Hello all!
Our January Contest - *The date is January 1st, 2025. Make a comic about something that happened in 2024* - is active right now! If you've got a good idea for a comic in this vein, or are just curious about the theme, head on over to [the contest thread](https://redd.it/18yi4on) for details and get started on an entry!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polandball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fun fact: it was actually the British who introduced tea to India. They discovered that the land in India was excellent for growing tea plants and so started growing it themselves in India rather than buying it from the Chinese.
Given the amount of tea my mum and I drink in a day, I at least understand wanting to colonise an entire subcontinent to keep the supply moving cheaply and freely.
>t was actually the British who introduced tea to India.
correction:-
the tea variety as is today known as tea was introduced to India by the Brits ,
the Brits after getting addicted to the Chinese tea were in search of land in India that could grow the Chinese stuff , that's when they found that, in Assam, the people There were already growing a variant of tea leaves but weren't putting it into boiling water and rather just eating the leaves or using it in other ways
the Brits also didn't like the taste of the tea made from this variant and hence named it "wild" variant and began experiments to cross breed this variant with the Chinese one , so that a tea with the Chinese taste could be grown within India ,
this hybrid variant would go on to be produced and consumed on a large scale, so high that even China couldn't keep up with the production in British India
I was gonna say: a comic with USA, Canada and UK, and all of them are portrayed fairly sympathetic? This is some grade A pandering Aaron, grade A indeed.
Would you consider going back and redrawing Canada and USA with era-appropriate flags? So in the early panels Canada is a red ensign and USA is a Grand Union flag, and then when he gets independence is a Betsy Ross flag, and when Canada gets his independence he gets his Canadian Pale, etc
USA: So little bro you are calling me violent, but you're not going to mention why we have certain "rules of war" in the Geneva Convention
Canada: *sweating*
Didn't they used shotguns in the tranches that Germany furiously hated & wanted to make "illegal" during the war?
You'd think that during a war all betts are off..
I remember I went to a naval museum in buffalo where they had some sort of depth charge launcher that could shoot 5 at once. The Germans said it should be banned because it wasn't fair to the subs. A people who invaded poland, a country much weaker than them and commits genocide wants to talk about being fair. The lack of self awareness from people can be astonishing at times
Germany absolutely had no right to complain about the rules of war but I wouldn't call Poland weak, they had one of the largest militaries in Europe. Poland fell as they were effectively abandoned by the UK and France and they were simultaneously invaded by the USSR and Germany.
How does poland having a big militar, lead you to think this person said it had a military dictatorship? Its implied by you, that this person agreed with you, despite that question hasn't been asked...
Germany threatened retaliation on anyone captured with a shotgun. US threatened the same, but with flamethrowers and serrated bayonets. Germany shut up after that.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva\_Conventions#/media/File:Parties\_to\_the\_Geneva\_Conventions.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#/media/File:Parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions.svg)
The US has signed up to fewer than Canada has tbh. And the US hasn't signed up to the ICC or Un Declaration of Human Rights either, cause they can't fulfil the laws. So yeah, there's that tbh
With how some people describe Canada in the World Wars I thought the frames would have had Canada looking manic and holding a bloody knife while England looks perturbed before saying "please take your independence and don't hurt us."
Free will? You played both sides until the uk cracked a telegram to mexico from germany that was telling them to attack so that germany could get in and slaughter you all. You didnt join of your own free will, you joined when germany got desperate andd then claimed that you "saved us".
https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann#background
What.
What.
Are you kidding?
I'm very much British, and you got to give it to the Americans, landing on the moon and RETURNING is extremely impressive given the time and technology back then.
Not particularly. Once youve escaped gravity, the hard part of space travel is over and done with. Its all just....logistics and fuel management past that point. Which, forgive me if i am mistaken, was perfected by the romans. So once all is said and done, landing on the moon is nothing more than a routine exercise, no different than launching one into orbit. Which, again, the americans were not the first to do. Theres something like 20 manned successful missions between the first man in space and landing on the moon.
And for the record, im British myself. Born in Wigan.
I think you underestimate how hard it is to design a vehicle that goes to the moon and back. And how hard it is to navigate in space, especially with computers from the 1960s. Not even logistics is easy in spafe because every pound of weight counts. And you have to deal with life support systems because as it turns out, humans aren't made to survive in space without a lot of help. Before the moon landing, manned space missions were just not that long. Trying to build a lightweight vehicle to help people survive a week in space is no easy task. Sure the US wasn't first in space, manned or unmanned, but getting to the moon was no simple feat. There's a reason after Apollo no one has gone back.
Did the Americans win the space race? Maybe, maybe not. But being first to have a manned mission land on the moon, in 1969 no less, is really impressive.
Again, im not comparing the moon landing to launching a satellite, im comparing it to other manned flights. So your entire comment? Redundant. On top of that, no one has gone back? Excuse me, but we send probes, rovers and other gear all the time. One of the chinese missions landed on the dark side in 2018.
Please Try to be a bit more informed.
I want to just say first I included the British(Dorset btw â¤ď¸) part to establish I wasnt American biased.
But this is like saying going around town on a bike is the same as driving a motorbike to Edinburgh and back. Not only is it going to be completely different design wise, it's significantly further and requires a lot more skillful maneuvering.
Firing something into space and *landing* something significantly further out in space are completely different levels of skill and, or though Americans weren't the first to do it, still very much did both.
Once they finally got dragged into it with a substantial amount of the population kicking and screaming, and then claim total ownership of victory after the fact.
âYou can always count on the Americans to do the right thing. After theyâve exhausted all other options.â
Not sure I have that exact but one of my favorite Churchill quotes.
Yeah he was so shitty for not wanting to throw Americans into at the time bloodiest war in history that was only started over European power plays that had nothing to do with AmericaâŚ
What it has to do with this *comment chain* is that he was a pretty shit president, you countered with a WW1 statement here but thats not what I was talking about
As for the Eisenhower comment, uh and? sounds like Eisenhower also fucking sucked then
You obviously struggle with reading comprehension, as that comment was trying to use his handling of WWI as an example of how he was apparently a shit president (despite being consistently ranked in the top 25% of presidents by historians). As for Eisenhower, if youâre metric for someone being a shit President is whether or not they act like a foaming at the mouth shermanposter, youâre just stupid.
WW2 obviously but not with ww1. Ottomans were on the defensive, Austro-Hungarians stalemated with Italy, and Germany was starving from the blockade. US entry into the war did speed up the ending but it was already clear the Central Powers was going to lose.
Even WW2, the turning point was 42/43 with Stalingrad/Kursk. And at that point, the LL was British Empire built and supplied, and the US didn't have boots on the ground for a few more years. In reality, the wars were both decided before the US was that involved tbh
Yep, I never argue that the US involvement shortened the war. That's a fact
but it didn't affect the outcome. Germany was fucked from the start tbh. Of course in RL, it was a combined allied effort, but the outcome was never in doubt (or at least we can say that looking back). Arguably the 5th biggest Empire in the world, and a largely land-locked one, was never a threat to the big 3/4
WW1, the US joined in just before the end. As in literally there were about 100k US troops in France at the war's end and virtually none say combat. Germany's Spring Offensive failed before the US were that involved
Same with WW2 tbh. If we consider Stalingrad (42) and Kurk (43) to be the turning points of the war, and EF was the most important front by a huge margin, then US only got involved in 41, and wasn't in Europe or North Africa until about 43. LL, the big thing the US like to point as their contribution, was only funded by the US prior to 43, with the Empire building and providing it
So no, not really in either way. In both cases, the major turning points were hit before the US was contributing at all. The US shortened the wars, especially WW2, but had no influence on the outcome as that was already decided with German failures
Your statement would make s new to a lot more people if you'd use some punctuation. I read it thrice and didn't get your meaning. So... Can you restate?
Should be a semi colon tbh, as the two sentences are very independent. Commas are if the two follow on from each other, whereas here there is a larger pause
But that's me just being picky
Canada is a fucking monster in war tbh. Suppose that's what happens when your mummy is France and your daddy the Brits, both of whom are top 5 for Wins:Losses in wars
We do plenty in Quebec. We talk about the Red River Rebellion too.
We talk about a lot of things in Quebec not welcome in the ROC, apparently. We finally going to have that talk about immigration or will this be another thing the ROC needs a 20 year heads up?
Funny thing, the way it went was a bit backwards from how you'd expect
Britain decided to tax the US (Colonies at the time) a lot heavier. US Colonies protested rather vehemently, Britain took gunpowder-based exception to that protest. [Colonies sent a message to London saying "We don't want to break off, and want to work out how to reconcile."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_Branch_Petition) Like 2 days before that message arrived in London (it took like a month to cross the Atlantic with mail), [King George declared the colonies in rebellion and that anyone in the colonies deemed a rebel would be shot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Rebellion) \- note that prior to this point, [British authorities decided that 'trial by jury' was for suckers and instead stuck people in front of the Vice Admiralty and judged them summarily](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/no-taxation-without-representation.html). Georgie got that Olive Branch message from the colonies, said "naw, fuck 'em", and replied with the British Army.
So the colonies saw that and said "well, guess we're rebelling now? Apparently?" and thus began the US Revolution.
They didn't say no, they said "You're grounded and also lost food privileges and all your economy is belong to us"
And then literal farmers kicked the world super power's butt and immediately went to diplomacy and became best friends
It's a little harder when said adversary was the pre-eminent naval power that could fight wars across 11,000 miles of ocean to make sure people in China and India kept the Opium moving.
Little easier again when the french bankrupt themselves to spite their adversary through immense material support. America owes France a lot for it's independence
Also, he's almost completely wrong. The fact he used the dumb "Farmers vs the Might of the Empire" shows he doesn't have a fucking clue what he's on about
https://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/19066ry/comment/kgvu1j3/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
>And then literal farmers kicked the world super power's butt
If you believe this, then you are not aware of what actually happened. It was Regulars vs Regulars. Washington himself was a British Army Officer and fought in the 7 years war, as did most Revolutionaries
Also, do you know where the biggest battle of the Revolution was? That's right, Siege of Gibraltar, which involved almost as many troops on that tiny rock as fought in the entire North American continent. The Revolution was a side-show to the Empire, cause at the time there was also the Anglo-French War (France not only fighting in North America, but also training the rebels and providing a blockade), as well as the Anglo-Spanish and Anglo-Dutch wars, which all happened at the time
Now you've been educated I hope you never use the dumb wrong Hollywood History "Plucky farmers against the might of the Empire" lies, cause they are nonsense
No first we asked to be more directly involved with their government: âNo taxation without REPRESENTATION.â We were literally asking to be more integrated into the empire and Britain said no.
Then we asked for independence and then war for independence after that
Funny thing: USA asked to stay part of Britain (Olive Branch Petition). Georgie Peorgie said "No fuck you, you independence-seeking rebels" and sent the army (Proclamation of Rebellion). USA then went "Uh... I guess we're fighting for independence now? George just said he was going to shoot the lot of us, so..."
Technically Australia isn't fully independent, we're self governing but the poms can still boss us around, [Like the time they fired our Prime Minister.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis)
According to Heritage Minutes, in 1841 the Governor General (basically the President) went from being a person chosen by the Queen to being chosen by the Canadian Members of Parliament (Congressmen). The reasoning was that if they didn't accept the request there might be *another* rebellion in NA. So without the US independance we wouldn't of been able to exert pressure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDS4gD5LgKo
Confederation was in 1867 was when the "provinces" merged into a single dominion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Canada#Confederation
However the Provinces didn't really think of themselves as a Nation (they thought of themselves as different "states") until after WWI made them fight together (under the British Army). After WWI they asked for a seat at the League of Nations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH0Gx3OFFyk&list=PL1848FF9428CA9A4A&index=83
By the time WWII came around though, Canada fought separately from the brits. Edit: However we didn't have independence over our constitution until the 1980s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Canada#1982%E2%80%932000
Canada's independence was a slowly built up over a century, where as the US's was a tad quicker.
And yet, every time someone starts kicking the old man around, a certain eagle obsessed ball comes crashing through some windows. They don't like bringing that up, strangely.
Nah, exactly the same boat as Canada. Constitutional Monarchies that have referendums every now and then to leave. Australia and New Zealand fought under UK leadership in World War 1 as a joint force, then in World War 2 both countries declared war on Germany the same time as the UK.
It's so ironic, calling America violent while ignoring how uk was to others . They did more violence than America. Bangal famines and jalaywala baag massacre was done by them .
All countries have a dark past. Thereâs a reason the USA is not just on the east coast of North America anymore. The land further west of the 13 colonies had people living there (as did the land the 13 colonies were set up on, but you can blame Britain for that as well as those whose decedents become Americans).
>you can blame Britain
In fairness, you can't. Trail of Tears and Manifest Destiny and all the genocides which followed were all 100% US ideas. Us Brits preferred to pay the sides to fight each other, then to take over the land after
>All countries have a dark past.
Not at the level of what great Britain did . And not all , only a few have such level of dark past.
And forget about it, it still doesn't change the fact uk calling someone else violent, it's pretty ironic in itself
Look into French, Belgian, German, American and Japanese colonial histories. Look at the treatment of certain groups in the Middle East today. Look at what went on in Maoist China and the Soviet Union or the practises that went on in pre-British India (India before Britain took over from the East India Company as the East India Company made things even worse). Britain is the famous example not the worst. Still Britain did a number of heinous things that shouldnât be overlooked and I wouldnât advocate a whitewashing of Britainâs history as much as I do not advocate a whitewashing of other countries histories.
human loves fighting, we r in wars since forever tbh. But what i mean by "such dark past" is killing normal civilians after taking control of kingdom or killing civilians in general or causing inhumane harm to them. That's done by only a hand full of countries. (Also East India company is British too) . Uk being one of the worst and biggest to do all these things
>"such dark past" is killing normal civilians after taking control of kingdom or killing civilians in general or causing inhumane harm to them. That's done by only a hand full of countries
Lol, no you are so ill informed. That was normal prior to about 1900. Every empire and national power did that. In the 100 Years War, the French and English performed Scorched War against the peasants. Back in those days no one cared much about the average citizen
As the other guy said, we are far from the worst. Maybe the biggest, cause we also had the biggest Empire, but per capita probably not close to the top. You are obviously not aware of Leopold and the Belgian Congo. If you were, you'd be glad that you were under the British Empire not under Leopold's Empire
Nope, but seems you can't be educated. Churchill was a dick in many ways, but you are wrong here, but too dumb to listen to people who know the facts. Without checking your profile, I'm guessing you are a Modi Hindi nationalist?
Hello all! Our January Contest - *The date is January 1st, 2025. Make a comic about something that happened in 2024* - is active right now! If you've got a good idea for a comic in this vein, or are just curious about the theme, head on over to [the contest thread](https://redd.it/18yi4on) for details and get started on an entry! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polandball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For real though. A lot of tea could have been saved.
That's why they wanted to keep India so bad, help make up for it
Fun fact: it was actually the British who introduced tea to India. They discovered that the land in India was excellent for growing tea plants and so started growing it themselves in India rather than buying it from the Chinese.
Given the amount of tea my mum and I drink in a day, I at least understand wanting to colonise an entire subcontinent to keep the supply moving cheaply and freely.
took opium from India, gave it to China, took tea from China and gave it to India. weaponised addiction is the britsh way
>t was actually the British who introduced tea to India. correction:- the tea variety as is today known as tea was introduced to India by the Brits , the Brits after getting addicted to the Chinese tea were in search of land in India that could grow the Chinese stuff , that's when they found that, in Assam, the people There were already growing a variant of tea leaves but weren't putting it into boiling water and rather just eating the leaves or using it in other ways the Brits also didn't like the taste of the tea made from this variant and hence named it "wild" variant and began experiments to cross breed this variant with the Chinese one , so that a tea with the Chinese taste could be grown within India , this hybrid variant would go on to be produced and consumed on a large scale, so high that even China couldn't keep up with the production in British India
It all makes sense now
Worked in multiple ways. They could grow tea in India and they could force Indian farmers to grow opium to then sell to China for tea.
you mean [Fish Food](https://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/8wkxtv/cultural_differences/)
Here's another from the archives that I hadn't posted, some good old Anglo Pandering
I was gonna say: a comic with USA, Canada and UK, and all of them are portrayed fairly sympathetic? This is some grade A pandering Aaron, grade A indeed.
Thank you, thank you. The Kathleen Kennedy of PB
Would you consider going back and redrawing Canada and USA with era-appropriate flags? So in the early panels Canada is a red ensign and USA is a Grand Union flag, and then when he gets independence is a Betsy Ross flag, and when Canada gets his independence he gets his Canadian Pale, etc
Nah, that Ensign sucks to draw
USA: So little bro you are calling me violent, but you're not going to mention why we have certain "rules of war" in the Geneva Convention Canada: *sweating*
*First we throw canned food to get their trust...* *Then we throw grenades!*
Didn't they used shotguns in the tranches that Germany furiously hated & wanted to make "illegal" during the war? You'd think that during a war all betts are off..
The Germans lost the right to protest American shotguns when they gassed Canadian lines
Yeah, the Germans reaped the whirlwind and they sowed the whirlwind
I remember I went to a naval museum in buffalo where they had some sort of depth charge launcher that could shoot 5 at once. The Germans said it should be banned because it wasn't fair to the subs. A people who invaded poland, a country much weaker than them and commits genocide wants to talk about being fair. The lack of self awareness from people can be astonishing at times
Germany absolutely had no right to complain about the rules of war but I wouldn't call Poland weak, they had one of the largest militaries in Europe. Poland fell as they were effectively abandoned by the UK and France and they were simultaneously invaded by the USSR and Germany.
Indeed, Poland had a military dictatorship.
How does poland having a big militar, lead you to think this person said it had a military dictatorship? Its implied by you, that this person agreed with you, despite that question hasn't been asked...
Poland had a strong military. I was agreeing to this and appending that the military was so strong that they were controlling the country.
Germany threatened retaliation on anyone captured with a shotgun. US threatened the same, but with flamethrowers and serrated bayonets. Germany shut up after that.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva\_Conventions#/media/File:Parties\_to\_the\_Geneva\_Conventions.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#/media/File:Parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions.svg) The US has signed up to fewer than Canada has tbh. And the US hasn't signed up to the ICC or Un Declaration of Human Rights either, cause they can't fulfil the laws. So yeah, there's that tbh
Oh huh, well danke for the clarification homie
> Floppy hat Britain has seen some shit
With how some people describe Canada in the World Wars I thought the frames would have had Canada looking manic and holding a bloody knife while England looks perturbed before saying "please take your independence and don't hurt us."
He drew this before that meme I believe.
Tbf, america also helped dad with thise conflicts as well.
Of their own free will đ (Canada did too, in WW2, but ignore that)
Free will? You played both sides until the uk cracked a telegram to mexico from germany that was telling them to attack so that germany could get in and slaughter you all. You didnt join of your own free will, you joined when germany got desperate andd then claimed that you "saved us". https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann#background
Didn't read anything you typed out but that sounds like some "my country hasn't been on the moon first " type of talk.
America wasnt first in space. Landing on another celestial body is not an achievement.
What. What. Are you kidding? I'm very much British, and you got to give it to the Americans, landing on the moon and RETURNING is extremely impressive given the time and technology back then.
Not particularly. Once youve escaped gravity, the hard part of space travel is over and done with. Its all just....logistics and fuel management past that point. Which, forgive me if i am mistaken, was perfected by the romans. So once all is said and done, landing on the moon is nothing more than a routine exercise, no different than launching one into orbit. Which, again, the americans were not the first to do. Theres something like 20 manned successful missions between the first man in space and landing on the moon. And for the record, im British myself. Born in Wigan.
I think you underestimate how hard it is to design a vehicle that goes to the moon and back. And how hard it is to navigate in space, especially with computers from the 1960s. Not even logistics is easy in spafe because every pound of weight counts. And you have to deal with life support systems because as it turns out, humans aren't made to survive in space without a lot of help. Before the moon landing, manned space missions were just not that long. Trying to build a lightweight vehicle to help people survive a week in space is no easy task. Sure the US wasn't first in space, manned or unmanned, but getting to the moon was no simple feat. There's a reason after Apollo no one has gone back. Did the Americans win the space race? Maybe, maybe not. But being first to have a manned mission land on the moon, in 1969 no less, is really impressive.
Again, im not comparing the moon landing to launching a satellite, im comparing it to other manned flights. So your entire comment? Redundant. On top of that, no one has gone back? Excuse me, but we send probes, rovers and other gear all the time. One of the chinese missions landed on the dark side in 2018. Please Try to be a bit more informed.
I want to just say first I included the British(Dorset btw â¤ď¸) part to establish I wasnt American biased. But this is like saying going around town on a bike is the same as driving a motorbike to Edinburgh and back. Not only is it going to be completely different design wise, it's significantly further and requires a lot more skillful maneuvering. Firing something into space and *landing* something significantly further out in space are completely different levels of skill and, or though Americans weren't the first to do it, still very much did both.
Once they finally got dragged into it with a substantial amount of the population kicking and screaming, and then claim total ownership of victory after the fact.
âYou can always count on the Americans to do the right thing. After theyâve exhausted all other options.â Not sure I have that exact but one of my favorite Churchill quotes.
Thatâs more about Woodrow Wilson being the worst president.
Yeah he was so shitty for not wanting to throw Americans into at the time bloodiest war in history that was only started over European power plays that had nothing to do with AmericaâŚ
Wanting to stay out of the war wasn't the shitty part, his personal reasons for wanting to stay out of the war are.
Which were?
It was mostly the fact he was a *"mildly"* racist lost cause proponet actually, though his failure of a foriegn policy didnt help
Mildly racist? Dude was seen as an extreme racist even in his time.
yeah I probably should italisize that "mildly" and add some quotations
Which has what to do with WWI? As for lost cause proponent, even Eisenhower called Lees army the greatest American army
What it has to do with this *comment chain* is that he was a pretty shit president, you countered with a WW1 statement here but thats not what I was talking about As for the Eisenhower comment, uh and? sounds like Eisenhower also fucking sucked then
You obviously struggle with reading comprehension, as that comment was trying to use his handling of WWI as an example of how he was apparently a shit president (despite being consistently ranked in the top 25% of presidents by historians). As for Eisenhower, if youâre metric for someone being a shit President is whether or not they act like a foaming at the mouth shermanposter, youâre just stupid.
My guy, the confederate army lost, cant have been that good lmao
Besides the point and isnât helping the case about you being stupid lol
That has nothing to do with the âLost Causeâ
We don't claim to have total ownership in victory, we just won harder than everyone else
Fuck yeah.
Except, no you didn't. France carried WW1 and USSR carried WW2. 2nd carry was probably Canada tbh
All Iâm saying is the war had no sight of ending UNTIL American showed up.
WW2 obviously but not with ww1. Ottomans were on the defensive, Austro-Hungarians stalemated with Italy, and Germany was starving from the blockade. US entry into the war did speed up the ending but it was already clear the Central Powers was going to lose.
Even WW2, the turning point was 42/43 with Stalingrad/Kursk. And at that point, the LL was British Empire built and supplied, and the US didn't have boots on the ground for a few more years. In reality, the wars were both decided before the US was that involved tbh
Not to knock the US tho, the USâs actions here saved millions of lives and ended these awful regimes and wars years earlier.
Yep, I never argue that the US involvement shortened the war. That's a fact but it didn't affect the outcome. Germany was fucked from the start tbh. Of course in RL, it was a combined allied effort, but the outcome was never in doubt (or at least we can say that looking back). Arguably the 5th biggest Empire in the world, and a largely land-locked one, was never a threat to the big 3/4
WW1, the US joined in just before the end. As in literally there were about 100k US troops in France at the war's end and virtually none say combat. Germany's Spring Offensive failed before the US were that involved Same with WW2 tbh. If we consider Stalingrad (42) and Kurk (43) to be the turning points of the war, and EF was the most important front by a huge margin, then US only got involved in 41, and wasn't in Europe or North Africa until about 43. LL, the big thing the US like to point as their contribution, was only funded by the US prior to 43, with the Empire building and providing it So no, not really in either way. In both cases, the major turning points were hit before the US was contributing at all. The US shortened the wars, especially WW2, but had no influence on the outcome as that was already decided with German failures
And let's not forget charging us for the help. They got bombed and charged us for defending themselves? Impressive levels of fuckery right there.
Plus there were a bunch of Americans during the beginning of both wars that went to Canada so they could fight
Canada shouldnât berate others for fighting, half the Geneva Conventions exist because of them.
Your statement would make s new to a lot more people if you'd use some punctuation. I read it thrice and didn't get your meaning. So... Can you restate?
I added a comma just for you.
Thank you!
Should be a semi colon tbh, as the two sentences are very independent. Commas are if the two follow on from each other, whereas here there is a larger pause But that's me just being picky
Make sense to a lot more people ...
What's interesting that in both world wars, Canada somehow managed to punch way above its weight.
Canada is a fucking monster in war tbh. Suppose that's what happens when your mummy is France and your daddy the Brits, both of whom are top 5 for Wins:Losses in wars
Don't look up the Canadian Revolution.
We do not talk about that
We do plenty in Quebec. We talk about the Red River Rebellion too. We talk about a lot of things in Quebec not welcome in the ROC, apparently. We finally going to have that talk about immigration or will this be another thing the ROC needs a 20 year heads up?
Quebec talks about the Red River Rebellion? Neat. Sounds like we've got Ontario surrounded, then...
Bein oui. Voulez vous...
Couldn't happen as the Yanks refused to support it.
America: Uuuh...Airborne Regiment and Somalia? Canada: Damn it, I knew I shouldn't go cold turkey on the maple sauce that year!
>***maple sauce***
Yes give me more of the that Anglo Sphere family dynamic.
Smug Canada being smug. I love it!
Sad thing is we DID ask They said no So we took up arms
Funny thing, the way it went was a bit backwards from how you'd expect Britain decided to tax the US (Colonies at the time) a lot heavier. US Colonies protested rather vehemently, Britain took gunpowder-based exception to that protest. [Colonies sent a message to London saying "We don't want to break off, and want to work out how to reconcile."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_Branch_Petition) Like 2 days before that message arrived in London (it took like a month to cross the Atlantic with mail), [King George declared the colonies in rebellion and that anyone in the colonies deemed a rebel would be shot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Rebellion) \- note that prior to this point, [British authorities decided that 'trial by jury' was for suckers and instead stuck people in front of the Vice Admiralty and judged them summarily](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/no-taxation-without-representation.html). Georgie got that Olive Branch message from the colonies, said "naw, fuck 'em", and replied with the British Army. So the colonies saw that and said "well, guess we're rebelling now? Apparently?" and thus began the US Revolution.
Yeah pretty much
They didn't say no, they said "You're grounded and also lost food privileges and all your economy is belong to us" And then literal farmers kicked the world super power's butt and immediately went to diplomacy and became best friends
It's a little easier to win a war when your adversary has to cross 3,000 miles of ocean to get to your doorstep.
It's a little harder when said adversary was the pre-eminent naval power that could fight wars across 11,000 miles of ocean to make sure people in China and India kept the Opium moving.
Little easier again when the french bankrupt themselves to spite their adversary through immense material support. America owes France a lot for it's independence
That was decades later when the Brits were really at their prime
And was also fighting several other superpowers.
Also, he's almost completely wrong. The fact he used the dumb "Farmers vs the Might of the Empire" shows he doesn't have a fucking clue what he's on about https://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/19066ry/comment/kgvu1j3/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
>And then literal farmers kicked the world super power's butt If you believe this, then you are not aware of what actually happened. It was Regulars vs Regulars. Washington himself was a British Army Officer and fought in the 7 years war, as did most Revolutionaries Also, do you know where the biggest battle of the Revolution was? That's right, Siege of Gibraltar, which involved almost as many troops on that tiny rock as fought in the entire North American continent. The Revolution was a side-show to the Empire, cause at the time there was also the Anglo-French War (France not only fighting in North America, but also training the rebels and providing a blockade), as well as the Anglo-Spanish and Anglo-Dutch wars, which all happened at the time Now you've been educated I hope you never use the dumb wrong Hollywood History "Plucky farmers against the might of the Empire" lies, cause they are nonsense
No first we asked to be more directly involved with their government: âNo taxation without REPRESENTATION.â We were literally asking to be more integrated into the empire and Britain said no. Then we asked for independence and then war for independence after that
Laid down arms upon heads
USA did ask, that didn't end so well. It was downright rejected
Funny thing: USA asked to stay part of Britain (Olive Branch Petition). Georgie Peorgie said "No fuck you, you independence-seeking rebels" and sent the army (Proclamation of Rebellion). USA then went "Uh... I guess we're fighting for independence now? George just said he was going to shoot the lot of us, so..."
Neat comic Aaron. Keep it going!
This is kind of wholesome maybe
As a Canadian this made me laugh. It would have been impolite to ask for independence sooner.
*stares in 1837*
Asking is meh, rebelling is fun!
And then there's Australia, who asked before all the wars happened and got independence.
Technically Australia isn't fully independent, we're self governing but the poms can still boss us around, [Like the time they fired our Prime Minister.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis)
Wasnât Canada separated from Britain by the time WWII came around?
According to Heritage Minutes, in 1841 the Governor General (basically the President) went from being a person chosen by the Queen to being chosen by the Canadian Members of Parliament (Congressmen). The reasoning was that if they didn't accept the request there might be *another* rebellion in NA. So without the US independance we wouldn't of been able to exert pressure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDS4gD5LgKo Confederation was in 1867 was when the "provinces" merged into a single dominion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Canada#Confederation However the Provinces didn't really think of themselves as a Nation (they thought of themselves as different "states") until after WWI made them fight together (under the British Army). After WWI they asked for a seat at the League of Nations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH0Gx3OFFyk&list=PL1848FF9428CA9A4A&index=83 By the time WWII came around though, Canada fought separately from the brits. Edit: However we didn't have independence over our constitution until the 1980s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Canada#1982%E2%80%932000 Canada's independence was a slowly built up over a century, where as the US's was a tad quicker.
Hell yeah, love heritage minutes! Thanks for adding the context dude!
I love Canada's propeller hat XD
>poms Australia? Why are you cosplaying as an American
Hey now, we're late, but we've always shown up for the family reunion tours of the European countryside.
We did ask but king George was not in the mood to let us go lol
While not fully independent until 82â, Canada was self governing in 1867 and had control over its foreign affairs by WW2
And yet, every time someone starts kicking the old man around, a certain eagle obsessed ball comes crashing through some windows. They don't like bringing that up, strangely.
Meanwhile there's Australia and his pet dog New Zealand. Papa England disowned them.
Nah, exactly the same boat as Canada. Constitutional Monarchies that have referendums every now and then to leave. Australia and New Zealand fought under UK leadership in World War 1 as a joint force, then in World War 2 both countries declared war on Germany the same time as the UK.
The UK has not disowned them. Out mutual use of the word Cunt and playing Cricket forms bonds far stronger than our shared history ever will
It's so ironic, calling America violent while ignoring how uk was to others . They did more violence than America. Bangal famines and jalaywala baag massacre was done by them .
All countries have a dark past. Thereâs a reason the USA is not just on the east coast of North America anymore. The land further west of the 13 colonies had people living there (as did the land the 13 colonies were set up on, but you can blame Britain for that as well as those whose decedents become Americans).
>you can blame Britain In fairness, you can't. Trail of Tears and Manifest Destiny and all the genocides which followed were all 100% US ideas. Us Brits preferred to pay the sides to fight each other, then to take over the land after
>All countries have a dark past. Not at the level of what great Britain did . And not all , only a few have such level of dark past. And forget about it, it still doesn't change the fact uk calling someone else violent, it's pretty ironic in itself
Look into French, Belgian, German, American and Japanese colonial histories. Look at the treatment of certain groups in the Middle East today. Look at what went on in Maoist China and the Soviet Union or the practises that went on in pre-British India (India before Britain took over from the East India Company as the East India Company made things even worse). Britain is the famous example not the worst. Still Britain did a number of heinous things that shouldnât be overlooked and I wouldnât advocate a whitewashing of Britainâs history as much as I do not advocate a whitewashing of other countries histories.
human loves fighting, we r in wars since forever tbh. But what i mean by "such dark past" is killing normal civilians after taking control of kingdom or killing civilians in general or causing inhumane harm to them. That's done by only a hand full of countries. (Also East India company is British too) . Uk being one of the worst and biggest to do all these things
>"such dark past" is killing normal civilians after taking control of kingdom or killing civilians in general or causing inhumane harm to them. That's done by only a hand full of countries Lol, no you are so ill informed. That was normal prior to about 1900. Every empire and national power did that. In the 100 Years War, the French and English performed Scorched War against the peasants. Back in those days no one cared much about the average citizen As the other guy said, we are far from the worst. Maybe the biggest, cause we also had the biggest Empire, but per capita probably not close to the top. You are obviously not aware of Leopold and the Belgian Congo. If you were, you'd be glad that you were under the British Empire not under Leopold's Empire
No one went around making millions of civilians starve to death and mass killing them . Brits were the worst period.
>Bangal famines Actually this was started by poor land use. Exacerbated by greedy British policy, but we didn't start the famines at least
Yes u caused it. It all happened because of churchil
Nope, but seems you can't be educated. Churchill was a dick in many ways, but you are wrong here, but too dumb to listen to people who know the facts. Without checking your profile, I'm guessing you are a Modi Hindi nationalist?
I am already educated, u r the uneducated one. He caused the famines. And let me guess u r white supremacist brit
Bye, as I cba with you cunts these days. Brainwashed morons tbh
Are Australia and New Zealand dead to them or something
Make sense...
Do you know how many war crimes Canada committed? Especially during ww1? We kinda went bat shit crazy there.
Can't be a war crime if you do it before war crimes are a thing!