Raj Feridun wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:44:44 +0900, Declan Murphy
> <declan_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Or that but for the grace of sepponia, Canadia's military would have 
>>been overrun by Barbados or something. (Not that I'm saying it couldn't 
>>be done of course. Its just an example. sheesh.)
> 
> If Canada did not in the least feel threatened by the potential
> outcome of WWII why did they commit 37,000 lives to it's victory?

At the time, because Canada (like Australia circa 1939) was part of the
imperial defence arrangements. It wasn't a matter of feeling threatened.
Had Britain informed Canada & Australia that it was re-opening
hostilities against the whirling dervishes or some pygmies somewhere,
then both nations would probably have sent troops (& ships)　in support.
And in Australia's case, whether they were requested to or otherwise.

Both nations entered the war within hours of notification of Britain's
declaration. In Australia the Prime Minister of the day got a cable from
London, and went straight to the radio to broadcast "It is my melancholy
duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by
Germany and her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon
her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war. No harder task can
fall to the lot of a democratic leader than to make such an
announcement..." Interestingly enough, and despite the last sentence, he
didn't even bother consulting (or informing) parliament or from what I
gather, talking to his full cabinet. As above, it wasn't a case of
feeling threatened, it was just the done thing. That Nazi Germany would
prove to be a little more difficult to deal with than the whirling
dervishes was not a consideration at the time.

-- 
Non gratum anus rodentum