Did you know?. Source: ebw. Every year the Netherlands sends 20, tulip bulbs to Canada to thank them for their aid in the Second World War
x
Click to expand

Comments(147):

[ 147 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#32 - kingarturi (09/20/2013) [-]
Canada gets those flowers because when we sheltered the royal family from the war one of them gave birth here and we made their hospital room official netherland land ( is that a word ?) so that their child would be born a citizen of their country, i think. at least thats what i read and as thanks we get the Tulip festival.
Canada gets those flowers because when we sheltered the royal family from the war one of them gave birth here and we made their hospital room official netherland land ( is that a word ?) so that their child would be born a citizen of their country, i think. at least thats what i read and as thanks we get the Tulip festival.
#145 to #32 - menqudoneix (09/20/2013) [-]
according to wiki, we only disclaimed the land, rather than make it their territory. that way, they were born in technically international territory, making them not a Canadian citizen by right. since her mother was dutch, she inherited her citizenry from her, since they go by blood rather than land.    
   
.gif unrelated
according to wiki, we only disclaimed the land, rather than make it their territory. that way, they were born in technically international territory, making them not a Canadian citizen by right. since her mother was dutch, she inherited her citizenry from her, since they go by blood rather than land.

.gif unrelated
User avatar #113 to #32 - kanpai (09/20/2013) [-]
didn't the english shelter the royal family...?
User avatar #120 to #32 - gearsct (09/20/2013) [-]
The Dutch Royal Family (there's your missing word) was given amnesty in London though.
User avatar #80 to #32 - killerliquid (09/20/2013) [-]
Wow, that's actually pretty ******* cool. I knew they sheltered the royal family but I didn't know they did the birth like that.
#9 - include (09/20/2013) [-]
#126 to #9 - operationcomando (09/20/2013) [-]
Is that from a comic?

If so I kindly request sausage on that.
#134 to #9 - toensix (09/20/2013) [-]
kawaii as 			****
kawaii as ****
#35 - sequel (09/20/2013) [-]
Actually yes I did know.

satwcomic.com
+7
#96 - missing has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #110 to #96 - impaledsandwich (09/20/2013) [-]
Did he get his guldens?
User avatar #27 - cutbell (09/20/2013) [-]
A post about Canada and the Dutchies, and yet the commentsection explodes because of America...
#30 - HomelessPhilMo ONLINE (09/20/2013) [-]
#108 - adhdtookmyaccount (09/20/2013) [-]
True, but it was more than just help.
The Canadians not only aided them in the actual war effort and in retaking their homeland, but allowed their monarchy to lay low in Canada while the Nazis goosestepped everywhere.
The Queen was, at the time, pregnant and in fact gave birth in Canada
This created a huge problem, cause obviously if born on Canadian soil, the princess would be Canadian
The dutch couldn't have a princess riding moose and saying sorry all the time, so to help them, the Canadians declared the wing of the hospital where the princess was born dutch territory.
So, the princess gets to be dutch and the lucky few Canadians being born around the same time got to be duel-citizens, so a win-win for everybody.

TL;DR: The dutch queen hid in Canada during WW2, and had a baby, so the Canadians declared the hospital the baby was born in Dutch soil.
Now they give each-other flowers
User avatar #114 to #108 - neznanc **User deleted account** (09/20/2013) [-]
themoreyouknow.jpg
#107 - trollzorr (09/20/2013) [-]
Canadian pride
User avatar #73 - kylekez (09/20/2013) [-]
I'd also like to note that Canada's part in D-Day was the most successful part of the entire operation.

Juno Beach, ************* .
+1
#142 to #73 - polskitroll **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#140 - kaycie (09/20/2013) [-]
I like this
I like this
#130 - jiwijoo (09/20/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #83 - finblob (09/20/2013) [-]
Norway sends a Christmas tree to Edinburgh and Dumfries (In Scotland) every year to thank them for help during WW2.
User avatar #85 to #83 - roflstorm (09/20/2013) [-]
And Canadians send a huge ass christmas tree to New york for their help after the huge ass explosion that emptied a ******* bay of it's water.
User avatar #92 to #85 - finblob (09/20/2013) [-]
I wish I lived in Canada.
User avatar #93 to #92 - roflstorm (09/20/2013) [-]
Go for it.
User avatar #2 - demigodofmadness (09/20/2013) [-]
And what does America get? Universal hatred from every county.
User avatar #3 to #2 - demigodofmadness (09/20/2013) [-]
*country
#4 to #3 - kemalbora (09/20/2013) [-]
Universal hatred is a bit over exaggeration.

That being said: the hate of United States by mostly middle-easterners are simply due to US Intervention in their countries. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya...

If United States started to not police the world; 1) people will stop having an hatred towards them, 2) military spending will go down, like for real, and 3) tax-payers money could be used for **** related to those tax-payers money, rather than having a military base in middle of Asia.

Just saying.
User avatar #48 to #4 - demigodofmadness (09/20/2013) [-]
I'm more concerned with how the British hate us, they do I've played Call of Duty with them. I haven't spoken to any French but a comedian said that he went to France and they hate America and I can only assume the rest of Europe follows.
User avatar #6 to #4 - ghm (09/20/2013) [-]
you know our tax money is actually ONLY supposed to go to WAR.
like that's it you can TAX but only for WAR.
they kinda got side tracked with that and now people think we should cut WAR funding.
however when you think it's only to be used for WAR that's kinda stupid.
#7 to #6 - kemalbora (09/20/2013) [-]
You really confused me there mate. If I am not wrong, you mean: Tax for War, but thinking taxing for only war is stupid?

What?
User avatar #8 to #7 - ghm (09/20/2013) [-]
oh sorry. basically the institution of taxation was originally intended to get revenue for war in the United States of America. I believe It's in the constitution. People keep saying we need to cut funding on war, however we fund war with tax money. So cutting war funding when it's funded by taxes would be strange since taxation in the USA was made for that.
User avatar #12 to #8 - nylak (09/20/2013) [-]
We should go to WAR with other countries over who has the highest employment rate, best education, strongest economy and best healthcare. And, you know, budget that **** into the "war effort." That'd be smashing.
User avatar #15 to #12 - ghm (09/20/2013) [-]
My point is taxes are for maintaining a strong Military so in the event of a WAR ****** ok.
I didn't say to quit funding other things, just that DE-funding our Military will only end badly. Or does no one remember how we didn't do **** about the embassy that came under attack, so in the off chance it wasn't a big deal we wouldn't waste tax money.
User avatar #18 to #15 - nylak (09/20/2013) [-]
I know, I was joking.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure that as soon as we let some slack on our military's reins we'd just get bombed to oblivion by the enemies we've accumulated. We've made our bed as a world power whose primary strength is military force, and now we probably just need to lie in it. Forever.
User avatar #20 to #18 - ghm (09/20/2013) [-]
lol - true.

On a brighter note our college degrees transfer to like every country, and people always seem to be smuggling their country leaders to America because we have the best Doctors. We have good stuff and bad, but yeah we sealed our coffin long ago in needing a strong Military.
#69 to #20 - kemalbora (09/20/2013) [-]
You don't necessarily need to cut the all military spending. Simply said: closing down many foreign US Bases will be a good start. Not having wars, thus, being able to downsize your military is an another good step that could be taken.

This is no longer 1940s. Unless you want to invade a country like, for example, Germany did in WWI and WWII, you don't need a bulk of soldiers. With naval ships and aircrafts, United States will keep having superior fighting power. Let it be for defending or attacking.

You referred to the attack of Benghazi, where the ambassador, to save his staff, stayed behind to negotiate and give time. It has nothing to do with military cuts or whatsoever, as it also happened back in uprising of Iran by mujahids.

If United States stop policing the world and understand it can not handle everything, the hatred towards United States will slowly go smaller and smaller. Remember. al-Queada, the group that killed thousands of people and not just Americans, was created by the United States and its intelligence agency, CIA, to fight against Soviet Union. France, backed by United States and United Kingdom, took Kaddafi down. Not more than a year later, by Islamic Extremists, USA Ambassador was brutally killed.

One needs to carefully read and understand the situation in middle-east, before taking any actions. Every country that was "liberated" is now more destabilized and dangerous, especially to their western counterparts.

Cut down the unnecessary military spending. Allocate those funds for your own need. Lower the taxes if you wish so. You can still be strong as **** , while doing so.
User avatar #11 to #2 - ChuckNorrisVsMRT (09/20/2013) [-]
America literally did **** all compared to other major countries, go learn some unbiased history next time
User avatar #43 to #11 - demigodofmadness (09/20/2013) [-]
Umm, wrong. The other countries were getting their asses handed to them, aside from Russia, while the US sent aid when they could because American citizens didn't want to go to war... And everything changed when Japan attacked.

If America hadn't came in when it did, Britain would have crumbled and Germany would've had the strength to fight Russia the way they needed to and all of Europe would now be under German control.
User avatar #24 to #11 - traelos (09/20/2013) [-]
Lol no.

Without U.S. aid Britain would have crumbled well before 1942, and from there on out there were more Americans in any major action than there were non-Americans.

Granted the Russians probably did more, but the U.S. definitely carried the allies in the west.
#28 to #24 - darkfive (09/20/2013) [-]
This man speaks the truth and you give him red thumbs?
User avatar #39 to #28 - xxbutthurtxx (09/20/2013) [-]
welcome to fj
User avatar #139 to #11 - mcbigballz (09/20/2013) [-]
No. Just. No. You're completely incorrect. Without the financial and military assets such as the tanks/planes/guns/ammo we sent to you. Don't act like America didn't do anything, because you're just wrong.
User avatar #16 to #2 - doctorque (09/20/2013) [-]
America has been at war for 216 years and only 21 at peace out of it's whole existence.
Many of those wars were not "needed"
#89 to #16 - flyslasher ONLINE (09/20/2013) [-]
America has only declared war a handful of times and it only totals about 14 or 15 years of conflict.

If you want to tally all sorts of conflicts than the same could be said for just about any country .-.
User avatar #129 to #16 - mcbigballz (09/20/2013) [-]
Considering the last country America declared war on is Hungary, I don't agree with your statement. While we have been involved in numerous conflicts, so can be said about most of every other European country. So don't go spewing **** when you don't have all of the facts. Just cause people bitch about American involvement in the Second World War doesn't mean we didn't help. Regardless of what maybe 10% of the population of America says "We won the war" doesn't mean all of us think that. So **** off with your ******* assumptions.

tl;dr Not all Americans believe we won the war. Jack **** .
#132 to #129 - doctorque (09/20/2013) [-]
We still haven't forgotten the tea...
We still haven't forgotten the tea...
User avatar #44 to #16 - demigodofmadness (09/20/2013) [-]
I'm not saying I agree with the Vietnamese war, or fighting for the South Koreans or Iraq or Afghanistan but as for WWII we helped a lot more than Canada.
User avatar #61 to #44 - doctorque (09/20/2013) [-]
How much do you know about the Canadian contribution to the second world war?
User avatar #63 to #61 - demigodofmadness (09/20/2013) [-]
I now little enough about it to know that I was in the wrong when I made that comment.
User avatar #65 to #63 - doctorque (09/20/2013) [-]
Back then nobody had anything negative to say about America. The current hatred towards america is pretty recent.
User avatar #67 to #65 - demigodofmadness (09/20/2013) [-]
I understand why the middle east hates us and I don't blame them, but why Europe?
User avatar #70 to #67 - doctorque (09/20/2013) [-]
1) Filled with middle easterners right at this moment.

2) Stereotypes that are drilled into their heads from birth. (americans are stupid, fat and greedy etc.)
User avatar #25 to #2 - jaigurudevaom (09/20/2013) [-]
americas like that big cocky guy at school that you can't stand
User avatar #45 to #25 - demigodofmadness (09/20/2013) [-]
We interfere with other countries a lot, against the wishes of most citizens I might add, but as for WWII we did a lot more than Canada did.
#31 to #2 - felixjarl (09/20/2013) [-]
America in WW2 is like a man coming late to a party then bragging about he was the one who made the entire thing.
User avatar #40 to #31 - subtard (09/20/2013) [-]
You're thinking of WWI.
User avatar #62 to #40 - epicanadian (09/20/2013) [-]
Well the only reason the US even joined the fight was because Japan attacked them.
User avatar #72 to #62 - subtard (09/20/2013) [-]
Yeah but that was 4 years before the end of the war. So we were in war 4 out of the 6 years. And we almost had as many casualties as UK.
We were only in WWI for a little over 1 out of the 4 years. And then we played a big role in the peace treaties even though we didn't do much.
#88 to #31 - teranin ONLINE (09/20/2013) [-]
No, Felix, this was what it was like.  We showed up late, but we MADE that 			*******		 party.
No, Felix, this was what it was like. We showed up late, but we MADE that ******* party.
#94 to #88 - felixjarl (09/20/2013) [-]
Now this might be interesting.

Although America did a lot they were not the one who made it. It was the Russians which was the real destroyer of Germany.

Shall we engage in a discussion?
User avatar #95 to #94 - teranin ONLINE (09/20/2013) [-]
unfortunately I'm about to dip out of work, and don't have the time ;_;

I really do love discussing WW2 though. I might poke this convo later tonight.
#97 to #95 - felixjarl (09/20/2013) [-]
Hmm bullocks, but i would also love a conversation with you. I will look forward to it.
User avatar #100 to #97 - fpsnoob (09/20/2013) [-]
For once, someone that knows about what the Red Army did.
#101 to #100 - felixjarl (09/20/2013) [-]
Was a reason why being sent to the Russian front was a death sentence.
User avatar #47 to #31 - demigodofmadness (09/20/2013) [-]
More like a man constantly sending booze to the party and then showing up with a truckload of kegs and forcing Hitler to kill himself.
User avatar #5 to #2 - mymiddleleg (09/20/2013) [-]
They just slapped everyone with a huge bill which was only payed back a few years ago
User avatar #10 to #5 - traelos (09/20/2013) [-]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA What?

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120403232959AA62pus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

Not to mention the massive aid we provided before we were even in the war.
User avatar #13 to #10 - mymiddleleg (09/20/2013) [-]
Yes you did give aid but why do you guys act like you were the only country in the entire war sending aid?
#36 to #13 - hoskins (09/20/2013) [-]
>"you guys"

************ .
User avatar #14 to #13 - traelos (09/20/2013) [-]
We sent more than all the other countries combined....

So there is that...
User avatar #17 to #14 - mymiddleleg (09/20/2013) [-]
i wouldnt say combined but you did send a lot, i mean seriously does it really matter?you're bragging about something that you had no part in whatsoever
User avatar #19 to #17 - traelos (09/20/2013) [-]
I'm not bragging, I'm just saying the U.S. did a whole lot more for Europe after WWII than Canada, but Canada is the one getting the flowers while the U.S. gets guys claiming "They just slapped everyone with a huge bill which was only payed back a few years ago".

So basically I'm being persecuted for the graces of my father. ****** ****** up.

At least Japan's cool to us. We payed $1.3 billion of a $2 billion restoration cost, as well as huge economic contracts during Korea, and they give us anime for the next 70 years.
User avatar #21 to #19 - mymiddleleg (09/20/2013) [-]
Maybe they send the flowers because it was mostly Canadian soldiers that fought in the Netherlands while most of the US and UK were fighting through France and Italy
User avatar #22 to #21 - traelos (09/20/2013) [-]
More Americans fought in Market Garden, but I'll give them that the Canadians are the ones who liberated it later during the invasion of Germany.

So basically, everyone but the dutch are pricks.
User avatar #34 to #22 - foxxywithpaws (09/20/2013) [-]
It was also the American 1st and 82nd Airborne Divisions who botched their objectives, giving the Jerries vital time to reinforce their positions. The whole ******* caused the Nazis to set up a blockade on food towards the Netherlands, which turned into the infamous "Hongerwinter" (Hungerwinter) which cost about 22,000 civilian lives. Thanks, 'Merica.

I'll get back to thanking the Canadians.
#135 to #34 - anon (09/20/2013) [-]
First off, there was no "American 1st airborne division" in Market Garden. There was, however, a British 1st airborne that botched their objective and allowed the Nazis to roll through Arnhem and to the bridge at Nijmegen virtually unopposed. The 82nd captured a vital bridge and lost the fight for it's main target, So that is debatable. You also forgot to mention the massive success of the American 101st division and the breakdown of communication because of faulty British radios. So don't sit their with your sad, false sense of superiority and pretend that the disasters at Market Garden were entirely the fault of the US. Because that is entirely untrue.

User avatar #143 to #34 - gorilladinn (09/20/2013) [-]
You just got verbally ****** by an anon
User avatar #131 to #34 - wotterpatch (09/20/2013) [-]
the soldiers who dropped aren't to blame. It's the weather/pilots for dropping them so spread out
User avatar #23 to #22 - mymiddleleg (09/20/2013) [-]
**** it, lets just agree on that
User avatar #46 to #19 - ChuckNorrisVsMRT (09/20/2013) [-]
Ya because as long as you give a country money its fine if you commit genocide.
User avatar #51 to #46 - traelos (09/20/2013) [-]
When did the U.S. commit genocide?

Inb4 ignorantfag thinks Hiroshima and Nagasaki are genocides.
User avatar #52 to #51 - ChuckNorrisVsMRT (09/20/2013) [-]
despite bombing **** not having the systematic elements of genocide there is no particular threshold andthey did kill a **** load of people
User avatar #57 to #52 - traelos (09/20/2013) [-]
Dropping two bombs, while deliberate, is not very systematic.

On top of that, dropping the bombs didn't destroy all Japanese life on the planet, it killed about 0.004% of their population, and ended a war which the Japanese had started. So it kinda lacks the whole wiping a race off the planet part of genocide, which I think is kind of the more important one.

And while obviously a lot of people died in the bombings, it's probably worth noting that even more people died in the conventional invasions of the islands in the Pacific, and there were a lot more people on the main island who were a lot more fanatical to their cause. I mean around 100,000 out of 300,000 Okinawans died in the invasion of Okinawa, and they weren't even Japanese. When you get a population of 70,000,000 and tell them that if they don't fight back the Americans will kill the men, rape the children and eat the women, casualties get pretty high.

And don't forget, the Japanese government refused to surrender, even when told that the U.S. had a massive arsenal of WMDs. They refused to surrender even after we dropped the first one because they thought we only had one, and only surrendered after the second one because we told them we had enough to drop on every major city in Japan.

So the bombings were not only not genocides, they were actually a very peaceful resolution to the war.
#106 to #57 - anon (09/20/2013) [-]
How on earth was dropping two atomic bombs a peaceful resolution to a war? Yeah, maybe if you safe at home in America. I doubt the millions of people who died in the bomb attacks would say it was a peaceful end.

Look, I'm not claiming to be an expert on this subject. I live in Europe, so I don't know much about the American/Japanese aspects of the second world war. But I do know that millions of innocent Japanese people lost their lives in those atomic blasts and everytime someone says that it was wrong, people blow up about all the American lives lost. Which is true, it's awful, but that's hardly a justification for the awfulness of the atomic bombs.

The real enemies didn't even get hurt. The bombs killed lots of Japanese civillians - I bet barely any generals, the people actually controlling the war, lost their lives at all. They attacked the wrong people.
User avatar #137 to #106 - toxicjoe (09/20/2013) [-]
Where the **** did you get "millions of people"? don't pull numbers out of your ass.

And the Americans had three choices. 1) blockade the country and risk the Japanese regrouping and rearming, prolonging the war and making deadlier. 2) Invade the mainland and truly risk millions of Japanese lives, as well as huge amounts of American troops. Or 3) nuke two industrial centers and send a final message that will end the war quickly, effectively, and (like it or not) with minimal loss of life on both sides.

now tell me, which would you choose?

as well, the bombs landed on two industrial centers. one was a major port with the capability of building war ships(Nagasaki), and the other was a huge center of Japanese military forces and weapons(Hiroshima). The US did hit the enemy very strategically. Try to read up on the subject before you spout ******** as an anon.
User avatar #146 to #106 - traelos (09/21/2013) [-]
Clearly you're not an expert.

Between 150,000-300,000 people died in/because of the bombings, of the 500,000-1,000,000 Japanese civilian deaths in the war.

I gotta be honest, I literally laughed out loud when I read that.
User avatar #58 to #57 - ChuckNorrisVsMRT (09/20/2013) [-]
So its ok if i shoot you as long as you know i have a gun? also i stated that i didnt have the systematic elements, can you read at all?
User avatar #75 to #58 - traelos (09/20/2013) [-]
Oh I'm sorry, I reread your first comment and you did say it didn't have the systematic part.

Which means you have no point. There is a threshold to be genocide, it's 100%. It isn't genocide unless you murder an entire ethnic population. Otherwise murdering a black person would be a genocide and that's just silly.
User avatar #68 to #58 - traelos (09/20/2013) [-]
Starting with the end of your sentence, you may have said dropping bombs is systematic, but in reality it is not. A system is a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular. Two things do not make a set, nor do they form a complex whole. It's not systematic until you can't remember the names of every city they attacked off the top of your head.

Moving back to the beginning, you're kind of oversimplifying it.

It's closer to:

If someone comes up behind you and stabs you in the gut, then stabs you more while you try to draw your knife, then you finally do draw your knife and start winning the knife fight, then offer to stop when they are clearly going to get hurt otherwise and they still refuse to stop, it's ok to draw your pistol and shoot them in the foot.

You make it sound the the U.S. had an option to just not kill anybody. There was still a war on when they dropped the bombs, it hadn't just stopped and then the U.S. was like "hey lets go kill some more people". There were 3 choices:

1) A conventional invasion, leading to probably millions of deaths during months of hardships
2) Surrender to the Japanese, so that they could enslave and/or kill your entire population, then go to war with Europe and Russia who obviously weren't going to do that because it's stupid
3) Drop some REALLY big bombs which would kill a couple hundred thousand people at once, but quickly end the wars with much less bloodshed than either of the other two options

Which one would you pick?
User avatar #91 to #68 - ChuckNorrisVsMRT (09/20/2013) [-]
So hitler didnt commit genocide then because it wasnt 100%. killing a redic amount of people systematically is genocide, i mentioned it didnt have the systematic part but regardless.
User avatar #98 to #91 - traelos (09/20/2013) [-]
Hitler killed every Jew in Nazi territory. At least on paper, it still counts even though a few managed to hide That's a genocide.

Truman killed a smaller percentage of the Japanese population of Japan proper than Hitler allowed to escape from his genocide, that's why Hitler committed genocide and Truman ended a war.

Although to be fair the argument could be made that since he never quite got to finish it wasn't really a genocide, just an attempted genocide, but we'll give him the credit of the fact that he had a system which if left alone would have dropped the Jewish population to about 0% of what it started at.

This really isn't complicated. But I'll make it simpler with a rule of thumb:

If the person(s) committing the genocide intend to let any survive, it's not a genocide.
User avatar #138 to #52 - useroftheLOLZ (09/20/2013) [-]
You know what, I'm going to say it, the Japs ******* deserved it. Do you know how bad Japan was during WW2? They were in many ways, worse than Germany. They were all brainwashed into blindly following the emperor for their honor, they killed millions of innocent men, women, and children, they attacked America and China without provocation, there were hundreds of thousands of cases of Japanese killing POWs, and resorting to cannibalising those they killed, and they fought dirty, even worse than Germany, and Germany had nerve gas n **** .

So, you know what, I am a firm believer in karma, and reaping what you sow.

The Japs sowed the seeds of war, and they reaped Hellfire.
User avatar #109 to #17 - failtolawl (09/20/2013) [-]
then why are you bitching at us for having a huge bill?
User avatar #81 to #5 - mistafishy (09/20/2013) [-]
Better than being destroyed by Nazis, but yeah...

Still doesn't warrant all the bad stuff. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
#78 to #2 - teranin ONLINE (09/20/2013) [-]
to be fair, we are sort of dicks.
User avatar #79 to #78 - demigodofmadness (09/20/2013) [-]
Yea, but you need the dicks, although dicks **** pussies, dicks also **** assholes, and if dicks don't **** assholes, then they **** all over pussies.
#86 to #79 - teranin ONLINE (09/20/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#50 to #2 - gamecraft (09/20/2013) [-]
The reason Canada is given the flowers is they were the country that liberated Netherlands. America kind of skimmed across NL because they wanted Berlin, but Canada was given the dirty work of clearing out the heavily fortified coast, and places like Netherlands, and other equally fortified places.

tl; dr, Canada sacrificed more for Netherlands than any other country
User avatar #53 to #50 - demigodofmadness (09/20/2013) [-]
I've kinda learned that Canada helped out the Netherlands a lot from other comments, thank you though. That's one of the things you don't learn in American school.
#77 to #53 - gamecraft (09/20/2013) [-]
I did a quick look at them and mostly read comments about America, sorry for being repetative
User avatar #33 - ChuckNorrisVsMRT (09/20/2013) [-]
I love how biased every american is when it comes to history. I've had americans tell me that they learned that they won the war of 1812
User avatar #56 to #33 - LaBarata (09/20/2013) [-]
We essentially kicked down their door, smashed their xbox and boned their mom before lighting their house on fire and warning them to behave or we'd be back.
User avatar #60 to #33 - scoobi (09/20/2013) [-]
Neither side won or lost. USA tried to take over Canada. Didn't happen.
Canada (Britain) was defending so didn't gain land
#74 to #33 - callmenotime (09/20/2013) [-]
There's bias in everything that involves a war where the other side doesn't have their opinionated people wiped out.

Here in America, many Southerners refer to the Civil war as, "The War of Northern Aggression."

I've had Englishmen tell me that they didn't lose any war to the United States, when the English surrendered to US troops in our Revolutionary war (You can argue that the US wasn't officially recognized as a country at the time, but the point is clear).

I'm sure there are others, but these are two, one American, one not.

History is biased by who is telling the story. Clearly in some examples, there's more than one opinion.
User avatar #133 to #33 - darkangeloffire (09/20/2013) [-]
Thank Sir Isaac Brock for winning that one
User avatar #103 to #33 - wtfareu (09/20/2013) [-]
I hard Canadians say the same thing even though it ended in a tie and Canada technically wasn't a country. History is always biased
User avatar #76 - xecoq (09/20/2013) [-]
Wait, do i pay ******* taxes for that?
User avatar #37 - ultimatebrony (09/20/2013) [-]
America should be giving **** to Canada after we helped survivors and gave medical treatment to 9/11 victims while we also paid for some of there repairs while America started shooting up Paki's.
User avatar #38 to #37 - whitie ONLINE (09/20/2013) [-]
even the most sensitive person to 9/11 can recognize the difference between a war killing 55 million and a single attack killing 3000
#144 - stoicnick (09/20/2013) [-]
am i the only one who saw the KKK hood on the middle pink flower?
#136 - anon (09/20/2013) [-]
What do they do with them?

I'm just imagining a shipping container filled with rotting tulips sitting in a dock somewhere.
#141 to #136 - LordSweatpants (09/20/2013) [-]
We have some big festival in Ottawa. It's spectacularly mediocre.
User avatar #124 - theexplodingcheez (09/20/2013) [-]
[spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler] does this work? [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler] [/spoiler]
[ 147 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)