trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
If I am in error I appologise, any reasonable point made I'll except, but dont start swearing at me I dont like it.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
...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!
.
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
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 countFWIW, 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.
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
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
Theres savage fighting on a small scale, and then there is savage fighting that lasts for weeks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
syscom3 said:And in the end, that was the end of the Canadian contribution where the main fighting in the PTO/CBI was.
This thread is crazy.
I think that only someone who has not served in combat would say such a thing.
And its irrelevant if someone has been or not been in combat to make observations about it on a macro level.
I'm not sure what bearing that statement has on anything but it's turned into a pretty loathsome threadThink 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]
Believe meAnd its irrelevant if someone has been or not been in combat to make observations about it on a macro level
I'm not sure what bearing that statement has on anything but it's turned into a pretty loathsome thread
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.
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
It is the way you come across, especially the way you say it. Just like the part I highlighted above. Very cold...
Two Canadian battalions helped to defend Hong Kong in 1941;
An infantry brigade was employed in the enterprise against Kiska in 1943;
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.