equipping it's own army was something new. Joining the army was seen as an adventure, a way for many Canadian's to escape their isolated rural communities and see the world. While the previously mentioned battles are not particularly noteworthy in France's military history, they were totally unprecedented in Canadian military history. In particular signing the Treaty of Versailles as it's own nation was a major event. By the end of the war Canada was no longer just a British colony, but nation in it's own right. Consider for example if Algeria had done the same and what effect it would have had on that nation's history.

So for Canadian historians there are two stories here to tell. In the history of WWI, Canada plays a very small role. But in the history of Canada, WWI plays a very large role. Since Canadians study Canadian history in school, it is the later story that is taught. The former story is only taught if you actually study history.

I realize this sort of answer may not exactly conform to the rules of the subreddit being rather anecdotal but as I product of the Canadian education system I can perhaps offer a little insight. I want to emphasize that this is really just my experience with it remembering one course that I took just shy of a decade ago. It's not my personal view or understanding of the subject, but rather how I recall it being taught.

As /u/American_Graffiti said in his answer, a lot of it has to do with the development of Canadian pride, stemming specifically from Vimy Ridge. When I was completing high school in Ontario, the only mandatory Canadian history course focused on four battles in WWI: Vimy, the Somme, Ypres, and Passchendaele. During these lessons there was a lot of talk of how Canada was a nation born out of these battles and it was there that we really ceased to be simply a British dominion and became a nation in our own right. It's emphasized how well Canadian units fought and performed, especially when under the command of our own staff and not British generals, and Vimy Ridge is used as an example of this because it was almost exclusively a Canadian operation. To address what you've said about "romanticizing" it, that has something to do with the idea that we answered this call of duty for King and country to go fight in foreign lands.

I don't think the question can be answered really without looking at the way Canadian history is taught a little more broadly than just WWI and indeed without looking a little bit about the idea of Canadian identity in English-speaking Canada. Compared to the histories of European nations or the United States, Canada is seemingly lacking in large battles which could be used to assert its worth and validity as a nation. European states have had a lot of wars to say the least and the States are also a nation born in the fires of war, so something like Vimy gives us the whole mythos of a defining battle, if that makes any sense. Additionally, when WWI and WWII are taught there seems to be a large focus on their role in Canada's autonomy, with things be emphasized like how we waited a couple weeks after the UK to declare war in WWII as opposed to going right away like in 1914. "Autonomy" was definitely the buzzword in these lessons. Historically we're taught we struggled to define ourselves from the British, much as now many would say we struggle to define ourselves from the Americans. Again, the idea of a nation being born on the battle field is an attractive rhetoric.

To touch on what you said with how the French role is somewhat downplayed, I'll again cite that the only mandatory history course only focuses on the four battles where Canada was involved and that the war in a greater context is unfortunately not very well covered in that course. Part of it also has to do with the portrayal of France in both world wars as a conquered state which we helped liberate twice from the Germans. So sort of like you guys clearly couldn't handle them on your own so the Anglosphere came to your rescue, which is definitely a more than flawed view.

Although I studied a lot more history, both Canadian and other, than just that one mandatory course, Canadian history is not my major area of expertise, but hopefully I've explained maybe a little of why some Canadians might see it this way. I'm happy to elaborate or answer questions if you have them as long as my post doesn't disappear for being anecdotal.

I'm would like to answer this question, but it seems to be aimed mostly at Canada. (Or Canadia as my Prime Minister would have you believe ;)). I'm Australian myself so I'd like to answer some of this at least, being as one of those old British colonies.

Firstly; why? Here in Australia we have the annual ANZAC Day which is held on the day of the landing at Gallipoli. I would imagine this occupies the same space as Vimy Ridge in Canada. It is hard to understand - disabusing any notions of romanticization which you may have picked up in your time in Canada, you have to understand that these battles and this war in particular hold a massive, massive place in both nation's histories. France had and has been defined by centuries of history. It can look back proudly and wind its way through a vibrantly rich heritage which gives pride to its people, definition to its culture and depth to its society. We did not have that, before 1914. We were both young colonies born from Mother England. We had been proudly British, and were still regarding ourselves as British, in 1914. The Royal Navy roamed the shores of Vancouver or Sydney, while our foreign affairs were conducted from London itself. Our governments were shells. So, when we entered this foreign, far-away war at the call of the Mother Country, our nation was scared, worried but proud. And it was, as was the rest of Europe, thrown into the fiery forge of war. The first excessively violent experiences of this warfare were found at Gallipoli and Vimy Ridge. These boys of Australia and Canada unified under their own flag, and fought instead under the name of not just the King but of Canada and Australia. It was a nationally unifying event which gave us definition as a nation. It was, in a proud sort of way, our birthing into the arena of nations.

Secondly; but why is it romanticized? I can not speak for Canada. But, in Australia, it is not. We mourn on the 25th April every year. Millions of Australians weep for the young men who never returned from foreign shores. We do not view this as they did. We are not naive, as much as it may appear with these battles occupying such a treasured place in hearts and history books. But we 'celebrate' them the same way one would celebrate one at a funeral. We actually memorize these battles for the same reasons you put monuments in every village in France. Because you know what? We have those too. I can walk down to my local park at Coolangatta in Queensland, Australia, and there's a monuement there with over forty names of local boys who died in France. There's over fifty of them in my city of 500 000 alone. There's one in every outback town in Australia. We do view them as warriors defending some noble spirit, or as warriors of nationalistic fervour. We view them as tragic losses cut down as a nation's prime.

And finally; how does this compare to France itself. These nations (or at least Australia, as said I can hardly speak for Canada) do not scoff at the French. I would venture to say that the Canadians, perhaps due to their French heritage, can in some circles pose arguments doubting the French poilu, very much the way over here some argue the British generals failed the Australian digger over the four years. These are historical arguments which should not be associated with the common feeling of a country. In Australia, we have no doubt as to the ability and loss of the French nation from 1914 to 1918. It does in fact stun and amaze many. I can not answer your other claims here, for they do not apply here in Australia (as does a lot of your arguments to be honest). We do not, unfortunately, much focus on the other nations in our annual look at this war, even those at Gallipoli. But this is never a reflection on those nations but rather the devotion of that time to our own mourning, just as you have yours. As I said, though, those sound specific to Canada so I'll let someone else answer that one.

My little post script is just a remark you made, that it wasn't even on their territory (or Australian territory), and for us, that makes the loss all the more poignant.

Hopefully my reply was mostly missing of patriotic bias! It completely and utterly defined Australia. As I said, to us, Gallipoli (and for the Canadians Vimy Ridge) was a battle of national birthing. Gallipoli is remembered as an warning of the cruelty of war and the insane losses of that one, but also as a moment when we shed the Union Jack and lost a generation fallen under the Southern Cross. Interestingly enough, the inane losses of that war also provide a opposite to the way the second is viewed as well. I hope I helped. :)

That feeling isn't shared in Newfoundland. The younger generations might get taught more about Vimy ridge than I did but when I was young and in school the focus was more so on Beaumont-Hamel. Here Beaumont-Hamel was viewed as our "we're now a real country" moment in 1916 but as time passed, and our country failed, it was hard to continue to have that view. Now most historians and I would say people in Newfoundland look at it as the opposite, the moment the country was doomed.

That being said, we are proud of the Newfoundlanders that fought and their accomplishments. There are plaques on Water St for Tommy Rickets the member of the Newfoundland Regiment who received the Victoria Cross. However, generally there is no rah-rah about our role in the Great War like the rest of Canada has. We remember the young men who left their bays and coves to fight Europe's war, and how many of them didn't get to come back.

WW1 is seen by many historians as the moment when Canada 'came into its own' and was taken seriously on an international level. We weren't regarded as an extension of Britain, but as our own force that deserved respect for its contributions. No one expected the quality of troops and leadership that came to light, hence the reputation for 'shock troops' that could get the job done where others had failed.

I'm a middle school history teacher, and I don't think that it's necessarily being glorified or romanticized (at least, not the way I'm teaching it). Is the Canadian contribution being 'blown out of proportion'? Possibly. It's a way to have our students cultivate a sense of pride in the sacrifices of past Canadians, that all to often are forgotten aside from November 11. That's not done to diminish the losses of other nations, especially those in Europe that experienced the damages and losses first-hand and had to rebuild. It's done because the setup of the Canadian history/social studies curriculum doesn't allow us the time to go in depth into the multitude of perspectives that are present in such a massive worldwide conflict. And we are forced to put the majority of focus on Canadian contributions and only touch on the losses and contributions of other nations.

Is there not some weight to the fact Canada, and England, went into a war to defend France. Their entry was by choice, Frances was not optional

Australian, Canadian and New Zealand and other dominion contribution was largely subsumed by the "British" particularly in British and I suspect French histories. The cultural bias of only having heard a French or British version of WW1 would conflict with hearing a Dominion history. Dominion casualties were massive when population of tiny countries and the actual percentage of the fighting men sent is considered. While no one suffered as much as the French-the blood shed on behalf of the French is remembered with sorrow and also some pride -in the bravery of the individual's involved. Pride in this sacrifice is not glorification of war. The Canadians and Australians especially when under their own commanders recaptured many parts of France - especially after the battle of Amiens and in the 100 days to the end of the war. Also look at concepts like peaceful penetration.

It would be interesting but impossible question to answer as to how much dominion troops participation shortened the war, bolstered the British and French effort and saved many more French civilians from death.

Most people study their own version of history from their own countries perspective and ignore others sacrifices. Sadly the majority of Australians or canadian's have not heard any of the names of the French villages their soldiers died recapturing.