Museum sheds light on Canada's wartime effort

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:

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:
 
syscom3 said:
"Not great"? try non existent, except for some help in the Aleutions.
Click to expand...


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
 
Last edited:

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.
 


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).
 
Colin1 said:
Tell me again
Monte Casino didn't compare to the combat and hardship of the US forces in the Ardennes
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
...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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Long term viability of the USA's warship museum ships?
Replies
13
Views
827
GreenKnight121
A
Opinion on Japanese good luck flag.
Replies
0
Views
153
altaniscool
A
C
looking for information on some servicemen.
Replies
0
Views
179
coffman
C
I
Need Help Translating Writing on WWII Japanese Tanto
Replies
1
Views
594
DDonSS3
D
T
The Tank Museum Wins!
Replies
4
Views
1K
WATU
W
Menu
Log in
Register