That is a big part of why I hate the “major-minor” thing that happens.
Minor is used to put down the actions of many nations, and act like you could remove them from WW2 and nothing would change despite the fact without them many of the victories (or even “glories” that the majors have) wouldn’t be possible.
UK - Western europe would have fallen, and would have meant Axis could focus purely on the east, no D-Day either
USA - No lend lease, lack of american industry and economic support to the rest of the allies, Soviets and UK would be almost guaranteed loss
USSR - almost direct opposite of the UK, there would be no eastern front manpower black hole and Germany wouldn’t have to worry about multiple fronts (apart from North Africa)
Canada - Provided a base for a lot of foreign equipment to come from the US (not just lend lease) and also proved invaluable in the Battle of the Atlantic
Australia + NZ - Basically formed a barrier to stop japan from moving south, and Australian troops helped massively in pushing them back from New Guinea
India - Provided massive amounts of support to the Chinese front and helped to stop the japanese advance on mainland asia
France - contrary to popular belief, early on in the war they held out strongly and basically stopped the entire British forces from being destroyed, they also helped a lot in lesser fronts like East Africa and the French resistance were key to liberating france
Depending on the way you count it, it would be Germany or Pakistan. All the Holy Roman Empire states made thousands of individual surrenders. If you count that as collective Germany then there is your answer.
If you’re looking for largest number of troops surrendered at once it would be Pakistan coming in at 93,000 in a single surrender.
It might the first standard and interceptor only because armament limited Air-to-Air Missiles (late production) or second capability release (“Omnirole” capabilities)
J-11B Late (Block 9)
Domestic PLANAF J-11BH (Block 2 standard)
Spoiler
(USA) F/A-18A+ & F/A-18C (AN/APG-73 RUG II or AN/APG-79(V)4 AESA)
(GB) F/A-18A (HUG Phase 3.2 standard) (RAAF), CF-18A IMP II or HEP II (RCAF)
I disagree with this table.
What’s means “battles”?
I think if In USSR count all town released from Nazi occupation. It will be much more than 491.
Seriously how much soldiers should be in fight to count this fight as battle???
Many questions.
Also i have anecdote for this table.
Ancient Egyptians never documented their defeats. But by victory in battles, which took place closer and closer to the capital, you can understand that Egyptians lost the war.
Last qestion, how successful was those wars there France has so much wins in battles?
AFAIK
France was beaten in both World War.))
Also a lot of other wars, there France was successful in battles but lost.
AFAIK battle in this table is a named event that can be looked up in some historical record.
Taking your example of the Soviet Union, the Battle of Kursk is likely counted as one battle despite the end result being the Soviets regaining over 2000km of land and likely hundreds of towns.
The reason France has so many battles won is because they managed to remain a large centralized power for so long. Bring around since 843 will do that. Especially during the Middle Ages when a lot of said battles were beating up smaller Holy Roman Empire kingdoms.
Any map or graph which uses data from Pre-Information Age must be taken with a grain of salt as paper documents are often lost or never made in the first place. I just posted this to poke a little fun at some people)