Which country contributed most to the Allied Victory?

Site Issues 2007 Archive Room
#141

The carnage inflicted in China may be well beyond what people think and some have indicated it might rival the suffering of the USSR. The sheer number of deaths may be enormous but does not seem to be well documented.

#142

I recall that one source suggested that an attempt by the Chinese to halt the Japanese advance by intentinally flooding an area may have killed over 1,000,000 Chinese.

#143

Thanks - You’re welcome guys :slight_smile:

#144

01

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.[/QUOTE]

Hi Rising Sun,

I have scanned the Table of Contents and Preface of the following to give you an idea of the type of information that the book contains. It has 315 pages total - and no, I am NOT planning to scan the entire book.

I will try to focus on your suggestion of the campaigns on the Eastern Front and in the Pacific to start with. I am open to suggestions for anything else that looks useful or interesting. I can go to other books as well.




(CONTINUED BELOW)

#145

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

02



(CONTINUED BELOW)

#146

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

03



Also, this website may have some useful information:

World War II Armed Forces
Orders of Battle and Organizations
This site is created and maintained by Dr. Leo Niehorster.
http://niehorster.orbat.com/index.htm

Index:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/000oob.htm

Orders of Battle Links:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/004links/004links_oob.html

Battles and Campaigns Links:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/004links/004links_battles-campaigns.html

World War II Ground Forces Links:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/004links/004links_armies.html

World War II Aviation Links:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/004links/004links_aviation.htm

Maritime – Naval – Riverine – Ships Links:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/004links/004links_navies.html

Armored Fighting Vehicles Links:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/004links/004links_afv.html

Equipment – Weapons – Uniforms Links:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/004links/004links_equipment.html

Documents – Data – Archives – Musea Links:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/004links/004links_docs.html

Book Search Engines and Online Book Sales Links:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/004links/004links_books.html

Link Sites:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/004links/004links_link-sites.html

#147

And I repeat - I have scanned the previous Table of Contents and Preface to give you an idea of the type of information that the book contains. It has 315 pages total - and no, I am NOT planning to scan the entire book. :slight_smile:

I will try to focus on the suggestion of the campaigns on the Eastern Front and in the Pacific to start with. I am open to suggestions for anything else that looks useful or interesting. I can go to other books as well.

#148

George,

Thanks for scanning that index. Looks like a very handy book to have.

Tables 51, 52 and 53 look like they might have info on my suggestion for a comparison of Soviet : US ‘efficiency’.

#149

to George Eller:

Thanks for the information. This book can be one of the great sources for us here.
In fact I will start looking for it to purchase.
Well done!!!

#150

to George Eller:

George, in the mean while, could you give estimates on these points from the book by John Ellis?

[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]

#151

It would probably help George if you could go through the index and specify which tables you would like him to show.

#152

Congratulation on the 11th page of this thread!
And special thanks to Rising Sun*! :wink:

.

#153

I couldn’t have done it without you! :slight_smile:

#154

We all are doing our best! :mrgreen:

#155

This co-operation despite national differences is what made the Allies unbeatable! :smiley:

#156

[b]Guys!

Now, when the things cooled down a bit in this thread lets try to approach the issue again.

Please read carefully about my idea:

It has NEVER been my intention with this thread to prove or show that USSR was better than others in WW2. Please remember it. In my oppinion USSR suffered the strongest blow and beared most of the burden of the WW2. It does not metter WHY it happened like this, for this particular discussion. That is what, IMO, happened. And that is what I try to show you.

I agree with Rising Sun*, that it is not something one can just show with one number or explain with one sentence. I am perfectly aware of this. That is exactly why I wanted to look at the problem from different angles. These angles whould be the criterias I mentioned. Neither of the criterias ALONE answers the question, but together they get us reasonably closer to answer (not 100% close though).
By the way, I am perfectly aware that USSR was not the biggest contributor in all the points. But lets take a look at it first and THEN make conclusions.

IMO, we did not get far with this thread. So I want to ty again.
I will make a separate thread for each of the criterias (or better say “angles of view”).

Please participate!

If you have an other criteria proposal for evaluation of the Common Allied Victory in WW2 (01.09.1939-02.09.1945), please, post it here with your estimate of the solution.[/b]

#157

:shock:

Keep this up and we won’t have anything to talk about! :smiley:

If you have an other criteria proposal for evaluation of the Common Allied Victory in WW2 (01.09.1939-02.09.1945), please, post it here with your estimate of the solution.[/INDENT][/b]

For each nation:

  1. Geographic reach. Being the distance from the homeland to areas of operations and other relevant reach, such as convoys to supply other Allies and aircraft ferried to other Allies. (Ignore internal reach. Whether Russia had to get stuff from Vladivostok to Moscow or the US from San Francisco to Boston, or Australia from Melbourne to Broome, gets into unnecessary detail which relates more to internal effort and pre-war infrastructure than national contribution to victory.)

  2. Geographic areas of operations on land, sea and air.

  3. Geographic areas occupied at end of WWII. Maybe this should be compared with geographic areas occupied pre-war, but the colonial powers’ large colonial holdings will distort this whether they are included or excluded.

These criteria give a good indication of the combined industrial, logistical, transport, navy, army, and air capacities of each Ally in a global sense; the extent to which they could project power beyond their own borders; and the extent to which they contributed globally to the defeat of the combined Axis powers. It was, after all, a World War.

As for the estimate of the solution, the map George Eller posted at Post 114 is a good starting point.

#158

Right, (you see agreeing with you again!) good points. Now, please, turn your suggestion into the numbers and present your solution. Can you?

#159

I was afraid you’d say that.

If I lived another 100 years I couldnt put it into numbers.

I think it would take me about five years full time just to colour in the maps I suggested.

I’ll see if I can find some nice maps that someone else has done.