From: CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Re: Labrador boundary (was Re: S.N.A.G.G.)
Organization: McGill University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:09:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.171636.27770@julian.uwo.ca> larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:
>In article <21JAN93.11063926.0102@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> writes:
>
>>>Ever since Mackenzie King manipulated Labrador in the Newfie's favor and
>>>they foolishly voted for Confederation.....
>
>>Does this come from the same John LaRocque history text which has
>>World War 2 being started by the assassination of a Yugoslavian
>>politician in 1917?
>
>Was the World War 2 thing a typo? It probably was or I was really
>wasted when you read that history text.

This was a couple of months ago, so I don't have your original
text, but I'm pretty sure you said WW2 instead of WW1, 1917 instead
of 1914, and a Yugoslavian politician instead of an Austrian arch-
duke.  But hey, right century, right continent, close enough... :-)
>But if you really
>want a debate on WWI (oh, what a misnomer - England, France and
>Germany as the "world") and WWII, here is something to get you
>started.
>
>Here goes: were it not for the treaty of Versailles,
>the Germans would never have needed to invent Adolph Hitler.
>
>And I might add, thanks to Canada's insistence - Borden signed
>Canada as a power all its own alongside France and UK at Versailles.
>(heck, after all of our "glorious war dead", why shouldn't we?).
>
>So, following the above paragraph, Canada deserves some of the
>guilt in imposing in Germany a document which bankrupted the
>economy with outrageous "war settlements" and loss of territory
>and necessitated the rise of a leader who would put an end
>to the treaty and repatriated former German land. (Note, this
>is NOT an apology for Hitler, just a claim that the man would
>never have taken power in the abscence of a bad war treaty).

This won't generate much of a debate, since I pretty much agree
with you.  I'd say Canada's share of the guilt is small, but
non-zero.  It's also worth adding that one of the reasons the
British and French kept dunning the Germans for reparations
payments was that the Americans insisted that the British
and French repay all the loans made during WW1.
>
>>Are you seriously suggesting that Nfld opted
>>for Confederation in 1949 because they had won the Labrador
>>boundary dispute 22 years earlier?  Care to provide details?
>
>As for the statement on Labrador - I am not making a connection
>(22 years is a long time) but it is worth thinking about in discussing
>just why they voted for confederation. I may dig up this article from
>a Nfld history teacher which provides some details on the Labrador
>dispute. He says the King admin tipped the scales in the Newfie's
>favour - I can't wait for the Quebec nationalists on the net to
>pick up on that one - "Newfie says Labrador belongs to Quebec".

This seems very improbable to me, given King's heavy dependence
on Quebec for electoral success.  Why would he want to antagonize
Quebec in favor of Nfld?  But I'd be interested in seeing a
summary of the article you mention.
>
>Let's ask the Newfies the question that Uncle Ron asked Americans
>12 years ago "Are you better off today then you were 50 years ago?".

Any Newfoundlanders care to comment?
>
Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

Newsgroups: can.politics