[ShepherdsDog]

Regarding Spain. if there aren't copious amounts of precious metals involved that are easily obtainable, they would rather fight amongst themselves.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Probably the same way we did during the last two world wars - mostly by ourselves (and while you Americans sat on the sidelines for a couple of years ).

The First World War was a family squabble that was really not our concern until the King's cousin started shooting at Americans. The 2nd war was a direct result of Europeans continuing the first one by means of treaty and, again, we didn't see it as our concern until Mr. Hitler declared war on us.

Actually, in the first one, large numbers of Americans wanted to fight (hence the reason many enlisted in Canada or the UK), but US industry and government found it easier to make a buck off people dying. In the second, the US has its head up its ass and was too scared of its shadow to deal with a megalomaniac intent on global domination.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Honestly though, the CF is much larger, better trained (and with a fair amount of combat experience too) and better equipped than it was prior to either world war in the last century, so I'm not at all worried about our ability to contribute. Political will and public pressure (not to intervene) would be the issues I'd be more concerned with.

True. I've no doubt that Mr. Canada and Andy would be opposed to Canada sending troops to Europe.

And myself, 2Cdo, Regina, Tricks, and a couple dozen others would support it. As long as the war is a just one, you can expect Canada to be there, irregardless of a few discontented.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

And Denmark, please. They would be a cakewalk. Most of their ships are smaller and less well armed than ours are. I have no doubt we'd lose a ship of three, but their tiny navy would get wiped out if they tried to take us one-on-one. The ones to worry about would be the German and French navies.

Don't sell them short. They may not be a big dog but there's a lot of fight in that dog.

Interesting that you're willing to sell short us Canadians though.

But that's exactly my point - Canadians have never shied away from a just conflict, and the fight in the Canadian dog is at least as big (if not bigger) than the fight in Denmark, the Netherlands, or any other country.

We started practically from scratch in WW2 - and with our much larger military and recent combat experience - I have little doubt that Canada could raise more than a little hell in WW3.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Our planes could easily fly across the Atlantic to fight in a 2nd Battle of Britain should it come to that.

Again, you'd be dealing with the Danes and forward posted EU fighters staged in Greenland and Iceland. It would not be easy going.

War never is.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Re: sea transport, there are plenty of freighters we could hire out to ship our troops over there. Who knows, maybe the Conservatives will get off their asses and finally build the JSS like they promised years ago - if that happens, they can easily supplement the merchant marine, as each is supposed to be able to carry and support a company or two of troops.

Freighters anymore are container ships and those are not well suited to troops. And what you need for armour are roll-on, roll-off ships and Canada doesn't have a single one of those even in private ownership.

Like I said, it all depends on whether or not the Conservatives get off the duff and build the JSS like they promised back in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Support_Ship_Project

Besides, armour can be shipped in regular freighters, it just means that unloading is a longer process than with RO-RO ships.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Secondly, the government bought four super expensive buses (I think the USAF calls them C-17s) a few years back and I'm sure they could get our tanks and heavy equipment there. Coupled with our new fleet of C-130Js, we have plenty of airlift, especially without our previous huge commitment in Afghanistan. Besides, if the Brits were in tight against the continentals, why wouldn't they use some of their airlift (C-17s, C-130s, A-400s) to help bring over troops and supplies?

You'd have to have air superiority in order to employ your transports in a ferry role and then you're still going to need a helluva lot of lead time to fly your armour over there in significant enough numbers to compose even a brigade. Four transports is not near enough.

As I said, we have four C-17s and 17 C-130s, while the Brits have 4 C-17s, 24 C-130s, and 22 A-400s (ordered but not delivered yet). That is a lot of airlift capacity. I agree it is not enough to supply a division, but it could easily move a battalion (or more) per hop, so over time (say a month) we could have a substantial presence in the UK even without using any ships.

I agree air superiority is a factor, but the Brits really only need to maintain for a matter of hours when a flight of transports arrives - the rest of the time, the RAF is free to defend the skies from the dastardly French.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

And frankly, I'm sure General Dynamics Land Systems (builders of the LAV) could tool up to make parts for the Leo 2s we have - it might take a few months, but I doubt we'd be sending our boys straight into the fire.

Funny, I believe you're right but if the US is at peace with Germany then I imagine their lawyers will sue to prevent any American firms from infringing on German patents. In which case we'd probably just roll a few hundred M1's across the border to you.

That is possible, but I doubt Canadian courts would care much.

Even if GDLS did adhere to such a lawsuit, I have no doubt that a Canadian company would step forward (or be created by the government) to build the parts necessary. Additionally, we'd probably wind up either designing our own tank or, more likely, building Challengers/Abrams under license ourselves.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Odds are even if a major war did start, there would be a big push initially, then a long lull as everyone retooled factories to make tanks, planes, trained troops, etc.

No, because those factories will be prime targets for the enemy's cruise missiles. I think this next war would be fast and furious at the start and then followed by a lull when both sides would be hard put to come up with spares.

True, but that is one place where Canada has a huge advantage over the Europeans.

Where Europe is only a few hundred kilometres deep in most places, Canada is several thousand kilometres deep. Our industrial heartland is practically in the centre of the continent, and unless a French sub was able to sneak past Quebec City, it's unlikely that Canadian manufacturing would be damaged, unless someone used SLBMs/ICBMs. Fallout from weapons like that would assuredly bring the Americans into it (assuming they stay isolationist like the 30s).

[SprCForr]

Thanos Thanos:

...Europeans have been and always will be killers at heart. Scratch the veneer of the phony ennui-pregnant sophistication that they wrap around themselves and you find rather quickly that they really aren't all that different from the way their great-granddads behaved about a hundred years ago. Given them a sufficient enough provocation and the beast will come roaring out a lot quicker than anyone would suspect.

Exactly so.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

In the second, the US has its head up its ass and was too scared of its shadow to deal with a megalomaniac intent on global domination.

Up until Mr. Hitler invaded Poland the UK was not so keen on believing Hitler posed a threat either. Perhaps if the UK had listened to Churchill instead of slandering him as a paranoid the USA would have paid more attention, too.

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Up until Mr. Hitler invaded Poland the UK was not so keen on believing Hitler posed a threat either. Perhaps if the UK had listened to Churchill instead of slandering him as a paranoid the USA would have paid more attention, too.

Wow! One of these days an American will admit they didn't react fast enough to the thread of WWII. Now we are blaming everyone except Churchill. No wonder Diefenbaker did Churchill impressions.

[BartSimpson]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Wow! One of these days an American will admit they didn't react fast enough to the thread of WWII. Now we are blaming everyone except Churchill. No wonder Diefenbaker did Churchill impressions.

I see. So America being warlike is bad except when you guys need us and then if we're not infected with itchy trigger fingers the second you ring us up you find fault.

I'm sorry, where were you stationed in Iraq again?

It's going to be interesting if Obama gets re-elected and continues on course to reduce the US military to pre-1938 levels. Also, if the European white guys go to war with each other again it'll be interesting to see Obama sit back and watch them slaughter each other.

But not before making some really stern speeches at the UN. He can do that, you know.

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Wow! One of these days an American will admit they didn't react fast enough to the thread of WWII. Now we are blaming everyone except Churchill. No wonder Diefenbaker did Churchill impressions.

I see. So America being warlike is bad except when you guys need us and then if we're not infected with itchy trigger fingers the second you ring us up you find fault.

My goodness Bart. Everyone in England grows up recognizing that Churchill should have been listened to earlier. My comment was that Americans always have an excuse or two when questioned about why they didn't enter the war earlier. They will never say they were wrong. You bringing up people not listening to Churchill is like me saying the American Civil War was about something other than slavery. Everyone already knows that.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm sorry, where were you stationed in Iraq again?

Ahh, bart, I was never stationed in Iraq. Why is that important?

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It's going to be interesting if Obama gets re-elected and continues on course to reduce the US military to pre-1938 levels. Also, if the European white guys go to war with each other again it'll be interesting to see Obama sit back and watch them slaughter each other.

But not before making some really stern speeches at the UN. He can do that, you know.

I don't know what to say. You got me here. What if the Euro's do start killing one other. What's it got to do with Obama . He won't be President then anyway. I am sure General Atomics will get rich selling drones to all sides.

[EyeBrock]

Bart has a point. The old establishment (which looks remarkably like Cameron and his ilk) was ready to roll over and take it up the chuff from the Nazis. The Brits survived because of two people.

Churchill and Hitler.

Churchill just wouldn't give up. A rich anti-establishment man if ever there was. The old sops who opposed him were too chickenshit to give it a real go luckily.

Hitler just about fucked up every major decision he could. Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, allowing the Brits to re-arm in 1940, Invading North Africa, invading the USSR, not listening to his Generals ALL the time.

Without Hitler I reckon things would have turned out very differently.

[Public_Domain]

[fifeboy]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Bart has a point. The old establishment (which looks remarkably like Cameron and his ilk) was ready to roll over and take it up the chuff from the Nazis. The Brits survived because of two people.

Churchill and Hitler.

Churchill just wouldn't give up. A rich anti-establishment man if ever there was. The old sops who opposed him were too chickenshit to give it a real go luckily.

Hitler just about fucked up every major decision he could. Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, allowing the Brits to re-arm in 1940, Invading North Africa, invading the USSR, not listening to his Generals ALL the time.

Without Hitler I reckon things would have turned out very differently.

And my point EB is that everyone in Britain is taught that Churchill saved the day and nobody listened to him until it was almost too late. Everyone KNOWS this.

[Gunnair]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

I support taking down the fascist regimes - I would have been in favour of Canada's involvement in WWII.

Just to clear that up.

$1:

Went and protested the fucking troops today during some anniversary deal.

Local militia celebrating some WWI or WWII achievement, maybe? Maybe they were coming back from Afghanistan after helping to take out that nasty Taliban regime.

In favour, eh?

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

In the second, the US has its head up its ass and was too scared of its shadow to deal with a megalomaniac intent on global domination.

Up until Mr. Hitler invaded Poland the UK was not so keen on believing Hitler posed a threat either. Perhaps if the UK had listened to Churchill instead of slandering him as a paranoid the USA would have paid more attention, too.

Nice dodge Bart.

But those photos don't explain (or justify) why the US let the British, French, Canadians et al fight Hitler for more than TWO YEARS by themselves. And yet, somehow, many Americans live under the delusion that they won the war practically all by themselves.

Appeasement may have been the order of the day in Europe, but while they were trying to get off easy with Hitler, they were also arming themselves to meet a possible military threat. The Brits for example, in the mid-30s, ordered dozens of new ships, developed and deployed the Hurricane and Spitfire, as well as a number of new tank designs. Canada did the same too.

The Europeans had their heads up their asses vis-a-vis Hitler, but when push came to shove, they fought while the Americans didn't.

[Psudo]

bootlegga bootlegga:

the US let the British, French, Canadians et al fight Hitler for more than TWO YEARS by themselves.

If European nations get credit for military buildup and research while utterly failing to prevent German expansion or war (what you could call "war but not war"), the US should get credit for it's copious export of military equipment and volunteer soldiers (also a kind of "war but not war"), and that the USA fought in both the European and Pacific theaters to an extent unmatched by any other nation. In dollars and in blood, the USA more than made up for the debt of two years of de jure isolationism.

fifeboy fifeboy:

My comment was that Americans always have an excuse or two when questioned about why they didn't enter the war earlier. They will never say they were wrong.

For the record: we were wrong to wait so long.

Incidentally, there's a name for the ideology that came from accepting that truth and reworking our values to prevent it from happening again: neoconservatism. It seems to me that one can criticize the US for entering WW2 too late or neoconservatism on principle, but not both.

[fifeboy]

Psudo Psudo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

the US let the British, French, Canadians et al fight Hitler for more than TWO YEARS by themselves.

If European nations get credit for military buildup and research while utterly failing to prevent German expansion or war (what you could call "war but not war"), the US should get credit for it's copious export of military equipment and volunteer soldiers (also a kind of "war but not war"), and that the USA fought in both the European and Pacific theaters to an extent unmatched by any other nation. In dollars and in blood, the USA more than made up for the debt of two years of de jure isolationism.

$1:

My comment was that Americans always have an excuse or two when questioned about why they didn't enter the war earlier. They will never say they were wrong.

For the record: we were wrong.

Incidentally, there's a name for the ideology that came from accepting the truth that we were wrong to wait so long to get into WW2: neoconservatism.

Several questions here for anyone. How many Americans volunteered for service overseas before December 8, 1941? Did any volunteer for the German military at the same time? And I think it was really the Russians who destroyed the Germans. In a brutal and previously unseen type of war that was a real shocker. Despite the claims of Marion Morrison.

[BartSimpson]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Ahh, bart, I was never stationed in Iraq. Why is that important?

Because no Canadians were stationed in Iraq. See, the Iraq war was something you folks decided was an American affair and you stayed home. Until Hitler declared war on the USA most Americans were content to let the Europeans deal with their own mess.

I've mentioned it here before, but what's one more time?

In 1939 there were plenty of Americans alive who blamed Britain, France, and Belgium for the failed peace that followed WW1.

Had the British, French, and Belgians listened to Woodrow Wilson there never would have been a Chancellor Hitler because Germany would have been a prosperous European country going in to the 1930's. They started World War Two when they insisted on the punitive Versailles Treaty and the 60% of Americans in 1930 who had German heritage resented that.

Then when the Germans were not fast enough with the extortionate reparations demanded by France and Belgium the French and Belgians invaded Germany and effectively annexed the Ruhr industrial region. It wasn't until Hitler marched back in with the Wehrmacht and took it back by threat of force that this territory was returned to Germany.

So going into World War Two there was at least a plurality of Americans who saw Germany beating the hell out of Belgium, France, and Britain and they believed those countries had it coming. FDR supported Britain because of his close ties to the Royal Navy that he established when he was Secretary of the Navy and he also saw supporting the British against fascist Germany as a means of placating Communist agitators in the USA.

I could go on at length, but the bottom line is that just because Europeans got themselves into another war did not automatically obligate the USA to weigh in for the Western powers any more than Canada was obligated to go to war in Iraq just because the USA did.