Romania was a more helpful ally to Nazi Germany than Italy during WWII.

This debate will be more difficult that I originally perceived! I. Comparison of Italian and Romanian military assetsI.1 Naval WarfareI acknowledge the fact that the Italian Royal Navy (Regina Marina) was much larger and superior to the Romanian Navy. This is understandable as Italy had much more resources and manpower to build such a navy, while Romania barely even had enough coast line to maintain a large navy. However, the fact is that Romania was never expected to provide Germany with a significant naval help, while Italy was supposed to be able to hold off the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean, and probably even defeat them. However, once again we see that Italy fails in this regard. True, they managed a few early victories, as displayed by my opponent, however in the end they failed miserably. This could be pegged on the shere size of both the Royal Navy and the US Navy, however even that isn't enough to justify the Italians defeat. Considering that they had naval bases dotted all over the Mediterranean (such as in Tobruk, Tripoli, Benghazi, Dodecadense, Sicily, Cagliari, etc. ) while the Allies, after the fall of France, could only base their ships in the bases Gibraltar, Cyprus, Tell Aviv, and El Iskanderyia, it would seem that Italy had a significant advantage. However, as we can see based on the result, this is not the case. The Italian naval failure is mostly due to their own short comings. None of the Italian ships had any version of radar whatsoever, so they were essentially sailing blind the entire time [1]. Another issue was the fact that the Regina Marina did not have appropriate air cover for their vessels. The sole carrier in the entire fleet, the Aquilla, was never fully completed and as a result the Italian ships were almost always decimated in the air by the Allied naval air force [2]. However, the primary issue was the lack of fuel. Italy was infamous for having a lack of supplies for their armies (such as in North Africa and in Greece), and their navies were no exception. There simply was not enough fuel to supply the massive Italian Navy and they suffered tremendously as a result. Mussolini decided that the fuel was better used in the navy than on land however, so 75% of all of the limited Italian fuel went towards destroyers and torpedo boats carrying out escort missions, and not towards the tanks on land or even the warships fighting the Allies [3]. I.2 Aerial WarfareMy opponent is under the impression that mass production of obsolete military vehicles is not necessarily a bad thing given the shere size of vehicles produced. This is an incorrect assumption, as wars are never won by numbers, but through industry and technology. At the end of 1939 the RAI had over 3,300 aircraft, however only about 2,000 were even operational and most of which were obsolete [4]. While it is true that the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero (Sparrowhawk) was an efficient bomber, the RAI's major flaw was its lack of a successful fighter. In 1940 the RAI only had 166 modern fighters. In comparison to the 3,300 aircraft at the time, this is ridiculously small. In comparison, of the 621 strong Romanian air force during WWII hundreds were efficient fighters. Many of the fighters in Romania's small air force were foreign models such as the Bf 110's, Ju-52's, Do 112's, and even the American B-24 Liberator. However the one indigenous Romanian fighter was the IAR-80 which was ". .. an outstanding technical achievement of the Brasov works, especially considering the scarce resources at hand. The construction utilized rear fuselage and tail from the licence-built PZL P.24 and the wing of SM 79 bomber reduced in size to 50%. It proved a successful an modern design. In 1940, it was a good match for the Bf 109E, being only about 20 km/h slower and equal in climb and manoeuvrability. During the entire war, Romanian IAR-80s in all variants scored over 500 aerial victories" [5]. II. Operations II.1 Eastern FrontArguing that the Italians played a more influential role in the Eastern front than Romania did is absurd. Yes, they sent over 200,000 men to fight in Russia, yet in comparison to the million or so Romanian soldiers this number is futile. While the Italian defense of Operation Little Saturn was impressive, there are several aspects in which the Italians had clear advantages. For one, they had the Don River as a crucial natural boundary separating them from the Russians. Another is that General von Manstein (mentioned earlier) sent the 6th Panzer Division, a far superior fighting force, to aid the Italians in their struggle. It is understandable based on these facts that the Italians could have held off the Soviet offensive [6]II.2 North AfricaOperation Sealion was solely the plan for the invasion of the British Isles, not of all of the British Empire. The statement that Graziani's failures were justified because of this political reason is incorrect. This is due to the fact that thee invasion of Egypt occurred during the planning of Operation Sealion (on the 9th of September, 1940). This implies that the African armies had no relation to the operation, as would make the most amount of sense. My opponent then goes on to argue that the Italians fought much better after the arrival of the Afrika Korps. While this is true, it still does not help your argument. This solely implies that the Italians had especially week commanders and technology and that they required the services of the Germans in order to win the war. II.3 The BalkansOnce again, my opponent's argument is actually detrimental to his case. He claims that the Italians had nearly defeated the Greeks, yet not fully. They required the assistance once again of the Wermacht to finish the job. This is especially embarrassing considering that, as I mentioned earlier, the Greeks were literally equipped with rifles from WWI. This once again diverges Germany's attention away from the Soviet Union towards a more futile cause. Had Italy succeeded earlier, Operation Barbarossa would have commenced earlier, and the Germans would have likely reached Moscow before December. III. Raw Materials and IndustryWhile it is certainly true that the Italians had more natural resources than the Romanians did, it is how they used them what truly matters. We see that the Italians had a large sum of bauxite, yet the aircraft that they created with it were mostly obsolete and entirely useless. Also, we see that Italy generally drained from the German resources, rather than supplement them. This is due to the German intervention in Africa, Greece, and Sicily. As the premise of the debate is which country was more helpful to Germany, this is a huge detriment to Italy's case. On the other hand, Romania never pulled from the German resources as they were ironically far more competent than the Italians were. They also produced enough oil to run the entire Axis, as I displayed in R2. This is far superior to anything that Italy managed to do. IV. Romanian direct actions against GermanyIt is hard to consider the post-1944 Romania as the same Romania that joined the Axis in 1940. Mainly because they were basically an extension of the Soviet Union. The only reason that Northern Italy did not fight against the Germans is because the Wermacht had enough troops stationed there to force them to remain in the Axis while the 50,000 in Romania were not enough to do so. Back over to you, Con! Sources: [1] . https://books.google.com...[2] Mollo, Andrew (1981). The Armed Forces of World War II. New York: Crown. [3] Sadkovich, James (1994). The Italian Navy in World War II. Greenwood Press, Westport[4] . http://histclo.com...[5] . http://www.ipmsstockholm.org...[6] . http://en.wikipedia.org...