I'm having a hard time seeing what's wrong with taking a majority stake in 65 billion barrels of oil, or in bringing that oil online and thus reducing global oil prices. I'm also having a hard time seeing why this isn't good for the country with the largest number of refineries capable of processing that heavy oil (the U.S.), or in reducing how much we need Canadian supply. Options are good. So are profits.
My ONLY problem is “THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY.”....THE MOST FANTASTICALLY FANTASTIC DEAL IN THE HISTORY OF DEALS!!!!
I really like Donald Trump, and he's been a Very Good President + He's got all the right enemies. BUT Sometimes......ya know?
Donald Trump has 20 years on me. Neither one of us is going to change. However when he says/does something stupid who s a supporter needs to say That Was Stupid.
As for Canada (Kanada) its sooo cute when they try to act like they really matter.
A shocking piece of history I had no idea about! Thank you, Dr. Martin for bringing it out of Canada’s closet and back into the light of day! This was a tremendous article that shows that President Trump is 100% in the right to go after Canada and to troll them mercilessly!
Excellent article! It shows too, as we've seen also in our own bloated welfare system, that generosities provided soon turn into expected entitlements that become nearly impossible to rescind without open hostility the result.
Yes. And in these cases (Canada and other allies) we lost track of why we had been generous in the first place. To hear official Washington talk (on both sides), we are the ones who must pay tribute to all these countries so they'll be our friends. Honestly, it's just pathetic, and it has dominated American public life since Clinton won in 1992.
And I must say in defense of a President I was pretty unhappy with, Bush Sr. got it, at least when he was in office. When the Philippines pulled their normal stunt and tried to hold up the U.S. for double the lease on Clark and Subic, Bush told them we didn't need those bases anymore and walked. They never saw it coming and completely freaked out, much like the residents of Vieques in 2004 (gotta hand that one to W). America has to call these bluffs. And that's exactly what they are.
I do love reading your articles here in Britain. A bit of perspective on this one though. Japan was a member of the Allies during WW1 and was amongst the first to declare war on Imperial Germany. In the 20s Britain had no reason to ditch Japan - hindsight of what they would do in the next decades was not available in those days. It is also worth remembering that America invaded Canada during the War of 1812 and again with your Irish Regiments immediately after the ACW, so cross border hostilities is not a one way traffic. In the other direction I am amazed you are not aware that the Canadians invaded New England in 1919! The Brigadier responsible was courts martialled by the Imperial General Staff for his rampant stupidity. Lastly on the charge sheet is that in 1936 when Germany was already demonstrating to all and sundry that they were a threat to all, and Japan was raping China, the American Pentagon drew up war plans to attack and defeat Britain as the greatest threat - not America’s finest moment.
I do love your articles and enjoy them all so keep up the good work.
Oh, please do not take anything I said as being negative toward Britain or Canada regarding this interesting historical footnote. It is merely to say that alliances shift while interests do not, as Lord Palmerston taught us. It's why we're concerned about Diego Garcia: not what will happen next week but what might happen next decade or next century. Ditto for Greenland (though in both cases, I very much advocate for solutions that are good for all involved).
In 1921, the set-up was exactly as you say. And yet, American and the British Empire were not yet formal allies, Britain was the greatest power on Earth, and Japan -- though an ally in the war -- was Japan: not a warm fuzzy. The Zimmerman Telegram had suggested a Japanese invasion of the U.S. through Mexico, and that had caused quite an uproar here. It was on people's minds.
Still, you'll note that Defence Scheme No. 1 predates War Plan Red by nearly a decade. The Canadians were extremely mindful that they could get drawn into a worst-case scenario and lacked strategic depth. So they planned for a war that was only ever likely to be a Japanese-led war that dragged the British Empire in, much as all of Europe was dragged into war at Sarajevo.
Needless to say, this is all illustrative. Alliances are not laws of nature. They exist because of shared interests. It is foolish not to regularly do maintenance to keep things beneficial to all involved. In Britain's case, you know I've had a lot to say about the state of the Royal Navy, but not because I don't love Britain: I do. I would love to see the Royal Navy at least as strong as it was in 1982. And likewise, I am perturbed at Canada's reneging on its commitments to our dairy farmers under USMCA and freeloading on our defense budget, but the answer isn't to make Canada weaker: it's to make Canada stronger, so we can all prosper together.
This is a degree of "tough love" the former governor of the Bank of England can't quite wrap his brain around, but he probably just wants to take Canada into the EU, so short-term pain may be a means to get there.
In any case, we have a much-improved trade deal now with the EU, and we love all those countries however much they frustrate us at times, and the UK and Canada are our kin. We just want deals that strengthen all of them and reduce the burden on the U.S. a bit. That may result in a bit of short-term pain, but it's hard to argue that America is being "mean" by wanting its friends to be stronger, or make trade fairer, no matter how much Doug Ford may do so.
Oh, and thanks for reading! I really appreciate it! I spent a couple years at Cambridge and nearly stayed. I love you guys (except your current government).
Thank you for answering. I have never heard anyone suggest that Japan was plotting to take over Mexico and then invade the USA (that is exactly what invading the USA from Mexico means), so if you can share that document I will be enlightened. As for the state of our current defence, I have just completed 300+ pages Threat led analysis of our defence position and it is not pretty reading as it catalogues 50+ years of deliberate political decisions to spend ever less on defence to the point where we have effectively zero frigates or destroyers deployable. That is not the fault of the current government, it is the fault of every government post WW2, this shower of idiots are just making it far worse. Over here people are demanding a return to conscription- how they expect a tint 72000 man army to look after and train something like 800000 conscripts is beyond me.
Please write a detailed review of the disgusting state of British defence in the modern age. Yes we still have done first class soldiers and units, but the numbers are dwindling. Perhaps a more serious voice like yours might find some traction on this topic then the burnt out wreck that is a retired 70 year old British Army officer ( who enjoyed two great years as an Exchange Officer in the US Army).
Just read the Zimmermann Telegram, provided to the United States in 1917 by your government and one of the principal reasons we entered the war. The Germans encouraged Mexico to invade the United States and to invite Japan to join that invasion, promising that the American Southwest would be returned to Mexico as a result (what the Japanese were supposed to get is not entirely clear, but likely at least Hawaii). There was a handwritten note in the margin that suggested Japan might get California, but it's not clear whether that was actually part of the proposal.
In any case, Mexico thought this was an incredibly stupid idea and didn't pursue it. But the British handed it to Wilson, and there was an enormous uproar here.
Well given that Japan had declared war on Imperial Germany in 1914 and had a squadron operating in the Mediterranean in about 1916 specifically to pursue that, any suggestion from Imperial Germany at that point in time can be dismissed as pure fantasy nonsense, I am sure you would agree. The British government sharing it with your government was proving there was zero credence in it and were almost certainly demonstrating the perfidious nature of the Imperial German government.
Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to discuss this.
Given Japan's later actions, I don't think it would be too crazy to think Japan could have been enticed into switching sides, especially if Germany ratified Japan's capture of its Pacific islands (which would be a small price to pay). Switching sides is certainly not unprecedented. Italy turned on Germany in 1915 (and, a bit involuntarily, in 1943); Germany turned on the Soviets in 1941. There's no honor among thieves, and Japan in 1916 was nobody's friend.
However, Mexico wasn't stupid. It was in the middle of a civil war, and it had absolutely no reason to think Germany would reinforce it against the United States. It demurred, and Japan wasn't even contacted. Nevertheless, the psychological effect on the American public was exactly as the British Foreign Office hoped, and the specter of Japanese aggression never quite disappeared from its collective consciousness.
Nevertheless, focusing on this is a bit wide of the point. It was Canada, not the United States, that drafted Defence Scheme No. 1. Canada rightly understood that it was part of an empire that was allied to Japan, and that Japan might have additional imperial ambitions that could drag it into a war. So it planned for that. It was not wrong to do so. But it's instructive that it was a province of the Empire that saw the need to do this.
Astonishing how difficult this is to comprehend.
Trump is trolling, of course.
OOOORRRR has the Stupid egotistic Trump showed up...again?
Trump announced the agreement in a Truth Social post, calling it “THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY.”
https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-announces-biggest-oil-deal-in-world-history?topStoryPosition=undefined&author=Drew+Berkemeyer&category=News&elementPosition=0&row=1&rowHeadline=Top+Stories&rowType=Top+Stories&title=Trump+Announces+%E2%80%98Biggest+Oil+Deal+In+World+History%E2%80%99
Not a good deal, one that helps everyone BUT THE MOST FANTASTICALLY FANTASTIC DEAL IN THE HISTORY OF DEALS!!!!
I'm having a hard time seeing what's wrong with taking a majority stake in 65 billion barrels of oil, or in bringing that oil online and thus reducing global oil prices. I'm also having a hard time seeing why this isn't good for the country with the largest number of refineries capable of processing that heavy oil (the U.S.), or in reducing how much we need Canadian supply. Options are good. So are profits.
My ONLY problem is “THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY.”....THE MOST FANTASTICALLY FANTASTIC DEAL IN THE HISTORY OF DEALS!!!!
I really like Donald Trump, and he's been a Very Good President + He's got all the right enemies. BUT Sometimes......ya know?
Donald Trump has 20 years on me. Neither one of us is going to change. However when he says/does something stupid who s a supporter needs to say That Was Stupid.
As for Canada (Kanada) its sooo cute when they try to act like they really matter.
But isn't it the biggest oil deal in history? I can't think of a bigger one.
A shocking piece of history I had no idea about! Thank you, Dr. Martin for bringing it out of Canada’s closet and back into the light of day! This was a tremendous article that shows that President Trump is 100% in the right to go after Canada and to troll them mercilessly!
Learn more about Canadian history with these volumes:
* A Concise History of Canada by Margaret Conrad
* The Cinderella Campaign: First Canadian Army and the Battles for the Channel Ports by Mark Zuehlke
* The Great Halifax Explosion: A World War I Story of Treachery, Tragedy, and Extraordinary Heroism by John U. Bacon
* Vimy: The Battle and the Legend by Tim Cook
* Righting Canada's Wrongs: Japanese Canadian Internment in the Second World War by Pamela Hickman
* Distant Allies: Canada and the Anglo - Japanese Alliance, 1900 - 1923 by Peter W. Noonan
* Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries in New France by Brett Rushford
* Canada's Forgotten Slaves: Two Hundred Years of Bondage by Marcel Trudel
* The Case of the Murderous Dr. Cream: The Hunt for a Victorian Era Serial Killer by Dean Jobb
* Trudeaumania: The Rise to Power of Pierre Elliott Trudeau by Robert Wright
* Dream Interrupted: The Rise and Fall of Quebec Nationalism by Francine Pelletier
* Pierre Poilievre: A Political Life by Andrew Lawton
* The Prince: The Turbulent Reign of Justin Trudeau by Stephen Maher
Excellent article! It shows too, as we've seen also in our own bloated welfare system, that generosities provided soon turn into expected entitlements that become nearly impossible to rescind without open hostility the result.
Yes. And in these cases (Canada and other allies) we lost track of why we had been generous in the first place. To hear official Washington talk (on both sides), we are the ones who must pay tribute to all these countries so they'll be our friends. Honestly, it's just pathetic, and it has dominated American public life since Clinton won in 1992.
And I must say in defense of a President I was pretty unhappy with, Bush Sr. got it, at least when he was in office. When the Philippines pulled their normal stunt and tried to hold up the U.S. for double the lease on Clark and Subic, Bush told them we didn't need those bases anymore and walked. They never saw it coming and completely freaked out, much like the residents of Vieques in 2004 (gotta hand that one to W). America has to call these bluffs. And that's exactly what they are.
I do love reading your articles here in Britain. A bit of perspective on this one though. Japan was a member of the Allies during WW1 and was amongst the first to declare war on Imperial Germany. In the 20s Britain had no reason to ditch Japan - hindsight of what they would do in the next decades was not available in those days. It is also worth remembering that America invaded Canada during the War of 1812 and again with your Irish Regiments immediately after the ACW, so cross border hostilities is not a one way traffic. In the other direction I am amazed you are not aware that the Canadians invaded New England in 1919! The Brigadier responsible was courts martialled by the Imperial General Staff for his rampant stupidity. Lastly on the charge sheet is that in 1936 when Germany was already demonstrating to all and sundry that they were a threat to all, and Japan was raping China, the American Pentagon drew up war plans to attack and defeat Britain as the greatest threat - not America’s finest moment.
I do love your articles and enjoy them all so keep up the good work.
Oh, please do not take anything I said as being negative toward Britain or Canada regarding this interesting historical footnote. It is merely to say that alliances shift while interests do not, as Lord Palmerston taught us. It's why we're concerned about Diego Garcia: not what will happen next week but what might happen next decade or next century. Ditto for Greenland (though in both cases, I very much advocate for solutions that are good for all involved).
In 1921, the set-up was exactly as you say. And yet, American and the British Empire were not yet formal allies, Britain was the greatest power on Earth, and Japan -- though an ally in the war -- was Japan: not a warm fuzzy. The Zimmerman Telegram had suggested a Japanese invasion of the U.S. through Mexico, and that had caused quite an uproar here. It was on people's minds.
Still, you'll note that Defence Scheme No. 1 predates War Plan Red by nearly a decade. The Canadians were extremely mindful that they could get drawn into a worst-case scenario and lacked strategic depth. So they planned for a war that was only ever likely to be a Japanese-led war that dragged the British Empire in, much as all of Europe was dragged into war at Sarajevo.
Needless to say, this is all illustrative. Alliances are not laws of nature. They exist because of shared interests. It is foolish not to regularly do maintenance to keep things beneficial to all involved. In Britain's case, you know I've had a lot to say about the state of the Royal Navy, but not because I don't love Britain: I do. I would love to see the Royal Navy at least as strong as it was in 1982. And likewise, I am perturbed at Canada's reneging on its commitments to our dairy farmers under USMCA and freeloading on our defense budget, but the answer isn't to make Canada weaker: it's to make Canada stronger, so we can all prosper together.
This is a degree of "tough love" the former governor of the Bank of England can't quite wrap his brain around, but he probably just wants to take Canada into the EU, so short-term pain may be a means to get there.
In any case, we have a much-improved trade deal now with the EU, and we love all those countries however much they frustrate us at times, and the UK and Canada are our kin. We just want deals that strengthen all of them and reduce the burden on the U.S. a bit. That may result in a bit of short-term pain, but it's hard to argue that America is being "mean" by wanting its friends to be stronger, or make trade fairer, no matter how much Doug Ford may do so.
Oh, and thanks for reading! I really appreciate it! I spent a couple years at Cambridge and nearly stayed. I love you guys (except your current government).
Thank you for answering. I have never heard anyone suggest that Japan was plotting to take over Mexico and then invade the USA (that is exactly what invading the USA from Mexico means), so if you can share that document I will be enlightened. As for the state of our current defence, I have just completed 300+ pages Threat led analysis of our defence position and it is not pretty reading as it catalogues 50+ years of deliberate political decisions to spend ever less on defence to the point where we have effectively zero frigates or destroyers deployable. That is not the fault of the current government, it is the fault of every government post WW2, this shower of idiots are just making it far worse. Over here people are demanding a return to conscription- how they expect a tint 72000 man army to look after and train something like 800000 conscripts is beyond me.
Please write a detailed review of the disgusting state of British defence in the modern age. Yes we still have done first class soldiers and units, but the numbers are dwindling. Perhaps a more serious voice like yours might find some traction on this topic then the burnt out wreck that is a retired 70 year old British Army officer ( who enjoyed two great years as an Exchange Officer in the US Army).
Just read the Zimmermann Telegram, provided to the United States in 1917 by your government and one of the principal reasons we entered the war. The Germans encouraged Mexico to invade the United States and to invite Japan to join that invasion, promising that the American Southwest would be returned to Mexico as a result (what the Japanese were supposed to get is not entirely clear, but likely at least Hawaii). There was a handwritten note in the margin that suggested Japan might get California, but it's not clear whether that was actually part of the proposal.
In any case, Mexico thought this was an incredibly stupid idea and didn't pursue it. But the British handed it to Wilson, and there was an enormous uproar here.
Well given that Japan had declared war on Imperial Germany in 1914 and had a squadron operating in the Mediterranean in about 1916 specifically to pursue that, any suggestion from Imperial Germany at that point in time can be dismissed as pure fantasy nonsense, I am sure you would agree. The British government sharing it with your government was proving there was zero credence in it and were almost certainly demonstrating the perfidious nature of the Imperial German government.
Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to discuss this.
Given Japan's later actions, I don't think it would be too crazy to think Japan could have been enticed into switching sides, especially if Germany ratified Japan's capture of its Pacific islands (which would be a small price to pay). Switching sides is certainly not unprecedented. Italy turned on Germany in 1915 (and, a bit involuntarily, in 1943); Germany turned on the Soviets in 1941. There's no honor among thieves, and Japan in 1916 was nobody's friend.
However, Mexico wasn't stupid. It was in the middle of a civil war, and it had absolutely no reason to think Germany would reinforce it against the United States. It demurred, and Japan wasn't even contacted. Nevertheless, the psychological effect on the American public was exactly as the British Foreign Office hoped, and the specter of Japanese aggression never quite disappeared from its collective consciousness.
Nevertheless, focusing on this is a bit wide of the point. It was Canada, not the United States, that drafted Defence Scheme No. 1. Canada rightly understood that it was part of an empire that was allied to Japan, and that Japan might have additional imperial ambitions that could drag it into a war. So it planned for that. It was not wrong to do so. But it's instructive that it was a province of the Empire that saw the need to do this.