OK thanks Rising Sun.
Have a look at the map posted about 4/5ths of the way down page 8 by George Eller showing the main areas of conflict around the globe. (Thanks George. I was actually trying to Photoshop one myself.)
The USA was heavily involved in all of them. It did most of the land, air and sea fighting in the Pacific. It did a bit of land fighting in the CBI and a huge amount of air fighting and supply there. It did a lot of the sea fighting in the Atlantic. It did a great deal of the air and land fighting in Western Europe. It did a bit of the sea fighting in the Mediterranean. It did a little bit of the land fighting in North Africa. It did quite a bit of the air fighting around the Mediterranean. It did a lot of the land fighting in Italy. It’s war production supplied its own and other nations’ needs. It transported this production all over the globe. It supplied its own and other forces, including the USSR’s, along extraordinarily long lines of communication in all theatres. It sunk more enemy tonnage than the enemy sunk US tonnage. It sunk many more enemy capital ships than the enemy sunk US capital ships. It built merchant and naval ships and aircraft of all types much faster than it lost them, and at a greater rate than its enemies could replace the ones they lost to the US.
Nobody is disputing that the USSR bore the brunt of the German attack a couple of years after the war started, or that it suffered the worst losses in people, but as we’re talking about an Allied victory in a world war which goes a long way beyond the German - Russian front, if we’re talking globally George’s map in conjunction with what I’ve just said shows which nation made the greatest contribution to Allied victory.
And, unpopular though this view seems to be, followed by Britain in No. 2 spot as the only other nation on the Allied or Axis sides to fight in all theatres with all three services.
The USSR just doesn’t even begin to figure on this scale as it fought on a relatively small land and air front in Europe and, very briefly, against Japan.
Rising SUn*,
I can see that you a lawyer! Lots of smooth talk and bla-bla-bla! No offence, my friend!
What you said is probably OK… but do not throw everything in one pot! Be structural in your discussion.
First define criterias, THEN discuss them.
So far I have not heard ANY specific points from you on top of what I proposed!
And HOW MANY TIME DO I HAVE TO REPEAT, THAT I AM TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE WAR IN THE WHOLE WORLD!!!
Sorry for capitals but it is probably 10th time I write it to you.
.
Dear Rising Sun this “ralatively small” land absorbed the 75% of Germans war mashine ( as it was showed in one of the early YOUR post). And soviet participation in the Pasific which “briefly” crashed the whole HALF of Japane army in China was aslo wery significant.
But again iit seems we going on the circle here 
Cheers.
Sorry, I thought that was precisely what I was talking about.
It’s partly George Eller’s fault. That map he posted, to which I referred as the basis for the comments in my post, looked just like where I thought THE WHOLE WAR IN THE WHOLE WORLD!!! occurred.
Could you post the correct map showing where THE WHOLE WAR IN THE WHOLE WORLD!!! really occurred?
Well, at least we’re consistent! 
Okay.
The criteria are, from the start of the war in 1939 to the end of the war in 1945, which is the period the whole war ran (ignoring the poor bloody Chinese who copped it a lot earlier) and during which only Britain and its Commonwealth [Edit: originally I included Germany but, of course, it left early too) were actually fighting while others came in later and left earlier:
- Axis naval ships sunk in (a) Atlantic (b) Mediterranean (c) Pacific (d) Indian Oceans by
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
- Axis merchant ships sunk in (a) Atlantic (b) Mediterranean (c) Pacific (d) Indian Oceans by
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
- Axis supply tonnage sunk in (a) Atlantic (b) Mediterranean (c) Pacific (d) Indian Oceans by
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
- Tonnage of supplies supplied to other Allied nations by
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
- Convoys for supplies supplied to other Allied nations escorted by
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
-
Naval ships lost in such convoys by class
-
Merchant ships lost in such convoys by tonnage
-
Capital ships by class at start of war for
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
- Capital ships by class at end of war for
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
10 Capital ships by class lost during war by
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
- Non-capital naval ships by class at start of war for
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
- Non-capital naval ships by class at end of war for
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
13 Non-capital naval ships by class lost during war by
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
- Number of amphibious landings of divisional or greater size by
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
- Number of bomber raids of more than 20 bombers on Germany by
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
- Number of bomber raids of more than 20 bombers on Japanese home islands by
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
- Land warfare to mid-1941 by
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
- Naval warfare to mid-1941 by
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
- Air warfare to md-1941 by
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
- Forces committed to combined Nazi / USSR invasion of Poland in 1940 by
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
- Expeditionary forces committed to defence of continental Europe in 1940 by
- Britain
- USA
- USSR
Christ! I could go on for a couple of hundred items without scratching the surface. These will do for the time being.
Agreed Rising Sun
This could go on forever. My World War II Data Book alone is probably a couple inches thick.
Lord knows how long that would take to scan -
In the end we would still be arguing the significance of the information and statistics.
I’ll be out this evening, but would like to jump in after that. I’m at work now.
By the way, do we include the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and actions taken by the USSR in 1939-40 in furtherance of it, such as the Soviet invasion of Poland, the annexation of the Baltic States and the invasion of Finland, as contributions to Allied victory?
If so, how did they divert German forces from the USSR’s future allies? How did they improve the ability of Britain to continue fighting Germany alone? Was there some other Soviet contribution to dragging Germany down during this period?
Or do we just start the Soviet contribution when Germany turned against it in mid-1941 and the USSR wasn’t getting any more benefit out of carving up eastern Europe with the Nazis, while Britain fought the Nazis alone and thereby, according to many posts in this and other threads, made no real contribution to Allied victory?
Of course not, Molotov-Ribentrop pact only contributed Germany. But we should of course multiply effort of UK, France and Poland by 10 due to they very efficient apeacement policy that provided the foundation of Allied victory.
Regarding your criteria list, I have printed them and going to read. But I can already say you still do not get fully what I want… you split the criterias too much… there is no nead to talk about different seas separatly… but let me read it first. At least we are getting somewhere.
I think there is, not least because, for example, the British and USA were responsible respectively for the Indian and Pacific oceans and the Americans didn’t do much in the Mediterranean which was primarily a British responsibility. (In the widest sense of British, given that the Australians in their usual annoying fashion crossed half the planet to sink one of the Italian fleet’s nicer ships, the Bartolomeo Colleoni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bartolomeo_Colleoni_destroyed.JPG ).
But if you want to insert something like Allied / Axis actions in the Black Sea as a criterion, that’s fine with me.
[QUOTE=Rising Sun*;]
But if you want to insert something like Allied / Axis actions in the Black Sea as a criterion, that’s fine with me. :)[/QUOTE]
No I do not want to talk separatly about any sea at all! But all naval warfare combined.
You see, Rising Sun*, now after I read your list of criterias I have 3 options:
[ol]
[li]Think that you are being disrespectful to me and moke me on purpose. [/li][li]Think that you have no idea what you are talking about at all.[/li][li]You honestly beleive what you wrote and my own miscomunication is the reson.[/li][/ol]
I hope it is the 3rd option that is correct. But I am not sure!
Becasue I can not explain why one would seriously sugest 21 criteria where 15 cover naval warfare! Tell me why in your mind naval battles account for 72% (that is seventy two!!!) importance in the defeat of the Axis powers together?
I am just trying to explain it in your favor and I can simply NOT!
I am not sure we need to continue, as you obviously do not take me seriously and this way the discussion is fruitless.
Chevan while the Soviets did kill more Germans than anyone else measuring how much of the war machine is deployed is a bit difficult because you must take industrial might into consideration. The Germans used a huge amount of resources beuilding their submarine fleet. However, this was generally not used against the Soviets.
German submarines are far larger than tanks and take up much more material.
Then how do you propose to calculate accurately the contribution of individual nations when they didn’t all fight in the same oceans? How do you propose to calculate the contribution of each Allied nation to the defeat of individual Axis powers when, for example, the Japanese didn’t have naval or merchant shipping outside the Pacific and Indian oceans and the British, for practical purposes, weren’t in the Pacific from mid-1942 to the end of 1944?
Becasue I can not explain why one would seriously sugest 21 criteria where 15 cover naval warfare! Tell me why in your mind naval battles account for 72% (that is seventy two!!!) importance in the defeat of the Axis powers together?
That’s only 72% of where I got to. I noted that I could add another couple of hundred items without scratching the surface. Naval items would then be only about 7% of a list of 200, which is about one seventh of the real significance that naval and merchant marine activities had in WWII, although admittedly not on the steppes of eastern Russia where you seem to think the whole war was fought while the other Allies piddled about in a couple of insignificant engagements during the 4 to 6 years that they were involved.
If you don’t understand the significance of naval and merchant marine contributions in contributing to victory in WWII, then you cannot begin to make any accurate assessment of any nation’s contribution to victory.
For a start, the Pacific War was primarily a naval war, and the naval component of it was undertaken very largely by the USN.
In 1942 the US would have lost Guadalcanal without the USN , which fought continuing and major battles during the campaign. If it had lost Guadalcanal the course of the war would have been very different as Japan might have been able to carry out its intention to isolate Australia by cutting the naval supply lines to Australia, which would have prevented the American build up in Australia and removed Australia from the war, and probably led to the eventual invasion of Australia. This would have forced the US to launch all land and naval attacks from the mainland or Hawaii, which would have limited it to a central Pacific thrust without significant land bases in its near rear, thus dangerously extending its lines of communication in attempting land attacks and leaving its naval forces and merchant marine and troop transports vulnerable to attack from the major IJN base at Truk, among other places. As it was, the naval and land campaigns in the Pacific forced Japan to evacuate its naval forces from Truk about the time that the Allied (i.e. 100% American naval, land and air forces) central Pacific thrust was really developing. Guadalcanal was also a 100% American victory on land, sea and in the air. Apart from the primarily Australian campaign in Papua New Guinea, it was the most important land engagement with Japan for the first couple of years of the war with Japan.
The Battle of the Coral Sea, again a 100% American victory so far as combat went, prevented Japan taking Port Moresby, which again would have altered the course of the war in Japan’s favour.
Midway, again a 100% American victory, altered the balance of naval power in the Pacific and altered the course of the war in the Alliess’ favour
The Philippines, again 100% American, involved major naval battles which finished off the IJN.
None of the landings in the Pacific would have occurred without US naval power, and largely US merchant marine power to supply that effort and the large and continuing naval and naval air effort unrelated to landings.
America’s shipbuilding capacity vastly exceeded Japan’s, and America sank Japanese naval and merchant vessels much, much faster than Japan could replace them.
The most significant single contributor to the defeat of Japan was the loss of its merchant tonnage, and in particular the sinking of its tankers trying to bring oil back to Japan from the occupied territories, which was largely an American victory.
The NEI was the third largest oil producer in the world at the time Japan invaded. Japan was forced to go to war, in its mind, because it had only one year’s oil supply and could not surivive the Allied oil embargo. Oil was at the heart of the Pacific war. No oil, no fighting. Simple. Several of Japan’s main capital ships sailed for the Philippines to meet the invading US with only enough oil for a one way trip, which shows just how desperate Japan’s position was and how critical the primarily US cutting of the supply lines was.
I won’t bore you with primers on other areas of the naval and merchant aspects of the war.
I accept that you don’t want to talk about these or any other naval issues individually, but if you don’t talk about them and, more importantly, if you don’t understand them, then you cannot begin to understand what each nation contributed to victory. The fact that you don’t see the need to cover these issues shows just how little you understand about the total picture of WWII.
Can you say Poland? because its one of the polish scientists who break the enigma code and allowed the British to know where the Germans are going to attack from air.
Despite the French has recieve this information in the battle of France, they are somehow reluctant to use this technology and would have given them a tremenous advantage against the Germans.
George,
I meant to follow up your suggestion earlier.
It’s difficult to compare Allied combat contributions in a lot of theatres because there were mixed forces. However, there are two theatres where this isn’t a problem.
First, the Eastern front conflict between the Soviets and Germans.
Second, land battles in the Pacific between the US and Japanese, such as
Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Pelilieu, Philippines, Tinian, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. US and enemy losses during the Japanese invasion of the Philippines would also need to be included for a proper comparison with the Soviet defensive and offensive phases on the Eastern Front.
If your fact books have the figures, it would be interesting to see the ‘efficiency rating’ for the ratio of casualties inflicted and sustained by the Allied land forces in each theatre.
That’s a good and important point that has been ignored so far.
Code breaking and intelligence by all Allied forces made a significant contribution to victory, notably the Enigma machine as you mentioned and the US breaking of the Japanese diplomatic code and partial breaking of the IJN code, which made the primary contribution to the crucial US victory at Midway by enabling the US to know what the IJN was doing.
Also Richard Sorge and the Red Orchestra in the USSR. On the latter point, although the intelligence was excellent I’m not sure it contributed as much to victory as it could have done as my understanding is that Stalin didn’t take much notice of a lot of it.
“Lucy” is another aspect of the intelligence war. They provided a great deal of accurate information to the Soviets, which IIRC was acted upon. The entire spy ring seems to have consisted of one man - Rudolf Roessler - with no identified sources in Germany. Despite this, he provided a very great amount of accurate and timely information to the Russians, often in response to specific requests. The suspicion is that he may have been a conduit for British Ultra intelligence in a manner that the Soviets would believe and would not give away the source to them.
And Bletchley Park.
There must be countless others, but my limited knowledge of this area is from its contribution to operations rather than looking at code breaking and intelligence in detail.
[b]Hello,
Can any one [/b]([SIZE=“2”]except Rising Sun*, who already made his point clear I hope) [b]sugest any other criteria to judge about the contribution to the victory of Allies in WW2?
This is the aproximate current list of issues for which we want to find the country with highest value:[/b][/SIZE]
[INDENT][ol]
[li]Total number of Victims of the war for given country, #.[/li][li]Proportion of the victims to total population for a given country, %.[/li][li]Percentage of the destroyed Axis land forces, i.e. tanks, cars ect. % [/li][li]Percentage of the destroyed Axis airforce per front, %.[/li][li]Percentage of the destroyed Axis sea fleet per front, %.[/li][li]Share of the material help received from other Allies in relation to GNP for given country, %.[/li][li]List of major intelligence acheivments (I know it is a fuzzy one, but very relevant).[/li][/ol][/INDENT]