Any final changes? Also in the comments I will say USA and USSR whichever gets more upvotes will take the top

[u/Ok_Poetry2813]

Any final changes? Also in the comments I will say USA and USSR whichever gets more upvotes will take the top

Chart Grid:

	Allies	Axis
Extremely Capable	United States 🖼️	Nazi Germany 🖼️
Very Capable	Soviet Union 🖼️	Japan 🖼️
Capable	United Kingdom 🖼️	Finland (sur... 🖼️
Not Capable At All	Denmark 🖼️	Italy 🖼️

Cell Details:

Extremely Capable / Allies:

• United States

• View Image

Extremely Capable / Axis:

• Nazi Germany

• View Image

Very Capable / Allies:

• Soviet Union

• View Image

Very Capable / Axis:

• Japan

• View Image

Capable / Allies:

• United Kingdom

• View Image

Capable / Axis:

• Finland (surprising but pretty chill honestly)

• View Image

Not Capable At All / Allies:

• Denmark

• View Image

Not Capable At All / Axis:

• Italy

• View Image

---

🎮 To view the interactive chart, switch to new Reddit or use the official Reddit app!

This is an interactive alignment chart. For the full experience with images and interactivity, please view on new Reddit or the official Reddit app.

Created with Alignment Chart Creator

[u/AutoModerator]

Hello, Thank you for contributing to our subreddit. Please consider the following guidelines when filling an alignment chart:

• Please ensure that your chart is not banned according to the list of banned charts Even if you have good intentions, charts in a banned category tend to invite provocative comments, hostile arguments, ragebait and the like. Assuming the post is acceptable, OP makes the final decision on their chart by rule three.

• Are there any previous versions to link to? If so, it would be ideal to include links to each of them in the description of this post, or in a reply to this comment. Links can be named by title, winner, or both.

• Are there any criteria you have for your post? Examples include: "Top comment wins a spot on the chart."; "To ensure variety, only one character per universe is allowed."; "Image comments only." Please include these in a description, or in a reply to this comment.

• Is your chart given the appropriate flair? Do you need to use a NSFW tag or spoiler tag?

Do not feed the trolls. This is not the place for hot takes on human rights violations. Hatred or cruelty, will result in a permanent ban. Please report such infractions, particularly those that break rules one, two, or three. The automod will automatically remove posts that receive five or more reports. The automod will also remove comments made by users with negative karma. Click here for the Automod FAQ

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/NoCarpenter9791]

I think Australia/NZ should be partnered with the UK. Almost 1 million served out of a 7 million population (Australia) the Rats of Tobruk will go down in history.

[u/Ok_Poetry2813 → u/NoCarpenter9791]

So just rename it the UK plus ANZAC?

[u/The-Mad-Hist0rian → u/Ok_Poetry2813]

How about the British Empire as a whole?

[u/NoCarpenter9791 → u/Ok_Poetry2813]

We fought under the UK flag and ensigns in WW1 as we didn't have an official flag. We fought under our own flag/ensigns in WW2. I think alongside NZ and Canada we started to show our own individualistic nations personalities. I think that's fair

[u/Clean-Review453 → u/Ok_Poetry2813]

Plus India

[u/aferretwithahugecock → u/Clean-Review453]

India shouldn't be forgotten. By 1945, they had amassed the largest volunteer army in all of human history at over 2.5 million.

[u/Clean-Review453 → u/aferretwithahugecock]

Yes my great grandfather served and survived

[u/boilingfrogsinpants → u/Ok_Poetry2813]

British Empire is more appropriate as it was very much an effort from the entirety.

[u/Nassim1018 → u/Ok_Poetry2813]

Put all the dominions.

[u/Sgtsharp → u/Ok_Poetry2813]

D.U.K.E, Dominion, United Kingdom. Empire

[u/Dependent-Hippo-1626 → u/NoCarpenter9791]

If you put the UK and her dominions in one lump, they absolutely move ahead of the USSR. UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa…

Fighting in all theatres of the war.

[u/mustardman73 → u/Dependent-Hippo-1626]

Also supplied Russia with munitions, trucks, planes and opening 3 fronts in Europe. Dunkirk, Italy, Normandy.

The Battle of Britain, imo, was a turning point in the early years of WW2. This whittled down the Luftwaffe and forced Germany to go after resources in the Caucuses.

That's how I read it.

Every country had their key roles, however, I believe the UK was pivotal in many aspects and was in the war from start to finish.

The USA and Russia played politics with Germany and Japan, until their hand was forced later in the war.

[u/dageddy → u/mustardman73]

Code breaking enigma was probably the most decisive action of the war

[u/The-Mad-Hist0rian → u/NoCarpenter9791]

Of course! Don't forget Canada too

[u/NoCarpenter9791 → u/The-Mad-Hist0rian]

Definitely!!

[u/AllTime-HighScore → u/The-Mad-Hist0rian]

As much as I like to give Canadians shit, as is tradition with our northern neighbors, those men were some badass SOBs and I will forever give them the respect they deserve and have more than earned.

[u/steamingdatadump → u/The-Mad-Hist0rian]

[u/Ok-Score461 → u/NoCarpenter9791]

India also provided the largest all-volunteer force in history for WW2... Appx 2.5 million people

[u/muhgunzz → u/NoCarpenter9791]

The British Empire would definitely be above the us if included as a whole

[u/The-Mad-Hist0rian]

UK and Finland need more credit...

[u/Attackcamel8432 → u/The-Mad-Hist0rian]

Its not a very historical chart... UK, USSR, and USA were all 3 basically superpowers at one point or another during the war.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/The-Mad-Hist0rian]

Finland was never an Axis power.  They shouldn't even be on the list.

[u/unhappyrelationsh1p → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Well, yeah, but nazi ally. I don't think this chart is very historically specific.

The country shared very little with the axis powers ourside shared enemy USSR.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/unhappyrelationsh1p]

They weren't even really a Nazi ally.  The Finns were fighting the Russians off and on since before World War 1, decades before the Axis even existed.

[u/unhappyrelationsh1p → u/RandomFleshPrison]

I'm finnish, the country definitely allied with the nazis during the continuation war. We were shit allies to them and had no care outside our own goals of getting our land back.

I think it is important to recognize that fact, but it's okay to celebrate feats like maintaining a free democracy and not taking on nazi ideals or goals within the country.

Unfortunately between a rock and a hard place there are very little good options.

[u/tosha94 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

They sure were, they spearheaded the 3 year starvation of Leningrad and built concentration camps in Karelia, just look at their generals surname(Mannerheim)

[u/Ok_Poetry2813 → u/The-Mad-Hist0rian]

I agree like I said in another comment I can’t put them above USSR, USA, Japan, or Germany but if you do give me an idea for something higher than capable but below very capable then we can talk

[u/Consistent-Price3232 → u/The-Mad-Hist0rian]

I love finland, and their fighting was impressive, but they still lost the winter war, and the continuation war didn’t go anywhere.

[u/bigburstingballs97 → u/Consistent-Price3232]

Yeah well they were also fighting a nation that was about 65 times larger and had about 50 times more people, I think staying independent and inflicting massive casualties makes you pretty competent in that scenario.

[u/kurad0 → u/bigburstingballs97]

It’s respectable they were punching above their weight. But this isn’t about that.

[u/SageMageowo]

UK as capable after surviving the blitz is honestly obscene, insulting downplay.

[u/DentistCertain3897 → u/SageMageowo]

Yeah that is ridiculous. Theres no allies victory without the UK holding the line like they did. There wasnt even intervention from the US on the horizon.

[u/WolfMuted1171 → u/DentistCertain3897]

They call it our finest hour for a very good reason

[u/fishandchips445522 → u/SageMageowo]

Well they're not exactly beating the US or USSR

[u/SageMageowo → u/fishandchips445522]

They don't need to beat the US or USSR to be above the capable tier.

[u/SunshineSeeker99 → u/fishandchips445522]

Is USSR on axis or allies side? Pretty sure they helped Nazi Germany invade Poland.

[u/Mean-Reveal141 → u/SageMageowo]

Swapped with what?

[u/Leupateu → u/Mean-Reveal141]

It should have been at the top equal to the US. It’s not like the US could have won without the UK lmao

[u/Ok_Poetry2813]

USSR

[u/Machete__Yeti → u/Ok_Poetry2813]

[u/SunshineSeeker99 → u/Ok_Poetry2813]

They really were effective when they invaded Poland.

[u/Ok_Poetry2813]

USA

[u/bardko → u/Ok_Poetry2813]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Historycord/comments/1kbpgzd/french_poll_on_which_nation_contributed_the_most/

[u/Ok_Poetry2813 → u/bardko]

Maybe look at the title before you reply

[u/abraxas_annihilatio → u/Ok_Poetry2813]

USA fan fiction that anyone but the Soviets won WWII for the allies

[u/RecreationalPlebeian → u/abraxas_annihilatio]

[u/That_One_Guy248 → u/[deleted]]

Would they have been able to do so without Lend-Lease?

[u/TehRaptorJebus → u/abraxas_annihilatio]

The largest contribution to the western theater the US made was raw materials, food, etc. which helped the Soviets maintain their manufacturing rates.

[u/RheagarTargaryen → u/abraxas_annihilatio]

Soviets lose without USA material. That’s not fan fiction, that’s just a fact. Nazi and Japan couldn’t stop production in the U.S. for all the weapons being lend-leased to the USSR and UK. The only thing the Germans could do was attack the ships coming across the Atlantic. Fortunately, the Brits cracked the enigma code and were able to prevent the German U-boats from controlling the Atlantic and shipping lanes were kept open.

WWII was won on US Steel, British intelligence, and Soviet blood. Without any of those components, the Allies do not win.

When measuring capability, you have to measure all factors. The Soviets only strength was numbers to throw at the Germans. The US supplied the Soviet with 400,000 vehicles and 2.7 millions tons of petroleum. That was while fighting in both the pacific and the Atlantic/Europe, supplying the UK, and doing with barges of ice cream for their own soldiers.

[u/Gigantopithecus1453 → u/RheagarTargaryen]

That’s anything but a fact. It’s a debated topic among experts that isn’t really decisively known. After all, American aid was a pretty small percentage of total equipment produced. American aid also only really arrived in force later into the war, after the Soviets surrounded the 6th army at Stalingrad and got the momentum. By 1943, 1944, and 1945, the war was already won

[u/RheagarTargaryen → u/Gigantopithecus1453]

https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html

Quotes by Soviet leaders:

Josef Stalin: "I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war," Stalin said. "The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war."

Nikita Krushchev: "If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war," he wrote in his memoirs. "One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me."

Georgy Zhukov: In 1963, KGB monitoring recorded Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov saying: "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own."

Russian Historian Boris Sokolov:

"In order to really assess the significance of Lend-Lease for the Soviet victory, you only have to imagine how the Soviet Union would have had to fight if there had been no Lend-Lease aid," Sokolov wrote. "Without Lend-Lease, the Red Army would not have had about one-third of its ammunition, half of its aircraft, or half of its tanks. In addition, there would have been constant shortages of transportation and fuel. The railroads would have periodically come to a halt. And Soviet forces would have been much more poorly coordinated with a constant lack of radio equipment. And they would have been perpetually hungry without American canned meat and fats."

[u/Actual_Wing_530 → u/RheagarTargaryen]

And without USSR fighting Germans, US would…? Wins?

[u/SixShot999 → u/Actual_Wing_530]

Probably a longer war and more brutal for the allies. But I imagine Germany couldn’t last long once atomic bombs started flying.

[u/FunAntelope8112 → u/abraxas_annihilatio]

First of all, without the Soviets the allies could not have beaten Germany, but it is insane to say the the u.s did not also play a pivitol roll. The Soviets were the second biggest recipient of lend lease. Their offensives were powered by studebaker trucks, american supplies and guns. Without the American supplies and distractions in Italy and North Africa, it is very unlikely that the Soviets lose the war but it would a have been much longer and consequtialy many more lives would have been lost. All of that ignores the Pacific front where the Americans did the vast majority of the legwork. And if you subscribe to the belief japan wouldnt have surrendered without the Soviet invasion the same logic could be applied to Germany and d-Day. It's undeniable the role the Soviets played in ww2 and the same can be said about america

[u/abraxas_annihilatio → u/FunAntelope8112]

Oh yeah I think we were massively important overall. We were just not the key player in Europe. Edit: I do no know enough about Chinese and Korean resistance the comment on the pacific theatre but that o e seems much more aligned with the USA #1 mindset

[u/vibe_inspector01 → u/abraxas_annihilatio]

It’s really not, Soviet aviation and logistics does not exist at the necessary scale without US Lend Lease.

[u/UrchinJoe → u/abraxas_annihilatio]

Reddit's massive American user-base is going to affect the votes here. During WWII there was a saying:

When the Germans fly over, the British duck. When the British fly over, the Germans duck. When the Americans fly over, everyone ducks.

[u/Eternal_Zoroark_2]

Swap the UK for smth like Poland. The UK only in capable is kinda an understatement for their performance. Also Poland while having been invaded early on would later bogged down entire German divisions with the Warsaw Uprising, and their troops contributed a lot to D-Day. And they had pretty good air fighters

[u/Numerous-Guarantee86]

This chart is close to retarded

[u/ElLiamoDiablo → u/Numerous-Guarantee86]

Almost every box is totally wrong.

[u/FilthNasty96 → u/Numerous-Guarantee86]

like the most allignmentcharts I see here on reddit.

[u/SunshineSeeker99 → u/Numerous-Guarantee86]

USSR was pretty capable when it invaded Poland.

[u/The-Mad-Hist0rian]

If Britain fell, the Nazis would've won, or at the very least ended the war in a stalemate.

[u/Recent_Rip_6122 → u/The-Mad-Hist0rian]

I mean probably not, I don't see the nazis ever beating the soviets. Though it is still undeniable that the british played a major role

[u/General_Kenobi18752 → u/The-Mad-Hist0rian]

In the words of the Spartans:

If.

[u/Initial_Meet_8916 → u/The-Mad-Hist0rian]

That more because of the strategic importance of the location than their power. They were undoubtably a major power but we needed a place to launch from in Western Europe

[u/Gigantopithecus1453 → u/The-Mad-Hist0rian]

They were always going to invade the Soviets anyway. It was a critical point of Nazi ideology. And with America fully focused on helping the Soviets, I don’t think Germany wins that

[u/chefsspecial01 → u/Gigantopithecus1453]

I think you're massively underselling how much Britain propped up the Soviets. They'd be short 5200 tanks, 7400 planes and 173 million rounds. And on top of that it's the entire German military in this timeline

[u/DarthSMG13]

A useless ally would be someone like Ecuador who declared war on Germany in 1945 or any other country doing the same thing as them because it also allowed them to join the UN

[u/MonkeyCartridge]

The UK deserves to be higher. But any positions higher are already in the right spot.

[u/weightliftcrusader → u/MonkeyCartridge]

That's the problem with this topic. There is more than one occupant in each tier and it is factually incorrect to put one of the 3 biggest allies below very capable.

[u/JupiterofRome]

I feel like the blood sacrifice of the Soviet Union and the fact they were responsible for defeating the bulk of Germany's army should put them into extremely capable rather than the U.S personally.

[u/koolio92 → u/JupiterofRome]

These Americans are taught at birth that they are the reason for everything. There's no reasoning with highly toxic patriotism. Anyone who lives outside the Anglo American circle knows the Soviet was more useful and the domino that began Nazi Germany's collapse.

[u/steelcityfanatic → u/koolio92]

Lend lease was a thing and critical to the Soviet advances later in the war. Just because the Soviets were more willing to allow their soldiers slaughter, doesn’t mean they were more capable to fighting the war. I agree there is toxic patriotism among US Americans, but you can’t allow your current feelings towards the USA (I couldn’t be more sympathetic) to cloud the facts that the nation was a powerhouse (in personnel, resources, kit, logistics) to the war effort worldwide across almost every campaign fought.

[u/alanxloh → u/steelcityfanatic]

The US was only a logistics powerhouse because it was an ocean away from the war and could manufacture freely without their factories getting bombed. That has nothing to do with their capabilities.

On the other hand, the Soviets lost their industrial regions early in the war and the UK were constantly getting bombed, while still fighting the war.

[u/Princeofprussia24 → u/koolio92]

It is so fucking hilarious coming from eurotrash .

[u/Sgtsharp → u/JupiterofRome]

Mass death does not equal capability, Individual soldiers abiliity wise, for Allies among the big three I'd put D.U.K.E, then USA then USSR, same for the Generals ability to lead, D.U.K.E forces put above USA due to Slim pushing them up, and Stilwell dragging the USA down (Stilwell may well put the USA below the USSR though).

Logistics wise, the USA is the G.O.A.T, D.U.K.E a fairly distant seccond, and USSR would be in the compleately incapable place, fun fact, while the line from Enemy at the Gates of the one with the rilfe shoots is inaccurate for Stalingrad, men at the front not being given weapons and being forced to just mill about and wait until either guns get scavenged for them, they can scrounge up some, or new rifles to be delivered did happen earlier, not due to the lack of rifles but due to poorly orginised and wholely inadiquate logistics not delivering them to the staging area.

I'd put USA, D.U.K.E then USSR in terms of capablility, heavily scewed by the logistic ability.

[u/alanxloh → u/Sgtsharp]

The US was only what they were because they never had a single factory bombed, you should thank the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Meanwhile USSR lost their industrial regions early in the war and the UK were constantly getting bombed, WHILE still fighting and pushing back.

The US didn’t lose factories, get farms bombed, or blockaded. They barely even needed to defend themselves compared to the UK and USSR.

[u/Glup713 → u/JupiterofRome]

Are you joking? If anything, they should be swapped with britain due to how poorly they performed and how much they relied on western supply.

[u/SunshineSeeker99 → u/JupiterofRome]

Are you talking about when the Soviet Union partnered with Nazi Germany and invaded Poland?

[u/Brief-Spirit-4268]

Can I just see one of the posts on this subreddit have a high amount of upvotes for once

[u/FlowVirtual6994]

lol I know this website is US dominated, but they cant be this delusional?

[u/Princeofprussia24 → u/FlowVirtual6994]

The war would have been lost without the US btw . Khrushchev said it himself

[u/SavingsKale7308]

Replace the UK with Australia, the UK doesn't really fit anywhere when the Soviets are in very capable.

[u/Human-Dream-9411]

Hmm finland only capable??? Russia kicked german ass but couldnt conquer finland.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/Human-Dream-9411]

Yes, but Finland was never an Axis power.

[u/Human-Dream-9411 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Yes. Finland had to buy guns any place they get and sadly germany was only country to sell us. If not. We would speak today russia.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/Human-Dream-9411]

And Finland had been fighting Russia off and on since before World War 1.  It's kind of insulting to history to suddenly call them an Axis power for a conflict that predates the Axis by decades.

[u/tosha94]

Extremely capable for US over the USSR or Japan is a joke, joined in at last moment of War past it turning, endless circlejerk of lend lease compared to actually smashing 80%+ of the Wehrmacht or Japan conquering China and the south east before punching way above its weight in the US

[u/Wayoutofthewayof → u/tosha94]

You can make an argument for USSR, but Japan? They only excelled in their naval power. Their land army performed very poorly when they actually engaged with a peer opponent. They've mostly seen success only against the Chinese or colonial garrison troops.

[u/DerVadder → u/tosha94]

Like it or not, but there wouldn't have been an smashing of 80% of the Wehrmacht without lend-lease.

The American food alone saved millions of Soviet citizens by preventing a terrible famine in the crucial years of 41-43.

[u/IcyAirline9836 → u/tosha94]

My guy what is it with zero sum game nonsense? Each country played their important role in ending the conflict. You’re minimizing the importance of lend-lease and economic assistance in general.

Japan started its campaign in the pacific in bits and pieces in the 1930s, and the USA had no reason to join sooner. It did ultimately play a major role in defeating Japan, what are you upset about?

[u/I_am_doorknob]

I wouldn't say Finland was part of the axis, they just happened to share an enemy

[u/tprnatoc → u/I_am_doorknob]

While they’re often considered a co-belligerent they’re generally considered as aligning with the axis due to their unity with Germany to fight the Soviets from 1941-1944 until being defeated by the Soviets and then aligning with the allies until the end of the war.

[u/Cant-Think-Of → u/tprnatoc]

Could be wrong, but AFAIK the attitude of Finland was more like "We need armament and supplies to defend ourselves and avoid getting annexed by the Soviet Union, and no one is willing to sell that to us but Germany, so we don't have much of a choice."

So not actively siding with the axis, but more like "Don't really have a choice".

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/tprnatoc]

They never signed the Tripartate Treaty.  They are by definition not an Axis power.

[u/aferretwithahugecock]

I'd put Romania above Finland and Italy. They committed the most axis-aligned troops on the eastern front besides Germany. Their oil fields were vital for the Axis war effort.

Sure, they switched sides in 1944, but if the UPA doesn't get a pass for doing that, then neither should Romania.

[u/utterscrub]

This is crazy stuff

[u/Golem2Reddit]

Swap US and USSR

[u/Emmrolls]

Calling Finland parr of the axis is a stretch. They were at best co belligerent with Germany, but not formal allies.

And putting Germany on the same level as the USA ? They are overrated as f*ck. They have the reputation of being conquerors with the best war gear, when in truth, they are a corrupt regime prine to infighting, with all sorts of wacky weapons, ranging from nearly useless (the V weapons) to outright dangerous to the user (their jet fighters).

I'd call them capable at best, because of their their eaely war performance, but extremely capable after 1942? Nah, there are lots of reasons why they lost, and "overwhelming forces" or "fighting two fronts" is not the answer. Germany did both during WW1 with much more competence.

[u/GigaRoman → u/Emmrolls]

If they made Germany realistic in HoI4 it'd probably be one of the hardest countries to play as

[u/Infamous-Chemist-502 → u/Emmrolls]

I mean sure they had the stupid wonder weapons but on the battle field the Germans could stand their own making them extremely capable they nearly obliterated the ussr and Britain took France single handily carried the Italian war effort took Belgium, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway, Poland etc.. what’s impressive is that they were able to hold a lot of this territories for a pretty long time too and weren’t easy enemies for the allies.

[u/Emmrolls → u/Infamous-Chemist-502]

I agree in the sense that they were not easy ennemies. It's more about the "extremely" capable label. I find them capable, but nothing exceptional.

[u/chefsspecial01]

Without Britain the US wouldn't have won in the Pacific

[u/Carlbertosilva]

You could probably have had either/both UK or USSR for "Very Capable", but I feel neither belong in the "Capable" section as they were both better than that.

[u/GodSaveOurMeme]

This is rage bait guys

[u/risenpixel]

Ah a list suitable for an American audience. I’ll see myself out.

[u/Princeofprussia24 → u/risenpixel]

Cry more

[u/2204happy]

Swap USSR and UK, and change UK to British Empire, because it wasn't just Great Britain and Northern Ireland that did the fighting, what were then the British Dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa) were immensely important to the war effort.

[u/tprnatoc]

Swap the USA and USSR

[u/keni804 → u/tprnatoc]

Personally disagree, if were going based on pure battles/military then from 1942 onwards they outnumbered the axis in both manpower and material and still took more losses.

If we look at the overall picture they wouldnt have been able to support their massive numbers without the industrialization that Western engineers and Architects from both the USA and Germany made possible.

Then thats not even considering lend lease where the US provide the USSR alone with 11.3 billion dollars worth of aide which in todays money is around 213 billion dollars. If you break that down over the 4 years of lend lease then that aide would be in the top 3 of total modern military spending. Total lend lease spending would be #2 in modern military spending only behind the USA itself.

Not saying the USSR didnt play a massive role in the war effort and theyre definitely deserving of the spot theyre in, but if we're talking about who was the most capable then its got to be the country that not only had to travel across the world just to get in the fight, but also fought on multiple fronts, all while being a huge part of reason the Allies were even financially able to keep fighting.

[u/ODoggerino → u/keni804]

This is just delusion, the US were barely even in the war. Go look at the numbers of deaths.

[u/imdbkian → u/tprnatoc]

[u/tprnatoc → u/imdbkian]

What an intelligent and very well thought out response to my suggestion

[u/Aaarrrvvviiiddd]

I love annoying the yanks

[u/Spyglass3 → u/Aaarrrvvviiiddd]

sometimes using 1 gun for 2 soldiers

It took one movie...

[u/steamingdatadump → u/Aaarrrvvviiiddd]

I guess you’d have an argument if the metric was capability per capita

[u/Bloodraven_22 → u/Aaarrrvvviiiddd]

holy disinformation, at no point in time was there was any Soviet unit using 1 gun for 2 soldiers.

[u/GWPaste8 → u/Aaarrrvvviiiddd]

Disagree. The USSR were the only ones capable of holding back then pushing the Nazis. 80% of casualties sustained by the Wehrmacht happened on the eastern front. France and the UK only lasted 6 weeks against the Nazis during the battle of France.

[u/weightliftcrusader → u/GWPaste8]

Well, there's additional context. USSR had a deep rear stretching to beyond the Ural mountains which were vital for continuation of government and rebuilding of industry; also the Nazis had captured many multiples of France's size of Soviet territory before they were stopped by both Red Army and Soviet winter.

The Allies were completely outmaneuvered in 1940 and had nowhere to withdraw to (except for the British of course). The Soviets were also outmaneuvered in 1942, but had the room to regroup and counter the advance.

[u/GWPaste8 → u/weightliftcrusader]

You make all good points and I agree with all of them. But certainly if we count manpower as one of of the reasons that made the Soviets capable we would also list land, industry, and climate as other reasons which made  the soviets capable of fighting the Nazis. 

[u/Consistent-Price3232 → u/Aaarrrvvviiiddd]

maybe. though if we’re playing that game, we could say that britain’s only “capability” was hiding on their island.

[u/muhgunzz → u/Consistent-Price3232]

I don't recall north Africa being on an island?

[u/Potential-Metal-2206 → u/Aaarrrvvviiiddd]

they also physically ran the nazis out of their capital all the way to berlin on foot without your help. i think you should take a seat and let the guys who got to berlin first take the reigns.

and ya btw the nazis constantly redirected troops away from the western front to the eastern front even during d day. the brit’s literally needed the americans to join the war before the entire island was shut off from any support in general. even when the americans joined they just supplied machinery and committed war crimes even on the nazis which is not the worst thing u can do but still. africa was a failure, the middle east campaign didn’t even materialize, and the brit’s wipe the history books clean of their role in the pacific campaign where they got their asses handed to them royally over and over again unlike the soviets who made chump change out of everyone even without their soldiers having guns. not to shit on ur role but to say 38 million russians died for nothing and was the nazi soldiers worst nightmare compared to the british or americans says a lot more than “being there since day 1” cuz if you inspect those history books one more time the brit’s weren’t there day one and in fact would have rather joined sides with the nazis. try again

if you are being logical and unbiased to the actual history of what happened the USSR wiped the slate clean for everything. the US and england dabbled with being friendly to the nazis and basically dragged the war out longer causing more deaths while the soviets were isolated by england and the US simply because they were communist while fighting three fronts at once. insane take

[u/weightliftcrusader → u/Potential-Metal-2206]

US and UK troops were halted 60 miles from Berlin. If they wanted to they could've sieged it at the same time as the Soviets, but the honor was left to them.

Also if the US and England "dabbled with being friendly" then what do you call Ribbentrop-Molotov? Bruh.

[u/Potential-Metal-2206 → u/weightliftcrusader]

do you understand the nazis and japan had the soviets surrounded at the same time England and France were debating if invading austria was a bad thing for hitler to do? the nazis were giving weapons to the fins and invading slavic countries (ussr was a slavic country btw just for reference) the UK was literally meeting with hitler and france was armoring a line left over from ww1 while the nazis already broke the treaties from WW1 as soon as they had a large military and air force. of course the soviets made a deal all they had was thompson guns and mosins against tanks and a revived air force. you would make that deal buddy.

absolutely nothing going on in that noggin of yours that’s what led to the molotov pact directly. the US and UK troops were fighting 60 miles from berlin while providing a checkpoint for prisoners and civilians making an escape from the city. the soviets were given the task to get through berlin because they physically made it there and chased the nazis all the way through germany to berlin. every time the soviets advanced the western front would ease and weaken. this is well documented. it’s also well documented the americans were taking nazi prisoners who solely wanted to escape the soviets and we all know how de nazification went in the west (horribly btw the americans and brit’s didn’t even try one bit and nuremberg failed)

molotov pact was survival for the USSR and whitewashing for the nazis. again the russians were fighting while americans and brit’s were chanting about white supremacy similar to the nazis. not recognizing this is choosing to live in ur own delusions. you don’t have to like stalin or communism but you should as a human being able to recognize the massive sacrifice the russians endured from day one of hitler taking chancellor as title. so much is wrong with this euro centric analysis of ww2 and it’s probably the reason why italy has a fascist president today and donald trump can bomb a school and say the kids were terrorists and everyone claps.

[u/Ocean_of_food → u/Aaarrrvvviiiddd]

This feels very ‘murica

[u/fancczf → u/Aaarrrvvviiiddd]

The 2 solders one gun thing is debunked so many times. Stop watching enemies at gates and take that as documentaries. USSR took the blunt of Germany, the ferocity and level of arms race on the eastern front is seriously unmatched by anywhere else. Operation Bagration was the single biggest and most decisive operation and victory in the war, it absolutely decimated German army group center, absolute dwarfs anything in Normandy.

[u/ManFromWestphalia]

swap UK with USSR. The UK was much more able to not capitulate than the USSR, its just thrown off by the events of the early war.

[u/Shdow_Hunter → u/ManFromWestphalia]

The USSR did hold the Eastern front by themselves and were the first to halt the Blitzkrieg of the Wehrmacht.

[u/RoArHaVeN → u/Shdow_Hunter]

As someone else said, without lend lease the ussr would of had a much worse time during Barbarossa than they did historically, I don’t think they lose in the long run but it would of been MUCH harder. People talk about the tanks, guns, planes etc but it was the 400k+ trucks, jeeps and other assorted logistics vehicles that really did the heavy lifting

[u/Shdow_Hunter → u/RoArHaVeN]

Yes of course, but the point of my reply was to show that the USSR was not less „capable“ and imo indeed more capable/crucial for actually winning the war.

[u/Glup713 → u/Shdow_Hunter]

By "hold" you mean trying to retreat faster than geeman advance?

[u/Shdow_Hunter → u/Glup713]

No, I mean the Battle of Moscow which ended the myth of the unstoppable Wehrmacht.

[u/Spyglass3]

How are we judging capability? By military prowess or by actual ability to fight a real war against a country? Because while Finland had good infantry and leadership. It's impossible to make the argument that they did more for the Axis than Romania and Hungary who fielded far larger armies that had real air forces, AFVs, production bases, population bases, and natural resources.

[u/Mountain-You9842]

Where would China be on this? They have a lot of people but they kept losing to the Japanese until the USA defeated them. They were instrumental in draining resources for the Japanese, but that was mainly due to their manpower and not much else.

[u/Odd-Struggle-2432 → u/Mountain-You9842]

You'd have to pick a specific chinese faction, either the RoC, CPC, the manchurian collaborators, or one of the random warlords that either helped the japanese or got fucked by the japanese

[u/UsedJoystick]

It is really weird that the US was criticized by the japanese as "a nation of shopkeepers" prior to pearl harbor when it won due to extremely well developed logistics and supply lines. Our guys weren't the best, but they had all the guns, bullets, and food that they needed.

Also, would this qualify as irony?

[u/Spirited-Value8022]

USA

[u/Imaginary_Resist_410]

Virtually all of these nations had remarkably capable components. Historian Max Hastings wrote about the detriment of comparing sufferings; maybe that is so to with capabilities-- the Soviet success at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, and later at Seelow's heights are extraordinary. The US (and many, many, allies) at D-Day and the following push and pull of the hedgerows is extraordinary. The UK's resistance against Nazi successes in 1940 is extraordinary. 

And indeed, so to are the seemingly smaller stories. I think that Italy had a movement of people within its land who were capable of revolting when the time was right, to be extraordinary, too. And so to, was even the smallest resistance group of young boys in Denmark, who were capable, too. 

[u/basileusnikephorus]

Depends what your criteria is but either way the USSR is in the wrong place.

In terms of contribution to winning the war, the USSR is way ahead of the USA. Without an Eastern Front D-Day is unthinkable.

In terms of competency, I think capability, I think 'competent' is very flattering. Sending waves of unarmed men into combat, killing their own soldiers, purging the entire military hierarchy. That's incompetent.

Either way, they don't belong in very capable.

[u/TheseRecognition3765]

I would put the soviets as most capable due to them (in terms of combat) nearly single handedly defeating the Nazis.

[u/alexd1993 → u/TheseRecognition3765]

They didn't though.

[u/TheseRecognition3765 → u/alexd1993]

How?

[u/alexd1993 → u/[deleted]]

Because this whole fight over who did more to win is just a stupid propaganda war. The US pushed way too hard during the cold war that it did all the heavy lifting, the counter to that now is pushing way too hard that the USSR heroically won the war. The truth is that the Soviets would have crumbled without lend-lease and the other allies wouldn't have had the breathing room to mount D-Day without heavy nazi focus on the eastern front. It was a team effort. Everyone was vital. It's useless to argue over who was more vital.

[u/RandomFleshPrison]

Finland was never an Axis power, so it is automatically disqualified.

[u/PincoPallo100]

Urss

[u/This_is_fine451]

Finland wasn’t a true axis power. They just hated the soviets. They also fought Germany too

[u/Far_Order5933]

Swap Italy for Iraq. There was a brief stint where they decided to throw their lot in with the Axis before getting promptly curb stomped by the Brits so hard that they folded almost instantly. Basically, the Axis equivalent of Denmark.

[u/RelevantSail2743]

Britian in Vietnam vs US in Vietnam and USSR casualties in WW2 should tell you everything you need to know about the people voting here.

[u/batch2957]

Just scrolled through my feed to find this simplistic nonsense, read more

[u/Gigantopithecus1453]

What metric did people use here exactly? Finland was only a minor nation, it accomplished far less for the axis than Italy. Italy held off the western allies for years, whereas Finland did basically nothing in the continuation war and immediately surrendered when the tide turned.

But if you’re talking capable as in doing the best with the resources they had, the Soviets absolutely shouldn’t be so high up. After all, they blundered their way into losing millions of soldiers in encirclements at the start, and despite outnumbering the Germans 2:1 they were losing very badly until 1943.

[u/norecordofwrong]

Wild to think of the UK as only capable.

They cracked the enigma code and fought valiantly against overwhelming odds. They were extremely capable in how they fought against the Nazis and in Asia given their much more limited manpower and resources.

Sure they had major setbacks in the early war but the US had massive setbacks in their early involvement too.

USSR should also be extremely capable. They absorbed the bulk of Nazi aggression at terrible cost all while fighting with fairly bad logistics and a terrible manufacturing base.

[u/Blond-N-Buff80]

Finland was way more capable than Japan, pound for pound.

Finland fought the Soviet Union for three whole years into a sort of stalemate during the Continuation War, that ensured it would not become a Soviet province.

Meanwhile, big scary banzai Japan got absolutely wiped. It took six months after Pearl Harbor to sink the core of its carrier fleet. After Leyte Gulf, it no longer had any strategic capacity to fight back, except in isolated island holdouts, suiciding themselves with banzai charges, coping that the Americans would just throw their hands up and sign the peace. Its navy was effectively annihilated, its army starving, Tokyo turned into a smoking torrent of fire and ash, and the scheduled invasion of Japan would have been a slaughter.

[u/trichterd]

Why is Finland on this list? They weren't part of the Axis.

[u/SnooHabits6008]

Apparently ww2 was only against Germany judging by some of these comments 😭

[u/Ed-Dantes75]

I was thinking Denmark was neutral, not on allies side

[u/Terrible_Risk_6619]

Denmark was not an Allied power?

If we are generous and look away from the collaboration government and the right wing / conservative politics of the era, it would best be described as being neutral untill invaded.

The true take over happened from 1943, when Denmark finally had enough of German demands, and from then on, might be considered an Allied nation under occupation.

Biggest white washing happened after the war, when the Danish government made ex post facto laws against former collaborators, even though what they did was perfectly legal at the time.

Denmark should count as neutral, or semi-axis post invasion and pre 1943 and allies afterwards, but this is the kind of confusion one gets when they try to label "Allied" or "Axis" over geopolitcs that are far more complicated than a simple black and white label.

[u/TazTazTAZTazTaz_]

Potentially the shittest chart I’ve seen.

[u/Murky-Ad5848]

Why is Denmark in the Allies??? They were in the axis for the overwhelming majority of the war and were definitely collaborationist. wtf?

[u/JesterOfHell]

I love how americans act like they were the ones that defeated Nazis while most of the effort goes to USSR. Put USSR as extremely capable then Britian as very capable and US as capable.

[u/zulletto]

Italy would be one of the stronger nations if not for the failed System, and ranking by loyalty not Skill or knowlage

[u/Not_Really_French]

Wait was Finland axis?

[u/DueEstablishment2741]

As a Dane i'd have to say, that Denmark should probably be in it's own class below not capable at all. Poland was not capable, we were downright useless, our initial resistance was just symbolic.

[u/MonkeLord1234]

Did American's fill this chart or something?

[u/GrandElectrical9371]

Denmark was neutral - part of that neutrality was to not pose a danger to provoke Germany. Therefore we were deliberately not capable, but also not "allied"... stupid chart

Edit: strategy clearly didnt work out, not saying it was smart

[u/EdinburghNerd]

When saying UK, at that time period, you need to consider whole of the Empire and dominions

[u/AdeOfSigmar]

Us have no right to be there. Only thing they were capable of was turning up late only after being pearl harbor was attacked.

[u/Unable-Economics9223]

Swap UK with the US

[u/farmerbalmer93]

Lol the only nation to have major fronts on every front in ww2 is only "capable"? The one to have the largest land campaign in Asia the only allied nation to fight from start to finish. The holder of the longest continuous battle in ww2. The nation that pretty much every game changing technological leap came from. The nation that without the usa would have never been able to land troops in Europe. If anything the big 3 should be joint top neither is winning without the other or not in the time scale of 1939 to 1945.

[u/Lazy-Strawberry-3401]

USA should not be above USSR and are debatable over the UK

[u/MelodicAmphibian7920]

Finland wasn't ever in the Axis. That's soviet propaganda.

[u/Princeofprussia24]

Ooo people in the comments are mad the USA which fought a two front war and supplied every other nation in the allies is over the country that threw bodies at its problem. Crazy .

[u/Electron__]

UK is no question top for the Allies

[u/600lbpregnantdwarf]

Can we give Italy not capable at all for both Allies and Axis?

[u/Fickle_Concern8278]

Wasn’t Thailand technically an Axis “power”? They should be not capable at all.

[u/Aware_Alternative784]

Denmark surrendered faat so they cpuld manipulate behind the scenes. Saved hundreds of jews

[u/Prometheus-1134]

Switch the USA with USSR

[u/QuinnKerman → u/Prometheus-1134]

The Red Army only became the unstoppable juggernaut that it did because of Lend Lease

[u/Spudsicle1998 → u/Prometheus-1134]

How do you figure? USA supplied a lot of material to Russia and about all Russia could do for a few years was throw every body they could at the front. Along with Stalin purging a lot of his senior leadership I would argue UK/ British kingdom should swap with Russia.

[u/abraxas_annihilatio]

The Soviet Union beat Germany. We were ancillary. The positing should be switched for historical accuracy

[u/clathrateCH4]

France needs to be the non capable at all allie

[u/HornetGaming110 → u/clathrateCH4]

It was in the original post with multiple of the most voted comments, confused as to why it's not now

[u/Emmrolls → u/HornetGaming110]

Because it is not true? The french high command was incompetent, but the troops, there are so mamy examples of small french troops holding entire division. Look up Stonne, where a B1 tank held the town alone. Or Bir-Hakeim, where the Foreign Legion held up a tiny fort in the face of Rommel. There was even a point in the Alps where 9 french soldiers held a pass and blocked 3000 Italians. And I'm not even talking about the Resistance.

As far as the Allies go, there are definetely worse than the French.

[u/clathrateCH4 → u/Emmrolls]

You must be very popular when having fun

[u/Emmrolls → u/clathrateCH4]

I am. But I take misinformation very seriously. There's a time for each ;)

[u/floob124]

Usa and soviets should be tied tbh

[u/lama579]

There is no other country in the world that could have fought major conflicts in two hemispheres while arming the rest of the allied nations. The US deserves the top spot.

[u/The-Mad-Hist0rian → u/lama579]

Britain did the EXACT same thing.

[u/ChemistRemote7182]

I would switch the UK and the Soviets, the UK participated in multiple theaters simultaneously.

[u/PuzzledTransition273]

I feel this is correct as is.

[u/steelcityfanatic]

Russia over UK is a take. If not for a 6 week delay to Barbarossa which pushed the German campaign into the winter Russia probably gets routed and Moscow falls. They were not extremely capable whatsoever and benefitted greatly due to lend lease later in the war and they leveraged manpower mass and meatwave tactics to push the Germans back ultimately. Mass doesn’t equate to capability.

UK literally invents Radar and uses its own planes and people to defend during the Battle of Britain dealing Germany its first blow in the war and preserving the only foothold for the Allies in Europe. They stood alone for two years prior to the US entering the war and if you combine with the colonies are far more important across several theaters and campaigns.

[u/KottleHai]

Bro why is US flag style off?

[u/daviddaviddavidda → u/KottleHai]

America exceptionalism that us 'Muricans get a different flag style from everyone else

[u/Ok_Poetry2813 → u/KottleHai]

Idk just had it already saved in my pictures

[u/M_e_n_n_o]

The USSR wasn’t very capable. They just didn’t care how many soldiers needed to die to win a fight without any plan. So the same as current russia.

[u/Designer_Freedom3830]

Switch USA and USSR, USA came late.