[BeaverFever]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I could care what holiday Canadians want to celebrate as long as they remember those who sacrificed everything so they could have that freedom.

IMHO, Remembrance Day is the MOST important holiday on the calendar, simply because without it, we might not have the freedom to celebrate all the rest.

Look I respect rememberance day too. And although I only served in the Army Reserve (Light Infantry) and never went overseas, it was one of the most formative experiences of my life. One of my former instructors was killed in Afghanistan by IED in 2009 and I have nothing but respect for military service.

But I still can't get behind rhetoric that is just wrong. First, as a technical correction to the 2nd paragraph above we don't have freedom "because of" Rememberance Day. Rememberance Day is a day to conduct national ceremonies commemorating the war, it is not the war itself.

But the more important comment is that although there were many good reasons for fighting in some wars, WW2 in particular (WW1 not so much), the truth is that we don't have freedoms "because" of those wars. We've had our freedoms before the wars and have never been at risk of losing them to a foreign threat. A more accurate way of saying it is that we fought so that OTHERS can enjoy the freedoms that we have the luxury of taking for granted.

[BartSimpson]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

I agree. They are entitled to their celebrations, and both groups have a long proud warrior history. It wouldn't surprise me if some of them attended both ceremonies.

This.

[bootlegga]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I could care what holiday Canadians want to celebrate as long as they remember those who sacrificed everything so they could have that freedom.

IMHO, Remembrance Day is the MOST important holiday on the calendar, simply because without it, we might not have the freedom to celebrate all the rest.

Look I respect rememberance day too. And although I only served in the Army Reserve (Light Infantry) and never went overseas, it was one of the most formative experiences of my life. One of my former instructors was killed in Afghanistan by IED in 2009 and I have nothing but respect for military service.

But I still can't get behind rhetoric that is just wrong. First, as a technical correction to the 2nd paragraph above we don't have freedom "because of" Rememberance Day. Rememberance Day is a day to conduct national ceremonies commemorating the war, it is not the war itself.

But the more important comment is that although there were many good reasons for fighting in some wars, WW2 in particular (WW1 not so much), the truth is that we don't have freedoms "because" of those wars. We've had our freedoms before the wars and have never been at risk of losing them to a foreign threat. A more accurate way of saying it is that we fought so that OTHERS can enjoy the freedoms that we have the luxury of taking for granted.

No, when I say, "we might not have the freedom to celebrate all the rest" I fucking mean it exactly as I wrote it.

I suppose semantically, there is an argument (a pretty juvenile and petty one) that I should have said "maintain" instead of "have" in the first sentence.

I'll certainly agree that the Kaiser didn't have appear to have any ambitions to take over the entire world, but history showed us that Hitler and Stalin certainly did - and if either had succeeded, the world would be a very different place than it is now.

Canada Day, Yom Kippur, Diwali, Eid, and a host of other holidays celebrated by Canadians almost certainly would NOT be celebrated if either of those two monsters had won (WW2 and the Cold War respectively).

So when I say it's the most important holiday on the calendar, I fucking well mean it.

[BeaverFever]

Thanos Thanos:

Most of them are pretty decent people and the Sikhs are some of the toughest SOB's in the world that you want on your side in a fight. I've never seen anything anti-Canadian out of either group and they certainly aren't the types to go all-Muslim and try to blow up a commuter train in Toronto or hatch a plot to decapitate the PM. These are the kind of people we need on our side against a worse collective enemy so in the one instance where their ethnic celebration overlaps with our national remembrance we can, and should, shrug it off as no big deal.

Sounds like you're blissfully unaware that this year, we observed the 30th anniversary the deadliest terrorist attack in Canadian history - and the deadliest next to the 9/11 attacks- when Sikh extremists blew up Air India B-747 out of Toronto and killed 329 people, most of whom were Canadian citizens. This same group also assassinated Indian PM Indira Gandhi the prior year. Some militant Sikh "martyrs", including the ones behind Air India. are still celebrated in annual parades in the global Sikh community, especially Canada.

You don't remember the Sikh hysteria that swept the nation in the 80's and 90's? You don't remember all the failed attempts to ban their beards and turbans, just like today you're trying to ban niqabs and burkas? The fear over their kirpans "their kids bring daggers to school!" 2015 Thanos needs to talk to 1985 Thanos because if you're anything like how you were then, you were surely in on the hysteria.

[PluggyRug]

[BeaverFever]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'll certainly agree that the Kaiser didn't have appear to have any ambitions to take over the entire world, but history showed us that Hitler and Stalin certainly did - and if either had succeeded, the world would be a very different place than it is now.

I don't think as a practical matter Hitler or anyone else in human history could have "taken over the entire world". If it were possible for any country to ever "take over the world" it would have happened by now. Only GI JOE cartoon villains have such aspirations. Even in 2015 there's not a way to invade the Americas from Europe and Germany, despite it's wealth an sophistication was not in any way capable. The Nazi's couldn't even cross from France to England. There was never a risk that Nazis would invade and conquer Canada. The Nazis almost took over the world like the Wright Brothers almost flew to another galaxy.

As for Russia, well they definitely would have been bad news for Western Europe. They probably would've defeated Germany without the rest of the Allies on the Western Front but Europe would not have been any better under Stalin for sure. But still, not really a threat to Canadian freedoms. The real threat that Russia posed to Canada and the world was not that they would conquer it, but that they would cause it to be obliterated by nukes. Not sure how fighting any wars changed that.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The fear over (Sikhs) kirpans "their kids bring daggers to school!"

I personally don't mind if the Sikhs bring knives to school so long as other kids can do the same.

[bootlegga]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'll certainly agree that the Kaiser didn't have appear to have any ambitions to take over the entire world, but history showed us that Hitler and Stalin certainly did - and if either had succeeded, the world would be a very different place than it is now.

I don't think as a practical matter Hitler or anyone else in human history could have "taken over the entire world". If it were possible for any country to ever "take over the world" it would have happened by now. Only GI JOE cartoon villains have such aspirations. Even in 2015 there's not a way to invade the Americas from Europe and Germany, despite it's wealth an sophistication was not in any way capable. The Nazi's couldn't even cross from France to England. There was never a risk that Nazis would invade and conquer Canada. The Nazis almost took over the world like the Wright Brothers almost flew to another galaxy.

As for Russia, well they definitely would have been bad news for Western Europe. They probably would've defeated Germany without the rest of the Allies on the Western Front but Europe would not have been any better under Stalin for sure. But still, not really a threat to Canadian freedoms. The real threat that Russia posed to Canada and the world was not that they would conquer it, but that they would cause it to be obliterated by nukes. Not sure how fighting any wars changed that.

Guess you've never heard of the British Empire, which at one time controlled 1/4 of the planet and dominated pretty much the rest economically, militarily and politically for nearly a century. Other empires throughout history have controlled what they they knew of as the 'known world.'

Hitler also planned for a thousand year Reich - plenty of time to deal with the new world after he had consolidated his hold in Europe (which could have come to pass with just one or two minor changes).

Stalin too thought long term and planned to eventually beat us, which had he taken all of Europe might have been possible. And if they did, you can bet an occupation would have been in the works...something tells me neither Hitler or Stalin would have thought letting us celebrate Canada Day would be a good idea.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Guess you've never heard of the British Empire, which at one time controlled 1/4 of the planet and dominated pretty much the rest economically, militarily and politically for nearly a century. Other empires throughout history have controlled what they they knew of as the 'known world.'

Hitler did not almost takeover the world, full stop. The Brits and the other Europeans subjugated hunter-gatherers and other primitive peoples, most of whom died off from disease just by fact of contact. There's a reason that these "mighty" Europeans went after those low-hanging primitive peoples in far away places and didn't conquer each other in their own home continent. They couldn't. Sure, they fought wars against each other from time to time but never in modern history did any of these main European countries conquer and rule over the other. The last one who tried was Napoleon and he failed.

"Hitler planned for a thousand year reich" but missed by about 988 years and that's a generous measure. That's not "almost".

And even in 2015 a mass invasion of North America is not proven feasible so although the threat of nuclear destruction was real, the threat of military invasion ala "Red Dawn" is not.

[bootlegga]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Guess you've never heard of the British Empire, which at one time controlled 1/4 of the planet and dominated pretty much the rest economically, militarily and politically for nearly a century. Other empires throughout history have controlled what they they knew of as the 'known world.'

Hitler did not almost takeover the world, full stop.

I never said he did...full stop.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

"Hitler planned for a thousand year reich" but missed by about 988 years and that's a generous measure. That's not "almost".

Again, I never said almost, just that he had ambitions to take over the world...and if he had won in Europe, we would have been next. The only question would have been when, not if.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

If he had won in Europe, we would have been next. The only question would have been when, not if.

First it would take almost all of his resources to retain control of Europe and I don't think they would have been able to. Again, nobody has ever conquered all of Europe (let alone the world) so there's not a lot of reason to think that's possible. It's not like Germany had an endless supply of recruits and war material. They were already starting to scrape the bottom the barrel after Leningrad in 1942 and their war machine was running out of gas (literally and figuratively).

Germany's military succuss was basically like a guy who walks up to a crowd of unsuspecting bystanders and starts sucker-punching them. Sure, initially he's going to knock some people down and knock others out completely, but inevitably some people in the crowd are going to overcome their shock and surprise and the guy is going to get the shit beat out of him.

And AGAIN, even if he somehow had conquered Russia, Britain and even if he was able to control all of Europe, the Mediterranean, and defeat the Royal Navy all around the globe (already this is far fetched) there is still no reason to believe an invasion of the Americas is even POSSIBLE let alone PLAUSIBLE. As I said, even in 2015 I don't think it could happen. Do you know what a logistical and technological impossibility that would be?

[bootlegga]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

If he had won in Europe, we would have been next. The only question would have been when, not if.

First it would take almost all of his resources to retain control of Europe and I don't think they would have been able to. Again, nobody has ever conquered all of Europe (let alone the world) so there's not a lot of reason to think that's possible. It's not like Germany had an endless supply of recruits and war material. They were already starting to scrape the bottom the barrel after Leningrad in 1942 and their war machine was running out of gas (literally and figuratively).

Germany's military succuss was basically like a guy who walks up to a crowd of unsuspecting bystanders and starts sucker-punching them. Sure, initially he's going to knock some people down and knock others out completely, but inevitably some people in the crowd are going to overcome their shock and surprise and the guy is going to get the shit beat out of him.

And AGAIN, even if he somehow had conquered Russia, Britain and even if he was able to control all of Europe, the Mediterranean, and defeat the Royal Navy all around the globe (already this is far fetched) there is still no reason to believe an invasion of the Americas is even POSSIBLE let alone PLAUSIBLE. As I said, even in 2015 I don't think it could happen. Do you know what a logistical and technological impossibility that would be?

Look, Hitler made a series of mistakes which prevented him from winning the war - but what if he hadn't?

The Luftwaffe had the RAF on the ropes until Churchill ordered Berlin bombed. Had he knocked out the RAF, Sea Lion becomes a possibility. Sure, it's tough and casualties would have been high, but the Wehrmacht in 1941 could have crushed Britain if it could have crossed the Channel. And if the UK is out of the war before he hits the USSR, then he could deploy much more to wipe them out.

Then it's Canada and rest of the Empire against Nazi Europe. Hitler could literally sit on Europe for a decade or two and develop all sorts of secret weapons and massive armies/navies to deal with us over here.

And I think you're forgetting the Japanese - they did a pretty damned good job of dealing with the Royal Navy (and other European fleets) on the other side of the planet. As such, Hitler didn't need to wipe out European fleets everywhere, as the Japanese could help out in that regard.

Actually, an invasion in 1945 probably would have been easier than now, simply because navies were so much larger (in terms of numbers) and armies had far more men under arms.

[Thanos]

That's what made the "would you assassinate the Baby Hitler to prevent the Holocaust?" question so fascinating. What if Hitler had been killed as a child, or on a World War One battlefield? The events would play out pretty much the same way because Germany was going to fall into fascist barbarity even without Hitler around. And it could have been worse. What if the anti-Semitism had been organized by someone as ruthless as Reinhard Heydrich or a bureaucratic and almost unknown mass killer like Herbert Backe? The Holocaust could have been much worse because men like that were iron disciplined and lacked Hitler's mania and wild flights of fantasy. These kind of leaders would have been far less likely than Hitler to interfere with what the military high command was trying to accomplish. Put Heydrich or Backe in overall command and all of a sudden the British army isn't escaping from Dunkirk because the army won't be halted for the critical few days that allowed the British to evacuate. Or the army closing in on Moscow in October 1941 isn't split in half and sent to take Kiev instead. Put alternate leaders like that in command and all of a sudden hundreds of thousands of German troops aren't being wasted in Yugoslavia & Greece or sent off to an irrelevant theatre in North Africa to save a cretin like Mussolini. Or instead of wasting all those resources on "wonder weapons" of dubious value, like the Bismarck/Tirpitz battleships through to the King Tiger tank, Germany instead streamlines their assembly lines and produce in 1940 and '41 an extra couple of hundred U-boats to deploy to the Atlantic that cut off British supply lines. Or take all the material that was invested in Tiger tanks and instead have at least several thousand more workhorse Mark IV tanks to unleash in Russia. Have Herbert Backe as Fuhrer, or as someone more influential with a more logical Fuhrer, and the Holocaust isn't marked by death squads and death camps requiring tens of thousands of personnel and billions of dollars of resources. Instead it becomes something as simple as what the Turks did to the Armenians with the Jews and other undesirables being locked up in ghettos and allowed to simply starved to death.

This is why the Allies didn't want to participate at all in German attempts to have Hitler assassinated and have the army high command to take over. They knew Hitler's increasing mania was harming the scattershot German war effort as much as the Allied military power was. Eliminate the damage that Hitler caused to his own crusade and the war in Europe isn't ending until 1947/48, or Germany isn't beaten at all and some kind of fascist or militarist government possibly even survives there for another couple of decades.

[BRAH]

Meh.