Is that not enough for you contribute with his life?
- 1
- 1
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
Is that not enough for you contribute with his life?
Only day 1 of the European war (and, technically, day two/three, as they gave the Germans 24 hours to respond to the ultimatum, which they didn't issue until a little after war had begun, but I know what you mean) - there was only one member of the Allies fighting from 1937 through to 1945, even if they didn't actually join the Allies until a bit later, and they had a pretty rough run of it as well.
Hmm, you're right. China. It's easy to overlook their part in the war, I suppose. Yes, they suffered badly both during the war and especially after it.
Because I'm not a young chap anymore, I was brought up with the notion that WW2 started on Sep 1st 1939. Nowadays, there's strong case for it starting in 1937 and even earlier. It just seems like the invasion of Poland was the event that plunged Europe into a war that grew to include countries that were already at war themselves.
If it were up to me to set a date for the start of WW2, I'd go with 1st August 1914
- 1
You really can't look at it as which country contributed the most. The UK, USSR, and USA were all vital, IMO, in bringing the war to the end.
Without the USA, the UK could not have mounted a proper counter offensive.
Without the USSR, there would not be another front opened up for Germany to commit to.
Without the UK, the USA would not have geared up, industrially, towards the war until it was forced to enter it.
This is really simplifying the accomplishments and contribution of the three major parties to the war, in effect, I feel that all three needed each other in the war.
Without the USA, the UK could not have mounted a proper counter offensive.
Without the USSR, there would not be another front opened up for Germany to commit to.
Without the UK, the USA would not have geared up, industrially, towards the war until it was forced to enter it.
This is really simplifying the accomplishments and contribution of the three major parties to the war, in effect, I feel that all three needed each other in the war.
I think the easy answer would be Germany 100%
They contributed the most to WW2 by actually being the main reason for starting it...
They contributed the most to WW2 by actually being the main reason for starting it...
- 1
China definitely doesn't get enough credit, they kept the Japanese Army busy while we gutted their Navy.
If it were up to me to set a date for the start of WW2, I'd go with 1st August 1914
If you hadn't ended with that sentence I would have.
"This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years"
-Ferdinand Foch on seeing the Treaty of Versailles
- 1
To be fair, it's not too difficult to see why a British person might see their country as having contributed the most to WW2. I don't think that's true but I can respect the opinion because it's a position based more on pride than on arrogance.
Britain could never have hoped to win WW2 without help from either the US or the SU. I don't think that's disputable but I'd be very interested to hear if people think it was actually possible. But that doesn't mean that they didn't contribute 100% and are proud of that fact.
Hard statistics have no heart. The numbers clearly favour the US and the SU but Brits are proud of the fact that we stood against Hitler and did our best to bring the fight to him where we could, in the Med, while <cough> everybody else did nothing. And that's an emotional position. Perhaps the numbers tell a different story but that's the way we feel and I think that's understandable.
- 2
Kwantung army? Million men strong? Mainland Asia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War_(1945)
Yea, it is amazing that in the discussion about contribution in WW2 some are willing to take a stage and basically say "Hey! But we supplied trains and canned meat!".
Not that USA's support wasn't extremely important ofc, it was. But supplies allowed Soviets to focus on the war effort, maybe they could do without it maybe not but when it comes to winning WW2 mandatory thing to do was to take and make millions of German soldiers die for the Vaterland and that was what Soviets did.
- 1
I remember an old phrase saying that the UK provided the time, the USA the money and the USSR the blood.
- 3
Usa is the guy who waited while Yermany and the Soviet Union had a fistfight until both were exhausted to hit yermany once and then claim the total victory over yermany
- 2
well its typical, everyone likes to see themselves as the BEST.
pretty sure if China had a poll they would see themselves as the top contributor too
pretty sure if China had a poll they would see themselves as the top contributor too
I war reading Churchill yesterday and he wrote down that the Americans considered the Chinese as very important during WW2 (of almost equal fighting power with the British Empire and they rated the Chinese armies as a factor to be mentioned in the same breath as the armies of Russia). I was quite surpised.
For most of the war. Soviets losing half of their artillery in 1941 probably contributed to that. Not in 1944 and 1945. Bagration and Vistula-Oder were operations with the highest artillery density of the entire conflict, sometimes reaching 500 guns per mile of front.
As a Chinese (of the ROC origin) I'll have to say "not much"
Yes, the eight long years was brutal and bloody, certainly tied up a lot of Imperial Japan's army. But where else could they have used those manpower?
The Imperial army already tried the Northern approach in 1939 and failed against the Soviets. Ship more man to the Pacific islands? That will only exaggerate the problem of logistic which historically was a nightmare as it was.
- Status