Do G4 have a case. - Page 4

northface · 12-20-2006, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Not on the military commitement, it does not. The numbers are on the Chinese side. That is pure simple fact.

Well the numbers are on the Indian side vis a vis the Canadians. Then you should be acknowledging the force level/ effort of the Indian Army was way above that of the Canadian..which it was. You can't have it both ways if you intend to use one yardstick. Or you can't change the yardstick at your choosing.

PS:

Quote:

Having suffered from nearly twenty years of neglect, Canada's armed forces were small, poorly equipped, and for the most part unprepared for war in 1939. The Permanent Active Militia (or Permanent Force (PF), Canada's full time army) had just 4,261 officers and men, while the Non-Permanent Active Militia (Canada's reserve force) numbered 51,000 partially trained and ill-equipped soldiers. Modern equipment was scarce all around. Attempts to modernize had begun in 1936, but equipment procurement was slow and the government was unwilling to expend money to equip the new tank battalions introduced that year.

Quote:

In addition, approximately half of Canada's army and three-quarters of its air-force personnel never left the country, compared to the overseas deployment of approximately three-quarters of the forces of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.

Quote:

Consequently, the bulk of the Canadian army overseas did not engage in sustained combat until mid-1944. Many of the young soldiers of the 1st Canadian Infantry Division, overseas since December 1939, could claim, by 1943, to have spent more of their adult lives in England than in Canada. Indeed, apart from the Dieppe Raid in August 1942, the Canadian Army fought no significant engagement in the European theatre of operations until the invasion of Sicily in the summer of 1943, by which time the war was nearly four years old.

I wonder what prompted you to make these comparisons..as for China it's obvious China was pinned only in China. India in 3 continents with the largest volunteer army in history. China's WW2 effort is actually a sham compared to India's. China could easily have been an axis member. It was armed by Nazi Germany throughout the 30's.

highsea · 12-20-2006, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by northface

...Individually you cannot compare say the Australian, Japanese or Canadian Army to India, but these countries are part of a block called NATO.

Australia??? Japan???

NATO= North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Quote:

Originally Posted by northface

Lets hear..i never posted anything incorrect. You did.

Riiight....

**Officer of Engineers** · 12-20-2006, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

Australia??? Japan???

NATO= North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Riiight....

He's on my ignore list because I can't stand his idiot propaganda anymore but that's not the only things he had gotten wrong.

highsea · 12-20-2006, 13:15 PM

^^^ He can join mine, too...Must be something in their water...

Blademaster · 12-20-2006, 13:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

He's on my ignore list because I can't stand his idiot propaganda anymore but that's not the only things he had gotten wrong.

Well keep in mind there are many negative propaganda about India and you have unwittingly endorsed a few of them. Highsea is also guilty of that to a higher degree than you. Northface is only trying to get rid of those propaganda about India too.

**Officer of Engineers** · 12-20-2006, 13:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Well keep in mind there are many negative propaganda about India and you have unwittingly endorsed a few of them.

Which ones? You know me a long time. I didn't buy that PPP crap on China. I certainly ain't buying them on India now. As far as the British Indian Army is concerned, I know the British Indian Army contribution and I've even stated that they must have fought at least the division level against the Japanese.

However, I will not buy the line that India has done more than China in WWII. The Japanese commitement there alone dwarfs anything India faced. To say that didn't have any effect on the overall war effort is totally misguided and disrespectful.

crooks · 12-20-2006, 13:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Which ones? You know me a long time. I didn't buy that PPP crap on China. I certainly ain't buying them on India now. As far as the British Indian Army is concerned, I know the British Indian Army contribution and I've even stated that they must have fought at least the division level against the Japanese.

However, I will not buy the line that India has done more than China in WWII. The Japanese commitement there alone dwarfs anything India faced. To say that didn't have any effect on the overall war effort is totally misguided and disrespectful.

I'm not having a go at you, but how is China any more significant?

Japan was never going to be able to play a part in the main theater (Western Europe) either way.

So China made little to no contribution either.

If you want to compare the commitments of both by deaths (both of you), you should stop it right now.

**Officer of Engineers** · 12-20-2006, 14:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crooks

I'm not having a go at you, but how is China any more significant?

Japan was never going to be able to play a part in the main theater (Western Europe) either way.

So China made little to no contribution either.

YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!

crooks · 12-20-2006, 14:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!

No, not at all.

Japan was incapable of REACHING western Europe without invading through Russia (impossible, as history has shown).

The only thing at stake in the pacific was US pride, remote island colonies, and Australia.

China was not a gamebreaker for the allies, and neither was India.

Leave it at that.

**Officer of Engineers** · 12-20-2006, 14:16 PM

And the fact that the US committed the largest naval force in history to destroy the Japanese Empire; dropped two nukes on her cities; and was the cause of the US entry in WWII meant what? The Americans wanted to bleed?

And the attacks on Pearl Harbour, the Bantan Death March, Hong Kong, Sinagpore, all those British and Dutch holdings, as well as the American protectorate the Philipines meant nothing and that they should all have been given to the Japanese?

There were TWO wars in WWII and both of them HAD to be won. The British Indian Army cleared SE Asia. The Chinese openned the Burma Road. And the Americans smashed their way from Midway through Iwo Jima, all with the specific intent of destroying the Imperial Japanese Empire.

crooks · 12-20-2006, 14:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

And the fact that the US committed the largest naval force in history to destroy the Japanese Empire; dropped two nukes on her cities; and was the cause of the US entry in WWII meant what? The Americans wanted to bleed?

And the attacks on Pearl Harbour, the Bantan Death March, Hong Kong, Sinagpore, all those British and Dutch holdings, as well as the American protectorate the Philipines meant nothing and that they should all have been given to the Japanese?

There were TWO wars in WWII and both of them HAD to be won. The British Indian Army cleared SE Asia. The Chinese openned the Burma Road. And the Americans smashed their way from Midway through Iwo Jima, all with the specific intent of destroying the Imperial Japanese Empire.

Sorry, that simply doesn't make it any more important.

Pearl Harbour was a ***** slap for America, so they made a huge deal about it.

The Pacific front wasn't insignificant, just not as important as your dolling it up to be.

The Atomic bomb was an important historical act yes, but the war was won at that stage anyway.

Dreadnought · 12-20-2006, 14:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

And the fact that the US committed the largest naval force in history to destroy the Japanese Empire; dropped two nukes on her cities; and was the cause of the US entry in WWII meant what? The Americans wanted to bleed?

And the attacks on Pearl Harbour, the Bantan Death March, Hong Kong, Sinagpore, all those British and Dutch holdings, as well as the American protectorate the Philipines meant nothing and that they should all have been given to the Japanese?

There were TWO wars in WWII and both of them HAD to be won. The British Indian Army cleared SE Asia. The Chinese openned the Burma Road. And the Americans smashed their way from Midway through Iwo Jima, all with the specific intent of destroying the Imperial Japanese Empire.

Beyond doubt that was a clear intention.

highsea · 12-20-2006, 14:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crooks

...Pearl Harbour was a ***** slap for America, so they made a huge deal about it.

The Pacific front wasn't insignificant, just not as important as your dolling it up to be.

WTF? Are you serious??? A B*tch-slap?

You are a real pices of work, my friend.

Dreadnought · 12-20-2006, 14:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crooks

Sorry, that simply doesn't make it any more important.

Pearl Harbour was a ***** slap for America, so they made a huge deal about it.

The Pacific front wasn't insignificant, just not as important as your dolling it up to be.

The Atomic bomb was an important historical act yes, but the war was won at that stage anyway.

A ***** slap huh?

The Pacific campaign not important?

You have just shown everybody visiting this thread how uninformed/uneducated about this thread you REALLY are!

Blademaster · 12-20-2006, 14:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Which ones? You know me a long time. I didn't buy that PPP crap on China. I certainly ain't buying them on India now. As far as the British Indian Army is concerned, I know the British Indian Army contribution and I've even stated that they must have fought at least the division level against the Japanese.

Fair enough but you are wrong about just being divisional level fights. India also contributed to the war effort in other ways, namely in production of raw materials, food, war materials, etc.

Quote:

However, I will not buy the line that India has done more than China in WWII. The Japanese commitement there alone dwarfs anything India faced. To say that didn't have any effect on the overall war effort is totally misguided and disrespectful.

You will get no argument from me there. But remember that India was in its own front or strategic theater. As there are the Western Europe theater, the Eastern theater, the North Africa theater, the Pacific theater, there is the South Asia theater, Southeast theater, and the Middle East theater in which the British Indian Army played a significant role. Some theaters such as the South Asia theater and Middle East theater may not have the strategic impact as the other theaters did.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
True Islam	Insomniac	International Defense Topics	252	09-11-2007 15:55 PM
Christians besieged in Pakistan	Tronic	International Politics	26	06-06-2007 23:51 PM
My Opinion of Islam	Insomniac	International Politics	252	05-22-2007 07:30 AM
Hindus in Pakistan	Aryan	Political Discussions	169	10-16-2005 17:03 PM
Pakistan & The case for Moderation	tarek	Political Discussions	40	01-16-2005 00:05 AM

12-20-2006, 13:15 PM	#49 (permalink)
highsea *Defense Professional* Join Date: 12-10-04 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 3,478	^^^ He can join mine, too...Must be something in their water...

12-20-2006, 14:16 PM	#55 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 15,915 Country:	And the fact that the US committed the largest naval force in history to destroy the Japanese Empire; dropped two nukes on her cities; and was the cause of the US entry in WWII meant what? The Americans wanted to bleed? And the attacks on Pearl Harbour, the Bantan Death March, Hong Kong, Sinagpore, all those British and Dutch holdings, as well as the American protectorate the Philipines meant nothing and that they should all have been given to the Japanese? There were TWO wars in WWII and both of them HAD to be won. The British Indian Army cleared SE Asia. The Chinese openned the Burma Road. And the Americans smashed their way from Midway through Iwo Jima, all with the specific intent of destroying the Imperial Japanese Empire.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)