USA helped USSR from 1942 and It was a very important aid, but in 1944, D-Day wasn´t vital to win the war.. Soviet had won the war for that date.. .the Red Army was in Poland, in Romanian... the bulk of the nazi army wasn´t in Normandie but in Eastern Front.. What would have happened in the absence of Normandy? Nothing new... to see the Russian Army in Paris one time more!!!! The Second Front would be very important in 1941, 1942... also in 1943... not in 1944... In 1943, the Russian army advanced 1.200 kms in 9 months, from Volga to Polish border...It was the Steamroller crushing any German resistance.. Nobody detract from american GI .. but we can´tt fall into the propaganda and to say USA won the war... By other side Patton was not a brilliant general (a big mouth) or MacArthur (another big mouth), I think both were average general...I think great american generals were Marshall, and Omar Bradley... Bradley wasn´t a Big Mouth but a true soldier... and movies prefer somebody like Patton...Big Mouth and small facts... He wasn´t like Bradley or like Manstein, Guderian, Rommel, Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Konev etc etc Patton behaved in Sicily campaign more like a pimp than a General commanded a regular army ... I also think The Atomic Bomb was a threat to Soviet Union... but didn´t work..
So in your reality being loyal to something means you can do whatever you wish when that thing you have sworn allegiance to has their life threatened or taken away. Interesting. And turning your back and allowing harm to come to the thing you swear your allegiance to is not one of them in any reality you care to bring forth. Never. The Queen does not give daily tune up calls to Regina or Sussex St to micro manage anything rather they have sworn their loyalty to the crown. Please prove that the Crown is no longer head of state in Britain then. No. You would like to imply you have however cannot prove that loyalty and allegiance means turning your back on impending danger to that which you have sworn same to. And if they ignored their oath and due to that ignoring allowed harm to come to that which they swore allegiance to they would be in moral violation of that oath. Was the Queen in all of those places and in mortal danger? I am fairly certain she was not so your strawman fails. Then obviously you are not familiar with the definition of Constitutional Monarchy. "Constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen acts as Head of State." Please explain how allowing harm to come to the monarch whom you pledged to be loayl to helps them stay in power and be healthy. Impending danger to the Monarch dictates that when one is to be loyal to that monarch one must defend him or her. Perhaps you can explain how not coming to the aid of Britain in WWII would help that monarch. I never said 20% voted no you did. Prove your fable please if you wish to have it believed. Sorry, he was not dead when he voted no. Thought you knew that as I said I would have not that I was going to. Nope, no definition from yourself as far as I could see. Allegiance means to be loyal to and loyal means to support that which you pledge allegiance to. ALLEGIANCE 1 a : the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord b (1) : the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government (2) : the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien resides 2 : devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause loy·al·ty noun \ˈlȯi(-əl-tē\ : the quality or state of being loyal : a loyal feeling : a feeling of strong support for someone or something sup·port transitive verb \sə-ˈpȯrt\ : to agree with or approve of (someone or something) : to show that you approve of (someone or something) by doing something : to give help or assistance to (someone or something) Their party turfed them and, they had to sit as independents. I wasn't born then. You still don't seem to understand the concept of a Constitutional Monarchy where the decisions being made are of the people and the nation's Monarch is but a figurehead who in almost any certain reality will never require the wielding of power.
Hardly. In 1914 Canada was a colony of Britain and thus was automatically at war with Germany the same day Britain declared it. In 1939 it was it's own independent nation and had a choice however, due to defense agreements as well as oaths taken by her representatives were bound to come to the aid of Britain and the PM stated that Canada was "obliged to go to war at Britain's side" .
Ask Sawyer please as he is the one who said it. Oh, I certainly agree the power for the most part simply pomp however, an oath is meant to be taken seriously and, the Monarch is head of state and giving loyalty, allegiance and support is a condition of the oath and is not dependent on the monarch being boss of anything. If it is not then oaths would not be part of office would you not agree? He could have done nothing and simply concentrated on the Japanese as Germany declared war on the US and was thousands of miles away being beaten into defeat by the Russians as so many here would like us to believe. He could have stopped helping the Russians and British who so many here state had it all under control and used those ships to defend the coasts. He didn`t though, he sent his troops to help the Europeans. - - - Updated - - - Nope. Just the key portion of the quote Sawyer was responding to which I in turn responded to.
Canada wasn´t a colony in 1914, It was a Dominion from 1867.. but It is truth Canada lackj of competence in foreign affairs (It was a time before Statute of Westminster 1931) but Canada helped voluntarily Great Britain: "In 1914, however, seventeen years before the enactment of the Statute of Westminster, Canada's constitutional position within the Empire gave her little share in formulating foreign policy and none in declaring war or making peace. She found herself at war through the action of the British Government" But the canadian contribution in 1914-1918 was whole-hearted and generous without doubt. Canada's position was clear on various occasions by her leading statesmen before the war: "When Britain is at war, Canada is at war. There is no distinction" (Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Prime Minister, Debates, House of Commons, 12 Janauray 1910). Regards
Please explain with quote and link to accredited sources how on earth a Dominion formed from colonies and still under the rule of Britain is no longer a colony but rather a nation totally on their own.
The following might expand your knowledge base somewhat: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1978/3/78.03.05.x.html
I didn't say that. What's clear is that you haven't read the oaths taken by MP's. Good then you know that the crown doesn't rule over Canada but is merely head of state which is a titular and ineffectual position within Canada. And it's the same in the UK. The monarch has no real power. That doesn't make any sense. What I've stated was that anyone can contribute or serve to the defence of the realm in anyway that they see fit. Ordinary citizens don't have to take up arms in order to do this which is exactly my point. Well technically neither was King George during WWII because Germany didn't declare war against Britain in 1939. And my point was if Britain really had any authority over Canada then we would have been entitled to drag them into it. I am extremely familiar with how my country functions. And you'll know that the crown doesn't actually rule over the nation. AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED. As I've just said the responsibilities are different. English isn't your first language is it? There are other ways to help. It doesn't have to be through military aid. And as I said Canada was independent. They didn't have to join in but did so willingly and you've been told this by several other people. My fable? You really are deluded and I couldn't care whether you want to believe it or not. Which is what I've stated but it doesn't mean that you have to take up arms. That's a party decision and has nothing to do with the state. Yesterday clearly. I didn't say that This sentence doesn't make sense at all. I've been saying that the whole (*)(*)(*)(*)ing time. You haven't made a case in any way shape or form. Unlike you I actually have a degree in history with a special interest in the British Empire and have served in the forces and the rest of my family has been in public service as well for at least four generations and more than likely longer. Even a few have met the Queen. You on the other hand are so dense that light just bounces off and you don't have an education in this subject and you don't have even the slightest understanding of my country's relationship with the Empire. You obviously work in a warehouse somewhere and you were just recently made literate.
You obviously don't know the difference between dominion and colony. The fact that you're not familiar with the statute of Westminster of 1931 only shows your ignorance.
I quoted and posted same as well as provided a link in #57. It's obvious this thread is moving far to fast for you to keep up. Yes, the Queen is head of state in Canada and all MPs swear loyalty to her which means they are bound to protect her and come to her aid in time of strife. My point entirely! I don't and challenge you to prove this lie by telling and proving to all of us the exact location of this warehouse, the type it is and what particular function I am employed at as I don't work in one. So, are you a liar or attempting a childish sort of insult without basis? Actually this was a golden opportunity for you to attempt to prove your point by showing us all how the DC was no longer under British rule. You failed, just as you didn't know what allegiance and loyalty means preferring to hide behind lies about fellow posters.
"After the Neutrality Act of 1939 was signed by President Roosevelt, he proclaimed the North Atlantic a combat zone. In the first few months of war between the Allies (England and France) and Germany (September 1939), Franklin D. Roosevelt made every possible effort to insulate the United States from the European conflict. Roosevelt made a statement, Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign war. However, the following comment was not part of his speech: Of course, well fight if were attacked. If someone attacks us, then it isnt a foreign war." Thanks, point proved - it was a European war, not an American and they were not required to be there so just give credit where credit is due - the US didn't have to be there to help save Europe.
But even then the use of the word dominion in the British Empire was very different anyway. Basically if you were happy to acknowledge the British Monarch you were okay.
No. I've disproved you're position multiple times. No it bloody doesn't. I've stated that the oaths don't prescribe protection of the monarch because that's the responsibility of the armed forces but that's if parliament decides to go to war. Even the meaning of the word allegiance doesn't mean to protect through force of arms. Well you can't be qualified to do anything else. I've not lied about a single word I've written. You have however. I've proven it for the last two pages of this topic. I've no obligation to you and I don't care. You however aren't a native speaker of English. And I haven't lied about other posters. You're clearly a troll with absolutely zero historical knowledge.
Ok thanks for clearing that up now. I wasn't sure and yes you're right many people do confuse dominion and colony. Even the term colony has several meanings.
Ridiculous. Roosevelt recognised that America's security was at risk and did something about it in the face of opposition from the isolationist lobby. When both Japan and Germany declared war it absolutely became America's problem and a global war. Your security was at risk from European belligerents; the Germans were sinking your ships, and it would not have been long before they began mining your sea lanes and sending in their U-boats en masse. You have proven nothing other than your lack of knowledge.
That's why he adopted a position of neutrality and called it a European War huh? Face it, the US saved your asses from your European enemies and you give no thanks to their sacrifice in doing so. You have not once shown that an oath to maintain allegiance means one need not protect that which one swears it to. To be in the position of ordering the military to take action to protect that monarch and not doing so when it is in danger is not being supportive I linked and quoted the definition of the word in post #83. I suggest you read it and familiarize yourself accordingly as you continue to be mistaken. You stated I worked in a warehouse yet could not prove this. As I know it not to be true I can truthfully say that you lied. Is this how you conduct all of your business by bald face lying and personal attacks? The person who lies is now name calling? This gets more silly with every one of your posts.
You stated I worked in a warehouse yet could not prove this. As I know it not to be true I can say that you lied. Is this how you conduct all of your business by bald face lying and personal attacks? The person who lies is now name calling? This gets more silly with every one of your posts.[/QUOTE] You saved nobody's ass. I've heard that cliche so many times I lost count. The war was won in a joint effort by every nation involved. The position of neutrality was a limited one; remember Lend-Lease and the exchange of your moth-eaten destroyers for bases on British territory? The moment Germany declared war on America you had no option but to become involved. None whatsoever. US interests were at stake-economic and otherwise. And lest we forget you were also doing great business with the Nazis up until then, and had been doing so for years.
