Museum sheds light on Canada's wartime effort

[michaelmaltby]

If anybody is paying attention to the information-perspectives being exchanged in this thread, CrewChief, it's actually quite a useful thread.
It should have started from the get-go with Sys advancing his premise "wars are won by a country's contribution to the cause .."
That is a worthy thread-topic. It suggests that if an industrial country pours enough resources/ manpower into "the cause" it can't lose. And we know that logic isn't always born out by history. Viet Nam and the American Revolution both confound Sys' assumption on THAT basis. The 1939 Finno-Russian Winter War demonstrates my premise that a small power fighting effectively can cause serious pain and suffering to a larger power [but pay for their success in the end].

Don't close it off, Chief

MM

[freebird]

Originally Posted by 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...

Adler I think Syscom has confirmed that he wasn't intending to demean the service of Canada's vets, it was just a poor choice of words.

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.

Originally Posted by syscom3

Yes it was.

If one assumes that his question was "Did Canada have any meaningful role in the PTO?", then I am going to answer & refute his assumptions, so I sure hope you don't lock it before then...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by freebird

Adler I think Syscom has confirmed that he wasn't intending to demean the service of Canada's vets, it was just a poor choice of words.

Yet he continues to use poor choices of words? syscom3 knows very well that he is using poor choices of words. He believes them. This is not the first time he has sparked up these things before on several occasions.

I agree that the information in this thread is good. But the fact that "allied troops died for nothing" is wrong...

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Yet he continues to use poor choices of words? syscom3 knows very well that he is using poor choices of words. He believes them

I agree
it's too consistent throughout the thread to be a 'poor choice of words' - this thread went sour a long time ago. Step up to the plate and apologise to the Canadians sys, your views are unwarranted, baseless and offensive.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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?

Certainly in the last months of 1944 the US was able to replace manpower & build up in the ETO, while the UK, Commonwealth & other Allies were mostly tapped out. However the US Army had just about "zero" chance of ever landing in France if the UK & Commonwealth hadn't laid down the basis of of the whole war effort in 1940, 1941 & 1942 by keeping the Axis from gaining the oil supplies of the Middle East and preventing the Axis from knocking Russia out of the war. For the period of time up to Nov 1942 the US didn't have the capability to have any ground operations in the ETO, nor to send any meaningful help to Russia without British ships

Care to debate that?

Originally Posted by syscom3

They went to HK and did absolutely nothing of value. Far to few in number,

That pretty much describes the situation everywhere in the PTO {mainly as regards to modern aircraft & heavy weapons} Also "Far to few in number" also describes the number of trained, combat ready US troops a in Dec 1941....

Originally Posted by syscom3

poorly trained and led,

Huh??
What possible basis do you have for this charge? ???

The Winnipeg Grenadiers & the Royal Rifles {Canadian} were as well trained as most Allied combat troops serving in their first tour. The fact that a single Canadian company caused over 800 Japanese casualties is what pissed of the Japanese & caused its commander to lose face. They had been planning for a walk-over in HK, yet the fact that the Canadians, Royal Scots & the other defenders put up a stubborn defence for 3 weeks was unexpected for the Japanese

Originally Posted by syscom3

. The Brits knew they were the proverbial speed bumps of no use, and the Canadian Govt knew it to. A smart govt and an intelligent military would have sent them to Malaya where the would have value.

Are you talking about BRITISH or CANADIAN military command? The War Office in London was mainly responsible for deciding where to deploy ALL Commonwealth troops overseas, it was their call to send troops to HK or Malaya, not Ottawa's call.

Originally Posted by syscom3

They went to HK and did absolutely nothing of value.

Not the Pacific, so dont even try to offer proof of a token and ill advised defense of HK in 1941.... these two battalions hardly any meaningfull contribution.

Absolutely Wrong!!

Syscom, you can't use 20/20 hindsight to make assumptions about the plans made prior to Dec 6 1941!

Could I say that the USA was silly to waste resources building the BB Arizona & training the crew, because it had zero useful role in WWII?

Of course not, it's ludicrous.

The same way that you criticize the plans for the defence of SE Asia, based on 20/20 hindsight.

Basic thumbnail of history:

Prior to WWII, the British Admiralty planned for Singapore to be able to hold out fro 6 months, as in the event of war, the French fleet would keep the Italians bottled up, while a British fleet would be sent east to link up with the Americans and deal with the Japanese.

Obviously the collapse of France in 1940 threw a wrench in the plans.

The British & American later made plans for two possible actions from the Japanese.

1.) Japan attacks Malaya & Indonesia, at this point the US fleet engages the Japanese, and uses it's bombers to devastate Japan es military bases & assets {this is why all the B-17's were in Philippines} Meanwhile a British fleet would arrive to provide relief of Malaya/Singapore

or 2.) Japan attacks the Philippines as well, in addition to the above.

The US never contemplated Japanese attacks on Hawaii, other than sabotage.


In either case, the Philippines & Malaya were to hold out until strong Allied Naval & Air forces could arrive in theater.


The original plans were tossed on the trash heap of history by the devastating attack on "Pearl".

Now, the Philippines was attacked by 130,000 Japanese troops {vs. ~150,000 US & allied troops.}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...lippines_(1942)

Malaya was attacked by 70,000 Japanese troops vs. ~ 100,000 Commonwealth {Later arrivals would boost this to ~140,000 Allied}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Malaya

In Hong Kong the ~2,000 Canadians made up around 35% - 40% of the ~5,500 "solid" army ground forces.
{In addition RAF, RN, Indian, fortress & Chinese aux. troops pushed the total to ~14,000 military personnel
Instead of the Japanese occupying an undefended HongKong with a brigade or 2, they committed over 52,000 troops to capture the city. - Almost 4x the number of allied military

British, Canadian and Indian forces, commanded by Major-General Christopher Michael Maltby supported by the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Forces resisted the Japanese invasion by the 38th Division, commanded by Lieutenant General Sakai Takashi, but were [badly] outnumbered (Japanese, 52,000; Allied, 14,000) and lacked their opponents' recent combat experience.

Battle of Hong Kong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Had things gone according to pre-war plans the sacrifice of these troops in HK would deny the Japanese ~40,000 - 45,000 troops which could not be used to attack Malaya. Even with the disasters of early Dec 1941, Malaya/Singapore SHOULD have been able to hold out, with competent organization. {Percival & Whitehall dropped the ball - badly}

However, add another ~45,000 troops to the 70,000 already committed to Malaya, and the task becomes almost impossible.

So the point is this: far from doing "absolutely nothing of value", the Canadians troops were there to buy crucial time to save Malaya.

[syscom3]

Theres always wasted and useless deaths in any conflict, and WW2 seemed to have plenty of it.

Lets see ....

Canadians at HK .... completely useless waste of personell. Just what were two battalions going to do against a seasoned Japanese force?

US 11th AF ...... completely wasted material and personell in attempting to hit the Kuriles for zero gain, even when it was obvious this was not a place to fly airplanes.

The Aussies at Balikpapin .... Thanks Doug for asking the Aussies to invade Borneo when it had been cutoff completely from Japan for already half a year.

All the allied troops in Italy that died or were wounded after the invasion of southern france ..... wasted completely when the fight was now on the German border not the mountains of Italy.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Yet he continues to use poor choices of words? syscom3 knows very well that he is using poor choices of words. He believes them. This is not the first time he has sparked up these things before on several occasions.

I agree that the information in this thread is good. But the fact that "allied troops died for nothing" is wrong...

That's why I'm going to refute some of the factual errors & provide an alternate analysis of his strategic assumptions.

As to the choice of words, I'm not going to comment, leave that up to the reader. I would note however that McCain got in trouble for using the same term "wasted" for pointless military deaths due to incompetant command of the top leadership.

Although there were a bunch of stupid decisions that lead to pointless deaths in WWII, I happen to disagree that the planned defence of HK served no purpose.

Part II of my reply to follow...

[BombTaxi]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Theres always wasted and useless deaths in any conflict, and WW2 seemed to have plenty of it.

Lets see ....

Canadians at HK .... completely useless waste of personell. Just what were two battalions going to do against a seasoned Japanese force?

US 11th AF ...... completely wasted material and personell in attempting to hit the Kuriles for zero gain, even when it was obvious this was not a place to fly airplanes.

The Aussies at Balikpapin .... Thanks Doug for asking the Aussies to invade Borneo when it had been cutoff completely from Japan for already half a year.

All the allied troops in Italy that died or were wounded after the invasion of southern france ..... wasted completely when the fight was now on the German border not the mountains of Italy.

Wake up and read what people are posting. The Canadians in HK were part of a 14,000 strong mixed Commonwealth force, not some isolated demi-brigade. They did their bit as a part of a force fighting against massive quantative and qualitative odds. I would hope you could find it within yourself o show some scrap of respect for that contribution.

The 11th AF and Balikpapan I know too little about to make a rational comment. But I will say this about Italy; if you cannot understand why that front was kept open, you obviously know squat about basic military startegy. The more fronts you fight on, the thinner you get. The Germans had committed themselves to holding Italy. Keeping up the fight after Operation Anvil kept troops in Italy who could have been deployed elsewhere and helped to push the Allies back from the German borders. The Allies could afford to divert the resources; Germany could not. The argument for keeping the front open and keeping the Germans tied down is a no-brainer.

I find it almost impossible to believe that you are still clinging to your senseless arguments when you have obviously offended and upset a good number of people on this board. Are you too proud to back down sys? Or simply too blind to see what you have done?

Oh, and have you looked up Meiktila or Kohima yet? As well as an apology to the Canadians, I don't think a word or two to us Brits would go amiss either...

[pbfoot]

I've noticed that many of us have posted small details of our relatives military exploits
Dad was an aircraft mechanic in the RCAF mostly training establishments followed by working the NW Staging route on his way to the PTO when VJ day occured
Mom made 25lb cannon shells
Uncle Frank and Fred were armouers with 441 sqn England , France, Belgium , Netherlands
Uncle Walter was a Sapper in from Sicily to Ortona then Normandy to Germany wounded
Uncle Joe was a infanteer Sicily, Italy < Normandy, Belgium Holland Germany wounded a few times
Uncle Bill worked on the Manhattan Project here in Niagara Falls
Now that you've insulted these guys Syscom what did your family do

[syscom3]

Syscom what did your family do

LOL!!!!

You cant be serious?

That had to be the stupidest post I have ever seen.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by syscom3

LOL!!!!

You cant be serious?

That had to be the stupidest post I have ever seen.

it makes a point that your becoming insulting you talk about all things military but have never walked the walk

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

it makes a point that your becoming insulting you talk about all things military but have never walked the walk

Tell me about what you did in WW2?

You invent a time machine?

I will tell you what pb ..... you delete your stupid post, and I will do my the same for my response to you.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

it makes a point that your becoming insulting you talk about all things military but have never walked the walk

Guys, this thread is going downhill fast, there are some interesting discussions of Canada's role in WWII, so let's avoid getting the thread locked by getting into a pissing contest about who's relatives or country did more...


pb, what's your opinion on Hong Kong, should it have been evacuated of military forces? Or was it needed to tie down Japanese forces?

[vikingBerserker]

I could careless if 10 or 100 Canadian Divisions fought in only one or all theatres. I could careless if Canadian soldiers fought under Canadian Leadership, Commonwealth Leadership or American Leadership.

I respect the fact they had the balls to fight on the front lines, they lived on the front lines, and they died on the front lines.

I respect the fact they stood while do others did not, I respect the fact that people in Canada worked in factories, farms, and mines to help support the allied cause.

Thanks Canada, I appreciate what you did and still continue to do.

[Butters]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Theres always wasted and useless deaths in any conflict, and WW2 seemed to have plenty of it.

Lets see ....

Canadians at HK .... completely useless waste of personell. Just what were two battalions going to do against a seasoned Japanese force?

US 11th AF ...... completely wasted material and personell in attempting to hit the Kuriles for zero gain, even when it was obvious this was not a place to fly airplanes.

The Aussies at Balikpapin .... Thanks Doug for asking the Aussies to invade Borneo when it had been cutoff completely from Japan for already half a year.

All the allied troops in Italy that died or were wounded after the invasion of southern france ..... wasted completely when the fight was now on the German border not the mountains of Italy.

Lets see...

All the US troops ( and other inconsequential Allied soldiers) that died after the Soviet destruction of Army Group Center...wasted completely because now the Russians were ready to launch the decisive campaign that ended with the occupation of Berlin and the surrender of the Third Reich.

At least by your 'logic'...

JL