Besides the big three (even though the Italian army was pretty bad) which Axis powers fought the best?
Romania, probably.
Spain, unironically.Even better than Italy, despite their tiny contribution.
>>16547342Finland
>>16547342aññ of south america was with the allies?even argentina?
Most likely a tie between Finland and RomaniaIt's a bit of an unfair comparison because Romanain divisions were under German command, while Finlands military operated independently.Most Axis allies became irrelevant after Stalingrad where they were virtually annihilated and never managed to recover.Finland achieved their objectives early and pretty much dug in and tried to find a way to mediate with the USSR to accept Finlands reconquest of Karelia.A major reason why Finland never became a part of the eastern block in 1945 (while Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary did) was because the Finns managed to defeat a major Soviet offensive in 1944 (and the Germans managed to defeat the would-be follow up invasion in Estonia). It wasnt optimal for the Soviets to redirect new divisions for a second offensive on Finland because the central frontline had been broken through Operation Bagration and the Soviets opted to simply have Finland exit the war rather than losing momentum of the advance in the center by attacking Finland again.Finland had also been trying to mediate through the US, so it's likely possible that Stalin had some pressure from Roosevelt to allow Finland a peace settlement.
>>16548817Yes but most of them joined at the last minute of the war, mostly because USA was pressuring every neutral nation to declare war on Germany or suffer the consequence of being excluded in the post-war order (they would essentially be denied a seat at the United Nations).By the last of the war in Europe, virtually everyone had declared war, or at least ceased all relations with Germany.
>>16547342Fought the best? Finland. Overall contributed the most? Either Romania or Hungary depending on how you look at it. Romania controbuted twice as many troops to the eastern front. But then after Romania switched sides, Hungary committed 50% More troops than romania ever had. 3 full armies, albeit with mostly reserve formations.Romania was very important because of its oil production and refining industries, but Hungary had more heavy industry capable of producing vehicles and weapons. Hungary produced a thousand or so of its very own tanks and armored vehicles. Romania manufactured its very own unique aircraft. Hungary punched well under its weight during the time it spent in Russia.
>>16548831>Most Axis allies became irrelevant after Stalingrad where they were virtually annihilated and never managed to recover.This isn’t true for Romania. Its army fully recovered and was built back up to a full two armies by 1944, with better equipment than they had at stalingrad. Hungary never fought with more than a corps sized formation again after Stalingrad and before the front moved in Hungary proper. It took all the way until the spring of 1944 for Hungary to deploy that corps sized formation. Slovakia lost all of its equipment in the Caucasus and slowly exited the eastern front over the course of the following year.
>>16548906This kinda just proves my point. Romanian military was shattered after Stalingrad and they wouldnt field any real divisions until 1944 when the Soviets were about to enter Romania. Those armies then joined with the Red Army against the wehrmacht.
>>16548852I know that Brazil sent some soldiers but not the rest. And Argentina was pretty fascist, they helped Franco and then the nazis to hide there.
>>16548969Again, it was a token declaration mostly because USA pressured them to do so, and the prime motivation was to gain a seat at the UN.
>>16548991Wrong. US bought Brazil with pure hard money and investment, not the UN or bullshit pressure.
>>16548968>they wouldnt field any real divisions until 1944 when the Soviets were about to enter Romania.It does not prove your point. I am unsure how you arrived at that conclusion. Thisninformation supports the opposite of your claims. The Romanians deployed their units to crimea and to western Ukraine throughout 1943. Yes it took over a full year for the units to get back up to full strength, but when they did, they were stronger than they ever were. They, with the help of the German 6th army, even blunted the first soviet thrust into Romania in April.>Those armies then joined with the Red Army against the wehrmachtNo, they didn’t actually. Only the 1st army, which was a training organization far behind the front lines and which never saw action against the soviets, served in full against the third reich. The two armies facing the soviets were destroyed by the Soviet offensive into Romania. Some scattered parts of those units were later reinducted into the romanian combat units, but they were not full units. I believe that, eventually, only the skeleton crew of the 4th army served against the wehrmacht. The 3rd was so completely eviscerated that its leading personnel could not be reformed.
>>16548969Argentina wasn’t “fascist”. They were a left-wing, non-communist dictatorship that sympathetized with non-communist movements. They were a third-position movement like Baathists.
>>16549977>calling obviously fascist perón left-wing and third-position in the same post
>>16547342Based on interviews by German POWs, they generally considered Slovaks to be the best in terms of performance, second only to themselves, which is funny because they were probably the smallest force and maybe had the smallest impact. It makes sense though when you consider that Slovaks have a pretty martial culture because every Slovak male was required to spend 2 years in the army for 200 years before 1900 and many Hungarian armies had large portions of Slovak troops from the beginning, especially after 1526. But you would’ve never guessed it.
