Japanese Canadians interned during WWII?
Was the internment of Japanese Canadians and/or Japanese Americans during WWII justified? To us today? No. But Pearl Harbor, Hawaii AND Darwin Bay, Australia didn't HAPPEN yesterday. The world was in the midst of a horrible war. Canada, being part of the British Empire, was in from the onset, unlike the US. Like the prime minister of Australia said, if Great Britain is at war, Australia is at war.... and so was New Zealand, and Canada. Then without provocation, Japan hit Pearl Harbor. That was TOO close for comfort for Canadians. Then one month later Japan hit Darwin Harbor. Brothers & the closest Allies of Canadians. The death & destruction in both places was horrific and completely unexpected.... and most people feel completely uncalled for. Japan suddenly became the worst enemy of Canada & the US at the same time. Fear. Horror. Mistrust. Paranoia. Military AND civilian casualties. Sneak attacks. Prejudice. Homeland safety. The extremely polite, industrious, hard working, well mannered and keep to themselves kind of people Japanese just committed the two worst monstrosities in the history of Hawaii and Australia. The people of Canada & the US were simply terrified.
Has the United States ever lost a war?
Officially, no. At no point has the US been forced to surrender to another nation. There are only two disputable wars that most people bring up.War of 1812 - The US officially declared a draw with Britain. Although the White House was burned, the US obliterated Britain in New Orleans. The US and Britain eventually agreed to end the conflict rather evenly.Vietnam - The US spent over a decade pounding North Vietnam and her allies into the dirt. Although it came at the cost of 50,000+ plus American Soldiers, the North Vietnamese lost far more militarily as you would expect. However, the US never actually surrendered. By 1973 the US withdrew from Vietnam, leaving the country of South Vietnam to continue on its own. Although North Vietnam would soon defeat South Vietnam, the US withdraw wasn’t a surrender.Militarily the US never lost a war. However, whether they strategically lost any conflict is another matter. In that situation you’d need to analyze what the US goals were as compared to their enemies goals and then compare to see who accomplished what. Under this analysis, you can make a good argument that the US never won in Vietnam, to which I’d agree. However, upon just viewing the military side of the conflict, the US has never lost a war.Edit: Some have gotten rather testy about me asserting that US didn’t lose Vietnam, and have sent me messages because of this. Let me explain why I stand by this statement. The US never lost a major battle in Vietnam. For over a decade we pummeled the North Vietnamese, inflicting a combined total of over a 1 million losses over the course of the war. In 1973 the US brokered the Paris Peace Accords, which was a peace treaty ending the war and establishing both North and South Vietnam as separate governments. The US proceeded to end its military involvement in the region, similar to what happened in South Korea. However, the US also ended any commitment to defense and funding. After 2 years North Vietnam proceeded to break the peace treaty and invade South Vietnam. Without American financial support, the South quickly folded. Since the US military was not present after 1973, having voluntarily withdrawn and left South Vietnam to continue the fight, it is impossible to assert that the US was militarily defeated.
Which country played the greatest role in winning WW2, Britain, USSR or USA?
Concerning the war in Europe (which seems to be the key element of this question, since Britain played a decidedly lesser role in the Pacific, and the USSR next to none) a few numbers are illustrative:Total War Dead in Europe:USSR 11,000,000Germany 3,500,000Romania 519,000Yugoslavia 300,000Italy 226,000UK 144,000USA 143,000There is a single graveyard created after the battle of Stalingrad (973,000 deaths) that has more bodies than the US or UK lost in the war.The war in the Western Front, June 1944 to May 1945, occupied 16,500,000 man-months. The German-Soviet war of 1941-1945 occupied 406,000,000 man-months. That is about 25 times as much for the Soviets, versus the part of the war most Americans fixate on.The Battle of Kursk, which most Americans haven't studied, was perhaps the world's last great set battle, involving 6,000 tanks, 4,000 aircraft, and approximately 235,000 Soviet casualties. By comparison, the Normandy landings involved 5,000 ships, 13,000 aircraft, and about 9,000 allied casualties.The US supplied the USSR with 14,700 airplanes, 7,000 tanks, and 15.4 million pairs of boots. In terms of material and financial support, the U.S. was important, possibly critical in the success of Stalin's grinding down of Hitler. Whether you see this as decidedly influential affects the answer of this question.In effect, the U.S. was the dominant industrial element, while the Soviet Union participated in by far the greater amount of violence and loss - and showed no signs of ceasing its human cost.Norman Davies, in his "No Simple Victory," makes the case that World War II in Europe was essentially a battle between two totalitarian mass murderers, one of whom the U.S. and the U.K. backed. While the U.S. and the U.K. played an important role, much of that role was support of Stalin's forces.While the Soviet Union played virtually no role in the violence of the Pacific theater, it had an oddly critical role there too. It moved on Japanese territory as the U.S. began its great effort against the Japanese mainland with Okinawa, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. This sped Hirohito's decision to surrender.
What on earth were those large number of Canadian soldiers fighting for, who died in WWI (67,000 killed and 250,000 wounded; population then was 7.8m) and WWII (1 million Canadians served; over 44,000 killed and 54,000 wounded/population 12m)?
In both WW1 and WW2, Canada was part of the Commonwealth, and much of its military apparatus, traditions and links were with the British military (and still are to some extent). Canada didn’t have any direct interests in WW1 and WW2, but both times the Canadian government was eager to show their support for the British “motherland” (though the British were quite lukewarm about it). Kind of a “look, dad we’re a REAL country now, with a REAL army!”Canadian military contributions in WW1 and WW2 were actually crucial. Both times, Canada used its large land and resources to act as a large military factory for the Allies. In WW1, Canadian troops in particular were known as shock infantry and in WW2, Hitler respected them so much from his experience in WW1 that he always had his strongest SS divisions face the Canadians, leading to heavy casualties. In WW2, Canadian forces provided the northern flank for the main Allied advances into Germany, and liberated parts of Belgium and most of the Netherlands. Canada also served as a giant air-force training academy for the allies, due to our vast open land giving Canada plenty of space for new pilots to train.Frankly, Canadian interests were never really at stake in either world war, but both times the Canadian government joined quite eagerly. It is still a touchy subject in Quebec when the sceptre of conscription loomed (however, many Quebecois and Anglo-Quebeckers served with distinction in their own regiments as volunteers. The Quebecois were especially useful in France as instant interpreters). Also touchy are the Canadian defeats at Dieppe and Hong Kong, both missions probably being doomed from the start.The high percentage of killed and wounded show that Canadian soldiers were in the thick of the fighting and suffered accordingly. We are proud of our military heritage, and especially in WW2 we helped the Allies win (which is far preferable to letting the Axis win), but Canadian interests were not truly at stake. Especially in WW1, however, many Canadians wanted to “prove” themselves worthy of being a nation, and sadly throughout human history, nations were forged in steel and fire and sword. And that was what it was.
What are some long/short term causes/effects of World War I?What are some details about the "lost generation"?
Long term causes: 1. imperialist and economic rivalries among european powers 2. european alliance system 3. militarism and arms race 4. nationalist tensions in balkans Long Term effects: 1. economic impact of war debts on europe 2. emergence of US and Japan as important powers 3. growth of nationalism in colonies 3. rise of fascism 4. world war 2 Immediate causes: 1. austria-hungary's annexation of bosnia and herzegovina 2. fighting in the balkans 3. assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand 4. german invasion of belgium Immediate effects: 1. enormous cost in lives and money 2. russian revolution 3. creation of new nations in eastern europe 4. requirement that germany pay reparations 5. german loss of it's overseas colonies 5. balfour declarations 6. league of nations Hope this helps (: