1  2  Next

This is pretty cool...

http://www.civilization.ca/cwm/newspape ... map_e.html

   

That is cool but why do we fixate only on WW2? Why don't we see something like this for our work in Korea?

   

Cool! Not the correct poistioning of units at the end of June 6/44 but close.

   

Or the Great War? We did far more in that war than we did in the Second World War and was much more deadly. I think it is mostly because they are some of the remaining war veterans alive and also could be due to American media popularising it.

   

We did more in WWI??? How? We lost more soldiers by close to 10,000 but didn't have an active Navy or Air Force.

   

Actually we lost 20,000 more(65,000) then in the Second World War(45,000) and out of 600,000 soldiers instead of a million in WW2. What about Ypres we were gassed and outnumbered yet held our ground against the German army. What about the Somme or Passchendaele. What about Vimy Ridge and Cambrai. What about Canada's 100 last days of the war we broke through and contributed greatly to the end of the war. We were called the shock troops of the war and were considered some of the best. Billy Bishop, D. MacLaren, Ramond Collishaw, and William George Barker are Canada's air aces of the Great War that served in the RFC. They actually had to pay for their own training.

Canada didn’t even invade Europe until 1943 in Italy except for Dieppe in 42. Then in 1944 we invaded northern France, Belgium, and the Netherlands then the war was over in a couple years. There was no trench warfare or being hurled into machine guns. Unlike the Great War we had air support, modern tanks, and far more accurate artillery. Plus it was during a Great depression which is why probably most people actually joined the war for a job the Great War was mostly just for King and Empire. That is why we have the poem in Flanders fields that is where most of our memorials came from the Great War.

We thought it would be a short war also unlike the second one they knew it would be long and unlike the second we had already lived through a Great War so had some experience. You could argue we did more in the second world war I don’t think we did I lost more of my family in the great war then in the second. I think the Second World War could have been won without Canada many of our mobilised forces didn’t even serve overseas. The First World War without Canada probably would have taken a lot longer and many victories or strategies might have never been used.

   

While we had significant success in WWI as you pointed out, our contribution to the whole war effort as far as a fighting force was much larger in WWII. You've ignored the fact there was a RCAF and RCN which were involved in the Battle of Britain and Battle of the Atlantic long before 1943. As far as army troops, we were part of the home defence in Britain from the outset of the war. Our Navy was the 4th(?) largest in the world and we had fighting men in all theatres of war including the Pacific which were engaged in the defence of Hong Kong.
Certainly we were a significant force to be reckoned with in WWI but we contributed far more in the larger WWII.

   

Great post bootlegga...

note to clog: please learn proper punctuation

   

People make more of WW2 than any of the other 20th century wars because it is the only one that ended with a clear victory and a lasting peace.

WW1 ended in a way that simply fueled the next war.

The Korean War is not actually over as there is only an armistice in that war.

Vietnam...'nuff said.

The 1991 Gulf War is still being fought.

The Afghan War, in many ways, is the same war the Brits were fighting there 200 years ago.

People seem to want to celebrate the results of WW2 while they ever-so-carefully avoid the lessons of that war.

   

Let's see Clog....

WW1 -- 4 infantry divisions formed into the Canadian Corps (or CEF). Lost 60,000 dead in four years of fighting. There was no air force and a very small RCN (60 ships give or take) that mainly did limited convoy operations. We fought a variety of major battles including Ypres, the Somme, Vimy Ridge, Passchendaele, and Cambrai, as well as heavy fighting in the last 100 days of the war. Aces like Collishaw and Bishop


WW2 -- 9 divisions raised (5 2/3 sent overseas forming the 1st Canadian Army), over 40 squadrons of aircraft in the RCAF, and more than 350 ships in the RCN. The RCAF finished the war as the world's 4th largest air force, the RCN was the world's 3rd largest navy, and the Canadian Army was more than double the WW1 force raised (including almost 3 full armoured divisions). The North Atlantic theatre was the only command in either war to have a Canadian commanding it. And while Canadian Army casualties did not start to 'pour' in until 1943, the air force and navy each lost thousands of men in the first few years fo the war. Buzz Buerling and Russ Bannock were two of Canada's aces in WW2. While they may not have gotten as many kills as Collishaw and Bishop did in WW1, each spent plenty of time away from the front, either as instructors and/or for PR/Victory Bond drives. Perhaps you should read about Ortona, Caen, the Battle of the Scheldt, and the Liberation of Holland before you say that our effort on the ground wasn't as intense as it was in WW1.


The proportion of people in service in WW1 and WW2 was very close, so your assumption that the Great Depression drove enlistment is way off. No, people joined to fight a monstrous evil that would have ruled the planet with an iron fist. The Kaiser in WW1 was simply stupid (and maybe insane) but he was far less of a threat than Hitler was. Hell, it could be argued that most of the european nations were led by egomanical morons...

The thought that WW1 would have taken longer without the Canadian Army is slightly plausible (because of our contributions in the latter half of the war), but let's be honest, it was one Corps on a battlefront with millions of men and a couple dozen Armies. Yes, the Canadian Corps developed into an elite shock formation, but this was not until 1917. If the war had been stretched, it might have only been a few months, or a year at most. The arrival of 2 million fresh American troops (in 1917-1918) would have put and end to the war one way or another.

Now, WW2 would definitely have been lost without Canada. Canada provided the space and paid for the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP), which graduated over 200,000 Allied pilots and aircrew. Without it, the Battle of Britain (and the subsequent air war in Europe) would have been lost. After the fall of France, the only major army formation in the UK was the 1st Canadian division. Every other British division had lost the majority (in some cases up to 90%) of their heavy weapons, equipment, and transport. Had Operation Sealion gone ahead, us Canucks would have been at the forefront of the fighting. Our farms and factories kept Britain from starving and provided much needed armaments and ammunition. Otherwise, the UK would have had to fight by herself for a year and a half without aid from any ally, as the USA did not enter until Dec 1941, 18 months after the fall of France.

   

Yeah.......what he said!!

Good post bootlegga........I would have had to crack open a book to get that information.

   

Oh, if anyone is wondering about two thirds of a division, I am thinking that would be the two independant army tank brigades bootlegga?

   

I do not think it is. 30% of Canada's labour force was unemployed and the government started handing jobs to people to join the military many took them. Sure they were there to help Britain and Europe get rid of the Germans but lets be honest it was a job for many people who desperately needed one. You can't tell me that had no impact on enlistment of course it did it affected it profoundly.

The facts are twice as many people died and were wounded per capital in the Great War than the second. Only 400,000 more were in the military compared to the Great War. Yet Canada had 3 million more people. Sure we did have a Navy and the BCATP but we didn't win the war with that. 1 million Canadians didn't turn the tide of the war. Per capita Australia, New Zealand, and the UK lost more than we did. Not to mention the Soviet Union, which really turned the tide of the war and enlisted 34 million people. The USA had almost twice as many forces than the entire Commonwealth combined at 19 million. Australia sent as many people as we did with a smaller population too. The Second World War could have been won without Canada in my mind sure we did contribute but it wasn't like we beat anyone single handily. I think the Great War was the greatest war Canada fought and the impact was more profound than the Second World War had on Canada.

We lost more people, lost a lot more money, it was the first major conflict we fought in as a country, we never were really threatened and people had jobs yet people still went to fight. But both wars are really just one big war we didn't finish the job in the first and Germany still had some fight with in him and lashed out. They are both sad wars the fathers of the first thought after the horrors they saw no one would want war but their own children ended up fighting again. The Second World War may be fresher in people's minds and might be more advanced but we should never forget the Great War and what happened.

   

I agree with Clogeroo. The only thing is Canada was part of the British Empire at the time and really doesn't get the recognition it deserves.

   

Clog,

You need to read up on these conflicts before wading in on a discussion regarding the complexities. Troop strength, while important, is one aspect of a major military conflict – especially the Great War and World War Two. Canada contributed economically, militarily and politically – why not look at WWII manufacturing figures to get an objective look at contributions.

I read your stuff and it seems to be all over the place. Your information regarding enlistment factors is incorrect as are the motivators – that goes for both conflicts. Secondly, in terms of national impact, the 2nd World War was a fundamental turning point in this nation’s history (as was WWI). Our military was significant at the war’s end, our nation (mostly through the efforts of C.D. Howe) became a major manufacturer, we spearheaded major collective security agreements, we led the international community in reassessing morality and its application to civilization and we benefited in numerous ways economically (this and ideological post shifts ushered in an era of unprecedented material and demographic growth). This was all as a result of our major assistance (militarily and economically) to the Allied victory.

   

1  2  Next