Egorka asked elsewhere “which country contributed MOST to the Allied victory”.
In reality the USSR, UK, USA etc all put 100% in to winning the war.
Rather than asking who contributed most to the Allied victory it would be more interesting to understand which belligerent on either side contributed the least to their side’s war aims - Italy? Romania? France?
Any thoughts?
Ignoring the quantitative comparisons that are probably going to be made, on a qualitiative basis I’d say Italy because its military ineptitude forced the Germans to rescue it in North Africa and Greece, thus diverting their forces from actions more directly associated with German war aims, and with Greece critically delaying Barbarossa. Who knows how that would have ended up if the Germans had got moving three to six weeks earlier. I’m not trying to start that up as a sub-topic. It’s just mentioned to point out how Italy’s conduct interfered with by far the biggest campaign the Germans undertook. The Italian surrender was the final piece in Italy’s three great disasters which dragged German troops in as a consequence of Italy’s failures.
It could be argued, if somewhat flippantly, that Italy made a bigger contribution to the Allied effort than to its own or to the Axis effort.
Thailand? I believe they were nominally on the Axis side (due to very heavy pressure from the Japanese and historical animosity towards the French) but so far as I’m aware the contributed almost exactly nothing to the war effort.
I would say France, because in despite his large amount of military material they cant hold on. That create a quick collapse in the west and incidentally bring to the german many military vehcles, guns, etc wich were employed against the allies.
I have respect for Italy in World War 2, but I believe Italy contributed the least to the Axis powers. Italy did not have much wins by itself. Most of the time Germany had to help them way too much. If it were not for Germany helping the Italians in raging battles so much Italy would have been easily taken. Now I do believe they did not have as high-tech equipment as other armys, but it is no excuse if the Germans are helping you on more then 3/4 of the battles.
We are being rather unkind to the Italians. Again they were subject to an ambitious, facist regime. The soldiers were ill-equipped for practically every campaign. However, they did put up some strong resistance to the Eight Army in the Western Desert, which was advancing from El Alamein. I doubt they were even interested in going to war. I think their midget submarines were quite successful at Alexandria.
http://www.hnsa.org/ships/maile.htm
December 18-19 1941.
Sea War, Mediterranean
The Royal Navy’s Force K, operating from Malta, runs into a minefield off Tripoli. The cruiser Neptune and destroyer Kandahar are both sunk, while the remaining two cruisers are damaged. An Italian ‘human torpedo’ attack upon the British Mediterranean Fleet in Alexandria, Egypt, sinks the battleships Queen Elizabeth and Valiant. However, both vessels sink upright in shallow waters and are eventually repaired. Nevertheless, these losses severely reduce British naval power in the Mediterranean. The ‘human torpedo,’ a midget submarine driven by two operators, is designed to enter defended harbors and clamp its warhead onto a ship’s hull. The British soon develop their own version called ‘Chariot.’
I think it is easy. Look at hte list of Axis and Allied coutries and pick the smallest and most remote ones.
My pick:
Axis - Albania,
Allies - could be Mongolia that joined in 9th of August 1945.
Guys, after we look at who contributed least, why can not we look at who contributed most?
In reality the USSR, UK, USA etc all put 100% in to winning the war.
Then we get 300%… 
But fear not! I know what to do.
Here is a little math: AUSSR + BUK + CUSA + Dall_others = 100%*Our_COMMON_Victory
Find A,B,C and D.
Then find MAX(A,B,C,D).
Can you? But not in this thread of course!
[QUOTE=Egorka;96277]I think it is easy. Look at hte list of Axis and Allied coutries and pick the smallest and most remote ones.
QUOTE]
Perhaps, one should consider the resources availabe to the country and the percentage used.
Bravo! I am sorry to put it this way… Have went to school?
The question is clear - “who contributed the least to their side’s war aims”.
There is no reffrence to the “resources availabe to the country and the percentage used” in the threads topic formulation! It is about the size of the input!
A country can contibute least to the common goal and at he same time contribute most of it’s resources. But both Arnob1 and me are talking about size of the contribution! And you keep twisting it up side down!
Why is it difficult to understand?
Peace and love!
Yaaawn…! Let us try not to become too pompous, or it might be mistaken for arrogance.
Of course I did not go to school…is that not obvious?
My points are both relative and comparative.
Never the twain…:roll:
You lack of education screams out from the gibberish in your signature lines, which could elicit only this gibberish in reply.
Our expectation hath this day an end:
The Dauphin, whom of succours we entreated,
Returns us that his powers are yet not ready
To raise so great a siege. Therefore, great king,
We yield our town and lives to thy soft mercy.
Enter our gates; dispose of us and ours;
For we no longer are defensible.
As might other things not be defensible.
He lost his bottle! :mrgreen:
Bravo, my educated friend!
Why do not you open a thread about this “including resources available”? It think it is very relevant too.
I have an interesting thoughts about it…
Tempting, but I tend to find your aims rather spurious and your comments puerile.
Surprise me and say something interesting! :roll:
Come on! Are you afraid I will twist your topic up side down and highjack the thread just like you did? 
You want interesting… here you are: since additional 4% to Soviet GNP from Lend-Lease was so vital to USSRs in 1942, then it means the share of the internal resources used was largest for USSR. USA compare to them were just having a good time.
Nice! Right?
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility!
…But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage…!
Hey Egorka you need to take account of the fact that some of the smaller particpants in the war had no real impact at all for their side - i.e. their contrubtion was neutral and meaningless. Whereas other belligerants attempted to play a full part but in fact were more of a hindrance than a help. Such as the Germans entrusted parts of the Russian front to the Romanians only to have to hurriedly reinforce that fron at short notice. So may be the Romanians were more of a hindrance than a help in this example; if they had not been present at all the may be the Germans woudl have formed their front line some where else.
Arhom1,
IMO, looking formaly at the way you formulated your question my answer makes sence. Because the question was about the total amount contributed. At least that is how I read it.
I do not beleive that Romanians contributed less than the trouble thay caused. First there was an oil field that, if I remember right, provided 40% of the German oil needs. Second, Romanian army may not have been so good compare to German, but it occupied large territory and therfore allowed German army to fight (btw, my grand father was cought in the ocupied Odessa for almost 2 years). Presense of the Romanian forces also allowed higher concentrstion of German forces on the direction of ttheir main strike, hereby providing support for initial success of Barbarossa.
So I do not beleive Romania contributed less than Albania. Do you?
“Que?”
[INDENT]Manuel[/INDENT]