Museum sheds light on Canada's wartime effort

[pbfoot]

Although the Canadian contribution to the Pacific was not great we did manage to play in Hong Kong and in the Aleutians and that famous commander Simon Bolivar Buckner wanted us to pay duty on the weapons we brought. I also think we got the dirty job in NW Europe the battle for the Lowlands was the worst of the fighting in Western Europe.

[lingo]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The war started in Dec 1941 for the US.

Indeed it did. Canada came in with the mother country in September 1st 1939 so she was at war some two and a quarter years before the Pearl Harbor event and Hitlers extraordinary declaration caused Americas entry.
The rest of us know it was a WORLD war and not just the preserve of the most numerous nations.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by lingo

Indeed it did. Canada came in with the mother country in September 1st 1939 so she was at war some two and a quarter years before the Pearl Harbor event and Hitlers extraordinary declaration caused Americas entry.
The rest of us know it was a WORLD war and not just the preserve of the most numerous nations.

The US, UK and Russia completely dominated the industrial production of the war. The smaller nations contributed, but not in a critical way.

Although the Canadian contribution to the Pacific was not great we did manage to play in Hong Kong and in the Aleutians and that famous commander Simon Bolivar Buckner wanted us to pay duty on the weapons we brought. I also think we got the dirty job in NW Europe the battle for the Lowlands was the worst of the fighting in Western Europe.

"Not great"? try non existent, except for some help in the Aleutions. But I will give Canada credit for the trans Alaskan Highway, which was of far more use during the Cold War, than WW2.

As for savage fighting, it was the US Army at the Ardennes that had the most brutal fighting on the western front.

[lingo]

Originally Posted by syscom3

As for savage fighting, it was the US Army at the Ardennes that had the most savage fighting on the western front.

I certainly do not agree with you there but we are all entitled to our own opinions.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by syscom3

As for savage fighting, it was the US Army at the Ardennes that had the most savage fighting on the western front.

There was savage fighting everywhere
The Paras fouight tooth and nail with the Germans around Pegasus Bridge
The battle for Monte Casino was savage
Omaha beach was very costly for the US

I've never doubted the Canadian contribution, their sacrifice at Dieppe was considerable. By autumn 1939 there were more Canadians flying with the RAF than there were with the RCAF.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Colin1

There was savage fighting everywhere
The Paras fouight tooth and nail with the Germans around Pegasus Bridge
The battle for Monte Casino was savage
Omaha beach was very costly for the US

Theres savage fighting on a small scale, and then there is savage fighting that lasts for weeks.

None of them compared to the Battle of Hürtgen Forest and then the Ardennes. The ferocity of the battles and the casualties testify to it.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Theres savage fighting on a small scale, and then there is savage fighting that lasts for weeks.

None of them compared to the Battle of Hürtgen Forest and then the Ardennes. The ferocity of the battles and the casualties testify to it.

Tell me again
Monte Casino didn't compare to the combat and hardship of the US forces in the Ardennes

[plan_D]

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.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by plan_D

For a start, there should be no discussion about who had it worst in Western Europe

Agreed on your very first point

[syscom3]

I think we got highly off track.

But still, the Ardennes and Huertgoen Forest were savage battles the UK and Commonwealth forces never experienced. Those two campaigns were probably close to what the Russians experienced month after month.

[BombTaxi]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I think we got highly off track.

But still, the Ardennes and Huertgoen Forest were savage battles the UK and Commonwealth forces never experienced. Those two campaigns were probably close to what the Russians experienced month after month.

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.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I think we got highly off track.

But still, the Ardennes and Huertgoen Forest were savage battles the UK and Commonwealth forces never experienced. Those two campaigns were probably close to what the Russians experienced month after month.

No, I don't think we did
you're trying to make a point that the US had it tougher than the UK and Commonwealth on the basis of one campaign, which is frankly both balloney and insulting; no one combat soldier, regardless of nationality, who risked his life had it easier than any other soldier anywhere else.

How do you place the Ardennes above, say, the US Marines island-hopping towards Japan? Because it was colder? Same selfless courage if you ask me.

The US forces' tenacity in holding on to Bastogne and their subsequent counter-attack were a gigantic victory for the Allies in harsh conditions.

Edit: Sorry BT, didn't realise you'd posted, I was still stuck in my post thinking about things

[BombTaxi]

No worries Colin, I think we are barking up the same tree mate

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by BombTaxi

Syscom

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.

After the battle of Normandy, the war in the west was dominated by the US. Thats a fact. You cannot deny it.

After August 1944, every week, the US was sending a brand new division into thetheater. The UK and Commonwealth were already maxed out manpower wise.

All credit is due to the Canadian contribution to the war, but since Canada is a small country, lets also face the fact they they had economic and manpower limitations.

[RabidAlien]

Originally Posted by syscom3

After the battle of Normandy, the war in the west was dominated by the US. Thats a fact. You cannot deny it.

After August 1944, every week, the US was sending a brand new division into thetheater. The UK and Commonwealth were already maxed out manpower wise.

All credit is due to the Canadian contribution to the war, but since Canada is a small country, lets also face the fact they they had economic and manpower limitations.

So, based on your very own observations....the UK and Commonwealth were using MAXIMUM resources, whereas the US was sorta just kinda loitering along, still sending divisions. The UK and Canada, being in the war for 2+ years already, were at maximum throttle. And you think we're better than they were? Just because we sat around and did nothing even though we KNEW Hitler was the devil incarnate? Because the US decided to sit back and stick its head in the sand, because it was "a European war"??? The UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and all others involved were going balls-to-the-wall while we watched movies. Sure, nobody's denying the industrial capacity of the US, and the fact that we had such a huge manpower reserve to call upon. But to say that "we did more" because we had more industry is demeaning and belittling to those who were shedding blood as we munched popcorn (figuratively). I love this country, I'm proud to be an American, and I will be the first to stand up and say that we could NOT have done it alone. To all our Allies around the world: