Which one contribute more to the Allied war effort: France, Canada, Poland, or China?

Who gave biggest contribution to the Allies?

  • France/Free French Forces

    Votes: 12 6.7%

  • Dominion of Canada

    Votes: 75 42.1%

  • Poland/Polish government-in-exile

    Votes: 16 9.0%

  • China (both Kuomintang and Chinese Communists)

    Votes: 75 42.1%
  • Total voters
    178

Rex Romanum

Banned
I once read an old thread (I forgot which one) about who are the 4th biggest contributors to the Allied war effort in the WWII: France/Free French Forces, Dominion of Canada, Poland/Polish government-in-exile, or China (both Kuomintang and Chinese Communists).

The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd biggest contributors are of course USA, UK, and USSR, in no particular order.

So, what are your opinions about the issue?
 

EternalCynic

China. Not even a contest. Tying up virtually the entire IJA in an endless meat grinder was no mean feat.

It's perhaps #2 behind the USSR and at least #3 behind the USA.

#4 would be the UK. Of France, Poland, and Canada, most probably Poland due to the tremendous resources required by Germany to occupy it.
 
Beedok

Beedok

China drained the IJA, but they weren't really vital for a naval war. It was a valiant effort, but it was about as crucial as Germany's navy to the war effort. They bled a lot more, but I think Canada's industrial output made a bit more of a difference in shortening the war. (If they hadn't been bleeding in China Japan would've had more troops to defend the home isles and slightly more troops to send at many points but they just didn't have the logistics for it.)

I'm not understating the sacrifice of the Chinese, but Japan was doomed either way.
 

EternalCynic

Beedok said:
I'm not understating the sacrifice of the Chinese, but Japan was doomed either way.
Click to expand...
A China which surrendered quickly would, with half-competent Japanese propaganda, have dissuaded calls for sanctions in the US. No sanctions means no Japanese oil shortage, and no need to invade French Indochina, thus preventing the entire Pacific War. There would not have been a WW2, only a regional European war with suspicious similarities with the last Great War. Eventually of course, the US will enter with its entire might focused on one narrow strip of western Europe, thus drastically shortening the war.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
France (of those listed); India (in actuallity)

France (of those listed); India (in actuallity)...

The Chinese (KMT and CP) fought long and hard, but the Pacific War was a maritime war; the IJA conquered everything it realistically could have held and exploited with about 12 infantry divisions.

Of which the IJN and the JMM never moved more than about four at a time...

Conquering France in 1940 required an Axis OOB second only to what they concentrated on the Eastern Front in 1941-42; there were more German divisions in the OOB to conquer France in 1940 then there were to defend against the allies in France in 1944...

As far as deployable combat forces, counting divisions is shorthand, but still - by 1944-45:

France: 1st, 2nd, 5th armored; 1st (Motorized), 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 27th infantry (12 divisions, of which 8 were in action in 1944);
Canada: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th (Armoured), 5th (Armoured);
Poland: 1st Armoured, 2nd Armoured, 3rd Infantry, 5th Infantry;

As a point of comparison, China managed to deploy three divisions - 22nd, 30th, 38th - outside of their "home" theater, as part of the X Force/NCAC in Burma.

The Indian Army OOB (which, of course, was about 20-25 percent "British") include the following that served "away" from India:

1st/31st Armoured; 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 17th, 19th, 20th, 23rd, 25th, 26th Infantry ( 13 total; in addition, the 9th, 11th, and 14th divisions were lost "overseas", essentially, in 1942)

Including air and naval units bumps Canada up (the RCN was the third largest navy in the world in 1945), but the French air and naval strength was substantial as well.

Best,
.
 

LeX

China of course. If we see it for the massive theater it was and not just as a sideshow for the Pacific or whatever, then the answer is clear.

Likewise, the Soviet front was certainly the main battle in Europe. I remember reading about the Battle of the Bulge recently. I expected to find a massive bloodbath, but it turns out that the losses were about 100,000 men and maybe 500 tanks.
 

farmdogg

I'd suggest Canada - 10% of population served in uniform. 3rd largest navy, 4th largest air force. Even the merchant navy would have been in the top 10; an army (air force, navy) travels on its stomach & needs to be considered.
 

interesting...

China. Not even a contest.
France could be argued for if only it hadn't been defeated so quickly, along with a large collaboration government that prevented their navy or colonies being used by the Allies.
Poland has a fair argument because of enigma. But I would say being the USSR of Japan was more important.
Canada was there throughout the war true, and you're right. Canadians were at Normandy. But Normandy was also a massive battle on a tiny front.
 

Rex Romanum

Banned
EternalCynic said:
China. Not even a contest. Tying up virtually the entire IJA in an endless meat grinder was no mean feat.

It's perhaps #2 behind the USSR and at least #3 behind the USA.
Click to expand...
Plumber said:
The only reason China wouldn't be fourth is if it was third or second.
Click to expand...
AH.com always has things that really surprise me, but...the idea that Chinese contributions in Second World War are bigger than that of the British and the Americans? Seriously? :eek:
 

TFSmith121

Banned
That's a fair point; I suppose my answer would be

Maur said:
If you list divisions, you should include Polish divisions in the east, no?
Click to expand...

That's a fair point; I suppose my answer would be if they can really be seen as separate from the Red Army as a whole, and whether they were in action outside of what would have corresponded to "Poland"...how much different were they than the Hiome Army, etc.

To me, there's something of a distinction between formatrions that were - essentially - "deployed" away from home, and so which can be seen as interchangeable (at least to a degree) with the mass of the forces provided by the Big 3 and those that were not...

There is all sorts of room for interpretation, of course.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Except that from 1937-45, that's exactly

LeoXiao said:
China of course. If we see it for the massive theater it was and not just as a sideshow for the Pacific or whatever, then the answer is clear.

Likewise, the Soviet front was certainly the main battle in Europe. I remember reading about the Battle of the Bulge recently. I expected to find a massive bloodbath, but it turns out that the losses were about 100,000 men and maybe 500 tanks.
Click to expand...

Except that from 1937-45, that's exactly what the China theater was.

There are a million ways to interpret it, but if sheer numbers in uniform (more or less) is the criteria, than okay...but in terms of forcing an enemy to surrender?

Um, no.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
A massive battle on a tiny front that led to the

interesting... said:
China. Not even a contest.
France could be argued for if only it hadn't been defeated so quickly, along with a large collaboration government that prevented their navy or colonies being used by the Allies.
Poland has a fair argument because of enigma. But I would say being the USSR of Japan was more important.
Canada was there throughout the war true, and you're right. Canadians were at Normandy. But Normandy was also a massive battle on a tiny front.
Click to expand...

A massive battle on a tiny front that led to the German surrender 11 months later...

How long were the Soviets grinding away, again?


There are a million ways to interpret it, but if sheer numbers in uniform (more or less) is the criteria, than okay, the Chinese defeated Nazi Germany, Japan, and Italy...

But in terms of military power that forced an enemy to surrender?


Um, no.


Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yeah, there's a lot of that sometimes

Rex Romanum said:
AH.com always has things that really surprise me, but...the idea that Chinese contributions in Second World War are bigger than that of the British and the Americans? Seriously? :eek:
Click to expand...

It's almost like no one has ever read the term "correlation of forces" or something...

Best,
 

Rex Romanum

Banned
TFSmith121 said:
It's almost like no one has ever read the term "correlation of forces" or something...

Best,
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should rename this thread "Which one contribute more to the Allied war effort: United States, United Kingdom, or China?", with USA, UK, and China as the poll options. :rolleyes::p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top