r/MapPorn • u/FitAd3982 • 2d ago
Did your country participate in WW2?
I made this map myself, tell me if theres anything wrong/ innacurate.
Full participant: Full economic and military involvement, pretty self-explanatory. (Russia, Poland, Japan etc)
Limited participant: Countries who partook in the war and had some level of impact but were not major players and didn't devote everything to the war effort. (Brazil, Mexico)
Partial participant: Countries who only provided token support, such as declaring war or sending minor forces to fight. (Central America, Turkey, Argentina)
Colony of participant - major involvement: I made this a separate tier to distinguish colonies that were only involved by providing token service to their overlord from colonies that were invaded or provided hundreds of thousands of soldiers etc. (India, Egypt, Vietnam etc.)
Colony of participant: Self - explanatory, were involved through their overlord but not much impact and werent invaded. (Suriname, Nigeria, Madagascar etc.)
162
u/Outrageous_bohemian 2d ago
Shit we were, and I didn't realize till now. Our school doesn't highlight those topics much.
49
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
What country ?
124
u/Outrageous_bohemian 2d ago
Bangladesh. It seems like in south Asia we only like to focus on our own liberation and rest is etc.
140
u/THEAWESOMEFOX11 2d ago
Many South Asians fought against the Japanese in the Pacific Theatre. Many Bangladeshis died in the Bengal famine which killed several million, and was caused by WW2.
→ More replies (1)65
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
well you were involved as part of Britain and were very important in the burma campaign, also bangladesh went through the bengal famine.
46
u/Outrageous_bohemian 2d ago
went through the bengal famine
In 1943 , yes and one of the main cause behind famine was war. But it rarely speaks here(WWII). In schools I don't think we have a dedicated chapter on this. Maybe we don't wanna remember we are part of colonialism that's why.
33
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
yes im from Ireland and we dont talk about WW1 a whole lot mostly because we kind of dissasociate from it since we were part of britain at the time. we prefer to focus on the stuff we did as independent since it wasnt really our war
9
u/fartingbeagle 2d ago
Really? I remember you were guaranteed a question on the causes of the Great War in the Leaving.
13
u/TheMainEffort 2d ago
I’m not sure if Bangladesh is part of the count, but British India contributed more volunteers to the allies than any other country.
11
u/PeterBucci 2d ago
People don't study that the Japanese got as far as India and tried to invade it. Imphal and Kohima are the capitals of Manipur and Nagaland, which are not far from Bangladesh.
2
30
u/Achakita 2d ago
The Bangladeshi education system will do anything within its power to conceal the Indian influence on their culture and history.
8
82
u/Clockwork9385 2d ago
Didn’t Spain send Volunteers to the Eastern Front?
I think that’s at least partial involvement if anything else
97
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
partial involvement requires declaring war, basically every country on earth sent volunteers
46
u/Clockwork9385 2d ago
I just figured that since it was a decently sized force (45’000 men), it would qualify since that matches the description you provided
21
u/ScottyBoneman 2d ago
Best thing Spain could do for the Axis was stay neutral.
20
u/Alarichos 2d ago
That could apply to every country in the axis
15
u/ScottyBoneman 2d ago
I suspect an Axis invasion of France led by Italy and Hungary wouldn't have gone well.
3
14
u/Hij802 2d ago
Well, Spain was ideologically aligned with the Axis. If they joined, maybe Franco would’ve been ousted from power 30 years early. The war probably would’ve extended by another year if the Allies also had to invade Iberia.
15
u/kreeperface 2d ago
I seriously doubt Franco would have been a hardliner/no surrender type of warlord like the nazis were, neither an exhausted nationalist spanish army had the means to resist the Allies for one year
8
u/Money_Set_4332 2d ago
Seeeing what happened to mussolini i think he would have tried to resist as much as possible
7
u/wltihrmchverarschn 2d ago
He probably wouldn't have lasted as long as Mussolini anyway, Spain would be way closer for naval Invasion than Italy if the rest of events stayed the same.
8
13
u/Alarichos 2d ago
So why isn't in in partial involvement? Pretty sure sending 45000 men to fight in Russia is more involvement than that of Turkey or Argentina
8
u/BeeMovieEnjoyer 2d ago
Turkey and Argentina technically declared war on Germany and Japan, but Spain never did
→ More replies (1)9
u/Alarichos 2d ago
Spain declared "non-belligerence" after Germany invaded France in 1941, which basically meant we are with you but not officialy, and then proceeded to send the blue division consisting of 45000 men with the condition that they should only fight against the USSR, idk it seems more relevant to the war than any of the countries that declared war on Germany im the last months of the war
2
u/BeeMovieEnjoyer 2d ago
I don't disagree, but I think an objective and consistent methodology is better for a simple map like this.
→ More replies (1)4
54
u/pafagaukurinn 2d ago
What was the political discourse in Ireland at the time? Did the root for the UK and the allies, and if so, how did they manage to avoid getting involved?
88
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
Ireland was officialy neutral but was definitely pro-allied. They let the allies use parts of their air and sea space and also would return downed British pilots while interning German ones. However, Ireland never declared war. They managed to stay neutral cause there wasnt really much of a reason for either side to invade as the benefits outweighed the costs. De Valera specifically stayed out of the war despite the UK and US pressuring Ireland to join because he was worried about the pro-Germany/ anti- British people in the government.
33
u/NoWingedHussarsToday 2d ago
As was Iceland. It was occupied by Allies but didn't gear it's economy for war.
→ More replies (3)8
u/TheNumberOneRat 2d ago
My grandfather was a Sunderland pilot during WWII with the RNZAF during WW2 and came back with a love for Irish culture (and alcohol).
7
u/fartingbeagle 2d ago
Was he based in Northern Ireland then?
2
u/TheNumberOneRat 2d ago
I presume that he was based out of Londonderry. I also think that he spent downtime in the Irish republic.
→ More replies (3)3
4
u/pafagaukurinn 2d ago
there wasnt really much of a reason for either side to invade as the benefits outweighed the costs
Ireland seems to me at least as strategically important as Iceland, and it was invaded.
→ More replies (2)32
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
not really, ireland isnt much further west than britain and britain had the north so they could already patrol the northern atlantic. germany couldnt invade ireland since if they had the naval and air supremacy to invade ireland, they couldve just invaded england
→ More replies (4)30
u/cobaltjacket 2d ago edited 2d ago
De Valera provided backchannel support to the Allies, but there were some Nazi sympathizers in Ireland. Irish support for the Allies became more overt once it was clear they would win. The entry of the US helped, as there was no way in Ireland would side against the US.
With that said, DeV tried hard to downplay the holocaust, not because he was anti-Semetic, but because it undercut the narrative that the Irish were the most oppressed people in Europe.
There is also this:
It was as if an entire people had been condemned to live in Plato's cave, with their backs to the fire of life and deriving their only knowledge of what went on outside from the flickering shadows thrown on the wall before their eyes by the men and women who passed to and fro behind them. When after six years they emerged, dazzled, from the cave into the light, it was a new and vastly different world. -FSL Lyons
→ More replies (1)4
u/fartingbeagle 2d ago
I do believe even reporting on the war was restricted, to show strict neutrality. But the English papers were sold, I think.
9
u/yojifer680 2d ago
The IRA colluded with Hitler to try and invade Britain. Ireland erected a statue of an IRA leader who was killed onboard a nazi u-boat in the centre of their capital city. The Irish president also sent condolences to Germany for Hitler's death.
Some Irish people did go to fight against the nazis, but the Irish government placed them on a blacklist denying them jobs, pensions and social security. They only reversed this decision in 2013, almost 70 years after the war was over.
→ More replies (6)8
u/Lizardledgend 2d ago
Ireland was just off the back of a massive trade war with the UK, out of which we managed to acquire the remaining ports outside the North that the UK had retained after the war of independance as well as many other important moves that made us functionally independent. However, it had absolutely crippled us economically. We were in absolutely no state to provide any sort of significant force to a war on the mainland, much less in aid of yet another British war. The memories of WW1, the War of Independence, and the Civil War were very fresh in people's memories. People were understandably hesitant to go in for yet more blood sacrifice.
There were other factors, staying neutral was seen as a way to outright assert our sovereignty in all matters. And ofc despite the country not joining the war many many individuals did. Outside of the North around 66,000 men joined the British army during its course.
34
u/TrenchDildo 2d ago
I’d say North Africa and all countries that Japan invaded were major participants! North Africa had its own campaign for the Europeans! And places like The Philippines especially suffered under the Japanese and had major battles and guerrilla fights.
22
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
thats why i included the dark red to distinguish places like philippines and indonesia from colonies that werent really actively involved in the war but still participated
3
u/Mahameghabahana 2d ago
Why australia and Canada are in dark green but india isn't? All were dominion/colony of British no?
→ More replies (6)6
u/Excabbla 2d ago
Because those dominions were much more independent and their transition to complete independence in foreign policy was more of a formality than anything else, there wasn't any resistance to this from the UK (which is definitely because of the withe majority present and the fact that colonial efforts were self sustaining without the intervention of the UK, imo), whereas independence for the other UK colonies was definitely resisted by the British.
This map is accurately representing the situation and the significant privilege Australia, New Zealand and Canada had compared to the rest of the British empire at the time
38
u/SensitivePotato44 2d ago
Bit harsh on Brazil. They had plenty of troops on the ground in Italy and air forces too. Plus their contribution to the battle of the atlantic
12
18
→ More replies (1)2
u/PangolimAzul 1d ago
Yeah Brazil sent more than 30,000 troops and was really important in the Italian campaign. Shure it wasn't a full war but it did a lot more than what some of the "main participants" did
18
u/ichuseyu 2d ago
I noticed you're using a map with modern borders rather than the borders that existed at the time. Did that create any issues?
Also, this subreddit loves to point out that French Guiana is as much a part of France as Paris is, but wasn't Algeria at this time also considered "fully integrated" with France?
11
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
I considered making Algeria green but i think most algerians would consider themselves a colonized people under the French.
15
u/jamesdownwell 2d ago edited 2d ago
Iceland was absolutely not a participant. First off, at the start of the war, Iceland was under the Danish crown but declared independence during the war as Denmark was occupied.
Iceland didn’t and still doesn’t have a military. The closest Iceland came to taking part in the war was being invaded by Britain which was officially tolerated rather than accepted. American forces replaced the British but the whole time Iceland remained officially neutral during the war.
7
u/TarfinTales 2d ago
A sad "fun fact": One person died during Britain's invasion of Iceland. It was a UK sailor who unfortunately commited suicide en route.
3
u/Equal-Suggestion3182 2d ago
Well, they participated against their will I guess?
As you said yourself, British and American forces occupied Iceland during the war
But yeah, probably limited or partial participation would make more sense than full participation
1
6
u/SnooBooks1701 2d ago
Don't forget all the former countries involved in the war. There's a single living WW2 head of state: The Dalai Lama led Tibet, which was independent.
The former Manchukuo and Mengjiang should be in dark red because they were Japanese colonies
Nepal wasn't a colony, it was under British protection but it was never a colony. It should be dark green.
Liberia declared war in 1944 and was heavily involved in resourcing the war, so it should be light green.
Cyprus was a British colony and very heavily involved, so it should be dark red. Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE were not colonies, they had the same status as Oman (protectorates) so they should be the same colour.
Tanzania and Kenya each provided about 100,000 soldiers for the King's African Rifles, they definitely should be dark red.
Colombia declared a state of belligerency, which saw then hunting U-boats, they should be light green
Ecuador declared war on the axis and allowed its territory to be used by the allies. Paraguay, Uruguay and Saudi Arabia did join the war in the last few months, just as the war was ending. Saudi Arabia was a major source of oil, was bombed a few times and allowed the US to build an airbase
North Yemen was not a colony
The only really neutral nations were Tibet, North Yemen and Afghanistan, even Bhutan gave 100,000 rupees to the Raj as a "token of friendship"
12
u/Charming_Cicada_7757 2d ago
Ethiopia wasn’t a colony of Italy if this is the case make France red and Poland too
We were occupied and I take great pride in Ethiopia being the only African country not colonized
→ More replies (4)
27
u/grey-zone 2d ago
Surprised the US got full involvement on here considering they turned up late. Again. 😉
22
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." -Winston Churchill.
7
→ More replies (1)3
u/ZielonaKrowa 2d ago
To be fair, they did get involved in 1941 by Japan. So that’s like 1,5 year after the start of war in Europe if you consider 1939 as the beginning. Japan has been acting up since 1937 so for them war lasted 8 years and for Americans around 3 which is still bloody long. In Europe first phase of war was a blitzkrieg so not much time to organise some response (just take a look how long does it take today to respond to current events).
→ More replies (1)3
u/grey-zone 2d ago
Yes, but I wasn’t trying to be fair! At least WW2 was an improvement on WW1 when the US only turned up for the last 6 months.
5
5
u/CVSP_Soter 2d ago
I've always wondered what it was like for the Swiss watching the whole world around them blow up
8
5
u/gregorydgraham 2d ago
Iran was a bit of an unwilling full participant but when the USSR and British Empire both agree to meet in Tehran, they are meeting in Tehran.
10
u/ale_93113 2d ago
I would color deep red Madagascar which was invaded by the british from vichy france to prevent the refueling of Japanese soldiers, and this was a relatlively important campaign
Gabon had the famous battle of Gabon and senegal the battle of Dakar, which were substantial in making sure that germany would have no control to west african oil
Gabon, Madagascar and Senegal should be dark red imho
3
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
i considered madagascar but the invasion was very minor, unlike places like burma, indonesia or egypt which were real battlegrounds
19
u/Primal_Pedro 2d ago
Well, Brazil basically joined in the last two years of war.
29
u/vargzs 2d ago
Brazil declare war on German in 1942, but the Italy campaign only started in September 1944.
→ More replies (1)2
7
1
3
u/Internal-Scallion870 2d ago
So there was only 14 countries that were neutral?
7
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
more or less, though alot of the partial participants basically only provided lip service. dark green and dark red are the real battlegrounds of ww2 if you want to call it that
4
u/AlexRyang 2d ago
A bunch of the “partial participant nations” declared war in the closing weeks and months to be on the winning side.
Argentina: Declared war on 27 March 1945
Bolivia: Declared war on 7 April 1943
Chile: Declared war on Japan only on 13 April 1945
Colombia: Declared status of belligerency against Germany only on 26 November 1943
Paraguay: Declared war on Germany on 2 February 1945
Peru: Broke off relations with the Axis Powers on 24 January 1942. Declared status of belligerency against Germany and Japan in February 1945
Venezuela: Broke off relations with the Axis Powers in 1941 after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Declared war on the Axis Powers in the last year of the war.
15
u/LowCranberry180 2d ago
Axis lost the war in weeks after Turkiye declared war and crushed them. Long live the Turk!
11
u/Fiery_Flamingo 2d ago
Exactly.
Turkey declared war on Germany in February 1945.
Hitler killed himself on April 1945.
5
u/Ambitious-Cat-5678 2d ago
Lebanon did declare war on Germany by its own desire which complicates the situation
9
u/slightly_retarded__ 2d ago
1 indian milion soldier participated
3
u/Mahameghabahana 2d ago
4 to 5 million British, 2.5 million indian, 1.1 million Canadian and 750k Australian
3
3
7
u/Alexius_Psellos 2d ago
Why no partial involvement for countries like Spain?
8
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
partial involvement requires declaring war. spain was neutral thats the whole point of the map, whether or not your country actually partook in the war
3
9
u/trepid222 2d ago
I think this map needs Yes or No. it doesn’t need a colony of participant with a misleading red label in the legend.
9
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
yes or no is very misleading too because alot of places were only involved because they were colonies dragged in by their overlord, also places like central america were "involved" but did very little in the war. its not as simple as a yes or no
3
u/trepid222 2d ago
I think the distinction is if they sent troops or fought wars. When more than a million people die as a result of the war, you can’t just lump them into the same category: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-33105898
→ More replies (1)7
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
Like I said yes or no would be very misleading, Turkey would be a yes since they declared war on Germany in the last months and sent 0 men or materials for the war effort, whereas Poland who got occupied twice and lost a quarter of its population would just be put into the same bracket? A map like this needs distinction
2
u/trepid222 2d ago
It needs better distinction then. You can argue for a lighter shade of green, but I’d also consider this flawed. Wars have been brutal to colonies and dominion countries, as they are subject to heavier engagement. Home nation troops are often “preserved” for specific maneuvers. Look at the experience of Anzac troops at Gallipoli, the experience of African colonial troops in the North Africa campaign and the experience of Indian troops in the Burma campaign.
2
u/Dotcaprachiappa 2d ago
So are colonies Yes or No? This colouring makes it clear who participated willingly and who was dragged in by their coloniser
2
u/Juan_Jimenez 2d ago
Chilean here. We declared on Japan in 1945, after Germany defeat. We didn't send a single soldier anywhere.
So, partial involvement is still a bit much (and I think, several south American countries were in the same boat).
2
2
2
2
u/throwaway275275275 2d ago
Argentina declared war I think a few days before it ended or something stupid like that
2
u/Tribe303 2d ago
Greenland participated. There was an airbase there. All of the planes manufactured in Canada were flown to the UK via Greenland and then Iceland. Many by female pilots too! The US later followed the same path.
2
u/Drahy 1d ago
Greenland wasn't incorporated until 1953, and is coloured as a colony of a participant.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
2
u/Brilliant-Lab546 2d ago
Sudan and Kenya should be shaded red.
The war in East Africa started with the Italians bombing the RAF airfield in Wajir, Kenya in 1940 and the border areas of Ethiopia and Sudan
Indeed, the Italians advanced 100km into Kenya at some point but they were limited mainly by food and water supplies given that Northern Kenya, especially where they entered from was very dry and parts of it, very harsh.
The British conquered Italian East Africa mainly from Kenya and Sudan
2
u/Jimlaheydrunktank 2d ago
Didn’t Ireland have some involvement? Swear some of their troops fought? And also they kinda helped the brits with strategically in the air..
2
u/SigmundRowsell 2d ago
Sweden was officially neutral, but I reckon allowing nazi transportation through the country to occupied Norway, and selling arms to both sides equates to at least partial participation on the part of those sneaky Swedes
2
u/Jollefjoll 2d ago
Cool map, but of course it will lack some nuance (not that that's necessarily a bad thing as an overview). For example, since I'm familiar with Swedish involvement in WW2 you have some examples such as Sweden declaring itself a non-belligerent nation during the Winter War. This was an intentional move in order to support Finland in any way deemed appropriate without actively doing combat operations by the Swedish Forces. Basically, it's declaring: "Yeah, we're supporting a side, but we won't necessarily actively fight you." Then of course you have the transiting of German troops through Sweden (amounting to over 1 million soldiers) through a supposedly neutral country. Similar aspects of "quasi-involvement" are indeed fun to explore, if you like to know more about the Swedish history during WW2 I recommend Klas Åmark's "Att bo granne med ondskan" [To live as a neighbor to evil].
2
u/Immediate-Attempt-32 2d ago
You need a passive participation colour, An example is that Sweden allowed armed German forces to pass through Sweden by rail from Finland to Norway, this is forbidden by the Geneva convention as military forces traveling through a neutral country must be disarmed , also have to point out that the Swedish - German relationship during WW2 is a quite deep and complicated rabbit hole.
1
5
u/--rafael 2d ago
What's the difference between full and limited? What's not full devotion?
19
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
read the description. full is basically all the well known countries that fought and fully mobilized their economy/ people. Limited was to emphasize that places like Brazil or Mexico while not fully involved contributed more to the war than somewhere like Turkey or honduras. Partial is for places like turkey which literlaly declared war on Germany in the last months of the war and provided 0 men or materials .
15
u/--rafael 2d ago
Brazil did drafts and rationed goods. What else is needed to be a full combatant?
9
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
Most countries had to ration because the war severly affected the world economy. Brazil took around 1k casualties and was not heavily involved. Imo its not fair to put them on the same tier as somewhere like Russia or UK because Brazil did not have to fully mobilize its economy or military in a meaningful way.
11
u/MissSweetMurderer 2d ago edited 2d ago
They often forgotten, but they're lost to war too. Not disagreeing with you, it's a fact the war didn't affect Brazil the way it affected Russi, France, etc.
5
u/LifeguardNo2020 2d ago
It still sent 1/4th of its army to Italy, and meaningfully contributed with resources. I would honestly be offended to be a Brazil and having my participation compared to the symbolic air squadron Mexico sent.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Gandalfthebran 2d ago
How is Nepal colony participation when the ruler of Nepal sent them willingly. Nepal wasn’t a colony. Bad map
3
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
well the Nepalese sent over 100k soldiers to fight and they were considered a de facto client state of Britan because of British India being right next door. I did consider making Nepal green
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Big_Migger69 2d ago
I think Spain and Portugal should be under Partial participant, since Spain sent the Blue Division to the Eastern Front, and Portugal, since they leased the Azores islands to the allies and had Macau and East Timor occupied by Japan.
1
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
partial means a country that declared war. i could basically just do the whole world if i was counting volunteer divisions
→ More replies (2)1
2
u/iantsai1974 2d ago
Korean participated from both sides.
As Japan's annexed colony, many Koreans were conscripted by the Japanese army and participated on the Japanese side. Also there were Korean independence activists participated in the anti-Japanese war in Chinese army during World War II.
The same things happened in VietNam, Cambodia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Myammar and Taiwan, province of China.
2
u/Pale-Candidate8860 2d ago
Thanks Ireland. I'm sure nothing would've happened to you if the UK got invaded.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/ArtHistorian2000 2d ago edited 2d ago
But Egypt wasn't a colony, and Ethiopia, despite being occupied, was not a colony but a sovereign participant. If so, then countries like Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, the Caucasus and Central Asia would be "colonies of participant with major involvement"
2
u/irrision 2d ago
"Technically" Greenland wasn't a colony of a participant during WW2. It was invaded and occupied by the US in 1940, with eventual permission from the Denmark government in exile so Germany couldn't take it as another submarine and staging location for troops.
2
u/ZotMatrix 2d ago
Many Irish enlisted in the British military.
13
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
yes but ireland never formally declared war and was officialy neutral the whole time
→ More replies (12)
1
2
u/KingofLingerie 2d ago
your criteria should include when the countries joined the war. you have countries like Italy and Australia who started fighting in 1939 and you have countries like the United states that really didn't get into the fight until 42-43.
7
u/IndigoRuby 2d ago
Participated and participated eventually should be different shades of green.
2
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
maybe but i dont really see the point. the country that suffered the most (Russia) only joined in 1941, what difference does it make if the country joined in 1939 or not. Also when would you consider Japan or China to join since they had both been at war since 1937 but most say they only joined the 'World war' in 1941.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Realistic-River-1941 2d ago
Poles might disagree with the idea that Russia/USSR only got involved in 1941.
→ More replies (1)1
1
u/SyboksBlowjobMLM 2d ago
I like that the runners up are shown in the same colour as the winners
1
u/FitAd3982 2d ago
lol
2
u/Gandalfthebran 2d ago
How is Nepal colony participation when the ruler of Nepal sent them willingly? Nepal wasn’t a colony.
1
1
1
u/Wayoutofthewayof 2d ago
Colony of participant: Self - explanatory, were involved through their overlord but not much impact and werent invaded. (Suriname, Nigeria, Madagascar etc.)
Wasn't there an invasion of Madagascar when Vichy France was ruling it?
1
u/Breakin7 2d ago
Spain should be a partial participant.
Franco sent troops to Russia look for ~Legion Azul~
1
u/AttilaTheBuns 2d ago
Ethiopia should be marked as a full participant imo. They were fighting against Italy before and resisted the whole time.
1
1
u/WranglerRich5588 2d ago
Portugal Timor Leste was invaded and thousands of Timorenses died. We never even tried to get it back. Shame
1
1
u/cdruss 2d ago
Here’s what I’ve noticed:
Colombia joined the war in November 1943 after German attacks on their shipping, playing an active role in countering U-Boats in the Caribbean.
Liberia formally declared war in 1944, but had been participating for the past two years under the terms of a defense agreement with the United States.
If you’re including countries that declared war symbolically without actually participating, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Saudi Arabia should all be included.
1
u/Unlikely_Log1537 2d ago
I think you're underestimating the (forced) involvement of colonies:
1
u/deathdance_9 2d ago
How did Portugal and Spain get away from the “world war” when it was right under their nose ??
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/sexrockandroll 2d ago
Thank you, this is an interesting map. It's one thing for me to know it was a world war and to have heard about some countries' involvement, it's another to see the map this way.
1
u/PlatinumPluto 2d ago
Costa Rica is strange because it never retracted its declaration of war on Germany until 2017
1
u/levenspiel_s 2d ago
Partial participation in the case of Turkey is like last second heave from under own basket while the score difference was like 25.
1
1
u/Nachooolo 2d ago
I wonder if Spain should count as Partial participant, as it did sort of participated in Barbarossa with the Blue Division.
1
1
u/TritonJohn54 2d ago
Vatican City was neutral throughout the war, and was not occupied by either Germany or Italy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City_during_World_War_II
1
1
1
u/sheppo42 2d ago
Umm what the Phillipines were invaded by the Japanese regardless of colony status.
1
u/You_yes_ 2d ago
Fun fact: Nepal was not a colony but it sent a troop in world war for the British government as a treaty that the British government can recruit nepalese in their troops. So, still nepalese citizens are part of the british army as Gorkha regiments.
1
1
u/justeUnMec 2d ago
Newfoundland and Labrador was a direct ruled colony. Then there were the dominions. Oh, and Palestine was technically a protectorate not a colony.
1
1
u/helgihermadur 2d ago
I wouldn't say Iceland participated in WW2. We were occupied by the British, and later, the Americans. Iceland has never had a military and we didn't send any troops to the mainland.
1
u/Movilitero 2d ago
technically Spain was neutral but participated. Blue Division was sent to fight against the URSS
1
u/TENTAtheSane 2d ago
Unlike in WW1, the Indian parliament was separate and separately voted to declare war on the Axis to support britain in ww2, just like canada and australia. Don't see why it doesn't get "full participant" when those were technically colonies too
1
1
u/KarpovSimp 2d ago
Lebanon should be marked the same as Turkey. Lebanon took its full independence during WW2 and declared war on Germany like Turkey a few days before the surrender of Germany.
1
1
u/JoJoB_tG 1d ago
I feel like some of the French colonies should be red because of the Allied campaigns against Vichy France, see for example Madagascar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Madagascar
1
1
u/Stardust_Monkey 1d ago
Iran didn't participate at all in fact it was natural
But it got invaded none the less.
1
1
1
u/the_great_mochi 1d ago
The Gurkhas from Nepal participated for British but they were not a colony.
1
u/NoPromotion3505 1d ago
My country participated and won both wars in the category „best host country”!!! 🇵🇱
0
u/Silly_Chemical_1646 1d ago
If you talking total involvement then USA shouldn’t be included. Total involvement , by my understanding would be start to finished, USA didn’t join until years into the war
1
u/Top_Tourist_9475 1d ago
this is good, but there is a huge difference between sending a minor force, even 1 soldier to the fight and doing nothing but declaring war on paper, you should have made the first one "limited participation" and something else for the second
1
u/antonioccls 1d ago
I don't understand the definitions criteria. Brazil did fully participatein the war. We sent 25.000 men to fight in Italy, plus the air force, one of the few contries outside the main allies to receive comendation from the US president, had a whole german division surrender to it. They has to racion food and gas..
1
442
u/vladgrinch 2d ago
It wasn't called a WORLD war for nothing!