Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
They were the true heavy hitters of the small countries that really did make a difference in victory or not.
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.
I think that lend lease helped the communists beat Germany.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
No, as a matter of fact they were attacked at the same time as "Pearl", and held out until Christmas. Hardly a "few hours"
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
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!