[BartSimpson]

fifeboy fifeboy:

And I think it was really the Russians who destroyed the Germans.

So you start by asking why we didn't get into the war sooner and you wrap it up by saying you didn't need us anyway.

I'm sorry, what was your point again?

[Tricks]

bootlegga bootlegga:

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.

Support it? I'd be there.

[Tricks]

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.

And Bill Stephenson. More people need to learn about this guy, for reals.

$1:

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.

On declaring on the U.S. Bart is right, had he not declared on the U.S. it's entirely possible the U.S. wouldn't have got involved in Europe and just focused on fighting the Japanese.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson 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.

One would think the numerous merchant ships(including US ships) sunk right off the Eastern Seaboard would have been enough to provoke entry.
Admiral King gave it so little thought he had to be brow beaten into accepting a convoy system that wouldn't even require the escort services of the USN.
I have little doubt that if some nation not at war with the US unprovokedly attacked US merchant shipping ANYWHERE in the world today, they'd soon find themselves ankle deep in cruise missile shrapnel.
It couldn't be that for some time after the outbreak of hostilities, the US was still selling raw materials to Germany? Nahhhh..couldn't be.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

had (Hitler) not declared on the U.S. it's entirely possible the U.S. wouldn't have got involved in Europe and just focused on fighting the Japanese.

Absolutely. In the immediate aftermath of the Japanese attack there were a number of Congressmen in both parties who wanted the whole 'Lend Lease' program suspended so the USA could focus on Japan.

Had Hitler played this better the USA would have focused on Japan and reduced or stopped shipping supplies to Britain, handing Germany a convenient advantage.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson 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.

Wow! First Kai and now you.

How anyone can equate the two is beyond belief. WW2 and Iraq in 2003 are so far apart it's not even funny. One was total war and one was a sideshow that had the president declaring, "Mission Accomplished" in a couple of months. In its entire time in Iraq, the USA probably suffered fewer casualties than the US did during the Normandy campaign (or any other major US campaign in WW2).

The scale of conflict, the number of deaths, the number of combat theatres, just about everything is so vastly different that it's not even like comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing apples and watermelons.

I totally agree that the origins of WW2 are WW1 and the Versailles Treaty, and in fact it's almost universally agreed by historians that this was one of the major factors in WW2, but a very key difference is why each war was fought.

WW1, was essentially a chance for everyone to address their own nationals issues (Germany wanting to be a global superpower like the Brits, the French desperate for revenge for the War of 1870, the Austrians and Ottomans desperately trying to maintain crumbling empires etc), while WW2 was the literal apocalyptic war of good vs evil, whereupon both sides demonized the other and the losers were to be occupied and enslaved (at least from the Third Reich/Empire of Japan POVs).

Had the Nazis and Japanese won WW2, the world would be a vastly different and far darker place than it is today. For all our problems nowadays, it pales in comparison to how drastically the world would have changed if the Third Reich or the Empire of Japan had prevailed over us.

Comparatively speaking, if Saddam was still around today (and in power), the world would be pretty much the same - except for Iraqi citizens. Saddam, while undoubtably a brutal dictator and and evil, vicious man, had no dreams of global domination like Hitler did - and in comparing the two you make light of the tremendous sacrifices the previous generation made during WW2.

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

One would think the numerous merchant ships(including US ships) sunk right off the Eastern Seaboard would have been enough to provoke entry.

Except that a fair number of people saw this as Germany rightfully defending itself and America paying the price for mucking around in an affair we had no business to muck around with. I know we're looking at this 70+ years later, but if you read newspaper accounts of the time you see the editorial dithering that was going on.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Admiral King gave it so little thought he had to be brow beaten into accepting a convoy system that wouldn't even require the escort services of the USN.
I have little doubt that if some nation not at war with the US unprovokedly attacked US merchant shipping ANYWHERE in the world today, they'd soon find themselves ankle deep in cruise missile shrapnel.

Yet the Somali pirates have been at it for near to ten years and we really haven't done all that much about it, have we?

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

It couldn't be that for some time after the outbreak of hostilities, the US was still selling raw materials to Germany? Nahhhh..couldn't be.

Think about that and you'll see how preposterous that notion is. Exactly how would our merchant shipping transit the Home Fleet blockade of Germany in order to make deliveries to Bremerhaven and Hamburg?

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

fifeboy fifeboy:

And I think it was really the Russians who destroyed the Germans.

So you start by asking why we didn't get into the war sooner and you wrap it up by saying you didn't need us anyway.

I'm sorry, what was your point again?

Are you just being a pain in the ass or do you have a reason for this post. Yeah, looking back in 2011 it is easy to say the Russians bled and died more than others in WWII and managed to rip the guts from the Wehrmacht. In 1939 it was not known as a fact. It did look bad for them for a long time. The Western Europeans also had a hard time. It would have been nice if the U.S. had joined up earlier. If you feel otherwise, your problem.

[fifeboy]

Tricks Tricks:

bootlegga bootlegga:

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.

Support it? I'd be there.

In that outfit?

[bootlegga]

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.

Perhaps you could argue that if the aid under lend-lease was given freely, but it wasn't. The US received leases for bases around the world as well as payment, some of which was paid off until a few years ago. While the amounts charged to Allies was much less than their actual values, the fact is US allies were still expected to pay in part for the supplies it sent.

Additionally, the use of US volunteers in most conflicts was relatively minimal, a whopping SEVEN US pilots fought in the Battle of Britain, and a couple of dozen fought with the Flying Tigers in China, but the numbers of US volunteers fighting in WW2 before the US entered the war is so low that it is hardly worth mentioning. There was far more US involvement in the Spanish Civil War than there was in WW2 prior to December 7, 1941.

As for effort, the Soviets lost upwards of 20 MILLION people in WW2, which far exceeds the efforts of the USA.

I'm not denigrating the efforts of the US in WW2, but unlike the prevailing US POV that we would have lost WW2 without them, the fact is the war in Europe was already turning well in the Allies favour by Dec. 1941. We would have still won the war, but the geography would have been quite different (with Stalin likely occupying most of Europe).

Edit: fixed Psudo's quote

[2Cdo]

bootlegga bootlegga:

We would have still won the war, but the geography would have been quite different (with Stalin likely occupying most of Europe).

A victory with Uncle Joe getting the lions share would have been worse than a defeat in my mind. While the US was late showing up, thank God they did, and prevented Joe from attaining control of Europe complete.

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson 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 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.

Ahh! Bart, we were in Iraq (Bush Senior.) Not in Iraq II (I can do better than Daddy).

I think it will be a long time Canadians or even most Americans admit that Iraq II was a good idea. However, it should have been obvious that Hitler and Germany was a real threat to world peace. You guys didn't until later and that's OK, the Allies won anyway. Just don't use all the excuses for not joining at the beginning. Just accept you made a mistake. That's all.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

had (Hitler) not declared on the U.S. it's entirely possible the U.S. wouldn't have got involved in Europe and just focused on fighting the Japanese.

Absolutely. In the immediate aftermath of the Japanese attack there were a number of Congressmen in both parties who wanted the whole 'Lend Lease' program suspended so the USA could focus on Japan.

Had Hitler played this better the USA would have focused on Japan and reduced or stopped shipping supplies to Britain, handing Germany a convenient advantage.

Hence why I said Stephenson, and excerpt from a book about him.

$1:

Determined to denounce undercover operations by a foreign power, (Senator) Wheeler seized upon a War Department report, some 350 pages in length and clearly stamped TOP SECRET, which came his way in circumstances that should have aroused his suspicions. It was called Victory Program and purported to forecast U.S. government plans to enter the war. The "Germany First" thesis was set forth, with an estimate of the numbers of troops and equipment required to launch offensives in Europe and Africa.

Wheeler passed this report to the Chicago Tribune, which splashed it under banner headlines and a lead paragraph: "A confidential report prepared by the joint Army and Navy high command by direction of President Roosevelt...is a blueprint for total war."

The leak reached the anti-Roosevelt press in the final days of peace. By December 3, 1941 a copy had reached the German Embassy. A summary was dispatched by radio to Berlin and was duly decoded in England. The German High Command celebrated "this fantastic intelligence coup." The face was that the Victory Program was a plant.

Senator Wheeler had been watched by FBI counter-espionage agents as a politician who thought preparation for war ran counter to the people's will. The Political-Warfare Division of BSC (British Security Coordination) concocted the Victory Program out of material already known to have reached the enemy in dribs and drabs, and added some misleading information. The moment for bringing the Senator and the report together had come into sight the previous month. Stephenson had men inside Japanese diplomatic and commercial agencies in the United States. One agent was in the "peace mission" of Saburo Kurusu, in Washington to negotiate. Kurusu's real feelings were reported daily by the British to Roosevelt, who used his son James as the Courier between BSC and the White House to guarantee security. On November 26, Colonel James Roosevelt had informed Stephenson that negotiations with the Japanese were regarded by the President as leading nowhere. A cable went to Churchill and the London headquarters of the Baker Street Irregulars from INTREPID (Stephenson): Japanese negotiations off. Services expect action within two weeks.

This historic message was delivered in London on November 27, ten days before Pearl Harbor.

It was then that the deception of Wheeler went into effect. A young U.S. Army captain delivered the bogus Victory Program to the Senator, claiming he did this out of concern for the American people, who should be warned against the President's duplicity.

The primary aim of this deception was to use isolationist channels as a means of revealing to Hitler a "secret plan" calculated to provoke him into a declaration of war. Even if the Japanese attacked British and American bases without warning, the British feared that the United States still would not declare war on Germany.

The secondary aim was to plant the notion that Anglo-American planners of a massive assault upon Europe had set Invasion Day for July 1, 1943. The date confront the Germans with a credible military threat that would force them to maintain large forces along the Western wall and reduce pressure against Russia.

The attack on Pearl Harbor gave the United States no option about war with Japan. But Hitler had been persuaded by his military and political advisers that even Japanese aggression would not budge the Americans into a voluntary declaration of war against Germany.

The Fuhrer abruptly changed policy when the Victory Program reached him, supposedly as a major revelation of American intent. Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11, a sudden decision that shocked Nazi diplomats. "The Fuhrer felt that he alone had the right to plan surprise attacks against unsuspecting victims," Stephenson commented. "Here the United States had arrogantly used his own tactics against him. Angered, giddy with visions, Hitler gloried in beating Roosevelt to the punch.

"Hitler helped us achieve what Congress might have prevented or delayed. Under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress could declare war. And Roosevelt, with all his enormous personal influence and prestige as President, had failed to move the large isolationist block in Congress."

The most awkward of isolationists, Senator Wheeler - crony of Davis the oilman and Lewis the labor leader - had been made an instrument of justice. By leaking supposedly secret war plans, he tripped a wire in the minefield of Hitler's mind.

Stephenson - 1
Hitler - 0

[Tricks]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Tricks Tricks:

bootlegga bootlegga:

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.

Support it? I'd be there.

In that outfit?

Those damn Europeans will NEVER catch the Stig! NEVER!!!

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

fifeboy fifeboy:

And I think it was really the Russians who destroyed the Germans.

So you start by asking why we didn't get into the war sooner and you wrap it up by saying you didn't need us anyway.

I'm sorry, what was your point again?

Oh and P.S. I didn't ask why you didn't get into the war sooner. I asked why you don't accept, today, that it was a mistake.