Museum sheds light on Canada's wartime effort

[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.

Originally Posted by syscom3

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.

Originally Posted by syscom3

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.

Originally Posted by syscom3

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

Originally Posted by Wiki

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.

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.

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"

Originally Posted by syscom3

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

Originally Posted by syscom3

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

[QUOTE=lingo;525296]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

[QUOTE=syscom3;525779][QUOTE=lingo;525296]

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!

[BombTaxi]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Wars are won by a countries contribution to the cause.

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).

Dear God, you are crazy syscom. The western front was opened on 3rd September 1939 when the war started. Brits, Poles, Czechs, Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Belgians, Irishmen, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Rhodesians, Canadians and even a few Americans were fighting and dying in the West long before the US decided to intervene, and your statement to the contrary is a massive insult to their memory.

As for your little statement about the Pacific - I say to hell with you. A MASSIVE British army fought in India and Burma, making sure the Japanese didn't capture India and cut off supplies to the PTO - look up the Battle of Meiktila if you want to find out a bit about what they did. They fought hard and they fought well, and thousands of them never came home. Now in your sheer ignorance and arrogance you pretend they never existed. Nice one sys, you're an idiot.

[michaelmaltby]

" ... Canada's production? The US certainly used your country to increase the efficiency of production..."

" ... it seems most of Canada's contributions went to naught because of you being under a UK command that squandered your forces."

The first quote, Syscom, is just nonesensical. Exactly WHAT are you trying to say. The BULK of Canada's wartime industrial production was stuff that the US didn't even use - Hurricane fighters, Lancasters, Mosquitos, Bren, Sten and Lee Enfields, corvettes, fairmiles, etc. etc. This was not integrated N. American production (Yes - some PBY's and Helldivers were made in Canada).

The second quote - well - . Ask the Dutch if Canada's efforts were "of naught".

Your facts are SELECVIVE and you mind is closed. I have no quarrel with your emphasis on the American overwhelming contribution in the Pacific - but remember - FDR not believing in - and wanting to support - the British Empire in no way diminishes the British efforts in India, Burma and Malaysia. Overall - Commonwealth nations have done better post WW2 - than most - in terms of rights, freedoms, education and progress. Yes - there are some bloody exceptions - but as Geo W would say - creating a society ruled by law and freedom is not a simple process.

As for this little gem: " .. And it wasn't the Canadians teaching the US about how to fight the Germans."

American volunteer pilots were trained in Canada pre-7-12-41. And there certainly were Canadian instructors in Billings, Montana (as well as American) to train the 1st Special Forces Regiment. [My source for that, not the movie Devil's Brigade but personal discussions].

But keep crankin' Buddy - it's a good excuse to air our boots.

MM

[trackend]

I was going to let the site calm down but sorry, I am not going to let the memory of thousands of allied dead in the far east be swept aside with a tap of the keyboard. I suggest SYS you whip over here to Duxford on Saturday as the Burma Star Assosiation lads always have a stand in the land warfare hall collecting for those Vets who are still suffering 60years after they came home. Go and tell them that the mates they lost in Malaya, Borneo, Burma,Java, Sumatra ect ect did nothing to assist in victory over Japan as "The US single handily won the war in the PTO", they may now be old men but I wouldnt fancy your chances sunshine.


All I can think is that you worded it rather badly SYS. I very much hope thats the case anyway.

[michaelmaltby]

There is hope. This stirring site proves Sys' contention that: " ... wars are won by countries' commitment to the cause ..." and mine ...

The Black Devils: US-Canadian 1st Special Service Force [Archive] - WW2 in Color History Forum

Effective warfare. Not simply "the numbers" Sys - but the commitment - like Anzio Beachead.

MM

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

This thread should already be closed, but I am going to leave it open.

Why?

Because I agree with many that the service of many is being tarnished here...

I think the person needs to take their lumps and then leave.