The more things change...

[Argus]

An interesting historical repetition. In WW2, it was basically Canada -(Quebec), the US, Britain, and Australia against the Nazis. The Italians were allies to the Nazis. The Spanish were useless. The French were surrender-monkeys, with half of them helping the Nazis. The rest of Europe collapsed like a cheap umbrella and needed the Anglo-Saxons to rescue them. As to the Russians - they played both sides against the middle. They tried to help the Nazis, but the Nazis turned on them, then they accepted our aid and turned on us.

Deja vu.

Is this much different than the "war on terror" where the only ones with the balls to stand up against the Islamists are the US, Britain, Canada and Australians? The French have half-surrendered, already, the Spanish have given up. The Russians are again helping the Islamists, while the rest of Europe tries to hide in hopes nobody targets them.

And in Canada, as usual, Quebecers are shirking, whining, snivelling and demanding we do nothing.

So what is it about the Anglo-Saxon world that makes us the go-to guys while everyone else passes the buck?

[Charles Anthony]

With all due respects, we have been through this before. I would like to quote Mahmoud Ghalehnoii, international English student, because I think he has an enlightening answer.

anglosaxon economies are based on human, resources and other countries exploitation.

without constant immigration, they stop functioning.

europeans work less for more output.

As you say: deja vu, indeed.

[jdobbin]

An interesting historical repetition. In WW2, it was basically Canada -(Quebec), the US, Britain, and Australia against the Nazis. The Italians were allies to the Nazis. The Spanish were useless. The French were surrender-monkeys, with half of them helping the Nazis. The rest of Europe collapsed like a cheap umbrella and needed the Anglo-Saxons to rescue them. As to the Russians - they played both sides against the middle. They tried to help the Nazis, but the Nazis turned on them, then they accepted our aid and turned on us.

France went to war in World War II in 1939 while the U.S. sat out the war until they were attacked.

By 1945, free French forces were fighting in Germany. There were 10 divisions of soldiers fighting. That's over one million soldiers. Surrender-monkeys indeed.

[Wilber]

The Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Greeks and a quite a few French units fought pretty hard before they were overwhelmed.

By 1945, free French forces were fighting in Germany. There were 10 divisions of soldiers fighting. That's over one million soldiers. Surrender-monkeys indeed.

In western armies a division normaly numbers around 10,000. My arithmetic would make 10 divisions about 100,000 not a million. Still, not a number to sneeze at.

[jdobbin]

The Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Greeks and a quite a few French units fought pretty hard before they were overwhelmed.

By 1945, free French forces were fighting in Germany. There were 10 divisions of soldiers fighting. That's over one million soldiers. Surrender-monkeys indeed.

In western armies a division normaly numbers around 10,000. My arithmetic would make 10 divisions about 100,000 not a million. Still, not a number to sneeze at.

Sorry, that should read 10 divisions that were fighting in Germany. The rest of the figures for men and women in uniform overall. Over 1,000,000 million.

[Black Dog]

An interesting historical repetition. In WW2, it was basically Canada -(Quebec), the US, Britain, and Australia against the Nazis. The Italians were allies to the Nazis. The Spanish were useless. The French were surrender-monkeys, with half of them helping the Nazis. The rest of Europe collapsed like a cheap umbrella and needed the Anglo-Saxons to rescue them. As to the Russians - they played both sides against the middle. They tried to help the Nazis, but the Nazis turned on them, then they accepted our aid and turned on us.

An interesting sodomization of history. WW2 was basically the Soviet Union against the Nazis with the western Allies playing a peripheral, nondecisive, but valuable role. As for your characterization of europe folding like a cheap umbrella, Germany was able to muster the most powerful military in the world against Europe: it was geography, not quality ore lack thereof, that doomed Europe and saved North America and England.

Is this much different than the "war on terror" where the only ones with the balls to stand up against the Islamists are the US, Britain, Canada and Australians?

Well given your initial interpretation of history is completey wrong, I'd say: yes. It's quite different.

[jdobbin]

An interesting sodomization of history. WW2 was basically the Soviet Union against the Nazis with the western Allies playing a peripheral, nondecisive, but valuable role. As for your characterization of europe folding like a cheap umbrella, Germany was able to muster the most powerful military in the world against Europe: it was geography, not quality ore lack thereof, that doomed Europe and saved North America and England.

That is probably an oversimplification of things as well.

[August1991]

Is this much different than the "war on terror" where the only ones with the balls to stand up against the Islamists are the US, Britain, Canada and Australians? The French have half-surrendered, already, the Spanish have given up. The Russians are again helping the Islamists, while the rest of Europe tries to hide in hopes nobody targets them.

Ah geez, Argus.

It is true that Stalin foolishly signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. And so, between the fall of France in June 1940 and the invasion of Russia in June 1941, Britain stood alone against the Nazis. But I largely agree with BD on the Second World War. Allow me to quote myself:

For comparison, consider the Battle of Kursk in July 1943:

Armour and troop concentrations were also built up by both sides with the Russians amassing 1,300,000 men, 3,600 tanks, 20,000 artillery pieces and 2,400 aircraft. The Germans also assembled a formidable fighting force which was slightly smaller with 900,000 men 2,700 tanks 2,000 aircraft. As well as the three premier Waffen SS divisions taking part.

Web Site

... and the Battle of El-Alamein in the Fall of 1942:

To cope with Montgomery’s attack, the Germans had 110,000 men and 500 tanks. A number of these tanks were poor Italian tanks and could not match the new Sherman’s. The Germans were also short of fuel. The Allies had more than 200,000 men and more than 1000 tanks.

Web Site

If Russia defeated Germany, does that mean that the British efforts were needless?

I have my own way of viewing wars and life in general. Russia did not defeat Nazi Germany. Individual Russian soldiers fought German soldiers. Which individual Russian soldier won the war? That's a meaningless question. The contribution of an individual British soldier is no less important than the contribution of a Russian soldier.

At the time of the war, soldiers knew this. Each did what he could.

As to this modern war against fanatical Islam, Russia has had its share of tragedy. From apartment bombings to school children to theatres. If we go on past experience, once the Russians decide to get involved, they won't do it by half measure.

Incidentally, your example of other Europeans is interesting. Bulgarians survived 500 years in dhimmitude under Muslim rule yet had children, raised them and maintained their language, religion and culture. Could modern Anglo-Saxons survive and maintain their way of life for 500 years under Muslim rule?

And in Canada, as usual, Quebecers are shirking, whining, snivelling and demanding we do nothing.

There was a TV debate in Quebec recently about Quebec's pacifism. One side argued that it was the natural response to Bush's aggression and the other side argued that it represented Quebec's immaturity.

I frankly don't think Quebecers are pacifist but they are isolationist. They share this characteristic with almost everyone else in the Americas.

[jbg]

An interesting historical repetition. In WW2, it was basically Canada -(Quebec), the US, Britain, and Australia against the Nazis.

*snip*

Is this much different than the "war on terror" where the only ones with the balls to stand up against the Islamists are the US, Britain, Canada and Australians?

*snip*

And in Canada, as usual, Quebecers are shirking, whining, snivelling and demanding we do nothing.

So what is it about the Anglo-Saxon world that makes us the go-to guys while everyone else passes the buck?

We are the the most prospeous and free-est linguistic/cultural group in the world, and the most internally unified. Except for the Scandinavians, Swiss, and a few other odd cases, we are the only ones where democracy is deeply rooted, revered and second-nature. The democratic histories of France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, and many other countries is fickle, interspersed by lengthy periods of dictatorship and/or semi-absolute or absolute monarchy.

The English Monarch is a unifying force, even in the US, which is a republic. Thus, where freedom is in danger, the English-speakers are there; always.

[Argus]

With all due respects, we have been through this before. I would like to quote Mahmoud Ghalehnoii, international English student, because I think he has an enlightening answer.

anglosaxon economies are based on human, resources and other countries exploitation.

without constant immigration, they stop functioning.

europeans work less for more output.

As you say: deja vu, indeed.

Yeah, except that's nonsense. There is a coincidence in that Canada, the US, and Australia were immigrant nations, and the politically correct have insisted that continue. But he UK needs no immigration. In point of fact, neither do the others. We'd be better off without taking in hundreds of thousands of goat herders.

The only countries which work less are the Europeans, and so far as I know, all of them are in deficit, with the deficits growing.

[Argus]

An interesting historical repetition. In WW2, it was basically Canada -(Quebec), the US, Britain, and Australia against the Nazis. The Italians were allies to the Nazis. The Spanish were useless. The French were surrender-monkeys, with half of them helping the Nazis. The rest of Europe collapsed like a cheap umbrella and needed the Anglo-Saxons to rescue them. As to the Russians - they played both sides against the middle. They tried to help the Nazis, but the Nazis turned on them, then they accepted our aid and turned on us.

France went to war in World War II in 1939 while the U.S. sat out the war until they were attacked.

The French surrendered about ten minutes after they started fighting.

By 1945, free French forces were fighting in Germany. There were 10 divisions of soldiers fighting. That's over one million soldiers. Surrender-monkeys indeed.

After the US liberated France in late 1944, and provided them with weapons and equipment, and the war was pretty much finished, the French were eager to get in on the kill.

[BubberMiley]

So what is it about the Anglo-Saxon world that makes us the go-to guys while everyone else passes the buck?

We control the wealth of the civilization we're fighting for. They're our bucks being passed back to us.

[Argus]

Is this much different than the "war on terror" where the only ones with the balls to stand up against the Islamists are the US, Britain, Canada and Australians? The French have half-surrendered, already, the Spanish have given up. The Russians are again helping the Islamists, while the rest of Europe tries to hide in hopes nobody targets them.

Ah geez, Argus.

It is true that Stalin foolishly signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. And so, between the fall of France in June 1940 and the invasion of Russia in June 1941, Britain stood alone against the Nazis.

Let's not minimize what Stalin did. He was another Hitler, and attacked Poland from the east as Hitler was attacking from the West. He then went on to attack Finland. His army, unlike the Germans', was large but thoroughly incompetent, at leat in the beginning.

But I largely agree with BD on the Second World War.

Russian efforts were great indeed, but political correctness and the deeply ingrained liberal habit of playing down any Western achievements has made it seem greater than it was - or perhaps, downplayed the role of the western allies. I wonder what would have happened without Western industry supplying the Russians with the tanks, trucks, guns, aircraft, etc, something in the order of 171 MILLION tons of supplies, excluding such things as oil, and aircraft flown in and given to the Soviets.

One thing we've learned about warfare is that logistics is enormously important. An army can't fight without bullets, guns and food. So how well would the Soviets have held out without the Allies?

I think you and other liberals also tend to dismiss Western efforts, in part because of that general liberal reflex of sneering at our own historical achievements, and in part due to the collosol Russian casualties. But Russian casualties were enormous in part due to the fact Stalin really did not care how much half trained canon fodder was chewed up to delay Hitler. And while the tank battles in Africa might have been smaller, the Luftwaffe had lost 40% of its total strength in air battles over Malta and Tunisia just before Kursk - that's after taking significant losses during the Battle of Britain, of course, and growing battles with the Western allies.

As to this modern war against fanatical Islam, Russia has had its share of tragedy. From apartment bombings to school children to theatres.

I am one of those who is suspicious of those apartment bombings, frankly. I've seen no evidence that really indicates it was Muslims as opposed to local crime gangs or the Russians themselves, looking for an excuse for another go at the Chechins.

If we go on past experience, once the Russians decide to get involved, they won't do it by half measure.

You mean, like, they'll reconsider giving Iran the means to build nuclear weapons?

[Wilber]

The French surrendered about ten minutes after they started fighting.

More like six weeks. Like the British at the time, the French were prepared to fight the last war, not the one the Germans gave them. They had around 600,000 casualties in WW2 including over 200,000 dead.

They had over 5.5 million casualties in WW1 including 1.3 million killed, over 400,000 more dead than the entire British Empire.

[Black Dog]

Let's not minimize what Stalin did. He was another Hitler, and attacked Poland from the east as Hitler was attacking from the West. He then went on to attack Finland. His army, unlike the Germans', was large but thoroughly incompetent, at leat in the beginning.

Yuip. Stalin was a monster, as bad as, if not worse than, Hitler. Which has little bearing on your thesis.

Russian efforts were great indeed, but political correctness and the deeply ingrained liberal habit of playing down any Western achievements has made it seem greater than it was - or perhaps, downplayed the role of the western allies. I wonder what would have happened without Western industry supplying the Russians with the tanks, trucks, guns, aircraft, etc, something in the order of 171 MILLION tons of supplies, excluding such things as oil, and aircraft flown in and given to the Soviets.

One thing we've learned about warfare is that logistics is enormously important. An army can't fight without bullets, guns and food. So how well would the Soviets have held out without the Allies?

Au contraire. Ackowledgement of the Soviet Union's enormous contribution to the war has grown only recently. The past has been the kind of nonsensical cheerleading of the western powers' military contributions that you're peddling. As for the role of supplies, that's a fair point, but one that undermines your initial assertion that it was "basically Canada -(Quebec), the US, Britain, and Australia against the Nazis." The Allies' industrial and logistical contributions were significant, their military one's (which I belive is what you are talking about: otherwise you would have talked about the west having the balls to...build planes) far less so.

I think you and other liberals also tend to dismiss Western efforts, in part because of that general liberal reflex of sneering at our own historical achievements, and in part due to the collosol Russian casualties. But Russian casualties were enormous in part due to the fact Stalin really did not care how much half trained canon fodder was chewed up to delay Hitler.

It also has large measure to do with the fact that the western Allies weren't very good compared to their German and Soviet counterparts. The pervasive fear of casualties and the lack of quality leadership made the Allies tentative and affected their combat effectiveness. Again: the western Allies' technological and industrial superiority played a major role in winning the war: but that's got nothing to do with "balls".

[geoffrey]

An interesting historical repetition. In WW2, it was basically Canada -(Quebec)...

That's ridiculous from line one. Maybe most in Quebec didn't support the war, but Quebec's young men fought alongside the allies. I have two Quebecois Francophone great-uncles burried in France, who died fighting for Canada in the second world war.

What you said is disrespectful to many of our veterns, and it's a real shame you'd go there.

[jdobbin]

The French surrendered about ten minutes after they started fighting.

After the US liberated France in late 1944, and provided them with weapons and equipment, and the war was pretty much finished, the French were eager to get in on the kill.

Both British and French generals believed that Germany would attack from directly. Not even Churchill expected an attack from Belgium, Holland and the Luxembourg. Holland surrendered in ten minutes.

France continued to fight but they and the British were totally caught off guard by German tactics and enormous aerial superiority.

The British began evacuating while France continued to fight.

[Argus]

An interesting historical repetition. In WW2, it was basically Canada -(Quebec)...

That's ridiculous from line one. Maybe most in Quebec didn't support the war, but Quebec's young men fought alongside the allies. I have two Quebecois Francophone great-uncles burried in France, who died fighting for Canada in the second world war.

What you said is disrespectful to many of our veterns, and it's a real shame you'd go there.

There are good people in every community. But what I said was true. Quebec didn't give a damn about Nazis or anything else. They (meaning the province, as opposed to individuals) wanted no part of the war and were willing to fight (ironically) so they wouldn't have to fight.

[BubberMiley]

About.com has an article on Quebec separatism that says:

1944-WWII Conscription Crisis

The emotions Quebeckers felt in WWI were reinforced in yet another conscription crisis in WWII. By 1944, the allies were desparately short of troops and the pressure for conscription was rising. A plebiscite was conducted on conscription. 80% of English-speaking Canadians were for while 73% of French-speaking Canadians were against.

[Rovik]

An interesting historical repetition. In WW2, it was basically Canada -(Quebec), the US, Britain, and Australia against the Nazis.

The Americans did not join the war until 1941, two years after the beginning of WW2 in 1939. Guess they figured it was not in their best interest to get involved for 2 years. It's kind of funny that they initially criticized countries that didn't join them at the beginning of the Iraqi war, yet historically the Americans have not always been so quick to join their allies in the trenches.

[jbg]

An interesting historical repetition. In WW2, it was basically Canada -(Quebec), the US, Britain, and Australia against the Nazis.

The Americans did not join the war until 1941, two years after the beginning of WW2 in 1939. Guess they figured it was not in their best interest to get involved for 2 years. It's kind of funny that they initially criticized countries that didn't join them at the beginning of the Iraqi war, yet historically the Americans have not always been so quick to join their allies in the trenches.

There are some things to keep in mind. At that time, Canada, despite official responsible government, was still very much under Britain's tutelage. Joining the war for them was more or less compulsory.

As for the US, Continental Europe folded up like a tin can under the Nazi invasion. There was nothing the US could have done to prevent its occupation. Our sole interest was in preserving Britain's freedom at that point.

It is true that Japan was on a rampage in the Pacific. It was not known that Japan would take the ultimately suicidal step of bringing the US into the Pacific theater. The Aussies, while incomparably brave fighters as the Canadians were, were no match for the Japanese.

That being said, I consider my country's position in WW II to be morally repulsive. To explain is not to excuse.

[Wilber]

There are some things to keep in mind. At that time, Canada, despite official responsible government, was still very much under Britain's tutelage. Joining the war for them was more or less compulsory.

Not really however the makeup of Canada was much different than today and even though there was nothing compulsory about Canada declaring war, the majority of Canadians were still emotionally attached to a degree that it was the thing to do.

[jdobbin]

There are some things to keep in mind. At that time, Canada, despite official responsible government, was still very much under Britain's tutelage. Joining the war for them was more or less compulsory.

It wasn't.

[Black Dog]

It was not known that Japan would take the ultimately suicidal step of bringing the US into the Pacific theater

Sure it was. The U.S. knew war was coming. I draw your attention to this post from an old thread:

On July 24, 1941, the US government took the step of freezing all Japanese assets in America and imposed an oil and material goods embargo. Roosevelt described this as "economic war".

Japan persisted in trying to defuse the situation, but Roosevelt wanted in on WWII, so this wouldn't do. On November 26, the USA delivered a 10-point ultimatum known as the Hull Note to Japan demanding that it basically quit all territories gained since 1933. The US Ambassador in Tokyo called this "the document that pushed the button that started the war."

The USA imposed the embargo and freezing of assets as an objection to the Sino-Japanese war. They did not do this out of conviction that the war was wrong, but because Japanese actions in China conflicted with Theodore Roosevelt's Open Door Imperialism policy, which held that China should be open for American business. The Japanese presented two proposals to the USA in mid-November, the first being that they settle the Sino-Japanese war immediately and conduct a partial withdrawal of Japanese troops. The second proposed a cessation of military action in China in exchange for 1m gallons of aviation fuel. Roosevelt was initially prepared to make a counter-offer but later decided against it, instructing Cordell Hull to send the Hull Note which basically demanded that Japan abandon all gains in its costly Sino-Japanese war, or else. The Japanese fleet that was to attack Pearl Harbour set sail the same day.

Link

The problem was the U.S. underestimated Japan's capabilities. They knew a strike was coming, but hey didn't know where. They had no idea Japan would be able to launch simultaneous offensives against multiple objectives throughout the Pacific.

[Wilber]

I frankly don't think Quebecers are pacifist but they are isolationist. They share this characteristic with almost everyone else in the Americas.

It's easy to be an isolationist if you see no threat to yourself.