"Why Did The Allies Win The War?" Topic

I know this is a massive area for discussion, and I am evidently not asking for one specific factor, but what group of factors, and which was most important, do you think for the Allies winning the war?
Personally, I would argue:-
- Better Allied Logistics
- More Allied Manpower
- More Resources to draw upon
- Poor German strategy
- Sheer space of German occupation and the way it made the Germans reactive and tied them down to certain areas, as well as tying down manpower.

More resources, including people, also the Nazis had kind of an attitude problem.

One massive advantage the Germans did have was a vastly superior fashion industry. Comparisons between the SS uniforms to the GIs and Tommies are pretty woeful for the Allies.

Of course, since the Axis included Italy, it could test it's fashions on the runways of Milan, and the Germans quickly took Paris once the war had begun, thus maintaining this crucial advantage.

picture

Air Superiority spelled the beginning of the end for the Germans.

"Why the Allies won" by Richard Overy. Fabulous little book

link

The Russians and not having to deal with their industrial base being bombed 24/7

Because of the USSR, closely followed by the US……. but only thanks to UK hanging on until both could get their act together.

Ohh, and having the furher in charge didn't help the "others"

We had tea.
And Churchill.

'nuff said

Say rather why did the Germans do so well initially with so many disadvantages?

At the beginning they were the only people who wanted to fight. In modern war Napoleon's dicta about morale to material being three parts to one might not be accurate but if one people want a fight and the other would rather not the less enthusiastic ones had better have one heck of a big material edge.

"Say rather why did the Germans do so well initially with so many disadvantages?"

Or why did the British do so poorly with so many advantages?

Still the world's biggest fleet, an island-fortress, victory in the first war, and an overseas empire that, even if no longer quite what it had been, still, combined with the fleet, gave mercantile advntages that only the US could surpass.

Compare this to Germany that had its back broken by a humiliating treaty and reparation payments in a time of economic collapse worldwide, while surrounded by hostile neighbors. The French even invaded the Rhineland at one point and force payment of reparations in kind.

Whatever faults the Germans had, they were the most hardworking people of the era.

I generally don't comment on these topics, mainly because of my heritage.

But in regards to

Whatever faults the Germans had, they were the most hardworking people of the era.

My parents were there (in Germany) and lived through it…..

We didn't have Hitler, Himmler and Goering calling the shots?

Because Hitler didn't manage to beat England into either submission or neutrality.

The idea was to make a deal: retention of empire in exchange for Lebensraum im Osten. England keeps the high seas while Hitler gets to murder the Jews and enslave the Russians.

Churchill refuses to get with the program, Hitler loses the Battle of Britain. -> Britain remains available as staging area for the Allied invasion, enabling a two-front war Germany couldn't win.

JTFM Enterprises "My parents were there (in Germany) and lived through it….."

Really? Maybe they knew my great uncles.

All of the above. And may I just add the value of the Commonwealth troops. We could not have won without the Indians.

Because it seemed like the thing to do.

Hi

Tsun Tsu observed that "victory is in the mind of your enemy". Thus, when the head of the luftwaffe said "when I saw B17x over Berlin, I knew the war was lost", is my contention!

Rocky

Because: "One World Cup and One World War" just doesn't sound right.

Oh that war, and those allies, I thought…

Pierce: 'Great Britain', or 'The United Kingdom' perhaps, but not 'England'

The Germans fought operationally against opponents who fought strategically. As one author put it: "The Germans were great at fighting, but they didn't understand how to make war." Having well trained battalions doesn't mean much when you don't connect ends, ways and means. True in WWI, true in WWII.

Because they had an all-star line up: link

Plus better music (with the exception of George Formby, Britain's own war criminal!)

What surprised me years ago was the lack of war materials the Nazis had. Even though they started the war they never ramped up production of tanks, planes and everything else. Early years tanks were produced in quantities that in a year that allies made in a month.

Access to raw materials;

Industrial production;

Adolph Hitler.

Hitler cost the Germans more men and material than most imagine. That and his racial purity policies cost him considerable good will and manpower that might have tipped the balance.

mjc

Aercdr hit it exactly. His paragraph summarized Michael Citino's two books, Death of the Wehrmacht and The German Way of War. For three centuries the Germans fought and won short, sharp wars. They lost the wars that protracted and drew out over a long period. They never needed to care about logistics as long as they could attack. There's footage of Adolph conferring with Mannerhemi, the Finn. Fuhrer told him had he known the number of T-34's in Russia, he would have NEVER attacked. Tools of blitzkreig were new, but the method was around for hundreds of years, movement to attack and unhinge foes at weak spots.

American Production

Russian Blood

Eliminate either and its a draw

Quantity has a quality all its own.

All the above, plus the cracking of the IJN codes in the East and Enigma in the West – and that the Axis never knew they were compromised. The Anglo-Saxon genius for deception.

Nail on the head Captain Canada.

"Plus better music (with the exception of George Formby, Britain's own war criminal!)"

If George Formby was a war criminal, Gracie Fields was his moll – she was bloody awful as an actress too. WW2 was a watershed in acting, comedy and music.

We had SPAM, and they didn't…..

Read "No Simple Victory" by Norman Davies. Fascinating. The war was won and lost on the Eastern Front.

He aslo views the war in the broader context of the entire century and as a struggle between fascism, bolshevism and the Western democracies.

Stalin said "Britain gave time. America gave money and Russia gave blood" – perhaps an oversimplification, but certainly thought provoking. Remove one component of this and the war has a potentially a very different ending

we could build a lot faster then the axis could destroy

Them:

Germany
Japan
Italy

Us:

United States
Great Britain
Canada
South Africa
Russia
Australia
New Zealand
China
India
France
Norway
All of Eastern Europe
The Low countries
…plus a couple of dozen countries of lesser stature.

Any questions?

"The Anglo-Saxon genius for deception."

Sounds a little master-racian to me.

What about the Lucy spy ring?

Tead the Book which is actually a good read

link

Once we got over the hump it was a numbers game. All about the resources.

The Good Guys always win, don't they?

Because the Brits just didnt give in. Even in the darkest hours. It is the one constant that kept the war going from the invasion of Poland until German surrender.

Add in better high level strategy and the unique cunning of Bletchley park, and ultimately Germany had to lose.

Also endorse Overy's book and add, as a companion piece:

"Why the Germans Lose at War: The Myth of German Military Superiority" by Kenneth Macksey

Industrial capacity, resources, and the quality of decision making in the Nazi heirarchy.

Re: George Formby ……………..

Awarded Order of Lenin for war work ……
put himself about entertaing troops near the front

later banned from South Africa for refusing to play to segregated audiences.

Toshach: actually, most of Eastern Europe was on their side -
Hungary
Rumania
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Croatia
Estonia
Lithuania
Latvia
Finland

1815Guy "Add in better high level strategy and the unique cunning of Bletchley park, and ultimately Germany had to lose."

LOL!

"American Production

Russian Blood

Eliminate either and its a draw"

Same goes for British Credit too.

Tosach has it right.

Three small countries (and a handful of downright tiny sidekicks) taking on the three and a half largest and most powerful nations on Earth (plus a whole boatload of sidekicks of various sizes) is really only likely to have one outcome.
-Kle.

Wouldn't have called the Hungarians or Rumanians tiny, given each put over 500,000 men in the field.

Of all the threads that deserve nuking, this should be at the top. What's the next question? Why do people die when they get killed?

Describe the Universe in 10 words of less … be specific …