Who did the most to win WW1 and WW2

Yeah, sorry, II Corp wasn't the only Australian corp to fight in the Pacific War.

You're a total failure mate.

 

That's funny.......... you seem to think that only the CMF fought in New Guinea............. sorry, the 2nd AIF also fought there.


You're totally outclassed here. Give up.

Maybe you should look up places like Kokoda, Buna...........

 

Wow, the 7th division from I Corps also took part in New Guinea. One error on my part, and a (*)(*)(*)(*) load on yours.

 

Just going to ignore the 9th as well I guess? Well, so far we've stretched your claim of just 3 divisions to 5.

I guess we'll also have to throw in the parts of the 6th division to also fought in New Guinea I guess.

Now what about the 30th Brigade? They also took part in the fighting in New Guinea.

(*)(*)(*)(*), just 3 divisions you say?

Now where are these errors which you're claiming that I stated since we seem to have now moved to what I originally said? Covering your arse with bull(*)(*)(*)(*) now? I suppose that's all you have left now.

Plus the Australian army fought outside of New Guinea during WW2. Oh (*)(*)(*)(*), more things you're wrong about. How poorly you're doing in this argument. Care to give up now or shall we continue with your claim that Australia only contributed 3 divisions to the Pacific War?

 

No, not really.

You seem to have a hard time grasping the fact that the pacific island campaing consisted more than New Guinea.

It was the first phase in which allies prevented the japs from cutting Austriallia and New Zealand off from the states.

After the mainstay of the fighting was done, Aussie did mop up operations, while US forces island hopped all the way to Okinawa.

Its really not that hard to grasp.

 

I'm gonna IL you. You're just not worth the headache.

 

Ok, so you admit you were wrong.

Thanks for playing.

By the way, your grasp of military history is poor at best.

Better luck next time.

 

There is a difference between "revisionist" and "factual".

You have to realize, the Pacific War in WWII has been a major interest of mine for over 30 years. I have aknowledged many times here that it was a war fought and won by Allies. Japan attacked many nations, and they all won together.

But it is disrespectfull to push credit or blame onto groups of people that were involved to greater or lesser degrees. That would be like saying that the US was the only reason the Allies won in Europe, while totally ignoring the vast contributions to that war by the Soviet Union.

 

The Coast Watchers were very important. However, they were almost always small 3-10 man units, that only watched for enemy movement and reported that up the chain of command.

There is no way that the few hundred stations like this even came close to the 200,000 US service members that were dropped onto a single island in the Philippines.

Making a contribution is a far cry from the claim that you made that they did most of the fighting.

 

This is rather simple. Prove your claim.

You claim that MacArthur used more Australians then Americans. Show us proof of how many Americans fought in the Pacific Theatre, then give us proof of how many Australians MacArthur used.

It should be easy to prove if you are correct and we are wrong.

 

Britain vetoed the idea of a European invasion in 1943. As a result the US threw more effort into the Pacific Theater than its "Germany First" strategy originally anticipated.

Mac did command more Ozzie troops during the Port Moresby campaign and on the Buna trail. But his sweep across nothern NG was made primarily with American troops.

Australian Naval units weren't crucial after the Battle of the Coral Sea.

 

What about the Canadians that helped the US take back it's island in Alaska.
Everybody must admit that without the US the war in the Pacific the war would have been lost, unless some how the British and Russians were able to kill Hitler and the war in Europe ended, and the British were able to send down the Pacific fleet, 18 carriers and all. Could some one tell me how many carriers the US had by the end of WW2, I am guessing, 40 odd.

 

If you count both Essex class carriers and Baby Flattops the US had about 100 carriers in the Pacific at wars end. I recall that from a footnote in the best book written about the Pacific Theater:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Rising-Sun-Decline-Japanese-1936-1945/dp/0812968581"]Amazon.com: The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945 (Modern Library War) (9780812968583): John Toland: Books[/ame]

 

Strawman argument. Logical fallacy.

 

Look up the 1st through to 11 divisions and then 1st through to 3rd armoured divisions. More than 3. The fact that he went from Australia had only 3 divisions to admitting more shows that he was wrong and not me. Australia put 1 million people into uniform during WW2. That's a bit more than a few squadrons, a few ships and 3 divisions.

 

Without the US there wouldn't have been a Pacific War since the aim of the Pacific War was for the Japanese to force the US to sue for peace and give them what they wanted.

 

So you want me to include all of the Americans who served in all Pacific War theatres? That'd be a bit dishonest wouldn't it?

 

As far as I know, this was MacArthur's command:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_Pacific_Area_(command)

I dont know the sizes of the units, or how frequently they were deployed, but it seems close to an even split.

EDIT: "In fact, for most of 1942 and 1943, MacArthur commanded more Australian than U.S. personnel. He also commanded some Dutch forces which had retreated to Australia. Some British, New Zealand and other national forces also came under MacArthur's command."

It seems like PKW was right for a few years, anyway.

 

So what I actually claimed since I didn't say the whole war.

 

Seems like it.

 

Then prove your claim. You slaim "strawman" and "logical fallacy", yet you can't prove your claims.

I say duck and hide behind BS when you can't deliver.

 

You are trying to show me divisions. That is nice, now prove that they were involved in combat in the Pacific theatre.

You can't because I know that most of them were involved in "Homeland Defense", and never even left Australia.

Oh, and that is great that you gave us the number of Australian Divisions. Want some more numbers?

There were 22 US Army Divisions sent to the Pacific Theature during WWII. In addition, there were 6 Marine Divisions actively engaged in the war.

Trump.

 

Actually, there was very little that the US had in the threature that Japan wanted. The only territory that was in the area was the Philippines.

The vast majority of the aim of Japan was actually under European control. New Guinea, Hong Kong, Indochina, Burma, India, Australia, Java, the list just goes on and on.

Most of the land Japan occupied belonged to the European nations, not the US. The US was simply important because they had the largest miilitary force in the Pacific Ocean.

And the Pacific War had actually started over a decade earlier, in China. And according to some it was almost 50 years earlier with the annexation of Korea.

 

Not really, since the majority of the Australian forces never actually left Australia. They were dedicated to protecting Australia agains a possible Japanese invasion.

Soldiers that sit in a defensive position and are not used in active combat can hardly be used to claim that they defeated an enemy. Deter, yes. But "beat"? Not even close.

 

Maybe you should learn to read first before engaging in this discussion since I mentioned MAC, not the entire Pacific War. Ffs.