Does Canada Understand The Cost Of Freedom?

[paranoid joe]

Canada doesn't understand that if it weren't for the Americans, that its own military capabilities are so pre-historic, outdated and lacklustre and its borders so fragile, that it wouldn't take much for someone LIKE saddam to force his will.

Yes because Saddam was oh-so close to coming over the North Pole....

Canada is a enormous, geographically isolated nation. We just don't face very many threats.

black dog i think that he meant it wouldnt take very long for Canada to be taken over if there was an american leader like Saddam (and dont say GWB is like him because he wont invade canada).

[August1991]

But "wearing down the Nazi war machine"? Very funny. The Nazi war machine in 1941 was pretty much at it's peak from then until the fall of 1942 at Stalingrad.

Pateris, I don't disagree with you but don't impugn the efforts of any particular soldier of whatever nationality.

Starting in 1939, a bunch of guys got together and said "we're going to stop this jerk". After the fact, you cannot point to one particular guy and say "he's the one who got the jerk".

To use BD's hockey example above, no one player wins the game.

[Cartman]

What a stupid title to a thread! It completely ignores the sacrifices made by Canadian soldiers and their families who suffered in WWI, WWII, Korea and those who served in Vietnam. How ignorant!!! Yeah, I guess we just don't get it like you do. :angry:

There's much more to freedom than spending on the military. That is why so much of our tax dollars go towards public education, healthcare, and other social issues. Knowledge is power. We don't try to create a need for people to enter the millitary as a career option as a last resort. Those who enter the military do so on their real intentions.

Exactly. This is the point of having responsible freedom.

[Pateris]

August,

I apologize if I gave the impression of impugning any nations soldiers.

I was simply trying to point out that in the years prior to US involvement in the war, the Allies were not "wearing down the Nazi war machine", but simply trying to avoid getting taken over. It was not until after US involvement (not that US involvement alone changed the outcome) that the actual "wearing down of the Nazi war machine" began.

[Big Blue Machine]

We critized them too much about not know anything about us. But really, how much do they need to know about us? Sure some canadians know more about America than acutally americans.

[caesar]

I was simply trying to point out that in the years prior to US involvement in the war, the Allies were not "wearing down the Nazi war machine", but simply trying to avoid getting taken over. It was not until after US involvement (not that US involvement alone changed the outcome) that the actual "wearing down of the Nazi war machine" began.

Yeah right what a load of crap.

[caesar]

I wonder why people dislike pompous arrogant yankees with their self important ideas

[Argus]

The Americans were a big help but were more like fresh troops to aid the cause.

I never studied history in a university, but I am well read on the subject.

Your figures may be correct but your "editorial" is opinion only; not history.

The Original combatants including Britain and Canada played a bigger role in WWII than the Americans.

What preposterous nonsense.

  We were fighting for years before the Americans reluctantly joined the effort after being attacked themselves. Our troops werewearing down the Nazi war machine.

Wearing down the Nazi war machine? I suppose it hasn't occured to you to actually look into the history of WW2? No, of course not. Your dislike of Americans simply won't allow you to even consider the fact they might have had an enormous impact on anything of importance. Look into the "phoney war" some time. The war didn't really begin until May of 1940, where the Germans essentially kicked everyone's asses and took over the low countries (see Dunkirk). Following that was the Battle of Britain, where the British hung on through the summer by the skin of their teeth. The only real successes came in Africa, and that was to be reversed the following year when Rommel arrived. No, until the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, and then the Japanese attacked the Americans the war was fairly one-sided. Not completely so, but they were certainly winning.

American industry was most important to the Soviet battles, however, less so to the British Commonwealth. What they really supplied to the Western front were soldiers, and millions of them.

[Argus]

Pateri!

I have treated you with some amusement thus far - perhaps a little condescension. However, I find nothing funny about your last effort. It is an insult to the millions who fought and the hundreds of thousands who died to make it safe for you to mouth such filth.

What filth would that be? Care to name what he/she said which was incorrect?

[Argus]

I was simply trying to point out that in the years prior to US involvement in the war, the Allies were not "wearing down the Nazi war machine", but simply trying to avoid getting taken over. It was not until after US involvement (not that US involvement alone changed the outcome) that the actual "wearing down of the Nazi war machine" began.

Yeah right what a load of crap.

What a thoughtful and articulate argument. You've convinced me!

[Guest eureka]

I will not get into that one with you, Argus. You know very well what was said. It infuriated me too much to let by.

My eldest brother, like a couple of million others, left England in 1939 aqnd never set foot in it again until 1946. Of course, they, as I said in another thread, holidayed at many Italian resorts after kicking the Germans out of North Africa, but that was not a rest camp in England.

Britain was where a large part of the American forces spent their time until the invasion of Europe.

The ignorance of WWII history is appalling and you are displaying yours.

[Argus]

My eldest brother, like a couple of million others, left England in 1939 aqnd never set foot in it again until 1946. Of course, they, as I said in another thread, holidayed at many Italian resorts after kicking the Germans out of North Africa, but that was not a rest camp in England.

Britain was where a large part of the American forces spent their time until the invasion of Europe.

The ignorance of WWII history is appalling and you are displaying yours.

You are behaving like an infant. No one has tried to cast aspersions on the achievements of Commonwealth military people in WW2, or how hard it was to be away from home for 5 years. Canada, in particular, had someting over 1 million people in uniform, a tremendous effort from a nation of little more than ten million people.

But we did no real harm to the Germans by ourselves. The Germans were handily in control of things until they overextended themselves and attacked Russia, and until the Americans came in against them. Those are simple facts. And your emotional tantrums really don't have any affect upon them.

[Guest eureka]

For once use your head for something other than a whipping post. That is absolute rubbish and, as I wrote, displays an apalling ignorance of the history of the war.

The childishness is entirely yours. Obvoiusly you did not read what I responded to. Or, if you did, you also think that Britain was a rest camp while the world waited for the Americans.

[caesar]

You, Argus are the one acting like a troll and ignore anything that does not promote the USA and Israel. Your prejudice is very evident. Fortunately not all Jewish people are that ignorant and closed minded.

[playfullfellow]

Holy dina people like to pick the parts of history that suite their own needs and arguments. What a lot of people fail to appreciate is the fact that a lot of people died due to the ideas and actions of a few. Any person who has read more than history book knows that the Allies were in trouble until Germany invaded Russia. That was a majot tactical error, much to the relief of the Allies. We also know that the US had no real interest as a whole to enter the war until the Japanese attacked. The allies were victors because they worked together to achieve a common goal. It was not just the efforts of Britain, Canada or the US acting alone but as a team. For those of you who think that Britain and her allies had a chance to beat the Nazi's before they attacked Russia or before the Japanese attacked the US, do the math and the geography lesson and see that the Allies had neither enough troops or weapons to beat Hitler. This was not from lack of trying but pure logistics of the whole war. Britain did manage to hang on and beat the Nazi'z in the battle of Britain which was a good thing, if not, then Hitler may have ignored russia for a while until he was completely established all over Europe. If the US had not entered the war, it may have lasted years longer and with greater loss of life. A lot of people forget we were all allies trrying to beat a common enemy. Everyone suffered, we all have family who were killed, maimed or just simply lost during the war. We seem to forget that the majority of us on these boards have not fought for freedom, we are all too young.

As for the US, they can not really claim they have won a war since Korea. Every war they have been in since then has basically been them trying to boot out some dictator somewhere or stop the domino effect. They have won battles, but not many wars. Patriotism is good, Canada could use a little more but face it, we are frozen solid 6 months of the year and would much rather have a couple hot toddies to tide us over till spring than brag about what a great country we are.

[caesar]

Canada could use a little more but face it, we are frozen solid 6 months of the year and would much rather have a couple hot toddies to tide us over till spring than brag about what a great country we are.

Playful fellow; Where in the heck are you from???? Perpetrating a myth???? We sure are not frozen solid nor even cold 6 months a year in most of Canada. In fact, here on the west coast; we seldom see snow nor freeze at all. This year with the cold and 3 inches of snow is unusual.

Yes, of course, the Americans helped win the war but the victory was broought about by the Allies not just the Americans.

[playfullfellow]

Yes, of course, the Americans helped win the war but the victory was broought about by the Allies not just the Americans.

Thats basically what I was saying. It was not just a single effort of one country that finally proved victory for the Allies. I agree with you in a lot of cases that the Americans like to blow their own horns and make themselves the heros of every story. Canadians like to get on with life and look towards the next day.

Playful fellow; Where in the heck are you from???? Perpetrating a myth???? We sure are not frozen solid nor even cold 6 months a year in most of Canada.

That was just an analogy. Most yanks like to think we still live in igloos and all have sled dog teams. What I was basically saying was that we have more important things to worry about than to tout what we have done in the past. Sorry I didn't make myself clearer. BTW, most provinces experience either snow or frost more than 6 months out of the year. I have seen snow fall every month out of the year and that is not just here in the north. This was southern Alberta and BC.

[Guest eureka]

Playfullfellow, you seem to have missed what this was about. Tghe statements were to the effect that America "won" the war: that the Allies would have been defeated without them. That, in one post, the Allies were sitting in England, waiting for the Americans.

That is all so much nonsense and is an egregious insult to Britain and the Allies other than the Americans. The war had turned in Britain's favour before a single American soldier was involved/

British troops (I use the term to include the Commonwealth nations) had taken Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and were well into Iran before the Americans came in: they had won the turning point of El Alamein.

The Battle of Britain was over and the British airforce was bombing Berlin before the Americans entered. Operation Barbarossa was a huge mistake by the Germans but it did not lose them the war. The tide had turned.

The war might have gone on longer without the Americans and there would have been greater loss of life, probably (except for the added time and loss caused by Eisenhpwer's foolish decision to not listen to Montgomery and instead to advance along a 700 mile front.

However, the outcome was not in doubt by the late summer of 1941 and British troops were not idling away their time in England.

[Argus]

For once use your head for something other than a whipping post. That is absolute rubbish and, as I wrote, displays an apalling ignorance of the history of the war.

Sorry, but I was talking about the war in this universe. Apparently the WW2 you are talking about was played out in your imagination. I have already posted a brief summation of what happened in 1940-1941. Perhaps you could enlighten me on the mighty victories won against the Axis powers prior to the Americans entering the war. So far all you have posted is shrill outrage. A few German ships were sunk. That was IT. There were no meaningful victories prior to 1942, and few enough then.

[Argus]

You, Argus are the one acting like a troll and ignore anything that does not promote the USA and Israel.

Caesar, you've already shown you know nothing about anything. You certainly know nothing about WW2. Do please contradict me by posting the great victories we achieved before the US entered the war.

  Your prejudice is very evident.  Fortunately not all Jewish people are that ignorant and closed minded.

I'm not Jewish. One need not be a Jew to defend Israel, you know. One need only have an interest in fairness and logic.

[Argus]

That is all so much nonsense and is an egregious insult to Britain and the Allies other than the Americans. The war had turned in Britain's favour before a single American soldier was involved/

Technically almost correct, though untrue.

British troops (I use the term to include the Commonwealth nations) had taken Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and were well into Iran before the Americans came in: they had won the turning point of El Alamein.

Again technically correct, and again untrue. The true story of El Alamein and the allied victory there is that Rommel faced serious supply problems in large part as a result of his supply lines from Europe being interdicted by allied aircraft - including American aircraft. During Rommels initial attack on El Alamein his tanks again took serious damage from Allied aircraft and he withdrew. Montgomery did not attack in large part because he was waiting for hundreds of new American Sherman tanks to be delivered. He already had several hundred, and they were the tank he needed to defeat the German Panzers. The tanks the British forces had been equipped with before the arrival of the Sherman were too small and their guns too weak. American tanks were absolutely irreplaceable in defeating Rommel, as were the numerous artillery pieces shipped from the US. And when Montgomery defeated him he was trapped, unable to withdraw because of the buildup of American forces under Patton which had arrived in Algeria behind him.

I might add that one of the main reasons behind the invasion of North Africa was to open an early front against the Germans and draw men and equipment away from their fight with the Russians.

The Battle of Britain was over and the British airforce was bombing Berlin before the Americans entered. Operation Barbarossa was a huge mistake by the Germans but it did not lose them the war. The tide had turned.

Discounting the disaster of attacking Russia is pure revisionist history. Had the Gemans not invaded Russia the casualties for the allies would have been far, far higher, and the war would have lasted far longer. In all likelihood the Allies would have eventually won, but only because the Americans had so much industry and such a large population to draw on. There would have been no possibility of victory without them.

However, the outcome was not in doubt by the late summer of 1941 and British troops were not idling away their time in England.

Well, you are right that the outcome was not in doubt. The Axis was going to win. You will find no serious historians on any side who will agree that the tide had turned by summer of 1941 and that it was only a matter of time before Germany was defeated. This took place only in your imagination.

[August1991]

Argus, if I understand properly, you claim that the US was the key player in WW2. I beg to differ for two reasons:

But we did no real harm to the Germans by ourselves.

Any single soldier does whatever damage he can to an enemy. You cannot say which straw breaks the camel's back. It is not the last one because for lack of the others, it would be the first.

Does it matter that many of the straws are a particular colour? Because they are so numerous, are they the straws that broke the back?

The Germans were handily in control of things until they overextended themselves and attacked Russia, and until the Americans came in against them. Those are simple facts.

All evidence indicates that Hitler's main objective was to colonize eastern Europe. He viewed Germans as natural colonizers of Slavs in the same way he viewed white Europeans as colonizers of North America.

"Attacking Russia" was Hitler's intention from the very beginning. (See Hitler's Table Talk.)

The fight behind Russia and Germany was a fight to the death. The US was a bystander.

-----

Standing back from this short period in world history in a small area of the world's geography and taking the "big view", it is hard not to see that the world fell into some kind of madness between 1914-1945 and this period should be seen as a single Thirty Years War.

Furthermore, the true battle of the 20th century has been between fascist militarism and individual freedom. I would agree with you that the US has played a critical role in this battle of the past century.

Germany itself is good evidence of this.

[Guest eureka]

10 May 1941,

German bombers assault London in what tums out to be the final heavy mission of the Battle of Britain. More than 500 aircraft drop high­explosive and incendiary bombs which result in many fires and cause more than 3,000 casualties induding many dead. Some 27 German aircraft are lost. In the preceding ten months approximately 50.000 metric tons of bombs have been dropped on the UK, but the Battle of Britain has heen lost, and with it has gone Germany's chance of winning the war. Partly because of their lack of long-range fighters and heavy bombers, but also because of the eventual mastery of the RAF fighter squadrons and their tactics, the Germans will regard this as first significant turning­point in World War Two

The above is a quote from a piece on the American participation in WWII.

Battles! There was the whole of the Middle East the victories that doomed Barbarossa to failure by keping the supply lines open for the Russians and denying them to the Germans. There was all of East Africa: Beda Fomm where the Italian Army was all but destroyed: Matapan whwere the Italian Navy was.

There was El Alamein where the Americans landed at Casablance TWO WEEKS AFTER Montgomery had forced Rommel into retreat.

Do you need more? Or are you only interested in denigrating anything that is not American.

Even the most "patriotic" of American commentators do not make the claims that you do.

I am beginning to believe that you may be a writer: specializing, no doubt, in fairy stories.

[Argus]

Argus, if I understand properly, you claim that the US was the key player in WW2.  I beg to differ for two reasons:

You misunderstand. The biggest battles were between the Germans and Russians. The claims made by idiot nationalists were (1) that we were "wearing down" the Germans and would have won without the Americans - which is self-evident lunacy, and (2) that even without the Russians and Americans the British had "turned the tide" by mid nineteen forty one and the end was inevitable for the Germans - which is even more stunningly lacking in knowledge.

When I said we did no real harm I meant the Germans were still in comfortable control and with many more resources than us and could easily overcome what efforts the British made.

[Argus]

10 May 1941,

    German bombers assault London in what tums out to be the final heavy mission of the Battle of Britain. More than 500 aircraft drop high­explosive and incendiary bombs which result in many fires and cause more than 3,000 casualties induding many dead. Some 27 German aircraft are lost. In the preceding ten months approximately 50.000 metric tons of bombs have been dropped on the UK, but the Battle of Britain has heen lost, and with it has gone Germany's chance of winning the war. Partly because of their lack of long-range fighters and heavy bombers, but also because of the eventual mastery of the RAF fighter squadrons and their tactics, the Germans will regard this as first significant turning­point in World War Two

The above is a quote from a piece on the American participation in WWII.

Yes, but it was a defensive victory. Dunkirk was also a great victory, in a way, but as a famous general said at the time "you don't win wars by great retreats". The person writing above who says of the Battle of Britain "and with it Germany's chance of winning the war" is speaking from a historical perspective with the knowledge of what followed. Had the Germans put the kind of resources and effort into invading Britain that it did into Russia it certainly could have overcome the RAF. There is simply no question of that. And Britain had a very, very weak army to oppose them had they landed. Germany simply had more people and more resources close at hand. Britain could not have defeated the Germans.

Battles! There was the whole of the Middle East the victories that doomed Barbarossa to failure by keping the supply lines open for the Russians

Yes, the middle east, a peripheral battle except as it affects resources to Russia - by your own statement.

and denying them to the Germans. There was all of East Africa: Beda Fomm where the Italian Army was all but destroyed: Matapan whwere the Italian Navy was.

Again peripheral and not very important and only because the Germans were building up resources to invade Russia.

There was El Alamein where the Americans landed at Casablance TWO WEEKS AFTER  Montgomery had forced Rommel into retreat.

Yes, forced to retreat because of those American built tanks, and because of air attacks on his supply lines.

Do you need more? Or are you only interested in denigrating anything that is not American.

I am not attempting to denigrate the contribution of Canada or Britain. I am disputing your assinine suggestion that we would have won without the Americans. Even the Russians probably wouldn't have won without American equipment. Your statement that the the end was inevitable for the Germans by mid 1941, without the Russians or Americans, is simply ludicrous.