Museum sheds light on Canada's wartime effort

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

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

I would say that some of the Russian and German battles were on a scale that even the US/UK wouldn't have been able to handle.

And its irrelevant if someone has been or not been in combat to make observations about it on a macro level.

Think of it as looking at squad levels taking 5 or 6 casualties in a day or two as opposed to "Army" level casualties of several hundred per day over a period of time. The particiapants in the squad would say its "bad" and "savage". But the Generals might look at it as being sustainable [or not sustainable].

I suspect you know it too.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

And its irrelevant if someone has been or not been in combat to make observations about it on a macro level.

It is to me, when another soldiers efforts are considered less than another, only because of the nation who's flag he was wearing.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Think of it as looking at squad levels taking 5 or 6 casualties in a day or two as opposed to "Army" level casualties of several hundred per day over a period of time. The particiapants in the squad would say its "bad" and "savage". But the Generals might look at it as being sustainable [or not sustainable]

I'm not sure what bearing that statement has on anything but it's turned into a pretty loathsome thread

Originally Posted by syscom3

And its irrelevant if someone has been or not been in combat to make observations about it on a macro level

Believe me
only someone who hasn't been in combat could possibly drum up an argument like this and call it rational

I think you owe a big apology to your Canadian friends on here

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Colin1

I'm not sure what bearing that statement has on anything but it's turned into a pretty loathsome thread

Let me clarify it for you.

Theres small unit battles that look bad for the particpants. But when looked at a divisional/corps/army group/army/national level, it might not look bad at all.

What was the US division wiped out in the Battle of the Bulge ... 106th? To Bradley and Ike, it looked bad. To Marshall, it would have looked far less bad as he looked at manpower losses/replacements from a national level.

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.

[Butters]

This thread is getting crazy. You don't discount a nation's contribution to the war because they were intrinsically limited in means. All the Allies fought hard,bloody battles, and all sacrificed immense quantities of blood and treasure to defeat the Axis. That the Canadians played a trivial role in the PTO was due to the fact that the first priority of the Allied war effort was the defeat of Germany. By the time that was accomplished, the Japanese Empire was in its death throes. To re-eqip, re-train, and transport the Canadian army for battle in the PTO would have been nothing but an expensive gesture.

JL

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

It is to me, when another soldiers efforts are considered less than another, only because of the nation who's flag he was wearing.

I am not smearing them. Just pointing out some historic facts. Canada contributed, but not in a way to make them the supermen of the war.

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.

[trackend]

Time to stop posting and let things cool down a tad. catch you guys on another thread.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I am not smearing them. Just pointing out some historic facts. Canada contributed, but not in a way to make them the supermen of the war.

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.

It is the way you come across, especially the way you say it. Just like the part I highlighted above. Very cold...

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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.

actually probably more then you might think a great many of the radar sites were manned by Canadians including several in New Guinea and later the Phillipines , a little known fact is the the majority of most of the US radar operators were trained in Canada and we provided a little over 50% of all commonwealth crews

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

actually probably more then you might think a great many of the radar sites were manned by Canadians including several in New Guinea and later the Phillipines , a little known fact is the the majority of most of the US radar operators were trained in Canada and we provided a little over 50% of all commonwealth crews

Link please.

It is quite safe to say that the Canadians were preoccupied with the ETO (which includes the Med).

They were not present in any sense of the word, in the PTO/CBI.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

It is the way you come across, especially the way you say it. Just like the part I highlighted above. Very cold...

Its historically accurate.

The Aussies fought both. The Canadians only one.

[vikingBerserker]

From the Official History of the Canadian Army, Part III, Chapter XIV

Two Canadian battalions helped to defend Hong Kong in 1941;
An infantry brigade was employed in the enterprise against Kiska in 1943;

I'm sure I can find more - I only spent 5 minutes on this.

[syscom3]

Two Canadian battalions helped to defend Hong Kong in 1941;

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.

An infantry brigade was employed in the enterprise against Kiska in 1943;

As I noted, they get credit for this, as the US Army was redeploying forces. And after the ground fighting ended here, then that was it for anything meaningfull.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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.

Again sys, how does that make the Canadian fighting soldier any less?

We should change your name to Soren Jr...

Anything else you wish to whine about? The fact that you have not received a user title, but others have...???

[BombTaxi]

Sys, let me put a question to you

If someone were to post belittling the US contribution to WWI because they didn't send as many troops as the other Allies, and didn't take as many casualties, how would you feel? My money says you would be insulted and offended - as you should be.

Think about it.

That is exactly what you are doing to our Canadian members here. It's crass, it's offensive and saying that you are just trying to be rational is no excuse. We all try to be rational here (most of us anyway). But you have really crossed a line here and just seem to be intent on steaming further beyond the pale.

And your argument that the Canadians 'shouldn't have been in HK' makes no sense at all. They were Commonwealth soldiers defending Commonwealth territory. End of discussion. They had as much right and reason to be there as English troops did to be in India, or Rhodesians did to be on Bomber Command bases in the UK. That's how the Commonwealth and empire worked. It really is that simple.