Museum sheds light on Canada's wartime effort

[freebird]

Originally Posted by syscom3

"Not great"? try non existent, except for some help in the Aleutions.

Non Existant??

Sorry, somebody remind me please, who was it that pulled the nasty, hopeless job of defending Hong Kong to buy time WITH BLOOD for the Commonwealth to prepare for defences elsewhere?

Which country supplied the soldiers that were wounded and got bayoneted by the Japanese in their hospital beds?

Which country also supplied the volunteer nurses at Hong Kong that got gang-raped & slaughtered by the IJA?



Somebody bloody remind me, because I can't seem to remember.....

The Japanese soldiers were ordered to make a series of suicide attacks against the Canadian positions. They suffered 800 casualties to win the battle at Wong Ne Chong Gap. When the Japanese discovered how few defenders had caused this decimation, the field commander was forced to apologize to his superiors. The Grenadiers, and others rounded up as prisoners, were now in danger. Some Japanese soldiers wanted revenge.

....In October 1945, four years after they left Canada, the Hong Kong veterans were finally home again.

Nipon Ko Kan and its founder, Morosiro Shiaichi, made millions of dollars profiting from the Japanese war effort, partly from using Canadian prisoners as slave laborers. In similar circumstances, German corporations have paid billions of dollars in compensation to wartime workers. Japanese companies are being pressed by Canada's veterans for compensation, but refuse even to discuss the issue.



The Fall of Hong Kong : World War Two - Honk Kong Synopsis 2
Territory recalls orgy of killing and rape after the surrender - Telegraph

Thanks to Colin & BombTaxi, seems the British still remember, at least

The Royal Navy was very much a multicultural force and the misconception that Britain 'stood alone' in June 1940 is swept away at the beginning of this exhibtion. A stoyboard points out that Great Britain enjoyed the support of an Empire and Commonwealth, which at the time covered a quarter of the earth’s surface.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India all contributed sizeable navies to Royal Navy forces and each suffered casualties and braved the elements from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.

HMS Belfast Salutes The Commonwealth Sailors Of WWII | Culture24

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by RabidAlien

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:

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.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by freebird

Non Existant??

Sorry, somebody remind me please, who was it that pulled the nasty, hopeless job of defending Hong Kong to buy time WITH BLOOD for the Commonwealth to prepare for defences elsewhere?

Which country supplied the soldiers that were wounded and got bayoneted by the Japanese in their hospital beds?

Which country also supplied the volunteer nurses at Hong Kong that got gang-raped & slaughtered by the IJA?



Somebody bloody remind me, because I can't seem to remember.....

The Japanese soldiers were ordered to make a series of suicide attacks against the Canadian positions. They suffered 800 casualties to win the battle at Wong Ne Chong Gap. When the Japanese discovered how few defenders had caused this decimation, the field commander was forced to apologize to his superiors. The Grenadiers, and others rounded up as prisoners, were now in danger. Some Japanese soldiers wanted revenge.

....In October 1945, four years after they left Canada, the Hong Kong veterans were finally home again.

Nipon Ko Kan and its founder, Morosiro Shiaichi, made millions of dollars profiting from the Japanese war effort, partly from using Canadian prisoners as slave laborers. In similar circumstances, German corporations have paid billions of dollars in compensation to wartime workers. Japanese companies are being pressed by Canada's veterans for compensation, but refuse even to discuss the issue.



The Fall of Hong Kong : World War Two - Honk Kong Synopsis 2
Territory recalls orgy of killing and rape after the surrender - Telegraph

Thanks to Colin & BombTaxi, seems the British still remember, at least

The Royal Navy was very much a multicultural force and the misconception that Britain 'stood alone' in June 1940 is swept away at the beginning of this exhibtion. A stoyboard points out that Great Britain enjoyed the support of an Empire and Commonwealth, which at the time covered a quarter of the earth’s surface.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India all contributed sizeable navies to Royal Navy forces and each suffered casualties and braved the elements from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.

HMS Belfast Salutes The Commonwealth Sailors Of WWII | Culture24

The war in the Pacific was primarily fought in that ocean. That's where the IJN concentrated practically their whole fleet. And that's where the USN and ANZAC forces concentrated practically their whole navies. The Canadians rightfully concentrated their naval forces in the Atlantic. Anything they sailed in the Indian Ocean was essentially irrelevant.

And as for 800 or so men fighting in Hong Kong? Just what exactly did they do? Nothing. They also were irrelevant. The Japanese saw them as poorly trained speed bumps and they should never have been sent there in the first place. The main fighting was elsewhere, far from HK. And the simple fact is Canada did not commit anything of value for the Pacific war (outside of the forces they supplied to Alaska while the US Army redeployed).

[trackend]

Originally Posted by Colin1

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

I think you need to read a bit about Monti cassino, however.
Its very hard to compare battles each has its own variety of hardship etc

I certainly am not decrying the Ardennes campaign .Even my old mad was posted at a crossroads outside Antwerp with his Lewisgun during the battle of the Bulge and he was a matlot so their can be no doubt it was a hard fought action being very touch and go as to the outcome

All actions even the smallest (not that Cassino was small with 20,000 dead) at squad level can be appaulling to those in it

[BombTaxi]

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 count FWIW, 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.

[lingo]

Personally I blame Hollywood and the US TV industry for continually putting out rubbish in the name of history and entertainment (but in reality about profit), as it has the unfortunate effect of brain washing some people.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by trackend

I think you need to read a bit about Monte Cassino, however.
Its very hard to compare battles each has its own variety of hardship etc

All actions even the smallest (not that Cassino was small with 20,000 dead) at squad level can be appalling to those in it

...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!

Shall we try something closer to 50 - 60,000 dead? Maybe you need to read a bit about it too

1. Monte Casino, World War II (1943-18 May 1944): 60,000
30 May 2004 Washington Post review of Monte Casino by Matthew Parker: 60,000 Allied and German dead.

2. Battle of Monte Cassino WW II
1/4/1944 - 5/19/1944 135 Days
54,000+ casualties 400/day

Part of the Italian Campaign. The Battle of Monte Cassino (also known as the Battle for Rome) was a costly series of four battles in WWII, fought with the intention of breaking through and seizing Rome. The invasion of Italy was partially a feint to draw in more Germans to prepare for the upcoming invasion of France on D-Day. The Gustav Line was anchored by Germans holding valleys and certain surrounding peaks and ridges, but not the historic abbey of Monte Cassino, founded in 524 AD, although they manned defensive positions set into the steep slopes below the abbey walls. On February 15 the monastery, high on a peak overlooking the town of Cassino, was destroyed by American B-17 and B-26 bombers. Two days after the bombing, crack German paratroopers poured into the ruins to defend it. From January 12 to May 18, it was assaulted four times by Allied troops, for a loss of over 54,000 Allied and 20,000 German soldiers.

[michaelmaltby]

By 1942 Canada was well on its way to becoming the Air School of the Commonwealth - the Commonwealth Air Training Program. A HUGE contribution to the war effort that Canadians in Canada were well aware of and very proud to support. Canada trained Brits, Yanks, Poles, Czechs, Norwegians as well as our own and other Commonwealth airmen.

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

[michaelmaltby]

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

[pbfoot]

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

[trackend]

Originally Posted by Colin1

...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!

.

If I am in error I appologise, any reasonable point made I'll except, but dont start swearing at me I dont like it.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

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

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.

And the scary thing is the US was planning an even larger expansion of the army (if needed). But events in the summer of 1945 precluded that.

Originally Posted by BombTaxi

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 count FWIW, 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.

800 men in HK was irrelevant. They should never have been posted there when they were surrounded even before the shooting started, and were up against better trained, better equipped and [way more] numerically superior IJA troops. And they accomplished absolutely nothing. I would say the blame on that lays right with your govt for allowing it to happen in the first place.

And in the end, that was the end of the Canadian contribution where the main fighting in the PTO/CBI was.

BTW, FDR was appalled by the conduct of the US Ambassador to the UK. He went by the wayside once an opportunity was found to recall him back to Washington. What an arse!

Originally Posted by michaelmaltby

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

The US industrial capabilities were so massive, that even if we say hypothetically Canada withdrew from hostilities and stopped production, the US would have picked up the slack and even expanded.

And the US arsenal of democracy really started in earnest in 1940 with the modest naval and aviation programs authorized in 1939.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by michaelmaltby

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

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.

[Amsel]

This thread is crazy.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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

I think that only someone who has not served in combat would say such a thing.

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed, can't say anything else about it.

Originally Posted by BombTaxi

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.

Agreed as well...

Originally Posted by syscom3

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.

Here is the thing. It is a fact that the US had the largest industrial base of the allies and the population to support it. Sys is right on this matter.

However to say that the other countries no matter how small or large did not contribute as much is insulting. It is insulting to the soldiers who fought. Why? Every allied nation gave its blood, sweat and tears to defeat Nazi Germany and Japan.

It is a rather obvious fact that Canada with its smaller population was not going to be able to field as many divisions as the US. But to say that what divisions that Canada fielded did not have it as hard as the US is just plain wrong.

Where there Canadian soldiers spilling their blood? Yes

Who are you to say whether it was savage or not? War is hell and war is savage! If you had some combat experience you might understand that. That is why I will give you some slack.

In the end however, it is just another one of your typical cold postings when it comes to nations other than the US. You could have handled this thread so differently. Way to go Sys!

Originally Posted by syscom3

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.

Does that make their contributions any less?

Originally Posted by syscom3

And in the end, that was the end of the Canadian contribution where the main fighting in the PTO/CBI was.

World War 2 encompassed more than just the PTO/CBI.

Originally Posted by Amsel

This thread is crazy.

Agreed. I see a closure coming soon. People better play nice.