Museum sheds light on Canada's wartime effort

[trackend]

...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]

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.

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!

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

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]

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]

This thread is crazy.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

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.

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...

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!

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?

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.

This thread is crazy.

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

 

[syscom3]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.