Topic: Passing of a Giant

[Brush Wolf]

http://jalopnik.com/this-man-chased-a-nazi-fighter-plane-under-the-eiffel-t-1494007692

[Sirgod]

Wow, the article had me at Roanoke. so much history from that place, but I take away from the article.

92 years old. Overstreet is a hero in every definition of the word.

Stephen

[Nemesis]

I'd never heard about this. 

"My father began shouting at me — 'I have to meet this man,' " Marie said. Members of the French Resistance had seen his flight and it inspired them, including Marie's father, he said.

Doesn't sound like the "cheese eating surrender monkey" with no "gratitude" that the stereotype here portrays. 

[knightstorm]

Doesn't sound like the "cheese eating surrender monkey"

Well, Overstreet wouldn't have had to fly under the tower in the first place if the French hadn't surrendered in nine months.

with no "gratitude" that the stereotype here portrays. 

Every stereotype has its exceptions.  The fact of the matter is that American GIs did complain about the French having that attitude, which eventually resulted in their superiors distributing one of the first cultural sensitivity pamphlets ever printed.

[Nemesis]

How long do you think the U.S. would have stood up under a blitzkrieg?  It was a whole new way to fight that no one was ready for.  When was the last time the U.S. faced a serious foe in land battles on your own turf?  When was the U.S. mainland ever bombed the way France was?  England itself would have failed if not for the channel holding off invasion.  Without Canadian built war materials they would still have fallen, so we do get gratitude from them too. (We were supplying 30% of allied materials till the U.S. finally condescended to join in).  The U.S. was still allowing the Germans to buy strategic materials from you. 

The U.S. demands gratitude for their actions in both World Wars but in both their actions were FORCED. 

Consider how much gratitude you would give a friend in a bar fight if he sat at the bar going "Its not my problem" until he was hit with a chair.  Then you win but first they had you down on the floor kicking the *&^^% out of you.  You likely wouldn't consider him much of a friend or give him any gratitude no matter how much he demanded it. 

Now other countries like Canada do get gratitude because we joined early when we could have avoided it.  Just as on the evening of December 7th 1941 we declared war on Japan in support of our "friend" to the south.  A friend that had no plans made to go to Europe but did have invasion plans to attack Canada "if needed".  Plans to attack us but not to aid us, a friend?  A friend who when we allowed them to build the Alaska highway through our territory would have its builders bully Canadians on our land and answer their phones "American Army of Occupation".  The U.S. wasn't such a great "friend" they were a comrade at arms that was conscripted against their will.  A "friend" who when we were going to annex Greenland went behind our backs and cut their own deal and blocked the annexation.  So why was gratitude owed? 

Did you know that after WWI France gave Vimy Ridge to Canada?  They do give us gratitude because we helped out of friendship not by compulsion in both wars.  Want gratitude?  Do something because you think it right not because you have to or because it benefits you.  When doing so also treat those you help with the type of treatment you expect for yourself. 

Where was the American gratitude when we supported you in Afghanistan?  Bush was repeatedly made to answer why he never included us in his thank yous but did include countries whose contribution was "Go get them boys".  His answer "You don't thank family", but he did thank the U.K. (I believe it was because he didn't like our then PM Chreitien who had been friends with Al Gore).  When we chose not to go into Iraq for a variety of reasons the U.S. ambassadors response was "Canada has to expect retaliation".  Some gratitude.  None for helping and threats for not directly helping though we increased our presence in the Gulf and Afghanistan to free up American and other allied forces in Iraq.  From forums members here?  Jokes about the Canadian military.   Gratitude?  The U.S wants it when they don't deserve it but doesn't give it when it is deserved.  Do I demand gratitude from the U.S.?  No but it would be nice not to be snubbed in favour of those whose contributions were not to oppose and not to be threatened when we don't oppose or directly aid.  (Bush began his snubbing when he broke tradition and did NOT make his first international visit as President to Canada pre 9/11). 

Overstreet gets gratitude for what he personally did.  He went beyond what most would do at great risk to himself and never demanded gratitude that I see.  The masses of the U.S. who were the source of the "not our problem" and the source of demands for gratitude?  Of course they don't get what wasn't deserved.  Of course young people of today who did none of these things and STILL demand gratitude also get none.  Canadians do still get gratitude for the actions of that generation, because they gave freely and neither they nor we ever demanded gratitude for what they did, though we do appreciate it. 

So why do you think that the Allies "owe" gratitude to the U.S. in general and yourself in particular? 

[knightstorm]

France had the stronger military in 1940.  WWII should have been a French victory within two years, but they were led by a bunch of incompetents, and got completely outmaneuvered.  US actions in neither world war were forced.  Much of the push for US involvement in WWI came from sensationalized press, and then after the dust had settled, and the American public witnessed the behavior of the victorious allies, the war had left such a bad taste in their mouths that there was a massive isolationist sentiment preventing the US from getting involved in WWII.  Also, while military intervention may not have started until after Pearl Harbor, FDR was clearly trying to provoke Germany into a war.  In addition to lend lease, he traded 50 obsolete destroyers to the UK for bases, and then pulled a bunch of ships from the same class out of mothballs to engage in "neutrality patrols" in the hopes that the Germans would start mistaking them for British ships and opening fire.  I also never claimed that the allies owe me gratitude in particular.  I pointed out that it is documented that many of the US GIs who liberated France complained bout the attitudes of the French people.

[Nemesis]

Even if FDR was trying to be provocative it doesn't change the fact that the people of the U.S. did not want to help the allies.  The "no involvement" is what kept contingency plans from being made to aid but allowed, even caused the Invade Canada contingency plans.  (Canada did once have a contingency plan to invade the U.S., to buy time should the U.S. be massing to attack us for allies to come to our aid.)

WWI treaty for the end was actually another case of the U.S. stabbing Canada in the back.  They insisted we be excluded in spite of the vital role played by the Canadian corp.  Think maybe Canada might have sided with the U.S. to moderate things?  Instead the door was slammed in our faces. 

The U.S. declared war on neither Japan nor Germany.  They declared war on you.  Where was the choice?  Public outrage on what happened in Pearl Harbor not friendship was what motivated the war for the U.S..

WWI it took that sensationalism to outrage the citizens and force (the too proud to fight) President and Congress into the war.  Again that public outrage of an attack on Americans not friendship with the allies forced the war on you. 

Lesson learned if you want the U.S. to help you in war then find a way to cause the opposition to provoke the public. 

Maybe that is why Vietnam failed the public was only provoked by their own government not by North Vietnam.

[knightstorm]

it doesn't change the fact that the people of the U.S. did not want to help the allies.

Considering the fact that the American public had previously lied to and tricked into entering a European war, does it really surprise you that they would be apprehensive about joining another one.

The "no involvement" is what kept contingency plans from being made to aid

There may have been no formal plans, but the US was developing the B-36 to attack Germany from bases in North America in the event that Britain fell.

WWI treaty for the end was actually another case of the U.S. stabbing Canada in the back.  They insisted we be excluded in spite of the vital role played by the Canadian corp.

Canada entered the war because Britain controlled its foreign policy.  Does it surprise you that the US might object to what was viewed as an extension of Britain being present?

WWI it took that sensationalism to outrage the citizens and force (the too proud to fight) President and Congress into the war.  Again that public outrage of an attack on Americans not friendship with the allies forced the war on you. 

Unlike the other participants in the war, the US was not a part of any alliances formal or otherwise, and we had no other binding agreements.  Nor did we have any particular ax to grind, so why should it surprise you that we actually needed some sort of provocation to declare war on a country?

[Lieutenant_Q]

The reality of the situation, unlike what is trying to be portrayed here, is that the United States had a mixed interest in the 1st World War.  Unlike Canada, which is largely (but not entirely) British and French descendants, the United States had a much more mixed population, from every European nation, large numbers of German and Austrian immigrants had arrived in the States in the last 30 years.  Wilson was concerned, that declaring for one side or the other would immediately cause a civil war or, at the very least, massive riots within the country itself.  Wilson knew that he couldn't just pick a side, even though he favored involvement on the Allies side, there were many people even within his administration that favored the Central Powers.  All the sensationalizing, which was all it was, couldn't convince enough people to pick a side, it was "Over There."  Something had to happen that directly affected the people of the United States for Wilson to be able to make a declaration without causing the internal strife that would have rendered any aid that the US could have provided, useless.  The United States involvement in WWI was minimal, almost non-existant, except that it allowed the Allied Commanders to spread out the French troops, who had already surrendered, (They would no longer attack, they would defend themselves, but they would not launch ANY offensive operations) and replace them with US soldiers, who, while they had heard of Mustard Gas, Flamethrowers, etc... hadn't seen them first hand, yet, and thus were willing to (at this point) "Save the Democratic World!".  Had the US tried to get involved prior to the (fabricated) Zimmerman Telegram, the small amount of forces that would have been able to be raised, would have immediately been tied up trying to suppress German and Austrian Nationals that would have risen up against the involvement.

At the end of World War I, Wilson had wanted a "peace without victory" but given the US's minimal involvement, and France's burning desire for revenge, Wilson's desires were ignored.  (Rightly from the perspective of their limited involvement, but wrongly from what France ultimately wanted to do)  But after watching the lengths that France (and Britain) went to to "punish Germany" who was merely helping their ally to begin with, the United States realized the wisdom of a President from 100 years prior, James Monroe.  European Affairs were for Europeans to deal with.  At the onset of World War II, the US was even more determined to sit on the sidelines, even though the Japanese actions in China was already pushing Roosevelt to intervene there (the US had cut off Oil Exports to Japan in the Summer of 1941, the US at the time was the world's leading Oil producer).  I think without Pearl Harbor, the United States would have joined the war in the following spring, simply because of the skill of the German War Machine, and that there was actually evidence of the atrocities that was being committed by the Nazi forces, rather than the unsubstantiated hearsay that was being spread during WWI about the "Barbaric" Huns.

[knightstorm]

Well, I think we can all agree that whatever grievances Canada has against the US, real or imagined were all paid back a thousand times over when they gave us Justin Bieber.