In Memoriam – Ron B

[jbg]

In Memoriam – Ron B

Ron B. (full name excluded for privacy), a resident of Milton, Ontario, died this past July 7, 2008, after a lengthy battle with cancer. Like everything in his life, Ron B. fought and fought valiantly. He fought for Canada, for the rights of people to speak English in Canada and not be discriminated against by virtue of belonging to a successful people and culture, for the rights of military pensioners and ultimately, for life.

I “met” Ron B. through reading one of his letters to the editor in, if I recall correctly, the National Post, and called his phone number, which was listed on the letter. That call started a six-year relationship that ended when he became too ill to respond to e-mails or phone calls. Noteworthy is tha tin his last two calls, in addition to lengthy discussions about Canada, our families, and cats, he excoriated me on the fact that I'm two years overdue on a colonoscopy (my own father died of colon cancer in 1973).

Ron B. was a dedicated and valiant Captain in the Royal Canadian Navy, and eventually the merged Canadian Forces. Canada has a long and proud military history of which he was proudly part of. After Trudeau merged the Royal Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force into the generic “Canadian Forces” and blocked the promotion path of English-speakers (in order to allow Francophone advancement) Ron B. eventually retired.

His struggle on language issues interested me the most. While Canada was formed by both English and French colonists, and added to by other immigrants, it is obvious that the template is English. Membership in the pantheon of English-speaking countries has, in large part, ensured Canada’s standard of living and esteemed place in the world. Ron B.’s heritage is Canada, the Canada of Vimy Ridge and Juno Beach.

His struggle on language issues interested me the most. While Canada obviously was formed by both English and French colonists, and added to by other immigrants, it is obvious that the template is English. Membership in the pantheon of English-speaking countries has, in large part, ensured Canada’s standard of living and esteemed place in the world. Ron B's fight was to get Canadians to take pride in rather than abandon a glorious history.

Ron B.’s heritage is Canada, the Canada of Vimy Ridge and Juno Beach. He fought many good fights, and left the world a better place for his being here.

Edited July 11, 2008 by jbg

[jbg]

B.U.M.P.

[Visionseeker]

Sure, I'll take the bait.

Ron B. deserves our thanks for his service to his country, and his survivors have my sympathies. I know the man not beyond the caricature you have offered, and I am all but certain that he exhibited and possessed qualities and virtues worthy of remembrance. Yet you choose to inform us of his passing by stressing your shared antipathy. Why is that? Is this truly what Ron B. is to be remembered for?

If Ron B. actually existed and held the views you profess, he dishonoured the very uniform he wore; by holding to a set of beliefs that denigrated one in five of his fellow service men and women, Ron B. raised his personal preferences above the need of the corps and the Crown.

There are few unpatriotic acts more deserving of contempt than insulting the men and women who serve this country. The manifest belief that those who speak French should simply start speaking “White” is such an insult. That you should choose to levy it through a pseudo-obituary for a Canadian serviceman makes it all the more contemptible.

[jbg]

Sure, I'll take the bait.

I will not respond to your post with the same degree of spite and venom to which you have addressed mine.

Ron B. deserves our thanks for his service to his country, and his survivors have my sympathies. I know the man not beyond the caricature you have offered, and I am all but certain that he exhibited and possessed qualities and virtues worthy of remembrance. Yet you choose to inform us of his passing by stressing your shared antipathy. Why is that? Is this truly what Ron B. is to be remembered for?

I hardly believe that supporting the continued viability of a people and culture that have given the world more countries with greater freedom than any other in history, i.e. the Anglosphere, is supporting a common antipathy. When France almost lost its freedom during WW I and did lose its freedom during WW II which Canadian troops, primarily though not exclusively, soaked the trenches of Vimy Ridge or the beaches of Normandy, specifically Juno Beach? Were those valiant souls conscription fighters? Whenever disaster or disorder strikes in the world, it is the US, Canada (primarily English-speaking troops), Aussies and Kiwis that are there.

If Ron B. actually existed and held the views you profess, he dishonoured the very uniform he wore; by holding to a set of beliefs that denigrated one in five of his fellow service men and women, Ron B. raised his personal preferences above the need of the corps and the Crown.

I have spoken to Ron B. about a dozen times, maybe more, when he was alive. He existed.

There are few unpatriotic acts more deserving of contempt than insulting the men and women who serve this country. The manifest belief that those who speak French should simply start speaking “White” is such an insult. That you should choose to levy it through a pseudo-obituary for a Canadian serviceman makes it all the more contemptible.

That is a grave charge.

My ancestors fled various European countries during the period 1892-1910. My maternal grandparents' side fled the Czar's army, after the army did nothing to stop a vicious series of pogroms (basically organized, government-sanctioned riots) against the Jews. My paternal side left behind a mansion in Hungary for penury in New York. In both cases, they learned English when they arrived. They did not seek nor demand services in Yiddish. The French Canadians of Lower Canada chose to remain in a land where they were the minority. I have no problem allowing people to speak whatever language they want. Why should the rest of the country be forced to be "officially bi-lingual" when English is persecuted in Quebec?

[CANADIEN]

I will not respond to your post with the same degree of spite and venom to which you have addressed mine.

I hardly believe that supporting the continued viability of a people and culture that have given the world more countries with greater freedom than any other in history, i.e. the Anglosphere, is supporting a common antipathy. When France almost lost its freedom during WW I and did lose its freedom during WW II which Canadian troops, primarily though not exclusively, soaked the trenches of Vimy Ridge or the beaches of Normandy, specifically Juno Beach? Were those valiant souls conscription fighters? Whenever disaster or disorder strikes in the world, it is the US, Canada (primarily English-speaking troops), Aussies and Kiwis that are there.

I have spoken to Ron B. about a dozen times, maybe more, when he was alive. He existed.

That is a grave charge.

My ancestors fled various European countries during the period 1892-1910. My maternal grandparents' side fled the Czar's army, after the army did nothing to stop a vicious series of pogroms (basically organized, government-sanctioned riots) against the Jews. My paternal side left behind a mansion in Hungary for penury in New York. In both cases, they learned English when they arrived. They did not seek nor demand services in Yiddish. The French Canadians of Lower Canada chose to remain in a land where they were the minority. I have no problem allowing people to speak whatever language they want. Why should the rest of the country be forced to be "officially bi-lingual" when English is persecuted in Quebec?

Those who fought for our country and for the world deserves our respect for that. That respect does not extent to actions and opinions that treat other Canadians as if they were second class citizens.

And yes, slamming the Armed Forces because it has stopped treating some Canadians as second class citizens is dishounouring the uniform and insulting the memory of those who died for democracy and freedom.

PS: What immigrants to the United States do and learn when they arrive there is irrelevant in a debate about the rights of the citizens of Canada.

Edited July 19, 2008 by CANADIEN

[jbg]

That respect does not extent to actions and opinions that treat other Canadians as if they were second class citizens.

And yes, slamming the Armed Forces because it has stopped treating some Canadians as second class citizens is dishounouring the uniform and insulting the memory of those who died for democracy and freedom.

How is promoting people on the basis of merit, rather than ability to speak a minority language treating people as "second class citizens"? Are you creating primarily a linguistics lab or a fighting unit?

PS: What immigrants to the United States do and learn when they arrive there is irrelevant in a debate about the rights of the citizens of Canada.

Using a comparable though not identical country as a basis for comparison is not "irrelevant". Both are free countries that, during different times, have either encouraged or discouraged immigration.

[Visionseeker]

I will not respond to your post with the same degree of spite and venom to which you have addressed mine.

The premise to your post was bleeding spite, so you can forget trying to claim the high road.

I hardly believe that supporting the continued viability of a people and culture that have given the world more countries with greater freedom than any other in history, i.e. the Anglosphere, is supporting a common antipathy. When France almost lost its freedom during WW I and did lose its freedom during WW II which Canadian troops, primarily though not exclusively, soaked the trenches of Vimy Ridge or the beaches of Normandy, specifically Juno Beach? Were those valiant souls conscription fighters? Whenever disaster or disorder strikes in the world, it is the US, Canada (primarily English-speaking troops), Aussies and Kiwis that are there.

This muddled mix of logic serves only to reinforce the perception of your bigotry. You could’ve made it more succinct and explicit by simply calling the French a bunch of draft-dogging surrender monkeys be they on the right or left side of the Atlantic.

Many French Canadians served with distinction in both of the contests you cite. The 22nd and 60th battalions earned many honours in WWI at Mount Sorrel, Vimy… That these French battalions even existed is remarkable considering that the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sam Hughes) was a devoted senior member of the Orangemen. Having a minister of minister of war who was openly anti-Catholic served only to further alienate French-Canadians who tended to see WWI much like American isolationist did: a matter for Europe to resolve.

As for WWII, again, French Canadians contributed substantially. Militarily, the clearing of the Scheldt stands as one of the most under-appreciated military victories of any army. Slogging through near-freezing water often waist or neck high, French Canadian troops faced off against some of the best trained and equipped SS divisions in the German army. The Germans had blown dikes to slow their opponents down and created battlefield conditions that made it “like WWI without the safety of a trench”.

Every downed allied airman who evaded capture and returned to fly another sortie over Western Europe has a French Canadian to thank. For they dropped behind enemy lines and established the links, networks and communications with the French underground that ultimately made the coordination of the airman’s escape possible. The morbity rate of these intelligence operatives was terrible: 90% were killed (many experiencing extensive tortured, followed by execution) inside of 3 months in the field.

I’ll close-off this part of my reply by disabusing you of the notion that your “Anglosphere” won WWII. The west certainly made valuable efforts in the campaign, but the USSR actually won the war. The Germen General Staff had concluded as early as the winter of 1942-43 that the war was lost because the Red Army had attained materiel parity with the Germans. This meant that the contest had come down to numbers (in men) and the Soviets had an unquestioned advantage there.

My ancestors fled various European countries during the period 1892-1910. My maternal grandparents' side fled the Czar's army, after the army did nothing to stop a vicious series of pogroms (basically organized, government-sanctioned riots) against the Jews. My paternal side left behind a mansion in Hungary for penury in New York. In both cases, they learned English when they arrived. They did not seek nor demand services in Yiddish. The French Canadians of Lower Canada chose to remain in a land where they were the minority. I have no problem allowing people to speak whatever language they want. Why should the rest of the country be forced to be "officially bi-lingual" when English is persecuted in Quebec?

Do you not see the irony here? I mean you write of your ancestors’ flight from Russian pogroms and proudly extort their surrender of their language as some kind of virtue. Hell, why couldn’t they just stop being Jewish and free themselves from being targeted by pogroms? I mean after all, they were willing to shed the linguistic arm of their culture in coming to America, why didn’t they save themselves the trip by dropping both the religious and linguistic arms back in Russia?

No one surrenders their linguistic identity voluntarily. It takes coercion (be it aggressive or passive) for them to do so. Your ancestors dropped promulgation of Yiddish for their decedents because of passive coercion (i.e. it’s just isn’t what the cool people do here). Learning English was a functional necessity, dropping Yiddish was a cultural surrender.

In Canada, both English and French stand as legitimate, functional languages. As the federal government answers to both linguistic communities, it stands to reason that it must do so in their language of choice. This necessarily means that the government is obliged to infuse all governing institutions with the linguistic resources needed fulfil this responsibility. Not just for francophones in Quebec, but also substantial French speaking communities in New Brunswick, north eastern and southern Ontario, Cape Breton island, St. Boniface Manitoba, North central Saskatchewan, and other communities clustered in and around most major cities.

You ask “why should the rest of the country be forced to be "officially bi-lingual" when English is persecuted in Quebec?” Put another way, this question reads if Quebec persecutes linguistic minorities, the federal government should too. Even my 5 year old can recognize the empty-headedness of this argument.

[Visionseeker]

How is promoting people on the basis of merit, rather than ability to speak a minority language treating people as "second class citizens"? Are you creating primarily a linguistics lab or a fighting unit?

Bilingualism is a merit criterion, just as knowledge of logistics, tactics, or other specialized skills that could come into play. Members of a fighting unit need to be able to communicate with each other. If you want French speakers in the ranks, their superiors have to be able to speak with them. It goes both ways, French speakers must learn English if they hope to advance.

[CANADIEN]

The premise to your post was bleeding spite, so you can forget trying to claim the high road.

This muddled mix of logic serves only to reinforce the perception of your bigotry. You could’ve made it more succinct and explicit by simply calling the French a bunch of draft-dogging surrender monkeys be they on the right or left side of the Atlantic.

Many French Canadians served with distinction in both of the contests you cite. The 22nd and 60th battalions earned many honours in WWI at Mount Sorrel, Vimy… That these French battalions even existed is remarkable considering that the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sam Hughes) was a devoted senior member of the Orangemen. Having a minister of minister of war who was openly anti-Catholic served only to further alienate French-Canadians who tended to see WWI much like American isolationist did: a matter for Europe to resolve.

As for WWII, again, French Canadians contributed substantially. Militarily, the clearing of the Scheldt stands as one of the most under-appreciated military victories of any army. Slogging through near-freezing water often waist or neck high, French Canadian troops faced off against some of the best trained and equipped SS divisions in the German army. The Germans had blown dikes to slow their opponents down and created battlefield conditions that made it “like WWI without the safety of a trench”.

Every downed allied airman who evaded capture and returned to fly another sortie over Western Europe has a French Canadian to thank. For they dropped behind enemy lines and established the links, networks and communications with the French underground that ultimately made the coordination of the airman’s escape possible. The morbity rate of these intelligence operatives was terrible: 90% were killed (many experiencing extensive tortured, followed by execution) inside of 3 months in the field.

I’ll close-off this part of my reply by disabusing you of the notion that your “Anglosphere” won WWII. The west certainly made valuable efforts in the campaign, but the USSR actually won the war. The Germen General Staff had concluded as early as the winter of 1942-43 that the war was lost because the Red Army had attained materiel parity with the Germans. This meant that the contest had come down to numbers (in men) and the Soviets had an unquestioned advantage there.

Do you not see the irony here? I mean you write of your ancestors’ flight from Russian pogroms and proudly extort their surrender of their language as some kind of virtue. Hell, why couldn’t they just stop being Jewish and free themselves from being targeted by pogroms? I mean after all, they were willing to shed the linguistic arm of their culture in coming to America, why didn’t they save themselves the trip by dropping both the religious and linguistic arms back in Russia?

No one surrenders their linguistic identity voluntarily. It takes coercion (be it aggressive or passive) for them to do so. Your ancestors dropped promulgation of Yiddish for their decedents because of passive coercion (i.e. it’s just isn’t what the cool people do here). Learning English was a functional necessity, dropping Yiddish was a cultural surrender.

In Canada, both English and French stand as legitimate, functional languages. As the federal government answers to both linguistic communities, it stands to reason that it must do so in their language of choice. This necessarily means that the government is obliged to infuse all governing institutions with the linguistic resources needed fulfil this responsibility. Not just for francophones in Quebec, but also substantial French speaking communities in New Brunswick, north eastern and southern Ontario, Cape Breton island, St. Boniface Manitoba, North central Saskatchewan, and other communities clustered in and around most major cities.

You ask “why should the rest of the country be forced to be "officially bi-lingual" when English is persecuted in Quebec?” Put another way, this question reads if Quebec persecutes linguistic minorities, the federal government should too. Even my 5 year old can recognize the empty-headedness of this argument.

Hear Hear

Except perhaps for the last paragraph. Looks to me that it's rather Quebec's persecution of linguistic minorities is our excusefor wanting the federal government and the other provincial governments to persecute their minorities. In other words, most of the people who ask jbg's question wanted persecution of French-speaking minorities before the current language legislation in Quebec and will still want it after it's gone....

Edited July 21, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Bilingualism is a merit criterion, just as knowledge of logistics, tactics, or other specialized skills that could come into play. Members of a fighting unit need to be able to communicate with each other. If you want French speakers in the ranks, their superiors have to be able to speak with them. It goes both ways, French speakers must learn English if they hope to advance.

Hear hear

[CANADIEN]

Using a comparable though not identical country as a basis for comparison is not "irrelevant". Both are free countries that, during different times, have either encouraged or discouraged immigration.

Canada is a country which, as a result of its history, has two official languages. The United States has a different history. The experience of immigrants from Russia to the United States has nothing to do with that of the descendants of people who came from France to the St. Lawrence Valley and Acadia in the 17th and 18th century and remained there. It is irrelevant in a discussion on the linguistic rights of Canadians.

Edited July 21, 2008 by CANADIEN

[jbg]

The premise to your post was bleeding spite, so you can forget trying to claim the high road.

This muddled mix of logic serves only to reinforce the perception of your bigotry. You could’ve made it more succinct and explicit by simply calling the French a bunch of draft-dogging surrender monkeys be they on the right or left side of the Atlantic.

I am not a bigot. I take each individual on their merits. It's this "groupthink" and "identity politics" that I don't like.

Many French Canadians served with distinction in both of the contests you cite. The 22nd and 60th battalions earned many honours in WWI at Mount Sorrel, Vimy… That these French battalions even existed is remarkable considering that the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sam Hughes) was a devoted senior member of the Orangemen. Having a minister of minister of war who was openly anti-Catholic served only to further alienate French-Canadians who tended to see WWI much like American isolationist did: a matter for Europe to resolve.

As for WWII, again, French Canadians contributed substantially. Militarily, the clearing of the Scheldt stands as one of the most under-appreciated military victories of any army. Slogging through near-freezing water often waist or neck high, French Canadian troops faced off against some of the best trained and equipped SS divisions in the German army. The Germans had blown dikes to slow their opponents down and created battlefield conditions that made it “like WWI without the safety of a trench”.

Every downed allied airman who evaded capture and returned to fly another sortie over Western Europe has a French Canadian to thank. For they dropped behind enemy lines and established the links, networks and communications with the French underground that ultimately made the coordination of the airman’s escape possible. The morbity rate of these intelligence operatives was terrible: 90% were killed (many experiencing extensive tortured, followed by execution) inside of 3 months in the field.

This part of your post is useful and educational. Thank you.

I’ll close-off this part of my reply by disabusing you of the notion that your “Anglosphere” won WWII. The west certainly made valuable efforts in the campaign, but the USSR actually won the war. The Germen General Staff had concluded as early as the winter of 1942-43 that the war was lost because the Red Army had attained materiel parity with the Germans. This meant that the contest had come down to numbers (in men) and the Soviets had an unquestioned advantage there.

Here our moment of agreement ends. There is no question that Germany's attempted invasion of the USSR was fatal, just as Napolean's invasion was. Western Europeans invariably underestimate the severity of the Eastern Europe/Siberian winters, and both the weather and the difficulty of "living off the land" dooms the invasions. It was climatology, not fighting ability, that doomed the German invasion, much as the invasion of Quebec City by the 13 Colonies during 1776-7 failed.

Do you not see the irony here? I mean you write of your ancestors’ flight from Russian pogroms and proudly extort their surrender of their language as some kind of virtue. Hell, why couldn’t they just stop being Jewish and free themselves from being targeted by pogroms? I mean after all, they were willing to shed the linguistic arm of their culture in coming to America, why didn’t they save themselves the trip by dropping both the religious and linguistic arms back in Russia?

As we learned from Nazi Germany, surrendering the religion was not insurance of non-discrimination or worse.

No one surrenders their linguistic identity voluntarily. It takes coercion (be it aggressive or passive) for them to do so. Your ancestors dropped promulgation of Yiddish for their decedents because of passive coercion (i.e. it’s just isn’t what the cool people do here). Learning English was a functional necessity, dropping Yiddish was a cultural surrender.

What coercion? When the immigrants (prior to the current generation that is) arrived in America, they expected to conform to the place to which they arrived. It's that simple. And that is as it should be.

In Canada, both English and French stand as legitimate, functional languages. As the federal government answers to both linguistic communities, it stands to reason that it must do so in their language of choice. This necessarily means that the government is obliged to infuse all governing institutions with the linguistic resources needed fulfil this responsibility. Not just for francophones in Quebec, but also substantial French speaking communities in New Brunswick, north eastern and southern Ontario, Cape Breton island, St. Boniface Manitoba, North central Saskatchewan, and other communities clustered in and around most major cities.

Why shouldn't Quebec have to provide services in English, and provide bi-lingual signage?

You ask “why should the rest of the country be forced to be "officially bi-lingual" when English is persecuted in Quebec?” Put another way, this question reads if Quebec persecutes linguistic minorities, the federal government should too. Even my 5 year old can recognize the empty-headedness of this argument.

I am not suggesting persecution. I am suggesting the application of the "sauce rule"; what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[CANADIEN]

I am not suggesting persecution. I am suggesting the application of the "sauce rule"; what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

It is well know (by those who get it, and I don't have an opinion at this point on whether or not you get it), that I am no fan of Quebec's language laws, but its framers had the example of a few generations of violation of the rights of French-speaking Canadians to rely on. And most of those who are clamouring that "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" would still clamour for the return to those "good old days" when the Frenchies were at the back of the bus, even if the Quebec Government saw the light this very second (not that I have reason to believer you are one of those people).

[jbg]

On 7/24/2008 at 10:04 PM, CANADIEN said:

It is well know (by those who get it, and I don't have an opinion at this point on whether or not you get it), that I am no fan of Quebec's language laws, but its framers had the example of a few generations of violation of the rights of French-speaking Canadians to rely on. And most of those who are clamouring that "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" would still clamour for the return to those "good old days" when the Frenchies were at the back of the bus, even if the Quebec Government saw the light this very second (not that I have reason to believer you are one of those people).

Were French-speakers ever relegated to the back of the bus? Or did they simply often get less desirable jobs because of their lack of skills in Canada's primary language? I don't think Canada had Jim Crow style segregation against Quebecois or French speakers generally. Indeed hasn't Quebec always been a bit over-represented, both in numbers in Parliament and proportion of PM's and cabinet members?

[cybercoma]

41 minutes ago, jbg said:

Were French-speakers ever relegated to the back of the bus?

No but they were relegated to Louisiana, which is pretty much a s***hole now.

Edited October 24, 2016 by cybercoma
typo

[PIK]

On 7/20/2008 at 11:07 PM, Visionseeker said:

Scheldt

Very few people know about that battle. I knew a vet that served there, ate, slept and fought in 3 feet of water.There should be a movie about that and the battle of kap yong.

[jbg]

42 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

No but they were relegated to Louisiana, which is pretty much a s***hole now.

WHen the Acadians inhabited Louisiana and became Cajun, what's now Louisiana alternated between French and Spanish rule.  The U.S. didn't acquire the area unti, I believe, 1804, and at that point they were unrestricted in where they could live. That was a national boundary issue.

[?Impact]

As a point of comparison we should look to other countries with similar multi-lingual challenges. The first one that entered my mind was Switzerland. It has 3 (or 4 if you count Romansh) official languages. From what I can find out, once you reach officer level you are expected to have mastered 2 of the languages. Generally the units are in one area of the country and will be predominantly speaking one language, but often someone will be thrown into a unit due to technical skill or just numbers and have to manage in a different language. The largest number speak Swiss German, second would be French, and if you are Italian then you hope you get placed in your own part of the country. 

 

The main point of course is if you want to advance, then multi-lingual skills are necessary.

[Army Guy]

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2008 at 0:07 AM, Visionseeker said:

 

This muddled mix of logic serves only to reinforce the perception of your bigotry. You could’ve made it more succinct and explicit by simply calling the French a bunch of draft-dogging surrender monkeys be they on the right or left side of the Atlantic.

 

It is not that I totally agree with jbg, but since you have brought it up, I wonder if I to will be labeled a Bigot....and while I would not use the same example you have used to imply bigoty.....I also would make the reader aware that the French did have a problem with the draft, and draft dogging......and the French from France did have a problem with their forces, moral, to the point of outright desertion, and yes they liked the color of white.....

 

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2008 at 0:07 AM, Visionseeker said:

 

Many French Canadians served with distinction in both of the contests you cite. The 22nd and 60th battalions earned many honours in WWI at Mount Sorrel, Vimy… That these French battalions even existed is remarkable considering that the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sam Hughes) was a devoted senior member of the Orangemen. Having a minister of minister of war who was openly anti-Catholic served only to further alienate French-Canadians who tended to see WWI much like American isolationist did: a matter for Europe to resolve.

 

 Yes the French men and women did serve with distinction, just as any other Canadian unit did....Such as the RCR's or PPCLI both sharing most if not all of the battle honors as these French units had....That being said while the English side did not have any problems in the early to mid ways through WWI getting the troops it needed to fill out their ranks....Quebec had solved this in the early days by empting our it's jails, offering pardons, if they joined the Military.....the Vandoos, and 60th had a good deal of convicts in their ranks.....and while this was also common to find convicts in English units as well, just not in the same numbers as the French units.....As the war progress however both English and French had problems finding good recruits.....

 

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2008 at 0:07 AM, Visionseeker said:

 

As for WWII, again, French Canadians contributed substantially. Militarily, the clearing of the Scheldt stands as one of the most under-appreciated military victories of any army. Slogging through near-freezing water often waist or neck high, French Canadian troops faced off against some of the best trained and equipped SS divisions in the German army. The Germans had blown dikes to slow their opponents down and created battlefield conditions that made it “like WWI without the safety of a trench”.

 

The French units were part of the Canadian Corps.....and served side by side with English troops.....No more no less, and faced the same enemy in the toughest conditions of the war...

 

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2008 at 0:07 AM, Visionseeker said:

Every downed allied airman who evaded capture and returned to fly another sortie over Western Europe has a French Canadian to thank. For they dropped behind enemy lines and established the links, networks and communications with the French underground that ultimately made the coordination of the airman’s escape possible. The morbity rate of these intelligence operatives was terrible: 90% were killed (many experiencing extensive tortured, followed by execution) inside of 3 months in the field.

 

You make it sound like our French Canadians did this all by themselves.....THATS NOT true.....in fact that this operations were carried out by many programs such as SOE British command, who employed thousands of Europeans, Canadians , and Americans who spoke various languages ...French being one just of them...It was not just a French Canadian operation....

 

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2008 at 0:07 AM, Visionseeker said:

.

I’ll close-off this part of my reply by disabusing you of the notion that your “Anglosphere” won WWII. The west certainly made valuable efforts in the campaign, but the USSR actually won the war. The Germen General Staff had concluded as early as the winter of 1942-43 that the war was lost because the Red Army had attained materiel parity with the Germans. This meant that the contest had come down to numbers (in men) and the Soviets had an unquestioned advantage there.

 

You are aware of course that WWII was a world war and not just in Russia and Europe right, or did you forget the pacific, and Africa pieces of the puzzle.....The fact that most of Europe was liberated by the ANGLSPHERE, along with northern Africa and most of Europe ...And Russia spent most of it's time regaining ground it was tossed off in the early stages of WWII, that and some political concessions to the Russians allowed them to gain a foothold in eastern Europe....because all sides were exhausted and did not want a protracted war with Mother Russia fighting over the cut up of Europe.... And just how much was the ANGLOSHERE involved with keeping mother Russia supplied with war toys anyways....

I think brushing off the ANGLSPHERE influence in WWII is pompus on your part, or perhaps Vison seeker is a French Canadian and maybe a little bit of that Bigotry is poking through here..... Just a tiny bit....  

 

Quote

You ask “why should the rest of the country be forced to be "officially bi-lingual" when English is persecuted in Quebec?” Put another way, this question reads if Quebec persecutes linguistic minorities, the federal government should too. Even my 5 year old can recognize the empty-headedness of this argument

This is what happens when Federal politicians do not have the balls to tell "ALL" Canadians this is our official Policy on Language....Failure to compile will result in lower federal tax dollars being returned to your province end of story.....When you have 2 separate policies it breeds discontent.....When Quebec can turn it's head on Canada's official policy it breeds content.....New Brunswick is Canada's ONLY BI lingual province.....and only 1/3 are French speaking.....or what ever it is the speak up there, 1/2 French and 1/2 maritimer.....the rest of the places you quoted make up what percentage of the Population....If we want everyone to tow the line....then there should be one law for everyone....not one for every tom ,dick and harry and one for bill, and joe , and jack, and jill..... and that did not come from my 5 year old.....but from me....

Edited October 30, 2016 by Army Guy