Perhaps I am spoiled being an American being accustomed to my freedom of speech, but it angers me (whether you agree with Geert Wilders or not) is the fact he’s being persecuted for voicing his opinion.
Last I recall my grandfather fought in the Netherlands to free them from the nazi’s and I if I remember history correctly as well, the Canadians also helped in the liberation of the Netherlands from tyranny (not to mention they keep fielding excellent snipers).
I doubt I would do the same today.
Regardless, today in the blogosphere there is a movement to make posts, articles, etc. about Geert Wilders. The problem is they’re just posts that voice support for him or at least his right to speak his mind. That achieves nothing. I find it much easier to just contact the people prosecuting him and remind them we may not send waves of our boys over next time.
Captain, thanks for the link. Suspect the NL web site minion will read some unexpected missives today. For those “sniping” at the Captain, our schools teach American history and our networks are just beginning to cover events outside this country. Those of us like the Captain who subscribe to this site and others like it do so with the intent to learn. So, give it a break.
Captain, a worthy post. Keep up the good work.
Looks like Ron and Mazzuchelli beat me to it. But I’ll say it anyway.
Quite piling on the poor Captain. He made an innocent remark and where is it written that Americans are supposed to know more about Canadian history than 99.9% of Canadians do? Same goes for your piling on the other Yanks here. Smarten up.
Canadians are rightfully very proud of the role they played in the liberation of Holland – and the last I saw, the Dutch were very grateful; it’s the one place in Europe where a maple-leaf sewn onto your back-pack actually gets you some good-will. But it’s not exactly like the Yanks did nothing to liberate Europe, and as Louise says, most Canadians aren’t taught about any of this anyway (war is so icky, after all. Killing and stuff. The 20-somethings couldn’t tell you in which century WWII ocurred).
Pettiness is never classy.
Louise, better look up the difference between “innocent” and “ignorant”.
Innocent=Capt
Ignorant=john brooks (not to mention arrogant)
Oh, and another thing, with the possible exception of the guest bloggers who take over when Kate is away, among whom is one Captain Capitalism, we are all guests on this blog. Some behave accordingly. Some don’t.
Louise, glad you are a judge of character, but unfortunately you are ignorant as well.
Here’s some help:
innocence:
– “lack of knowledge or understanding; ignorance.”
Capt said he remembered the event, so that excludes “lack of knowledge or understanding”, which then leads to:
ignorance:
– “The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.”
Which fits the bill a bit closer. Being unaware or uniformed, that is.
As for “all” being guests – when one is a visiting moderator as well from a foreign land and has the ability to post for all to see, they are availing themselves to being corrected and, gosh, taking some heat…aka criticism for making a dumb statement.
End of discussion.
Add boring to the list.
I agree with you, Louise. American/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand/Scottish/Indian/Irish/Welsh/British/Soviet soldiers all fought on the same side in WWII. Have a quick look at our Prime Ministers/Presidents in charge of the participating countries to adjust the reasons for lack of recognition. The soviet troops were not sent to fight for freedom (the brute Stalin had strong ideas about freedom!), Roosevelt was a “progressive”, M. King was a babbling idiot who consulted his dead mom about decisions – he was also a ‘progressive’. The only real leader in WWII was Winston Churchill and Winston was out of men, money and supplies by the time FDR/Stalin/Churchill met at Yalta. History has not been written to acknowledge the fundamental differences in the mindsets of the leaders. Hitler/FDR/Stalin/M. King shared similar ideologies – Churchill was far right. Japan was the loose cannon; America was fighting Japan when the war in Europe ended. Americans got little help to finish fighting off Japan. Canadian soldiers volunteered to help fight Japan but were denied, Canadian/American/British (Aussies, New Zealanders, eastern Europeans wanted to finish off Stalin but were denied by FDR and M. King. As in WWI, a brute won WWII (Stalin). What a different place the world would be had all these leaders been of even a smidgen of the caliber of Sir Winston Churchill.
Further, most Canadian/Aussie/New Zealand missions are labeled ‘British” as we were part of the British commonwealth at the time. Dieppe was a slaughter of Canadians, yet it was a ‘British’ boondoggle. My Mom has told me that Canadian troops turned their backs to the Canadian PM when he went overseas – they fought for Churchill.
We should also keep in mind that the soldiers from the free nations were almost all volunteers – they were ‘free’ men; not conscripted and they fought as free men. Liberating Holland was a joyous victory for those free men. Holland should know that before the nation buries all those brave young men fought for…Geert Wilder is a spokesman for those soldiers; I grew up with those soldiers and thus I know how they thought. They fought for Liberty: as does Geert Wilder, IMO.
Read Rudyard Kipling to find out how much ‘fun’ it is to live with Islam radicals.
Thanks for the Juno link.
The greater Canadian internal crisis that King feared if overseas conscription was brought in was the possible loss of the Liberal majority in the next election after the war. It is in his journal.
The reason why Canadian military units were in mission labeled British was to provide cover in our House of Commons, “Really would like to answer that good question about Dieppe, but it is a British operation and we can’t comment on it.”
What an excellent idea. I sent the NL government a message about this today.