The Un

[Ravenous Yam]

#1 While not technically an Axis power, the USSR was definitely allied with the Nazis. Germany was able to secretly build up its huge army by testing and maintaining it on Soviet land, as per their pact, along with other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi-Soviet_pact

 

Although officially labelled a "non-aggression treaty", the pact included a secret protocol, in which the independent countries of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania were divided into spheres of interest of the parties. The secret protocol explicitly assumed "territorial and political rearrangements" in the areas of these countries, which practically rendered it into an aggressive military alliance, in spite of its official name....

At Hitler's suggestion, the German Foreign Minister Ribbentrop visited Moscow on 19 August 1939. A 7-year German-Soviet trade agreement establishing economic ties between the two states was signed for a German credit to the Soviet Union of 200 million marks in exchange for raw materials - petrol, grain, cotton, phosphates, and timber.

 

Molotov then proposed an additional protocol "covering the points in which the High Contracting Parties are interested in the field of foreign policy." This was thought by some to have been precipitated by the alleged Stalin's speech on August 19, 1939, where he supposedly asserted that a great war between the western powers was necessary for the spread of World Revolution.

 

On August 24, a 10-year non-aggression pact was signed with provisions that included: consultation; arbitration if either party disagreed; neutrality if either went to war against a third power; no membership of a group "which is directly or indirectly aimed at the other."

 

There was also a secret protocol to the pact, revealed only on Germany's defeat in 1945, according to which the states of Northern and Eastern Europe were divided into German and Soviet spheres of influence. In the North, Finland, Estonia and Latvia were apportioned to the Soviet sphere. Poland was to be partitioned in the event of its "political rearrangement"

Edited September 15, 2005 by Ravenous Yam

[Matt]

Well, first off, I'm pretty sure Russia was never an Axis power, they were netural up until OB.

 

Second off, America sped up the First world war by an unbelievable pace. The war would have continued to be in a state of attrition for much longer without America.

 

Third off, I forget all the details, but Juno beach was alot wider and more open than any of the other beaches, and was guarded more sparely.

 

Forth off, The war in Europe wasn't over when the US joined, they are responisble for helping out in the liberation of western Europe, North Africa, and the Medditranian(sp?) Whether or not the Red Army could have countined their offensive so successfully without the German forces being relocated back west is questionable.

The war being over by the time the U.S. joined was in reference to World War One, not Two.

[Bizud]

Also, the USSR didn't "switch sides," Hitler doubled crossed Stalin and invaded. And made some serious strategic blunders along the way.

 

It's the part about Vietnam that contains the most truth, but there are some errors; I wouldn't say that Vietnam "wanted to be communist." Rather, there were many popular resistance groups, mostly socialist, that had the support of the overwhelming majority of the population in both the north and south (internal pentagon documents concede this fact, too), and due to the savage colonial war the French fought there before the US got involved, Ho Chi Minh's bunch were the ones left in the best position to take power in the north.

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

And Vimy Ridge was hardly the "decisive blow" of WWI. We only learn about it in Canadian schools because Canada did so much of the fighting. And the American entry into that war can't be understated, since the USSR pulled out of the war in 1917 and Germany was free focus most of its troops on the western front.

[Matt]

Once Canada took Vimy Ridge it sent the Germans running in the opposite direction and they kept on running until the armistice...

[TheKwas]

The war being over by the time the U.S. joined was in reference to World War One, not Two.

I was replying to the statement that claimed America only helped in the Pacific aspect of the war.

[ecnarf]

Matt's right.

 

Remember that Vimy was the first major allied victory of WWI.

 

Even though why we're even discussing WWI is ridiculous. The fact that we aren't taught in schools that that war was nothing more than a bunch of imperialistic egoes having at it is really telling of that jingoistic fervor we Canadians are taught.

[calm2chaos]

Canada does not have any military threats because we do not go invading countries. But, if you want to be on some sort have moral high horse as you put it, where was the U.S. in the begining of World War's 1 and 2? The U.S. fought basically in World War One for six months actually being in the war. The decisive blow came from the Canadian and New Found Land Armies (at the time New Found Land was separate from Canada) at Vimy Ridge. When Canada managed to take Vimy from the Germans after the British and the French (who were the major military nations at the time) failed and the Canadians did it with less casualties (if I remember correctly). In World War Two, the decisive blow came at Stalingrad by the Soviets. They managed to turn the Nazis around and send them back to Germany. However, the British, U.S., and Canadian army managed to help speed up the end of the war in Europe through invading Normandy. Also the American Revolution had lots of help from the French who kept the British from getting out to sea, at which point the war could have gone the other way. The Gulf War and Afghanistan War, the U.S. also had help from other people again. If anything the U.S. has had lots of help from other nations over the years, however, they did not have help when they went to the Vietnam War, and lost that one big time.

A lot of US blood was spilled in these wars. Far more then Canada. Not to diminish or negate the canadian contribution at all. Any candian that serves I have respect for. But to attempt to down play any contribution in either the war is utterly ridiculous. This however has nothing to do with the present. And as the woorld sits now. Canada does sit comfortably beneath the umbrella of the US.

 

Casualties

WWI

Canada-60,000

 

US-118,000

 

WWII

Canada-42,042

 

US-291,557

 

16 x the amount of men in theater during WWII. Not to mention they were fighting on multiple fronts.

[ecnarf]

Well, you'd have to compare population sizes to get a more accurate reading. Just to be a complete ass about it.

 

And do those casualty figures from WWII include the war in the pacfic? Because I've never really considered the war in the pacific to really be a part of WWII, possibly because I never learned too much about it in school (other than the tiny contingent of Canadian soldiers involved... jingoism is ruining education).

[Matt]

You also have to consider that the Canadian Army generally does it's best to lose less people because of the idea of "one man is too many". Also the Canadian contribution was longer in both these wars and without the Canadians in the second World War, it would have been more likely the British would have lost before the U.S. was in the war. Many RCAF pilots were up in Scotland, and were lost simply because of how dangerous and unlikely they were to return. Also the Canadians patrolled the Atlantic Ocean protecting shipping routes from U-Boats not the Americans, if the supplies were lost they had to be replaced immeaditely or else the Nazi's could starve Britain out of the war.

[ecnarf]

And there was also a large contingent of Canadians flying in the RAF during the Battle of Britain.

[calm2chaos]

You also have to consider that the Canadian Army generally does it's best to lose less people because of the idea of "one man is too many". Also the Canadian contribution was longer in both these wars and without the Canadians in the second World War, it would have been more likely the British would have lost before the U.S. was in the war. Many RCAF pilots were up in Scotland, and were lost simply because of how dangerous and unlikely they were to return. Also the Canadians patrolled the Atlantic Ocean protecting shipping routes from U-Boats not the Americans, if the supplies were lost they had to be replaced immeaditely or else the Nazi's could starve Britain out of the war.

OOO the old lose less people idea.. I never thought of that..

[supercanuk]

You also have to consider that the Canadian Army generally does it's best to lose less people because of the idea of "one man is too many". Also the Canadian contribution was longer in both these wars and without the Canadians in the second World War, it would have been more likely the British would have lost before the U.S. was in the war. Many RCAF pilots were up in Scotland, and were lost simply because of how dangerous and unlikely they were to return. Also the Canadians patrolled the Atlantic Ocean protecting shipping routes from U-Boats not the Americans, if the supplies were lost they had to be replaced immeaditely or else the Nazi's could starve Britain out of the war.

My grandfather was an RCAF pilot who flew a bomber and when he was over there told me he did the math and realized that the amount of pilots comming back were so low that technically he should have been dead. He was lucky to get out of that war alive but to me he is and always will be a hero. I think its extreamly important for all of us to support the troops today, and yesterday(figurativly), we dont have to support the policies to support the troops.