Thanks for those figures.
Japan’s problem was that it was losing ships faster than it could build them, while the US was building them faster than it, and the other Allies it supplied, could lose them.
Do you have figures for sinkings?
Milo Minderbinder in Catch 22 was the ultimate black marketeer, selling to the Germans as well as his own side.
Actually, not that different to Henry Ford and GM before the Japanese inconsiderately brought America into the war and forced them to confine their military supplies to America and its Allies, which turned out to be much more profitable.
Actually, weren’t ALL the US supply ships in the Pacific US Navy ships and their personnel enlisted officers and seamen?
“Milo Minderbinder in Catch 22 was the ultimate black marketeer, selling to the Germans as well as his own side.”
I had forgotten about Milo - how could I ? He was the one who did a deal with his German counterparts that involved the Luftwaffe bombing his own airfield, as I recall. There was also “Sgt. Guppy” from the movie, “Battle of the Bulge”, who was still tending his perfume and silk stockings business (nobody mentioned condoms) as Robert Shaw and his panzers approached.
Actually, my answer to the original question in this thread would not be a “service” at all - it would be the long-suffering Homefront, particularly long-suffering in Europe, the Soviet Union and the Far East. As to the contribution of the US Homefront, they may not have been occupied, bombed (much) or massacred, but their huge contribution speaks for itself. And the same may be said for far-away Australia and New Zealand, that contributed in proportion. Not all of the Homefront, of course, contributed to its national war effort; also, there were paradoxical cases, as when the production of a civilian population was harnessed by the enemy. Nonetheless, if the Home Fires had not stayed Burning, none of the services, on any side, could have fired a bullet.
Hope this is not cheating … JR.
Maybe not.
Churchill complained at one stage about Australia profiting from the, mainly, primary production goods sold to the UK. Although that might reflect his perhaps underlying Edwardian imperial attitude that the dominions, which to some extent he still regarded as colonies, should provide for the Empire at no cost to Britain.
I’ve never been able to track down a primary source, but I’ve seen in a couple of books (no, can’t recall which) that Australia was probably unique in ending the war with a Lend Lease or similar credit from its efforts in supplying US forces on the mainland and in the Pacific.
If we compare rationing in Britain and Australia during and after the war, Britain got it a lot harder for a lot longer.
Maybe not.
Churchill complained at one stage (?mid war?) about Australia profiting from the, mainly, primary production goods sold to the UK. Although that might merely reflect his perhaps underlying Edwardian imperial attitude that the dominions should provide for the Empire at no cost to Britain.
I’ve never been able to track down a primary source, but I’ve seen in a couple of books (no, can’t recall which) that Australia was probably unique in ending the war with a Lend Lease or similar credit from its efforts in supplying US forces on the mainland and in the Pacific.
If we compare rationing in Britain and Australia during and after the war, Britain got it a lot harder for a lot longer.
Or Pattons with Iron Crosses painted on them… :mrgreen:
On the Waterfront Austrailan style 
My opinion is if a country will get over the mafia, they could do it, and the mob is over
I don’t think you can really single any one out. Every man had his job and it was a combined effort. I was an Avionics Tech in the U.S. Air Force and without the Radio/Nav system the aircraft couldn’t perform the mission. I used to visit my buddy in the supply section and they had a big banner in the shop that said: “Without supply, they don’t fly”.
Yes you’re right but I think about get over the mafiosos who control the sabotage and not the workers
The polyp is a dead animal without tentacles :army:
For example, I wonder sometimes, the USA have one of the best armed corps in the world, and the best Secret Service also and the crime is rise in the USA in the past and today also
How does it happen this is for me, it’s beyond reason
Which, in WWII in the USA, would be the US government which did deals with the Mafia to ensure smooth work on the US docks.
How are you measuring “the greatest contribution”? By the victories of each service of the armed forces, or the abilities of each service to get the “work” done in the most efficient, fastest way possible? Your question is so difficult for me to answer because it seems as if you are asking for the very meaning of success, which means different things to different people.
Early in the war, as far as I can gather from other sources, the Wehrmacht’s contributions paled in comparison to the resurgent, (and inefficiently led), Luftwaffe. In the later stages of the war, the contributions of the Luftwaffe’s fighter aircraft didn’t fare so very when compared to the Beau or the Hawker Hurricane (and all other subsequent “Hurricane” fighter cousins and sisters), perhaps, most famously the Submarine Spitfire.
I think the Royal Navy/ Merchant Marine made Germany’s life very difficult, but some might say differently.
Sorry, but I do not agree that our Secret Service is the best. We have had several trespassers at the White House of late and that particular agency has some serious problems. As for crime in the USA, as bad as things are, it would be much worse if the average citizen was not able to own firearms.
Sad to hear that but USA is one of the superpowers in this world, you must have one of the best agency 
I think organized crime is unravel easily with the secret service and executed by secret agents and the armed forces