It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by something wicked
Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by fedster187
If I had my way, Canada would no longer be a colony of not-so-Great Britain. The UK couldn't protect themselves, let alone anyone else in a free-for-all war scenario. It's high time we divorced the queen anyway, this feudal relationship is getting old and tired. Actually, I can't think of one country or colony in the world that doesn't need to shake up its political systems and redefine who are actually allies and who are not.
What do you call the UN, the monarchy, the vatican, Wall street and the IMF on the bottom of the ocean?
A good start!
Cheers - Dave
What do you call a Canadian come to that, last time I was over they were mostly sitting on the street with a cardboard sign saying please give money for beer.
Why do you have to set the level so low, don't you know we could all bicker about each others countries all day? Do you really want me to come out with some garbage such as at least with you having the Queen as a commonwealth leader at least that means sometimes you actually make global news when she visits? No? Ok, I won't then.
What has any of your point got to do with a very interesting topic raised by the OP? Sheesh, I'm used to this from (a very small set of sub educated who really know nothing about history apart from HBO) Americans, but do you really need to go the same route?
Sorry, I know I should probably also write this post in French in case your are in the Quebec area, but I really can't be bothered.
World War I, 1914-1918: A U-boat torpedo hit ocean liner Lusitania near Britain and some 1200 people, including 128 Americans, on board lost their lives. Subsequent investigations revealed that the major explosions were inside the Lusitania, as it was secretly transporting 6 million pounds of artillery shells and rifle ammunition, as well as other explosives on behalf of Morgan banking corporation to help their clients, the Britain and the France. It was against US laws to transport war materials and passengers in the same ship.
Congress passed a law in 2002 enabling the military to storm into Holland to rescue U.S. soldiers held for war crimes. The Dutch want it revoked.
Formally titled the American Service Members Protection Act, the measure is widely and derisively known here as the Invasion of The Hague Act.
As a Dutch Ministry of Justice official put it, "I wouldn't overstate how seriously we take this any more, but it does seem a bizarre symbol."
In 2002, Dutch diplomat Harold DeWitt wrote to colleagues: "We are quite alarmed to hear about the impending invasion of the Netherlands. Our military is on high alert. We would really value you forwarding any news and relevant information as soon as it comes to your attention and, in particular, as it regards the timing. I would like to be able to notify my superiors … prior to any invasion."
Originally posted by Germanicus
America should have gone to war with Great Britan. In WW1.
American's were no great fans of the British back then and had stronger ties with Germany. There was a higher % of American's with German ancestory than anything.
The telegram instructed Ambassador Eckardt that if the U.S. appeared likely to enter the war, he was to approach the Mexican Government with a proposal for military alliance, with funding from Germany.
Mexico was promised Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.
"We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. "
Originally posted by Germanicus
They needed the public behind them. The Lusitania was key in that.
Wow, I just looked at the flag count. 92 flags? Really? This is a complete non-issue. People really believe that we plan to attack the UK and Canada, or that we use this as blackmail to make them do our bidding? You know, this site does get a bit nut-so at times.
So, if I want to get flags, all I need to do is find some benign document and then spin it in a way that makes the US look evil and give it a flashy title and viola? License to print flags?
Funny. Sad, but funny.
I'm stunned. Absolutely stunned. Talk about a chapter of the history book someone completely forgot to write, let alone include. Then again, just how would a history class tell an American or British child of today's world that America was in advanced planning stages to annex Canada and destroy the British Islands? The poor kids on both sides would never look at Washington the same again. Yikes.. maybe I DO see why I never learned this.
Thank you for sharing this though! It's from nearly a century ago so I'll resist my ATS instinct to see connections and conspiracies into present times. Some things really are history, right? Your thread here puts a whole different dimension to the way I think of the 20's and on into the mid 1930's though.
Imagine that...as you say..The United Kingdom and Europe as a whole may actually owe their very survival to Hitler......right before they had to destroy him to survive. What a wacky world this is sometimes and truth *IS* stranger than fiction. No Doubt!
Originally posted by schuyler
I don't find this surprising. In fact, it ought to be seen as mundane. If the military does not have a war plan for every conceivable contingency, then they are incompetent and not doing their job and whomever is responsible ought to be fired. My guess is that the military today has a contingency plan for conflict with any nation or groups of nations on the planet.
From the outset of hostilities, Churchill, as head of the Admiralty, was instrumental in establishing the hunger blockade of Germany. This was probably the most effective weapon employed on either side in the whole conflict. The only problem was that, according to everyone's interpretation of international law except Britain's, it was illegal. The blockade was not "close-in," but depended on scattering mines, and many of the goods deemed contraband for instance, food for civilians had never been so classified before. But, throughout his career, international law and the conventions by which men have tried to limit the horrors of war meant nothing to Churchill. As a German historian has dryly commented, Churchill was ready to break the rules whenever the very existence of his country was at stake, and "for him this was very often the case."
The hunger blockade had certain rather unpleasant consequences. About 750,000 German civilians succumbed to hunger and diseases caused by malnutrition. The effect on those who survived was perhaps just as frightful in its own way. A historian of the blockade concluded: "the victimized youth [of World War I] were to become the most radical adherents of National Socialism." It was also complications arising from the British blockade that eventually provided the pretext for Wilson's decision to go to war in 1917.
Whether Churchill actually arranged for the sinking of the Lusitania on May 7, 1915, is still unclear. A week before the disaster, he wrote to Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade that it was "most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany." Many highly-placed persons in Britain and America believed that the German sinking of the Lusitania would bring the United States into the war.