The US had no obligation to the Brit crown and was into it already before Pearl Harbor and all in after.
At sea and in the Air yes. But they had no stomach to commit ground forces until Pearl Harbor. Either way, I am discussing Canada.
Yes we did. You can't win a war by leaving the enemy untouched in its homeland. All you do is extend the war indefinitely. The war at sea was very important in getting the war materials from its manufacturing base to the point of conflict. One can't underestimate that. Our air force contributed mightily to the air war. At the end of the day, It was 250,000 Canadians in the First Canadian Army that put boots on the ground in Europe and shaped the outcome of European (and incidentally Canadian) history for the next 80 years.
So the Canadian land forces deployed during WW2 were the deciding factor ? I would argue against that. I postulate that we demanded a role and were given a supporting role on land advancing the extreme left flank of the allies. Had we not had that task I do not think the effect on WW2 would have been detrimental. Lets also not forget the Ruskies the vast amount of lifting on land, and would have beaten Germans without second front(s), conceding it would have taken longer.
Again the BOA was the deciding battle of the ETO for the Western allies. With out those secure sea lanes we would have seen a very different war and probably a very different Europe right now.
One of my favourite quotes says it all:
In order to properly defend one must have the ability to strike back. That is a fundamental truth. A balanced force is essential for that.
I wouldn't argue against that. Hence why our territorial land force would be focused on striking back to an invasion and taking back any lost ground while pushing the enemy back into the sea.
When one extends your arguments, and questions why do we need this? then one of the logical solutions is that we have a tremendous moat around our country and a very interested ally down south. Who is going to attack North America in the first place. Why do we even need an air force and navy when the risk of such an attack is infinitesimally small? Why not just coastal missile artillery and air defense?
Why not just coastal missile artillery and air defense then ? Role the RCN and RCAF into the CCG and the Army into the RCMP bringing back the old PCMR and setting something like that up on the east coast.
Those arguments make no sense of course. We need a balanced force to go in all directions. That's without question. The hard part is to determine the size and makeup of that force. That's where being a cheapskate comes into play.
I actually agree with you. I am playing the devils advocate. Hell I would like to see the Reg Force grow to 100K (properly and effectively employed and equipped) but we seem ever stuck in trying to do everything with a shrinking budget and man power.