You cannot discuss either world war with a Canadian without Vimy Ridge coming up at least once.
//just kidding, don't worry
- 4
Which country contributed most?
- Thread starter JerkyJerry
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
//just kidding, don't worry
Depends entirely on what is meant by the (presumably deliberate) incredibly vague wording.
Who lost the most people? Russia.
Who did the most manufacturing? USA (it's quite revealing to look at Canada's stats, too).
Who gave up the most of their own power for the cause? UK.
Funny thing is, I don't think IRL has a very well defined warscore calculation to tell us how much contribution score you get for what.
Who lost the most people? Russia.
Who did the most manufacturing? USA (it's quite revealing to look at Canada's stats, too).
Who gave up the most of their own power for the cause? UK.
Funny thing is, I don't think IRL has a very well defined warscore calculation to tell us how much contribution score you get for what.
- 13
Most Axis manpower and dive bombers and slightly more tanks were deployed against the Soviets.
Most Axis artillery, ammunition, trucks, ships fighters and petroleum were deployed against the western powers.
For a while people exaggerated the importance of the west. Now the pendulum has gone to the other extreme and they exaggerate the importance of the east. For instance:
The surrender of Italy and the elimination of the Luftwaffe are "minor" apparently.
Most Axis artillery, ammunition, trucks, ships fighters and petroleum were deployed against the western powers.
For a while people exaggerated the importance of the west. Now the pendulum has gone to the other extreme and they exaggerate the importance of the east. For instance:
The surrender of Italy and the elimination of the Luftwaffe are "minor" apparently.
Last edited:
- 6
So, I'm not Bulgarian or anything, but holy shit (!) well done Bulgaria! Yes, "contribution" is not the right word, for sure, but (a) it's not like Bulgaria asked to be in the Axis, (b) I have to sympathise with anyone who insisted on not contributing to the Nazi side (one could almost see them as an Ally in Axis clothing--almost) and (c) in terms of bang for buck? I like their approach. I mean, what did Papua New Guinea gain? See?
I'd ally with Bulgaria in the blink of an eye. They know how to join the winning side and conserve forces.
EDIT: Also, thanks Sharp, great post!
Last edited:
- 2
What is this forum about and why is it important for us to discuss about which country contributed the most ?
The question has no answere anyway.
The question has no answere anyway.
- 5
- 2
I'd say Germany - if the silly blighters hadn't started the whole thing, then there'd have been no victory by anyone at all.
On the other hand, I'm going to say Sweden for the greatest contribution to any victory in HoI4. Without Sweden we wouldn't have Paradox, thus no HoI4 at all.
On the other hand, I'm going to say Sweden for the greatest contribution to any victory in HoI4. Without Sweden we wouldn't have Paradox, thus no HoI4 at all.
- 5
- 4
Whilst his statement was over the top, the US forces hardly did either of those things alone. Just referencing it to the topic we're supposed to be discussing, the British army in Italy fielded more divisions than the US (although I don't know how the sizes of those divisions compared), and the US hardly solo'd the Luftwaffe.
Not a minor contribution, no, but you seem to give them too much credit. An attempt to get the average on point?
- 3
- 1
I think that the UK, US, and USSR's respective contributions all carried a similar degree of importance in winning the war, though there are so many factors to consider that there can't really be a definitive answer.
However, while certain countries certainly contributed more to the victory than other -namely the "big 3"- this should in no way marginalize the efforts of the smaller contributors. For example, Brazil sent an expeditionary force of 25000 men to fight in Europe. Now this is very small compared to the vast armies of Britain, the US and especially the Soviet Union. Does this mean that their effort didn't really matter? Not at all. Victory in WWII was a team effort. The Allies were called that for a good reason. The sacrifices of every nation should be remembered, no matter how big or small.
However, while certain countries certainly contributed more to the victory than other -namely the "big 3"- this should in no way marginalize the efforts of the smaller contributors. For example, Brazil sent an expeditionary force of 25000 men to fight in Europe. Now this is very small compared to the vast armies of Britain, the US and especially the Soviet Union. Does this mean that their effort didn't really matter? Not at all. Victory in WWII was a team effort. The Allies were called that for a good reason. The sacrifices of every nation should be remembered, no matter how big or small.
- 8
Contribute the most what?
Time in conflict? That would be the UK. In on day 1 and there until the end of the Pacific war. The others who were in on day one couldn't stand against Germany though and neither would we had the channel not separated us from the rest of Europe. Hitler beat us convincingly on the continent in 1940 as well.
Material? That might be the US. I don't know though as the SU was a production powerhouse too but I don't know the numbers. My money's on the US though.
Food? The US.
Blood? There's no question about that. The SU bore the worst of the brunt of the war for four years alone on the continent for three of those years and they paid heavily. And that sacrifice helped everyone else. Without it, the liberation of Europe would more likely have had to be achieved by the liberal use of nuclear weapons.
Suffering? Both the SU and Poland suffered horrifically under Nazi occupation.
Time in conflict? That would be the UK. In on day 1 and there until the end of the Pacific war. The others who were in on day one couldn't stand against Germany though and neither would we had the channel not separated us from the rest of Europe. Hitler beat us convincingly on the continent in 1940 as well.
Material? That might be the US. I don't know though as the SU was a production powerhouse too but I don't know the numbers. My money's on the US though.
Food? The US.
Blood? There's no question about that. The SU bore the worst of the brunt of the war for four years alone on the continent for three of those years and they paid heavily. And that sacrifice helped everyone else. Without it, the liberation of Europe would more likely have had to be achieved by the liberal use of nuclear weapons.
Suffering? Both the SU and Poland suffered horrifically under Nazi occupation.
- 6
Are you kidding me? A minor role? Are you joking? Americans supplied the Russians with Tanks, Ammo, Guns, Planes, Oil, 500k Studebaker Trucks, Jeeps, an entire Military telecommunications system, Food, and Clothes. They also sent Tanks post-Stalingrad. Saying they played a minor role ridiculous. There's evidence that Soviet Archives covered the extent of Lend-Lease they received because they thought it would hurt morale. The Americans played a MAJOR role. Stalin was begging Britain and America for Lend-Lease. I honestly want to know what you're smoking.
- 9
Germany could of never beaten Russia, even in a 1 on 1 war without American lend lease and whatnot. They could of captured Moscow and still would of lost, Russia is too big and strong and Germany too small and weak.
I say weak such as industry, resources, manpower, supply, etc.
I say weak such as industry, resources, manpower, supply, etc.
- 9
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
Most of the people in this thread who are pretending that there are clear cut answers to this question need to do some investigation into how this period of history is actually studied. The warfare of the Second World War was so unique and peculiar in its pressures and so acute in shaping the cultural landscape that there isn't any criteria by which one can judge which political or ethnic identity "contributed" more to its ending. You can judge it by lives lost, landmass involved or material expended, but I think the more you read academic historians on this topic, the more you'll start to discover that it asks a question that is built on a far too simplistic view of history and how national conflict in the 20th century world was actually conducted.
- 4
Soviet manpower was at it's limit in 1945. If you give the Axis all the tanks, artillery and trucks from the western front and give them air superiority then a Soviet defeat is not just possible but probable. The Axis has more economic resources in this situation.
Dont just look at the number of tanks built and conclude that Soviet industry was bigger. Consider for instance the relative Soviet deficit in artillery shells.
- 4
- 1
I believe it is called propaganda. Not all propaganda is intentional or "join the army". And USA dominates western media. If 90% of WW2 documentaries are made by USA, then a lot of the time people will be told how USA won the day even though they did little to nothing in Europe. And that is becouse American education system sucks, which means Americans keep making bs like that.
- 10
- 3
- 1
Some of the blatantly misinformed statements in this thread are staggering.
- 7
Depends metric but Germany, or Italy contributed most to Allied Victory. Hands down.
- 3
- Status