Were there only wusses in WWII besides Russians, Germans and Americans?

[Odin]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



From the linked article


"In addition to Eva Schweitzer's book, two other books are about to be published that raise the subject of Prescott Bush's business history. The author of the second book, to be published next year, John Loftus, is a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s. Now living in St Petersburg, Florida and earning his living as a security commentator for Fox News and ABC radio, Loftus is working on a novel which uses some of the material he has uncovered on Bush. Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time. "

"You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?" he said.


"The Anti-Defamation League in the US is supportive of Prescott Bush and the Bush family. In a statement last year they said that "rumours about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated ... Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser."

And heres why the Guardian is raising such an elaborate conspiracy theory:

"More than 60 years after Prescott Bush came briefly under scrutiny at the time of a faraway war, his grandson is facing a different kind of scrutiny but one underpinned by the same perception that, for some people, war can be a profitable business. "

It's hilarious going to DU and seeing the newest conspiracy regarding the "Bush Family Evil Empire" (BFEE). They think Presscott Bush and some other US capitalists started some underground program to create a fascist US and that the recent rise of the Neo-Cons is this conspiracy's doing.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh of course, because everyone knows that the Manhattan Project and the atom bombs were purely American inventions don't they ? Or at least so some Americans would have us believe...

Yeah, a lot of Germans helped. More evidence for the claim in the OP...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Not sure where you're getting some of your history from, Jimmy. Canada's big "split" from GB was after WWI (1931 to be precise). We were under no obligation to assist Britain in WWII, and indeed our parliament debated and voted on a declaration of war. Sure, it was something of a foregone conclusion, but both entering and the extent of our involvement was of our own choosing.

I have to stop and shake my head on some of the things that jimmy comes up with wrt Canadian history.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Lonestar



Canada didn't even make the top seven Industrially powerful belligerant list. combined fleet article

The war was carried by American and Russian might.

How much of Canada's aircraft, vehicle, and ship production got bundled into Britain's numbers?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by notyoueither


How much of Canada's aircraft, vehicle, and ship production got bundled into Britain's numbers?

0 unless, of course, canadian politicians are totally stupid.

[notyoueither]

Canadian politicians had little to do with that web site or the authors upon which the numbers are based..

[BlackCat]

That is really one of the most lame excuses I have ever encountered on the web.

[Asher]

lol library programmer lol

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by BlackCat


That is really one of the most lame excuses I have ever encountered on the web.

Excuse for what?

WTF do Canadian politicians have to do with a webpage put up by a Yank?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn

Well that's a very debatable topic. Some people even argue that the split didn't officially occur until 1982. So in light of this ongoing debate, I think its a bit presumptious for you to pinpoint the date at 1931. I was only suggesting that the post war period was one of the things that caused further splitting, as was most certainly the case in regarding Newfoundland.

It's not really debatable at all and very easy to pinpoint. The Statute of Westminster came into effect in 1931, and was the single biggest shift since independence. The only thing even close since then is the Canada Act of 1982, but I'd say legislative independence trumps not having to ask for permission to alter the constitution.

For Canada not to involve itself at that time would have been so unprecedented that I don't think any reasonable situation could have arrisen to cause it not to. Officially Canada was independent to enter and exit, but it was under immense obligation to follow GB's lead and to contribute heavily. This is widely accepted history... of course if Heritage Moments are your only source, then it isn't.

Like I said, it was a foregone conclusion, but that was largely based on very strong domestic support for Britain. Hell, we had a national plebiscite in 1942 about sending conscripts overseas which passed with 65% yes (83% in English speaking Canada), and didn't send a single conscript overseas until November 1944. I'd hardly call that an "immense obligation" nor an "un-naturally big burden".

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kontiki


It's not really debatable at all and very easy to pinpoint. The Statute of Westminster came into effect in 1931, and was the single biggest shift since independence. The only thing even close since then is the Canada Act of 1982, but I'd say legislative independence trumps not having to ask for permission to alter the constitution.

The Canada Act of 1982 was an act of a foreign parliment with no Canadian Representatives.

It could not possibly have had any real significance if Canada was independant. If it did have significance in friggin 1982 my god, what an incredible national embarrassment that would be.

[notyoueither]

It's called rule of law, Geronimo.

Any time after 1916 that we were pissed off enough, there could have been a bill in Ottawa that would have accomplished the same thing and Westminster would have had very little to say about it..

Fact is, we've never been pissed off enough about anything to do anything unilaterally. IOW, jimmy's earlier musings on the widespread discontent in Canada over our role wrt Britain is a crock of moonbat pooh.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It's called rule of law, Geronimo.

Any time after 1916 that we were pissed off enough, there could have been a bill in Ottawa that would have accomplished the same thing and Westminster would have had very little to say about it..

Then why, oh why wasn't the aim of Canada Act of 1982 accomplished that way (bill in Ottawa)? I cannot begin to imagine allowing the indignity of going to a foreign parliment to grovel for permission to change my own countries constitution.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Geronimo


The Canada Act of 1982 was an act of a foreign parliment with no Canadian Representatives.

It could not possibly have had any real significance if Canada was independant. If it did have significance in friggin 1982 my god, what an incredible national embarrassment that would be.

It's not like it was something the Brits came up with themselves on a whim. It was utterly driven by the Canadian government and was just a formal, polite way of severing the last real politcal ties. It also wasn't the act of severing the ties themselves that was particularly significant, it was the changes in the constitution that were contained within that caused controversy in Canada.

[Kontiki]

I think Americans have a hard time understanding some of this because we are much, much less of a constitution-driven country than they are. On a spectrum between the US and British role of a constitution, we're quite a bit closer to Britain.