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

[Kontiki]

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.

While I certainly don't think we could have fought by ourselves, Canada was largely agrarian before the war and greatly transformed during the course of it. Here's some rankings of our production during the war among all participants:

Tanks and self-propelled guns - 5th
Artillery - 6th
Machine guns - 6th
Aircraft (all types) - 6th
Escort ships - 3rd
Coal - 6th
Iron Ore - 9th
Oil - 6th

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Kontiki


While I certainly don't think we could have fought by ourselves, Canada was largely agrarian before the war and greatly transformed during the course of it. Here's some rankings of our production during the war among all participants:

Tanks and self-propelled guns - 5th
Artillery - 6th
Machine guns - 6th
Aircraft (all types) - 6th
Escort ships - 3rd
Coal - 6th
Iron Ore - 9th
Oil - 6th

The problem, of course, is that what you listed is just a small part of the war effort. Canada ended up with the third largest Navy at the end of WW2...with regards to number of ships. With tonnage it was still behind USSR.

And, of course, the sheer number of trucks/automobiles/misc. war material that the USA and Russian put out still dwarfed that of Canada.

Of course, Canada was lucky in that, like the United States, her factories were as automated as possible (within the confines of 40s tech) and Managerial expertise was not far removed from America, either.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

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).

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.

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.

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.

[atawa]

Originally posted by Asher
By the way, Echty, try telling the people of the Netherlands how wussy the Canadians were.

175,000 Canadian soldiers (and at times, 450,000 soldiers from other countries under Canada's command) liberated the Netherlands -- at the expense of the non-wuss Germans, who largely retreated.

Canada

I am well aware of that. But at least half of the Netherlands is south of that bridge.

Only the mostly rural provinces of Brabant and Limburg, witch are considered half Belgian anyway by the rest of us.

[Kontiki]

I'm not saying we were in the same league as the US/USSR, but rather that lists about pre-war "potential" had little bearing on what we actually ended up producing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Colon™


It's fairly reasonable to assume, that if Belgium also had been a country of many millions of square kilometers, also had had many dozens of millions of people, also had had harsh winters, and also had situated an industrial complex beyond the reach of any invader, it too would have fought a pretty reasonable war. And at least we didn't shot our officers in a silly ideological fit prior to the war.

If belgium had started in 4000 bc on spot with some river grasslands squares, and some really good specials, like whales, theyd certainly rule the world by now.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus




No, under no circumstances should Prescott Bush be mentioned.

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. "

[lord of the mark]

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. "

Whats even more interesting is to compare the Guardian quote of the ADL, with the actual ADL statement on their website

"Rumors about the alleged Nazi "ties" of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated.

Despite some early financial dealings between Prescott Bush and a Nazi industrialist named Fritz Thyssen (who was arrested by the Nazi regime in 1938 and imprisoned during the war), Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer. "

Seems clever snipping isnt limited to poly posters.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Don't mention the war.

And certainly, whatever you do, don't mention Prescott Bush...

Or george lansbury

"The East Fulham by-election in June 1933 was dominated by the issue of rearmament against Nazi Germany. Lansbury as Labour Leader sent a message to the constituency:

I would close every recruiting station, disband the Army and disarm the Air Force. I would abolish the whole dreadful equipment of war and say to the world "do your worst".

[Drake Tungsten]

It might be easier perhaps because after the Japanese murdered the Allied sick and wounded in the prelude to the Admin Box battle in Burma the British forces were not inclined to capture Japanese prisoners.

Animals...

Oh of course, because everyone knows that the Manhattan Project and the atom bombs were purely American inventions don't they?

Obviously.

So you've actually fought in dense jungle terrain in a monsoon have you?

I sincerely doubt that for Burma was in a monsoon for the entirety of the four years it took the British to finally recapture it (with American assistance).

I must say it sounds so much less difficult than attacking isolated coral atolls short on fresh water and food.

Yes, it does indeed.

Could I suggest that perhaps you get someone who can read English to help you understand exactly what the Burma Campaign was, and who Orde Wingate was?

Is this really the only point you have to hang your hat on? Wingate and the Chindits won some minor victories, but they did nothing that would outweigh the terrible showing of the British Army that led to the conquering of Malaya, Singapore, Burma, etc. in the first place.

[Qilue]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

It might be easier perhaps because after the Japanese murdered the Allied sick and wounded in the prelude to the Admin Box battle in Burma the British forces were not inclined to capture Japanese prisoners.

Animals...

Oh of course, because everyone knows that the Manhattan Project and the atom bombs were purely American inventions don't they?

Obviously.

So you've actually fought in dense jungle terrain in a monsoon have you?

I sincerely doubt that for Burma was in a monsoon for the entirety of the four years it took the British to finally recapture it (with American assistance).

I must say it sounds so much less difficult than attacking isolated coral atolls short on fresh water and food.

Yes, it does indeed.

Could I suggest that perhaps you get someone who can read English to help you understand exactly what the Burma Campaign was, and who Orde Wingate was?

Is this really the only point you have to hang your hat on? Wingate and the Chindits won some minor victories, but they did nothing that would outweigh the terrible showing of the British Army that led to the conquering of Malaya, Singapore, Burma, etc. in the first place.

Drake, there appears to be a problem with your indoctrination, you forgot the mindless "USA!USA!USA!" chant.

[Pekka]

Canada is definitely worth invading. It has tons of stuff that is worthy.. all these resources and stuff.. plus it's a nice area, kind of like.. well.. Canadian.

But since we are not enemies, better option is to just move there or something.

[Lord Avalon]

Take off! To the Great White North.
Take off! It's a beauty way to go.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Qilue


Drake, there appears to be a problem with your indoctrination, you forgot the mindless "USA!USA!USA!" chant.

I guess that he has advanced to the next level where he only have to close his eyes and stick his fingers in the ears while he hums it to himself.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Qilue


Drake, there appears to be a problem with your indoctrination, you forgot the mindless "USA!USA!USA!" chant.

Perhaps he needs to attend the Cheney & Rove Summer Camp for Pre-Screened Americans.