# Museum sheds light on Canada's wartime effort



## syscom3 (Jun 24, 2009)

I never fully understood what Canada and Canadians did to liberate Europe in the Second World War until I worked for three months as a guide at the Juno Beach Centre in France.

The Juno Beach Centre is still a young museum; only six years old. It was inaugurated on June 6, 2003, to commemorate Canada's contribution in the D-Day landings and throughout the Second World War.

The centre's story is a testament to the fact that Canada is often overlooked in the telling of the war's history. Founded and still overseen by veteran Garth Webb and his partner, Lise Cooper, the centre filled a gaping hole in Normandy where the telling of Canada's war efforts should have been all along. Before the centre's inauguration, the largest Canadian monument in the area was a recovered Sherman tank which had sunk at Courseulles- sur-Mer on D-Day.

As a guide at the Juno Beach Centre, my job was to illuminate Canada's wartime contribution. The last time I'd put serious thought into the war had been in my Grade 10 history class, so my preparation for this job entailed some serious brushing up on my Canadian history.

A training week for the new guides took us to sites around Normandy, from Arromanches and Pegasus Bridge to Longues-sur- Mer and Pointe du Hoc, and to Canadian, British, American and German cemeteries. Each guide had been instructed to learn as much as they could about a soldier buried in one of the Canadian cemeteries. I chose to research George, Albert, and Thomas Westlake -- three Toronto-born brothers who all died in the Normandy campaign in June 1944, and who now rest in the Beny-sur-Mer cemetery in Reviers.

We visited La Maison des Canadiens (The Canadians' House), the iconic house on the beach in Bernières-sur- Mer that is so visible in video and photographic footage of the D-Day landings. The house, so named because it was liberated by Canadians on June 6, has been dedicated by its owners, the Hoffer family, to serve as a site of remembrance for Canadian efforts. A plaque in front of the house briefly sums up its history. Inside, photos and artifacts turn the Hoffer's home into a small museum. When Mr. Hoffer welcomed us into his house, he shook my hand and thanked me for liberating his country.

Jacques Vico, a member of the wartime French resistance, also spoke to us. His family owned the property at l'Abbaye d'Ardenne, where more than 20 Canadian prisoners of war were executed by the 12th SS Panzer division led by Kurt Meyer.

This training week, along with a lot of reading, prepared me for giving guided tours explaining Canada's contribution to D-Day and the Normandy campaign, as well as, in less detail, the entire war.

It wasn't lost on me that at the age of 22, I was older than many of the soldiers who had landed on the beach where I stood.

One British Royal Air Force veteran who participated in a guided tour I led put things nicely into perspective. He asked my age, then chuckled and said that by the time he was 22 he had already served four years and been honourably discharged from service.

And a Canadian visitor reminded me of the reality that Canada is at war today, when she told me that she was a Memorial Cross mother. She and her son had been planning a trip to visit Juno Beach. He had been killed in Afghanistan, but she decided to make the trip herself, in his honour.

Meeting visitors from around the world, and Canadian visitors for whom visiting the Juno Beach Centre was a sort of pilgrimage, made my job about so much more than just relating facts and figures.

I was struck by how impressed the visitors, particularly the French, were with the museum. They enjoyed speaking with the young Canadian guides. But one thing they consistently said was that they hadn't realized the huge contribution Canada had made in the Second World War.

Reflecting on the controversy surrounding France's perceived snub of British contributions to the Normandy invasion, it isn't a stretch to say that in my experience, the dominant perception of the war on the part of the French people is that the liberation of France was indeed a "Franco-American" affair, with supporting roles played by the British -- and to a much lesser extent, the Canadians.

But Canada did make an exceptional contribution to the war, especially considering its small population and relatively new status of legislative independence from Britain. And even though I didn't personally contribute to Canada's efforts in the war, I always felt a sense of pride when visitors would exit the museum expressing surprise and respect for the huge scale of Canada's Second World War involvement.

It would be wrong to say Canada is forgotten in France. In the area surrounding the beach code-named Juno, where 14,000 Canadian soldiers landed on that June 6 morning, the Normans are grateful to Canada, and are active in preserving that memory. Canadian cemeteries are kept in impeccable condition. Monuments to Canadian regiments dot the towns and villages along the coast.

On June 5, schoolchildren in Bermières-sur- Mer held their own ceremony to honour the Canadians who landed on D-Day. And an association called Amis de Juno Beach (Friends of Juno Beach) exists with the sole purpose of commemorating Canadian wartime efforts.

Recognition of Canadian efforts may seem a bit quieter, and a bit more subdued than that of the Americans. But isn't that just quintessentially Canadian?

Bronwyn Roe is a Kitchener resident who recently completed a three-month work term at the Juno Beach Centre in France.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Jun 24, 2009)

They did a lot more than people relize.


----------



## batcocan (Jun 24, 2009)




----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Jun 24, 2009)

Nobody should forget what Canada did for the Allies. They make me proud to have them as a neighboring country.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jun 24, 2009)

Nice Syscom


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Jun 25, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> It would be wrong to say Canada is forgotten in France. In the area surrounding the beach code-named Juno, where 14,000 Canadian soldiers landed on that June 6 morning, the Normans are grateful to Canada, and are active in preserving that memory. Canadian cemeteries are kept in impeccable condition. Monuments to Canadian regiments dot the towns and villages along the coast.











For all the unknown and known Canadian's who served on that day.

James Doohan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wheelsup


----------



## TenGunTerror (Jul 3, 2009)

Boy and I thought I was the only one who knew that they actually played a huge role. Their tin can navy and obsolete air force were both within the top 5 largest.


----------



## trackend (Jul 4, 2009)

My old man was not only a D-Day vet and ended up working Sword Gold and Juno landing areas but 5 months later he was at the Walcherns which is one of the lesser known battles but not to the 12,000 (much of whom were Canadian) casualties, and my Uncle was KIA while serving with Bison Squadron RCAF so I am well aware of the Canadians war efforts and have the greatest respect for them as a nation


----------



## lingo (Jul 4, 2009)

I think it true to say that we in the UK have been fully aware of the Canadian effort in both world wars. British, and particularly American efforts have been well portrayed in films, but for some reason not the Canadian. The US TV industry is very active in showing old films and more modern productions which are not surprisingly American centric.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 4, 2009)

The Canadians were heavily involved in the campaign in NW Europe 1944-45 and also played a pivotal role in the Battle of the Atlantic, operating destroyers, escorts and aircraft in defense of convoys. Halifax was also a major convoy destination/origin point through which much vital war material flowed. 

I think the British and Commonwealth contribution in the later stages of the war is often overlooked - not just in Normandy, but also in Burma (how many times do you see Meiktila mentioned alongside Tarawa and Iwo Jima?) and in the Pacific where the RNs carriers served alongside the US fleet and took thier share of both the carrier ops and the retaliatory Kamikaze attacks. It's a history that needs to be recovered before we lose it altogether.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> The Canadians were heavily involved in the campaign in NW Europe 1944-45 and also played a pivotal role in the Battle of the Atlantic, operating destroyers, escorts and aircraft in defense of convoys. Halifax was also a major convoy destination/origin point through which much vital war material flowed.
> 
> I think the British and Commonwealth contribution in the later stages of the war is often overlooked - not just in Normandy, but also in Burma (how many times do you see Meiktila mentioned alongside Tarawa and Iwo Jima?) and in the Pacific where the RNs carriers served alongside the US fleet and took thier share of both the carrier ops and the retaliatory Kamikaze attacks. It's a history that needs to be recovered before we lose it altogether.



While Canada deserves recognition as being a key contributor to the allied victory, we shouldn't assign it a status of being the "superman" of the war effort. 

Canada's contribution in the PTO was close to zero. That credit goes to the US and the ANZAC forces.
Canada's contribution to the war in the CBI was again close to zero That credit belongs to the Brits, Chinese and US.

Canada's contribution to the NA escort duties was quite important and deserves recognition.

As for its contribution to the war on the ground in the ETO, lets put it into perspective. It provided just how many divisions? Mightily important to the Brits and Commonwealth forces, but as a whole, just a fraction of what the US was deploying (and I wont compare it to the Russians).

Like I said above, they deserve credit for what they contributed to the war effort, but not lets get carried away. They were a fraction of the size of the US's population and industrial power and could only contribute so much.


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 4, 2009)

I think the issue is not "how much" they contributed, but more the fact that most people forget that they DID contribute. Period. Sure, the US was able to field more men and material...but that should not overshadow the contributions made by those Canadians who _were _there.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> I think the issue is not "how much" they contributed, but more the fact that most people forget that they DID contribute. Period. Sure, the US was able to field more men and material...but that should not overshadow the contributions made by those Canadians who _were _there.



I agree. I am just saying they were a small nation and could only contribute so much. Give recognition for where its due, but dont assign accolades to them when it isn't warranted.


----------



## lingo (Jul 4, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> I agree. I am just saying they were a small nation and could only contribute so much. Give recognition for where its due, but dont assign accolades to them when it isn't warranted.



This seems rather mean-spirited. Couldn't we agree on saying their small population consistently punched above their weight for the entire war?

Remenber also that the war started in 1939 and not December 1941.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2009)

lingo said:


> This seems rather mean-spirited. Couldn't we agree on saying their small population consistently punched above their weight for the entire war?



I would consider the Aussies who provided the most "bang for the buck".

And it isnt mean spirited to say so. Give Canada credit for which they deserve, but dont make them out to be supermen, because they werent. A small sized nation can only contribute so much.

Did Canada contribute to the winning of the war? Yes.

Could the allies have won the war without Canada? Yes.



> Remenber also that the war started in 1939 and not December 1941.



The war started in Dec 1941 for the US.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 4, 2009)

Although the Canadian contribution to the Pacific was not great we did manage to play in Hong Kong and in the Aleutians and that famous commander Simon Bolivar Buckner wanted us *to pay duty* on the weapons we brought. I also think we got the dirty job in NW Europe the battle for the Lowlands was the worst of the fighting in Western Europe.


----------



## lingo (Jul 4, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The war started in Dec 1941 for the US.



Indeed it did. Canada came in with the mother country in September 1st 1939 so she was at war some two and a quarter years before the Pearl Harbor event and Hitlers extraordinary declaration caused Americas entry. 
The rest of us know it was a WORLD war and not just the preserve of the most numerous nations.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2009)

lingo said:


> Indeed it did. Canada came in with the mother country in September 1st 1939 so she was at war some two and a quarter years before the Pearl Harbor event and Hitlers extraordinary declaration caused Americas entry.
> The rest of us know it was a WORLD war and not just the preserve of the most numerous nations.



The US, UK and Russia completely dominated the industrial production of the war. The smaller nations contributed, but not in a critical way.



> Although the Canadian contribution to the Pacific was not great we did manage to play in Hong Kong and in the Aleutians and that famous commander Simon Bolivar Buckner wanted us to pay duty on the weapons we brought. I also think we got the dirty job in NW Europe the battle for the Lowlands was the worst of the fighting in Western Europe.



"Not great"? try non existent, except for some help in the Aleutions. But I will give Canada credit for the trans Alaskan Highway, which was of far more use during the Cold War, than WW2.

As for savage fighting, it was the US Army at the Ardennes that had the most brutal fighting on the western front.


----------



## lingo (Jul 4, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> As for savage fighting, it was the US Army at the Ardennes that had the most savage fighting on the western front.



I certainly do not agree with you there but we are all entitled to our own opinions.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 4, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> As for savage fighting, it was the US Army at the Ardennes that had the most savage fighting on the western front.


There was savage fighting everywhere
The Paras fouight tooth and nail with the Germans around Pegasus Bridge
The battle for Monte Casino was savage
Omaha beach was very costly for the US

I've never doubted the Canadian contribution, their sacrifice at Dieppe was considerable. By autumn 1939 there were more Canadians flying with the RAF than there were with the RCAF.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> There was savage fighting everywhere
> The Paras fouight tooth and nail with the Germans around Pegasus Bridge
> The battle for Monte Casino was savage
> Omaha beach was very costly for the US



Theres savage fighting on a small scale, and then there is savage fighting that lasts for weeks.

None of them compared to the Battle of Hürtgen Forest and then the Ardennes. The ferocity of the battles and the casualties testify to it.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 4, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Theres savage fighting on a small scale, and then there is savage fighting that lasts for weeks.
> 
> None of them compared to the Battle of Hürtgen Forest and then the Ardennes. The ferocity of the battles and the casualties testify to it.


Tell me again
Monte Casino didn't compare to the combat and hardship of the US forces in the Ardennes


----------



## plan_D (Jul 4, 2009)

For a start, there should be no discussion about who had it worst in Western Europe. Secondly, saying that any of the large battles didn't compare to the fighting in the Ardennes and Hurtgen is insulting. The only reason the casualties were so high is because the Allied command got it so badly wrong. Plus, for combat alone I think Metz had the highest percentage loss rate in West Europe - with some units suffering up to and above 50% casualties. 

Those actions were no worse than Monte Cassino, which was no small scale action. Nor were they any worse than the battles fought in Holland - including Scheldt, Arnhem, Nijmegen. The German offensive in the Ardennes simply increased the numbers involved, not the ferocity of combat. 

And if we're talking numbers, ferocity and casualties ...surely 6th June, 1944 would be a violent benchmark.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 4, 2009)

plan_D said:


> For a start, there should be no discussion about who had it worst in Western Europe


Agreed on your very first point


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2009)

I think we got highly off track.

But still, the Ardennes and Huertgoen Forest were savage battles the UK and Commonwealth forces never experienced. Those two campaigns were probably close to what the Russians experienced month after month.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 4, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> I think we got highly off track.
> 
> But still, the Ardennes and Huertgoen Forest were savage battles the UK and Commonwealth forces never experienced. Those two campaigns were probably close to what the Russians experienced month after month.



Syscom, I have to say that I find your approach to this whole topic truly appalling. The Canadians stepped up to the plate and did their bit - so for you to knock them for sending less troops than the US is worse than mean-spirited, it's crass. Lets not forget the huge industrial effort Canada made too, sending not just bomber crews, but also the bombers for them to fly - by the thousand.

And the war DID start in 1939 - just because the US didn't join then doesn't make it any less of a war. The BoB, the Blitz, the Battle of France, the opening phase of Barbarossa - these were all real and important even if the US wasn't involved And yes, the Ardennes were terrible, but every nation fought protracted and bloody battles in every theater - someone has already mentioned Cassino as an example, and there are more 

Your view simply assumes that the US was the only major player in the European War - that is utter rubbish and you and I both know it. Instead of belittling the other Allies, perhaps you might contemplate that for the past 65 years, many of them have stood by you, and continue to do so today - Canada included.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 4, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> I think we got highly off track.
> 
> But still, the Ardennes and Huertgoen Forest were savage battles the UK and Commonwealth forces never experienced. Those two campaigns were probably close to what the Russians experienced month after month.


No, I don't think we did
you're trying to make a point that the US had it tougher than the UK and Commonwealth on the basis of one campaign, which is frankly both balloney and insulting; no one combat soldier, regardless of nationality, who risked his life had it easier than any other soldier anywhere else.

How do you place the Ardennes above, say, the US Marines island-hopping towards Japan? Because it was colder? Same selfless courage if you ask me.

The US forces' tenacity in holding on to Bastogne and their subsequent counter-attack were a gigantic victory for the Allies in harsh conditions.

Edit: Sorry BT, didn't realise you'd posted, I was still stuck in my post thinking about things


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 4, 2009)

No worries Colin, I think we are barking up the same tree mate


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Syscom
> 
> Your view simply assumes that the US was the only major player in the European War - that is utter rubbish and you and I both know it. Instead of belittling the other Allies, perhaps you might contemplate that for the past 65 years, many of them have stood by you, and continue to do so today - Canada included.



After the battle of Normandy, the war in the west was dominated by the US. Thats a fact. You cannot deny it.

After August 1944, every week, the US was sending a brand new division into thetheater. The UK and Commonwealth were already maxed out manpower wise.

All credit is due to the Canadian contribution to the war, but since Canada is a small country, lets also face the fact they they had economic and manpower limitations.


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 5, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> After the battle of Normandy, the war in the west was dominated by the US. Thats a fact. You cannot deny it.
> 
> After August 1944, every week, the US was sending a brand new division into thetheater. The UK and Commonwealth were already maxed out manpower wise.
> 
> All credit is due to the Canadian contribution to the war, but since Canada is a small country, lets also face the fact they they had economic and manpower limitations.





So, based on your very own observations....the UK and Commonwealth were using MAXIMUM resources, whereas the US was sorta just kinda loitering along, still sending divisions. The UK and Canada, being in the war for 2+ years already, were at maximum throttle. And you think we're better than they were? Just because we sat around and did nothing even though we KNEW Hitler was the devil incarnate? Because the US decided to sit back and stick its head in the sand, because it was "a European war"??? The UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and all others involved were going balls-to-the-wall while we watched movies. Sure, nobody's denying the industrial capacity of the US, and the fact that we had such a huge manpower reserve to call upon. But to say that "we did more" because we had more industry is demeaning and belittling to those who were shedding blood as we munched popcorn (figuratively). I love this country, I'm proud to be an American, and I will be the first to stand up and say that we could NOT have done it alone. To all our Allies around the world:


----------



## Freebird (Jul 5, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> "Not great"? try non existent, except for some help in the Aleutions.




Non Existant??

Sorry, somebody remind me please, who was it that pulled the nasty, hopeless job of defending Hong Kong to buy time WITH BLOOD for the Commonwealth to prepare for defences elsewhere? 

Which country supplied the soldiers that were wounded and got bayoneted by the Japanese in their hospital beds?

Which country also supplied the volunteer nurses at Hong Kong that got gang-raped slaughtered by the IJA?



Somebody bloody remind me, because I can't seem to remember..... 

_The Japanese soldiers were ordered to make a series of suicide attacks against the Canadian positions. They suffered 800 casualties to win the battle at Wong Ne Chong Gap. When the Japanese discovered how few defenders had caused this decimation, the field commander was forced to apologize to his superiors. The Grenadiers, and others rounded up as prisoners, were now in danger. Some Japanese soldiers wanted revenge. 

....In October 1945, four years after they left Canada, the Hong Kong veterans were finally home again. 

Nipon Ko Kan and its founder, Morosiro Shiaichi, made millions of dollars profiting from the Japanese war effort, partly from using Canadian prisoners as slave laborers. In similar circumstances, German corporations have paid billions of dollars in compensation to wartime workers. Japanese companies are being pressed by Canada's veterans for compensation, but refuse even to discuss the issue. _



The Fall of Hong Kong : World War Two - Honk Kong Synopsis 2
Territory recalls orgy of killing and rape after the surrender - Telegraph

Thanks to Colin BombTaxi, seems the British still remember, at least

_The Royal Navy was very much a multicultural force and the misconception that Britain 'stood alone' in June 1940 is swept away at the beginning of this exhibtion. A stoyboard points out that Great Britain enjoyed the support of an Empire and Commonwealth, which at the time covered a quarter of the earth’s surface. 

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India all contributed sizeable navies to Royal Navy forces and each suffered casualties and braved the elements from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean. _

HMS Belfast Salutes The Commonwealth Sailors Of WWII | Culture24


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> So, based on your very own observations....the UK and Commonwealth were using MAXIMUM resources, whereas the US was sorta just kinda loitering along, still sending divisions. The UK and Canada, being in the war for 2+ years already, were at maximum throttle. And you think we're better than they were? Just because we sat around and did nothing even though we KNEW Hitler was the devil incarnate? Because the US decided to sit back and stick its head in the sand, because it was "a European war"??? The UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and all others involved were going balls-to-the-wall while we watched movies. Sure, nobody's denying the industrial capacity of the US, and the fact that we had such a huge manpower reserve to call upon. But to say that "we did more" because we had more industry is demeaning and belittling to those who were shedding blood as we munched popcorn (figuratively). I love this country, I'm proud to be an American, and I will be the first to stand up and say that we could NOT have done it alone. To all our Allies around the world:



Rabid, I suggest you go read up on the political realities in the US during the 1930's.

We did more, as a matter of fact. And we did it because we had a larger industrial base and more population.

And quote me were I said we did it alone. I'm just pointing out a historical fact, that after the fighting in Normandy ended, it was the US that began to carry the burden of the ground war in the ETO. The UK and the Commonwealth hit their maximums while the US was still committing new divisions every couple of weeks till the very end of the war.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2009)

freebird said:


> Non Existant??
> 
> Sorry, somebody remind me please, who was it that pulled the nasty, hopeless job of defending Hong Kong to buy time WITH BLOOD for the Commonwealth to prepare for defences elsewhere?
> 
> ...




The war in the Pacific was primarily fought in that ocean. That's where the IJN concentrated practically their whole fleet. And that's where the USN and ANZAC forces concentrated practically their whole navies. The Canadians rightfully concentrated their naval forces in the Atlantic. Anything they sailed in the Indian Ocean was essentially irrelevant.

And as for 800 or so men fighting in Hong Kong? Just what exactly did they do? Nothing. They also were irrelevant. The Japanese saw them as poorly trained speed bumps and they should never have been sent there in the first place. The main fighting was elsewhere, far from HK. And the simple fact is Canada did not commit anything of value for the Pacific war (outside of the forces they supplied to Alaska while the US Army redeployed).


----------



## trackend (Jul 5, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Tell me again
> Monte Casino didn't compare to the combat and hardship of the US forces in the Ardennes



I think you need to read a bit about Monti cassino, however.
Its very hard to compare battles each has its own variety of hardship etc 

I certainly am not decrying the Ardennes campaign .Even my old mad was posted at a crossroads outside Antwerp with his Lewisgun during the battle of the Bulge and he was a matlot so their can be no doubt it was a hard fought action being very touch and go as to the outcome

All actions even the smallest (not that Cassino was small with 20,000 dead) at squad level can be appaulling to those in it


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 5, 2009)

sys, how can you say that the fighting for HK was irrelevant? Oh yeah, I forget, it wasn't an American posession so it doesn't count  FWIW, I really think you should start to realise that there is a whole planet outside the borders of the USA and most of it was engaged in the Second World War. No-one denies that the US made massive industrial and material contributions to winning the war. No-one denies that US servicemen fought bravely across the globe. But what you are doing is simply vulgar and insulting, suggesting that the scarifices made by Canadian troops were 'irrelevant'. There weren't many Americans flying in the BoB, but I consider their contributions 'relevant' because we needed every pilot we could get, and because they got off their behinds to help when the US Ambassador to the UK was advising we give up and surrender to Hitler. I respect what our Allies did for us, maybe you should do likewise.


----------



## lingo (Jul 5, 2009)

Personally I blame Hollywood and the US TV industry for continually putting out rubbish in the name of history and entertainment (but in reality about profit), as it has the unfortunate effect of brain washing some people.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 5, 2009)

trackend said:


> I think you need to read a bit about Monte Cassino, however.
> Its very hard to compare battles each has its own variety of hardship etc
> 
> All actions even the smallest (not that Cassino was small with 20,000 dead) at squad level can be appalling to those in it


...and I think you need to read the bloody thread
_IT'S NOT ME DOING THE COMPARING!_
the fact that its hard to compare battles on the premise you've provided is _exactly_ what I've been saying!

Shall we try something closer to 50 - 60,000 dead? Maybe you need to read a bit about it too

*1. Monte Casino, World War II* (1943-18 May 1944): 60,000 
30 May 2004 _Washington Post_ review of Monte Casino by Matthew Parker: 60,000 Allied and German dead.

*2. Battle of Monte Cassino WW II*
1/4/1944 - 5/19/1944 135 Days 
54,000+ casualties 400/day 

Part of the Italian Campaign. The Battle of Monte Cassino (also known as the Battle for Rome) was a costly series of four battles in WWII, fought with the intention of breaking through and seizing Rome. The invasion of Italy was partially a feint to draw in more Germans to prepare for the upcoming invasion of France on D-Day. The Gustav Line was anchored by Germans holding valleys and certain surrounding peaks and ridges, but not the historic abbey of Monte Cassino, founded in 524 AD, although they manned defensive positions set into the steep slopes below the abbey walls. On February 15 the monastery, high on a peak overlooking the town of Cassino, was destroyed by American B-17 and B-26 bombers. Two days after the bombing, crack German paratroopers poured into the ruins to defend it. From January 12 to May 18, it was assaulted four times by Allied troops, for a loss of over 54,000 Allied and 20,000 German soldiers.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 5, 2009)

By 1942 Canada was well on its way to becoming the Air School of the Commonwealth - the Commonwealth Air Training Program. A HUGE contribution to the war effort that Canadians in Canada were well aware of and very proud to support. Canada trained Brits, Yanks, Poles, Czechs, Norwegians as well as our own and other Commonwealth airmen.

As for Canada's involvement in the Pacific - don't tell the Canadians captured in Kong Kong in December 1941 who were shipped to Japan as slave labor
that there wasn't a Canadian involvement. And the last Victoria Cross awarded in WW2 was won by a RCN Corsair pilot.

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 5, 2009)

As for Canada's non-existent "industrial capacity" ..... wrong, wrong, wrong.

Long before US factories were pumping out GM 8x8's - Canada was shipping CMP (Canadian Military Pattern) trucks to the UK, India and the ME.
After Barbarossa Canada shipped Valentine tanks to the USSR. Brens and Stens were manufactured in the 10's to thousands.

Canada started the role of the Arsenal of Democracy while the US was still officially out of it. 

Of course lots of young American pilots crossed the border and joined us.

MM
Toronto


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 5, 2009)

Sys is correct in that Canada was maxed out but these were volunteers , seeing how the overseas component of the Canadian military was all volunteer towards late 44 they were having trouble with enough volunteer replacements and began the process of using draftees but very few draftees actually madde it overseas


----------



## trackend (Jul 5, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> ...and I think you need to read the bloody thread
> _IT'S NOT ME DOING THE COMPARING!_
> the fact that its hard to compare battles on the premise you've provided is _exactly_ what I've been saying!
> 
> .



If I am in error I appologise, any reasonable point made I'll except, but dont start swearing at me I dont like it.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Sys is correct in that Canada was maxed out but these were volunteers , seeing how the overseas component of the Canadian military was all volunteer towards late 44 they were having trouble with enough volunteer replacements and began the process of using draftees but very few draftees actually madde it overseas



Thanks PB.

The UK and its Commonwealth allies were out of manpower by the end of Market-Garden. Any new troops coming into their armies were just one for one replacements.

The US on the other hand, not only could replace losses (especially after the Ardennes) but actually bring in fresh new divisions on a weekly basis. 

And the scary thing is the US was planning an even larger expansion of the army (if needed). But events in the summer of 1945 precluded that.



BombTaxi said:


> sys, how can you say that the fighting for HK was irrelevant? Oh yeah, I forget, it wasn't an American posession so it doesn't count  FWIW, I really think you should start to realise that there is a whole planet outside the borders of the USA and most of it was engaged in the Second World War. No-one denies that the US made massive industrial and material contributions to winning the war. No-one denies that US servicemen fought bravely across the globe. But what you are doing is simply vulgar and insulting, suggesting that the scarifices made by Canadian troops were 'irrelevant'. There weren't many Americans flying in the BoB, but I consider their contributions 'relevant' because we needed every pilot we could get, and because they got off their behinds to help when the US Ambassador to the UK was advising we give up and surrender to Hitler. I respect what our Allies did for us, maybe you should do likewise.



800 men in HK was irrelevant. They should never have been posted there when they were surrounded even before the shooting started, and were up against better trained, better equipped and [way more] numerically superior IJA troops. And they accomplished absolutely nothing. I would say the blame on that lays right with your govt for allowing it to happen in the first place. 

And in the end, that was the end of the Canadian contribution where the main fighting in the PTO/CBI was.

BTW, FDR was appalled by the conduct of the US Ambassador to the UK. He went by the wayside once an opportunity was found to recall him back to Washington. What an arse!



michaelmaltby said:


> As for Canada's non-existent "industrial capacity" ..... wrong, wrong, wrong.
> 
> Long before US factories were pumping out GM 8x8's - Canada was shipping CMP (Canadian Military Pattern) trucks to the UK, India and the ME.
> After Barbarossa Canada shipped Valentine tanks to the USSR. Brens and Stens were manufactured in the 10's to thousands.
> ...



The US industrial capabilities were so massive, that even if we say hypothetically Canada withdrew from hostilities and stopped production, the US would have picked up the slack and even expanded.

And the US arsenal of democracy really started in earnest in 1940 with the modest naval and aviation programs authorized in 1939.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> As for Canada's involvement in the Pacific - don't tell the Canadians captured in Kong Kong in December 1941 who were shipped to Japan as slave labor
> that there wasn't a Canadian involvement. And the last Victoria Cross awarded in WW2 was won by a RCN Corsair pilot.
> 
> MM



And just what did Canada do (in the PTO and CBI) in 1942, 1943, 1944 and most of 1945? Just because you show up when the war is about to end, doesn't mean you can claim any contributions to it.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 5, 2009)

This thread is crazy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Theres savage fighting on a small scale, and then there is savage fighting that lasts for weeks.



I think that only someone who has not served in combat would say such a thing.



plan_D said:


> For a start, there should be no discussion about who had it worst in Western Europe. Secondly, saying that any of the large battles didn't compare to the fighting in the Ardennes and Hurtgen is insulting. The only reason the casualties were so high is because the Allied command got it so badly wrong. Plus, for combat alone I think Metz had the highest percentage loss rate in West Europe - with some units suffering up to and above 50% casualties.
> 
> Those actions were no worse than Monte Cassino, which was no small scale action. Nor were they any worse than the battles fought in Holland - including Scheldt, Arnhem, Nijmegen. The German offensive in the Ardennes simply increased the numbers involved, not the ferocity of combat.
> 
> And if we're talking numbers, ferocity and casualties ...surely 6th June, 1944 would be a violent benchmark.



Agreed, can't say anything else about it.



BombTaxi said:


> Syscom, I have to say that I find your approach to this whole topic truly appalling. The Canadians stepped up to the plate and did their bit - so for you to knock them for sending less troops than the US is worse than mean-spirited, it's crass. Lets not forget the huge industrial effort Canada made too, sending not just bomber crews, but also the bombers for them to fly - by the thousand.
> 
> And the war DID start in 1939 - just because the US didn't join then doesn't make it any less of a war. The BoB, the Blitz, the Battle of France, the opening phase of Barbarossa - these were all real and important even if the US wasn't involved And yes, the Ardennes were terrible, but every nation fought protracted and bloody battles in every theater - someone has already mentioned Cassino as an example, and there are more
> 
> Your view simply assumes that the US was the only major player in the European War - that is utter rubbish and you and I both know it. Instead of belittling the other Allies, perhaps you might contemplate that for the past 65 years, many of them have stood by you, and continue to do so today - Canada included.



Agreed as well...



syscom3 said:


> Rabid, I suggest you go read up on the political realities in the US during the 1930's.
> 
> We did more, as a matter of fact. And we did it because we had a larger industrial base and more population.
> 
> And quote me were I said we did it alone. I'm just pointing out a historical fact, that after the fighting in Normandy ended, it was the US that began to carry the burden of the ground war in the ETO. The UK and the Commonwealth hit their maximums while the US was still committing new divisions every couple of weeks till the very end of the war.



Here is the thing. It is a fact that the US had the largest industrial base of the allies and the population to support it. Sys is right on this matter.

However to say that the other countries no matter how small or large did not contribute as much is insulting. It is insulting to the soldiers who fought. Why? *Every allied nation gave its blood, sweat and tears to defeat Nazi Germany and Japan.*

It is a rather obvious fact that Canada with its smaller population was not going to be able to field as many divisions as the US. But to say that what divisions that Canada fielded did not have it as hard as the US is just plain wrong. 

Where there Canadian soldiers spilling their blood? Yes

Who are you to say whether it was savage or not? War is hell and war is savage! If you had some combat experience you might understand that. That is why I will give you some slack.

In the end however, it is just another one of your typical cold postings when it comes to nations other than the US. You could have handled this thread so differently. Way to go Sys!



syscom3 said:


> Thanks PB.
> 
> The UK and its Commonwealth allies were out of manpower by the end of Market-Garden. Any new troops coming into their armies were just one for one replacements.
> 
> The US on the other hand, not only could replace losses (especially after the Ardennes) but actually bring in fresh new divisions on a weekly basis.



Does that make their contributions any less?



syscom3 said:


> And in the end, that was the end of the Canadian contribution where the main fighting in the PTO/CBI was.



World War 2 encompassed more than just the PTO/CBI.



Amsel said:


> This thread is crazy.



Agreed. I see a closure coming soon. People better play nice.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think that only someone who has not served in combat would say such a thing.



I would say that some of the Russian and German battles were on a scale that even the US/UK wouldn't have been able to handle.

And its irrelevant if someone has been or not been in combat to make observations about it on a macro level.

Think of it as looking at squad levels taking 5 or 6 casualties in a day or two as opposed to "Army" level casualties of several hundred per day over a period of time. The particiapants in the squad would say its "bad" and "savage". But the Generals might look at it as being sustainable [or not sustainable].

I suspect you know it too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> And its irrelevant if someone has been or not been in combat to make observations about it on a macro level.



It is to me, when another soldiers efforts are considered less than another, only because of the nation who's flag he was wearing.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 5, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Think of it as looking at squad levels taking 5 or 6 casualties in a day or two as opposed to "Army" level casualties of several hundred per day over a period of time. The particiapants in the squad would say its "bad" and "savage". But the Generals might look at it as being sustainable [or not sustainable]


I'm not sure what bearing that statement has on anything but it's turned into a pretty loathsome thread



syscom3 said:


> And its irrelevant if someone has been or not been in combat to make observations about it on a macro level


Believe me
only someone who hasn't been in combat could possibly drum up an argument like this and call it rational

I think you owe a big apology to your Canadian friends on here


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> I'm not sure what bearing that statement has on anything but it's turned into a pretty loathsome thread



Let me clarify it for you.

Theres small unit battles that look bad for the particpants. But when looked at a divisional/corps/army group/army/national level, it might not look bad at all.

What was the US division wiped out in the Battle of the Bulge ... 106th? To Bradley and Ike, it looked bad. To Marshall, it would have looked far less bad as he looked at manpower losses/replacements from a national level.

And the point of this, is to remind you as the US took on the brunt of the fighting done in the ETO. Metz, Hurtgoen Forest and the Ardennes are historical facts for battles that were unusually violent as compared to what the UK/Commonwealth forces were battling.


----------



## Butters (Jul 5, 2009)

This thread is getting crazy. You don't discount a nation's contribution to the war because they were intrinsically limited in means. All the Allies fought hard,bloody battles, and all sacrificed immense quantities of blood and treasure to defeat the Axis. That the Canadians played a trivial role in the PTO was due to the fact that the first priority of the Allied war effort was the defeat of Germany. By the time that was accomplished, the Japanese Empire was in its death throes. To re-eqip, re-train, and transport the Canadian army for battle in the PTO would have been nothing but an expensive gesture.

JL


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It is to me, when another soldiers efforts are considered less than another, only because of the nation who's flag he was wearing.



I am not smearing them. Just pointing out some historic facts. Canada contributed, but not in a way to make them the supermen of the war.

If anything, the country that contributed the most with having the least resources is Australia. They fought the Germans *and the* Japanese. Unlike the Canadians who only fought one foe.


----------



## trackend (Jul 5, 2009)

Time to stop posting and let things cool down a tad. catch you guys on another thread.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> I am not smearing them. Just pointing out some historic facts. Canada contributed, but not in a way to make them the supermen of the war.
> 
> If anything, the country that contributed the most with having the least resources is Australia. They fought the Germans *and the* Japanese. *Unlike the Canadians who only fought one foe.*



It is the way you come across, especially the way you say it. Just like the part I highlighted above. Very cold...


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 5, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> And just what did Canada do (in the PTO and CBI) in 1942, 1943, 1944 and most of 1945? Just because you show up when the war is about to end, doesn't mean you can claim any contributions to it.



actually probably more then you might think a great many of the radar sites were manned by Canadians including several in New Guinea and later the Phillipines , a little known fact is the the majority of most of the US radar operators were trained in Canada and we provided a little over 50% of all commonwealth crews


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> actually probably more then you might think a great many of the radar sites were manned by Canadians including several in New Guinea and later the Phillipines , a little known fact is the the majority of most of the US radar operators were trained in Canada and we provided a little over 50% of all commonwealth crews



Link please.

It is quite safe to say that the Canadians were preoccupied with the ETO (which includes the Med).

They were not present in any sense of the word, in the PTO/CBI.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It is the way you come across, especially the way you say it. Just like the part I highlighted above. Very cold...



Its historically accurate.

The Aussies fought both. The Canadians only one.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 5, 2009)

From the Official History of the Canadian Army, Part III, Chapter XIV

Two Canadian battalions helped to defend Hong Kong in 1941; 
An infantry brigade was employed in the enterprise against Kiska in 1943; 

I'm sure I can find more - I only spent 5 minutes on this.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2009)

> Two Canadian battalions helped to defend Hong Kong in 1941;



Which stopped the Japanese for what? A few hours? And when you think about the divisions and brigades that the Aussies were deploying, then these two battalions hardly any meaningfull contribution. 



> An infantry brigade was employed in the enterprise against Kiska in 1943;



As I noted, they get credit for this, as the US Army was redeploying forces. And after the ground fighting ended here, then that was it for anything meaningfull.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Which stopped the Japanese for what? A few hours? And when you think about the divisions and brigades that the Aussies were deploying, then these two battalions hardly any meaningfull contribution.



Again sys, how does that make the Canadian fighting soldier any less?

We should change your name to Soren Jr...

Anything else you wish to whine about? The fact that you have not received a user title, but others have...???


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 5, 2009)

Sys, let me put a question to you

If someone were to post belittling the US contribution to WWI because they didn't send as many troops as the other Allies, and didn't take as many casualties, how would you feel? My money says you would be insulted and offended - as you should be.

Think about it.

That is exactly what you are doing to our Canadian members here. It's crass, it's offensive and saying that you are just trying to be rational is no excuse. We all try to be rational here (most of us anyway). But you have really crossed a line here and just seem to be intent on steaming further beyond the pale. 

And your argument that the Canadians 'shouldn't have been in HK' makes no sense at all. They were Commonwealth soldiers defending Commonwealth territory. End of discussion. They had as much right and reason to be there as English troops did to be in India, or Rhodesians did to be on Bomber Command bases in the UK. That's how the Commonwealth and empire worked. It really is that simple.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 5, 2009)

I believe the thread is Canada's Wartime Effort, not Australia particated more in the PTO. Just beacause a Canadian served with another Common Wealth Unit does not take away from the fact he is a Canadian fighting in the PTO.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 6, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Sys, let me put a question to you
> If someone were to post belittling the US contribution to WWI because they didn't send as many troops as the other Allies, and didn't take as many casualties, how would you feel? My money says you would be insulted and offended - as you should be.



But the US did send a sizable contribution, with quite a few divisions waiting to be transported to Europe before the war ended. So just what historic facts are you going to twist?




> That is exactly what you are doing to our Canadian members here. It's crass, it's offensive and saying that you are just trying to be rational is no excuse. We all try to be rational here (most of us anyway). But you have really crossed a line here and just seem to be intent on steaming further beyond the pale.



Hey, Im just saying the Canadian contribution is exaggerated. 



> And your argument that the Canadians 'shouldn't have been in HK' makes no sense at all. They were Commonwealth soldiers defending Commonwealth territory. End of discussion. They had as much right and reason to be there as English troops did to be in India, or Rhodesians did to be on Bomber Command bases in the UK. That's how the Commonwealth and empire worked. It really is that simple.



They went to HK and did absolutely nothing of value. Far to few in number, poorly trained and led, and sent to a location that had zero chance of defending itself. The Brits knew they were the proverbial speed bumps of no use, and the Canadian Govt knew it to. A smart govt and an intelligent military would have sent them to Malaya where the would have value.

Either way, that was the end of Canada's contribution to the war in that part of the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> But the US did send a sizable contribution, with quite a few divisions waiting to be transported to Europe before the war ended. So just what historic facts are you going to twist?



And what contribution did they make that was any different than the Canadians in WW2? I am sure that if it were some other county, you would be downplaying it. Ain't that right??? 



syscom3 said:


> Hey, Im just saying the Canadian contribution is exaggerated.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 6, 2009)

I hardly think the war effort of Canada has been exagerated if anything the opposite is true , the US effort on the other hand has been exagerated in the minds of most simply because of mass media or popular culture , if you ask the average Joe about any war you'll find that most are not even aware of Canada s involvment . Every time a movie is made where there is no American invvolvment is apparent the Canadian character becomes an American eg The Great Escape Movie or even non existant such as the Longest Day.
Hong Kong was debacle is true but so were the Philipines and Wake Island . Very little is mentioned about the who escorted the 8th AF prior to the arrival of the P47 and P51 it sure wasn't P40's . The US is not alone in this the Brits are not much better. Work calls now but I will expand later


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 6, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Either way, that was the end of Canada's contribution to the war in that part of the war.



Am I understanding you correctly that according to you after this event no Canadians served in the PTO until 1945?

----------------------

Another point of fact I would like to throw out there is Canada alone produced 95% of Nickel and 50% of the aluminum required by the Allies. That fact alone makes Canada's contribution "under-exaggerated".


----------



## Glider (Jul 6, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The war started in Dec 1941 for the US.



Tell that to the relatives of the crew of the USS Ruben James


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 6, 2009)

I give up sys. It seems that you just want to argue straight past the point and pretend that the US won everything on it's own. Fine, go ahead. Your method of reckoning contribution to wars by the number of troops sent and casualties sustained is simply appalling. 

I wasn't going to twist any facts - merely to point out that the US committed far fewer troops than the UK, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Germany, or even Italy. And also to point out that total US combat deaths were fewer that those experienced by Greece or Bulgaria. This makes no difference to me at all - I still respect the US contribution to WWI. But surely you will have to admit by your own calculus that the US contribution was less relevant because it was not as big as most other countires  

Of course, that won't happen - you are totally incapable of seeing any historical view that doesn't revolve around the USA and it's superiority over the rest of the world. You started this thread supposedly to praise the Canadian war effort. As soon as people came foward to add their praise and reveal all the things the Canucks did, you got scared and started running the Canadians down in case they got more praise than the US. It's pathetic sys, I really have no other words for it. I shudder to think what you might have to say to the British contributions to WWII and the wars we have fought alongside you since then


----------



## Airframes (Jul 6, 2009)

It's a shame that all this has happened, as I was originally going to respond to the initial post, by expressing my interest in the story regarding the chap working at Juno beach. Does anyone happen to know how one would go about finding such an occupation? It would be a marvelous thing to be able to do, and I have the time, the interest, and at least a little of the knowledge to undertake such a worthy task.
Of course, whether my current disability would allow me to do such work is another matter!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 6, 2009)

BombTaxi - as a Canadian I sincerely thank you for your intelligent words. I started on the same vein some time ago - but after your "appalling" observation to Sys I realized that you were making my point better than I myself could.

I try not patronize people but in this case - with Sys - it is unfortunately unavoidable.

Sys is having a little "sport" with Canadians - turning our crank so to speak  Seen this behavior from American males - educated American males - who like to watch Canadians_ react._ Such behavior usually takes place .... IN BARS. Understand what I'm saying, Sys?

So a little education and perspective is coming you way, respectfully.

What this thread - and many others in this otherwise wonderful forum - have revealed is that it is possible for otherwise intelligent people - males - to get further and further off topic - and the further away from topic they get the deeper they dig in. [Soren's Germany-Japan-Russia thread is a classic ongoing example of this -- just how far things can progress beyond common sense logic + facts].

Canada's participation militarily and economically in WW2 can NOT be discussed in isolation from WW1. In both - Canada punched way, way, way beyond it's weight. What our American friend refuses to acknowledge is that the true measure of a country's value as an ally is its participation as PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION and GDP. And as our American friend knows from his own country's experience (sadly) the measure of participation is VOLUNTEER participation. Canada has never fielded a conscript force in modern times.

Canada lost an entire generation of Canadian young men in their very Promise and Prime ... (Britain, France, Germany, Australia etc also did) in a way that the US who was late to the party by THREE YEARS did not experience. That is not a criticism of the US - that is simply fact.

Having fought in EVERY major WW1 battle and continuously being deployed as SHOCK TROOPS - in 1918 the Canadian Army [Canada's 100 Days) rolled back the German Army - taking more ground and more prisoners than their MUCH LARGER American ally with their great equipment and good rations.

Those Canadian men who died 1914-1918 did not live to have the sons of their own to go to war in 1939. And the ones who did return in 1918 -- many had lost the desire or instinct to reproduce -- my moms two brothers and dad being examples dear to my heart.

Sys .. don't talk baseball-stats-WW2-history to me cause it doesn't mean a thing. Percentage of population (volunteer) participation and % GDP are the only honest measures and if you'd stop and think for a moment you realize I am right.

But keep cranking buddy ... I got the clutch depressed and the spark retarded 

MM
Toronto


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 6, 2009)




----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 6, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> BombTaxi - as a Canadian I sincerely thank you for your intelligent words. I started on the same vein some time ago - but after your "appalling" observation to Sys I realized that you were making my point better than I myself could.
> 
> I try not patronize people but in this case - with Sys - it is unfortunately unavoidable.
> 
> ...


----------



## Catch22 (Jul 6, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> BombTaxi - as a Canadian I sincerely thank you for your intelligent words. I started on the same vein some time ago - but after your "appalling" observation to Sys I realized that you were making my point better than I myself could.
> 
> I try not patronize people but in this case - with Sys - it is unfortunately unavoidable.
> 
> ...



VERY well put. And thanks BT.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 6, 2009)

NICE!, and A-Fricken-Men!!!!


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 6, 2009)

Thank you guys, glad to be of some service to you  8) And spot on MM, you have expressed some things there that I wasn't sure how to say.

I've been to Vimy and I've stood at the foot of that memorial and realised just how much Canada gave in the Great War. Ypres, Arras, Vimy, Passchendaele, the final offensive... the Canadians were there. 25 years later, you did it all again, at Dieppe, in Normandy, over the Ruhr, in the North Atlantic. And you're still doing it now in Afghanistan. That deserves some gratitude in my book


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 6, 2009)

Are you getting all this, Sys? It's mot personal, buddy, believe me 

I DO understand your underlying point. The US is a BIG society and a productive one. In 1939 your Depression wasn't over ... economy-industrial activity at about 35%. When it came - Pearl Harbour was a blessing [forgive me]. The US economy wasn't cooking fully till 1944.

Other than Russian and China - the US can't discuss the "contribution" of your allies honestly -- or at least it's not easy to do so when you're paying the freight. I appreciate that but you are blessed my American friend to have the great allies you have had - the Commonwealth Nations. Time and again our forces do MORE with LESS.

L'audace .. toujours l'audace.

MM


----------



## zoul310 (Jul 6, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> BombTaxi - as a Canadian I sincerely thank you for your intelligent words. I started on the same vein some time ago - but after your "appalling" observation to Sys I realized that you were making my point better than I myself could.
> 
> I try not patronize people but in this case - with Sys - it is unfortunately unavoidable.
> 
> ...



Very well put. Respect.
If you don't understand WW1 you don't have any clue for WW2.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 6, 2009)

Canada's role in WW2 was the Atlantic. Not the Pacific, so dont even try to offer proof of a token and ill advised defense of HK in 1941 as being proof they served everywhere.

Canada's production? The US certainly used your country to increase the efficiency of production. But by 1944, the US had so much capacity, it dwarfed yours. By madnitudes. And even Britains industrial production was far above yours.

But it was only Australia that fought both the best the axis could offer. They were the true heavy hitters of the small countries that really did make a difference in victory or not.


And by the way, WW1 was two decades before the second world war. Its quite irrelevent what Canada did in the first war.


----------



## zoul310 (Jul 6, 2009)

WW1 was the cemetery for many countries and many of them never recovered from these losses as explained by MM (this is valid for France as well). 
I cherish what the US did but :
For many years the only reference for people living in occupied europe were these : The BBC and the RAF. Churchill voice and the sight or the noise at night (my mom remembers vividly) of the RAF were their only sights of hope.
Inside these planes all countries were represented, poles, french, dutch, canadian, australian, NZ, belgium, Czhec, americans and I forget many. 
UK was the receptacle for hope and that should never be forgotten. 

Contribution of a country cannot be reduced to an operational theater. When men give their life they all contribute equally in the tomb. Atlantic war was fundamental. 

And don't forget that the deal between Roosevelt, Churchill and Staline was : Germany first.
Pacific became a secondary theater in effect.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 6, 2009)

Further proof that you have no idea what you are on about sys. What Canada did in WW1 is massively relevant - like France, the UK, Germany and Italy, but unlike the US, Canada had most a generation killed or wounded during the Great War. These countries also suffered huge political and industrial upheaval as a result of the conflict, which materially affected their ability to contribute to WW2, and their very reasons for becoming involved in it. In fact, WW2 could not have happened without WW1 - and that includes much of the Pacific war too. That much is elementary European history. 

Personally, I believe the Canadians did have an impact on the final victory - they sent divisions to the ETO, built and manned thousands of bombers, and assisted in keeping the North Atlantic lifeline open. How you can dismiss any of these actions as trivial is truly beyond me. Maybe you should read up a bit more on the contribution of the Commonwealth armies before you go running them down.

And what is it with you and belittlling countries that fought hard? Your arrogance really is awful. You seem to think that the US made the only worthwhile contribution to the war, yet by your own logic the US contribution is miniscule when placed next to the massive losses and huge industrial activity of the USSR. Or are you going to deny that as well and say the Russians only won because of Lend-Lease?


----------



## zoul310 (Jul 6, 2009)

The problem with that kind of post is that you put ranks. Now you are going to tell me that I don't like americans and don't appreciate their efforts.

I do. Let me tell you I do.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 6, 2009)

Thats my point entirely zoul, Syscoms idea of 'ranking' countries by the 'significance' of their contribution is insulting and senseless. I agree with everything you said in your previous post though; I was trying to work out my own reply when you posted it


----------



## Amsel (Jul 6, 2009)

I think that lend lease helped the communists beat Germany.


----------



## zoul310 (Jul 6, 2009)

A frog and a Rosbif... Incredible !


----------



## Amsel (Jul 6, 2009)

But I'm not anti-Canadian, and I never make fun of Canada even when every other American is. Though I must admit I did chuckle quite a bit during the movie "Canadian Bacon".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> They were the true heavy hitters of the small countries that really did make a difference in victory or not.



There he goes again! Just like the energizer bunny, wind him up and let him go!

If I were a soldier who fought in WW2 I would bitch slap you! To say that the blood spilled by any soldier did not contribute to victory is a slap in the face.

Everyone pay no attention to sys, he lives in a very narrow world. Outside of his little California home, there is nothing else.


----------



## lingo (Jul 7, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Everyone pay no attention to sys
> 
> 
> The fact that this has been a polite and mannerly discussion from the beginning rather proves that people have realised that syscom3 is a saddlebag (or 2)short of a camel load. His myopia is extreme and I blame too much viewing of American TV for his attitude. He might care to read some authoritative history books instead of depending on patrioteering TV recycling the works of the Dream Factories.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 7, 2009)

Sys - whatever so say, Buddy. Whatever ..... mind the step.

MM


----------



## Catch22 (Jul 7, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I think that lend lease helped the communists beat Germany.



That wasn't what he meant, all he meant was that the ONLY reason the Soviets won was because of lend-lease. It certainly did help enormously, but there was no single reason why the Soviets beat the Germans.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 7, 2009)

The following link has some statistics [which you may choose to credit or not ] but the casualties as % of population are very revealing .. as is the Commonwealth casualty total VS the US total.

Worth noting.

World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 7, 2009)

Compare-contrast with same for WW1. Again noting Commonwealth vs US.

Sys _is_ correct that - as a % of population - in both WW1 and 2 the Australian contribution was outstanding. 

That said - Canada's industrial contribution in both wars exceeded Australia's.

World War I casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MM


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 7, 2009)

I for the most part don't see all that much wrong with Syscoms statements although they could piss some off 
but I will follow that age old formula that we use in Canadathe *10 times rule* as population wise they are 10times the population we would have had overseas
120 fighter squadrons
150 heavy bomber
30 intruder night fighter
50 Divisions
10000 ships 
would manufacteured 8million vehicles
160000 aircraft


----------



## Amsel (Jul 7, 2009)

Great rule of thumb, Pb.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 7, 2009)

PB you're point is correctly taken. What I think BombTaxi and I objected to was not the argument or facts marshaled but the "in your face" tone in which it was constantly presented. 

I repeat from earlier - my response to your 10%er. Voluntary participation in conflict + % of GDP earmarked to support such "conflict" is a true and fair measure of the commitment that an ally will bring to a conflict. By THAT measure and only that measure is it fair to judge your allies. If you don't agree - fine - but let's hear why? Because Sys is just a needle stuck in a track on this subject - tone wise.

I don't need to be instructed that Canada was running out of steam - men - in 1945. Same in 1918 (Conscription crises from which we are still recovering politically). You see that today in Af'stan when General Leslie says that the Canadian Army is "worn out". I wouldn't tolerate for a second an argument that claimed that Canada was a weak ally in Af'stan. Canada does what it has to do and usually puts it's heart and soul into doing it. And when it's DONE we leave our trucks in Europe for the Dutch, and go home


Canada's performance (as an ally) in ALL wars is relevant to this thread. Including the Pats winning a Presidential Citation in Korea.

Little powers know how to do great damage to their enemies. Finland. Australia. Canada. VietNam, Estonia. All of these defy SysCom's statistical analysis. [And all pay dearly, sadly, for it]

Cheers,

MM


----------



## Freebird (Jul 7, 2009)

Syscom, thanks for posting the topic, I don't believe you were trying to deliberately insult the Canadian veterans, but I think Adler is correct, it was an extremely poor choice of words. 

I'll only respond to your analysis on the "macro" scale,you are all wet on quite a few of the points. 



syscom3 said:


> Let me clarify it for you.
> 
> And the point of this, is to remind you as the US took on the brunt of the fighting done in the ETO. Metz, Hurtgoen Forest and the Ardennes are historical facts for battles that were unusually violent as compared to what the UK/Commonwealth forces were battling.



*Wrong.*  If you consider *only* the US and UK, and *only* the period 1944 - 1945, perhaps the US had 60% or so of the combat in the ETO/MTO. However the nation that "took on the brunt of the fighting done in the ETO" was undoubtably the Russians, and if you consider the *whole* ground war 1939 - 1944 in the ETO MTO I think that you will find that the UK Commonwealth had more boots on the ground for more days than the US.




syscom3 said:


> If anything, the country that contributed the most with having the least resources is Australia. They fought the Germans *and the* Japanese. Unlike the Canadians who only fought one foe.





syscom3 said:


> But it was only Australia *that fought both the best the axis could offer*. They were the true heavy hitters of the small countries that really did make a difference in victory or not.



*Wrong*
Obviously the last thing I want to do is to get into a silly pissing match with any Aussies or Americans here about "who fought the tougher bad guys". 
The Aussies fought in the PTO MTO. Canadians fought in the PTO, ETO, MTO {Is Italy MTO or ETO?} and also a heavy role in the battle of the Atlantic. *Ultimately though, ALL of the Commonwealth nations had a role in all theaters*

As for 


Wiki said:


> In the first month of the Normandy campaign, Canadian, British and Polish troops *were opposed by some of the strongest and best trained German troops in the theatre*, including the 1st SS Division, the 12th SS Division and the Panzer Lehr Division. Several costly operations were mounted by the Canadians to fight a path to the pivotal city of Caen and then south towards Falaise, part of the Allied attempt to liberate Paris. Canadian troops played a heavy role in the liberation of Paris.



Military history of Canada during the Second World War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*I dunno, but I would think that the Panzer Lehr the 1st SS Panzer - Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (LSSAH) would qualify as among the "best".* Was the 38th division IJA that executed Canadian PoWs "better" or "worse" than the Japanese units that executed the Aussie PoWs in Malaysia? Someone else can answer that. 



syscom3 said:


> Which stopped the Japanese for what? A few hours? And when you think about the divisions and brigades that the Aussies were deploying, then these two battalions hardly any meaningfull contribution.



*Wrong again*
No, as a matter of fact they were attacked at the same time as "Pearl", and held out until Christmas. Hardly a "few hours"



syscom3 said:


> Canada's production? .... *But by 1944,* the US had so much capacity, it dwarfed yours. By madnitudes. And even Britains industrial production was far above yours.




Uh, yeah, Britain has ~4 times the population.  And the US production in 1944 would be completely "irrelevant" if it hadn't been for the huge sacrifices early in the war by ALL the Allies. If the UK is defeated and Russia folds by 1942, your "projected 1944 production" means nothing 




syscom3 said:


> If anything, the country that contributed the most with having the least resources is Australia. They were the true heavy hitters of the small countries.



I'll agree with you halfway here, the Aussie did provide a "maximum effort", unfortunately Canada was saddled with a self-serving fool for PM, who meddled with military policy for crass political benefit. The reason that the Canadians didn't have any involvement in the MTO in 1941 1942 was because the PM privately asked the British to keep Canadians out of combat to pander to the Quebec French. 

Whitehall should have pulled the rug out from under this idiot, but I'll say no more about politics.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 8, 2009)

Some people will make a claim, regardless of what the facts are and you cannot expect an unreasonable person to be reasonable.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 8, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Thats my point entirely zoul, Syscoms idea of 'ranking' countries by the 'significance' of their contribution is insulting and senseless. I agree with everything you said in your previous post though; I was trying to work out my own reply when you posted it



Wars are won by a countries contribution to the cause.

If it weren't for the Russians, Germany could have won the war in Europe.

If it werent for the US, The allies would have lost, no one would have opened a western front.

The US single handily won the war in the PTO (with all due respect to the Aussies).


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 8, 2009)

lingo said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone pay no attention to sys
> ...


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 8, 2009)

freebird said:


> Syscom, thanks for posting the topic, I don't believe you were trying to deliberately insult the Canadian veterans, but I think Adler is correct, it was an extremely poor choice of words.



Yes it was.


As for the Aussies (which includes the NZ'ers) contribution .... it was the Aussie coast watchers who ensured a US victory on Guadalcanal.

It was the Aussies in NG who bailed out several US army units from being mauled by the Japanese.

And I would not be incorrect in saying that if it weren't for the Aussies, the war in the SW Pacific would have turned out quite differently.

And it was Aussie forces who trained the US forces in the peculiarities in jungle warfare. And it wasn't the Canadians teaching the US about how to fight the Germans.

As for Europe, it seems most of Canada's contributions went to naught because of you being under a UK command that squandered your forces. And after Normandy, the whole British Army was bled dry. The contributions of the BA became less and less relevant as the US Army expanded week by week. Care to debate that fact?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 8, 2009)

> No, as a matter of fact they were attacked at the same time as "Pearl", and held out until Christmas. Hardly a "few hours"



It still boils down to a token force that should never have been there in the first place, that did not effect the course of the Japanese operations in China. And even before the battle was over, that was the end of the Canadian contribution in any meaningful way to the main fight in the CBI/SW Pacific/PTO. After that, it was a US, ANZAC and Brit show (and of course the Chinese)



> And the US production in 1944 would be completely "irrelevant" if it hadn't been for the huge sacrifices early in the war by ALL the Allies. If the UK is defeated and Russia folds by 1942, your "projected 1944 production" means nothing



Ummm, the US industrial might was starting to make its power known in 1940. The whole concept of the US industrial mobilization in that year was predicated on an allied collapse and the US was the only one left standing.


----------



## lingo (Jul 8, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> lingo said:
> 
> 
> > Who are you Lingo?
> ...


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 8, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Wars are won by a countries contribution to the cause.
> 
> If it werent for the US, The allies would have lost, no one would have opened a western front.
> 
> The US single handily won the war in the PTO (with all due respect to the Aussies).



Dear God, you are crazy syscom. The western front was opened on *3rd September 1939 when the war started*. Brits, Poles, Czechs, Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Belgians, Irishmen, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Rhodesians, Canadians and even a few Americans were fighting and dying in the West long before the US decided to intervene, and your statement to the contrary is a massive insult to their memory.

As for your little statement about the Pacific - I say to hell with you. A MASSIVE British army fought in India and Burma, making sure the Japanese didn't capture India and cut off supplies to the PTO - look up the Battle of Meiktila if you want to find out a bit about what they did. They fought hard and they fought well, and thousands of them never came home. Now in your sheer ignorance and arrogance you pretend they never existed. Nice one sys, you're an idiot.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 8, 2009)

" ... Canada's production? The US certainly used your country to increase the efficiency of production..."

" ... it seems most of Canada's contributions went to naught because of you being under a UK command that squandered your forces."

The first quote, Syscom, is just nonesensical. Exactly WHAT are you trying to say. The BULK of Canada's wartime industrial production was stuff that the US didn't even use - Hurricane fighters, Lancasters, Mosquitos, Bren, Sten and Lee Enfields, corvettes, fairmiles, etc. etc. This was not integrated N. American production (Yes - some PBY's and Helldivers were made in Canada).

The second quote - well - . Ask the Dutch if Canada's efforts were "of naught".

Your facts are SELECVIVE and you mind is closed. I have no quarrel with your emphasis on the American overwhelming contribution in the Pacific - but remember - FDR not believing in - and wanting to support - the British Empire in no way diminishes the British efforts in India, Burma and Malaysia. Overall - Commonwealth nations have done better post WW2 - than most - in terms of rights, freedoms, education and progress. Yes - there are some bloody exceptions - but as Geo W would say - creating a society ruled by law and freedom is not a simple process.

As for this little gem: " .. And it wasn't the Canadians teaching the US about how to fight the Germans."

American volunteer pilots were trained in Canada pre-7-12-41. And there certainly were Canadian instructors in Billings, Montana (as well as American) to train the 1st Special Forces Regiment. [My source for that, not the movie Devil's Brigade but personal discussions].

But keep crankin' Buddy - it's a good excuse to air our boots.

MM


----------



## trackend (Jul 8, 2009)

I was going to let the site calm down but sorry, I am not going to let the memory of thousands of allied dead in the far east be swept aside with a tap of the keyboard. I suggest SYS you whip over here to Duxford on Saturday as the Burma Star Assosiation lads always have a stand in the land warfare hall collecting for those Vets who are still suffering 60years after they came home. Go and tell them that the mates they lost in Malaya, Borneo, Burma,Java, Sumatra ect ect did nothing to assist in victory over Japan as "The US single handily won the war in the PTO", they may now be old men but I wouldnt fancy your chances sunshine.


All I can think is that you worded it rather badly SYS. I very much hope thats the case anyway.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 8, 2009)

There is hope. This stirring site proves Sys' contention that: " ... wars are won by countries' commitment to the cause ..." and mine ...

The Black Devils: US-Canadian 1st Special Service Force [Archive] - WW2 in Color History Forum

Effective warfare. Not simply "the numbers" Sys - but the commitment - like Anzio Beachead.

MM


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 8, 2009)

*This thread should already be closed, but I am going to leave it open. 

Why?

Because I agree with many that the service of many is being tarnished here...

I think the person needs to take their lumps and then leave.*


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 8, 2009)

If anybody is paying attention to the information-perspectives being exchanged in this thread, CrewChief, it's actually quite a useful thread. 
It should have started from the get-go with Sys advancing his premise "wars are won by a country's contribution to the cause .."
That is a worthy thread-topic. It suggests that if an industrial country pours enough resources/ manpower into "the cause" it can't lose. And we know that logic isn't always born out by history. Viet Nam and the American Revolution both confound Sys' assumption on THAT basis. The 1939 Finno-Russian Winter War demonstrates my premise that a small power fighting effectively can cause serious pain and suffering to a larger power [but pay for their success in the end].

Don't close it off, Chief 

MM


----------



## Freebird (Jul 8, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> *This thread should already be closed, but I am going to leave it open.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...




Adler I think Syscom has confirmed that he wasn't intending to demean the service of Canada's vets, it was just a poor choice of words.  



freebird said:


> Syscom, thanks for posting the topic, I don't believe you were trying to deliberately insult the Canadian veterans, but I think Adler is correct, it was an extremely poor choice of words.





syscom3 said:


> Yes it was.




If one assumes that his question was "Did Canada have any meaningful role in the PTO?", then I am going to answer refute his assumptions, so I sure hope you don't lock it before then...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 8, 2009)

freebird said:


> Adler I think Syscom has confirmed that he wasn't intending to demean the service of Canada's vets, it was just a poor choice of words.



Yet he continues to use poor choices of words? syscom3 knows very well that he is using poor choices of words. He believes them. This is not the first time he has sparked up these things before on several occasions.

I agree that the information in this thread is good. But the fact that "allied troops died for nothing" is wrong...


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 8, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yet he continues to use poor choices of words? syscom3 knows very well that he is using poor choices of words. He believes them


I agree
it's too consistent throughout the thread to be a 'poor choice of words' - this thread went sour a long time ago. Step up to the plate and apologise to the Canadians sys, your views are unwarranted, baseless and offensive.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 8, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> And after Normandy, the whole British Army was bled dry. The contributions of the BA became less and less relevant as the US Army expanded week by week. Care to debate that fact?



Certainly in the last months of 1944 the US was able to replace manpower build up in the ETO, while the UK, Commonwealth other Allies were mostly tapped out. *However the US Army had just about "zero" chance of ever landing in France if the UK Commonwealth hadn't laid down the basis of of the whole war effort in 1940, 1941 1942* by keeping the Axis from gaining the oil supplies of the Middle East and preventing the Axis from knocking Russia out of the war. For the period of time up to Nov 1942 the US didn't have the capability to have any ground operations in the ETO, nor to send any meaningful help to Russia without British ships

Care to debate that?




syscom3 said:


> They went to HK and did absolutely nothing of value. *Far to few in number*,



*That pretty much describes the situation everywhere in the PTO* {mainly as regards to modern aircraft heavy weapons}  Also "Far to few in number" also describes the number of trained, combat ready US troops a in Dec 1941.... 




syscom3 said:


> poorly trained and led,



*Huh??*
What possible basis do you have for this charge? ???

The Winnipeg Grenadiers the Royal Rifles {Canadian} were as well trained as most Allied combat troops serving in their first tour. The fact that a single Canadian company caused over 800 Japanese casualties is what pissed of the Japanese caused its commander to lose face. They had been planning for a walk-over in HK, yet the fact that the Canadians, Royal Scots the other defenders put up a stubborn defence for 3 weeks was unexpected for the Japanese



syscom3 said:


> . The Brits knew they were the proverbial speed bumps of no use, and the Canadian Govt knew it to. A smart govt and an intelligent military would have sent them to Malaya where the would have value.



Are you talking about BRITISH or CANADIAN military command? The War Office in London was mainly responsible for deciding where to deploy *ALL* Commonwealth troops overseas, it was their call to send troops to HK or Malaya, not Ottawa's call.



syscom3 said:


> They went to HK and *did absolutely nothing of value*.
> 
> Not the Pacific, so dont even try to offer proof of a token and ill advised defense of HK in 1941.... these two battalions* hardly any meaningfull contribution.*



*Absolutely Wrong!!*

Syscom, you can't use 20/20 hindsight to make assumptions about the plans made prior to Dec 6 1941!

Could I say that the USA was silly to waste resources building the BB Arizona training the crew, because it had zero useful role in WWII?

Of course not, it's ludicrous.

The same way that you criticize the plans for the defence of SE Asia, based on 20/20 hindsight.

Basic thumbnail of history:

Prior to WWII, the British Admiralty planned for Singapore to be able to hold out fro 6 months, as in the event of war, the French fleet would keep the Italians bottled up, while a British fleet would be sent east to link up with the Americans and deal with the Japanese.

Obviously the collapse of France in 1940 threw a wrench in the plans.

The British American later made plans for two possible actions from the Japanese.

*1.)* Japan attacks Malaya Indonesia, at this point the US fleet engages the Japanese, and uses it's bombers to devastate Japan es military bases assets {this is why all the B-17's were in Philippines} Meanwhile a British fleet would arrive to provide relief of Malaya/Singapore

or *2.)* Japan attacks the Philippines as well, in addition to the above.

The US never contemplated Japanese attacks on Hawaii, other than sabotage.


*In either case, the Philippines Malaya were to hold out until strong Allied Naval Air forces could arrive in theater. *


The original plans were tossed on the trash heap of history by the devastating attack on "Pearl".

Now, the Philippines was attacked by 130,000 Japanese troops {vs. ~150,000 US allied troops.}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippines_(1942)

Malaya was attacked by 70,000 Japanese troops vs. ~ 100,000 Commonwealth {Later arrivals would boost this to ~140,000 Allied}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Malaya

In Hong Kong the ~2,000 Canadians made up around 35% - 40% of the ~5,500 "solid" army ground forces.
{In addition RAF, RN, Indian, fortress Chinese aux. troops pushed the total to ~14,000 military personnel
Instead of the Japanese occupying an undefended HongKong with a brigade or 2, they committed over *52,000*  troops to capture the city. - Almost 4x the number of allied military



> British, Canadian and Indian forces, commanded by Major-General Christopher Michael Maltby supported by the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Forces resisted the Japanese invasion by the 38th Division, commanded by Lieutenant General Sakai Takashi, but were [badly] outnumbered (Japanese, 52,000; Allied, 14,000) and lacked their opponents' recent combat experience.


Battle of Hong Kong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Had things gone according to pre-war plans* the sacrifice of these troops in HK would deny the Japanese ~40,000 - 45,000 troops which could not be used to attack Malaya. Even with the disasters of early Dec 1941, Malaya/Singapore SHOULD have been able to hold out, with competent organization. {Percival Whitehall dropped the ball - badly}

*However*, add another ~45,000 troops to the 70,000 already committed to Malaya, and the task becomes almost impossible. 

*So the point is this*: far from doing "absolutely nothing of value", the Canadians troops were there to buy crucial time to save Malaya.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 8, 2009)

Theres always wasted and useless deaths in any conflict, and WW2 seemed to have plenty of it.

Lets see ....

Canadians at HK .... completely useless waste of personell. Just what were two battalions going to do against a seasoned Japanese force? 

US 11th AF ...... completely wasted material and personell in attempting to hit the Kuriles for zero gain, even when it was obvious this was not a place to fly airplanes.

The Aussies at Balikpapin .... Thanks Doug for asking the Aussies to invade Borneo when it had been cutoff completely from Japan for already half a year.

All the allied troops in Italy that died or were wounded after the invasion of southern france ..... wasted completely when the fight was now on the German border not the mountains of Italy.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 8, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yet he continues to use poor choices of words? syscom3 knows very well that he is using poor choices of words. He believes them. This is not the first time he has sparked up these things before on several occasions.
> 
> I agree that the information in this thread is good. But the fact that "allied troops died for nothing" is wrong...



That's why I'm going to refute some of the factual errors provide an alternate analysis of his strategic assumptions.

As to the choice of words, I'm not going to comment, leave that up to the reader. I would note however that McCain got in trouble for using the same term "wasted" for pointless military deaths due to incompetant command of the top leadership.

Although there were a bunch of stupid decisions that lead to pointless deaths in WWII, I happen to disagree that the planned defence of HK served no purpose.

Part II of my reply to follow...


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 8, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Theres always wasted and useless deaths in any conflict, and WW2 seemed to have plenty of it.
> 
> Lets see ....
> 
> ...



Wake up and read what people are posting. The Canadians in HK were part of a 14,000 strong mixed Commonwealth force, not some isolated demi-brigade. They did their bit as a part of a force fighting against massive quantative and qualitative odds. I would hope you could find it within yourself o show some scrap of respect for that contribution.

The 11th AF and Balikpapan I know too little about to make a rational comment. But I will say this about Italy; if you cannot understand why that front was kept open, you obviously know squat about basic military startegy. The more fronts you fight on, the thinner you get. The Germans had committed themselves to holding Italy. Keeping up the fight after Operation Anvil kept troops in Italy who could have been deployed elsewhere and helped to push the Allies back from the German borders. The Allies could afford to divert the resources; Germany could not. The argument for keeping the front open and keeping the Germans tied down is a no-brainer.

I find it almost impossible to believe that you are still clinging to your senseless arguments when you have obviously offended and upset a good number of people on this board. Are you too proud to back down sys? Or simply too blind to see what you have done?

Oh, and have you looked up Meiktila or Kohima yet? As well as an apology to the Canadians, I don't think a word or two to us Brits would go amiss either...


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 8, 2009)

I've noticed that many of us have posted small details of our relatives military exploits 
Dad was an aircraft mechanic in the RCAF mostly training establishments followed by working the NW Staging route on his way to the PTO when VJ day occured
Mom made 25lb cannon shells
Uncle Frank and Fred were armouers with 441 sqn England , France, Belgium , Netherlands 
Uncle Walter was a Sapper in from Sicily to Ortona then Normandy to Germany wounded 
Uncle Joe was a infanteer Sicily, Italy < Normandy, Belgium Holland Germany wounded a few times 
Uncle Bill worked on the Manhattan Project here in Niagara Falls 
Now that you've insulted these guys *Syscom what did your family do*


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 8, 2009)

> *Syscom what did your family do*



LOL!!!!

You cant be serious?

That had to be the stupidest post I have ever seen.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 8, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> LOL!!!!
> 
> You cant be serious?
> 
> That had to be the stupidest post I have ever seen.


it makes a point that your becoming insulting you talk about all things military but have never walked the walk


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 8, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> it makes a point that your becoming insulting you talk about all things military but have never walked the walk



Tell me about what you did in WW2?

You invent a time machine? 

I will tell you what pb ..... you delete your stupid post, and I will do my the same for my response to you.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 8, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> it makes a point that your becoming insulting you talk about all things military but have never walked the walk



Guys, this thread is going downhill fast, there are some interesting discussions of Canada's role in WWII, so let's avoid getting the thread locked by getting into a pissing contest about who's relatives or country did more... 


pb, what's your opinion on Hong Kong, should it have been evacuated of military forces? Or was it needed to tie down Japanese forces?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 8, 2009)

I could careless if 10 or 100 Canadian Divisions fought in only one or all theatres. I could careless if Canadian soldiers fought under Canadian Leadership, Commonwealth Leadership or American Leadership.

I respect the fact they had the balls to fight on the front lines, they lived on the front lines, and they died on the front lines.

I respect the fact they stood while do others did not, I respect the fact that people in Canada worked in factories, farms, and mines to help support the allied cause.

Thanks Canada, I appreciate what you did and still continue to do.


----------



## Butters (Jul 8, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Theres always wasted and useless deaths in any conflict, and WW2 seemed to have plenty of it.
> 
> Lets see ....
> 
> ...



Lets see...

All the US troops ( and other inconsequential Allied soldiers) that died after the Soviet destruction of Army Group Center...wasted completely because now the Russians were ready to launch the decisive campaign that ended with the occupation of Berlin and the surrender of the Third Reich.

At least by your 'logic'...

JL


----------



## Freebird (Jul 8, 2009)

Guys, I don't think there is anyone here that wants to insult the sacrifice of those who served their country. {Except perhaps those with a Homer Simpson pea-brain Avatar... }



freebird said:


> Syscom, thanks for posting the topic, I don't believe you were trying to deliberately insult the Canadian veterans, but I think Adler is correct, it was an extremely poor choice of words.





syscom3 said:


> Yes it was.



Syscom had admitted that he wasn't trying to belittle anyone's service, the term "wasted" is just short for *"Someone who paid the ultimate sacrifice, but who's bravery was squandered by some incompetent idiot in high command, by sending them on a stupid mission that served no real purpose"*

Did I summarize that correctly Syscom?

The Dieppe raid the loss of the PoW Repulse spring to mind as some really stupid command decisions that needlessly quandered men material.

So let's move on from the Syscom bashing, and look at the two questions he raised.
{Otherwise I think this thread is going to get nuked}

1.) Was the defence of Hong Kong in 1941 a good idea or not?

2.) Did Canada have any meaningful contribution to the PTO ? {after Hong Kong - Dec 1941}


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 8, 2009)

Brilliant, Butters


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 8, 2009)

Heh. Can't wait to see what he says about the "waste" of men on Bataan and Corregidor. Same upper-eschelon reasoning as the HK standoff.


----------



## Butters (Jul 8, 2009)

Or Wake Island...

JL


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 8, 2009)

Wake Island was close enough to Hawaii to be defended. And it was the USN that let them down. There's a thread somewhere in this forum that explained just what happened. There's a difference in reinforcing your troops with the expectations they can be successful, and throwing good troops into an impossible situation.

The PI? MacArthur brought stupidity to a new level when he allowed his air force to be destroyed. Prior to that, there is every possibility that he could have fought the Japanese well into late 1942.

And sadly for the "Battling Bastards of Bataan", they too had their lives wasted. They didn't slow down the Japanese a minute.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 8, 2009)

Butters said:


> Lets see...
> 
> All the US troops ( and other inconsequential Allied soldiers) that died after the Soviet destruction of Army Group Center...wasted completely because now the Russians were ready to launch the decisive campaign that ended with the occupation of Berlin and the surrender of the Third Reich.
> 
> ...



Huh?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 8, 2009)

freebird said:


> Did I summarize that correctly Syscom?



Yes.



> The Dieppe raid the loss of the PoW Repulse spring to mind as some really stupid command decisions that needlessly quandered men material.
> 
> So let's move on from the Syscom bashing, and look at the two questions he raised.
> {Otherwise I think this thread is going to get nuked}
> ...



Not one bit. Any honest war gaming would show the the forces there were inadequate to the task, and were essentially deep in Japanese controlled waters and territory. They would have been better employed in the PI or Malaya where they add to the concentration of power.



> 2.) Did Canada have any meaningful contribution to the PTO ? {after Hong Kong - Dec 1941}



No.

Canada's contribution was to the Atlantic and Europe. Token forces dont count. Canada did make contributions to the war in Italy and later Normandy, and of course the Dieppe disaster.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 9, 2009)

What about Canadians whom served under non Canadians in the PTO. Do they count?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 9, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> What about Canadians whom served under non Canadians in the PTO. Do they count?



Individuals? There couldnt have been too many of them. And that would mean they were token forces.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 9, 2009)

Then answer this sys:

Did or did not the Canadian forces in the ETO contribute to the defeat of Germany?

Simple answer will do. Just give me a yes or no answer.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 9, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Then answer this sys:
> 
> Did or did not the Canadian forces in the ETO contribute to the defeat of Germany?
> 
> Simple answer will do. Just give me a yes or no answer.



Yes.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 9, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Yes.
> 
> *#1 Was the defence of Hong Kong in 1941 a good idea or not?*
> Not one bit. Any honest war gaming would show the the forces there were inadequate to the task, and were essentially deep in Japanese controlled waters and territory. They would have been better employed in the PI or Malaya where they add to the concentration of power.
> ...



My reply to #2 later...

In regards to the first question, did you read my post yesterday? First off, Commonwealth deployment to the PI is a non-starter, the British Empire has enough on it's plate already. Anyways, the PI has 150,000 troops and 5 or 6,000 more will make no difference.


As regards to the HK defenders, as far as I can determine, there were about 5 or 6,000 quality trained ground troops in HK, + ~4,000 fortress, RAF, logistics, artillery, RN etc. Also ~4,000 raw Indian Chinese aux. troops

The "fortress" personnel won't make any difference in Malaya, as they can't bring the fixed artillery, and Singapore already has enough "support" personnel. The raw Chinese troops couldn't be transported to Malaya, and would be of no use there anyways. So there are perhaps 6,000 troops that could be taken to Singapore, where they will provide little improvement. (There are already 140,000  Empire military personnel there! 

About the *ONLY* thing that is not needed in Malaya is troops! The fact that there were over 90,000 that surrendered is proof that lack of troops was not the problem.

What Malaya desperately needed was

1.) 6 pdr. anti-tank guns flown in ASAP.
2.) HE ammo for the fortress guns, which had almost exclusively useless AP ammo
3.) About a dozen or two Valentine or Matilda II tanks
4.) More Hurricanes some *COMPETANT* RAF leadership.
5.) Perhaps a couple of light cruisers supported by the Hermes to prevent Japanese amphibeous flanking attacks on the *west* side of the peninsula.
6.) Most important, some *COMPETANT* overall leadership, Percival was totally out of his league


Now, on the other hand, the Japanese, with only 70,000 troops *were* badly short on troops, and if they had an additional 40,000 troops from Hong Kong, the results would be devestating, as they could then mount constant large-scale amphib. flanking attacks, cutting off most of the Empire troops. So in effect you are allowing the enemy to add 60% to his forces, but gaining at most a 5% increase, that isn't really needed anyways.

By withdrawing ~40,000 troops from HK, the remaing 8 - 12,000 could easily over-run the abandoned city, as the raw Chinese troops wouldn't put up much of a fight. 

And yes, I HAVE done a strategic scale of the Pacific theater, and allowing the Japanes to re-deploy the HK invasion army group is a fatal mistake for Malaya



freebird said:


> Syscom, you can't use 20/20 hindsight to make assumptions about the plans made prior to Dec 6 1941!
> 
> Could I say that the USA was silly to waste resources building the BB Arizona training the crew, because it had zero useful role in WWII?
> 
> ...


----------



## lingo (Jul 9, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Any honest war gaming would show



War gaming! No wonder we can get no cogent reply to the questions. Forget war gaming and get real. Read and study the history books and then take time to digest them. Don't confine yourself to just military history, the politics and the social scene are integral to understanding what went on. The attackers hold most of the advantages, they are skilled and more importantly, experienced. The UK at one and the same time had to defend the British Isles, expand its forces and develop its war production, whilst trying to do the same thing in the Middle East (including East Africa) and the Far East, look after its Empire as best it could and supply Russia at the very time it was fighting in North Africa. This meant scarce equipment was diverted elsewhere and the ebb and flow of the Desert campaigns had a lot to do with them having to pass on desperately needed materiel to Russia/Far East. For them war was certainly not a game.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 9, 2009)

lingo said:


> War gaming! No wonder we can get no cogent reply to the questions. Forget war gaming and get real. Read and study the history books and then take time to digest them. Don't confine yourself to just military history, the politics and the social scene are integral to understanding what went on. The attackers hold most of the advantages, they are skilled and more importantly, experienced. The UK at one and the same time had to defend the British Isles, expand its forces and develop its war production, whilst trying to do the same thing in the Middle East (including East Africa) and the Far East, look after its Empire as best it could and supply Russia at the very time it was fighting in North Africa. This meant scarce equipment was diverted elsewhere and the ebb and flow of the Desert campaigns had a lot to do with them having to pass on desperately needed materiel to Russia/Far East. For them war was certainly not a game.



Could HK be supplied over available land routes in 1940? Even without a war or hostile forces in the way, it cannot. End of story.

Could HK be supplied by ship? Yes, but it would be contested waters with the Japanese controlling the airspace nearly every bit of the way.

Did the Japanese have airfields in French Indochina in 1941 which could shut down the sealanes? Yes.

Did the Allied naval commands know that the IJN could deploy some large forces in the South China Sea if it wanted to? Yes.

*End result, there was no possibility of a successfull defense of HK and only token defenses should have been implimented.*

As forwhat to do with the Canadian forces;
If it went to the PI, then it would have ended up with the US troops and at least fight into March 1942
If it went to Malaya, it would have suffered just like the other commonwealth troops and squandered by inept leadership.

As for tying up the IJA forces at HK?
Well if you are arguing that they held up Japanese forces that might have been used in Malaya and prevented a debacle from becoming a "worse-than-a-debacle", I would agree. What could be worse than having you arse kicked hard and your arse getting kicked twice as hard?


----------



## parsifal (Jul 9, 2009)

Hong Kong was a hopeless defence, as it turned out, but nevertheless important to the war in China. The Japanese had spent a lot of effort isolating China by the capture of her Ports. Hong Kong more than anything represented the potential to stage a Malta style battle against the Japanese in the South China Sea. It was, of course dependant on the successful defence of the rest of South East Asia. If Hong Kong had been abandoned before the war, the Japanese would have occupied it, with a probable massacre to accompany that, and the repecusions arising from such an abandonment would have been massive, to say the least. It was a protected territory, which suggests to me that the British had a responsibility to at least try and defend it. The experiences of Shanghai and nanking rang all too loudly in everybodies ears at that time...... 

If the US had managed to hold the PI, and Britain and the Dutch to hold their respective territories, things may have turned out differently. Even a modest increase in success may have made the defence of Hong Kong less futile. There was just one Division available for the attack into Hong Kong, the 38th (from memory) and this unit had to spend many months recovering as a result of the malling it suffered from the Canadians. This was the division that eventually went to a little known island in the South west pacific, called Guadacanal. Who knows, if it had been a little less wounded than it had been at Hong Kong, perhaps it may have been successful at Guadacanal.....now that draws the thing into some perspective

With its flanks secure, the Allies may have been able to pour more men, aircraft and ships into the battle, as per the war plan Orange arrangements (and their British equivalents) and start to put real pressure on the Japanese from a very early point. Retention of Hong Kong under a successful defence of South East Asia scenario would have been a crucial element in the victory over Japan in this "alternate" history scenario. It would have initially occupied a position similar to Malta, drawing ever more Japanese resources into a cauldron, similar to Guadacanal, to suck the life out of the Japanese war machine. Later it would have served as a possible Point Of Entry into the China Theatre.

The key to understanding HK is to appreciate its potential rather than to measure it by what happened. Hong Kong fell early because the foundations that its successful defence depended on also failed.

Finally, the argument that forward defence is hopeless is a furphy....if you abandon your forward positions, your rear areas all of a sudden become your front lines. It was a newcessary and vital sacrifice that the units in the far east fight for as long as possible, as hard as possible. Every hour gained in these forward areas decreased the possibility of even greater losses in more important locations.

And finally, the allied victory was just that, an ALLIED victory. I find these arguments about who contributed what and who was really responsible for the victory very silly. The US was crucial to ultimate victory, but could it have won by itself, no. The Canadians were less crucial, but could Britian have survived without their help. No. So were they crucial to the outcome of the war. In that sense yes.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 9, 2009)

parsifal said:


> There was just one Division available for the attack into Hong Kong, the 38th (from memory) and this unit had to spend many months recovering as a result of the malling it suffered from the Canadians. .




How big was a Japanese division? If there were Japanese 52,000 troops there, were the rest independant regiments?


----------



## Glider (Jul 9, 2009)

A standard Japanese Type B Infantry Division had 20,000 men.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 9, 2009)

It seems that parts of the S.E.A.G command also participated 

Southern Expeditionary Army Group 

Components 

[South Seas Western Command]


14th Infantry Division 
IJA 49th Independent Mixed Brigade 
IJA 53rd Independent Mixed Brigade 

The Southern Expeditionary Army (南方軍 , Nanpo gun?) was a army group of the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II. It was responsible for all military operations in South East Asian and South West Pacific campaigns of World War II. [1]

The Southern Expeditionary Army Group was formed on November 6, 1941, under the command of Marshal Hisaichi Terauchi, with orders to attack and occupy Allied territories and colonies in South East Asia and the South Pacific.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, some elements of the 23 Army were also in the Hong Kong attack


China Expeditionary Army 
23rd Army

Components 

104th Infantry Division 

108th Infantry Regiment 
137th Infantry Regiment 
161st Infantry Regiment
----------------------------------- 
129th Infantry Division 

91st Infantry Brigade 
92nd Infantry Brigade 
----------------------------------
130th Infantry Division 

93rd Infantry Brigade 
94th Infantry Brigade 
----------------------------------
23rd Independent Mixed Brigade 
8th Independent Infantry Brigade 
13th Independent Infantry Brigade


----------



## parsifal (Jul 9, 2009)

Glider said:


> A standard Japanese Type B Infantry Division had 20,000 men.



Thats correct, but if you include the non-divisional support elements (the socalled tail) , it blows out to about 30000 men. A british Division in Burma for example, was about 18000 men, but if you include its supporting 'tail" it is about 55000.

Allied units tended to be short on teeth, and big on tail. This gave them great stying and logistic power, compared to the axis units, but it meant that every casualty sustained had a greater effect on decreasing the units combat capability


----------



## Freebird (Jul 9, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Thats correct, but if you include the non-divisional support elements (the socalled tail) , it blows out to about 30000 men. A british Division in Burma for example, was about 18000 men, but if you include its supporting 'tail" it is about 55000.
> 
> Allied units tended to be short on teeth, and big on tail. This gave them great stying and logistic power, compared to the axis units, but it meant that every casualty sustained had a greater effect on decreasing the units combat capability



So we might assume that the Axis 52,000 is one division tail {30,000} + some independant brigades ~15,000 tail {~22,000 l}?

As for the Allies, there were 2,000 Canadians in two battalions + 2 British + 2 Indian
If they were 900 - 1,000 per battalion then it's 5,500 - 6,000 combat troops. 

Infantry 

2nd Battalion, The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment) 
1st Battalion, The Middlesex Regiment (Machine gun battalion) 
5th Battalion, 7th Rajput Regiment 
2nd Battalion, 14th Punjab Regiment 
The Winnipeg Grenadiers {battalion}
The Royal Rifles of Canada {battalion}

Also:
Hong Kong Chinese Regiment 
Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps (HKVDC) 

So if there were about 2,000 - 3,000 aux. Chinese + HKVDC, then the remaining ~ 5 or 6 thousand out of the 14,000 would be the "tail"?


----------



## Amsel (Jul 9, 2009)

An early war Japanese division was roughly twice the size of a standard European division.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 9, 2009)

FB

I'll stand corrected on that, thanks for the information


----------



## Freebird (Jul 9, 2009)

parsifal said:


> FB
> 
> I'll stand corrected on that, thanks for the information




 I'm not quite sure of it myself, I'm still trying to figure it out.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 10, 2009)

This whole thread seems to be a question of who was more important - the one who made the shell or the one who fired the cannon?

Personally to me it makes no difference, as long as it happens.


----------



## Glider (Jul 11, 2009)

freebird said:


> So we might assume that the Axis 52,000 is one division tail {30,000} + some independant brigades ~15,000 tail {~22,000 l}?
> 
> As for the Allies, there were 2,000 Canadians in two battalions + 2 British + 2 Indian
> If they were 900 - 1,000 per battalion then it's 5,500 - 6,000 combat troops.
> ...



I have been trying to find the size of a IJA Independent mixed Brigade. It turns out that these varied considerably depending on the task that they were to undertake.

The best that I can up with are the following
Independent Mixed Brigade, 5 infantry Battalions, an Artillery Battalion, an engineer company and a signal company strength 6-10,000 men

Independent Brigade, 5 Infantry Battalions with no supporting arms

Hope this is of interest


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Rabid, I suggest you go read up on the political realities in the US during the 1930's.
> 
> We did more, as a matter of fact. And we did it because we had a larger industrial base and more population.
> 
> And quote me were I said we did it alone. I'm just pointing out a historical fact, that after the fighting in Normandy ended, it was the US that began to carry the burden of the ground war in the ETO. The UK and the Commonwealth hit their maximums while the US was still committing new divisions every couple of weeks till the very end of the war.



Ok this whole thing got out of hand for me right here lol. If I'm not mistaken (and correct me if I'm wrong) but the US was still selling resources to Germany during the opening phases of the war. At some point I believe these sales AND the Lend-Lease agreement with Britain overlapped briefly.
The Canadians were instrumental in winning the Battle of the Atlantic, she had the 4th largest navy afloat, albeit with very few capital ships. Canadians were given one of the toughest nuts to crack on Sicily. And while Monte Cassino was nasty, the Battle for Ortona was as ugly as any battle during the Ardennes offensive. They also played a vital role in breaking through the Gothic line. At Normandy they took the toughest beach after Omaha and at the end of the day, had pushed farther inland than any other army. And don't forget, the Canadians opponents were the 1st SS, 12th SS and the Panzer Lehr Div during the 1st month of the campaign.
It was Canadians that pretty much liberated Holland. 
One of Canada's largest contributions was the British Commonwealth Air Training Program. Still the largest air force training program in history, 167,000 air service personnel went through it including more than 50,000 pilots, approx half of which were Canadian.
5000 Canadian soldiers attacked Dieppe in what turned out to be a lesson in how NOT to attack a fortified position from the sea. A lesson that cost 900 lives and 2000 held as POWs. Lessons that were put to good use and possibly saved countless live 2 years later on D-Day.
Despite British claims, radar was born in Canada, which proved essential to winning the war.
Canadian industry produced more than 800,000 military transport vehicles, 50,000 tanks, 43,000 heavy guns, 40,000 field, naval and AA guns and 1.7 million small arms. When it came to the military transports, Canada kept 168,000 for it's own use, giving a ratio of 1 vehicle for every 3 front line combat soldiers, making it the most mechanized field army of the war.
Canadian shipyards built over 4000 naval vessels.
Not to mention the various technological innovations as well as providing 50% of the total aluminum and 90% of the total nickel used in the war effort.
While the war certainly could not have been won without the US, Canada's contributions were no less valuable to the effort. Well, it could have been won without the US but then Russia would have had ALL of Europe instead of just half of it.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 24, 2009)

Well said, Carbon! 

MM


----------



## Amsel (Jul 24, 2009)

I agree with everything you said up until the part of Russia winning the war. They could not have invaded Germany successfully without the US being involved in destroying the Germans logistical abilities, leveling fuel production facilities, lend lease to the allies, invading France,invading N.Africa and Italy, and destroying the u-boat fleet. The Axis countries perhaps would not be able to invade the USSR successfully, but the USSR would not have been able to defeat the Axis powers in Europe either. England would have been in a world of hurt. I am not saying this to provoke any resentment toward the USA, only I disagree about the ability of the allies to defeat the axis with no US involvement.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 24, 2009)

The defeat of Germany was an ALLIED victory. Every country played a part. Its impossible to say who was expendable, and who was not. The US certaihnly could not have done it on their own. With only 70 Divs in the field of which no more than 20 were abale to be classified as "veteran", they simply lacked the strength to overpower the 400 German Divs they would have faced on their own, all of them "veteran"


----------



## Amsel (Jul 24, 2009)

The US would not have attempted to do it on their own. Only a team effort could defeat the axis, and that is my point made two posts above. No single nation could have defeated the axis powers. I sure hope my words do not become twisted here. Make it clear; team effort!


----------



## parsifal (Jul 24, 2009)

Okay, I understand, and I agree with you


----------

