Nah. Lend lease was in full swing, and they were sanctioning the imperial Japanese. Hindsight is 20/20, there was a glimmer of hope at the time that the problem could be resolved with political pressure. Putting boots on the ground without trying anything else first is Bush doctrine level bullshit.
At that point in history Canada would have followed the British crown wherever it went. If Britain had sided with Hitler Canada would have been an axis power.
No. The 1931 Statute of Westminster gave us full control over our foreign policy. The phrase “When Britain is at war, Canada is at war” was about the first world war, not the second.
They were not legally required to follow Britain, but they absolutely followed Britain anyway. If Britain has sat out the war, Canada would have sat out the war. If Britain had joined the axis, Canada would have joined the axis.
Both King and Opposition Leader Robert James Manion stated their opposition to conscripting troops for overseas service in March 1939. Nonetheless, King had not changed his view of 1923 that Canada would participate in a war by the Empire whether or not the United States did.
It had been clear that Canada would elect to participate in the war before the invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939. Four days after the United Kingdom had declared war on 3 September 1939, Parliament was called in special session and both King and Manion stated their support for Canada following Britain, but did not declare war immediately, partly to show that Canada was joining out of her own initiative and was not obligated to go to war.
Lend lease was in full swing, and they were sanctioning the imperial Japanese.
Not really… Sanctions against Japan and Lend and lease were approved the same year we entered the war.
there was a glimmer of hope at the time that the problem could be resolved with political pressure.
I mean, that’s what both the Japanese and the Nazi were hoping for. That the rest of the world would settle for peace and allow them to keep their spoils.
Putting boots on the ground without trying anything else first is Bush doctrine level bullshit.
And when has appeasing fascist with political discourse ever worked? There’s a difference between standing up to literal fascist invading allies, and Bush’s “war on terror”, trying to conflate the two is pathetic.
I mean, that’s what both the Japanese and the Nazi were hoping for. That the rest of the world would settle for peace and allow them to keep their spoils.
Oh, ok. That must be why the Japanese attacked the US, right? Because they were hoping for peace.
There’s a difference between standing up to literal fascist invading allies, and Bush’s “war on terror”,
Saddam Hussein was just as racist, nationalist, authoritarian, expansionist, and cruel as Benito Mussolini. So what exactly is the difference?
trying to conflate the two is pathetic.
Fuck you
when has appeasing fascist with political discourse ever worked?
Oh, ok. That must be why the Japanese attacked the US, right? Because they were hoping for peace.
Literally yes. The Japanese were trying to wipe the entire Pacific fleet out with one punch, making it too costly for the Americans to enter the war. They were hoping that America would cut their losses and settle for a negotiated peace that allowed the Japanese to keep their Pacific holdings.
Saddam Hussein was just as racist, nationalist, authoritarian, expansionist, and cruel as Benito Mussolini. So what exactly is the difference?
Saddam Hussein was just as racist, nationalist, authoritarian, expansionist, and cruel as Benito Mussolini. So what exactly is the difference?
The devil is in the details… Fascism may have some overlaps with the Baathis party, mostly with their authoritarianism. But it’s pretty distinct from it considering Baathism revolves around pan Arabic unity and socialism.
You sound like a republican, circa 2003
Lol, and you sound like Neville Chamberlain circa 1930’s.
The Japanese were trying to wipe the entire Pacific fleet out with one punch, making it too costly for the Americans to enter the war.
…so they could capture the Philippines unimpeded. That is not “hoping for peace”. That is hoping for an easier war.
Fascism may have some overlaps with the Baathis party
You could say that. It would be more accurate to say the venn diagram of the overlap is a circle. It’s weird that you oppose fighting one and not the other. What is the difference you’re concerned with? Do you just not like the word “fascism”, and are ok with governments that are fascist in all but name?
But it’s pretty distinct from it considering Baathism revolves around pan Arabic unity
More like pan Sunni supremacy. Are you forgetting he gassed an entire region trying to genocide an ethnic minority in his own country? Fascist ideologies all revolve around pan (insert race/nationality here) unity. So, again, what’s the difference?
and socialism
Hussein was about as socialist as the National Socialists I guess.
and you sound like Neville Chamberlain circa 1930’s.
Chamberlain gave the UK time to arm so they didn’t get blitzkrieged into extinction.
Nah. Lend lease was in full swing, and they were sanctioning the imperial Japanese. Hindsight is 20/20, there was a glimmer of hope at the time that the problem could be resolved with political pressure. Putting boots on the ground without trying anything else first is Bush doctrine level bullshit.
Canada seemed to have it figured out.
At that point in history Canada would have followed the British crown wherever it went. If Britain had sided with Hitler Canada would have been an axis power.
No. The 1931 Statute of Westminster gave us full control over our foreign policy. The phrase “When Britain is at war, Canada is at war” was about the first world war, not the second.
They were not legally required to follow Britain, but they absolutely followed Britain anyway. If Britain has sat out the war, Canada would have sat out the war. If Britain had joined the axis, Canada would have joined the axis.
Not really… Sanctions against Japan and Lend and lease were approved the same year we entered the war.
I mean, that’s what both the Japanese and the Nazi were hoping for. That the rest of the world would settle for peace and allow them to keep their spoils.
And when has appeasing fascist with political discourse ever worked? There’s a difference between standing up to literal fascist invading allies, and Bush’s “war on terror”, trying to conflate the two is pathetic.
Oh, ok. That must be why the Japanese attacked the US, right? Because they were hoping for peace.
Saddam Hussein was just as racist, nationalist, authoritarian, expansionist, and cruel as Benito Mussolini. So what exactly is the difference?
Fuck you
You sound like a republican, circa 2003
Literally yes. The Japanese were trying to wipe the entire Pacific fleet out with one punch, making it too costly for the Americans to enter the war. They were hoping that America would cut their losses and settle for a negotiated peace that allowed the Japanese to keep their Pacific holdings.
The devil is in the details… Fascism may have some overlaps with the Baathis party, mostly with their authoritarianism. But it’s pretty distinct from it considering Baathism revolves around pan Arabic unity and socialism.
Lol, and you sound like Neville Chamberlain circa 1930’s.
…so they could capture the Philippines unimpeded. That is not “hoping for peace”. That is hoping for an easier war.
You could say that. It would be more accurate to say the venn diagram of the overlap is a circle. It’s weird that you oppose fighting one and not the other. What is the difference you’re concerned with? Do you just not like the word “fascism”, and are ok with governments that are fascist in all but name?
More like pan Sunni supremacy. Are you forgetting he gassed an entire region trying to genocide an ethnic minority in his own country? Fascist ideologies all revolve around pan (insert race/nationality here) unity. So, again, what’s the difference?
Hussein was about as socialist as the National Socialists I guess.
Chamberlain gave the UK time to arm so they didn’t get blitzkrieged into extinction.