europeans have far better knowledge of the horrors of war than americans, americans have zero concept of what it is to live "in" a war zone...out of an estimated 39million dead allied military and civilian deaths 290k dead americans isnt all that impressive...going by lives lost fighting facism the europeans paid the biggest price...
Yes, Americans have no idea about life under occupation and active war operations in your homeland. This is one of many reasons why American politicians are so hawkish. The war in Iraq was raging, but at home we hade business as usual...
I f I recall Iraq was in violation of UN Chapter Seven resolutions which authorized force to be used to force compliance. As for Hawkish, from what I understand there is nothing Hawkish about confronting evil. Oh, the Iraq war took three weeks in which America never used the 'Shock and Awe' they were capable of rather used the threat of it as a psychological move with only 18,000 casualties. The rest was the 'dovish' Iraqis being set free to do what they do .... be Hawkish. American Civil War all but destroyed the US so they do know what total war is like and, unlike Canada who were bound by being part of a Monarchy of Britain, they didn't have to lift a finger to help Europe. Good thing they did, good thing those evil Americans made oodles of dollars doing the lend lease thing and risking their merchant marines ferrying the equipment over the Atlantic. Given some of the posts here, it is obvious more education is required and, is one startlingly clear message as why we should never forget - it was a team effort, not a blame America affair as they could just not have bothered and then made deals with the new Germany/Europe while the French and Dutch learned to speak German.
The War between States was many years ago... (1861-1865), any american is living now...he lived the War between North and South!!!!!!! It is the difference with Europe.. American people don´t know what´s an air raid, a siege, an artillery preparation, to eat wood and rat ... believes that war is like a "command" movie "... the real war, the total war, a command is an insignificant and irrelevant anecdote ... WAR (uppercase) is not a Stallone movie ... like some American can think... maybe with some childish mind.. On the other hand I appreciate the USA war effort in 1941-1945, they didn´t have to go to Europe and went to help and fight in the war against Nazism ... without having to do it and that's worthy of admiration, but attributed victory is just propaganda and an insult to those who truly were conducted WEIGHT oF WAR ... those who destroyed the bulk of the German army and the Axis ...and It wasn´t in Day-D and It wasn´t in Normandy... Regards
One would have to be 75 to have a recollection of a war experience in Europe so it is passed from one person to another same as the US civil war was.
1st canada was not bound to help to help Britain.... 2nd you've just verified my point americans have no concept of what total war is...there is no living memory of your civil war and unlike ww2 it was not total war, it was not a war waged on the civilian population, there were no extermination camps, death squads, fire bombings, oppressive foreign military occupations and unlike the civil war there are still millions of survivors of ww2 to convey the full horror of total war to their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren...americans are still traumatized by 911 which is of zero significance when compared to the daily horrors of ww2...
d day casualties american, brits, canadians, poles-9000, 3000killed...battle of Kursk russian casualties 250, 000 killed 600,000 wounded, russia lost in one operation nearly as many men as americans did in the entire war...
Not bound ? They were permitted to vote on it and enter as a nation but were still part of the British Empire and ruled, as today, by a monarch and were further bound by defense and other agreements. That occured in 1967. For the rest of the post I take it you experienced all these events personally with none coming from books or vids?
I see, so they were not at Normandy where the US, did the heavy lifting even though they, unlike the Russians who were fighting for survival did't have to be in this Euro war to begin with.
huh? I wasn't referring to d-day, I was responding to a claim that America did all the heavy lifting in ww2. You are familiar with the history of the war are you not?
As a Brit and a former serviceman, I am well aware of the sacrifice that the US made on D-Day and throughout the last four years of WW2. I am truly thankful for their sacrifice. I am also thankful for the sacrifices made by Britain (especially in the two years when we stood alone), Canada, India, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and all the other countries that came to our aid. We could not have won WW2 without America and America couldn't have won it without us.
London lost about as many people every night of the 180 night blitz as were lost in the 9/11 attacks.
Now that the US is no longer the protector of Europe, maybe Europeans will think differently about D-Day. Would Americans today hit the beaches of Normandy to oust Russian occupiers?
Not at all it highlighted a portion of your reply which spoke of D Day and then replied to it saying the US did the heavy lifting. Post #30 BTW
canada was not ruled by a monarch, thats silly...canada had an independent foreign policy and was under no obligation to come to Britain's aid, actually turning down a previous request for military aid from britain as early as 1923...Canada's miltary link with britain was no different then than its obligations to nato today....I take it you experienced the civil war personally? No?...how about a parent or grandparent or greatgrand parent? No?...I missed the war by only a few years my brothers and sisters weren't so fortunate and have a clear recollection of the labour raids, jewish raids, random executions, bombings and starvation...
my point exactly, the american civilian populace can't begin to comprehend that level of terror...and even the blitz pales with the nazi terror of occupied continental europe...
Head of state but not ruled directly by the crown. Prior to it's integration into the commonwealth in 1931 Canada did produce soldiers for Britain. But of course by WWII Canada wasn't obliged by law to go to war but did so voluntarily That's news to me and seems a little contradictory as the statute of Westminster came into force in 1931 Prior to that Canada was a dominion whose foreign policy was the responsibility of the British government. So can you show me where Canada refused a British military assistance request?
Queen is the head of state in Canada, it's a Constitutional Monarchy. Furthermore, at the time, the 'Royal Canadian' Army, Navy and Airforce would be bound to protect the King just as the Parliament, which to this day serves at the pleasure of the monarcy was bound to vote to support same. While no gun was to their head so to speak as in WWI they had no choice other than to make a constitutional overhaul
Not by 1939 irrespective of the "Royal" prefix of the Canadian forces. And parliament is not actually an organ of the crown but rather a division of the branches of government. No more was this seen than during the English civil war of the 1640's Nope. Being a commonwealth member is not an obligation to come to the defence of Britain. And the only overhaul when it came to foreign policy was the statute of Westminster. As for WWI they were more than happy to join in. The parliaments of every single commonwealth nation during 1939 contributed to Britain's defence voluntarily Australia, NZ, South Africa, and Canada were under no obligation to go to war at the request of HMG.
