British special forces to use strap-on stealth wings.
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
Gladly. During the entire course of World War II (1939-1945), the French-Canadians, by and large, utterly failed to do their part. I just want to point out that this stigma doesn't apply to ALL French-Canadians, in fact many did answer the call and worked very hard for this nation, yet they are, sadly, the exception not the rule. In 1944, the 1st Canadian Army, fighting in North-Western Europe was running short of men. They were simply losing men faster than reserve arrived. An investigation was conducted as to why manpower wasn't flowing. Initially it was assumed that there simply weren't enough men left in Canada (by 1944 over 1 million Canadians out of a population of less than 12 million were in uniform). However, the investigation found two disturbing facts.
The first being that the VAST majority of eligable males (17-40) not currently serving in the military, were French-Canadian.
Secondly, a large amount of French-Canadians who had enrolled in the military, were part of a group of men who refused overseas service. This group was initially formed in 1940, under the National Resource Mobilization Act, as a Home Defense Force. It also called for conscription during a crisis, however the Home Defense Force was not to be used overseas. It was to consist of older men unfit for overseas service. However, through politcal manuvering, Henri Bourassa made it possible for anyone to join this defensive unit. French-Canadians enrolled enmass so as not to have to serve overseas. When the investigation looked at the defense force, they found that it was chalk full of men in their early 20s. To make matters worse, there were almost all, to a man, French-Canadian. While their English (and some French) compatriots were off fighting and dying in Europe, they sat in Montreal, or Quebec City, drank, partied, and womanized, all the while wearing the uniform of the Canadian Army. This force, numbered more than 15,000 men. As a result of their utter inactivity for the war, they were dubbed the "zombies".
By the end of 1944, the 1st Canadian Army, especially the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division and the 5th Canadian Armored Division, were badly in need of men, especially after losing literally thousands during the Battle of the Scheldt. Prime Minister MacKenzie King, in early 1945, ordered the mobilization of some 13,000 zombies for overseas service, in direct contradiction to the formation of the Home Defense Force under the NRMA. He was hassled every step of the way, and in the end, only 2,400 or so of the zombies actually were sent overseas.
A point I should make, is that the frontline troops, fighting and dying miles from home, resented the zombies greatly. Their take on the situation, was the same as mine. How could man call themselves soldiers, yet sit in lavish comfort at home, while the true soldiers were out doing their jobs?
The point to all this, is that the majority of French-Canadians utterly failed to step up and serve their Country. Many have argued that they didn't feel like serving England, and that it was Englands war. My retort to that; wasn't France utterly occupied? Or did they only care about "being French" so long as it didn't require any work from them? In short, the French-Canadians of the 40's were an utter disgrace to the Candian Army, Canada, and the Allies. Even while their paternal nation (France) was living under the NAZI jackboot, they did nothing.
P.S. To shut down any "Mogz is anti-French" posts; my Mother is French-Canadian, and my Grandfather on her side enlisted in 1940 with the Royal 22nd Regiment, the VanDoos, an all French-Canadian Regiment. He fought through Italy and Europe. He did his part, why couldn't others?
The first being that the VAST majority of eligable males (17-40) not currently serving in the military, were French-Canadian.
Secondly, a large amount of French-Canadians who had enrolled in the military, were part of a group of men who refused overseas service. This group was initially formed in 1940, under the National Resource Mobilization Act, as a Home Defense Force. It also called for conscription during a crisis, however the Home Defense Force was not to be used overseas. It was to consist of older men unfit for overseas service. However, through politcal manuvering, Henri Bourassa made it possible for anyone to join this defensive unit. French-Canadians enrolled enmass so as not to have to serve overseas. When the investigation looked at the defense force, they found that it was chalk full of men in their early 20s. To make matters worse, there were almost all, to a man, French-Canadian. While their English (and some French) compatriots were off fighting and dying in Europe, they sat in Montreal, or Quebec City, drank, partied, and womanized, all the while wearing the uniform of the Canadian Army. This force, numbered more than 15,000 men. As a result of their utter inactivity for the war, they were dubbed the "zombies".
By the end of 1944, the 1st Canadian Army, especially the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division and the 5th Canadian Armored Division, were badly in need of men, especially after losing literally thousands during the Battle of the Scheldt. Prime Minister MacKenzie King, in early 1945, ordered the mobilization of some 13,000 zombies for overseas service, in direct contradiction to the formation of the Home Defense Force under the NRMA. He was hassled every step of the way, and in the end, only 2,400 or so of the zombies actually were sent overseas.
A point I should make, is that the frontline troops, fighting and dying miles from home, resented the zombies greatly. Their take on the situation, was the same as mine. How could man call themselves soldiers, yet sit in lavish comfort at home, while the true soldiers were out doing their jobs?
The point to all this, is that the majority of French-Canadians utterly failed to step up and serve their Country. Many have argued that they didn't feel like serving England, and that it was Englands war. My retort to that; wasn't France utterly occupied? Or did they only care about "being French" so long as it didn't require any work from them? In short, the French-Canadians of the 40's were an utter disgrace to the Candian Army, Canada, and the Allies. Even while their paternal nation (France) was living under the NAZI jackboot, they did nothing.
P.S. To shut down any "Mogz is anti-French" posts; my Mother is French-Canadian, and my Grandfather on her side enlisted in 1940 with the Royal 22nd Regiment, the VanDoos, an all French-Canadian Regiment. He fought through Italy and Europe. He did his part, why couldn't others?
Mogz
very good points. I never heard about them. You must know a lot.
But, please, provide a trustful source so that we could know that you are not saying your own personal opinion.
I said "trustful source," please.
very good points. I never heard about them. You must know a lot.
But, please, provide a trustful source so that we could know that you are not saying your own personal opinion.
I said "trustful source," please.
RE: British special force
My "trustful source" is the 2 years I spent studying 20th Century Military History at College. I don't have to provide you anything. If you doubt me, go ahead and research it youself, i'm sure you can find a wealth of information on the NRMA, the "zombies", Henri Bourassa, and the French-Canadian recruitment crisis of 1944/45. I only post on issues i'm informed on. If that's not good enough for you, I really don't care. You asked me for information, I delievered it, if you don't like it, that's your problem, not mine.
My "trustful source" is the 2 years I spent studying 20th Century Military History at College. I don't have to provide you anything. If you doubt me, go ahead and research it youself, i'm sure you can find a wealth of information on the NRMA, the "zombies", Henri Bourassa, and the French-Canadian recruitment crisis of 1944/45. I only post on issues i'm informed on. If that's not good enough for you, I really don't care. You asked me for information, I delievered it, if you don't like it, that's your problem, not mine.
Knowing this since childhood was part of my personal anti French bias,and it has always made me ashamed to be from French Heritage. I could never get my head around the fact that the mother country was overrun and that they collaborated with the enemy.
Re: RE: British special force
What you were thought does not matter. What is written on a page of history that matters, even though this is not the right one, but we have to accept whatever is written.
Saying that Harper killed 4 persons. That's what I was thought, if you don't believe it's your problem. It doesn't work that way.
If you post a suspecious thing you have to provide source. Whatever is common, no need the source because we would know what the person is talking his/her opinion. If his/her opinion is wrong, then I don't care. But your post about French-Canadian's participation on the WWII is very sucpecious. You need to make us sure with the trustfull sources.
Otherwise, Canada is third world country, if you don't believe I don't care. US's president is brother-in-law of Tony Blair, if you don't believe I don't care. Canadians are murders, if you don't believe I don't care.
It doesn't work this way.
It works this way only in spacial forums, where no one believe anyone else. And no one cares about anyone else. But not here.
Mogz said:
What you were thought does not matter. What is written on a page of history that matters, even though this is not the right one, but we have to accept whatever is written.
Saying that Harper killed 4 persons. That's what I was thought, if you don't believe it's your problem. It doesn't work that way.
If you post a suspecious thing you have to provide source. Whatever is common, no need the source because we would know what the person is talking his/her opinion. If his/her opinion is wrong, then I don't care. But your post about French-Canadian's participation on the WWII is very sucpecious. You need to make us sure with the trustfull sources.
Otherwise, Canada is third world country, if you don't believe I don't care. US's president is brother-in-law of Tony Blair, if you don't believe I don't care. Canadians are murders, if you don't believe I don't care.
It doesn't work this way.
It works this way only in spacial forums, where no one believe anyone else. And no one cares about anyone else. But not here.
RE: British special force
I do believe I said:
You asked me for a historical take on French-Canadians of 1939-1945, I provided it. It's not my fault you're utterly uninformed on the history of this nation, and our involvment in global affairs. How do you propose I provide you a "trustful source" on these issues? Much of my knowledge is gleaned from years spent studying the history of this planet and warfare for a 100 year span. Also it should be pointed out that this information is not one topic, they're a multitude of issues that arouse during World War II, and all happen to be intertwined. Do you honestly expect me to spend hours searching the internet for articles and accounts of the NRMA, the conscription issues, the French-Canadian lack of involvment in World War II, etc, etc, just to provide a "trustful source" for you? Frankly buddy, I have neither the time nor inclination to cater to your own ignorance. If you really doubt what I wrote, by all means do your own research. We live in the information age, and i'm sure you're bright enough to type a few words in to google. Just a word of caution however, the article about the Conscription Crisis of 1944 on wikipedia is largely misleading and/or incorrect (just some FYI). Anyway, that's all i'm saying on this issue. I do suggest that the next time you ask someone for input on an issue, you be prepared for the answer. If you don't like what you hear/read, the obligation then falls on you to look in to what was said, not the person who took their time out to provide the information. A great "trustful source" to start at dekhqonbacha would be the Canadian National War Archives in Ottawa. I know firsthand that place has a wealth of knowledge on the NRMA and the "zombies". So if you're such a skeptic, take a road trip. To reiterate my stance on this; I really don't care.
P.S. I suggest English lessons.
I do believe I said:
You asked me for a historical take on French-Canadians of 1939-1945, I provided it. It's not my fault you're utterly uninformed on the history of this nation, and our involvment in global affairs. How do you propose I provide you a "trustful source" on these issues? Much of my knowledge is gleaned from years spent studying the history of this planet and warfare for a 100 year span. Also it should be pointed out that this information is not one topic, they're a multitude of issues that arouse during World War II, and all happen to be intertwined. Do you honestly expect me to spend hours searching the internet for articles and accounts of the NRMA, the conscription issues, the French-Canadian lack of involvment in World War II, etc, etc, just to provide a "trustful source" for you? Frankly buddy, I have neither the time nor inclination to cater to your own ignorance. If you really doubt what I wrote, by all means do your own research. We live in the information age, and i'm sure you're bright enough to type a few words in to google. Just a word of caution however, the article about the Conscription Crisis of 1944 on wikipedia is largely misleading and/or incorrect (just some FYI). Anyway, that's all i'm saying on this issue. I do suggest that the next time you ask someone for input on an issue, you be prepared for the answer. If you don't like what you hear/read, the obligation then falls on you to look in to what was said, not the person who took their time out to provide the information. A great "trustful source" to start at dekhqonbacha would be the Canadian National War Archives in Ottawa. I know firsthand that place has a wealth of knowledge on the NRMA and the "zombies". So if you're such a skeptic, take a road trip. To reiterate my stance on this; I really don't care.
P.S. I suggest English lessons.
If you provide an information and it cannot be backed up, it is not true. No matter how many years you spend studing this subject.
You will look at things from you point of view. The same page of history is understood differently by different people. Whom should we beleive? Only to thouse who provide the source. Not to thouse who think they spend years studing that subject and they are right.
You are telling incredible thing about French-Canadians during WWII, you should have the proof, not me. I don't need to do researching the thing that I don't know if it exists.
We would beleive what you said, if and only if there is a proof for what you said.
You will look at things from you point of view. The same page of history is understood differently by different people. Whom should we beleive? Only to thouse who provide the source. Not to thouse who think they spend years studing that subject and they are right.
You are telling incredible thing about French-Canadians during WWII, you should have the proof, not me. I don't need to do researching the thing that I don't know if it exists.
We would beleive what you said, if and only if there is a proof for what you said.
Re: RE: British special forces to use strap-on stealth wings
otherwise this whole thing is untrue.
I suspect this is what you think; and what you beleive had happened. Not what historians beleive had happened.
otherwise this whole thing is untrue.
I suspect this is what you think; and what you beleive had happened. Not what historians beleive had happened.
Mogz said:
french Canada is incredibly isolationist in nature, today as it was yesterday.
Too busy studying their own navel, the Quebecois at least did not see WW II as their war, in fact many sympathized much more with the fascists, especially the regime in Italy that had made peace with the Pope.
Pierre Trudeau is a case in point. He avoided service by joining the militia as an officer, and then getting himself kicked out (dishonourably discharged), which made it impossible for him to serve elsewhere, either voluntarily or if drafted. A recent book points out his early beliefs were of the Quebecois mainstream, corpaoratist, anti-semitic, nationalist, and authoritarian, in a word, fascist. To be fair, Trudeau shook off much of the negative aspects of his youthful beliefs, although he certainly maintained a solid streak of authoritarianism.
Just look at the Quebec premier through all these years, the fascist Maurice Duplessis, elected repeatedly.
Too busy studying their own navel, the Quebecois at least did not see WW II as their war, in fact many sympathized much more with the fascists, especially the regime in Italy that had made peace with the Pope.
Pierre Trudeau is a case in point. He avoided service by joining the militia as an officer, and then getting himself kicked out (dishonourably discharged), which made it impossible for him to serve elsewhere, either voluntarily or if drafted. A recent book points out his early beliefs were of the Quebecois mainstream, corpaoratist, anti-semitic, nationalist, and authoritarian, in a word, fascist. To be fair, Trudeau shook off much of the negative aspects of his youthful beliefs, although he certainly maintained a solid streak of authoritarianism.
Just look at the Quebec premier through all these years, the fascist Maurice Duplessis, elected repeatedly.
It's not true in YOUR OPINION. It can sure be backed up, but i'm not doing the leg work for you, or anyone else. I know I don't have to prove myself to you, or any other puke on these forums, that put more stock in some internet link than a matter of factual history that has been a source of constant debate for decades.
Proof exists, it's all in the history of this nation. I just don't spend my days searching the internet for links to substantiate a post (one I was asked to make) to some half-wit from Quebec that knows utterly nothing about the history of this nation. It's not my job to inform you. As I pointed out, you asked me to post on this subject, which I did, citing one of the key components of the issue; the NRMA. You want your vaunted "proof". Do a search on google for the National Resource Mobilization Act of 1940. Much of what I wrote will be in, or about, there. I'm just not going to do the leg work for an ingrate such as yourself.
Suspect all you want. The NRMA acted existed, it harbored gutless French-Canadians from the War, and McKenzie tried to put it to a practical use to aid the men on the frontlines. If you don't believe me, as I said above, I really don't care. I make it a point of only posting on issues i'm well versed in, and I don't feel obligated to defend myself or the integrity of anything I post from some prat on an internet forum.
How true Colpy, saying nothing for their vaunted stance on "being French", they utterly failed to embrace the fact that their paternal Nation was living under opression, and no one, but the Allies were going to free them from it. A great way to show their fierce loyalty to being "French" would have been to join the Army and liberate their brothers and sisters in France. Sadly, many simply shurgged it off as "Britains" War.