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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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
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.
