Canada may have to consider hedging its future..

[nicky10013]

Very true. I suspect that you've read Fatherland as well? If America didn't land at D-day Hitler would've only had one major war front to deal; the one with the Soviets, and late in the war Stalin was literally begging the allies to open up a western front to take the pressure off his borders. In a nut shell, Russia would've fallen fast without the US assult on Normandy. Britain, the last major Euro power, would've been next on the hit list, and seeing how effective German U-boats were at destroying the British navy (Britain's one key advantage) the war would've been over quickly. Once this happened all (not most) of Europe would've fallen before facism, and the world would've been much more fudged up then we know it today. Most people don't realize how close the world came to this terrible outcome.

The U.S. many not be a perfect superpower, but they're still better then Nazis.

Nobody is calling the US Nazis and the war was already won by the time the Allies landed as the Soviets were already in Poland and advancing. The Lend Lease Act is another story, but the Russians had already won the war by the time we got to France.

Britain would've never been invaded because the Luftwaffe could never gain air superiority.

[nicky10013]

The Nazis come into power because the US intervention that broke the stale mate in WW1. If there was no US, WW1 would have eventually ended years later with some truce that kept the status quo. Subsequent wars would have broken out and facism would have taken over some states but it is rather simplistic to assume that Europe without the US would have become a Nazi empire.

The stalemate was already broken and the Allies were advancing at a rapid pace by the time US troops were able to fight in France.

[Riverwind]

The stalemate was already broken and the Allies were advancing at a rapid pace by the time US troops were able to fight in France.

US assistance was not limited troops. The supplies that came from the US were very important.

[nicky10013]

I don't remember where I heard this phrase, but it went something like "China is the saving power of the world while America is the spending power". Having said that they pretty much need eachother, and China's economic growth and mass production continues only to meet the consumer depand of people in America. If the two powers were to go to war, well, China would lose it's biggest client and it's economy would suffer.

What Canada can do is...just trade with everyone and prosper while the major powers try to gain superiority over eachother.

Chimerica - Niall Ferguson. The equation works out until China doesn't have to rely on being an export economy. Sooner or later enough Chinese are going to be able to buy the flimsy consumer products they're so adept at producing. At that point, China no longer needs to rely so heavily on the US. The US is a HUGE market but it isn't the be all and end all of economics. China itself, the EU, Africa which they're taking advantage of more than any other country and the emerging and possibly incredibly powerful Asian bloc which is trying to emmulate the European Union through the creation of a common market. Yes, Canada needs to keep trading because that's what keeps us prosperous and frankly international trade builds democracy and stops war. The US seems to be one of the only countries taking the situation for granted and seem to be not thinking strategically.

Everyone believes that since the two seem so intertwined that war is impossible but that's what they were saying in 1900 of the British and the Germans.

[nicky10013]

US assistance was not limited troops. The supplies that came from the US were very important.

It didn't really ramp up until they officially entered the war. Canada was actually one of the largest suppliers of the entire war, US included.

[bjre]

Indeed, just as the Tibetans.

Tibet was never a nation.

Before 638AD, there are many tribes there, the first king of Tibet conquer most land there and try to fight Tang Dynasty (Ancient China) in year 638, he was failed, so he negotiated with Chinese Emperor, The Emperor assigned him as King of Tibet and married him with one of the Emperor's daughter in year 641AD, since then Tibet is part of China. Chinese army did not enter there kill native people as Europeans enter North America and killing native people. Current DaLai Lama was assigned by Chinese government in the February 1940.

It is British entered Tibet and killing people there at year 1888 and year 1903, after that, British try to separate Tibet out of China since 1907, in 1942, they try to make Tibet "independent" so that they can control it. And in 1940s, US started try to do the same work. in year 1950, US send many weapons to Tibet. In the year 1957, US trained 170 oversea Tibetan and send them back to Tibet try to separate Tibet from China and persuade DaLai Lama. In the year 1959, DaLai Lama start to fight and failed and flee to India.

So Tibet was never a nation, from 641AD it is a part of China.

If you want Tibet separate, you'd better ask all those whose ancestors are Europeans get out of North and South America and return the land to the native people.

Edited December 20, 2009 by bjre

[bush_cheney2004]

The reason why China failed when war began was that Chiang Kai Sek try to protect his own army and use Japanese to kill his potential rivals. The most important force to drive Japanese out was Chinese themselves.

Of course....Chinese won the war all by themselves. Then they have big civil war to be commies....then destroy themselves again. China rule world by selling tickets to American tourists to see Great Wall.

[Riverwind]

It didn't really ramp up until they officially entered the war. Canada was actually one of the largest suppliers of the entire war, US included.

Well a lot depends on what you assume was going on in NA if the US did not exist. I was assuming it remained a largely aboriginal occupied place of no particular geopolitical consequence.

[Halfempty]

The Nazis come into power because the US intervention that broke the stale mate in WW1. If there was no US, WW1 would have eventually ended years later with some truce that kept the status quo. Subsequent wars would have broken out and facism would have taken over some states but it is rather simplistic to assume that Europe without the US would have become a Nazi empire.

The Nazi's came into power because of the French and English directed Treaty of Verseilles, which crippled Germany's economy and moral by making this state pay heavy reparitions. Facism did not directly come about because of America's intervention. I was only refering to USAs positive actions during WW2, I was not speculating whether or not it "existed" to act during WW1 or WW2.

If America did not send a force to Normandy, Russia would've most likely fallen, afterwords Britain would have as well. I don't see how it is simplistic to assume that Europe would be dominated by Germany; all European states would've either been conquered or ruled by a puppet leaders loyal to Hitler.

[eyeball]

The reality is those citizens do not yet have what they want and simply are not there yet.

The reality is that we'll need another 4 or 5 more planets long before they even arrive.

The rest of the world can go suck eggs from their perspective, they are going to get what they want. MY problem with this is the fools who dare to call themselves the leaders of the nations seem to be diving into a cesspool of political stupidity. We (citizens) have no obligation to achieve things for them and we have no responsibility to fund their activities. Yet our governments are fully willing to send our tax dollars for their clean development. I would like to think that we can claim high moral ground here but that is not the case. Our cities stink, our air is bad and our water polluted from our own efforts. Should we not clean up our own act first?

Yes we should.

As for the political stupidity of our leaders, they should have been applying tariffs against those nations that have developed their economies on the backs of human rights decades ago. That said we obviously still have our issues with human rights and I often get the sense we haven't dealt with them as well as we might have. I think by engaging with countries like China we've become a little more like them in the same way we've been told to expect they'll become a little more like us. Its seemed naive to me for years to expect the exchange of ideas attitudes and values would only be a one way street, from us to them.

Our government has long resisted transparency and accountability just the Chinese politburo and our corporate and political leaders probably look at how much easier it is to wield power in secrecy in China compared to here with a real wistfulness. Police look as much like Darth Vader in China as they do here and ours are chiselling away at our civil rights as fast as they can convince politicians to do so, not that they need any encouraging. I suspect the gap between wealthy and poor people grows at a ferocious rate there compared to here. I just can't see wealthy powerful people in the west not noticing that and saying "I want more of that too" which is as much to say they'll want to keep up with the Jones'.

This is the real future Canada should be hedging against.

Edited December 20, 2009 by eyeball

[nicky10013]

Well a lot depends on what you assume was going on in NA if the US did not exist. I was assuming it remained a largely aboriginal occupied place of no particular geopolitical consequence.

What's that supposed to mean? I never said that the US never supplied arms and munitions, I'm just saying that it didn't happen like most think it did. Wilson couldn't send large amounts of arms because things like the Mauritania happened. Yes it was a horrible tragedy but it was carrying munitions to Europe. 25% of all bullets, shells and bombs used in WW1 were manufactured in Canada.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Well a lot depends on what you assume was going on in NA if the US did not exist. I was assuming it remained a largely aboriginal occupied place of no particular geopolitical consequence.

Well Canada would own a lot more towards the south and Mexico would still own a lot towards the north. Whether the borders would meet would be in question though. At least that is how I see it.

[Riverwind]

Well Canada would own a lot more towards the south and Mexico would still own a lot towards the north. Whether the borders would meet would be in question though. At least that is how I see it.

Then Canada would become the equivalent to the "US" superpower. There are things in history which are inevitable and things which are truly turning points. The establishment of British colonies in a NA depopulated by disease pretty much ensured that a NA English speaking superpower would emerge. The only question was where the border with the Spanish speaking territories to the south would be and whether Canada would be a separate country.

If disease had not wiped out the aboriginals then NA would have become like Africa - carved up into smaller states dominated by European powers.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

US assistance was not limited troops. The supplies that came from the US were very important.

That's right.....the Rooskies drove to the eastern front in Studebakers!

from "The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military

Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV, which clearly states that the USSR

was all but done for without Lend Lease.

Quoting Zhukov:

"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and

economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from

the Allies.

First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that

respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the

war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a

serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the

quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],

we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable

degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary

for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of

American deliveries."

Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a

backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's

truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and

1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of

eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny

that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have

formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no

explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans

actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet

steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our

production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it

seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance

[nicky10013]

The reality is that we'll need another 4 or 5 more planets long before they even arrive.

Yes we should.

As for the political stupidity of our leaders, they should have been applying tariffs against those nations that have developed their economies on the backs of human rights decades ago. That said we obviously still have our issues with human rights and I often get the sense we haven't dealt with them as well as we might have. I think by engaging with countries like China we've become a little more like them in the same way we've been told to expect they'll become a little more like us. Its seemed naive to me for years to expect the exchange of ideas attitudes and values would only be a one way street, from us to them.

Our government has long resisted transparency and accountability just the Chinese politburo and our corporate and political leaders probably look at how much easier it is to wield power in secrecy in China compared to here with a real wistfulness. Police look as much like Darth Vader in China as they do here and ours are chiselling away at our civil rights as fast as they can convince politicians to do so, not that they need any encouraging. I suspect the gap between wealthy and poor people grows at a ferocious rate there compared to here. I just can't see wealthy powerful people in the west not noticing that and saying "I want more of that too" which is as much to say they'll want to keep up with the Jones'.

This is the real future Canada should be hedging against.

China doesn't become better because we tell them how to be democratic. They've got to do it themselves and they won't do it until they're sufficiently well off. It's easy for us to say how horrible the Chinese must be that they've built their democracy on the backs of people deprived of human rights but conditions were certainly similar in Europe and North America to what is in China at the moment. The best we can do is sit back and trade with them. Bit by bit things get better and more and more will the Chinese take their country's fate into their own hands. There's been a lot said about Tibet but 20 years ago who would've thought that there would have been enough funding and internal organization to stage the kind of protest we've seen? It's the sign of significant economic progress. The more they make the better off they are. It's certainly a paradox but one we know works. Once the GDP reaches a certain level per capita, authoritarianism disappears.

[nicky10013]

That's right.....the Rooskies drove to the eastern front in Studebakers!

from "The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military

Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV, which clearly states that the USSR

was all but done for without Lend Lease.

Quoting Zhukov:

"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and

economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from

the Allies.

First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that

respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the

war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a

serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the

quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],

we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable

degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary

for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of

American deliveries."

Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a

backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's

truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and

1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of

eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny

that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have

formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no

explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans

actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet

steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our

production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it

seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance

I was referring to WW1 and I specifically referred to Lend Lease in another post. There's a good saying. I can't remember all of it but the jist of it is the US did the building, the Russians did the dying.

[ToadBrother]

Nobody is calling the US Nazis and the war was already won by the time the Allies landed as the Soviets were already in Poland and advancing. The Lend Lease Act is another story, but the Russians had already won the war by the time we got to France.

If the Nazis could have got and kept their hands on Middle East oil, I doubt very much that would have been true. Stalin was begging Churchill and Roosevelt to open up another front, because his forces were taking such a beating. The Soviets were not in the supreme position that you seem to imagine.

Britain would've never been invaded because the Luftwaffe could never gain air superiority.

Britain permanently prevented by being instrumental in getting arms shipments to Stalin and assuring an active Eastern Front. The Allied powers were far more reliant upon each other than you imagine. I mean, just look at all the work in getting supplies via the North Atlantic and into Russia via the Iranian railroads.

[ToadBrother]

I was referring to WW1 and I specifically referred to Lend Lease in another post. There's a good saying. I can't remember all of it but the jist of it is the US did the building, the Russians did the dying.

Considering the kinds of deals the Soviets struck with the Germans, it's little wonder. Stalin was selling steel to the Third Reich right up until the invasion, and the Germans intentionally let the last steel shipments through before they crossed over.

[nicky10013]

If the Nazis could have got and kept their hands on Middle East oil, I doubt very much that would have been true. Stalin was begging Churchill and Roosevelt to open up another front, because his forces were taking such a beating. The Soviets were not in the supreme position that you seem to imagine.

Britain permanently prevented by being instrumental in getting arms shipments to Stalin and assuring an active Eastern Front. The Allied powers were far more reliant upon each other than you imagine. I mean, just look at all the work in getting supplies via the North Atlantic and into Russia via the Iranian railroads.

We're not dealing in "what if's" just truth. The fact is by the time we got there, the deal was done. Lend Lease had a great deal to do with it, but the Russians had already turned it around and were halfway through Poland (after being on the doorstep of Moscow in 1943). That's not just moving the trench ahead by a mile or so. That's serious territory. By mid 1944 EVERYONE knew the Nazis were done, it was just a question of how long and how many more dead.

It doesn't matter anyway this thread is about China.

[bush_cheney2004]

What would happen if the US defaulted on it's debt? The world wouldn't just automatically say, oh well it's just the Chinese, it's all good. The world economy would go into a tail spin.

The US government has never defaulted...Canada came a lot closer to this than America ever did. As August1991 has pointed out, the US has a large untapped tax revenue capacity.

The US dollar would crash due to the utter lack of credibility of the institution and the US would no longer be able to sell bonds. Who wants to buy debt from a guy who spits into your face? Any resultant war would be automatically won by the Chinese because the US wouldn't be able to raise the capital needed to send the troops overseas.

The US financed WW2 with nearly 100% deficits and war bonds. The UK finally paid off its remaining war debt to the USA in 2006.

As for war bonds bought by regular citizens, how can Americans afford it with so many owning mortgages worth more than their houses, credit card debt etc. etc. etc. It's not a pretty picture. US consumer madness has put the US in such a compromising position. Not much can be done when you have a savings rate of almost -10% and a country with a federal government running a current account deficit which is projected to go as high as 25% of GDP.

Guess which nation on earth is most dependent on exports to the USA? You can't have it both ways, whining when American consumers go into debt to by Canadian exports and whining even more if they stop doing so.

[nicky10013]

Considering the kinds of deals the Soviets struck with the Germans, it's little wonder. Stalin was selling steel to the Third Reich right up until the invasion, and the Germans intentionally let the last steel shipments through before they crossed over.

It's because Stalin was delusional. He was also getting daily intelligence reports notifying him of the 3 million men on his border but did nothing because he believed in the pact of '39. Also because he was busy in '37 "dealing" with his general staff.

[nicky10013]

The US government has never defaulted...Canada came a lot closer to this than America ever did. As August1991 has pointed out, the US has a large untapped tax revenue capacity.

The US financed WW2 with nearly 100% deficits and war bonds. The UK finally paid off its remaining war debt to the USA in 2006.

Guess which nation on earth is most dependent on exports to the USA? You can't have it both ways, whining when American consumers go into debt to by Canadian exports and whining even more if they stop doing so.

I don't disagree with anything you said, I'm just listing the scenario that would happen if the US intentionally defaulted on Chinese debt. It won't happen but it would be calamitous because right now the US just wouldn't be able to deal with the fallout like a LOT of other countries. It just simply isn't as easy as saying, nope, we ain't paying. That's my point. It's capitalism, the US economy can and probably will turn around. There just needs to be an emphasis on raising savings rates (not by much but definitely needs to go up) not just at the federal level but the personal level.

Edited December 20, 2009 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

Also about the US buying Canadian goods, yeah that definitely is true, but most Americans don't buy crude, steel or wood in bulk. The car market is already screwed so that's that!

[Halfempty]

Nobody is calling the US Nazis and the war was already won by the time the Allies landed as the Soviets were already in Poland and advancing. The Lend Lease Act is another story, but the Russians had already won the war by the time we got to France.

Britain would've never been invaded because the Luftwaffe could never gain air superiority.

I never called the US nazis lol, I'm stretching what a favour America did for the world by helping to kill them off.

Weren't the Soviets down on man-power from the initial Axis attack on Russia? The Russian front fell apart after the Soviets took Romania as far as I know, and by then troops were already be redivereted to the West.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Halfempty

[Guest American Woman]

Guess which nation on earth is most dependent on exports to the USA? You can't have it both ways, whining when American consumers go into debt to by Canadian exports and whining even more if they stop doing so.

I like this observation because it's so true that Americans are judged for how much they buy, but as you point out, other countries wouldn't have the revenue they do if we didn't buy; and since Canada is our biggest trade partner, it would affect Canada the most-- and I'm guessing Canadians as a whole wouldn't be happy if we were to suddenly, drastically curb our spending.

It's (yet) another case of 'damned it we do, damned if we don't.'

It's interesting reading through this thread, though, because I swear some would be happy if China were to replace the U.S. as the lone superpower just because they would love to see us fall; they can't see past that. It's a case of "be careful what you wish for ...." IMO.