> (by the way i think the australian and new zealand numbers in the pacific theatre are as woolly and questionable as the american ones, but their african/european numbers are definitely correct, and i think the point is adequately made.) total non-american western allies army troops in combat about 1,500 months. somewhere between two and three times total american army and marines combined. > now i am not suggesting that the americans didnt contribute. they contributed an awful lot. by the end of the war they contributed more fighting divisions than any one of these named nations (finally equalling the combined total of the reduced numbers of full strength units deployed by the british comonwealth). but over the total course of the war the united kingdoms of the british isles alone had more divisions actually at the front for more combat months than the americans, as indeed did the french army before their collapse in 1940 in fact india and australia combined probably put in more divisional combat months than the us, and throwing in either the south africans, or the canadians, or even the new zealanders, let alone all of them, would make it a certainty. (the americans should be grateful that the poles collapsed within a few weeks in 1939, because otherwise they too would have contributed more to the total divisional combat effort in the war than the americans in europe too. 47 divisions/brigade groups for  lets give american style generosity and call it 2 months each in the 1939 campaign  plus 127 months later by british or russian aligned forces thereafter, for a total of 221 months.)
United Kingdom