Museum sheds light on Canada's wartime effort

[BombTaxi]

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]

I think that lend lease helped the communists beat Germany.

 

[zoul310]

A frog and a Rosbif... Incredible !

 

[Amsel]

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]

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]

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]

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

MM

 

[Catch22]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Great rule of thumb, Pb.

 

[michaelmaltby]

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]

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

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.

 

[vikingBerserker]

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

 

[syscom3]

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]

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.

Who are you Lingo? Been here for one month and a paltry 80 posts? What do you know about me?

YOU are not one of the forum regulars who have know me for the past four years and have earned the right to insult me or call me whatever names they want.

 

[syscom3]

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]

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]

Who are you Lingo?

I gave a brief resume in my introduction. A little over 6,000 hours as a military pilot. Just a humble spear-carrier in the great historical drama of the Cold War.

Been here for one month and a paltry 80 posts?

You do have a numbers fixation, don't you? Are you telling us that quantity beats quality? Hmm. Stalin thought that too when he said "Quantity has a quality of it's own".

What do you know about me?

Other than the fact that you are dogmatic in your beliefs, and dismissive of the opinions of others, nothing really.

YOU are not one of the forum regulars who have know me for the past four years and have earned the right to insult me or call me whatever names they want.

OK. I shall have to make thousands more posts then!