Poll: over 40% of Canadian teens think America is "evil"

It's too bad more Europeans don't think the same way about the US as you do about Canada, Nimh.

But, do you think Canadian armed forces would have been successful without the full support of the US military?

0 Replies

The RCAF's official site -- showing the WWII participation:

http://www.rcaf.com/1939_1945_waryears/

0 Replies

We'll take a few nice ones.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It's too bad more Europeans don't think the same way about the US as you do about Canada, Nimh.

But, do you think Canadian armed forces would have been successful without the full support of the US military?

The Canadian troops who patrolled the Rhine in the bloody winter of 1944-45, and who eventually captured Arnhem were part of XXXth Corps, a British military organization. They were under the direct command of Field Marshall Montgomery, and used British equipment, arms and ammunition--which were supplied by Britain.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Only Q: what to do with all those Americans?

Grenada.

Definately Grenada.

They already know the place, it's a nice climate ....

(Although: before, someone should teach them the difference between Grenada and Granada .... who knows, what might happen!)

0 Replies

Set:

This is cool, a person who uses a dog arguing with a guy who's probably one of A2K's leading "Busheep"

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
It's too bad more Europeans don't think the same way about the US as you do about Canada, Nimh.

But, do you think Canadian armed forces would have been successful without the full support of the US military?

The Canadian troops who patrolled the Rhine in the bloody winter of 1944-45, and who eventually captured Arnhem were part of XXXth Corps, a British military organization. They were under the direct command of Field Marshall Montgomery, and used British equipment, arms and ammunition--which were supplied by Britain.

The same Britain that would have lost the war without the support of the US military?

Why is it so hard to say the US saved Europe? Is it such a bad thing?

0 Replies

NeoGuin wrote:

Set:

This is cool, a person who uses a dog arguing with a guy who's probably one of A2K's leading "Busheep"

"Busheep?" Rather rude.

0 Replies

I should add that before Canadian troops ever entered combat in Europe, the Canadians had already sucked up virtually all of Britains credit reserves based on their gold holdings. World War II was very, very good to Canada in such economic terms. In terms of human lives, they suffered proportionally higher than did we, but it was small in comparison to the horrendous price which the Canadian army paid in World War I. The first invasion of the French coast was at Dieppe in 1942. The Canadians suffered horrible casualties so that the allies could make all the mistakes which they would not repeat in Normandy in 1944. In particular, the Calgary Rifles, which by then was an amored unit, suffered very badly, which allowed the allies to learn everything not to do to put amored units ashore in an amphibious operation. Louis Mountbatten had planned and pushed the operation. Bernard Law Montgomery had advised against it, but cooperated to give advice, given that the operation would go forward despite his objection. He studied the results very closely, and the lessons learned at Dieppe saved many lives in Normandy.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It just gets me down a bit when some Canadians forget their place.

That's rather rude - if you wanna go there.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It's too bad more Europeans don't think the same way about the US as you do about Canada, Nimh.

Well, I was being ironic of course.

McGentrix wrote:

But, do you think Canadian armed forces would have been successful without the full support of the US military?

In Holland? Yeah for sure. Well, apparently they wouldnt have been succesful without the British army's support - didn't know that, thanks Set.

Of course, however, neither the Canadians nor the Brits, Americans or Russians would have been able to push the Germans that far back if it wasn't for each of the others pushing at them from a different direction ...

Without the Red Army pushing from the East and sacrificing their lives in unparallelled numbers, the Western Allies would not in many years have been able to gain that foothold on the mainland. Just like the Soviets would probably have died in vain if the Germans were not distracted by the Western attacks.

How "us Americans saved all your arses" fits into that overall scheme, I dunno.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

[The same Britain that would have lost the war without the support of the US military?

Why is it so hard to say the US saved Europe? Is it such a bad thing?

It is a simple matter of informing oneself to know who contributed what, and how much. Canada and the United States bled Britain economically white during that war. Nevertheless, Britain provided universal equipment, arms and ammunition for Commonwealth forces (Australia, Canada, India and New Zealand, primarily), one of Churchill's obsessions. He tried to get the United States to go along, but U.S. Military planners had no desire to use British equipment or ammunition. Nevertheless, the Mustang as premier fighter plane in the ETO was only possible after they were equipped with Rolls Royce Merlin engines.

During World War II, the Canadians produced the lion's share of minesweepers and corvettes which were used to escort merchant convoys to Britain. This was convenient for them to do, because they could build such small vessels on the Lakes, and move them down the St. Laurent, even thought the Seaway project did not take place until after the war. In the larger shipyards on their Atlantic and Pacific coasts, they produced destoyers which were so superior to British destroyers, that the Royal Navy stole almost all of them for their own submarine "hunter-killer" groups. The Canadians then designed the modern frigate, the ideal submarine hunter.

We certainly did a lot for Europe both during and after the war. For Britain, we simply came with troops and arms of our own. They supplied themselves, and they supplied the literally millions of Commonwealth troops who supported the war effort. We gave them "Lend-lease," which was, we'll lend you some obsolete World War I destroyers, and you give us a sweethear deal on the lease of your Carribean bases. During that war, Britain also achieved, for the first time in two centuries, the ability to feed themselves, at least, when women got on the tractor and put more land in crops in Britain than had been the case since the early 1700's.

Once again, McG, you don't inform yourself, you just puke up stale old propaganda.

0 Replies

You seem to think that I have said Canada is useless and has provided nothing to anyone anywhere. That's simply not the case. Canada has been and continues to be a valuable US ally.

YOU on the other hand seem afraid to admit that the US has protected Canada if by nothing else sheer vicinity. You can talk up the capabilities of the Canadian armed forces all you want, but they are a small drop in the bucket when compared to the US military. Why is that so hard for you to admit?

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

my tone was directed to crusader Karzak, mostly in response to his ridiculous claim that America has the moral responsibilty and right to police the world, even when they are not wanted.

Like the ridiculous claim that police should arrest a rapist, even if he doesn't want to be arrested?

Who cares what most of the other countries think anyway, they lack the courage to do more than whine about it from the sidelines, they lack the moral imperative to act.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Why is it so hard to say the US saved Europe? Is it such a bad thing?

Because its not TRUE, McGentrix, thats why. I mean, if we're still talking about the Nazis here. The US helped save Europe from the Nazis, but no more so than did the Soviets, who sacrificed themselves in much greater numbers. Thats why the Communists had such a huge upswing of popularity just after '45, for however short it lasted - we were all too aware of their all-surpassing sacrifices. Like I said,

nimh wrote:

Of course, however, neither the Canadians nor the Brits, Americans or Russians would have been able to push the Germans that far back if it wasn't for each of the others pushing at them from a different direction ...

Without the Red Army pushing from the East and sacrificing their lives in unparallelled numbers, the Western Allies would not in many years have been able to gain that foothold on the mainland. Just like the Soviets would probably have died in vain if the Germans were not distracted by the Western attacks.

How "us Americans saved all your arses" fits into that overall scheme, I dunno.

Of course, if you want to make the point that it was the US that saved Western Europe from the Soviets/Communists, you get more points ...

though that is where I would point out that it did so through the kind of massive support programs (Marshall Plan) that Americans, left and right, now seem to be unwilling to spend on, say, Afghanistan ...

0 Replies

Without the Soviets and the British, the U.S. simply could not have won the war until the A bomb. It wasn't possible to produce more than was necessary to use on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the Japanese military suspected that it could be as much as a year before we could. These are substantial suppositions but no less true than the U.S. could not have launched D Day without the British and the Canadians. In fact, the British tried to convince us to use their land minesweepers and we declined, losing many more troops than necessary. We virtually landed but a few tanks because we launched them far from shore and most of them sank. So much for being the sole hero in the D Day operation.
I'm not attempting to rewrite history based on an ability to time travel back and change it. The Germans may have been intimidated by the two A bomb blasts or maybe not and it's a moot point because the Canadians and the British, not to mention the Australians, launched D Day. There's no doubt our ground troops who did land were extraordinary heros, wining the day by sheer determination and skill. There would have been a lot more of them to do it (less loss of men) if those two glaring military errors had not occurred. The British did use the land minesweepers in their operation and lost significantly less men.

0 Replies

It is true, Nimh. You just need to learn to come to terms with it. Or, does the hatred in your heart for America burn so brightly as to blind you to this fact?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

YOU on the other hand seem afraid to admit that the US has protected Canada if by nothing else sheer vicinity.

Ah, cute. I mean, the shift of argument.

I thought the point was that Canadians should "know their place" because it "relies on" the US for defence - because America "has its back".

Of course, then it turns out that McG cant actually think of a single case in which the US did or does defend Canada from anything - in which Canada does rely on the US.

So now the argument is that the Canadians should be grateful for the sheer fact of, well, their country lying next to the States. That alone should be reason enough for them to "know their place" - i.e., not call America a bad guy and stuff. How dare they.

Cant help escape this mental association with the attitude demonstrated by the Soviets vis-a-vis the former satellite states, their "smaller brothers" ... Those were expected to remain loyal to Moscow's political line and show deference because, you know, they should be forever grateful to the Soviets for liberating them back in WW2.

The "you should be grateful for WW2" line might still have worked at Bush Sr.'s time ... he was there, right? But why we should somehow be loyal to a man who didnt even fight in Vietnam, let alone WW2 - why we should accept his arguments at face value - because of something a different generation of Americans, with different values, different politicians and different politics did - just leaves me puzzled.

0 Replies

Hell, don't ask, nimh, just be grateful!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

You seem to think that I have said Canada is useless and has provided nothing to anyone anywhere. That's simply not the case. Canada has been and continues to be a valuable US ally.

YOU on the other hand seem afraid to admit that the US has protected Canada if by nothing else sheer vicinity. You can talk up the capabilities of the Canadian armed forces all you want, but they are a small drop in the bucket when compared to the US military. Why is that so hard for you to admit?

And YOU continue to avoid the question of from whom or what we protect them. Unless and until you posit a specific threat, there is no way to assess whether or not the Canadians would need our help to defend themselves.

0 Replies

Poll: over 40% of Canadian teens think America is "evil"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know