the American view of world history vs everyone else's

[Jeffy-CanCon]

...

Why does no American step up to bat and ask why other Americans are such sphincters posting pictures and making other comments mocking other country's armed forces and even the valour of their people?

Why is it that as Canadians we have to put up and smile politely when Americans belittle our efforts and contributions and then hold our tongue while they extoll their own virtues to the exclusion of all others (or even worse, put up with them complaining that we aren't grateful enough or aren't singing their praises enough)?

There are a couple of reasons for that. One is the very topic of this thread, and the other is that Americans have a different sense of humour than we do. We can roll with their jokes,or we can make jokes back at them. As you've noticed, some of our Southern neighbours are a bit thin-skinned, so I find the former is the better choice.

Why is it when some American belittles our country a Canadian is bound to be an arse and agree? Why do we compare ourselves to the Americans when we have as much (or in some peoples opinion, more) to be proud of as they do? Why is it we get all filled with angst when historically Canada has always pulled more than our weight when it counted.

All good questions. I blame Trudeau, and multi-culturalism, myself.

When the chips are down and our help is required for the right reasons, we're there. WW1, WW2, Korea all HUGE implications. We stepped up during Gulf War 1 and continued to patrol the gulf during the Iraq invasion freeing up critical resources (Americans DARE mock us or complain we weren't there when we did more than the vast majority of back-end kissers who signed on to the coalition...

We pull our weight ... ... we were there for the attack on Serbia and we've played important roles elsewhere.

Are out troops underfunded? For what they're asked to do, definitely. As compared to other nations? Debatable. ...

When the chips are down, Canada has been there, historically.

But, historically, we've never been ready. It is our "tradition" to spend not a blessed dime in between wars. Did you know that when we sent ships to the Persian Gulf war in 1990, we had to pull parts out of a museum to get them ready to go? Did you know that when we prepared to send 25,000 men to Korea in 1950 we had to rent a base form the USA to train them, since we had closed all ours down? In 1939, none of our militia units had modern weapons. When we bomber Serbia, we used every single bomb we had in stock, and had to go begging our Allies for some of theirs. You can laugh about this stuff, or you cry.

Compared to other 1st world nations (i.e., NATO) our troops are undermanned and underfunded. And have been for decades. And our Allies have complained that we don't pull our weight. Even in our national obsession - peacekeeping - we are no longer world leaders.
Several countries routinely submit more troops than we do, these days.

Another sad truth I learned from a CF WO last fall: many suppliers will no longer bid on Canadian defence contracts. It's not worth the hassle. We don't know what we want, but we know we don't want many of them.

...

On topic, I think this underlines a big difference between historical perspective in Canada and the US.
...
Canadians on the other hand, except perhaps in Quebec with respect to Canadian history, try to be so inclusive in their view of history that they lose the reflex of demonstrating their well deserved pride in our efforts and contributions. Or, we simply fail to teach history from out own perspective at all. Then, we seem incapable as a nation of simply admitting something bad happened and moving on. We also seem incapable of celebrating something good lest someone's feelings are hurt.
...

There I think you are right. There are interesting stories in Canadian history, but we don't tell them. Our schools tend to focus on soft & fuzzy big-picture social issues.

[SlartyBartFast]

In 1939, none of our militia units had modern weapons.

No shame there. In 1939 NOBODY had modern weaponry except the Germans ...

Until after WW2 the Americans were always woefully equipped as well.

Nothing wrong with multiculturalism. Look at Britain. But, I think that generally the British Indians and Patistanis identify far more with Britain than do those that came here.

But, then again, as a first generation Canadian when the chips are down I'm Canadian first, Quebecois second and Scottish third.

xXHavokXx, but think of all the images from America. The war films where Americans are the only ones on the beaches or capturing the Enigma machine.

The right-wing and religious blather that almost equals that of those crying death to America. Which drives those crying death to America to greater fervour and disgusts Americas supporters because Americans, not living in the squalor without access to education, at least have the opportunity to have learnt better.

The overbearing pop-culture that stomps over local culture.

The obsession with riches and consumerism portrayed to a world that is living on pennies a day in many places.

The worrying thoughts of what an American president controlled by religious hardliners will impose on the world as "freedom".

The disgust/pessimism towards those promisses of freedom considering the past track record. (Europe and WW2 were fine. But since then many a dictator was supported because he was Evil but not Communist Evil.)

[brianlojeck]

let's remember that the Germans started WW1.

I'm not a world history guy, but didn't WWII start because a bosnian assasinated an Austro-hungarian archduke? I always thought the rest was due to the mesh of alliances and mutual protection pacts that europe had formed (in fear that germany would do something stupid of course...)

[xXHavokXx]

I'm not a world history guy, but didn't WWII start because a bosnian assasinated an Austro-hungarian archduke? I always thought the rest was due to the mesh of alliances and mutual protection pacts that europe had formed (in fear that germany would do something stupid of course...)

That was WWI.

[Boski51]

Absolutely untrue.

American movies, TV shows, books, magazines, News shows, cultures, music etc, extend to every civilised country in the world that I have travelled to. And I've travelled pretty far and wide.

The outside world knows, and has the ability to know, a lot more about America than America does about the outside world.

You know, I've been asked 'what language we speak in England', 'was it hard to learn the language when I came here', 'where is England', 'do you have computers in England'.

I don't think any European Country, or civilised country would have asked a travelling American that? Maybe. But I doubt it, and not as commonly as it occurs here.

Which countries have you visited to make your judgement? How long have you had a passport?

Are you saying that Hollywood and the leftist news media and Snoop Doggie Dog is your scope on America as a country? I know that you are far too smart to mean that. You are 100% correct that the rest of the world is saturated with the worst America has to offer-its media (print, video and music.) You are 100% wrong about that simplistic view equaling the American public as a whole.

You must have traveled and seen this to be true. Americans are influenced by the commerical culture-especially younger Americans, but to state that an entire country is limited and boiled down to what the world sees on TV is an error.

How old were those people asking those question you mentioned? What part of the country? Where they Canadian's just visiting the US? (JUST KIDDING!) Equating America with her uneducated young or stupid old is a mistake of the highest order. I have no doubt that you were asked questions that stupid, but to say that you think that Americans are the only ones that stupid in the entire civilized world is kind of silly.

I have visited four different countries. Have had a passport for 15 years. I hold a degree in Political Science and a degree in Economics and working on an MBA, and I really actually like Canadians and think very highly of the society they have (not that you asked or they even really care).

[MaChu]

No shame there. In 1939 NOBODY had modern weaponry except the Germans ...

Until after WW2 the Americans were always woefully equipped as well.

Not to be anal but, whats modern? We just didn't go over there with old cannons, riding on horses. We had mechanized infantry, machine guns, etc. Granted that it wasn't up to the quality or complexity of the German war machine, but who cares when we could out build, out supply and out right buy our way in and out of the war.

Also, we were woefully equipped after the Civil War. Where our ironclads and steel steam powered destroyers were the first to really patrol the world's oceans due to Teddy Roosevelt's foreign policies and wanting a very huge Navy as that was thought to be the country's determining power. Again we had modern weapons, they just weren't as complex or updated as the German's.

xXHavokXx, but think of all the images from America. The war films where Americans are the only ones on the beaches or capturing the Enigma machine.

U571 was made that way to accomadate to the American public, also how it was marketed as "Based on a True Story", not "This is a True Story". Sorry, but it makes for a more profitable and interesting story if they twist the facts into a dramatic movie for the American public and not everything on fact. I guess you haven't seen "The Longest Day" have you? Lots of countries in that one where British, Canadian, and French fighters do each of their part in D-day, but all American movies are the same, American glory hogging movies.

The right-wing and religious blather that almost equals that of those crying death to America. Which drives those crying death to America to greater fervour and disgusts Americas supporters because Americans, not living in the squalor without access to education, at least have the opportunity to have learnt better.

The overbearing pop-culture that stomps over local culture.

The obsession with riches and consumerism portrayed to a world that is living on pennies a day in many places.

The worrying thoughts of what an American president controlled by religious hardliners will impose on the world as "freedom".

The disgust/pessimism towards those promisses of freedom considering the past track record. (Europe and WW2 were fine. But since then many a dictator was supported because he was Evil but not Communist Evil.)

First, your country's people are a bunch of posers trying to emulate all that American pop culture, CHOOSING to lose themselves in the obsession with riches and consumerism. Its like American TV is forcing you to watch it, telling you to forget your traditions, and become those evil people who look up to those who have success in the free market capital gain system and not have to do jack to get health care or education other than pay insane amount of taxes. Its as if all Americans are heartless, rich, non religious devils. Truth is not all of us like pop culture, adore obsession with riches and consumerism, but alot of my fellow citizens are idiots and poor. I don't have the power to help those in third world countries because Im always looking for a way to get that Beemer, but many of my church going friends go on mission trips to help improve living conditions by building houses, wells, while preaching their beliefs, but hey they are right wing religious nuts who think of war all the time.

Ok now you have hit a few chords. You think that the right wing and religious blather equates to those crying death to America. That makes me sick. We don't cry "Death to all Muslims! or Iraq! or Iran! or Afghanistan!" Sorry that we have decided to trust our morals of what is wrong and right, of actions against us or others and reactions against those who have done against us. We try to stop injustices, terrorism, or whatever and get hell for it.

Fine what do you suggest we do? Give third world countries money in which they will buy arms for warlords in Africa, fuel drug cartels in South and Central America, or give terrorists more bombs so they can create havok in a American city. We act in the best way we can, we fight instead of tip toe around in politics where nothing gets done, or better yet gets corrupted like Food for Oil in the almighty, perfect, peaceful UN.

America will always look bad no matter what we do. We give aid, the world says not enough, we don't act in times of turmoil, we are called cowardly, we act in times of trouble, we get chastised for being right wing relgious idiots, we do nothing, we are called greedy self centered bastards. No matter what we do, the world looks at us in a negative connotation. Personally I grow tired of it. Only when a Hitler or a Stalin has the world by its balls and we pull the world through it with some necessary evils(ie non communist dictators), we look heroic and justifiable in other nation's eyes, but when it doesn't affect them anymore in their own country, they don't care and complain about us. If terrorists flew a plane into every county's capital building(or other major government facility) the world would be singing a whole different tune.

I personally think America should go back to isolationism. We should recall every soldier from every base around the world, kick back, start a campfire, roast some hotdogs, and watch the world go to hell.

[Boski51]

Amen!

[PyRo]

Honestly, why say something like that?

Anyway... historically there have been a couple of attempts to replace capital warships with small & fast boats with new weapons. The first was the "jeune ecole" of the 1880's (approx), which proposed attacking armoured battleships with swarms of motor-torpedo boats. The battleship-fleet owning navies just added "torpedo boat destroyers" to their formations, and effectively countered the threat. In the late 20thC the missile boat was supposed to fulfill the prophecy. The Egyptians had some success againt the Israelis in 1973 with it, though in fairness the Israeli destroyers were pretty outdated. Countermeasures, anti-missiles and CIWS are now thought to have largely dealt with the missile-boat threat.

The PT boats did pretty well during WWII. I think most of them carried four torpedos giving them the capability to destroy a couple much larger ships. They also had I believe 2 .50 anti aircraft guns although ariel attack was their biggest volnerability. They worked out well because they were small and fast making it hard to train the big guns on them.

[PyRo]

I am not hating on America, however much you would like me to say that..which I haven't. An American posted the picture.... .

And I thought everyone on AO knew what a joke was although apparently i'm wrong. Just because America and Canada make fun of each other doesn't mean we don't really love each other

[PyRo]

Hitler - probably wasn't stupid, though he did have an irrational tendency to overrule his professional advisors based on his personal visions. He was a very bad man, and he did a lot more than merely try to retake lands Germany lost in WW1. And in case you'd missed that day in school, let's remember that the Germans started WW1. In WW2 Hitler invaded seven additional countries that were never part of the German or Austro-Hungarian Empires. Plus four others where he sent troops to "help" his Italian allies. And lets not forget that his racist policies resulted in 10 million civilian deaths. Only Stalin and possibly Mao did worse.

Hitler definatly wasn't stupid, he was stubborn however which was his undoing. I would like to see anyone here try to get an entire country to follow them, it isn't such an easy thing to do. Had Hitler listend to his advisors he wouldn't have invaded Russia. Without having to fight on the Western front Germany would have been free to concentrate most of their resources on attacking the UK which under such pressure may have eventually fallen. With that out of the way Germany would have been free to rebuild and enlarge their military in preperation for attacking Russia.

[Bolter]

would have been free to concentrate most of their resources on attacking the UK which under such pressure may have eventually fallen.

NEVER!!!! We had tea breaks and marmalade.....we would never have fallen

[Eric Cartman]

And I thought everyone on AO knew what a joke was although apparently i'm wrong. Just because America and Canada make fun of each other doesn't mean we don't really love each other

I think that statemant is pretty much true. However, how many times have we all seen playfights go too far and turn into real (if brief) fights? Sometimes someone decides a joke has gone too far. I look at it like the relationship between most siblings. Most siblings love each other and will always help each other out when the chips are down, but they'll also frequently squabble and there's generally some underlying tension that doesn't take too much to enflame. That's why these threads always end up like this.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

No shame there. In 1939 NOBODY had modern weaponry except the Germans ...

Until after WW2 the Americans were always woefully equipped as well.

The British had relatively modern weapons, as did the Japanese, the Italians and the french. Canadian troops were still equipped exactly the same as for WW1.

American troops were not well-equipped in 1939, though they had modern weapons in the supply pipeline. Then again, they did not go to war until the end of 1941.

The PT boats did pretty well during WWII. I think most of them carried four torpedos giving them the capability to destroy a couple much larger ships. They also had I believe 2 .50 anti aircraft guns although ariel attack was their biggest volnerability. They worked out well because they were small and fast making it hard to train the big guns on them.

The PT boats were mostly successful against cargo vessels, as I understand it, and against lone small warships in restricted waters. The British MTBs and German E-boats also did respectably in the English Channel. I don't think anyone's torpedo boats ever sank a warship larger than a destroyer. My point is that they have a role, but are no match or replacement for capital ships.

[Albinonewt]

Everyone knows that WWII was won by the mighty Mexican Military dropping the first atomic bomb on Berlin in June of 1943.


Sorry, I've been playing Hearts of Iron II, and its the best game ever for WWII history buffs.

[octane2079]

The English fought well during World War II, and really did whoop some butt during the battle of britain, but IMO if the United States had not entered the war when they did the loss of britain would have been inevitable if Hitler hadn't made the crucial mistake of opening a two front war. The German losses in the Battle of Britain would have merely delayed Operation Sealion and the British did not have the resources to launch a counter offensive on the mainland they tried at dieppe and that didn't end too well. IF Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union the Germans could have consolidated there hold on Europe prepare a proper landing force and invade the channel coast.

I hate to come off as a "typical" American, but the british were sol in the Pacific theater. They had quickly lost both the Prince of Wales and the Repulse and the majority of their pacific territories had fallen. There were few things that the british could have done to stop the spread of Japanese aggression. Also the U-boat threat wasn't as quickly taken care of as you would think. I didn't think that the british deployed the 12,000lb tallboy early enough in the war to make a difference in the Battle of the Atlantic and I was under the impression that no other British weapon possessed the penetrative ability to destroy the U-Boat pens.

The British fought hard despite their limitted resources and were the first to stop the so far unstopped German War Machine. MarkM and the people of the UK my hat is off to you for such an important "first".

Interesting WWII tidbit. Stalin did not pull his troops off the eastern front until December 6, 1941 form you own opinions about THAT fact.