Were there only wusses in WWII besides Russians, Germans and Americans?

[Asher]

1812 beyotch! 1812!

[Richelieu]

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Ming


Would you guys just chill...

No one is upset, least not me. I do find it rather amusing that an obvious troll brought out the Canadians in full force to seriously defend their nation not being a bunch of wussies and that 1812 got brought up in a thread about WW2.

Has anyone gave Etchy a rating btw?

[Asher]

that 1812 got brought up in a thread about WW2.

Not to destroy your whole tirade, but it was an American that brought 1812 up in this thread, not a Canadian...

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Has anyone gave Etchy a rating btw?

The funny thing about this, which has indeed been labeled a troll by many, is that it has never received a rating. Two Germans who felt embarassed for their own boredom called it a lame / stupid troll, but beyodn that, people just kept discussing. Partly because the thread diverted.

Given how noone ever made it to a rating, I'd say it must be at least 9.5/10. Best troll ever

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The difference is that my irrelevant quoting and hero worship were knowingly ridiculous...

Actually quite a few things you said were ridiculous:

Take the Russians out of that statement and I'll agree wholeheartedly.

and

That blitzkrieg seemed pretty new-fangled at the time. Then again, why am I expecting a Canadian to know anything about war?

and

It's already been established that the Japanese army was crap.

and

As such, a minor British triumph over the IJA does little to prove the worth of the British Army,

and

I'm having a hard time thinking of any places the Brits managed to take back from the Japs, on the other hand

Not only ridiculous, but contradicting your earlier statement too. My, whadda shock!

That Burma Campaign - bit skimpy on the details, weren't you ?

the large amount of help America provided in the endeavor.

This was a corker:

Good show by the Brits in managing to recapture Burma in the same amount of time it took the Yanks to advance all the way across the Pacific to Japan itself!

Demonstrating to all of us what you actually really know about jungle warfare. How did another American put it ? One who was there, that is:

It was about one part fighting to three parts sheer misery of physical environment. It was climbing up one hill and down another, and then, when breath was short, fording streams with weapons held aloft or wading through swamps. It was sweat and then chill; it was a weariness of body and spirit; and once again tropical illness was a greater foe than enemy bullets.

R. L. Eichelberger, 'Jungle Road To Tokyo', Odhams Press London 1951

And as one British officer recorded in his memoirs of Burma:

...leeches in the jungle, chaungs in spate that he had to cross with ropes; socks that shrank because they were never dry; the whiskers that grew overnight on his boots and the fungus that grew on his binoculars.

Major-General G. N. Wood, 25th Indian Division history of the Arakan campaign

Yes, advancing island by island across that "empty" ocean was surely much easier than attacking Burma from adjacent India, a major British stronghold...

Which makes one wonder exactly where you think Japanese reinforcements and supplies on isolated Pacific islands were going to come from ? Blown in on typhoon winds or tropical breezes perhaps...

As opposed to Siam, say, allied with Japan, and the Japanese military bases in Vichy IndoChina and occupied Malaya and the Dutch East Indies, all rich in rice, rubber and oil and minerals and all close to or bordering Burma.

The country between India and Burma was peculiarly difficult; communications almost did not exist; the disease infestations required that armies, if they were to operate with any degree of efficiency, should be remarkably well-organized with medical and sanitation servcies.... the Japanese had acted on the principle that geography had contrived to give Burma the perfect scientific frontier, and calculated that they would do enough if they posted troops to guard the few practicable approaches from India.

Chapetr 22: Two Indian Armies in 'Total War Vol.II: The Greater East Asia & Pacific Conflict ' by Peter Calvocoressi, Guy Wint & John Pritchard

The notion that the British in India could just simply ignore the Civil Disobedience campaign in India, acts of sabotage, agitation by the I.N.A. and the Axis threat to the Allied oil supplies in Abadan is as absurd as it is ignorant- but then along with Burma, your knowledge of India in WWII would seem to be seriously lacking too.

Mounting a spirited defense is all well and good, but you do need to go back on the offensive at some point, something the British were incapable of against both the Germans and the Japanese.

As I've already stated, but let's just hear it one more time- the British did indeed take the fight back to the Germans and the Japanese.

When you're wrong you must really like to compound your errors...

As here:

Animals... (about Allied troops' conduct in Burma)

Even meant in what passes for a jest this was a remarkably stupid and offensive comment.

As I recall, it wasn't British soldiers who needed to be told not to commit acts of cannibalism on each other, or who took pleasure in executing out of hand American pilots and consuming their flesh.


And then of course having been found wrong, you decide to change tack:

Wingate and the Chindits won some minor victories, but they did nothing that would outweigh the terrible showing of the British Army that led to the conquering of Malaya, Singapore, Burma, etc. in the first place.

As I recall the Chindits actually held up Japanese forces that were meant to be fighting the American/Chinese troops in northern Burma. As Calvocoressi puts it:

The higher Japanese officers regarded him (Wingate) without anxiety, and said that he must starve in the jungle; the more junior officers were shocked by the boldness of his strategy, and by their inability to hunt him down.

Also in 'Forgotten Armies', Christopher Bayly & Tim Harper point out that:

...there seems no question that the sudden appearance of such a large Allied force (the Chindits) at his rear disrupted Mutaguchi's plans and unnerved his commanders... the disruption of Japanese communications and battle plans in the north also significantly aided Stilwell's advance on Myitkyina later in the year, though he, too, was highly sceptical of Operation Thursday.

The Japanese never entirely regained the advantage of surprise and flexibility which had served them so well early in the war. Over the next two years, they were constantly looking over their shoulders, fearing attacks by the Chindits and other Allied special forces.

And somehow, the defeat of Japanese forces in the Burmese theatre of war was the defeat of the single largest Japanese army in WW II. AS a Japanese reporter put it:

These fierce battles (in Nagaland & Burma) are comparable with Verdun in the last war.

The Japanese started the campaign with 85 000 men and lost 53 000, with British/Indian forces' losses amounting to 16 700. It was one of the worst catastrophes to befall the I.J.A. .

Unfortunately, you've drifted off into some irrelevant discussion about monsoons and jungle terrain and ignored my actual point, which was that invading Burma, positioned as it was right next to the British stronghold of India, would seem a simpler proposition than a lengthy series of amphibious operations spanning thousands of miles of open ocean.

It would seem that to anyone ignorant of conditions on the Indian-Burmese border, and of how the terrain and climate affected the conduct of war in Burma. But then, I've already shown that.

Then again, I'm not out to revise Wingate's role into that of a conquering hero whose limited raids into Burma somehow restored the honor the British Army lost in its drubbing at the hands Japanese.

See, you just can't stick your point, but have to change tack again. There was no sign of my 'rehabilitating' or 'revising' Wingate's role, and as you implied the British were poor fighters and stated that the British didn't take the fight back to the Japanese, I just thought I'd reiterate that in fact they weren't poor fighters and did go on the offensive. Because you just keep on ignoring those inconvenient facts, don't you ?

Aaah, but this explains it.

I prefer to give the Burma campaign the attention it deserves based on its actual historical importance. Given that it was little more than a sideshow fought out by rather pathetic armies, I can't say I've devoted an inordinate amount of time to it.

Against ignorance the gods themselves contend in vain...

the oh-so-formidable molly bloom school of argument via irrelevant quotes...

Let's see some of the 'irrelevant' people I've quoted- Orde Wingate, who did actually fight in Burma, Field Marshal Slim who commanded in Burma, and Winston Churchill.

As opposed to your formidable 'argument', which consisted of repeating the same inanities, ad nauseam and changing tack whenever it suited you. Oh, and getting the facts wrong too.

[Patroklos]

Burma was a sideshow compared to almost every other campaign of the war.

"JUNGLE WARFARE JUNGLE WARFARE JUNGLE WARFARE!!!"

I find it interesting that you believe this is some sort of boon to your argument that Burma was the end all of all campaigns. It isn't like all the Solomons were not covered in Jungle, or the Philippines, or dozen other islands the Americans took without contiguous supply lines or completely unhindered lines of communication.

Hell, you barely had to deal with the Japanese Navy, by far the disproportional powerful branch of the Japanese military. In fact the Navy was the only reason Japan's military was considered modern at all. After losing the Prince of Wales and Repulse on one of the most stupid Naval missions of all time (sad, proud ships) the British did mot participate in the war against the Japanese in any significant way past the Straights of Malacca. And no, the British army gets no credit for the very successful efforts of the Australians and New Zealanders, their glory is their own.

Burma AND North Africa were nothing more than an attempt by the British to do something, anything after they had been squarely defeated on all fronts save one, and the Army had zero responsibility for the victory over the skys of England. What else were British forces to do in India but fight in Burma? Not like it was some grand gesture to topple Japan.

Norway: FAILURE - BEF: FAILURE - Greece/Balkans - FAILURE.

And these are not temporary tactical setbacks in an overall strategic front like Kaserine (is it with a C?) or the initial bulge in the Ardennes or the British failure to break out of Caen, but the complete collapse and routing of entire armies and campaigns. This isn't even taking into account the horrendous tactical loses such as the first two years in Africa, SE Asia and the Battle of the Atlantic. None of those three even began to turn around let alone be won until massive American material assistance arrived in the case of the first two and the mission was actually taken over by us on the third. America doesn't have anything even close to these horrendous performances, all inflicted on a nation on a war footing with plenty of time to prepare, ie nothing like Barbarossa or Pearl Harbor or the Philippines.

And lets face it, after America was in the war and fighting every engagement there after are rightfully placed at the feet of the Americans. We were undoubtedly the senior partner in Normandy; Caen was a disaster for the British and only saved by the American breakout. Market Garden was almost half American and other troops despite its British leadership and still a failure. Sicily and Italy were mostly American enterprises, both Naval and Army wise. Ardennes, unquestionable an American victory. After 1943 the British were simple the junior partner in everything that transpired.

And none of this disparages the fighting spirit of tenacity of the individual British soldier. A lot of these defeats are due to circumstances out of the control of the British (you can’t blame the BEF for the poor showing of the French) or simply bad leadership (more often simply facing better leadership) but for whatever reasons they are legitimate defeats nonetheless. It is actually similar to the situation Britain found itself in during the First Coalition of the Napoleonic Wars, defeated on all fronts but holding Caperstown (Battle of Britain) and Cape St Vincent (Africa) as tremendous victories for pride but nonetheless doing nothing to change the situation on the continent, merely providing temporary security from invasion. It took Russia (America) to win.

But in short, Molly, I think you just need to put Burma in perspective

[Drake Tungsten]

It's a good thing that Patrokolos responded to molly (I think), 'cause I'm way too drunk to read either of those posts...

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Is it me or do Canadians obsess about America way too much?

Nah-- they don't even brew a good beer--

Seriously though its a country 10 times our size with which we share a lengthy border and to whom we sell most of our "stuff". So we NOTICE!!

Originally posted by Sprayber
I also wonder when Canadians get a little depressed in the winter,

Real Canadians never get depressed in winter - - thats sacrilege-- It hockey season and we get to model our toques

Originally posted by Sprayber
do they gather together around a warm fire and talk about 1812.

Nah-- we talk hockey and maybe sometimes curling before huddling with a cute girl "for warmth"

1812 is just something we can chant at the OBNOXIOUS Americans

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

Aaah, so principled pacifism is the same as trading with Nazi Germany, is it ?

I suppose that makes Mahatma Gandhi equivalent to Tojo, and Martin Luther King equal to the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.

Why not try to pick an appropriate analogy for once ? I could just about have understood if you'd chosen a British industrialist, maybe even at a stretch Mosley or the Mitfords.

None of the above (Mosely, Mitford, etc) did as much actual damage to preparedness in the '30s as the pacifist wing of the Labour party, AFAIK.

As for Gandi, there are questions about the net effect of his relationship to the British war effort in WW2. However it would be silly to compare him to Tojo. I wasnt comparing George Lansbury to Hitler. I was comparing him to Prescott Bush. Do you think Prescott Bush is comparable to Hitler or Tojo?


[q]Prescott Bush in the federal files (it's from an American paper, not the Guardian- it must be true!)

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2

Im not going to pursue what seems a red herring, about a man who may have been reluctant to divest profitible holdings, and have been wrong for doing so, but who was clearly not pro-nazi or particularly isolationist. And whose personal mistakes are irrelevant, as hes long dead.

conceal their activities ? If you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to hide, says grandson Bush's government, doesn't it, to justify government intrusion into people's lives ?

As someone whos had personal interaction with US govt data confidentiality policy in recent years, I can assure you that that is NOT now US law or policy. Clearly people whove done nothing wrong have privacy rights. How much the current danger warrents abridging some of those rights (like letting the govt see whos checking out materials on poisonous chemicals at a public library) is something we have been debating vigourously here in our democracy.

I understand there have been similar debates in Britain, concerning widespread surveillance cameras, among other things.

Well so long as you don't like Commies and are willing to fund a Bush campaign it doesn't really matter how many Jews, politicals or gypsies you helped kill, does it ?

Amazingly enough a large number of politically active right wing eastern europeans have very unsavory backgrounds. Amazingly, presidential political campaigns are unable to vette every odd supporting group.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I find it interesting that you believe this is some sort of boon to your argument that Burma was the end all of all campaigns.

Not my argument, but don't let misrepresentation get in the way of facts.

America doesn't have anything even close to these horrendous performances, all inflicted on a nation on a war footing with plenty of time to prepare, ie nothing like Barbarossa or Pearl Harbor or the Philippines.

And exactly what are those oceans on the East and West coasts of the U.S. ? Right, the Atlantic and the Pacific. I imagine you could detect an amphibious force or invasion fleet from some way out, don't you ?

And none of this disparages the fighting spirit of tenacity of the individual British soldier.

Which is precisely what Drake did.

A lot of these defeats are due to circumstances out of the control of the British (you can’t blame the BEF for the poor showing of the French) or simply bad leadership (more often simply facing better leadership) but for whatever reasons they are legitimate defeats nonetheless.

I haven't argued that they weren't.

But in short, Molly, I think you just need to put Burma in perspective

I have, and in detail. Something lacking from Drake's little bilious rants.

[Drake Tungsten]

Which is precisely what Drake did.

I never did anything of the sort. I claimed that the British Army was not a very effective force, just as I claimed that the Japanese Army was "crap". I never made any comments on the fighting spirit of the individual soldiers in either army.

And just to head off an anticipated bit of molly outrage, let me be clear that when I referred to the generalized "British" not being able to fight like their "Aussie" equivalents, I was referring to the abilities of the British and Australian armies respectively. Would seem obvious given that this thread deals with the fighting abilities of the different national armies engaged in WWII, but I surely don't underestimate molly's tendency to misrepresent things in order to make them support his idiosyncratic views.

[molly bloom]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by molly bloom

Aaah, so principled pacifism is the same as trading with Nazi Germany, is it ?

I suppose that makes Mahatma Gandhi equivalent to Tojo, and Martin Luther King equal to the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.

Why not try to pick an appropriate analogy for once ? I could just about have understood if you'd chosen a British industrialist, maybe even at a stretch Mosley or the Mitfords.

As for Gandi, there are questions about the net effect of his relationship to the British war effort in WW2. However it would be silly to compare him to Tojo. I wasnt comparing George Lansbury to Hitler. I was comparing him to Prescott Bush. Do you think Prescott Bush is comparable to Hitler or Tojo?

I didn't say you did compare Lansbury with Hitler. You compared a pacifist in 1933 with someone who was found to have traded with the enemy after America was at war. Apparently now as well as being a pacifist, Lansbury should be a fortune-teller...

None of the above (Mosely, Mitford, etc) did as much actual damage to preparedness in the '30s as the pacifist wing of the Labour party, AFAIK.

Prove it. I'm tired of all your IIUC, and AFAIK and IIRC instead of facts. Let's have your evidence for your assertions.

Amazingly enough a large number of politically active right wing eastern europeans have very unsavory backgrounds. Amazingly, presidential political campaigns are unable to vette every odd supporting group.

And amazingly, Daddy Prescott trades with the enemy and Son George seeks support from the very same kind of folks. An apple never falls far from the tree, does it ?


What people sensitive people say:

Boy, they were big on crematoriums, weren't they ?

George H. W. Bush, after touring Auschwitz, quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times January 29th 1992

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Which is precisely what Drake did.

I never did anything of the sort. I claimed that the British Army was not a very effective force, just as I claimed that the Japanese Army was "crap". I never made any comments on the fighting spirit of the individual soldiers in either army.

Of course you didn't.

Aussies

They can fight, unlike the British.

I read them the way you write them. Don't blame me for being unable to read your mind.

...let me be clear that when I referred to the generalized "British" not being able to fight like their "Aussie" equivalents, I was referring to the abilities of the British and Australian armies respectively.

Oh, so that's what that post SHOULD be interpreted as reading. How convenient.

Would seem obvious given that this thread deals with the fighting abilities of the different national armies engaged in WWII, but I surely don't underestimate molly's tendency to misrepresent things in order to make them support his idiosyncratic views.

I haven't misrepresented anything, just quoted your own words back at you and noted how you kept drifting away from your initial point.

...in order to make them support his idiosyncratic views.

And which ones are those ?

A direct quote please, not a Drakeian interpretation or paraphrase...

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Is this really the only point you have to hang your hat on? Wingate and the Chindits won some minor victories, but they did nothing that would outweigh the terrible showing of the British Army that led to the conquering of Malaya, Singapore, Burma, etc. in the first place.

This is essentially correct. Burma was the sideshow of all sideshows.